LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, March 5, 2020
Madam Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.
Please be seated. Good morning, everybody.
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on House business, could you call for second reading Bill 203, The Climate and Green Plan Amendment Act (Improved Climate Change Targets and Enhanced Ministerial Accountability).
Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the House will consider this morning second reading of Bill 203, The Climate and Green Plan Amendment Act (Improved Climate Change Targets and Enhanced Ministerial Accountability).
Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): I move, and seconded by Uzoma Asagwara, that Bill 2–
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Order. [interjection]
The honourable member for Wolseley.
Ms. Naylor: –seconded by the member for Union Station (MLA Asagwara), that Bill 203, The Climate and Green Plan Amendment Act (Improved Climate Change Targets and Enhanced Ministerial Accountability), be read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Motion presented.
Ms. Naylor: I'm very happy to be here for the–for this reading of Bill 203. It's critical that we hold governments to account in implementing changes that will have meaningful impact on the environment and on our future.
This bill amends The Climate and Green Plan Act to change how reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions are established and reported. Currently, the minister must establish five-year reduction goals and report on the progress achieving the goal. In order to increase ministerial accountability, starting in 2021, minister's salaries should be reduced until the targets are achieved.
Manitobans want to do their part in becoming environmental stewards, and they want to know the government is taking steps to reduce emissions and reduce the effects of climate change so that we all can have a healthy environment and leave a healthy environment for the next generation.
When the government introduced the Climate and Green Plan, we knew it didn't live up to Manitobans' expectations for managing the environment, and climate change is the defining issue of our time. Manitobans are demanding leaders who are willing to take real action now, and we are those leaders.
Here in this House we are in positions of power. We have a much greater opportunity than most to protect our environment and to be a leader in dealing with the consequences of climate change. We have the power to prevent further destruction, but only if we're willing to put in the work and admit that we must do better.
This bill would make sure Manitoba lives up to the commitment of the Paris climate accord and cuts our emissions in half by 2030.
Bill 203 also holds ministers to account if they fail to meet those important and necessary targets by reducing their salaries.
Madam Speaker: A question period of up to 10 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the sponsoring member by any member in the following sequence: first question to be asked by a member from another party; this is to be followed by a rotation between the parties; each independent member may ask one question and no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.
Mr. Rick Wowchuk (Swan River): During the opposition's 17 years in government, they had ample opportunity to live up to their own climate and green plan. Why should we take advice from members opposite who failed to reach every emissions reduction target that they ever set?
Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): The province's greenhouse gas rates are at an all time high, and they've only increased under this government. Under this government, CO₂ emissions increased by 5 per cent in their first full year in office, and prior to that they were increasing on average of 0.1 per cent a year.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): My question deals with the dates, the 2030 and the 2050 dates for the targets. I would ask what scientific basis she's got for suggesting that those are appropriate, and doesn't she think that those targets are probably a little slow in terms of where we need to be to aggressively address greenhouse gas emissions reduction?
Ms. Naylor: I would agree with the member from River Heights that things are moving very slowly, way too slowly in Manitoba in terms of addressing climate change.
The numbers that we have presented in this bill come from the Paris accord targets on climate change and, if anything, we would like to see if Manitoba can get ahead of these numbers and do our part and move more quickly to meet these goals than what those targets have been set at. That would be a wonderful achievement. We–I would love nothing more than to see Manitoba become leaders on addressing climate change in this country.
Mr. Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): Madam Speaker, why does the member opposite believe that increasing taxes and making life more difficult for Manitobans is the right way to fight climate change?
Ms. Naylor: This bill is about holding the government to account. It is about making the minister who's responsible for meeting climate targets be financially accountable for that. So this isn't a–this is about asking people to do their job, to stand up for what they have been asked to do, to what their mandate is and what Manitobans want of them, which is to improve the rate that we are meeting the targets that have been set and also to make the government more accountable for those targets.
MLA Uzoma Asagwara (Union Station): I'd like to ask the member: Why is it important to hold ministers to account when it comes to these emission targets that you are so generously expanding on for us this morning?
* (10:10)
Ms. Naylor: Yes, it's unfortunate that there's no opportunity for ministers that have responsibility for these files to actually–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Ms. Naylor: –be present to hear some of these concerns, but I think that we need to, as members of government, as members of the opposition and other independents in the House, we have an extraordinary responsibility and an extraordinary privilege that is–that hardly ever happens for anyone.
I was reminded yesterday when the Speaker talked about the number of people that have served in this House over the last 100 years, and it just reminded me what an incredible responsibility this is. So to ask ministers to actually have to–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Andrew Smith (Lagimodière): I'd just like to ask the member if she's aware that our current government's significant investment in the Conservation Trust totalling $100 million. Ducks Unlimited Canada, in fact, called it a visionary and enduring approach that is setting a positive example for other provinces to follow.
Ms. Naylor: I'm not sure if the member has actually read The Climate and Green Plan Amendment Act, but this act focuses specifically on ministerial accountability and reporting measures for climate–sorry, for CO2 reduction measures.
MLA Asagwara: Can the member please explain how the average Manitoban will be affected by this bill?
Thank you. [Interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Wolseley.
Ms. Naylor: I apologize, Madam Speaker. That is what this is all about. This is about Manitobans. It's about the fact that the costs of climate change are staggering: agriculture, health care, infrastructure, immigration, income assistance, resource development protection, northern relations and many other government responsibilities are exponentially more expensive when we factor in the effects of climate change on these areas.
We know that farmers are being devastated by flooding. We know that there's issues with the shorter winter road season that's happening up North. All of these are things that impact average Manitobans, and so that–this bill is about accountability for the people we serve.
Mr. Lagassé: Can the member opposite please inform the House why she supports Ottawa's carbon plan?
Ms. Naylor: Once again, I'll remind the member that I'm speaking about The Climate and Green Plan Amendment Act. This is an accountability act for the ministers serving in Manitoba, and is not directly related to any federal policies.
MLA Asagwara: How can–if the member can please elaborate on how Manitoba can become a leader on climate action, when we know right now our emissions are on the rise.
Ms. Naylor: You're absolutely correct, the member for Union Station (MLA Asagwara), that the–Manitoba is one of the few–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Order.
Ms. Naylor: –provinces where emissions continue to rise and so we–our goal here is to become leaders with this–it doesn't have to be this way. I think we often hear that Manitoba, because we're not so invested–as invested in other provinces as the oil and gas industry that perhaps we're already, we're doing fine, but the reality is that with agriculture and transportation, there's so much more work that needs to be done to reduce our climate emissions.
And the bottom line is that this government says that they have a plan. All this bill asks is–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Wowchuk: I'd just like to remind the member from Wolseley, in a media scrum that was on record, saying it's really important to us as a party to keep–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wowchuk: –the carbon tax at a number that's affordable to Manitoba families. At a–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
The honourable member for Swan River.
Mr. Wowchuk: At a proposed $500-per-ton carbon tax, why are you and the NDP going back on that already? [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
I would just ask members that when questions are being directed, that they be directed through the Chair in a third-person fashion and not directly asked of members personally.
Ms. Naylor: Just once again to reiterate that if the government is proud of their Climate and Green Plan, this amendment should be something that you welcome because it's an opportunity for accountability. It's an opportunity to show Manitobans that the climate matters to you, that their future matters to you and that you're not afraid to stand up and be accountable for the policies that you're making.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Just in a reminder, in responses to that quest–answer should be also delivered in a third-person fashion and not directed to the word you, as we are just seeing in some of the exchange right now. So just some caution. I know we are all a bit rusty coming back after a few months so–but just a reminder for everybody.
MLA Asagwara: Can the member please explain the urgency behind this bill?
Ms. Naylor: The unpredictable weather of fall 2019 alone has cost the Province hundreds of millions of dollars, and we suspect that we're about to be dealing with spring floods. We know that the world has been shocked by the utter devastation that unfolded with Australia's wildflower–sorry–wildfires, and we can't just sit on our hands and hope that we're not next.
The reality is that storms and natural disasters are going to become more frequent and deadly as a result of an excess of CO₂ in the atmosphere, and that it's already happening.
So we can debate this all day long, but whether we are–as a province can afford to make these changes, but it's critical and essential–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Wowchuk: Can the member explain–they are in favour of a $500-per-ton carbon tax?
Ms. Naylor: So I'm here today to talk about Bill 203, The Climate and Green Plan Amendment Act, which is, again, about ministerial accountability for climate change and environmental health in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker: The time for this question period has expired.
Madam Speaker: Debate is open.
Mr. Rick Wowchuk (Swan River): I'd like to welcome everybody back after a busy winter in their constituencies. With spring around the corner, we look forward to a busy spring session, and we hope Mother Nature co-operates with us, and we get a nice slow melt this year so we don't have any flooding issues in the province.
Our government will continue to focus on fixing finances, repairing our service and rebuilding the economy after they were left in disarray by the former government. We'll continue to ensure our environment is near and dear to our hearts.
The Manitoba NDP indicated they're going to bring Bill 203, this–or their reckless attempt to amend the climate and green act forward for a second reading. Well, we've been consistent from the very beginning. This will be the NDP's fifth climate plan in less than two years, and it may summarize a quote their leader used at one time: flip-flop like a pickerel on a dock. This very much describes the NDP's climate plan.
This most recent plan would require a $500-per-ton carbon tax which would lead to the radical errosion of purchasing power of Manitobans, and it would reduce the ability of seniors to live in security, families to support their children and small businesses to create jobs.
We support a plan that's better for the environment, better for the economy and better for the planet. The NDP plan demonstrates a total disregard for Manitobans struggling for finanical security and jeopardizes our provincial economy. The environment and the economy go hand in hand, and taking action today is our duty to to current and future generations.
* (10:20)
The Expert Advisory Council has provided advice and recommendations on all implementation aspects of the plan. Reducing our carbon footprint is a priority, and we will continue to work with our many partners to explore opportunities to achieve targets.
Manitobans are ready for real action on climate change. They're ready to seize the opportunity of a new, low-carbon economy and the jobs that this will bring. They are ready to protect and enhance our environment from wetlands to watersheds and from communities to climate. We're focused on implementing our plan that will produce real benefits for Manitoba and Manitobans alike.
The 100-Day Action Plan commitments related to the climate change and green plan are under way. Our Made-in-Manitoba Climate and Green Plan is the only plan on the table that's a–that's better for our environment, better for our economy, better for our future. Our plan is much better for Manitoba than that of Ottawa and the NDP. Our Climate and Green Plan is founded on four pillars of clean water, conserving the natural environment, addressing climate change and strengthening the economy.
The framework is comprehensive, integrated, focused on priorities, dynamic, as it allows more measures to be undertaken as needs and resources permit, and it establishes a practical path forward for the implementation of this plan. We'll take effective action on climate change with a made-in-Manitoba approach to continue our share of emission reductions, and make Manitoba a leader in clean energy, growth, innovation and technology. Our made-in-Manitoba plan will achieve better environmental outcomes at a lower cost to Manitobas–or Manitobans when compared to Ottawa's plan.
We'll take no planning lessons from the members opposite. Our plan is ready to go and be implemented. We can grow our economy. We can create new employment opportunities by investing in innovative new clean technologies and creating a new–or creating new green jobs locally for Manitobans.
Madam Speaker, we in Manitoba have a vision. Our vision is to be Canada's cleanest, greenest and most resilient–our climate-resilient province, eliminating single-use plastics, as well as eliminating the use of coal for electricity. We have one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world. Canada must respect the massive investments Manitobans have made decade after decade after decade, in building this clean energy province.
We have the highest proportion of agriculture emissions in Canada could–contribute 'massly'–massively to our economic well-being. Over the next five years, the average Manitoban household will save an estimated $240 million under the made-in-Manitoba plan, compared to the federal plan. In total, Manitobans, taxpayers and businesses will pay $260 million less under the made-in-Manitoba plan, compared to the federal plan. Our plan will reduce carbon pollution more than the federal carbon–the carbon tax. The government of Manitoba will track and publicly report on progress to this–or to the target.
Investing in green infrastructure is a–is critical to protecting the environment. Improving people's lives, creating sustainable growth. Our Conservation Trust is ensuring Manitoba remains Canada's cleanest and greenest and most climate-resilient province. Our government announced the Conservation Trust to preserve and to enhance the environment while supporting our Climate and Green Plan. The Conservation Trust invests in projects that restore and enhance natural areas to reduce flooding, improve water quality, sequester carbon, protect habitat and safeguard soils.
The Conservation Trust is an innovative and forward-thinking approach to investing in sustainable long-term solutions for improving our natural infrastructure. As well, the fund plays a significant role in the implementation of Manitoba's Climate and Green Plan, the best such strategy in Canada. Our government is building an environmental legacy that will benefit all Manitobans.
In December of 2018, we announced the selection of Efficiency Manitoba's first CEO, an important step to get the Crown corporation up and running.
Another initiative is to develop a $25-million-per- year retrofit program delivered through Efficiency Manitoba to grow Manitoba's economy. This will offer financial incentives for specific renovation products and services to encourage the use of new energy-saving products and technologies in homes, farms and in businesses such as thermostats, envelope renovations like insulation, windows, doors and high-efficiency 'servi'–or furnaces.
A full implementation–at full implementation, this will achieve our natural gas saving targets of 0.75 per cent of the annual domestic natural gas consumption, and it'll reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 135,000 tons in the next three years, all while Manitoba is growing–or all while growing Manitoba's green economy.
Creating Efficiency Manitoba as a sustainable entity separate from Manitoba Hydro was a 2016 PC election commitment. Through the new Crown corporation Manitoba aims to reduce greenhouse gases by 2.7 million tons.
And then, improving fuel efficiency on heavy-duty trucks, the new program aims to enhance awareness in the trucking sector of the benefits of fuel savings and technologies for long-term decision making. Manitoba will also be contributing $5.9 million toward the 'ficiency' truck initiative.
Madam Speaker, we need to look at human development in a way that balances the environmental, economic and social obligations of our province. Our province and–or our climate–or our Climate and Green Plan is a made-in-Manitoba plan. We've got to strive to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations.
Our environment is near and dear to all our hearts, and with our plan–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to put a few words on the record regarding Bill 203, The Climate and Green Plan Amendment Act, brought forward by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Naylor).
Madam Speaker, Bill 203 would harm all Manitobans if passed. The NDP's most recent plan we see here is the fifth climate plan they have brought forward in the last two years. This most recent plan would require a $500-a-ton carbon tax.
Let's discuss that number to an understandable figure in a product that is used every day. I'm talking about the price of gas per litre. Under the NDP plan, the price of–would go up by an additional $2.20 per litre. Madam Speaker, this alone is outrageous and is–and it's about to get worse.
Let's use my household as an example. When I got home last night, I found on my kitchen table a statement and an equity cheque from the Clearview Co-op, to which I am a member. On the statement, it breaks down the amount of fuel I have bought in the span of a year from November of 2018 to October 31st, 2019. My average gas paid per litre over the course of that equalled to $1.09 per litre. Overall, my purchased fuel came to $12,919.90.
Under Bill 203, brought forward by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Naylor), I would, as said earlier, paid an additional $2.20. My fuel costs then would have become $3.29 a litre. Then taking my original fuels costs and multiplying it by the member of Wolseley's new fuel-per-litre price, as proposed under Bill 203, my fuel costs would have become $38,917.89, a difference of $25,997.99.
* (10:30)
After doing this math last night, I was completely taken aback; $25,997.99 brought back–brought me back to a time when that was approximately what I made per year working full time–a full-time job while supporting my wife and three kids.
This got me thinking about my constituents, and I decided to look up the average income per household of my constituents in the town of Ste. Anne in Dawson Trail. I did this because, Madam Speaker, because it is a rural community that requires people to drive to the city to work. I found that the average income in 2015 was $35,413. Now, to be fair, I divided my total by three, as that's the number of vehicles I had going to the city.
Again, using the numbers from Bill 203, the NDP plan–or lack thereof–would have a working family travelling to the city for work pay $12,972.63. Based on the average income of $35,413, the average Ste. Anne household would only be left with $22,441. This is all they would have left to support their family after paying their additional $3.29 a litre of gas, as proposed by Bill 203.
And, Madam Speaker, this is just an example of a working family. You can imagine the cost to a farmer, a municipality, the Province. This kind of tax would lead to the radical erosion of–excuse me, this would lead to the radical erosion and the purchasing power of Manitobans, reducing the ability of seniors to live in security, families to support their children and small business to create jobs.
Bill 203 demonstrates a total disregard for Manitobans struggling for financial security and jeopardizes our provincial 'econmony'–economy.
Madam Speaker, Bill 203 also does not take into account that we have one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to touch on our clean energy and how a small change I made in my household resulted in a noticeable change in my lawn, and you'll have to forgive me; I get a little bit excited when talking about this.
Last spring, my gas mower–my gas-power riding mower broke down. This resulted in me having to shop around for a new mower. In my research I found a new mower. I came across a green alternative to my old gas-power mower. Its name is Wall-E, and it is a battery-powered robotic mowing system.
Wall-E, the name I chose for my Husqvarna mower, has been a wonderful addition to my yard. Madam Speaker, not only do I no longer have to cut my grass, Wall-E runs seven days a week, rain or shine, 24 hours a day. It maintains my lawn for about 70 minutes and then returns to the charging station for 60, and then it heads out again.
There is no noise pollution and there is no need for weed control, as the mower is constantly maintaining my lawn. My grass has never looked better, as commented on the Premier (Mr. Pallister) as he came by this summer, and I have noticed an increase in bunnies–well, rabbits–and insects such as bees around my yard.
Madam Speaker, enough about Wall-E. Let's take a few minutes to talk about some of the green things our government has done. Our government has set up a Conservation Trust that ensures that Manitoba remains Canada's cleanest, greenest and most climate resilient province.
Unlike Bill 203, we have announced the Conservation Trust to preserve and enhance the environment. We have invested over $200 million as part of the Conservation Trust, a fund that will permanently endow to support important endeavours for generations to come. This trust invests in projects that restore and enhance natural areas to reduce flooding, improve water quality and sequester carbon, protect habitats and safeguards for soils.
The Conservation Trust also is an innovative and forward-thinking approach to investing in sustainable, long-term solutions for improving our natural infrastructure. As well, the fund plays a significant role in the implementation of our plan.
Our government is building an environmental legacy that will benefit all Manitobans, and we look forward to seeing the profound impact of this investment on our province's landscape for decades to come.
Madam Speaker, in December of 2018 we announced efficiency–the selection of Efficiency Manitoba's first CAO, an important step to get the Crown corporation up and running. CAO Miss–sorry, I'm having a–her name is a little bit difficult here–I don't want to butcher it too bad–Kuruluk, will help Efficiency Manitoba achieve a legislated electrical saving energies of 1.5 annually and naturally gas savings of 0.75 per cent annually in Manitoba.
Another initiative developed under Efficiency Manitoba is to develop a $25-million-a-year retrofit program, delivering this program through Efficiency Manitoba to grow Manitoba's green economy. This program will offer financial 'incentatives' specifically for renovation products and services, encourage the use of new energy-saving products and technologies in homes, farms and businesses such as thermostats, envelope renovations–being insulation, windows and doors–and high-efficiency furnaces.
At full implementation, this will achieve our natural gas saving targets of 0.75 per cent of annual domestic natural gas consumption and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 135,000 tons in the next three years, all while growing Manitoba's green economy.
Efficiency–energy efficiency programming offered by Efficiency Manitoba will help the industry remain a competitive–in a competitive advantage in our province, while helping homeowners afford the rising hydro-electricity bills.
Creating Efficiency Manitoba as a stand-alone entity, separate of–from Manitoba Hydro, was a 2016 PC election commitment. The commitments steamed from the Public Utilities Board–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this bill which deals with how Manitoba addresses climate change.
First of all, I believe in–we believe, in the Manitoba Liberal Party, that 2050 is too slow. We have committed and developed a green plan that Liberals would move much more quickly than that. It would reach carbon neutral by 2030.
That is an aggressive target, but I believe that it is important that we have aggressive targets if we are going to be leaders, and I also believe that it's important to have aggressive targets because of the importance, the incredible importance of action here in Manitoba to show what can be done and to address the 'crimate clisis' that we have on a global scale. We have to save our planet. We have to do nothing less.
As many, many students have pointed out at rallies here at the Legislature, there is no planet B. We need to make sure we're looking after the planet we have.
We see that in order to reach the 2030 carbon neutral that we need to move from the current system of annual reporting to quarterly reporting. Quarterly reporting will give us much more timely assessment of what's happening and we'll be able to react more quickly.
* (10:40)
Currently, we don't get the carbon greenhouse gas production data from Manitoba usually until almost a year after the fact, and that's far too slow if we're going to be acting on a really urgent crisis situation that we have when we're dealing with climate change.
Thirdly, we need in our accounting to measure not just the emissions of greenhouse gases, which are being done currently, but we also need to include the increases in carbon storage. This is very important because, on a net basis, we have to be dealing both with reducing emissions and increasing carbon storage, and we have to develop tax credits for both saving–decreasing greenhouse gases and for increasing carbon storage, and this is particularly important in the agricultural area as an example, where there are many opportunities for storing carbon in soils, in wetlands, in trees. And we need to be able to work co-operatively with farmers and to demonstrate the tremendous benefits there are from storing carbon.
The land itself is more productive when it has more stored carbon, and we have an important role for trees in the landscape, both in terms of storing carbon, but also in terms of storing–managing water. There is a tremendous difference on a section that has no trees and a section which has a lot of trees in terms of the runoff of water, and I can take the members opposite to a place near Russell where they demonstrated this very easily, and huge amounts of erosion as soon as the landscape was cleared completely of trees. And we need to be cognizant of this and the importance of trees if we're going to manage water well, as well as for having a better situation in terms of greenhouse gases.
We need to be able to measure this accurately, on individual farms, so that we can have farmers get the credit for the measures that they're taking to be able to store carbon and whether–whichever way that may be. We also need to provide credits so that people who are decreasing greenhouse gas emissions can see the results of those reductions in meaningful economic ways.
This approach, as we have put forward, I believe, is vital if we're going to adequately address climate change and do it from a Manitoba perspective. We have put, as part of our action plan, instead of fighting every step with the federal government, being able to work with the federal government, and be able as a result to benefit from the ability to be able to use the dollars that are coming in, and collect it in carbon tax in part, to provide the carbon credits that I've been talking about, as well as continuing efforts which are being done at the moment to make sure that those who are less well off will get supported by having a net benefit from the carbon tax rather than a net expenditure.
I need to talk as well about the boreal forest and how critical that is, and how critical our stewardship and a plan for stewardship for the boreal forest is, in terms of a climate change plan. There is evidence, I gather from studies of the boreal forest in the last few years, which suggest that instead of being a sink it may actually have become a net producer of greenhouse gas emissions as a result of all the fires.
We need to develop a new approach to stewardship in our boreal forest. We need to be able to monitor the net storage of carbon in the forest and the net emissions in fires, which are not adequately reported currently. And we need to be able to have a stewardship plan which is going to move us forward and enable us to benefit from the fact that we have a large area of boreal forest, and that this boreal forest should be properly managed and with proper stewardship and with working together with people in the First Nation and Metis communities.
We should be able to develop plans which will protect communities from forest fires, which are a major risk. We will also be able to have better stewardship, which not only manages fires better, but increases the level of sequestration in the forest.
Very small changes–because there's a huge amount of store of carbon in the trees in the forest and in the peat moss, in the peat bogs–very small changes percentage-wise in the amount that is stored can make a big, big difference.
And so this is an area where we need the research, the action, to be able to move us forward in a science-based way to be able to take advantage of the natural resources, in terms of what we are provided and Manitoba is gifted, and to be able to use not only the fact that we have a boreal forest but also the fact that we are generating a lot of hydroelectricity.
And there needs to be an improved system for being able–for instance, if we are sending electricity to Saskatchewan so that they are no longer using coal but are using electricity as a carbon source, electricity which is provided on a–through hydroelectric power, which has very little in the way of carbon dioxide emissions, then we should be able to get credits for those. And those net reductions should be able to be counted in the Manitoba plan as well.
I also believe that, from a agricultural perspective, we have not done nearly as well as we should have done in terms of addressing methane and nitrous oxide, and these two chemicals make up approximately 30 per cent of the greenhouse gas production in Manitoba. And until we get a serious plan to reduce the emissions of both of these, we're going to have a long, long way to go, in terms of reducing overall gases–greenhouse gas emissions in Manitoba.
So agriculture has a very important role to play. It's generally said that agriculture produces about 30 per cent of the greenhouse gases. This is what the government have said but, in fact, this is wrong. There is 30 per cent which is produced through the production of methane and nitrous oxide and probably another 10 per cent which is produced by agriculture in trucks and tractors and heating barns and all sorts of other ways.
And so we need to recognize and to work with people in the agricultural community much more effectively than either the NDP or the Conservatives have done today. We need to benefit the agricultural community and show them what's possible, and get them involved in making a difference for all of us, in terms of climate change, and benefiting the agricultural community, in terms of the carbon credits which are possible and the benefits from–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Hon. Sarah Guillemard (Minister of Conservation and Climate): It certainly is a pleasure to stand today and be able to share some of my thoughts on our Climate and Green Plan for Manitoba, as that seems to be a much better topic and much more relevant with our discussions today. It gives me an opportunity to also educate and invite other participants to help us achieve these goals, which will serve to help all Manitobans throughout the years.
So our Made-in-Manitoba Climate and Green Plan is the only plan on the table that's better for our environment, better for our economy and better for our future. Our plan is much better for Manitoba than that of Ottawa's or the NDP's. Our government is making positive changes in Manitoba, while remaining transparent.
The green initiatives in our 100-Day Action Plan are measurable, attainable and achievable. The environment and the economy go hand in hand, and taking action today is our duty to the current and future generations.
* (10:50)
Manitobans are ready for real action on climate change. They are ready to seize the opportunity of a new, low-carbon economy and the jobs that this will bring. They are ready to protect and enhance our environment, from wetlands to watersheds, from communities to the changing climate.
Over the next five years, the average Manitoba household will save an estimated $240 under our current made-in-Manitoba plan compared to the federal plan. In total, Manitoba taxpayers and businesses will pay $260 million less under our made-in-Manitoba plan compared to the federal plan.
Our government established the GHG emissions reduction goal of 1 megaton over the next five years–or, over five years. And, Madam Speaker, I'm happy to announce that we have now committed to reducing the reduction of 2 megatons, doubling our initial efforts.
We are focused on implementing our plan that will produce real benefits for Manitoba and Manitobans. The Climate and Green Plan is founded on four pillars of clean water, conserving the natural environment, addressing climate change and strengthening the economy. There are four keystones under each pillar that reflect and guide the individual actions for that pillar.
This framework is comprehensive, integrated, focused on priorities, dynamic–as it allows more measures to be undertaken as needs and resources permit–and it establishes a practical path forward for implementation. We will take effective action on climate change with a made-in-Manitoba approach to contribute our share of emissions reductions and make Manitoba a leader in clean energy, growth, innovation and technology.
Our message is a message of hope. Our made-in-Manitoba plan will achieve better environmental outcomes at a lower cost to Manitobans when compared to the federal plan. We are all working with the experts in 'establishling'–establishing realistic targets backed up with a real plan to meet them. We can grow our economy and create new employment opportunities in addition to keeping our environment clean and sustainable for the next generations.
We punch above our weight in Manitoba. We are leaders in North America in green energy. Our made-in-Manitoba plan leverages our enormous green energy advantage, including supporting our neighbours, who would also like to reduce their emissions. We have one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world.
Ottawa must respect the massive investments Manitobans have made decade after decade in building this clean energy province. Our vision is to be Canada's cleanest, greenest and most climate-resilient province. That's going to take a lot of partners to work with us for a mutual outcome.
Madam Speaker, it was my honour and privilege to be a part of an announcement this morning where our government announced that we are going to be implementing our $25-per-ton green levy. In addition to this announcement, we have also let Manitobans know that we will be reducing the financial burden on them by reducing the PST by a full percentage, down to 6 per cent.
Madam Speaker, our government has invested more than $200 million more in green initiatives already without a carbon levy, and we will continue to show leadership in this portfolio well beyond what the NDP ever achieved or what the federal government has suggested they can achieve. Manitobans will come out ahead with both the flat green levy and our lower PST. The average Manitoba household is going to save $200 in 2022 through Manitoba's flat green levy alone, adding up to more than $700 over the next five years.
Madam Speaker, our plan was made by Manitobans for Manitobans. It looks at all the needs and all the impacts to encourage people to be part of the green plan, as opposed to punish.
Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to join a number of youth at the Manitoba human rights museum as they participated in the Take 3 for Climate Justice initiative, and in my remarks to the crowd, I shared a little bit about my background of raising four children for 17 years as a stay-at-home mom. And a lot of times I like to describe those years as a study of human behaviours from birth to adulthood.
Madam Speaker, there are many behaviour modification approaches that you can take with children and with adults, because ultimately we're all humans and we all respond both to negative and positive reinforcement. And what you learn over the years, especially with multiple students, and I know that our children–teachers can relate to this, too, learning about behaviour modification, is that you can get immediate results when you choose to punish. In the moment, you can change that behaviour immediately, but it will not be long-lasting, and it will not be productive, and that student or child will learn to fear, as opposed to be empowered.
And, Madam Speaker, when I learned the difference between pointing out the positive and encouraging and inviting alongside, I saw long-lasting behavioural change and confidence grown in each of my children through the years. And adults are no different. We respond much better to encouragement, to the invitation, to join our team, to reach goals together, than we will ever learn by pointing fingers and being negative and punishing people.
So our approach is going to be very transparent. It's going to be encouraging. And, Madam Speaker, we are looking forward to the next few years, as we have more partners join us in our Climate and Green Plan, and we also invite members opposite to be a part of this plan and to show the leadership that our government has shown in our green initiatives and in our care for the environment.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Andrew Smith (Lagimodière): I do appreciate the opportunity to put some words on the record with respect to this Bill 203.
Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the members who have spoken to this bill already, and I'd like to add to that. You know, our Manitoba green plan, I do want to say, is quite a plan, that balances both environmental and economic needs, and I think what's really unique about our green plan, rather, is that it rewards Manitoba for having clean energy.
Now it's not lost on me that our province is very blessed to be located where we are, where we can rely on green energy. However, I do think, given the fact that we have Manitoba Hydro and hydro energy to rely on, we can–Manitobans do deserve credit for that and, unfortunately, we saw others who may disagree with that. Perhaps the NDP don't agree that Manitobans should be given a break, given the fact that we have clean energy.
In fact, Madam Speaker, it was–the NDP had 17 years of inaction, 17 years of inaction on this whole file. It's not until they became opposition that they decided, oh, look, we've got to do something about it now; let's stand up and talk about the environment. Let's talk about climate change now, now that they're not in government and now that they have no accountability to anything.
So I do find it interesting. You know, the previous NDP government, it did have a point person on the environment file. That person is no longer here in the Chamber; however, that person did take very extravagant trips to Europe, as I understand, to the Paris climate talks, and of course, on the taxpayer dime–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Smith: –the taxpayer dime, I might add, Madam Speaker. I'm not too sure what was the result of that, of course. I don't think anyone knows what the results of the travel was. However, maybe it was just to pad a resume? I don't know. Maybe the members opposite could speak for their former member, who is no longer in this Chamber for obvious reasons.
Madam Speaker, I do want to say that our–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Smith: I may be–Madam Speaker, I know that the NDP members have a hard time hearing this, because truth sometimes does hurt, and we do know that they don't in any way, shape or form–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have eight minutes remaining.
* (11:00)
Madam Speaker: The hour is now 11 a.m. and time for private members' resolutions.
The resolution before us this morning is the resolution Standing up for Dauphin by Building a Rehabilitation and Restorative Justice Facility, brought forward by the honourable member for Notre Dame.
Ms. Malaya Marcelino (Notre Dame): I move, seconded by the member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine), that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba condemn the provincial government's decision to refuse to build a new centre focused on enhance–sorry–therefore be resolved–[interjection] Okay, sorry.
I move, seconded by the member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine),
WHEREAS the Dauphin and Parkland region and northern communities deserve investment, support, and respect from the Provincial Government; and
WHEREAS the Provincial Government must make investments in rural and northern communities to create jobs and ensure their continued growth and prosperity; and
WHEREAS the closure of the Dauphin Correctional Centre will result in at least 80 jobs lost, leaving families without employment and income, and taking millions in economic spinoffs out of the Dauphin and Parkland region; and
WHEREAS taking a new approach to the justice system, focused on addressing the root causes of crime and reintegration, will help keep communities safe, successful and create meaningful jobs; and
WHEREAS an investment in the building of a holistic rehabilitation and restorative justice centre, otherwise known as a healing lodge, would provide the necessary supports, like vocational training and mental health and addictions services, for people involved in the justice system to participate as members of the community; and
WHEREAS healing lodges have been proven effective in lowering recidivism rates, increasing cultural awareness, and improving reintegration in communities; and
WHEREAS without any prior consultation with workers, families of people incarcerated, or the Mayor and Council of Dauphin, the Province announced it will close the Dauphin Correctional Centre on May 31st, 2020; and
WHEREAS people currently incarcerated in Dauphin will be sent to other facilities that are already over capacity, putting the correctional staff and people housed in those facilities at greater risk; and
WHEREAS the lack of available and affordable transportation options will make it harder for people incarcerated to maintain regular contact with their families and home communities, an essential process to their rehabilitation and healing.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba condemn the provincial government's decision to refuse to build a new centre focused on enhancing community safety and rehabilitation in the city of Dauphin.
Motion presented.
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
Ms. Marcelino: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is my honour today to rise in this House as a sponsor of this private member's resolution urging the government to build a rehabilitation and restorative justice facility in Dauphin.
First, I'd just like to bring everybody up to speed with what's happened so far regarding this issue. On January 24th, on a Friday around lunchtime, stunned workers at the Dauphin jail were abruptly told that in four months' time, at the end of May, the jail, which is the oldest in the Province's fleet, would be closing with no plans for building a replacement.
About 80 correctional workers would be given the option of relocating to different correctional centres like in Brandon or The Pas or Thompson or Winnipeg, if at all possible. As well, there would be the transfer of about 67 inmates to other already overcrowded jails.
This information spread quickly through the town. Some night shift workers woke up in the early afternoon to the bad news. They got informed through concerned friends and family members, and some learned of it through social media. Dauphin Mayor Allen Dowhan learned of the news informally just like everyone else around him at lunchtime. It was a complete shock to him, and those that were with him at the time told me that the mayor was so dismayed at the news that he was speechless and on the verge of tears.
When I was first tasked to bring this resolution forward to urge the government to build a rehabilitation and restorative justice facility in Dauphin, my first inward reaction was, why me? As an adult, I've travelled to the beautiful Parkland region maybe only six times that I can recall. I've been to the town of Dauphin a grand total of twice. I'm pretty much a local tourist and I'm an outsider to the region. I felt like there should be someone better who would be able to speak to the upheaval of what these folks in Dauphin and the region are going through, surely someone who could at least give you directions to the town.
But, as of this time, the member representing Dauphin and the region is not speaking on behalf of his constituents, to the shock and dismay and anger and fears that many folks in Dauphin are feeling now in this time of uncertainty.
To this member's credit, however, he did brave the town hall meeting where he was booed and yelled at by some folks, but I respect him for showing up to that. In showing up to face the Dauphin public, this member did his duty more than the Cabinet, the Premier (Mr. Pallister) and specifically the Justice Minister who all were privy to the information and decision-making processes well, well, well in advance of this closure announcement.
The people who are most affected by this decision from above were never consulted. This was a grave miscalculation on your part as government. And so, even as I am an outsider and just a tourist to the region, as an MLA of this province, it is my duty to stand up for this region and raise their concerns on their behalf in this Chamber with this resolution.
I did speak to stakeholders in the region. I was present that Friday when the announcement came down from above. I returned the following week to attend a town hall to hear the messages from civic leaders, indigenous and Metis leaders, workers, educators, justice officials and social justice organizations. I marched with workers at the rally, and I am–contact with civic administration to ensure that I am relaying their messages to you as accurately as I can in this Chamber.
The most glaring message they have to share is this: How dare you make such a drastic change to our town without even consulting us? To this point, they say that other communities get consulted when major changes affect them. Why not Dauphin?
There are currently community consultations underway regarding Highway 1 on the west side of Portage La Prairie to gather thoughts on the best way to fix the bridge that has been damaged for almost 10 years. Well, folks in Dauphin feel that holding those consultations, after your Cabinet unilaterally decided to close the Dauphin correctional centre, is a slap in the face.
Another main message they want to send to you in the Legislature is this: removing 80 good government jobs from the Parkland is very significant for their population. It's the equivalent of losing approximately 8,000 good government jobs in Winnipeg and moving them to communities like Toronto or Calgary.
They want to ask you legislators, 8,000 jobs in Winnipeg: would that number have been large enough to cause the decision makers to pause and consider the impact that they might have? They suspect that the number in Winnipeg would never be considered, or if it was, would be quickly dismissed due to the far-reaching impacts. They urge this provincial government to treat the Parkland region with the same courtesy.
Now, this resolution also speaks about rehabilitative and restorative justice facilities. Well, what does one look like? We don't have any as yet in our Manitoba Justice system, but I strongly encourage members with this resolution to consider that this is a path, a way to move our province forward.
Together with the maple from–together with the member from The Maples and the member from Fort Rouge, we toured a federal correctional facility about 2 hours away from the town of Dauphin. It was a healing lodge in Crane River in a clearing of trees in a forest. I have never been near any kind of correctional facility before, so I was curious and apprehensive about what we might encounter.
Healing lodges focus on traditional indigenous viewpoints, but are considered correctional services facilities. Only a small percentage of federal inmates qualify for a healing lodge facility. Inmates would have to prove over a long period of time that they are sincere about rehabilitation and be open to indigenous cultural paths to healing.
The inmates or members that I met all had very serious crimes, including rape and murder, and some were in there for life due to the severity of their crime. Instead of jail cells in a big building, we encountered a camp-like setting of four simple cabins, with four bedrooms in each and a small kitchen and living room area. There was also a main cabin where programming is done.
Inmates or members take turns cooking for one another and cleaning their communal spaces. They chop wood for their heat using axes. They participate in drumming circles and sweat lodge ceremonies, counselling and produce traditional art.
I met older women there at the healing lodge who served as elders. Security and inmates were indistinguishable to me because everyone dressed in casual clothing. There were no uniforms. A single, long red dress hung in the middle of a main room as a symbol for missing and murdered indigenous women.
* (11:10)
We all shared in bannock that inmates made before we left for the drive back to town. By the time we left the healing lodge, I was left with a sense that this type of facility would be able to rehabilitate people if they were willing to change.
Now, this resolution before you speaks mainly to two ideas: the need for this government to reconsider its unilateral decision to close the Dauphin jail, to urge this government to engage in constructive working relationships with the town stakeholders regarding this jail closure in order for the government to fully understand the impact it is making on this region and to move forward together as a province by replacing the Dauphin jail with a rehabilitation and restorative justice facility in Dauphin.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 10 minutes will be held, and questions may be addressed in the following sequence: the first question by be asked by a member from another party, any subsequent questions must follow a rotation between parties, each independent member may ask one question, and no questions or answers shall exceed 45 seconds.
Mr. Greg Nesbitt (Riding Mountain): Would the member please tell the House why the previous NDP government let the jail deteriorate and did absolutely no repair work from 1999 to 2010?
Ms. Malaya Marcelino (Notre Dame): Well, as–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Ms. Marcelino: –far as I know, I know that the jail did go–undergo significant renovations in the 1980s. And again, I know there was another major renovation this previous year–an interior renovation.
According to the civic administrators that I spoke to over this past week, they said there was no–there was never any way of saying, oh, yes, we should just keep this jail forever and ever. Everybody was saying this jail does need to be replaced. It is a serviceable facility–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I do just want to take a quick second to say miigwech to the member for Notre Dame for bringing forward this resolution and allowing this important discussion and debate to occur this morning. It's important to have an opportunity to discuss the things that are impacting on Manitobans in a variety of different fronts.
So I would ask the member for Notre Dame, Deputy Speaker, if she could explain how a new approach to the justice system which focuses on actually addressing and dealing with the root causes could keep communities safe, successful and be a benefit to all Manitobans.
Ms. Marcelino: Well, we have had a history of healing lodges in Canada, although none serviced by the Province yet at this point.
Healing lodges have operated at the federal level in Canada since 1995. They've been developed in response to very high indigenous incarceration rates. Lodge residents have healing plans to assist with their healing, harm reduction and reintegration. That's an alternative to correctional plans.
A 2011 Correctional Service Canada study revealed that there were specific challenges that prevented healing lodges from operating at maximum capacity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): So three separate NDP Justice ministers made firm commitments in writing or in public to replace the jail over the course of successive elections.
I would like to ask the member from Notre Dame why her–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ewasko: –government over 17 years broke those hard-core written commitments to the community of Dauphin and the area of Parkland, and–or was it just political spin trying to buy their votes with no–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ewasko: –no meaning to actually get anything built?
Ms. Marcelino: Sorry, could I get that question again?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Lac du Bonnet–and order of quietness.
The honourable member for Lac du Bonnet, and order. Quietness.
Mr. Ewasko: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So, basically, I was just making a comment and a message to the member from Notre Dame that–and the member from Concordia just reminds me that it's question period so I will ask the question.
We've got three consecutive Justice ministers over successive elections had promised Dauphin and the Parkland area to build a jail because they knew that the Department of Justice was recommending to close it down. Why did they not act, over the 17 years, to make those promises to the Dauphin residents and the Parkland area? I would like her to answer that, as I know that there was family members that were also MLAs–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Order. Order.
Ms. Marcelino: Well, I think the fact that those folks had actual discussions, whether or not they were completed or not, shows that there was actually some type of engagement between, you know, the provincial leaders and town stakeholders. And, in this case, we know that the Cabinet has had their plans. We've seen documents that show that, you know, over 80 pages of options that were given to the Cabinet regarding possible options for what to do with this area, stakeholders in the town and the region were never consulted.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): My question to the member deals with, you know, this devastating announcement which was made by–without any consultation and, from what we know, the other correctional institutions in Manitoba are crowded to overcrowded.
I wonder if the member could comment on the rationale for closing the Dauphin jail at a time when there's a lot of other overcrowded facilities.
Ms. Marcelino: Well, to speak on this point, clearly the minister has misread the capacity of the existing correctional facilities to house Dauphin's inmate population by transfers. All the existing facilities, save one, report quantitatively that they are currently over capacity. There's also ample anecdotal information that exists to support that scenario. Further, it's very likely that transferring the inmates to distant facilities, replete with overcrowding, negative influences of gangs and violence and further distances away from any positive family supports, can only drive up–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Ms. Fontaine: I do just want to take a moment just to acknowledge all of the folks from Dauphin that are in the gallery with us, and a different union representative here today. I think that it is a testament to how important this issue is to the folks of Dauphin, that we would have people take time out of their day and to travel, to actually come and hear what members opposite have to say on this issue. So I don't know. I know that members on this side were really excited to hear what those members are going to put on the official record today.
But, to that end, I would ask the member for Notre Dame what will be the implications of closing the Dauphin Correctional Centre?
Ms. Marcelino: Well, removing 80 good government jobs from the Parkland is very significant for Dauphin's population. It's the equivalent of losing approximately 8,000 good government jobs in Winnipeg and moving them to other communities like Toronto or Calgary, and I've said that before, and we're going to say it again, and we're going to say it again, and we're going to say it again, because I think that's a really important number to focus on, to understand the impact.
So we have families in Dauphin that are directly going to be struggling, to–they're currently trying to determine what their lives will look like in the coming months. Will they have to move away from Dauphin to carry on in that career path? Will they have to seek other employment in Dauphin?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Mr. Nesbitt: Can the member please tell the House and our–the residents of Dauphin and area why the previous NDP government listened to the concerns about the aging–other aging facilities in the province such as the Portage women's jail but ignored the same advice they paid for when they were advised the Dauphin jail was in much worse condition?
* (11:20)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Notre Dame.
An Honourable Member: Page 3.
Ms. Marcelino: No, it's page 8. Well, we know that any kind of really negative kind of situations where jails–whether they're aging, whether they're overcrowded–that really is going to be making the situation for correctional service workers and for inmates a lot more violent. There's a lot more opportunities for violence when people are living in such close quarters like that.
So it will drive up recidivism and possibly even increase future crime–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Ms. Fontaine: Again, I think that it's important that we have this open and frank discussion. And I think that it's important to put on the record that we know, without any consultation, the minister and his get-along gang showed up in Dauphin and announced this closure when, you know, a couple years previous they also announced the end to any capital projects which included the Dauphin correctional centre.
So, I mean, I–it's important to put the accurate facts on the record, and so I would ask the member for Notre Dame (Ms. Marcelino), how will–what was her interpretation of the mayor's comments and how he was feeling–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Ms. Marcelino: The mayor, the council, they are certainly concerned that the government made no attempt to consult with them. One of the major reasons is because of the devastation that this would impact on the region economically. It is estimated that the direct closure here would see the region lose 80 stable, middle-income jobs and see an exodus of hundreds of young people. These folks will move to seek employment elsewhere, support their families or relocate their businesses as a result of this economic downturn that is almost sure to come.
To bring this home to Manitobans, another reasonable estimate of an annual direct loss of revenue to this region is between 6 to 8 million dollars annually, and this is just–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Time for question period has expired.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is open.
Any speakers?
Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this resolution this morning, and I do thank the member for bringing this resolution forward so that we can have a debate here in the Chamber today around this particular issue, and certainly justice in general.
I do want to welcome our guests in the gallery this morning. I certainly look forward to having a further discussion with the community members that will be joining us in my office just later this morning. I'm looking forward to that discussion as well.
Certainly, we've had a number of discussions with the mayor and the council over the last number of weeks, and we will certainly be continuing those discussions with the mayor, the council in Dauphin and, certainly, other members of the Parkland region as well because we know that making this decision–which was not taken lightly–does have an impact on communities. It has an impact on individuals and it has an impact on individual families, and we knew that going into having this discussion about making this decision, and clearly we are respectful of the collective bargaining process and the collective bargaining agreement that has been laid out.
Happy to say to the House that we do have an agreement in place in respect of moving forward, and certainly we are working through that process as we speak. I know the individuals that will be impacted by this. I have the letters which, hopefully, will provide the information that they need to make the–their respective individual decisions with their families.
Certainly, we know within a justice perspective we have 120 vacancies across our corrections division. So there is certainly opportunity for movement within corrections. So individuals who want to stay working within corrections will certainly have that ability and will have job opportunities within Manitoba corrections.
Additionally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know we're working through that process now. Decisions will have to be made over the next several weeks. But we've also, as a government, committed to working with the individuals, as well. We have said to the community we want to establish a working table, if you will, where we will have civil servants at the table as well as individuals from the community.
And the intent here is if there are individuals that do want to stay working in the Parkland region, we would 'merk' sure that we are working with them to provide any opportunities or seek any opportunities there may be to work in the Parkland community. And, certainly, I think that's very important. We recognize the challenges and the stress that this situation brings upon the employees, but we do look forward to working through this process and then working again individually with the individuals to see what opportunities exist in the area.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, just in terms of where we're at and how we got to making this decision–and I do appreciate the resolution being brought forward, an opportunity for us to maybe correct the record on some of the issues that are laid out in the resolution this morning.
Clearly, the government of the day–back in even 2008, there was issues from the Office of the Fire Commissioner around this particular facility. And remember, it is a facility built back over a hundred years ago, now. And, certainly, the Office of the Fire Commissioner raised issues with the facility.
We know the previous NDP government brought together an adult corrections capacity review. That was back in 2011, and the review at that time–and this is going back nine years–said the facility was beyond its structural usefulness. So, clearly, nothing was done. Very little money was invested in the facility at that particular time. The government at that time, in 2012, brought in an independent consultant and that consultant's report saying that–confirmed again the facility was in terrible condition–the worst condition in Manitoba. The government of the day didn't take any steps to make any remedial action at the time. They did go and close another correction facility, the women's correction in Portage la Prairie. And we certainly recognize that.
So we know there was a lot of red flags raised by the previous government. We've had ongoing human rights complaints related to that particular facility as well. And we know the issue was brought forward to the government of the day. Unfortunately, we can't find any record of a tender for design or a tender for construction of a new facility in Dauphin. But, at the same time, the government from 2011 to 2016–three different ministers of Justice went to the community, said they were going to build a new facility. But the reality is we can't find any record of any work being done to actually achieve that.
I don't want to say the NDP were misleading the community of Dauphin. I guess we'll put the facts on the record and people can decide on their own if that–is that–indeed the case.
So, clearly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we know the issues around the facility–aging facility that certainly doesn't meet today's standards in terms of correction facilities. I will say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we now–we have 2,550 beds in total in the province of Manitoba. Today's custody counts were about 2,200. That number does fluctuate. But, certainly, we're in the range of about 350 empty beds in Manitoba. And we know the NDP, during their tenure, actually increased the bed count in Manitoba. And, certainly, we have a number of empty beds before us today. So we believe that those beds can be used to utilize the inmates that are currently being held in Dauphin corrections.
* (11:30)
And I do want to speak to the inmates–about the inmates themselves. You know, the average stay in Dauphin is about 47 days. Clearly, I know today's count, I think we're just over 50, in terms of the counts of the inmates in Dauphin corrections. So, as these individuals, as their term expires, they will be released, and other individuals, as their court dates become–come up, they will certainly be going to the court dates, and certainly, it will be a transition over the next several months.
And, certainly, we want to recognize, certainly, the impact it will have on the inmate population there as well. So we're certainly looking forward to the transition and the process as we move forward, and we certainly will be flexible with the folks that work at the facility as well.
And I will say, in terms of restorative justice, the healing centre that was raised, we certainly recognize that there are some healing centres in Manitoba now, and, obviously, those healing lodges are being operated and managed by elders and healers in respective indigenous communities. And certainly, it is an indigenous-led operation, in terms of those healing lodges.
We take restorative justice very seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are currently diverting over 5,000 cases through our restorative justice process. We are looking to enhance the capacity to do restorative justice, and that would certainly–takes a lot of pressure off of our justice system, in terms of the corrections facilities.
Certainly, we've been meeting with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, MKO, SCO, in terms of how we enhance that capacity throughout Manitoba so that we can divert people from becoming incarcerated in our facilities. And, certainly, we've made good moves in that regard. Just a recent announcement in Thompson, in terms of how we can enhance that capacity in northern Manitoba, and as a government, it's certainly a priority for us, and we look forward to doing that.
The other point I want to raise in my short time here today is our Responsible Reintegration program, where we get inmates back in the community, making sure they have the tools necessary to incorporate back into society and be productive in society. And, certainly, we've seen great success on that front. And again, that is a tip of the hat to the people that work in corrections and probation services for allowing that to happen.
So, with those short words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we look forward to continued consultations with community.
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I'm pleased to put a couple of words on the record this morning in respect of this important resolution. Again, I just want to acknowledge the member for Notre Dame (Ms. Marcelino) for bringing forward this resolution.
I also want to take a moment, Deputy Speaker, to, as I'm sure members opposite are fully aware–when the minister and his get-along gang decided to show up in Dauphin with no prior information, nobody knew what they were doing in Dauphin–we were in Dauphin.
So it seems to me to be really bad timing that the government would announce the closure of the Dauphin correctional facility when everybody on this side of the House who happened to be in Dauphin doing outreach work, meeting with the mayor, meeting with correctional officers already before that bad news was just dropped on the laps of people that had no clue.
Deputy Speaker, I do want to share with the House some of the–and all of us, each and every one of us on this side of the House could get up in the House today and share stories about that outreach and meeting with Dauphin citizens and everybody that's involved, in respect to the Dauphin correctional facility, but I just want to share a couple of them.
I do want to share, Deputy Speaker–and for the purposes of Hansard and for the purposes of, as you know, Deputy Speaker, the historical record of this House–that when the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Kinew) and myself and some of our staff met with some correctional staff, they had indicated to us very concretely that they were called that morning and said, hey, there's going to be a meeting at 11. Show up. We don't know what the meeting's about, but just show up.
And the meeting is arranged very fast. People show up not knowing what's going to–about to happen, and there the minister doesn't even show up. It's actually his staff that show up to meet with correctional staff and tell, hey, correctional staff, you all are out, without a job anymore.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Cullen), who–if he believes in this choice that they are making and this decision that they have unilaterally made–if he really believed in it so much, why was he not meeting with the correctional officers? Why did he send his staff?
Now, I also want to share, Deputy Speaker, that that meeting in which the government representatives told staff that the Dauphin correctional centre was going to be closed down literally was about 10 minutes–10 minutes start to finish.
So when the minister just finished his 10 minutes in debate on this resolution, he says, we will continue to work in consultation with folks in Dauphin. Like, when would that even start? He hasn't done any of that. His staff hasn't done it, he hasn't done it and certainly not the MLA for Dauphin, which I can't understand. It is–what is it? It's 11:36 and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Michaleski) hasn't even gotten up today to actually disabuse his own government and his members that are all sitting in the House today on their cells, doing whatever, not listening. He hasn't even gotten up today and said: You know what, my colleagues, my Premier (Mr. Pallister), my minister, this is not a good decision for the town of Dauphin. He's just sitting down.
Those members up there see him sitting down. Everybody in Dauphin knows. And so if members opposite think that they have–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Ms. Fontaine: –a chance in the next election, I'm sorely–they are sorely mistaken. I can't wait to welcome the next NDP woman MLA for Dauphin into our caucus. We're looking forward to that.
I do want to share as well that when we were in Dauphin, every time we went to a different place in Dauphin, people would stop us and talk about what the devastating impact this will have and how shocked they are by the choices that this government and this minister has made.
I do also want to put it on the official record here that shipping off–and actually let me just back up a little bit, Deputy Speaker. It just so happened that a couple of months ago, I had actually done a tour of the Dauphin correctional facility and I was very grateful to the individuals who took me around and to all of the staff who were very welcoming and warm. And–as well as Manitobans who are in conflict with the law who are currently housed there. I actually had the opportunity to sit in the kitchen with some folks that are currently housed in Dauphin correctional facility. And we laughed a bit and they asked questions and I asked questions and it was a good visit. And so I do want to put that on the official record as well.
I think it's important to know, Deputy Speaker, that shipping off folks that are–Manitobans that are in conflict with the law–and that I will suggest to this House are predominantly indigenous peoples–shipping them off further from their communities, further from their loved ones, further from their supports, shipping them down south, either to Brandon or to Headingley or to the Remand, into facilities that we know at any given day are already above overcapacity is not acceptable. It's not a safe solution to this government's austerity plans and their lack of concern and compassion for what I would suggest to you is indigenous peoples in conflict with the law in this province.
We have seen the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cullen) refuse to look at any of the bail conditions. We've seen that the Minister of Justice has cut restorative justice programs, despite what the minister is trying to say about restorative justice programing and their commitment to it–we know that that's not true, Deputy Speaker. You know that and I know that.
So I do want to say again, this is not a safe situation for workers who are now in Brandon or Headingley–wherever folks are going to be shipped to–The Pas. We know that–and my sister colleague from The Pas can attest to this. We know that those numbers are always overcapacity as well.
* (11:40)
And so here you have a decision that the government is making is to put more and more people into already overcapacity, overcrowded situations. What does that do? It doesn't make it safe for the workers, it adds additional stress to under-resourced correctional officers already, and it certainly contributes to stressful situations for Manitobans that are currently incarcerated, making that unsafe as well.
I think, and I think that if people on this side of the House would look and look at this plan, I think that we could all agree that that's not a good administration of justice in Manitoba. It is simply the antithesis to what we need to be doing.
And what have we proposed? We've proposed the opportunity to build healing lodges, not only in Dauphin, but I would suggest, Deputy Speaker, in different parts of the province as well so that we understand that indigenous folks that are in conflict with the law are closer to the communities and get the healing that they need, that is informed by cultural understanding.
Finally, Deputy Speaker, I want to say this, and just for the purposes of the folks that are in the gallery today, I think it's important today that the folks in the gallery–and I want to remind everybody–know that actually, today, we can vote on this resolution. We can vote on this resolution right now and they can–we can look at restorative justice measures; we can look at healing lodges here in Manitoba. So I'm going to sit down and allow the vote to occur. Hopefully, Deputy Speaker, your–the members of the government don't speak it out this morning.
Miigwech.
Mr. Brad Michaleski (Dauphin): I do want to say it is quite a privilege to serve the Dauphin constituency. I've had the tremendous pleasure of serving on local government for eight years, and getting re-elected two times here in Dauphin and serving with a PC government that's working on improving the fortunes of Manitoba and working to fix the finances and repair the services and grow the economy of this province and the Parkland as well. So, it–again, it is a tremendous privilege for me to represent the region, and I know the people of Dauphin know we're living and experiencing significant change, and they know good governments need to make tough decisions to ensure the protection and sustainable quality services for their citizens. The people of Manitoba and the Dauphin constituency gave our government two overwhelming majorities to go and continue to fix finances, to continue to repair services and grow the economy. And as a lifelong region–member of the region, I've learned and listened to the people in the area and to the businesses across the region about the challenges and opportunities that exist.
Now I just want to make a point if–in terms of the NDP, if they're going to sincerely advocate for Dauphin, they should refer to it as the city of Dauphin, not the town of Dauphin, and please just make a mental note of that so that–it is the city of Dauphin.
So this–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Michaleski: I want to also point out, and I want–I do appreciate the Minister of Justice and the government for coming to Dauphin to make this announcement. It was a tough decision for Dauphin, and I appreciate them coming up, and I appreciate their efforts, all the way along, in standing ready to help the staff and the families affected by this decision. It–I know it has been a difficult decision, but I appreciate they have been upfront with this, and have met with the councils ongoing over the last number of weeks, and they've been acting very, very responsible.
So–but what of the matter of this NDP resolution reflects exactly how the NDP and the MGEU treated the Dauphin region for nearly 35 years. They've seem to always–to listen to the city of Dauphin, but they haven't listened to what the region was saying. They weren't listening to the concerns, the ideas, and their solutions. In fact, they took much of rural Manitoba for granted. The people in rural Manitoba have a lot of great ideas and solutions that are often overlooked. They are also the people and the regions who are both the base and the fuel of the Manitoba economy.
Now, over the course of the years that I've been there and involved in local government, very rarely, if at all, has the NDP given any consideration to the regions and the stakeholders within the region and asking for their opinions on what was needed for their rural economies. What do they need for their kids? What do we need to improve the outcomes of the economy of Manitoba?
There is some good language in this resolution, like focusing on the root causes of crime, that our government is acting on by fixing the finances, repairing services and, most importantly, growing the economy. The people of Dauphin region know a good, strong vibrant economy and a good, strong private-sector-investment environment is the best social program there is, yet they haven't been consulted by past governments. Our government is addressing the root causes of crime across government and we're doing it in Families, in Justice, indigenous relations and Economic Development, to name a few.
Yet here is this resolution. The NDP is condemning our PC government for not building a rehabilitation centre in the city of Dauphin. What the ND–so what the NDP is actually saying is rehabilitation investments in the city of Dauphin are more important than trying to help prevent broken people and families, and more important than listening to the constituents across the region who not only have great solutions to address the root causes of crime but have great insight into what it takes to grow a regional economy.
The NDP and the MGEU are suggesting a healing lodge will solve all the problems, and this resolution, as it says, would create tons of jobs, vocational training, mental health and addictions services for people in the justice system. In the same resolution, they talk about the root causes of crime, but yet they advocate for rehabilitation services.
Madam–Mr. Speaker, ignoring the root cause of crime speaks volumes–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Michaleski: –about the NDP and their twisted sense of what it takes to make families, businesses and economies grow and function effectively and positively, and what we've seen, this resolution is a clear display of that today.
So I'm not going to go in and I'm not going talk too much about what the NDP could have or should have done for our–for the Parkland, or what they could have or should have. The data, the broken promises–they're all there. The community understands the hollow promises of the previous NDP government.
But our government has kept its word. We have delivered the MRI after over 12 years that they promised and did not deliver–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Michaleski: We did that. We expanded ambulance and paramedicine services across the Parkland–tremendous service for the people in rural Manitoba and, in fact, something that a lot of the rural regions were fighting with for a number of years. So we're addressing that.
We also committed to, you know, a significant health and emergency hub for the Parkland. We made that commitment to Dauphin. We've also made, with the courthouse and the jail renovations, we also made a significant commitment to Dauphin as a hub for justice services.
So–and most likely the most important offer to Dauphin that has–that there has ever been, and of course I've never seen it in the 35 years that the NDP was in power in there, but the Minister of Economic Development and Training (Mr. Eichler) has offered Dauphin region an extraordinary and unprecedented offer to help the Dauphin region with a regional economic development strategy. Now, I'm glad to hear a number of the people across the region are really embracing regional thinking, regional planning, and I'm very encouraged to see that.
I know the people of Dauphin are incredibly smart. They're very resourceful. They're tough and they have a lot of good ideas and insight into what the region and what the province needs. And I know, and I know the government knows that, given the opportunity, Dauphin has shown it can overcome challenges, it can solve problems and it can accomplish amazing things. What they need is an opportunity to be listened to, and that's exactly what our government is promising them.
* (11:50)
So, again, I would like to say it is an extreme privilege to serve the people of Dauphin, and to live there for my life and to work within many different aspects of the Parkland economy: from agriculture to local government, to manufacturing and business, and I know we have members, lots of family and friends that work within the private and public sector. And, again, I have just been incredibly amazed and honoured to have to serve them, because I've worked with them shoulder to shoulder in a lot of cases and just see the tremendous abilities of the people of the Parkland area, and I know they want to be part of the solution. I know they–they've–they voted for a strong government to make changes, and I know they've had trouble with the NDP government and then listening to them for the first time and really taking advantage of them.
But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Dauphin is a fantastic area. I know they have a–lots of opportunities to develop their region. If given the opportunity, they will show the NDP just exactly how we can solve some of the social problems that we inherited from the NDP, some of the economic challenges that we inherited because of the NDP, and we're going to be–Dauphin is able to show the way on the–in the future–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam–Mr. Speaker, this resolution brought forward this morning suggests moving in a direction of a better way for correctional facilities in the way of using a healing lodge to address crime, to improve rehabilitation, to improve recidivism and to improve access to restorative justice.
I thank the member for bringing this forward. This is a concept which needs to be explored. It's to be noted that we stand here because of a drastic failure of this government to consult before bringing in their traditional axe.
Mr. Pallister and his government–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Just want to remind the member that when you're addressing a member in the Chamber here–their position or their constituency name.
Mr. Gerrard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Pallister government, in bringing in their axe, it has fallen again, this time on the people of Dauphin. Not many months ago it was falling on people who were farming on Crown lands in the Crane River area and other areas of Manitoba, and the Pallister government's axe has fallen on many others over the last several years.
It is too bad that the Pallister government brings in the axe without even thinking about what the forward plan is. It is too bad that this was done without consultation, without discussions with people in Dauphin. I would say that the concept of a new approach to correctional institutions–NDP had a chance to bring this in for 17 years, and did not. The concept is now coming forward. It's coming forward at a time when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cullen) himself says that there's a dramatic rise in the number of people who are being helped with restorative justice approaches, and it–at the time of such a dramatic rise and the number of people using and benefitting from restorative justice approaches, it is worthwhile considering this sort of a facility.
It is to be noted that healing lodges and restorative justice and traditional approaches to justice are being explored in a number of other venues. It is interesting that they have been mentioned in reports going back for 20, 30, and maybe even 40 years, but their movement has only really been going recently. I was in Nelson House not long ago and they are talking about more effective traditional approaches to justice. I think we need to listen and consider these seriously.
New approaches to justice, I believe, also need to better understand the nature of some of the underlying causes. The contribution of learning disabilities and FASD need to be recognized. They are starting to be recognized with FASD and mental health courts but we need to do more, and this would potentially be an opportunity to do that.
The effectiveness of this sort of approach needs to be looked at in more depth and the possibility of a facility in Dauphin should be explored further.
I note with interest that about 15 years ago, a Mr. Sam McGillivray, who was taken up as he was walking along a road in his home community of Opaskwayak Cree Nation. He was picked up as part of the '60s scoop as he was walking along the road, and he was taken to a farm not far from Dauphin where he and other lost boys, as they've been called, were abused, and he has called, about 15 years ago, for such a healing lodge to be put in place in the Dauphin area in recognition of some of the past tragedies that have occurred.
So I think this is something which can and should be explored. There is background for this. There is a rationale. It is too bad that the current government has moved in so quickly with their axe without really exploring all the options, and I want to speak and say my condolences to the people in the city of Dauphin and that they have been treated in this way.
I will now stop so that there is time for a vote on this resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Greg Nesbitt (Riding Mountain): I just want to reiterate that our government's first and foremost concern in this situation is the employees. We, as the minister has stated, we're working with the Civil Service Commission and the union to find creative ways to take care of these employees respecting their rights and obligations contained in the collective agreement.
What this House might not know that 40 per cent of the Dauphin correctional centre staff does not currently live in the city of Dauphin and they commute to Dauphin every day. Our government's goal is to continue to employ all of the employees from the Dauphin correctional centre, either with Corrections or other government positions.
Our government has worked hard over the past month and I commend the minister for his leadership in that, to work with MGEU to find a creative solution that respects, again, the collective agreement.
The agreement was concluded and signed last week and all employees were informed of their options. Employees will be able to move to one of the many vacant positions within Corrections in the province or exercise their rights under the agreement to move to another government position.
Our government will pay for the relocation and moving expenses within specified limits for those employees that choose a transfer to another position.
We will also be offering assistance to those employees who choose not to take another position within government. Those employees that choose this option will receive a severance package or can choose to be placed on a re-employment list.
We will be working to assist those employees with finding employment within the private sector in the city of Dauphin and in the Parkland region.
This decision wasn't made lightly and it was a tough decision to be made, and, again, respecting the rights of employees and taking care of our employees is No. 1 in our minds on this side of the House.
I guess the NDP record on Dauphin they shouldn't be proud of. They may–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
When this matter is before the House, the honourable member for Riding Mountain (Mr. Nesbitt) will have eight minutes remaining.
The hour being 12 noon, I am leaving this Chair with the understanding that the House will reconvene at 1:30 p.m.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, March 5, 2020
CONTENTS