LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, October 6, 2022


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): It is my duty to inform the House that the Speaker is unavoidably absent. Therefore, in accordance with the statutes, I would as the Deputy Speaker to please take the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Andrew Micklefield): Good afternoon, everyone. Please be seated.

      Orders of the day–no, that was this morning.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Com­mit­tee–or intro­duction of bills?

Committee Reports

Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development


Sixth Report

Mr. Dennis Smook (Chairperson):  

I wish to present the sixth report of the Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment.

Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic–

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Dispense.

Your Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development presents the following as its Sixth Report.

Meetings

Your Committee met on October 5, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building.

Matters under Consideration

·         Bill (No. 13)  The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Commission d'appel des services sociaux

·         Bill (No. 14) – The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les conducteurs et les véhicules, le Code de la route et la Loi sur la Société d'assurance publique du Manitoba

·         Bill (No. 24) – The Real Property Valuation Board and Related Amendments Act / Loi sur la Commission de l'évaluation des biens réels et modifications connexes

·         Bill (No. 208)  The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants

·         Bill (No. 240) –  The Jewish Heritage Month Act / Loi sur le Mois du patrimoine juif

Committee Membership

·         Mr. Altomare

·         Hon. Mr. Goertzen

·         Ms. Morley‑Lecomte

·         Mr. Sandhu

·         Mr. Smook

·         Hon. Ms. Squires

Your Committee elected Mr. Smook as the Chairperson.

Your Committee elected Ms. Morley‑Lecomte as the Vice‑Chairperson.

Non‑Committee Members Speaking on Record

·         Hon. Mr. Ewasko

·         Hon. Mr. Helwer

·         Ms. Lamoureux

·         Mr. Schuler

·         Mr. Wiebe

Public Presentations

Your Committee heard the following two presentations on Bill (No. 24) – The Real Property Valuation Board and Related Amendments Act / Loi sur la Commission de l'évaluation des biens réels et modifications connexes:

Tangi Bell, Private citizen

Ernie Nathaniel, Private citizen

Your Committee heard the following three presentations on Bill (No. 208) – The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants:

William Cann, Private citizen

David Harkness, Private citizen

Linda Blair, Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba

Written Submissions

Your Committee received the following two written submissions on Bill (No. 208) – The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants:

James Bedford, Manitoba Teachers' Society

John Sushelnitsky, Private citizen

Bills Considered and Reported

·         Bill (No. 13)  The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Commission d'appel des services sociaux

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.

·         Bill (No. 14) – The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les conducteurs et les véhicules, le Code de la route et la Loi sur la Société d'assurance publique du Manitoba

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.

·         Bill (No. 24) – The Real Property Valuation Board and Related Amendments Act / Loi sur la Commission de l'évaluation des biens réels et modifications connexes

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.

·         Bill (No. 208)  The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.

·         Bill (No. 240) –  The Jewish Heritage Month Act / Loi sur le Mois du patrimoine juif

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.

Mr. Smook: I move, seconded by the hon­our­able member for Seine River (Ms. Morley‑Lecomte), that the report of the com­mit­tee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Standing Committee on Agri­cul­ture and Food


First Report

Mr. Ian Wishart (Chairperson): I wish to present the first report of the Standing Com­mit­tee of Agriculture and Food.

Clerk: Your Standing Com­mit­tee–

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Dispense.

Your Standing Committee on Agriculture and Food presents the following as its First Report.

Meetings

Your Committee met on October 5, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 254 of the Legislative Building.

Matters under Consideration

·         Bill (No. 22)  The Environment Amendment Act (Pesticide Restrictions) / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement (restrictions applicables aux pesticides)

Committee Membership

·         Mrs. Cox

·         Hon. Mr. Johnson

·         Ms. Naylor

·         Hon. Mr. Wharton

·         Mr. Wiebe

·         Mr. Wishart

Your Committee elected Mr. Wishart as the Chairperson.

Your Committee elected Mrs. Cox as the Vice‑Chairperson.

Non-Committee Members Speaking on Record

·         Hon. Mr. Gerrard

Public Presentations

Your Committee heard the following 10 presentations on Bill (No. 22) – The Environment Amendment Act (Pesticide Restrictions) / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement (restrictions applicables aux pesticides):

Shirley Forsyth, Private citizen

Katharina Stieffenhofer, Private citizen

Anne Lindsey, Private citizen

Steve Rauh, Private citizen

Glen Koroluk, Manitoba Eco-Network

Wendy Buelow, Private citizen

Cameron Wilson, Neudorff North America

Nicolas Sourisseau, Private citizen

David Hinton, Manitoba Nursery Landscape Association

Josh Brandon, Social Planning Counsel of Winnipeg

Written Submissions

Your Committee received the following seven written submissions on Bill (No. 22) – The Environment Amendment Act (Pesticide Restrictions) / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement (restrictions applicables aux pesticides):

Denys Volkov, Association of Manitoba Municipalities

Joanne Seiff, Private citizen

Murray Cunningham, Environmental Health Association of Manitoba

Ben Raber, Private citizen

Vicki Burns, Private citizen

Meg Sears, Prevent Cancer Now

Randall McQuaker, Private Citizen

Bills Considered and Reported

·         Bill (No. 22)  The Environment Amendment Act (Pesticide Restrictions) / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement (restrictions applicables aux pesticides)

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.

Mr. Wishart: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, second­ed  by the hon­our­able member for Midland (Mr. Pedersen), that the report of the com­mit­tee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Tabling of Reports

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to table the Legal Aid Manitoba Annual Report for the fiscal year 2021-2022.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No other reports? Min­is­terial statements? I believe there are none.

Members' Statements

Rick Chrest

Hon. Reg Helwer (Minister of Labour, Consumer Protection and Government Services): I rise today to speak about a good friend who has chosen to retire from public life. His honour Rick Chrest, the current mayor of the City of Brandon, is not running for re-election this October. Rick served two terms as Brandon's 32nd mayor, first being elected in 2014. He had previously served three terms on Brandon City Council and that experience served him very well as mayor.

      Mayor Chrest worked hard to create a collegial and co-operative style in–of government. He was well regarded by councillors, by the citizens of Brandon and by his peers at the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. As with many elected officials over the last few years, Rick faced many challenges and had many difficult decisions, but he seemed to take it all in stride, although I know his compassion and caring always shone through despite the sometimes negative environment.

      Rick has a passion for Brandon, Westman and Manitoba, but I know his heart is with his family and they are very close. Karen is his rock and he always has much to learn from Kaitlin, Dylan and Brett. Rick and Karen recently added the grandparents title to their achievements and I know that Charlotte has taken centre stage in their lives. I know they would love be with us here today but I can neither confirm nor deny that Rick may have been drawn away to Kamloops with an opportunity for a hug and snuggles with Charlotte.

      Rick's hugs are legendary and I know the last couple of years have caused them to be somewhat rare. Thank you for your service, my friend. Hugs on your retirement.

Pembina Curling Club

Mr. Mark Wasyliw (Fort Garry): The Pembina Curling Club celebrates its 75th anniversary this year, after growing from a group of 36 citizens in a church hall to a club of more than 1,000 members.

      In May of 1947, a group of volunteer community members set out to build the first curling club in Fort Garry, led by Art Elders. The club began raising funds by selling $50 shares to community members in order to build a four-sheet curling club on the same lot which still houses the club to this day. In December 1947, they held the first junior bonspiel on the new-minted ice, and now, almost 75 years later, the club is honoured to host the upcoming 2022 Canadian Masters Curling Cham­pion­ship from November 13th to the 20th.

      The club continues to innovate and serve the Fort Garry com­mu­nity. It's recently opened an outdoor beer garden this past year, adding a new community gathering place where Fort Garrians can meet and enjoy live music. The club also regularly hosts learn-to-curl nights, where those unfamiliar with the game can come to learn the ins and outs of the game while meeting new people.

      These efforts are helping the club to achieve its goal of having a diverse and representative member­ship from the community, as the club actively pursues more women and newcomer members from the Fort Garry and south Winnipeg area. Fort Garry Curling Club has become the beating heart of that community.

      In the gallery today, we have club members Tom Price, Scott Ross and Terry Vopni. Please join me in thanking them for their efforts to build a warm and welcoming community that shares the love of curling.

Thanksgiving

Mr. James Teitsma (Radisson): I'm pleased to deliver this private member statement today on your behalf. Yes, indeed, the sentiments that are about to follow I give full credit to the member for Rossmere (Mr. Micklefield), although I must say I whole­heart­edly agree with them.

      This weekend, Canadians will celebrate Thanksgiving, gathering with family and friends for food and fellowship.

      But aside from the usual traditions of pumpkin pie and turkey, Thanksgiving weekend causes us all to pause and to consider what we are grateful for.

      Canadians, including myself, can sometimes be more prone to complain than compliment, to grumble than be grateful, to be thankless more than thankful, but the Thanksgiving holiday invites us to give thanks for the many blessings of living in our beautiful province of Manitoba, in this beautiful country of Canada.

      We're not on the brink of war or starvation. Law and order are the rule, not the exception. We benefit from education, health care, roads, police, fire and ambulance services, the rule of law and demo­cracy. These are not perfect, but they are still very much intact and for this we can be grateful. We should also be thankful for free speech; it remains legal to criti­cize, disagree and argue without fear or favour.

      The thought of devoting an entire holiday to gratitude is almost unthinkable by today's standards. Cynicism, criticism, entitlement–those are the emo­tional default settings much of the time.

* (13:40)

      But gratitude: gratitude offers us a chance to change our perspective. It displaces negativity and it reminds us that the glass is often far more than half full. In light of history and the world around us, we who live in Canada, in Manitoba, have so, so much to be grateful for. We should not take that for granted. I believe being truly thankful can transform your heart.

      So I would like to take this op­por­tun­ity on behalf and together with the member for Rossmere to wish all members, legis­lative staff and all viewers a very happy Thanksgiving and to put on the record that we thank God for the many ways that Canada is a blessed country, even as we work together to make it better for our children and their children after them.

Marilyn McGonigal

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Marilyn McGonigal was a remarkable Manitoban. Over her career she helped shape laws in Manitoba and push for women's rights and economic fairness. She did this important feminist work as a co‑founder of the first all-women law firm here in our great province.

      She was a trailblazer in this respect, and it couldn't have been easy. Marilyn was actually trained as a teacher. She got married, she started a family. But then in the 1970s she decided to go back to school. She got her law degree and was called to the bar. She did all this while raising three energetic children.

      In addition to the legal profession, she served as a president of the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba and was active with the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry Societies.

      She advocated publicly for increases to the minimum wage, against family violence and in favour of improved conditions for those incarcerated.

      A careful student of history will see her name in the proceedings of this esteemed Chamber, speaking thoughtfully at committee on these issues of human rights.

      She always found time to be a devoted grand­mother to her grandchildren Jordan, Micaela, Kelsi, Megan and Hannah. Marilyn told me that she enjoyed having them over for get-togethers at the pool in her condo building. I know this because she used to host our Fort Rouge NDP association meetings in the sunroom next door. She was a tireless volunteer and an incisive participant in policy discussions.

      Sadly, Marilyn left us in June after a battle with cancer, joining her son Tom. On July 17th a large crowd of Manitobans from all walks of life joined to celebrate her life. Her sons Dan and Larry spoke well on that day, and they surely did their mom proud.

      Marilyn McGonigal made Manitoba a better place. To her we say we remember you, miigwech, merci and thank you. Her family joins us today in the gallery.

Vincent Williams

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I'm happy to rise this afternoon and speak about some very special guests who are up in the gallery.

      First off, you'll see 40 grade seven students from Stanley Knowles School. They had an educational tour this morning of the Legislative Building, ate some pizza and created a question that I have the honour of asking to our Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) later today in question period.

      But right now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. Vincent Williams.

      Mr. Williams taught at École Stanley Knowles School from 1990 until his recent retirement this past June. He served in our education system for 30 years.

      Mr. Speaker, I spoke with some faculty at Stanley Knowles, and a few of their remarks about Mr. Williams included how he truly made con­nections with kids and believed in the ability of every student. He stood out for his grace and diplomacy that he brought into his classrooms and he is a true gentle­man, a fine educator and so thoughtful and kind with all of his colleagues.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Williams has dedicated so much to our province, and he even set such a strong example in the field of education that his daughter, Sonya Williams, has become a vice-principal.

      Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, everyone I spoke to reminded me how Mr. Williams does not like the spotlight. So I'm going to turn it to his family who have joined him today in the gallery. We have up in the gallery right now his wife Elnor Williams, his daughter Sonya Williams and, very shortly, I am sure, we will have Christopher Williams, his son; Shanice Williams, his daughter-in-law; Isaias Williams, his grand­son; and Arzaria [phonetic] Williams, his grand­daughter. And, of course, the man of the hour himself, Mr. Vincent Williams.

      Thank you for your 30 years of service in our education system here in Manitoba. And I would like to ask my colleagues to help me recog­nize him for this honour.

      Thank you.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Deputy Speaker: And just before we move forward with oral questions, I do want to acknowl­edge some students in the gallery. As the member for Tyndall Park just mentioned, we have seated in the public gallery, from Stanley Knowles School, 40  grade 7 students under the direction of Torrie Vicklund. This group is located in the con­stit­uency of the hon­our­able member for Tyndall Park.

      We welcome you to the Manitoba Legislature.

Oral Questions

Home-Care Services
Care Hours Available

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Acting Speaker, for many Manitobans, home care is an essential part of a good quality of life. Yet, the gov­ern­ment's own record–which I will table today–show that their cuts mean that there are more Manitobans than ever who need home care, and yet there are fewer and fewer hours of care available.

      In the Prairie Mountain Health region, covered by those docu­ments, there are 1,125 more people seek­­ing care in the last five years, but there's nearly 90,000 fewer hours of care available to serve them. It's because home-care workers are stretched too thin to give each client the attention they deserve.

      Will the Premier admit her gov­ern­ment's cuts have hurt home care?

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): The Leader of the Op­posi­tion is just plain wrong, Madam Speaker. In fact, we are investing more than $1 billion more than the NDP ever did in our health-care system.

      I also just want to mention and thank the Minister respon­si­ble for Seniors, Madam–or, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the work that he is doing in working with stake­holders in the com­mu­nity to develop a home-care strategy for the province of Manitoba so we can look at improving home care for those who choose to stay at home and need that extra help at home.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Kinew: More Manitobans are looking for home-care services so that they can live a good life, so that they can stay in the com­mu­nity, so that they can age in place. Yet, we just saw in western Manitoba and in the Parkland, while there are more than 1,100 more patients, there are 90,000 fewer hours to care for them.

      The situation is similarly dire in the Southern Health region. The number of people there seeking care has gone up by 340 patients just in the last five years. And yet, there are 96,000 few hours of care to serve them.

      That means more people waiting in pain. That means more people having to go without essential services like meal prep and laundry. It means worse care for Manitobans.

      Will the Premier please stop cutting home care?

Mrs. Stefanson: Again, the Leader of the Op­posi­tion puts false infor­ma­tion on the record in this House. More than $1 billion more than the NDP ever invested in health care, Madam–or, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      And, certainly, when it comes to home care and within our health-care system, we know that there is a shortage of workers right across the system. That is nothing that's unique to Manitoba. The Leader of the Opposition knows that, but he refuses to recog­nize it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      But it's a reality of what we're facing, not just here in Manitoba, but right across the country when it comes to the shortage of staffing with respect to health care and for home care, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      So those are challenges that we're taking on. Of course, we're developing that home-care strategy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I'll remind Manitobans that the Leader of the Op­posi­tion has no plan, no vision what­so­ever about home care in the province of Manitoba.

* (13:50)

      If he has one, please table it today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion on a final sup­ple­mentary.

Mileage Rate Increase for Workers

Mr. Kinew: Let's cut through the PC talking points. These cuts began five years ago–five years ago. And they are cuts. When a gov­ern­ment takes a decision to reduce funding, and it results in fewer hours of care at the bedside, that is a cut. We saw that in Westman; there are more than 90,000 fewer hours of care.

      In the Southern Health region–and I'll table this docu­ment to prove the case, perhaps not to the First Minister, but definitely to the people of Manitoba–there are 96,000 fewer hours of care. We're talking about home-care workers who are helping very vul­ner­able people in our society. As the price of gas goes up, these folks haven't even gotten a mile–mileage increase.

      We know that the First Minister is not going to cut home care–is not going to stop her cuts to home-care services, but will she finally increase the mileage rate for these people–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mrs. Stefanson: Well, the Leader of the Op­posi­tion got one thing right, Mr. Deputy Speaker: that we are not going to cut home care in the province of Manitoba.

      Once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to thank the Minister respon­si­ble for Seniors, who is working diligently with stake­holders in the com­mu­nity to en­sure that we make im­prove­ments to our home-care sys­tem, some­thing that the NDP never did when they were in power. For 17 years, they did nothing.

      And the Leader of the Op­posi­tion stands in this House, again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, puts false infor­ma­tion on the record, and he continues to do that without announcing what his plan is for home care. So, again, I ask him: Would he table his home-care plan for the people of Manitoba?

      We would like to know what his plan is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion with a second question.

Increase in Project Nova Costs
Impact on MPI Ratepayers

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Manitobans want good online services from Manitoba Public Insurance, and that's why MPI launched Project Nova. It was supposed to make life easier and more convenient for families. Now this project could have been done a long time ago. That is, if the PCs hadn't inter­fered.

      Now we learn from MPI board minutes, which I will table today, that just because of PC inter­ference, the cost of Project Nova is skyrocketing. This docu­ment shows that it's going to cost ratepayers more than double the original price. We're talking an increase–lately–from $128 million to now $300 million.

      Will the Premier admit that her gov­ern­ment's in­ter­­ference will cost drivers more?

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): I do want to thank all of those who are working diligently at MPI and offering those services for Manitobans.

      We know that affordability is an issue. MPI stepped up, and they actually gave out rebate cheques to Manitobans. We want to remind Manitobans it was upwards of $700 'por'–per vehicle. That is making life more affordable for Manitobans.

      I want to thank MPI and the board for moving in  that direction to make life more affordable for Manitobans.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion on a sup­ple­mentary question.

Mr. Kinew: Project Nova was supposed to take two, maybe three years, tops. Originally, the price tag was named at $82 million. Then, after PC inter­ference, that increased to $128 million.

      But now, after further inter­ference by this PC gov­ern­ment–began under Mr. Pallister, but con­tinuing under this First Minister–we see that the price tag has now ballooned from $128 million to $300 million. And that timeline of a couple years has now been stretched to more than five years, Mr. Speaker.

      A $300 million project over budget at MPI will mean more pressure on ratepayers to make up the difference.

      Will the Premier tell the House how much MPI rates will go up because of her gov­ern­ment's inter­ference?

Mrs. Stefanson: Well, I'll remind madam–Manitobans, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the vehicle registration fee that see–the NDP inter­fered in MPI and got them to intro­duce a vehicle registration fee.

      And to–again, on the theme of making life more affordable for Manitobans, we made three reductions to that vehicle registration fee, making life more afford­able for Manitobans.

      We want to thank MPI for making that decision, for moving in that direction towards making life more affordable for Manitobans.

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

Mr. Kinew: Well, as is typical, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we don't see the Premier engage with the question be­cause there is no defence.

      Just as with the health-care system, where their mis­management has made a mess of things, now their mis­manage­ment is costing people more at MPI.

      This project was already over budget when it was pegged at $128 million. Now we see, because of the meddling of this minister and this First Minister, that costs have more than doubled. We're talking about from $128 million to $300 million. That's mis­manage­­ment and it's a result of PC inter­ference.

      How much more of Manitobans' money will the Premier waste before provi­ding simple online services to the people?

Mrs. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the piece of paper that the Leader of the Op­posi­tion tabled in the House does not back anything, and doesn't have anything to do with the questions that he's asking. Does–there's no evidence here to suggest that–the accusations from the Leader of the Op­posi­tion.

      But what I will say when it–when we're talking about interfering in Crown cor­por­ations, I'll remind the Leader of the Op­posi­tion that when the NDP were in power, the bipole line, the Keeyask Generating Station these things were over budget by almost $4 billion.

      That's what they did. They inter­fered in Manitoba, created sig­ni­fi­cant cost overruns, which is also mak­ing life less affordable for Manitobans. We will con­tinue to make life more affordable for Manitobans.

Increase in Project Nova Costs
Impact on MPI Ratepayers

Mr. Mintu Sandhu (The Maples): The price of Project Nova has more than doubled in price. Initial price was $82 million, then it increased $128 million to nearly $300 million now. This project could have been completed a long time ago, but this gov­ern­ment inter­fered.

      Why is the minister costing MPI drivers more?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation): My friend across the way might need to be reminded that drivers' insurance have been continually going down over the last number of years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not going up.

      He may also be well to be reminded that this is a 30-year-old legacy system that the drivers renewal system, the tech­no­lo­gy system that is in the different brokers and at MPI languished for nearly 20 years under the NDP without any sort of revival or renewal, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      If he wants to know why this system is so out­dated and why there needs to be such refurbishment, he may want to speak to, for example, one of his colleagues who sat and did nothing for 20 years, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sandhu: Brian Pallister intervened in the opera­tion of MPI on behalf of his friends in the insurance industry.

      Project Nova was supposed to be done long time ago. Now, it has more than doubled in price to nearly $300 million. The time has been–delays. This cost us more.

      Why did the PC gov­ern­ment inter­fere in the opera­­tion of MPI and why are they costing drivers hundreds of millions of dollars?

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Deputy Speaker, inter­ference would be defined as going to a Crown cor­por­ation and saying, instead of building a hydro line on the shortest route possible, as was recom­mended by many, many experts, including experts in the NDP–instead having ministers say, no, we're going to go across the entire length of the opposite side of the province and cause more than a billion dollars more. That would be inter­ference.

* (14:00)

      What the definition of languishing would be is doing nothing to upgrade a computer system and tech­no­lo­gy system at MPI for more than two decades and then waiting for another gov­ern­ment to have to take on that task. So, that's the definition.

      He now knows what inter­ference is; he now knows what languishing is. I'm happy to give him further definitions in the next answer, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Sandhu: The gov­ern­ment's inter­ference costs us all more. The costs of Project Nova have more than doubled to nearly $300 million. The timeline has been extended for years.

      Will the minister explain why their gov­ern­ment's inter­ference is costing MPI drivers so much more?

Mr. Goertzen: Well, I was reminded by my friends in this side of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about some­thing called FleetNet. I'd almost forgotten.

      This was the emergency system, of course, that our emergency respon­ders were com­muni­cating with across the province where there were fires or other sorts of things. We came into gov­ern­ment and we realized that FleetNet was so old that they were having to buy parts off of eBay to keep it going.

      Now I don't know that MPI was quite that des­per­ate, Madam Speaker. I don't–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Goertzen: –think that–Mr. Deputy Speaker, I don't know that they were using Commodore 64s still at MPI, but if the NDP had still stayed in gov­ern­ment, that might have been the case.

      We had to renew FleetNet. We had to renew MPI computer systems. That's the gov­ern­ment that did noth­ing to ensure that those things were redone.

      We're not interfering. We're actually trying to get things done–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Prov­incial Carbon Pricing
Timeline for Plan

Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Speaker, climate change is a threat unlike any other we've faced before and urgent action is needed to avoid the worst out­comes. We've had six years of inaction from this gov­ern­ment, and they've spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in two years fighting the federal gov­ern­ment's price on pollution.

      Thanks to public pressure, the PC gov­ern­ment back­tracked and committed to developing a carbon-pricing plan before December 31st of this year.

      Will the minister confirm if his gov­ern­ment will meet this deadline?

Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Environment, Climate and Parks): I certainly ap­pre­ciate the ques­tion on climate and environ­ment when it comes from members opposite.

      We know that the NDP climate plan existed on the back of a napkin. We know that, how? Well, none of us have seen it.

      But I can tell you, our gov­ern­ment has a plan. As a matter of fact, we're already moving forward with a low-carbon economy-finding efficiency trucking pro­gram, Efficiency Manitoba resi­den­tial natural gas effi­ciency programs–$18 million, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      Stay tuned, I've got more.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, on a supplementary question.

Ms. Naylor: After losing two court cases, widespread public pushback and wasting hundreds of thou­sands of taxpayer dollars, this gov­ern­ment finally abandoned their challenge of the federal price on pollution. Nearly a year ago, they committed to developing and imple­men­ting a carbon-pricing plan by December 31st of this year.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, we know that this gov­ern­ment is not fond of deadlines. Fortunately, they still have time to deliver on this one.

      Will the minister confirm whether a carbon-pricing plan will be announced by December 31st of this year?

Mr. Wharton: The member opposite talks about dead­lines and pollution. Well, let's look at their record on deadlines.

      (1) Mr. Deputy Speaker, we know that one of the largest freshwater lakes in this beautiful country is Lake Winnipeg, just north of us, which I happen to reside on. We know that for almost 20 years, the NDP did nothing, nothing on the North End treatment plant in the city of Winnipeg, the largest polluter to Lake Winnipeg and our waterways.

      We will take no lessons from the members oppo­site when it comes to pollution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Wolseley, on a final sup­ple­mentary.

Ms. Naylor: Manitobans want a gov­ern­ment that takes action on climate change and not one that wastes taxpayer money on failed court cases. They also want a gov­ern­ment that takes action and doesn't inter­fere in the building of the North End water treatment plant, as this gov­ern­ment did for six years.

      Thankfully, they've abandoned the court appeals after losing two cases and pushback from this side of the House. They've committed to developing a carbon-pricing plan, but we have heard nothing. The gov­ern­ment has until December 31st of this year; that date is coming quickly.

      Can the minister confirm whether he will actually meet this deadline?

Mr. Wharton: We certainly know that members oppo­­site had no plan, no plan at all, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We certainly know that the members oppo­site would never have a plan other than the back of a napkin.

      Let me tell you, for members of the House, what our gov­ern­ment is doing, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We've–increasing the ethanol content in gasoline from 8.5 to 10 per cent, in biodiesel, 2.5 to 5 per cent. The efficiency truck program saves 25 million litres, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of GHG emissions over a life cycle of equip­ment.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, they have no plan. We're just getting started.

Post-Secondary Education
Issues with Student Aid Program

Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): My office continues to receive complaints from students about this gov­ern­ment's poorly run Manitoba Student Aid program.

      Students have faced extreme delays in accessing funding that they need to go to school. This has re­sulted in students having to pay out of pocket, to take on debt as funding for their edu­ca­tion because their payments did not arrive before deadlines.

      This debt is detrimental for students who have–already struggling with in­creasingly high rising costs of living.

      This gov­ern­ment needs to take action to ensure that students receive their funding in a timely manner.

      Will the minister commit to doing so today?

Hon. Jon Reyes (Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Immigration): We are continually en­hancing our processes and products. That includes Manitoba Student Aid.

      I know that staff are working hard each and every day to ensure that application inquiries from clients are addressed in a timely manner. I can share that in  2021-2022, Manitoba Student Aid helped over 16,000 students, including Indigenous students and low-income students, in access to post-secondary edu­ca­tion.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Moses: The continuing issues with Manitoba Student Aid are simply unacceptable. I wrote to the minister months ago to share stories of students who have concerns and urged him to take action.

      In the fall semester, over 200 students had delays with their–receiving their student aid. And he had time over the summer to fix it, but he didn't. That's why it's so disappointing to hear that students are now still coming to my office with complaints because they're not receiving their student aid money in time–students such as a mother of six, who contacted my office after extreme delays and now she's con­sid­ering dropping out of school.

      The minister should take urgent action on this to resolve problems with Manitoba Student Aid.

      Will he do so today?

Mr. Reyes: Let me share with the House that during 2021-2022, Manitoba Student Aid provided approxi­mately $217 million in both federal and prov­incial student loans, grants and bursaries, including $51.9 million in Manitoba student loans and $19 million in Manitoba bursaries to help post-secondary students receive a high quality edu­ca­tion in Manitoba.

      The financial supports that our gov­ern­ment pro­vided these students will help them not only receive a quality edu­ca­tion but gain the right skills and know­ledge to stimulate our growing Manitoba economy.

      We have a plan; they do not.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

* (14:10)

Mr. Moses: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I don't think the minis­ter quite understands how much Manitoba stu­dents rely on Student Aid. It's why these persistent issues, when it comes to Manitoba Student Aid, is such a huge issue.

      Issues like low turnaround time, poor-performing website, inadequate phone supports and general lack of organi­zation with Manitoba Student Aid are the com­plaints that I hear all the time from Manitoba students. They reach out to my office over these con­cerns, and they want to hear action from this minister. They're missing out on thousand dollars, and it's forcing them to go into debt.

      Will the minister commit to fixing issues with Manitoba Student Aid and help students in our pro­vince today?

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Deputy Speaker, our gov­ern­ment is provi­ding students with record levels of financial sup­port in the form of scholar­ships, bursaries and loans, unlike the previous NDP gov­ern­ment, who didn't know how to run a Manitoba Student Aid system and wasted $15 million on outdated student aid software, resulting in delays in student applications and 'dispurgance' of funds.

      We're still cleaning the mess. They have lack of action; we are–have a plan of action. They have no plan. We're cleaning up the mess; we're continuing to clean up the mess, and we're going to get it right, unlike the NDP.

Northern Health-Care Services
ER Closures and Patient Transfers

Mr. Ian Bushie (Keewatinook): When the Leaf Rapids Health Centre's ER closed on July the 13th, residents were told the move was temporary, for only six days. It's now been more than two months.

      More than 80 days later, and the region is still saying it'll be–it will be closed for an indeterminate amount of time. Likewise, cuts at Lynn Lake and Snow Lake have resulted in disruptions.

      Will the minister address and reverse the cuts her gov­ern­ment has made to northern health care?

Hon. Reg Helwer (Acting Minister of Health): Well, I'm pleased to talk to about the invest­ments that our gov­ern­ment has made in health care, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      We have $50 million that have gone into the HSC Operation Excellence to increase HSC surgical and diag­nos­tic capacity by 25 per cent. I was pleased to be at HSC with the Minister of Health (Ms. Gordon) not that long ago for a $750,000 invest­ment to HSC Children's Hospital in-patient monitor 'uprudes'–upgrades to support 26 in-patient monitor beds. This will enable nurses to spend more time at the bedside, less time monitoring those patients in person, serving more patients.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, $2 million for the Swan River CT scanner: That was very well received in the Swan River area. People were coming up and telling the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) that they had never anticipated training–

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

Mr. Bushie: I did not hear the word North at all in any of that response.

      Patients are being moved across the North and far from family. My colleague, the member from Thompson, raised the issue of transfer from Thompson to Flin Flon. At Lynn Lake, all the long­term patients were sent to Flin Flon without notifying family and com­mu­nity. This is an eight-hour drive. This is such an undignified way to treat our seniors.

      Why won't the minister ensure there is care avail­able for our seniors close to home in the North?

Mr. Helwer: Well, in order to continue about, you know, portions of invest­ment in Manitoba in–not just in Winnipeg but also in northern Manitoba, we just talked about the Swan River CT scanner where people were coming up and talking to the Premier, thanking her for this an­nounce­ment, saying that, I had never anticipated training as a CT technician, and now I have that ability to do that, to perform CT scans in Swan River, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      So we also have 700,000–$200.5 million in the Russell CancerCare site redevelopment. CancerCare in Russell, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some­thing the NDP ignored for many, many years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Keewatinook, on a final sup­ple­mentary.

Mr. Bushie: Well, the minister tried to drop the word North in that answer in some capacity, but there are still less and less surgeons available in the North. Consequently, more and more people have to travel south.

      Unfor­tunately, under this gov­ern­ment, the north­ern patient transfer program is inadequate. We have heard from constituents who have missed ap­point­ments because they simply could not afford the cost of their attending their ap­point­ments down south.

      When will the minister address and reverse the cuts they have made to the northern patient transfer program?

Mr. Helwer: Well, we've lost count of how many emergency rooms the NDP closed–20, 30, pick a number, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Constantly closing through­out their inactivity.

      Recently, the Minister of Health (Ms. Gordon) was up at a summit in Thompson listening to health-care pro­fes­sionals there, listening to the com­mu­nity about things that needed to change, Mr. Deputy Speaker. She's listening. We're getting things done.

      We have–they–we know they have no plan what­soever.

Domestic Violence Shelters
Funding for Secondary Housing

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): I recently attended the AGM for a women's shelter that runs secondary housing, transitional housing where wo­men and children who are escaping violence can stay for up to year. They're about to mark their 30th anniversary, and for half that time–the last 15 years–their prov­incial funding has been frozen.

      How can it be, given what we know about domes­tic violence in Manitoba–where women face violent partners at eight times the national average and Indigenous women are 2.7 times more likely to be murdered, and when we know things got worse in the pandemic–how can it be that there has been no in­crease in prov­incial funding to make sure that women and children have secondary housing to get out of an emergency shelter for this long?

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Families): If the member opposite was paying attention, Budget 2022 did bring in sig­ni­fi­cant increases, as well as a modern­ization strategy to improve the funding for­mula for all women's shelters in the province. Our gov­ern­ment is also working with women's resource centres so–and those provi­ding transitional housing and long-term housing for women who have been fleeing domestic violence and need to have housing.

      In fact, earlier this year, our gov­ern­ment stepped in and worked with the North End women's resource centre after they'd learned that Ottawa–the Liberals in Ottawa–was cutting funding for eight beds at the North End women's resource centre for transitional housing. That member sat by. He did nothing. He didn't call his friends in Ottawa to ask for that funding to be reinstated.

      It's this gov­ern­ment that responded–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member–minister's time has expired.

      The hon­our­able member for St. Boniface. [interjection] Order, please.

Mr. Lamont: Here are the numbers–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lamont: –which I table, from page 91 of the Depart­ment of Families' annual report. Since 2019, calls to women's shelter crisis lines have been growing by more than 1,000 per year, but this year funding is $241,000 less than it was two years ago.

      Second-stage funding has been frozen at $571,000 every year for the last three years. And when it comes to specialized programs, while the number of clients has soared by 50 per cent from 2,297 to three hundred and–3,485, the funding has dropped from one point–from $2.5 million to $1.8 million this year.

      I have people who are calling me who are des­per­ate for help, who have no place to go.

      Will the Premier act imme­diate­ly to increase fund­­ing to provide women fleeing domestic violence a safe place with supports, even if it means renting hotel rooms?

Ms. Squires: Madam–Mr. Deputy Speaker, our gov­ern­ment recognizes that intimate partner violence was certainly a shadow pandemic in the last few years.

      We have seen situations es­cal­ate because people were spending more time at home and that was not a safe environ­ment for a lot of women. That is why we've made sig­ni­fi­cant invest­ments in our women's shelters and our resource centres. That is why we've esta­blished permanent funding for hotlines for people to reach out to receive supports.

      And if the member wants to do some­thing constructive, he can come in this House and he can vote in favour of Budget 2022, which has sig­ni­fi­cant invest­ments and increase in funding for women's shelters and women's initiatives through­out the province.

Stanley Knowles School
Student Questions for Premier

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Today, I get the op­por­tun­ity to ask a question on behalf of the grade 7s from Stanley Knowles School, who are–have joined us here in the gallery today.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, these students have many great questions–even what the Premier had for breakfast this morning. They also touched upon issues including: how do we get rid of laws that are not working for us? Why do people who immigrate here have to answer such a long test? And what is our Province's debt?

      So based on these topics, I'd like to ask the Premier: What will the future of Manitoba look like?

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): Great question. [interjection]

* (14:20)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able First Minister.

Mrs. Stefanson: I want to thank all of the students who are here today and for the member opposite for asking those great questions on their behalf. So, thank you, to all of you.

      I can tell you that the future in Manitoba looks bright because of many of the initiatives that we have taken on this side of the House and our gov­ern­ment, over the course of the last number of years, to make life more affordable for Manitobans, to make life–to also tackle some of the surgical and diag­nos­tic wait lists in the province of Manitoba. These are all the exciting things.

      And, of course, edu­ca­tion. Yesterday was World Teachers' Day, which was a great thing, and I see your teachers here today. We thank you for the in­cred­ible work that you do, but thank you to all of you for being here today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The First Minister's time has expired.

Manitoba Hydro and Public Utilities Board
Infor­ma­tion Regarding Bill 36

Mr. Josh Guenter (Borderland): I hate to spoil the fun, but there has been much debate about Bill 36–a lot of it, unfor­tunately, focusing on some pretty blatant mis­repre­sen­ta­tions of the facts.

      For the sake of this House and members opposite, can the Minister of Finance briefly explain the ex­planatory note he tabled in the House last week?

Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro): Mr. Deputy Speaker, these students from Stanley Knowles and their teachers know the value of reading for com­pre­hen­sion. The NDP has done less well at this.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, under the NDP, bipole and Keeyask came in almost $4 billion over cost, the debt of Hydro tripled, 40 cents on every dollar now goes to pay bankers, and that puts at risk the fun­da­mental advantage to ratepayers, which has been low rates.

      And that is why Bill 36 sets hydro on a path to stability by setting a limit, a cap on the rate of any increase. And the bill reads the general rate increase for a fiscal year cannot exceed 5 per cent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able minister's time has expired. [interjection] Order.

Prairie Mountain Health Region
Home-Care Hours Available

MLA Malaya Marcelino (Notre Dame): Mr. Deputy Speaker, docu­ments provided to us through FIPPA show that, despite increasing demand for home care, the number of hours being provided is going down. And I'll table those docu­ments.

      In prairie region, despite more costs and more clients, there are less hours of care being provided.

      Why are those living in Brandon and Westman paying more for home care while getting nearly 100,000 less hours of care?

Hon. Scott Johnston (Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care): I share the member's concerns.

      We are in a process of esta­blish­ing and reviewing our home–our whole home-care strategies to ensure that the needs of Manitobans will be met in the future, and I continually liaison with my colleague, the Minister of Health (Ms. Gordon), and we are looking for input from Manitobans to come to terms with this, and we will be provi­ding solutions.

MLA Marcelino: Mr. Deputy Speaker, home-care clients are very, very frustrated. This gov­ern­ment is nearing the end of its second term, and they're still requiring input and con­sul­ta­tions even at this point.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, the gov­ern­ment's explana­tions don't add up. One thousand more people need home care in Westman compared to five years ago. The cost of this care is up, but the hours of service delivered is way down–100,000 less hours of care than what it was five years ago.

      When people say that they can't get the home care they need, that is why, and it's because of this gov­ern­ment's cuts.

      Why is the gov­ern­ment cutting home care for Westman residents?

Mr. Johnston: Our increase to the needs of Manitobans regarding health is well-documented. We continue to increase the amount of money in terms of things that haven't been done in this province before and we will continue to do that.

      As I mentioned, we are certainly studying this question. I, along with the Minister of Health will con­tinue to do it, and we will find solutions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Notre Dame on a final sup­ple­mentary.

MLA Marcelino: Mr. Deputy Speaker, instead of in­creases to home care, what we've heard is increases in workload for less pay and less benefits for home-care workers, so we're not hearing from the same folks.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, this week, we have heard terrible stories from Manitobans not being able to get enough hours of home care. The number of those needing home care continues to climb. In prairie region, the hours of care continue to decline while the overall cost has gone up.

      Why are those living in Brandon and Westman paying more for home care while receiving nearly 100,000 less hours of care? I've tabled the docu­ments for the minister, and I'd like him to address those docu­ments.

Mr. Johnston: The circum­stances that exist basically worldwide is that there is staffing shortages within the health-care system. And our Minister of Health, sup­ported by our gov­ern­ment, is continuing to look for solutions to try to enhance the numbers to support health-care needs in Manitoba. And we will continue to do that.

      I mean, the Leader of the Op­posi­tion continues to challenge this gov­ern­ment, regards to agency staffing to ensure that the needs of Manitoba are met, and yet, they criticize the fact that we are trying to find solu­tions. So, Madam Speaker, we will continue to do–

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

      The time for oral questions has ended.

Petitions

Bibliothèque Régionale Jolys Regional Library

Mr. Nello Altomare (Transcona): I wish to present the following petition to the Legis­lative Assembly. The back­ground of this petition is as follows:

      The Bibliothèque Régionale Jolys has been served notice by the Red River Valley School Division to vacate the premises currently situated in the auditorium of École Héritage school, by March 31, 2023.

      The auditorium was originally built in the 1960s by renowned Manitoba architect Étienne Gaboury, and it has been home to the JRL for 48 years.

      A photo of the auditorium captioned, the regional library, is published in a 2008 document titled, heritage buildings in the RM of De Salaberry and St. Pierre Jolys. It is marked as an im­por­tant modern building that could attain the status of heritage site.

      JRL and Red River Valley School Division have flourished from a mutually beneficial memorandum of under­standing for 54 years.

      Their shared collection boasts over 50,000 books and has the fourth largest collection of French-language literature in rural Manitoba.

      Students that are bused in from the neighbouring munici­palities that do not have a public library, such as Niverville, Grunthal and Kleefeld, are provided with free access to the public library and its fourth largest collection of French books in rural Manitoba, during the school year.

      Therefore, we petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      (1) To request the Minister of Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services to consider granting the auditorium to the JRL by March 1 of 2023.

      (2) To request the Minister of Edu­ca­tion to recog­nize the value the JRL provides to the student pop­u­lation of ÉHS, as well as the com­mu­nities of St. Pierre Jolys and the RM of De Salaberry.

      (3) To request the Minister of Edu­ca­tion and Minister of Francophone Affairs to recog­nize that an MOU between the Red River Valley School Division and the JRL is mutually, financially and culturally beneficial.

* (14:30)

      (4) To request the Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage to recog­nize the heritage potential of this im­portant building and its status in the com­mu­nity; and

      (5) To request the Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage to prevent any renovations to the auditorium that would destroy and devalue the architectural integrity of the building.

      This petition is signed by Greg Walters, Sara Ringinaco [phonetic] and Barbara Walters.

      Thank you.

Mrs. Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): I wish to present the following petition to the Legis­lative Assembly.

      The background to this petition is as follows:

      The Bibliothèque Régionale Jolys Regional Library has been served notice by the Red River Valley School Division to vacate the premises currently situated in the auditorium of École Héritage school by March 31st, 2023.

      (2) The auditorium was originally built in the 1960s by renowned Manitoba architect Étienne Gaboury, and it has been home to JRL for 48 years.

      (3) A photo of the art–auditorium, captioned the regional library, is published in a 2008 document titled heritage buildings in RM De Salaberry and St. Pierre Jolys. It is marked as an im­por­tant modern building that could be–that could attain the status of a heritage site.

      (4) JRL and RRVSD have flourished from a mutually beneficial memorandum of under­standing for 54 years.

      (5) Their shared collection boasts over 50,000 books and has the fourth largest collection of French-language literature in rural Manitoba.

      (6) Students that are bused in from the neighbouring munici­palities that do not have a public library, such as Niverville, Grunthal and Kleefeld, are provided with free access to the public library and its fourth largest collection of French books in rural Manitoba during the school year.

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      (1) To request the Minister of Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services to consider granting the auditorium to the JRL by March 31st, 2023.

      (2) To request the Minister of Edu­ca­tion to recog­nize the value of–JRL provides to the student popu­la­tion of ÉHS, as well as the com­mu­nities of Village de Saint-Pierre-Jolys and the RM De Salaberry.

      (3) To request the Minister of Edu­ca­tion and the Minister of Francophone Affairs to recog­nize that MOU between the RRVSD and JRL is mutually, financially and culturally beneficial.

      (4) To request the Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage to recog­nize the heritage potential of this im­portant building and its status in the com­mu­nity.

      (5) To request the Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage to prevent any renovations to the auditorium that would destroy and devalue the architectural inte­grity of this building.

      And this has been signed by Chris Hartin, Ryan Cox, Margaret Neville and many other Manitobans.

Louise Bridge

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legis­lative Assembly.

      The back­ground to this petition is as follows:

      (1) Over 25,000 vehicles per day cross the Louise Bridge, which has served as a vital link for vehicular traffic between northeast Winnipeg and the downtown for the last 110 years.

      (2) Current structure will undoubtedly be de­clared unsafe in a few years as it has deteriorated extensively, becoming functionally obsolete, subject–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Maloway: –to more frequent–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Maloway: –unplanned repairs–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Maloway: –and cannot be widened to accom­modate future traffic capacity.

      (3) As far back as 2008, City of Winnipeg has studied where the new re­place­ment bridge should be situated.

      (4) After including the bridge re­place­ment in the City's five-year capital budget forecast in 2009, the new bridge became a short-term construction priority in the City's trans­por­tation master plan of 2011.

      (5) City capital and budget plans identified re­place­ment of the Louise Bridge on a site just east of the bridge and expropriated homes there on the south side of Nairn Avenue in anticipation of a 2015 start.

      (6) In 2014, the new City admin­is­tra­tion did not make use of available federal infrastructure funds.

      (7) The new Louise Bridge Com­mit­tee began its campaign to demand a new bridge and its surveys con­firmed residents wanted a new bridge beside the current bridge, with the old bridge kept open for local traffic.

      (8) The NDP prov­incial gov­ern­ment signalled its firm commit­ment to partner with the City on replacing the Louise Bridge in its 2015 Throne Speech. Unfor­tunately, prov­incial infrastructure initiatives, such as the new Louise bridge, came to a halt with the election of the Progressive Conservative gov­ern­ment in 2016.

      (9) More recently, the City tethered the Louise Bridge replacement issue to its new trans­por­tation master plan and eastern corridor project. Its recom­men­dations have now identified the location of the new Louise bridge to be placed just to the west of the current bridge, not to the east as originally proposed. The City expropriation process has begun.

      (10) The Premier has a duty to direct the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to provide financial assist­ance to the City so it can complete the long overdue–this vital–long-overdue, vital link to northeast Winnipeg and Transcona.

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      (1) To urge the new Premier to financially assist the City of Winnipeg on building the three-lane bridge in each direction to maintain this vital link between northeast Winnipeg, Transcona and the downtown.

      (2) To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to recom­mend that the City of Winnipeg keep the old bridge fully open to traffic while the new bridge is under con­struction.

      (3) To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to consider the feasibility of keeping it open for active trans­por­tation in the future.

      And this petition has been signed by many, many Manitobans.

Bibliothèque Régionale Jolys Regional Library

Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): Je désire présenter la pétition suivante à l'Assemblée législative.

      Le contexte de cette pétition est le suivant :

      1) La Bibliothèque Régionale Jolys Regional Library a été avisée par la Division scolaire Vallée de la rivière Rouge de libérer les locaux actuellement situés dans l'auditorium de l'École Heritage School d'ici le 31 mars 2023.

      2) L'auditorium a été construit dans les années 1960 par le célèbre architecte manitobain Étienne Gaboury, la B-R-G y est installée depuis 48 ans.

      3) Une photo de l'auditorium intitulée la bibliothèque régionale est publiée dans un docu­ment de 2008 intitulé : bâtiments patrimoniaux de De Salaberry et Saint-Pierre-Jolys. Il est indiqué qu'il s'agit d'un bâtiment moderne important qui pourrait atteindre le statut de site patrimonial.

      4) La B-R-G et la DSVRR ont prospéré grâce à un protocole d'entente mutuellement bénéfique pendant 54 ans.

      5) Leur collection commune compte plus de 50 000 livres et possède la quatrième plus grande collection de littérature de langue française dans les régions rurales du Manitoba.

      6) Les élèves qui sont transportés par autobus des municipalités voisines qui n'ont pas de bibliothèque publique, comme Niverville, Grunthal et Kleefeld, ont accès gratuitement à la bibliothèque publique, et à sa quatrième plus grande collection de livres en français dans les régions rurales du Manitoba pendant l'année scolaire.

      Nous présentons à l'Assemblée législative du Manitoba la pétition suivante :

      1) De demander au ministre du Travail, de la Protection des consommateurs et des Services gouvernementaux d'envisager de concéder l'auditorium à la B-R-G d'ici le 1er mars 2023 ;

      2) Demander au ministre de l'Éducation de reconnaître la valeur que la B-R-G apporte à la population étudiante de l'EHS, ainsi qu'aux communautés du Village de Saint-Pierre-Jolys et de la MR De Salaberry ;

      3) Demander au ministre de l'Éducation et au ministre des Affaires francophones de reconnaître qu'un protocole d'entente entre la RRVSD et la G-R‑L est mutuellement bénéfique, financièrement et culturellement ;

      4) Demander au ministre du Sport, de la Culture et du Patrimoine de reconnaître le potentiel patrimonial de cet important bâtiment et son statut au sein de la communauté ;

      5) Demander au ministre du Sport, de la Culture et du Patrimoine d'empêcher toute rénovation de l'auditorium qui détruirait et dévaloriserait l'intégrité architecturale du bâtiment.

      Cette pétition a été signée par Carole Beaudry, Danie English et Janique Gauthier.

Translation

I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

The background for this petition is as follows:

(1) The Bibliothèque Régionale Jolys Regional Library was notified by the Red River Valley School Division to vacate premises currently located in the auditorium of the École Heritage School by March 31, 2023.

(2) The auditorium was built in the 1960s by famous Manitoban architect Étienne Gaboury, and it has been home to the G-R-L for 48 years.

(3) A photo of the auditorium captioned the regional library was published in a 2008 document titled significant heritage buildings of De Salaberry and St. Pierre Jolys. It is described as an important modern building that could attain the status of heritage site.

(4) The G-R-L and the RRVSD have flourished by means of a mutually beneficial memorandum of understanding for 54 years.

(5) Their shared collection boasts over 50,000 books and includes the fourth largest collection of French-language literature in rural Manitoba.

(6) During the school year, students who are bused in from neighbouring municipalities that do not have a public library, such as Niverville, Grunthal and Kleefeld, are provided with free access to the public library and its fourth largest collection of French-language literature in rural Manitoba.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

(1) To urge the Minister of Labour, Consumer Protection and Government Services to consider granting the auditorium to the G-R-L by March 1, 2023.

(2) To urge the Minister of Education to recognize the value that G-R-L provides to the student population of  ÉHS, as well as the communities of Village of St. Pierre Jolys and the RM of De Salaberry.

(3) To urge the Minister of Education and the Minister responsible for Francophone Affairs to recognize that a memorandum of understanding between the RRVSD and the G-R-L is mutually, financially and culturally beneficial.

(4) To urge the Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage to recognize the heritage potential of this important building and its status in the community.

(5) To urge the Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage to prevent any renovations to the auditorium that would destroy or devalue the architectural integrity of the building.

This petition was signed by Carole Beaudry, Danie English et Janique Gauthier.

* (14:40)

Home-Care Services

MLA Malaya Marcelino (Notre Dame): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legis­lative Assembly.

      To the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba, the back­ground of this petition is as follows:

      (1) Home-care workers in Manitoba provide skilled and com­pas­sion­ate care that helps better the quality of life for thousands of Manitobans.

      (2) Robust home-care services are proven to reduce the strain on health services and demand for hospital beds.

      (3) Home care reduces the demand for long-term-care beds as it allows people to continue living in their own space.

      (4) Studies show that a third of the 200,000 Canadians living in long-term-care homes could stay home with proper home-care support.

      (5) Investing in home care saves money, as daily services cost half the price of a long-term-care bed and one-seventh the daily cost of a hospital bed.

      (6) The prov­incial gov­ern­ment's cuts to home care in Manitoba has resulted in chronic staffing issues that caused the WRHA to cancel 27,000 home-care ap­point­ments in the month of April 2022 alone.

      (7) Many clients in Manitoba only receive home-care services once a day, whereas other countries such as Denmark offer up to six visits a day.

      (8) Home-care workers in Manitoba are paid poor wages, are offered little benefits, lack sick time and are overworked, resulting in dif­fi­cul­ty retaining and attracting workers.

      (9) Home-care workers have been without a contract since 2017 due to this prov­incial gov­ern­ment's inter­ference in labour negotiations.

      (10) Investing in home care is a proactive approach that would save the Province millions of dollars as well as allow more Manitobans to age in place.

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      To urge the Minister of Health and the Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care to imme­diately in­crease invest­ment in home-care services so that home-care workers can be paid a fair wage and clients can receive the level of service they require.

      This has been signed by Cole Beres [phonetic], Angeleigh Manaois and Demi Manaois and many other Manitobans.

Hearing Aids

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

      The background to this petition is as follows:

      A hearing aid is a battery-powered electronic device designed to improve an individual's ability to perceive sound. Worn in or behind a person's ear, they make some sounds louder, helping people hear better when it's quiet and when it's noisy.

      People who suffer hearing loss, whether due to aging, illness, employment or accident, not only lose the ability to communicate effectively with friends, family or colleagues, they can also experience un­employment, social isolation and struggles with mental health.

      Hearing loss can also impact the safety of an individual with hearing loss, as it affects the ability to hear cars coming, safety alarms, call 911, et cetera.

      A global commission on the state of the research for dementia care and prevention released an updated consensus report in July 2020, identifying 12 key risk factors for dementia and cognitive decline. The strong­est risk factor that was indicated was hearing loss. It was calculated that up to 8 per cent of the total number of dementia cases could potentially be avoided with management of hearing loss.

      Hearing aids are therefore essential to the mental health and well-being of Manitobans, especially to those at significant risk of dementia, Alzheimer's, a disorder of the brain affecting cognition in the ever-growing senior population.

      Audiologists are health-care professionals who help patients decide which kind of hearing aid will work best for them based on the type of hearing loss, patient's age and ability to manage small devices, lifestyle and ability to afford.

      The cost of hearing aids can be prohibitive to many Manitobans, depending on their income and circumstances. Hearing aids cost an average of $995 to $4,000 per ear, and many professionals say the hearing aids only work at their best for five years.

      Manitoba residents under the age of 18 who require a hearing aid, as prescribed by an otolaryn­gologist or audiologist, will receive either an 80 per cent reimbursement from Manitoba Health of a fixed amount for an analog device, up to a maximum of $500 per ear, or 80 per cent of a fixed amount for a digital or analog programmable device, up to a maximum of $1,800. However, this reimbursement is not available to Manitobans who need the device who are over the age of 18, which will result in financial hardship for many young people entering the work­force, students and families. In addition, seniors repre­sen­ting 14.3 per cent of Manitoba's popu­la­tion are not eligible for reimbursement despite being the group most likely in need of a hearing aid.

      Most insurance companies only provide a min­imal­ partial cost of a hearing aid and many Manitobans, especially retired persons, age-old pen­sioners and other low-income earners do not have access to health insurance plans.

      The Province of Quebec's hearing devices pro­gram covers all costs related to hearing aids and assistive-listening devices, including the purchase, repair, and place–re­place­ment.

      Alberta offers subsidies to all seniors, 65 and over, and low-income adults 18 to 64 once every five years.

      New Brunswick provides coverage for the pur­chase and maintenance not covered by other agencies or private health insurance plans, as well as assist­ance for those for whom the purchase would cause financial hardship.

      Manitobans over age 18 are only eligible support for hearing aids if they're receiving Em­ploy­ment and Income Assist­ance, and the reimbursement only provides a maximum of $500 an ear.

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      1) To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to consider hearing loss as a medical treatment under Manitoba Health.

      2) To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to provide income-based coverage for hearing aids to all who need them, as hearing loss has proven to be an essential–to Manitobans–as hearing has been proved to be essential to Manitoba's cognitive, mental and social health and well-being.

      Signed by Ron Halbesma, Elizabeth Toews, Ken Wilks and many others.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I wish to present the following petition to the Legis­lative Assembly.

      The back­ground to this petition is as follows:

      A hearing aid is a battery-powered electronic de­vice designed to improve an individual's ability to perceive sound. Worn in or behind a person's ear, they make some sounds louder, helping people hear better when it's quiet and when it's noisy.

      People who suffer hearing loss, whether due to aging, illness, employment or accident, not only lose the ability to communicate effectively with friends, family or colleagues, they also experience un­employment, social isolation and struggles with mental health.

      Hearing loss can also impact the safety of an individual with hearing loss, as it affects the ability to hear cars coming, safety alarms, call 911, et cetera.

      A global commission on the state of the research for dementia care and prevention released an update consensus report in July 2020, identifying 12 key risk factors for dementia and cognitive decline. The strongest risk factor that was indicated was hearing loss. It was calculated that up to 8 per cent of the total number of dementia cases could potentially be avoided with management of hearing loss.

      Hearing aids are therefore essential to the mental health and well-being of Manitobans, especially to those at significant risk of dementia and Alzheimer's, a disorder of the brain affecting cognition in the ever-growing senior population.

      Audiologists are here–are health-care pro­fes­sionals who help patients decide which kind of hearing aid would work best for them, based on the type of hearing loss, patient's age and ability to manage small devices, lifestyle and ability to afford.

      The cost of hearing aids can be prohibitive to many Manitobans, depending on their income and circumstances. Hearing aids cost on average $995 to $4,000 per ear, and many professionals say that hearing aids only work at their best for five years.

      Manitoba residents under the age of 18 who require a hearing aid, as prescribed by an 'oranlancologist' or audiologist, will receive either an 80 per cent reimbursement from Manitoba Health or a fixed amount for an analog device, up to the maximum of $500 per ear, or 80 per cent of a fixed-income amount for a digital or analog programmable device, up to a maximum of $1,800. However, this reimbursement is not available to Manitobans who need the device who are over the age of 18, which will result in financial hardships for many young people entering the workforce, students and families. In  addition, seniors representing 14.3 per cent of Manitoba's population are not eligible for re­imburse­ment, despite being the group most likely in need of hearing aids.

      Most insurance companies only provide a minimal partial cost of a hearing aid, and many Manitobans, especially retired persons, old-age pensioners and other low-income earners do not have access to health insurance plans.

* (14:50)

      The Province of Quebec's hearing devices program covers all costs related to hearing aids and assistive listening devices, including the purchase, repair and replacement.

      Alberta offers subsidies to all seniors 65 and over and low-income adults 18 to 64 once every five years.

      New Brunswick provides coverage for the purchase and maintenance not covered by other agencies or private health insurance plans, as well as assistance for those whom the purchase would cause financial hardship.

      Manitobans over age 18 are only eligible for support for hearing aids if they are receiving Employment and Income Assist­ance, and the reimbursement only provides a maximum of $500 an ear.

      We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      To urge the provincial government to consider hearing loss as a medical treatment under Manitoba Health.

      And to urge the provincial government to provide income-based coverage for hearing aids to all who need them, as hearing has been proven to be essential to Manitobans' cognitive, mental and social health and wellbeing.

      This petition has been signed by many Manitobans.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other petitions? Seeing none, we will move along.

      Grievances?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(Continued)

GOVERNMENT busi­ness

House Business

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): I'd like to announce that the Standing Commit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment will meet on Wednesday, October 12th, 2022, at 6 p.m. to consider the following: Bill 233, The  Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act; and Bill 237, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment Act (Poppy Number Plates).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been announced by the hon­our­able Gov­ern­ment House Leader that the Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Develop­ment will meet on Wednesday, October 12th at 6 p.m. to consider Bill 233, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amend­ment Act; and Bill 237, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment Act (Poppy Number Plates).

* * *

Mr. Goertzen: In co‑operation with the hon­our­able Op­posi­tion House Leader, I am pleased to table the revised Estimates order.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you be so kind as to resolve the House into Com­mit­tee of Supply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been announced by the hon­our­able Gov­ern­ment House Leader that the House will resolve into the Com­mit­tee of Supply.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the chair.

Committee of Supply

(Concurrent Sections)

Room 254

Seniors and Long-Term Care

* (15:00)

Mr. Chairperson (Dennis Smook): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

      Before we begin, I have a leave request for this section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply. Is there leave to allow the op­posi­tion to sit at the other side of the table to allow them to see the screens that are situated in the room? [Agreed]

      This section of the Committee of Supply will now  resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Seniors and Long-Term Care. Question­ing for this de­part­ment will proceed in a global manner.

      The floor is now open for questions.

      The member for Union Station.

      Does the Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care have some­thing he'd like to say?

Hon. Scott Johnston (Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care): I just, as per yesterday's meeting, I would like to provide further infor­ma­tion to the member, as well as a clari­fi­ca­tion, if you'll allow me.

Mr. Chairperson: Proceed.

Mr. Johnston: As of April–this is in regards to the personal-care-home beds that the member had asked about yesterday. As of April the 1st, 2022, there were 9,513 licensed personal-care-home beds, and I believe I gave that answer accurately yesterday. With the addition of 36 beds with the opening of Rest Haven in the summer, there are 9,549 licensed beds. As of October the 4th, 2022, there were 9,462 beds available for occupancy.

      Beds may not be available due to factors like repairs to infra­structure or outbreaks. As of October the 4th, 2022, there was a 99.4 per cent occupancy, or 9,405 beds were occupied. So I believe that answers the member's question on that parti­cular item.

      And just for clari­fi­ca­tion, I would like to also clarify for the member in regards to my answer yesterday on equity and diversity, I am personally interested in and will endeavour to look into this matter further.

* (15:10)

      As well, I will raise the issue with my colleagues, as it is my under­standing that there are areas such as privacy and process that need to be considered. However, I indicated to the member that I will certainly take the remarks of the minister under con­sid­era­tion.

Mr. Chairperson: Before we continue on, I'd just like to inform the com­mit­tee that we are having some technical dif­fi­cul­ties with the clocks. The clock that I have in front of me is working, but the one that the members see is not. So when the member's or minister's time has come down to one minute remaining, I will wave my little yellow pad in the air to remind you that there's one minute left in your speaking time.

MLA Uzoma Asagwara (Union Station): I thank the minister for provi­ding that infor­ma­tion right off the hop, and for provi­ding the clari­fi­ca­tion around the benchmark data that he will be pursuing. I think that that's a good approach. And I look forward to hearing more from the minister in terms of ensuring that repre­sen­tation is reflected in the data.

      I'd like to ask about personal-care-home beds that were promised by this minister's gov­ern­ment. So, many Manitobans will remember that this gov­ern­ment promised 1,200 new personal-care-home beds. Based on the data the minister has just provided, it's very clear that they have fallen well short of that goal.

      Can the minister explain why there are less beds now that are available for occupancy in our health-care system than when they started?

Mr. Johnston: In answer to the member's question, the reduction is based on the closure of Parkview personal-care home.

MLA Asagwara: Given that Parkview–Revera's Parkview Place has closed, has the minister received notice that any other personal-care homes have also closed or intend to close? And if so, how many beds are involved in those potential closures, or if they've already happened, bed losses due to those closures?

Mr. Johnston: In answer to the member's question, to my knowledge, my de­part­ment has not received any notice of further closure.

MLA Asagwara: I thank the minister for that response. I'll presume that he's also meaning that he hasn't received notice of any pending closures or any closures that are going to be happening in the future, near or otherwise.

Mr. Johnston: Yes, I have not received any notice of further closures.

MLA Asagwara: I thank the minister for provi­ding that clarity. I ap­pre­ciate it.

      In July, the minister launched en­gage­ment on personal-care-home standards. That en­gage­ment has since closed.

      Can the minister tell us when he might put for­ward regula­tory changes as a result of that specific engage­ment?

Mr. Johnston: In answer to the member's question, the standards review was actually an initiative by the Minister of Health (Ms. Gordon). I will indicate that the Stevenson review recom­men­dations that I in­dicated have been adopted by the gov­ern­ment, and my de­part­ment will be imple­men­ting.

* (15:20)

      Our de­part­ment will be working closely with the De­part­ment of Health to ensure that the standards that we adopt will be imple­mented.

MLA Asagwara: I thank the minister for that response.

      I just want to make sure that I'm clear. I'm speaking spe­cific­ally to an an­nounce­ment the gov­ern­ment made in July. The release was sent out July 12th over the summer, saying that they would be engaging citizens regarding the standards of personal-care homes. They were–you were inviting–rather, the minis­ter and the gov­ern­ment were inviting Manitobans to provide feedback on personal‑care-home standards to help the gov­ern­ment better under­stand their perspectives on this topic.

      Can the minister clarify if he's saying that the–that en­gage­ment is spe­cific­ally being dealt with by the Minister of Health or is this en­gage­ment some­thing his de­part­ment was also involved with? Thank you.

Mr. Johnston: Further to the member's question, upon reviewing the July 12th news release, it states that Minister Gordon is initiating the en­gage­ment on personal-care homes, and as I'd indicated in my earlier answer, our de­part­ment is very interested in the results of that en­gage­ment and work very closely–as I'm sure the member can ap­pre­ciate our de­part­ment's relation to Health–and I'm very much looking forward to the results that that en­gage­ment delivers.

      As well, as I have indicated to the member, we are very aggressive in esta­blish­ing the recom­men­dations from the Stevenson report. We do have a steering com­mittee and we are following through on the–all of the recom­men­dations that have been made and are being adopted.

MLA Asagwara: I thank the minister for provi­ding that clari­fi­ca­tion. The minister actually answered a question for me in his response and provided a great deal of clarity, so I do ap­pre­ciate that.

      I have a question now about staffing in personal-care homes, and I've got a few questions around this area that I'd like to put forward to the minister, but I'll start with the fact that the minister announced over the summer that there would be 400 more staff at personal-care homes.

      Can the minister tell us how many ad­di­tional staff have been added? And to be clear, it's really im­por­tant to clarify the ad­di­tional staff that have been added, since the minister identified that 400 ad­di­tional staff would be incorporated into personal-care homes in Manitoba.

      Thank you.

* (15:30)

Mr. Johnston: In answer to the member's question, my de­part­ment is certainly following the progress of the Stevenson steering com­mit­tee, and I am antici­pating hearing an update in November on the staffing situation.

MLA Asagwara: Yesterday, the minister provided me a bit of a breakdown on how the funds–two pots of dollars were spent in regards to personal-care homes: the $32 million in grants and the $21 million in other expenditures.

      And in his response in regards to the $32 million in grants, he talked about $15 million being allocated for infection control and $16 million being allocated for other items, staffing included. And he did make mention of nursing positions and other staffing posi­tions.

      So, given that the minister does seem to have a sense that those funds were allocated to address staffing and to bolster health-care human resources, I'm hoping he can give me a sense, even an approxi­mation, of how many ad­di­tional staffing positions, nursing or otherwise, have been added. If he can't clarify if the 400 more staff target has been achieved, I can ap­pre­ciate that. But if the minister could provide some clarity on just–approximation on how many positions they believe have been added, and perhaps a breakdown on what types of positions. That would be great.

Mr. Johnston: And as I indicated earlier, I am ex­pecting a update in November from the steering com­mit­tee. The regional health author­ities are mobilizing actively to recruit various positions.

MLA Asagwara: Can the minister provide us with staffing number infor­ma­tion for personal-care homes in Manitoba? So, for example, a number–the number of health-care aides, the number of nurses, number of vacancies, et cetera. If the minister could provide that infor­ma­tion for personal-care homes across the province, that would be greatly ap­pre­ciated.

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care.

Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My arms were getting a little tired there, I–thank you.

      In answer to the member's question, in order for the member to receive the most accurate infor­ma­tion in regards to the data that the member is asking for, it would be my sug­ges­tion that this question be referred to the Health De­part­ment. The ac­ces­si­ble data, the member would be best served to receive the infor­ma­tion directly from Health.

* (15:40)

MLA Asagwara: My under­standing, given the minis­ter's mandate and respon­si­bilities, are that he should have access to this infor­ma­tion. While I can ap­pre­ciate that perhaps the minister does not have or might not have access to exactly, you know, perfect infor­ma­tion at this time, I would hope that the minister would have access to infor­ma­tion and data that would at least give him an approximation of what is going on in terms of staffing in the personal-care homes that are–that–where the seniors that he is respon­si­ble for leading their health care and their needs are living and residing.

      So, if the minister is able to provide, again, even approximate data, as much infor­ma­tion as possible in this area, I would ap­pre­ciate it.

Mr. Johnston: As our de­part­ment reviews, certainly, various issues, we do certainly have access to infor­ma­tion.

      However, I would indicate to the member that my initial answer is still my recom­men­dation to the member: to ensure that the infor­ma­tion that is required by the member is best ascertained by the Health Depart­ment.

MLA Asagwara: I thank the minister for that response.

      It is con­cern­ing that the minister will simultan­eously acknowl­edge that he does, in fact, have access to infor­ma­tion as the Minister for Seniors and Long-Term Care, but is unwilling to provide it because he believes I am best served to get that infor­ma­tion from the Minister of Health (Ms. Gordon).

      The minister has an op­por­tun­ity to provide the infor­ma­tion he has available in order to alleviate concerns and questions that are being brought forward on behalf of Manitobans, and this is an area of sig­ni­fi­cance given that we know our health-care system is facing a human resource crisis, one that, during this pandemic, resulted in some catastrophic health-care out­comes for seniors residing in personal-care homes.

      So I don't really understand the minister's ap­proach to this question. If he has the infor­ma­tion available to him, which he's indicated he does, it would, in my mind, serve him very well and his de­part­ment well to provide the infor­ma­tion he does have available. And certainly on my own end, I can pursue further infor­ma­tion from the Minister of Health if there are any other gaps.

      So, again, we are asking these questions on behalf of Manitobans and it's disappointing that the minister is choosing to withhold this very im­por­tant infor­ma­tion regarding staffing infor­ma­tion for personal-care homes. But I am going to move on because the minis­ter has made clear he's going to continue to withhold that infor­ma­tion.

      In June, the minister and the Minister of Health said that the Pro­tec­tion for Persons in Care Office would open an in­vesti­gation into Oakview place Extendicare–a direct quote–upon the conclusion of the criminal in­vesti­gation. End quote.

      Can the minister provide us an update and–in terms of where things are, if they have any infor­ma­tion in regards to the in­vesti­gation and the status of Oakview place?

* (15:50)

Mr. Johnston: I can advise the member that there is an ongoing in­vesti­gation into the situation that the member references.

      The Pro­tec­tion for Persons in Care Office will be giving a report to the Minister of Health (Ms. Gordon) which will be shared with this min­is­try, and upon receiving that report, further initiatives may, in fact, be taken. The Licensing and Compliance branch is also, too, doing an in­vesti­gation, and we'll be looking for the conclusions of that in­vesti­gation also.

MLA Asagwara: Can the minister provide clarity, I–and thank you for that; I thank the minister for that response. The minister says that the PPCO will be provi­ding a report.

      Can the minister clarify if that means that the PPCO is doing their own in­vesti­gation and will pro­vide a report to the Minister of Health which will then be shared with the minister in terms of the results of that in­vesti­gation? I just want to make sure that I'm very clear and that I understand whether or not the PPCO is doing their own in­vesti­gation.

      If the PPCO is not doing their own in­vesti­gation, can the minister clarify then what that report actually is and will be, and why they are not, therefore, doing their own in­vesti­gation at the same time as the criminal in­vesti­gation.

      Thank you.

Mr. Johnston: I can indicate to the member that the PPCO is conducting an in­vesti­gation, and upon the finalization of the in­vesti­gation, there will be a report going to the Minister of Health, who will be sharing it with the Minister of Seniors.

* (16:00)

MLA Asagwara: I thank the minister for provi­ding that clari­fi­ca­tion.

      I do ap­pre­ciate it and I apologize if I missed it in his first response when I initially asked the question, but can the minister provide a timeline for when he anticipates that report will be completed?

Mr. Johnston: In answer to the member's question, I'm not really prepared to speculate on the timing of the results of the in­vesti­gation. I would not try to suggest a minimal or maximum time frame. I will look forward to reviewing the results when it ultimately is brought to the attention to the Minister of Health.

MLA Asagwara: I thank the minister for provi­ding that response.

      That infor­ma­tion is very im­por­tant, as he is well aware. There are families that have been in­cred­ibly harmed by what happened at Oakview place and are certainly deserving of answers to their questions, account­ability and a path forward that we all hope ensures no seniors or elders will ever be subjected to the harms that we've heard reported.

      So, that concludes my questions, and I want to thank the minister for his time in this com­mit­tee.

Mr. Chairperson: Hearing no further questions, we will now proceed to con­sid­era­tion of the reso­lu­tions. At this point, we will allow virtual members to unmute their mics so they can respond to the questions I will now call.

      Reso­lu­tion 34.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $53,668,000 for Seniors and Long‑Term Care, Seniors and Long-Term Care, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      The last item to be considered for these Estimates is item 1(a), the minister's salary, contained in reso­lu­tion 34.1.

      The floor is open for questions.

An Honourable Member: I move that line–

Mr. Chairperson: The–I'm sorry, the member for Union Station.

MLA Asagwara: I move that line item 34.1(a) be amended so that the Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care's (Mr. Johnston) salary be reduced to $21,000.

Motion presented.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any questions or comments on the motion?

      Hearing no questions, is the com­mit­tee ready for the question?

      Shall the motion pass?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Chairperson: I hear a no.

Voice Vote

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say aye.

Some Honourable Members: Aye.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed to the motion, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

      The motion has been defeated.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: The last item to be considered for these Estimates is item 1(a), the minister's salary, contained in reso­lu­tion 34.1.

      Shall the reso­lu­tion pass? [interjection] Oh, sorry, I got to read in the act.

      Be it RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $662,000 for Seniors and Long-Term Care, Executive, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      This completes the Estimates for the De­part­ment of Seniors and Long-Term Care.

      We will take a–the next set of Estimates to be considered by this section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply are for the De­part­ment of Environ­ment, Climate and Parks.

      Shall we briefly recess to allow the minister and critics the opportunity to prepare for the com­mence­ment of the next de­part­ment? [Agreed]

The committee recessed at 4:06 p.m.

____________

The committee resumed at 4:10 p.m.

Mr. Len Isleifson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

Environment, Climate and Parks

The Acting Chairperson (Len Isleifson): Will the Com­mit­tee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply will now consider the Estimates of the De­part­ment of Environ­ment, Climate and Parks.

      Does the hon­our­able minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Environment, Climate and Parks): I do. Great to be here this afternoon. It's my pleasure, again, to be here as the Minister of Environ­ment, Climate and Parks, and the de­part­ment's programs that we deliver, talk about the de­part­ment's programs we deliver within this year's budget.

      I want to state how pleased I am to be the minister of this very diverse de­part­ment that serves Manitobans in numer­ous ways. I would also like to acknowl­edge the senior staff of my de­part­ment that are here with us today, Mr. Chair. And they are Jan Forster, my deputy minister; Matt Wiebe, the execu­tive financial officer and assist­ant deputy minister of Finance and Shared Services Division–that is a long name; Colleen Kachulak, the assist­ant deputy minister of Parks and Trails Division; Shannon Kohler, the assist­ant deputy minister of environ­ment stewardship division; Neil Cunningham, assist­ant deputy minister of Climate and Green Plan Imple­men­ta­tion Office; Elliott Brown, the assist­ant deputy minister of water stewardship division; and my special assist­ant, Erik Selch, who also is joining us today.

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

      At this time–acknowl­edge the hard work of, and the professionalism, of all of our de­part­ment staff. I take my role as minister of the de­part­ment most serious­ly. Our vision is one of a healthy and resilient nature–natural environ­ment where current and future gen­era­tions will prosper.

      This reflects my gov­ern­ment's commitment to balance the needs of Manitobans while protecting the environ­ment, and also sustainably growing our economy, now and in the future. Protecting the environ­ment has been a clear importance this past year as we work on a number of key priorities. Since becoming Minister of the De­part­ment of Environment, Climate and Parks, I have been–I'm pleased to meet a variety of stake­holders, industry repre­sen­tatives and Manitobans, including Indigenous com­mu­nities.

      I and our de­part­ment are committed to listening to Manitobans and to stake­holders' groups to improve services our de­part­ment offers. Despite the challenges of the past couple of years, due to COVID‑19, meeting with individuals and groups from across this great pro­vince, often over by phone or video meetings, but also in person recently, which is a welcome sight, has been key importance for me, and I will continue to do so.

      I want to high­light several priorities, priority areas of work in our de­part­ment as a way to frame the opening of our discussions in com­mit­tee today. Our Made-in-Manitoba Climate and Green Plan sets out a bold vision for Manitoba to become Canada's clean­est, greenest and most climate-resilient province. It includes a variety of tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to changing climate, build a pros­perous green economy that focuses on adding green jobs in Manitoba, protect our valuable waters and conserve our natural environ­ment for both current and future gen­era­tions to enjoy.

      We have begun imple­men­ting our Made-in-Manitoba Climate and Green Plan and have already achieved great success. The intro­duction of our gov­ern­ment's Con­ser­va­tion and Climate Fund had an exceptional year of activity, with a number of pro­posals being approved for funding. Continued increases to the fund showcased our gov­ern­ment's commit­ment to climate action.

      Low-carbon gov­ern­ment office has been esta­blished that works across the organi­zation to support gov­ern­ment of Manitoba de­part­ments and the sum­mary gov­ern­ment's many agencies, so that we can become leaders in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building climate resiliency.

      Manitoba has been able to work with federal gov­ern­ment and other provinces and territories to ensure access to dollars to deliver innovative and green programs and initiatives. For example, the gov­ern­ment of Canada through the Low Carbon Economy Fund, and the gov­ern­ment of Manitoba through Efficiency Manitoba, are each contributing to support natural gas reduction programs offered by Efficiency Manitoba. This is a tangible benefit that will improve Manitoba's energy efficiency and the health of our natural environ­ment.

      In addition, the Climate and Green Plan Imple­men­ta­tion Office has been instrumental in leading the efficiency trucking program, which has been–which has seen the gov­ern­ment of Manitoba contribute to an initiative that reduces greenhouse gas emissions in trans­por­tation sector by providing rebates for fuel-saving tech­no­lo­gy and retrofits for heavy-duty vehicles.

      The de­part­ment continues to develop a multi-pronged approach to modernization of our prov­incial parks. The Park Endowment Fund is a big piece of this and illustrates the commit­ment of our gov­ern­ment to our wonderful prov­incial parks.

      Strategic capital infra­structure im­prove­ments continue to ensure that amenities and facilities that are available to enhance the experience of Manitobans who are increasing their visits to our parks and camp­grounds. Capital spending is targeted to address a variety of priority projects for the benefit of Manitobas–Manitobans and our visitors.

      We launched a study in part­ner­ship with Travel Manitoba to better understand the opportunities we may wish to consider to improve parks in Manitoba. I am looking forward to reviewing and creating–the creative and innovative ideas that may come from this study.

      Our parks are not for sale. Instead, the study will ensure that public invest­ment in parks is secure. Furthermore, our department, in partnership with our de­part­ments and stake­holder groups is focused on dev­elop­ment of our trail strategy that will enhance trails for all Manitobans.

      Trails are critical infrastructure that allow a variety of Manitobans to enjoy the great outdoors and we are committed to delivering a thoughtful and strategic plan. Our prov­incial parks and campgrounds are enjoyed by Manitobans, as well as many, many visitors to our province. Our gov­ern­ment is committed to making prov­incial parks accessible for all.

      In closing, there are many ongoing activities and critical priorities for the department. We are com­mitted to building part­ner­ships and continuing our ongoing discussions and con­sul­ta­tions.

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those comments.

      Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): The annual report for the Manitoba Environ­ment, Climate and Parks for 2021-2022 shows that this Province is going in the wrong direction with underspending and cuts from the year before.

      It is, in fact, this minister's job, more than any other in this gov­ern­ment, to protect the environ­ment, to protect parks and to get his gov­ern­ment to take climate change seriously. Real action is needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and the bottom line is, there is not enough being done by this government.

      We can see by the budget that this gov­ern­ment's gone in the opposite direction. We know that you've dropped transit funding, dragged their feet on North End pollution plant, and, as I talked about earlier today, fought the carbon tax.

      This gov­ern­ment's done virtually nothing to in­crease protected spaces in Manitoba. And this govern­ment is in support of increasing the use of pesticides in this province that we heard from many folks talking in committee that they don't support this, that it increases dangers for health, it increases costs to the health-care system and it's worse for the environ­ment and biodiversity, and it's unfor­tunate that that's the only bill that has even been brought forward by the minister of this de­part­ment.

      So, looking at the budget and the record, I just want to urge this de­part­ment to do more.

      Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the member for those comments.

      Under the Manitoba practice, debate on the minister's salary is the last item considered for a de­part­ment in the Com­mit­tee of Supply. Accordingly, we shall now defer con­sid­era­tion of line item 12.1.(a), contained in reso­lu­tion 12.1.

* (16:20)

      At this time, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask that the minister intro­duce the staff in attendance.

Mr. Wharton: I have intro­duced the staff in my opening comments, so I think we're good.

Mr. Chairperson: According to our rule 78(16), during the con­sid­era­tion of de­part­mental Estimates, questioning for each de­part­ment shall proceed in a global manner with questions put separately on all reso­lu­tions once the official op­posi­tion critic indicates that questioning has concluded.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Ms. Naylor: Thank you for intro­ducing the senior staff that are present here today, Minister.

      Can the minister under­take to give a list of all technical ap­point­ments in his de­part­ment, including names and titles?

Mr. Wharton: Certainly pleased to provide technical officers to the member, and looking forward to also having a more broader discussion on the member from Wolseley's comments about the de­part­ment not moving on climate. I think we're looking forward to challenging that comment today, and certainly we will be doing that in the coming minutes and days, as long we sit.

      I'm happy to report that Erik Selch, Jack Zinger [phonetic] and Jonathan Scarth are technical officers within the de­part­ment.

      Would you like the titles? Special assist­ant, Erik Selch; executive assist­ant to the minister, Jack Zinger [phonetic] and chairperson of Clean Environ­ment Com­mis­sion, Jonathan Scarth.

Ms. Naylor: Can the minister under­take to give an organizational chart that lists all employees and program areas?

Mr. Wharton: I know the member has a copy of the Budget 2022 sup­ple­ment Estimates and expenditures for Manitoba Environ­ment, Climate and Parks. I'll direct the member to page 13, which has a clear chart–an organizational chart that you're referencing.

      That would be, again, page 13.

Ms. Naylor: Can the minister give a list of all current vacancies in the de­part­ment?

Mr. Wharton: Certainly ap­pre­ciate the question from the member from Wolseley.

      Currently, as of August 31st, 2022, there are a total of vacant FTEs of 77.6, and 25 per cent of that number are actually admin­is­tra­tive levels, where the–when the NRND was formed, some of them amalgamated over to our de­part­ment, so I want to make sure I'm giving the member a clear under­standing of what the 77.6 vacancy rate is. And again, to the total complement, it's about 16 per cent of our total complement of staff, full-time staff right now, FTEs.

Ms. Naylor: Can the minister–you don't–not to explain every one of those vacancies in detail, but can the minister give me an overview of what de­part­ments and positions where these vacancies, in general, are?

* (16:30)

Mr. Wharton: I know the member knows I–and I will give the member a little bit of a preamble; I know she's familiar with it.

      Right across every sector, it doesn't matter where you are, or what–who you employ or how you try to employ, whether it be the food sector or service sector or retail sector or pro­fes­sional sector, finding em­ployees, FTEs, right now, is one of the most difficult challenges that busi­nesses have, gov­ern­ments have. We're certainly not immune to those issues, and I wanted to make sure that the member understood that and that that is the reality.

      We find that a lot of the breakdown–again, 25 per cent was admin­is­tra­tive, but the rest are spread out through­out de­part­ments–but the bottom line is that some in rural, for instance, were recruiting regularly but, again, trying to find folks that want to work and come to work has been a challenge, not only for gov­ern­ment but for Manitobans–Manitoba employers at large.

Ms. Naylor: I can certainly ap­pre­ciate the issues with hiring at this time. So I just want to confirm that there's not a high concentration of vacancies in any one position or any one part of the province.

Mr. Wharton: Right.

Ms. Naylor: Can the minister explain, looking at page 33 of the report, why the amount spent in 2021‑22, $157,430,000, is less than half of the last year's budget?

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able Minister of Environ­ment, Climate and Parks.

Mr. Wharton: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, ap­pre­ciate that.

      And thank you for the question. We have a very good breakdown for you. Are you ready? Okay.

      So, $323 million. You're wondering why there was a difference, a discrepancy from '20‑21 fiscal to '21-22. I have the answer.

      We had a one-time write-up for orphaned and abandoned mines to the tune of $160 million. As you know, our gov­ern­ment is very proactive in ensuring that we get this–these issues cleared up, and we've taken action, and that's exactly what we're doing. That one-time write-up has given us the op­por­tun­ity to go ahead and do that.

      We also have a $20-million write-up, as well, for a parks endowment fund. You're probably aware of that too. As you know, we had an an­nounce­ment back in late August on the endowment fund where we funded over 64 projects, and these are making differences within our prov­incial parks. I can tell you I had the op­por­tun­ity to walk out on one of the mobi-mats in Birds Hill at the Birds Hill Lake. And, wow, what an op­por­tun­ity for Manitobans, especially Manitobans with dis­abil­ities, to enjoy our beautiful parks, our lakes and really get out there and enjoy sometimes short summers, but the summers that we all enjoy.

      So, I hope that answers the question for the member. It certainly puts us back to where we were in fiscal '21-22.

Ms. Naylor: I'm not sure I entirely understood, but that's okay. What I'd like to know is, you're talking about ad­di­tional projects for parks and making parks more ac­ces­si­ble, but spending spe­cific­ally on parks and trails in '21-22 was 18‑and‑a‑half million less than the prior fiscal year.

      So why has the–why and how is the gov­ern­ment cutting spending on parks and trails?

* (16:40)

Mr. Wharton: Again, earlier I talked about the endowment fund that our gov­ern­ment started to–as we had to look at ways to ensure that our parks could be sus­tain­able and could–we could recog­nize continued growth and invest­ment within our parks. We–our gov­ern­ment started the endowment fund, the parks endowment fund.

      So just to give a little more context to the member: again, it was launched in 2021 with an initial invest­ment of $20 million. The Prov­incial Parks Endowment Fund is expected to generate approxi­mately $1 million per year to help enhance visitors' experiences in Manitoba prov­incial parks. Priorities for the fund are deter­mined through a process involv­ing en­gage­ment with citizens and stake­holders.

      So, again, it's engaging Manitobans, and Manitobans wanted more invest­ment in their parks. This gives them a sus­tain­able, generational invest­ment going forward through the endowment fund of $20 million. So it was booked in March 31st, 2021, and now continues to generate revenue for infinitum. So there you go.

Ms. Naylor: I'm going to ask a little bit more about that, and I ap­pre­ciate you taking the time to explain it to me. I'm not that familiar with the endowment fund and how that works. So I'm glad to hear that that's in place.

      But I'm still trying to understand; regardless of the endowment fund, it's very clear that the budget was underspent by over $18 million this year compared to what was spent the previous year. While looking at the Parks and Trails budget, the actual amount spent in '20-21 was over $51 million and in '21-22 was $37 million.

      So I'm trying to understand if the endowment fund is some­thing separate and in addition to what–to the budget, and if so, why is the money coming from an endowment fund but being underspent in the de­part­ment? And maybe I'm just–yes; I could use an explanation.

Mr. Wharton: I'll see if I can help a little bit on two fronts. An endowment fund is like a savings account. So at 5 per cent at $20 million, you should recog­nize $1 million a year. So that endowment fund was booked in fiscal 2021, March 31st. That is a book entry of $20 million.

      That doesn't mean you're going to show $20 million on your books every year. What you're going to show is a revenue generated on that $20 million. So that happens to be, this year, about $1.1 million. So, as interest rates and returns go up, that $20 million will generate more revenue. Again, as we go forward, hopefully we're up to 10 per cent, where we're, you know, we're looking at returns that are double the–what they are now.

      So, in essence, that's how it works and I hope that explains it to you.

Ms. Naylor: Thank you for that explanation. I know we have a second day we get to do this, so I will do my best to understand it more fully if–in case I have follow-up questions before then.

      So, I'm going to just ask now about the under­spending for Environ­mental Stewardship, that there's a sig­ni­fi­cant decrease in spending between–from the 2021‑22 budget from 2020 to 2021. And that is a decrease; it's about 25 per cent, right, has been–it's less than 25 per cent was spent in the most recent fiscal year. So, can the minister explain that?

Mr. Wharton: Just some clarity, if I may. On page 39, section 12.3, I believe you're asking–and I just wanted clarity so I can get you the response–Other Expenditures: thirty-four-six-eighty-two; 195,600. Is that the line that you're looking at? It would be under D, just below D, Salaries and Other Expenditures.

Ms. Naylor: I'm actually looking at page 33, Environmental Stewardship, with the actuals for 2021-22 and 2020-2021.

Mr. Wharton: Again, thank you for the question and the clarity. Again, this question refers to the orphaned and abandoned mine book entry. So, essentially, then, what we did was we booked $160 million to tackle the issue that was left unchecked for many years, under the former gov­ern­ment.

      And we now have on our books a liability to en­sure, though, that we can spend up to that $160 million as we go forward. So, the next fiscal, on a go-forward, gets us back to where we were in previous years, with an account of about 45 thousand–million, sorry, $45 million.

      And also, Mr. Chair, if I may. And also, too, member from Wolseley, glad to invite you to our office to sit down, go through it in more detail with our team any time after we get through Estimates so we can have a full under­standing for you, and present, if you wish. We can take that offline later.

      Thank you.

Ms. Naylor: Thank you. I thank the minister for that explanation and invitation.

      On the same line of questioning, I wanted to ask why Water Stewardship was nearly $4 million less was spent in this most recent fiscal year than in the previous one?

* (16:50)

Mr. Wharton: Under Water Stewardship there are two areas that I'd like to share with the member. One was a $2.5‑million watershed district capacity fund. It's basically a trust, again, a one-time invest­ment in the fiscal 2021. And also $1‑million water strategy fund, essentially working–as we know, we're working towards a water strategy that hasn't been done for 20 years. As a matter of fact, it was done in 2003, so we're pleased to be moving forward with that, and that would represent $1 million for the water strategy fund.

      So, you'll notice then, much like the orphan and abandoned scenario and the other $20 million that we talked about earlier for the parks endowment fund you'll see that we've gone back now to where we were in prior years. We're spending 'mon'–parks.

Ms. Naylor: Is the minister in the process of developing an energy policy for the Manitoba gov­ern­ment?

Mr. Wharton: I thank the member from Wolseley for the question. And certainly, yes, we are working on an energy strategy, right here in Manitoba.

      We've engaged Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors, or Dunsky, to develop our long-term energy strategy. They have done en­gage­ment–broader en­gage­ment than any other juris­dic­tion in Canada to date, and we're looking forward to continuing to get infor­ma­tion from them.

      At that point, once we have the report, certainly I'll have the op­por­tun­ity in the de­part­ment to get the advice from Dunsky that they've gathered in this very large en­gage­ment with stake­holders.

      And then, at that point, we're going to put it out to Manitobans, as we do. And we're going to engage Manitoba to get feedback from Manitobans.

      And then certainly, once we get that and put it all together, then that certainly will be a report that'll drive us towards net zero by 2050.

Ms. Naylor: I thought that was a yes or no question, but I ap­pre­ciate the full detail that you provided. I'm still going to ask some questions to ask you to expand on it, and I understand that we're going to run out of time before you can answer.

      But my next question is if you can say more about the scope of the energy policy and if it will include Crown cor­por­ations like Manitoba Hydro.

Mr. Wharton: As I mentioned in my preamble–my long preamble and explanation, Dunsky has engaged with–well, again, the largest en­gage­ment, which would include all sectors–public, private, right through­­out Manitoba. So, I can assure the member that we–we're well on our way.

Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., com­mit­tee rise.

Room 255

Families

* (14:50)

Mr. Chairperson (Brad Michaleski): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will now consider the Estimates of the Department of Families.

      Does the hon­our­able minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Families): I'm very pleased to be here in Com­mit­tee of Supply for the De­part­ment of Families. It is a real honour to lead this de­part­ment.

      And before I get into some of the highlights of the de­part­ment's initiatives, I do just want to say thank you so much to the staff, many of whom you'll meet as we go through­out the process and many of whom are here today.

      But to really em­pha­sis and stress the gratitude that I feel for their initiatives each and every day, it is arguably one of the tougher de­part­ments in gov­ern­ment. We're dealing with very vul­ner­able individuals and families and working under extreme pressure at times, and yet each and every time, de­part­ment staff have always risen to the task at hand.

      Whether it is trying to find housing for people who are out of their com­mu­nity because of a forest fire or a flood, or are fleeing their war‑ravaged country. Whether it is finding supports for women and children who are fleeing domestic violence. Whether it is trying to support people who are able‑bodied in very unique and special ways. Whether it is trying to find housing for people under complex circum­stances, or supporting children in care and trying to help them reunify with their families.

      These are–none of these are easy challenges, and the De­part­ment of Families rises every time to con­tinue to serve the people of Manitoba, and I am eternally grateful for their service and their support.

      I do want to high­light a few of the things that our de­part­ment has under­taken in the last year. I won't be able to get to it all in the time that is allotted to me, but I do want to high­light and go right to some of the supports that we've done for persons with dis­abil­ities this year, as I know that that is an area that op­posi­tion has indicated they would like to hear from today.

      And so, I just want to put on the record that Budget '22 provides an ad­di­tional $26.4 million for the Com­mu­nity Living disABILITY Services pro­gram that our gov­ern­ment was very pleased to an­nounce earlier this year. And at that time, we had many advocates in the dis­abil­ity com­mu­nity express their ap­pre­cia­tion, and one of them said that it was the largest infusion of cash into the dis­abil­ity sector in over 20 years.

      So these funds will ensure that adults with an intellectual dis­abil­ity will continue to be supported to pursue the goals they have identified through in­dividualized planning, including skills dev­elop­ment to foster greater in­de­pen­dence, em­ploy­ment and job training and engaging in social activities in the com­mu­nity.

      Budget '22 also provides 26–or, $16.4 million to new parti­ci­pants to access the Com­mu­nity Living disABILITY Services, as we understand the im­port­ance of supporting our service providers to recruit and retain highly skilled front‑line workers in the adult dis­abil­ities services sector.

      To ensure that safe and reliable service continues to be provided, we took steps to stabilize this im­por­tant workforce, with the $10-million initiative to in­crease wages paid to front-line staff employed by our service-provider partners across the province. These new invest­ments build upon the projects that our gov­ern­ment committed to supporting in 2021.

      In December, the Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Task Force completed a very com­pre­hen­sive review of services for adults with intel­lectual dis­abil­ities. The task force's final report is called the–pathways to dignity: the rights, safeguards, planning and decision making, and it explored issues related to services to adults with intellectual dis­abil­ities and made recom­men­dations in 16 key areas. Our gov­ern­ment is committed to imple­men­ting these re­com­men­dations and release a two-year imple­men­ta­tion plan to support this im­por­tant work.

      I do want to thank everybody who was on that task force, including the chair of that task force who was none other than Dale Kendall, who was very instrumental 25 years ago in bringing about the legis­lation to support vul­ner­able persons, and so it was very sentimental to have him full-circle come around and lead the 25 year–lead a 25-year review.

* (15:00)

      As a first step towards imple­men­ting some of the  recom­men­dations, our gov­ern­ment provided $775,000 for two im­por­tant pilot projects to support and develop in­de­pen­dence for adults with an intellectual dis­abil­ity. For that first project, we pro­vided $100,000 to Inclusion Winnipeg to deliver person‑centred training in the dis­abil­ity support sector across Manitoba, including direct service workers and agencies and com­mu­nity service workers in the de­part­ment.

      The second project, we provided $675,000 to the 120 Maryland Group, a col­lab­o­ration of five pro­minent dis­abil­ity services and advocacy organi­zations in Manitoba to develop peer support networks for families over two years to promote the use of com­mu­nity‑based assisted decision making.

      Our gov­ern­ment had also launched a two‑year pilot project that will provide long‑term, out‑of-home respite care for families who require more com­pre­hen­sive support but do not wish to place their children into the care of Child and Family Services. I re­member saying at the time that nothing could be more heartbreaking than a family needing to assign care of their child over to CFS so that they could receive the supports that they needed, which is what the historical system had left families feeling the need to do.

      And so, this bridge program is a way to allow families to stay together and provide some of those longer term respite initiatives with an $8-million invest­ment in keeping families together and provi­ding support for those children and youth with complex dis­abil­ities.

      We also announced a $4.8-million out-of-home respite project to continue supporting the needs of families caring for children with complex needs.

      As the Minister respon­si­ble for Ac­ces­si­bility, I am pleased to also provide an update on the imple­men­ta­tion of The Ac­ces­si­bility for Manitobans Act, which calls on organi­zations to identify, remove and prevent barriers that affect nearly one in four Manitobans with dis­abil­ities.

      As you're likely aware, we've enacted three accessibility standards for customer service, em­ploy­ment and infor­ma­tion and com­muni­cations, which were developed with the assist­ance from stake­holders repre­sen­ting busi­nesses, munici­palities and the dis­abil­ity com­mu­nity. The ac­ces­si­ble customer service standard has been in place since 2015, and we just completed the five-year review on that.

      The third standard for ac­ces­si­ble infor­ma­tion and com­muni­cation just came into force on May the 1st of 2022, and it's–it primarily removes barriers to content and interactions that are accessed electronically, parti­cularly through websites. As with our other standards, the de­part­ment will provide policy handbooks, templates and webinar pre­sen­ta­tions for free at accessibilitymb.ca to encourage and–compliance from all impacted busi­nesses and stake­holders. Standards respecting ac­ces­si­ble trans­por­tation and the design of public spaces are being developed, and we anticipate their enactment in 2023.

      Stake­holders wishing to comply with ac­ces­si­bility standards often need financial assist­ance, and in response to that our gov­ern­ment had created the Manitoba Ac­ces­si­bility Fund to provide annual sus­tain­able grants for initiatives to promote the principles of ac­ces­si­bility. We thank The Winnipeg Foundation for hosting the $20-million endowment with an annual working capital that will initially average $775,000 a year.

      I was very pleased earlier this year to host the very first award ceremony where 30 suc­cess­ful organi­zations received grants from that Manitoba Ac­ces­si­bility Fund that was very much needed and supported for non-profit organi­zations and munici­palities to receive funding to upgrade their busi­nesses, their–and their service offerings so that there would be no barriers, that all Manitobans could access them.

      And so, those are just a few of the highlights in regards to dis­abil­ity services that we are provi­ding. And I'll just conclude my opening statement with work that is ongoing right now, and that is the creation of the new dis­abil­ity income support program where we are in the process of moving all of our EIA clients who have severe and prolonged dis­abil­ities into this new Dis­abil­ity Income Support Program so that they will no longer need to continuously go back to their service worker and confirm that they have a dis­abil­ity in order to receive that benefit.

      And we think that it is very positive that The Disabil­ity Support Act and–received royal assent and that these initiatives are under way, and we certainly look forward to having this transition of clients on this new income support program.

      So, with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know I only covered one small area of my de­part­ment, and–but I'm certain we will touch on the other very im­por­tant initiatives in housing, EIA transformation and child wel­fare transformation in further questions.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those comments.

      Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Mrs. Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): So, thank you to the minister for that. I ap­pre­ciate, you know, the work that you do because I know that a lot of the work that you do are–you know, is some­thing that you're very passionate about; you've been through and certainly have ex­per­ience with, and I know you know your file.

      So I just want to put a few words on the record just in regard to, you know, some of the things that we're seeing right now in our city, in our province in terms of, like, housing.

      We see a lot of social housing boarded up, in­cluding the social housing that I used to live in, which is 4-711 Dufferin. There's, like, four units out of 10 that are boarded up. And we have a homelessness issue here in our province which, you know, is putting women at risk. And we've certainly seen in the last week, you know, a homeless woman be burned to death and, you know, we don't want to see those types of things happening. And we're hoping that, you know, we're going to ask some questions about that and what is the Province doing to make sure that those units are getting fixed so that families can be in them.

      And–as well as–we're hearing, on the doorsteps, people are moving out of social housing because they're riddled with bedbugs, they're riddled with cockroaches, they're being overrun by people that are not on–not occupants of the apartment buildings, which has made it unsafe for, whether it's seniors or young families, or the everyday Manitoban. And rents are really expensive in Manitoba, and people have no alter­na­tive but to live in social and affordable housing.

      We haven't seen any new units built, so that's another question we'll be asking about and talking about a strategy, whether, you know, this gov­ern­ment is planning to ensure that we're building housing to meet the needs of Manitobans. We know that there is another shelter opened at–on Sutherland–or, not on Sutherland–on Higgin–Disraeli, sorry: 190 Disraeli, and that has met some of the need, but it's certainly not a sus­tain­able need. We need to be building more social housing and not building more shelters.

      And certainly, we've heard from women that are in these shelters that they feel unsafe, that there's no space for them. And we see people all over this pro­vince, you know, carting around their belongings in a shopping cart, which is, you know, not humane for them–doesn't give them any dignity, and we've all seen it. We're coming to winter, and I know as we walk out of this building, the Manitoba Legislature, there is always people in both of these bus shelters. And as the cold weather's coming, we need to really have a plan. So I'm looking to, you know, this gov­ern­ment, to ensure that we don't have people that are sleeping in these bus shelters, that they have an alter­na­tive, and especially our women, so that they're not being exploited.

      And we know that there's families, as well, that are now becoming homeless because they can't afford the rents. They can't afford the increase in food. They can't afford the increase in hydro. And it's forcing people to couch surf. People aren't on leases, so they're getting warnings about, you know, vacating, and they have nowhere to go. There's no shelters for families unless someone has been a victim of domes­tic violence, and that needs to change. So, certainly, we need to be looking at what are we doing around housing.

      Another issue that I've heard from a lot of agencies is the block funding, or the basket funding that they receive that–it's–they're being underfunded, and they're not able to serve the needs of all the families that need to be served.

      We've certainly heard from families who have opened their doors and taken in their family members, many of whom, you know, are working two jobs just to support their own family and are expected to, you know, care for one, two, five children without getting any support from the gov­ern­ment. So, we think this is the wrong approach that we should be supporting.

* (15:10)

      We know that they're given health care for the first six months. And often, these families, you know, may be working in precarious jobs where they don't have health care, which leaves children not able to access dentistry, not able to get, you know, access to optometrists, like things like that.

      So–and it's putting children at risk. There is so many children that are in need of health–mental health supports, that's another area that agencies have been talking to us about that they don't have the funding to be able to provide these supports, whether it's a psychologist or a clinician; that the dollars aren't there to support these kids.

      The other thing is, I know Bill C-92 is coming in and, you know, we're starting to see com­mu­nities take on that work, like Peguis. But we need to ensure that the supports are there and we're working col­lab­o­ratively to ensure that that hand-off is not just a here you go. But how do we make sure that all of those children's are–needs are met and that the things are in place that need to be in place for those children?

      Daycare–we've certainly heard from–and I know the minister has probably heard from daycare pro­viders that they were given the subsidy and ex­pected to disburse them. They didn't have the staffing to be able to do that. Every single person who applied for subsidy–or didn't, whether they were in need of it, were given it, which is an unfair practice because if I make $100,000, I have one child and I apply for the subsidy because I'm told to apply for the subsidy, I automatically receive that subsidy, which takes away from families who actually need the subsidy.

      So, you know, I know that subsidy's come to an end now. There was three months of it, but then–now families are left with how do I pay, you know, for my daycare fees when every­thing else has gone up? And, you know, three months was great but there needs to be a longer-term solution to that and ensuring that the people who need the subsidies get the subsidies.

      Dis­abil­ities–we've heard from a number of folks and certainly The Dis­abil­ity Support Act has put folks in precarious positions where if they're diabetic and they have a special diet, they've been cut off from that diet. We've written letters to the minister in regards to some of these cases, doctors have written support letters to say that these folks need long-term access to dis­abil­ity and that it's a life-long struggle for them and that they require special diets, but yet these folks have still not been able to access. So, we will be asking a lot of questions around that.

      OFE is another area and, you know, we recog­nize that people need to gain skills to get into the work­force. This is a band-aid solution. We need longer-term access to training programs for folks. I know a number of my family have gone through the OFE program and it's basically they come in, they are put on a computer and they're looking for a job, whether they have skills or not. And that's–that creates a revolving door for a lot of folks because they get into a position where they're not qualified and they end up not being able to continue that job because they don't have the ability to. And there's no option for them but to go back on EIA, which means they have to apply and it takes about six weeks for people to get on EIA. You have to call, make an appointment, someone calls you back, and that's another area–if you don't even have a phone or you don't even have a home, you're going to sit at the shelter and waiting for a phone call because that's the only place that–the number you can give.

      So, it's certainly put a lot of strain on folks that are seeking shelter benefits to get out of these shelters, but also to get the skills that they need to get out of what we call the welfare wall. So, longer term programs that actually support people to get into the workforce and making sure that they have the skills to do the job.

      The other thing is when they do get a job or they are called for an interview, they aren't given any extra funds. And I know when I was on EIA and I was getting into the workforce, there was a fund that you could apply to for work clothes. And that's super important for people, especially if you're going into the construction industry, you have to have work boots. They're not going to allow you to come and work unless you have steel-toe boots. I certainly wouldn't want to go to an interview in clothes that perhaps, you know, I'm living in a shelter and I don't have access to, you know, laundry every day and I've been wearing these clothes for a few days.

      So, certainly, setting an example and making sure that people are able to get into these jobs with the skills that they need.

      And lastly, you know, I just want to note that this, you know, this portfolio was held by Danielle Adams, and as December comes, you know, that we re­member, you know, our colleague that, unfor­tunately, passed away on Highway 6 and that was–she was very passionate about housing, daycare–

Mr. Chairperson: The member's time has expired. Is there leave for–

An Honourable Member: Leave.

Mr. Chairperson: Leave is granted.

Mrs. Smith: Yes, just that, you know, we want to make sure that we're honouring her and bring–con­tinuing to do the work that she was so passionate about. And we look forward to working with the minister, and I know that the minister is very know­ledgeable about questions we'll be asking.

      So, miigwech.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the member for those comments.

      Under Manitoba practice, debate on the minister's salary is the last item considered for a de­part­ment in the Committee of Supply. Accordingly, we shall now defer con­sid­era­tion of line item 9.1.(a), contained in reso­lu­tion 9.1.

      At this time, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask the minister to intro­duce the staff in attendance.

Ms. Squires: First of all, I'm very pleased that I have deputy minister Michelle Dubik in the De­part­ment of Families. She is not here today, she is–she'll be joining us, probably, on subsequent meetings at Com­mit­tee of Supply.

      I do have, to my left, Catherine Gates, who is the acting deputy minister, and she is also the assist­ant deputy minister respon­si­ble for Com­mu­nity Services Delivery division. I also have Heidi Wurmann, who is the assist­ant deputy minister respon­si­ble for Corporate Services division, and Brenda Feng, who is my assist­ant deputy minister respon­si­ble for the Admin­is­tra­tion and Finance division. And against the wall we have Christina Moody, who is the assist­ant deputy minister respon­si­ble for the Child and Youth Services Division.

      And we have Elizabeth Debicka, who is the assist­ant deputy minister of Child and Youth Services–[interjection]–Indigenous Governing Bodies. My apolo­gies, Elizabeth recently had a title change, but we have this newly created assist­ant deputy minister position. I'm very pleased to have Elizabeth in that role.

      Joining us later will be Dwayne Rewniak, who is the acting chief executive officer respon­si­ble for Manitoba Housing and Renewal Cor­por­ation.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Minister, for those intro­ductions, and welcome, everybody.

      According to our rule 77(16), during the con­sid­era­tion of de­part­mental Estimates, questioning for each de­part­ment shall proceed in a global manner, with questions put separately on all reso­lu­tions once the official op­posi­tion critic indicates that questioning has concluded.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mrs. Smith: The minister, as I understand it, has taken the existing dis­abil­ity program and dividing it into three things: (1) a new dis­abil­ity support program for those with a permanent dis­abil­ity lasting longer than a year; (2) a newly named medical barriers to full em­ploy­ment program; (3) those who might have a dis­abil­ity lasting less than a year.

* (15:20)

      Can the minister take us through these three and give us a better under­standing of how each of them will work?

Ms. Squires: I ap­pre­ciate the question from the mem­bers opposite on the dis­abil­ity income support pro­gram. And our gov­ern­ment was really pleased to pass this legis­lation last year and begin the work on creating this new program for people with dis­abil­ities.

      And the first categories–the severe and prolonged dis­abil­ity category–these are for individuals who are anticipating having a dis­abil­ity that will last well into the future, that they are likely going to not have any changes in their physical well-being year over year. And so, by moving them over to the severe and pro­longed category, we're not only increasing their benefits–and those are spelled out in the regula­tions that we're consulting on right now.

      I believe we just undertook a 45-day consultation period that concluded just recently on what that income-support program would look like in terms of the monetary amounts included in there. And I look forward to concluding that process and finalizing that category. And so these are people that will no longer need to go to a doctor and get that sort of medical note and then meet with their service provider and explain that they are still requiring the dis­abil­ity income support.

      We thought that it wasn't very dignified for people that have severe and prolonged dis­abil­ities to have to go to a doctor year over year and then confirm their dis­abil­ity with their worker year over year over year. So we received a lot of feedback from com­mu­nity when we were consulting on this legis­lation and on this initiative and, generally, it was very well-perceived.

      The second category is medical barriers to full em­ploy­ment. And these are people that are ex­per­iencing episodic dis­abil­ities and will not be able to engage in a work program and anticipate their im­pairment lasting up to a year or longer. And they will be in that category.

      And then the other category are people who do not have a full dis­abil­ity that is expected to last a year or more. And they will be eligible to continue re­ceiving the regular EIA assist­ance, but yet they will have their work ex­pect­a­tion deferred if it is required, and they will receive general supports through that program.

      I would like to just high­light that this year alone–or, just recently, our gov­ern­ment had increased the EIA basic rate for people in the general assist­ance category. This is a rate that hadn't been increased since 2004, and even at that, it had been–it had increased nominally since previous years.

      And I often think back to my own experiences when I was on EIA in 1989 and 1990, and the rate as it was set in 1990 and the rate that it was set up until we basically had received this–received–or provided this increase, had only grown incrementally by a few dollars.

      And I think about what it would be like to have no increase in your annual household income since 1990 and what that has done to families. And we certainly do recog­nize that it has created sig­ni­fi­cant challenges and struggles for people who are–that have barriers to em­ploy­ment, who are not able to achieve in­de­pen­dence and who rely on the social safety net for their monthly income.

      And so the increase that we had provided that came into effect on October 1st was the first of its kind since October 1st. And we know that we still have many, many more steps to go to lifting people out of poverty, but placing it into context, I think all of us in this room can agree that if we hadn't received any income–or any increases to our household income since 1990, we'd all be in a far worse position.

      And with those thoughts, I certainly look forward to future questions from the critic.

Mrs. Smith: I'm wondering if the minister can elaborate on the permanent dis­abil­ity: some examples of what a permanent dis­abil­ity would be, episodic dis­abil­ity would be, and then, the third, like, lasting less than a year.

* (15:30)

Ms. Squires: Under the severe and prolonged dis­abil­ity category, for example, all of our CLDS clients will automatically be enrolled in the severe and prolonged dis­abil­ity category, as well as people with permanent intellectual dis­abil­ities, people who, for example, are receiving the CPP dis­abil­ity benefit, someone under the age of 65 that's living in a personal-care home. They would be automatically enrolled in the program.

      Someone with a long-term dis­abil­ity that we know that a full recovery is, you know, been deter­mined by a medical expert to likely not happen within the year or longer, such as a diagnosis of schizo­phrenia or another long-lasting impairment; they would be subject to the medical–the severe and pro­longed dis­abil­ity category. And again, a lot of it will be subject to a doctor's assessment.

      The medical barriers to full em­ploy­ment would be, for example, undergoing–a client who is under­going medical treatment that is expected to last a year or longer. A long-term cancer treatment plan, that sort of thing would allow them to be in that category. And then in the short term, in the other category where work ex­pect­a­tions are being deferred, but otherwise they're in the regular EIA assist­ance category, those would be individuals that have a short-term recovery time as they're recovering from a surgery–or, rather, a short-term ailment and they're anticipated to be re­covered in a, you know, short-term period. And again, all that is subject to that–in that parti­cular category that would be subject to a doctor's assessment.

Mrs. Smith: I'm wondering if the minister can tell us if addictions and mental health would fall under any of those categories, because we see psychosis–you know, we see all spectrums of folks when they're–you know, whether it's mental health breakdown and they can't work or, you know, they've–they're–they have an addiction and they might be in shelter and we're trying to get them, you know, on EIA, and there's so many barriers to that.

      If they would be considered as, I guess, a newly named medical barrier to full em­ploy­ment program or if say some­body that was–that has diabetes, whether that would fall under category 1 or category 2 or where they would fall because we know diabetes is not some­thing that, you know, folks recover from, and they do have a special diet and–and again, many folks are at different spectrums on–with diabetes.

      I had a con­stit­uent who had to have the ambulance called on them because their diet was cut and they went to the bank to take money out and they collapsed at the bank machine. And someone came in, found them, called the ambulance, they were taken. Their sugar levels were low because they weren't, you know, having–they didn't have the extra funds to have a proper diet.

      So we see a number of cases like that, so I'm wondering if, again, mental health, addictions and, as well as diabetes, where they would fall under that–those categories.

Ms. Squires: Thanks–I thank the critic for the question.

      And for starters, I want to confirm that all the health benefits extended to people on EIA who are now moving into the dis­abil­ity income support program will remain the same, in terms of funds for the special diet, access to prescription drugs, the dental benefits.

      That will carry over for whatever category of dis­abil­ity benefit that person qualifies for. In regards to assessing somebody who has a parti­cular dis­abil­ity, such as diabetes that the member had referenced, or people ex­per­iencing addictions and are in a long-term recovery program or ex­per­iencing mental illness.

      So we are in the process of developing an assess­ment tool with the expert guidance of medical pro­fes­sionals as well as the com­mu­nity, to create an assess­ment tool that will not only be allowing us to continue with a person-centred approach and really taking that to a new level, where we are being able to uniquely esta­blish an individual's needs, and assess their needs and put them in the program that best suits their needs.

      And that is what I mean when I say a person-centred approach, but we also need to esta­blish some baseline or a continuity, so that people would also have an ex­pect­a­tion that they would, if somebody else had received a benefit based on criteria that–and they met that similar criteria, they too would receive that same level of service, or that benefit category.

      And so this assessment tool, which as I said is in the process of being developed, will really help pro­vide that person-centred approach, but also a con­sistent methodology as we are making assessments and eligibility–esta­blish­ing eligibility for entrance into the programs.

Mrs. Smith: Just a point of clari­fi­ca­tion.

      So, I understand that it's a person-centred ap­proach, but if a person has diabetes and they require a special diet, and they've been removed out of any of these categories, they're no longer receiving the funds for a special diet. Should we not have another cate­gory so that those folks, that perhaps might be able to work, or are working part-time supplementing their income, so that they can have the extra funds to be able to get their special diet, take care of their health, and not worry about, you know, their sugars going low? And maybe they can work but not full-time, but they still need assist­ance.

* (15:40)

      And then the other clari­fi­ca­tion I wanted to know. The minister said that they–if the person was in long-term recovery programs. Many folks can't get there because they're not even on EIA and there's barriers.

      So, if a person was–had an addiction, they weren't in a recovery program, are they still able to access any of these three categories?

Ms. Squires: So, in regards to the special diet, which is a benefit of–a range between $27 and $171 a month benefit, any individual, any client on EIA or the dis­abil­ity incomes support program, if they qualify for any category of support, they are eligible to also receive the top-up benefit for their special diet of between $27 and $171 a month for parti­cular medical needs.

      And if they're having a barrier to accessing that benefit, if there's a specific con­stit­uent that the mem­ber is thinking of in posing this question, I'd be certainly more than happy to look into doing a case review or having the de­part­ment do a case review to see what could be done to ensure that the person re­ceives the benefit that they are eligible for that would prevent traumatic incidents like not receiving the food that they need to maintain ap­pro­priate blood-sugar levels. So, I'd be more than happy to look into that specific case for the member.

      But all EIA clients are eligible if they have the special require­ments because of a dis­abil­ity like diabetes, then they would be eligible for the special diet sup­ple­ment. In regards to someone who is in long-term recovery, there wouldn't be any barrier to accessing EIA in any of the categories if they were eligible to receive those benefits.

Mrs. Smith: So, if I understand the minister correctly, they–someone with diabetes could apply for the special diet or $27 to $171.

      Just going back to the long-term recovery: so, someone could be in a shelter, have addictions, still access the services and still qualify for one of these so that they could–I just think about people needing–like, one of the basic needs is housing, right? And when you're in a shelter, you're just trying to survive. And often, you know, addictions is a survival tool, right?

      And to get them into a house, to get them into one of these extra support programs could be all the difference. So–but they're not in recovery yet. Would they still fall in–under any of these three, even if they didn't have a psychosis? Because addiction is, you know, a medical con­di­tion and people do require extra supports.

      And yes, to me, like, someone with an addiction wouldn't be able to access full em­ploy­ment, especially if they're living in a shelter. They might, you know, be on meth–like, who knows, some­thing that's brain altering, where they need at least six months or more of treatment, but they're not able to access that because they have no supports. Would they fall under any of those three?

      And I hope that's clear, kind of–my question.

Ms. Squires: And I believe I–I'll attempt to answer the question as fully as possible and, if there needs further clari­fi­ca­tion, I will seek to provide that.

      But when it comes to an individual living in shelter, if that shelter is provi­ding the meals, that client may not get the special sup­ple­ment for food if their meals are being provided. But, if their meals are not being provided, then they should be able to get the sup­ple­ment, no problem. And it is assessed on an individual basis, so that is where the individual always needs to be in contact with the director to ensure that their needs are being met and that they're receiving the benefits that they're entitled to.

      In regards to somebody who's in a long-term recovery program, we are still in the process of developing that assessment tool. But there, again, it would be–if a person who is on EIA to meet their basic needs and they're also in a long-term recovery program and they have spoken with their–they've received pro­fes­sional advice and guidance about the long-term dis­abil­ity of–or, impairment to seeking em­ploy­ment, they certainly, at the director's and their pro­fes­sional advice from their medical pro­fes­sional, should be able to qualify for one of the categories in the dis­abil­ity income support program.

      I say that knowing that we are in the process of still developing that assessment tool. And that assess­ment tool is going to be in­cred­ibly im­por­tant because I do recog­nize that there are a lot of individuals who have very unique needs and who will be coming for­ward with unique circum­stances. And it's going to be a challenge, but a challenge that our de­part­ment is committed to rising to to ensure that we meet their needs, that we take into account the dis­abil­ity that they're ex­per­iencing, whether it be short-term, episodic or long-term, and getting them the ap­pro­priate benefits.

* (15:50)

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

      I do want to hear, though, whether–even if some­body wasn't in a shelter and they were–they did have an addiction, that they would be able to access these three categories, but I'll move on.

      Can the member–or, minister give us a better under­­standing what the medical barriers to full em­ploy­ment program is and what would be different–or what is different about it from the existing dis­abil­ity program?

      So, for example, can the minister explain when work ex­pect­a­tions might be applied to those in the new medical barriers to full em­ploy­ment program? What change is there for the medical barriers to full employment program compared to the existing dis­abil­ity program?

Ms. Squires: So, under the medical barriers to full em­ploy­ment category, the person–a person enrolled in that program would receive every­thing that they're currently getting if they are in the EIA persons with   dis­abil­ity category, which includes the $1,109‑a‑month benefit, as well as overlooking certain assets and if they have a dis­abil­ity income–pension.

      They can–we don't take into account other sources of income into their annual–into the–when we're calculating their annual income, such as gifts from families and friends.

      And then we are also adding an extra $50 a month, which would allow–there's $25, which is just an increase that we've provided October 1st, as well as a $25 benefit for working with them in terms of planning, preparing their case plan. It's a benefit that we use to incentivize people to come in and work with the de­part­ment on individualized case plans. So that is that medical barrier benefit.

      The full and severe and prolonged benefit: those individuals would receive every­thing that's in the medical barriers category plus $100-a-month shelter benefit and a $45 benefit for laundry and telephone services. So, it's another 15 per cent increase for in­dividuals who are in the full, severe and prolonged category.

Mrs. Smith: I thank the minister for that answer.

      So, the changes from the existing to the medical barriers, it's just a change in monetary, so they're getting an extra 100–they're getting their regular benefits, plus an extra $50 and a $25 incentive a month. And then the second is if they are in the full barrier they're receiving an extra $100 on top of that.

      Is there any other changes to any of those from the existing dis­abil­ity program besides monetary?

Ms. Squires: So, people in the medical barriers to work category would have no work ex­pect­a­tions for the duration of the time that they're in that–they're receiving that benefit.

      People in the severe and prolonged dis­abil­ity category would not only not have that work ex­pect­a­tion, there wouldn't be the require­ment for an annual assessment as well as an earnings exemption of $12,000 per year.

Mrs. Smith: So, just to clarify, so those folks that are in the medical barriers to full em­ploy­ment program, when would they be expected to return to work, or would they be expected at all?

* (16:00)

Ms. Squires: During our con­sul­ta­tion, we had heard loud and clear from the com­mu­nity that, while people are ex­per­iencing a dis­abil­ity, even those who have a dis­abil­ity, even if it's not expected to be a permanent dis­abil­ity, but they're dealing with it, there should not be a work ex­pect­a­tion.

      So, as long as an individual is in that medical barriers to full em­ploy­ment, they are not required to have–they don't have a work ex­pect­a­tion.

      If they do express an interest in returning to work, and they feel that they're ready to re-engage with the labour market, we do have com­mu­nity navigators in place who will help them on that journey towards independence, will help them achieve training or reach out and find op­por­tun­ities that would–that they would be suited for. But there is no work ex­pect­a­tion.

Mrs. Smith: Okay, I thank the minister for that question.

      I was just talking to the member from Thompson, and he was sharing a story about someone who was a double amputee that has trouble accessing services because they've been told, well, while they've lost their limbs–their legs–that they can still type and, you know, cognitively they're there.

      But, mentally, be­cause of the dis­abil­ity, it's really set them back, and they've been told that they need to go back to work and they've been pushing them to go back to work. So, I just want clari­fi­ca­tion whether that would be an ex­pect­a­tion.

      And I know the minister talked earlier about somebody maybe having cancer, going through chemo­therapy. We know that, like, there's a five year, kind of–you know, if you're–if you've been in remission for five years, you're–you know, you have a clean bill, you can–so, if those types of things would play into that and whether they would be forced to go back to work.

      And, I hear what the minister is saying, that they wouldn't be forced back to work. But I just want to make sure and clarify that when these folks are in those types of situations that there isn't an EI worker saying, well, you know, you're capable, you're now in remission or you've had your last chemo, and they might still be, you know, dealing mentally with what's gone–what they've gone through, that they won't be forced back to work and that there'll be a period of time where they get some support to maybe transition slowly, if they're capable.

Ms. Squires: I do want to express my ap­pre­cia­tion to the member for Thompson (Mr. Redhead) for raising that situation of a con­stit­uent that has undergone that ex­per­ience, and if he'd like me to look into that, I certainly would.

      I do want to just say that this new program, this–it is in the process of being developed and the–and imple­mented to better help meet people where they're at, and in taking that person‑centered approach to that assessment, which would allow them to receive the bene­fits that they need. And that assessment, of course, would include mental and physical well‑being.

      And we are certainly undergoing transformation in our EIA de­part­ment and moving forward to better meet people where they're at in delivering the service.

      I do want to high­light three new initiatives that are also helping people who are in the transition phase between maybe coming off of dis­abil­ity or coming off of EIA and moving into the workforce, but just need some training and some supports and some con­nections. And one of those programs–we just made invest­ments in Career Connections in Brandon, and then in Thompson: FireSpirit and YWCA. FireSpirit is spe­cific­ally about helping Indigenous people with their–on the road to wellness, which of course leads to the road to in­de­pen­dence. And we also recently esta­blished a $20-million endowment fund with the Winnipeg Foundation to provide an annual fund called the Journey to In­de­pen­dence Fund.

      So we have intake right now, or maybe it just recently closed, and it's the first of its kind, first time that we've done it, where we've asked non-profit organ­i­zations who are offering training and services to clients in–on EIA who maybe they need to take a life-skills training program or a modern-day version of life skills.

* (16:10)

      I reference life skills because that was the pro­gram that I took in 1989, and I know that there's definitely more modern programs out there, but we know that these programs are certainly life changing for many clients. And we're wanting to see more of them being offered to everybody, that would allow the client to receive training and op­por­tun­ities that would be available to them.

      So, we are looking forward to rolling out these grants to successful applicants in the near future. I haven't received an update because we did just open up the intake a few weeks back. I don't know how many applicants we've received, but I'm certainly hopeful that there were several of them. And I hope that we have many organi­zations willing to offer training and really just meeting people where they're at and provi­ding them with upgrades to their skills.

Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): I'll just be sitting in briefly while my colleague takes a short break.

      Wanted to ask, according to the minister's regula­tory con­sul­ta­tion website, there are also 2,000 people with shorter term dis­abil­ity lasting less than a year will be, quote, will be recategorized once their current eligibility period expires. That will also mean that going forward that those whose dis­abil­ity is not categorized as lasting longer than a year will no longer be eligible.

      Can the minister provide an explanation for that change?

Ms. Squires: So, I can confirm for the member that that number–that 2,000 number is accurate.

      Everybody is entitled to a full assessment, and we look forward to provi­ding those services to all in­dividuals that will be moved into the medical barriers to em­ploy­ment or the severe and prolonged dis­abil­ity category or into the regular EIA program with perhaps some of the benefits that are available to them based on their needs. If they have special diet, they certainly qualify for the 27 to 171 top-up benefit for their dietary needs, or any other benefit.

      We really are moving forward to a person-centred approach and will be assessing each individual and hopefully making these assessments and putting people into the proper category based on the new criteria.

Mr. Sala: Can the minister tell us when she expects that–the 2,000 people will be recategorized?

Ms. Squires: So, again, I'd like to reiterate that we don't know how many clients won't be eligible for this–the medical barriers to em­ploy­ment category, and–but what I can confirm for the member is that, in January, we are anticipating moving approximately 8,000 clients from the EIA category into the severe and prolonged dis­abil­ity category.

      That is based on some data that's easier to attain, such as they're already existing CLDS clients, or have the require­ments as I'd spelled out in an earlier answer about the entry into the severe and prolonged cate­gory. So we're hoping to migrate those 8,000 clients in January; and then in March and April of this year, we're hoping to take all clients who are eligible into the new medical barriers category.

      But, again, everybody who is currently in that category is eligible for and entitled to an assessment to deter­mine eligibility.

Mrs. Smith: Miigwech. I thank the minister for that answer, and it's nice to see that 8,000 people will be supported.

      I just want to go back to the amount of people, and I know you're not looking at that right now, if you would take that under ad­vise­ment to let us know when–or, how many people are expected to be taken off of any dis­abil­ity supports in the future, and if there's going to be a transition, what's that going to look like, because I told you about diabetes, right? And people being taken off that, even though they have letters.

      So, that's one thing. And then I just wanted to go back to the question that I asked earlier. The minister referenced a training program, Journey to In­de­pen­dence. The non-profits were taking up that work and that they were to apply for grants.

      I'm just wondering if the folks that are going to be in that training, whether it'll be paid training, or they're just going to be receiving the regular benefits while they're going through that?

* (16:20)

Ms. Squires: So, next year, at the very latest in the annual report will be the numbers of all the parti­ci­pants in the severe and prolonged dis­abil­ity category, the medical barriers to em­ploy­ment category and the regular EIA categories. So those numbers will be reported in our annual report, at the–at–so at the very latest, it will be available next year at this time.

      In regards to the benefits available to people, I should clarify that the Journey to In­de­pen­dence program–we haven't assessed the applicants yet so we don't know what we're going to receive in terms of proposals from com­mu­nity organi­zations. But quite often, these proposals do come with a wage subsidy, and I look forward to learning about the initiatives and then awarding some of these initiatives to the com­mu­nity for eligible applicants.

      But every EIA client who is undergoing training, they receive access to child care, a top-up benefit for their trans­por­tation–bus pass or other trans­por­tation costs–as well as just a $25 miscellaneous benefit for the costs associated with attending a training session all day. Sometimes they might need to spend a little bit more on food, because they're obviously not going to be at home; they're going to be at a place of work or a training centre for the day, and those costs might be ad­di­tional to what they would normally ex­per­ience, so the $25 miscellaneous benefit is automatically awarded to anybody partici­pating in a training program.

Mrs. Smith: I thank the minister for that answer.

      I hope that they would take under ad­vise­ment that these are people who are going into work and that we should be paying people to go into trained, paid labour. I realize that, you know, they're going to gain skills. These non-profits are going to be getting grants to support them. I do recog­nize that as well.

      So I'm not sure if they're just going and sitting in a classroom all day, and that's the purpose or whether they're–it's on-the-job training. But if it's on-the-job training, I think that we should–provi­ding incentive closer to a wage so that people can actually see what it's like to make money above EIA. It certainly gives people incentive to be like, you know, making a thou­sand dollars a month versus twenty–maybe $2,000 or, you know, over $2,000 a month–is certainly incentive and having people ex­per­ience that.

      But I'll move on. On September 10th, 2021, ac­ces­si­ble–Ac­ces­si­bility Advisory Council released its five-year review of ac­ces­si­bility standard for cus­tomer service. They provided 22 recom­men­dations.

      Can the minister tell us whether she accepts in full all of these recom­men­dations?

Ms. Squires: So, I can confirm that we receive–that we're–we received 22 recom­men­dations. Twenty-one of those recom­men­dations have been accepted and are being imple­mented. The one recom­men­dation is still being further researched, and that was the recom­men­dation to go to–down to 25–workplaces with 25 employees or greater must publish their ac­ces­si­bility plan on a public-facing plat­form.

      Right now, the standard requires busi­nesses with 50 or more employees to publish their ac­ces­si­bility plan on a public plat­form and the recom­men­dation is to go to 25.

      So, we're doing a little bit of research right now as to whether or not that would improve compliance or not, and right now, with having workplaces of 50 employees or greater needing to publish their ac­ces­si­bility plans on the public plat­form is very con­sistent with other juris­dic­tions, including Ontario.

* (16:30)

      I do want to also reiterate that regardless of whether or not you have your ac­ces­si­bility plan pub­lished on your website or available to the public for perusal, it is still the law, and you still must be compliant with the ac­ces­si­bility standards. So even if you just have one employee, you still have to comply with The Ac­ces­si­bility for Manitobans Act, and you just don't have to have it in a public domain.

Mrs. Smith: So, just to clarify, 21 of the recom­men­dations–the full recom­men­dations were accepted. Just want to clarify that.

      And then, just to move on, can the minister tell us what the time frame is to implement the 21 recom­men­dations that they are fully imple­men­ting?

Ms. Squires: So, we'd received these recom­men­dations last October, and we committed to imple­men­ting within two years. So, we have an ex­pect­a­tion that within a year from now we will implement all 21 recom­men­dations that have been accepted.

      And I can confirm that we are just about to publish our annual report on the imple­men­ta­tion of those recom­men­dations. That report will be available this month, and as soon as it is, I will endeavour to provide the members opposite a copy of it. But, yes, we are committed to fulfilling those–imple­men­ting those recom­men­dations within the next 12 months.

Mrs. Smith: I thank the minister for that answer.

      I'd like to read from the review. So, one of the overarching themes council heard through­out the con­sul­ta­tion process was the lack of perceived leadership and account­ability shown by the prov­incial gov­ern­ment in imple­men­ting the ac­ces­si­bility standards for customer service parti­ci­pants. They expressed that as the Manitoba gov­ern­ment provides services to all Manitobans, it must do a better job of leading by example.

      As stated at the time of the four-year in­de­pen­dent review of the AMA, the gov­ern­ment did not assign ad­di­tional staff nor fiscal resources to implement the legis­lation. The direction given to the Disabil­ities Issues Office, now the Manitoba Ac­ces­si­bility Office, was to implement the law in a cost-neutral manner. Within the last eight years, the MAO's budget has only received a modest increase.

      Can the minister explain and respond to this concern?

Ms. Squires: I can advise the member that we have esta­blished an ac­ces­si­bility steering com­mit­tee that will help guide the work of gov­ern­ment to ensure that we do play a leadership role in the imple­men­ta­tion of our ac­ces­si­bility standards and on all matters pertaining to ac­ces­si­bility. So, that is new since the publishing of the report that the member had referenced.

      Also new is the hiring–the creation of four new FTEs. We have–and the creation of a new compliance secretariat that has been moved out of the Manitoba Ac­ces­si­bility Office and is a stand‑alone secretariat. There's two new FTEs in that secretariat, and work is under way to increase the capacity of the secretariat as new standards are being imple­mented and passed. And then, the other two new FTEs are in the Manitoba Ac­ces­si­bility office. And that is mainly to provide support and also to administer the new Manitoba Acces­si­bility Fund.

      A year and a half ago, we esta­blished the $20‑million Manitoba Ac­ces­si­bility Fund endow­ment, and every year we have just a little bit shy of $1 million in funds to provide to the com­mu­nity for compliance with the ac­ces­si­bility standards. This is in response to a lot of concern that we'd heard from, whether it be AMM, munici­palities, organi­zations and busi­nesses, who were saying that they were needing to have funds to increase their capacity and to comply, ultimately, with the standards.

      And so, this Manitoba Ac­ces­si­bility Fund was created to provide that source of revenue for all these busi­nesses, organi­zations and munici­palities that need to comply and, you know, ensuring that those dollars are being put towards good projects and that appli­cants are being assessed as applications come in. We hired two new FTEs in the Manitoba Ac­ces­si­bility Office. That's all new work that has taken place since the report was published that the member's citing.

Mrs. Smith: [inaudible] the minister for that answer.

      The member from Maples had raised a concern when we were talking about ac­ces­si­bility. The mem­ber had shared with us that cab drivers have to take ac­ces­si­bility training but ride-sharing groups don't have to.

      Can the minister speak to that and whether that is some­thing that's going to be an ex­pect­a­tion in the near future, as they are doing the same kind of work?

* (16:40)

Ms. Squires: I ap­pre­ciate the member raising this.

      And they're correct in that ride-sharing services were not conceived of when the AMA was first passed into law, and so we are having the compliance secre­tary look into ways in which we can ensure that ride-sharing organi­zations can be taking ap­pro­priate ac­ces­si­bility training and meeting their obligations under the AMA.

Mrs. Smith: Can the–well, first of all, we're going to go onto some­thing else, just some generic questions.

      So, we're not going to get to CFS because it was a lot to delve into and the member from Thompson had to leave, and we didn't think that we would get through all these dis­abil­ity and ac­ces­si­bility questions. So I don't know if those folks want to–I'm sorry about keeping you.

      So, can the minister tell us who her political staff are?

Ms. Squires: I'm very pleased to have Melanie Maher work in my office as a special assist­ant, and she is somebody who's got tre­men­dous ex­per­ience and know­ledge and is a–just an over­whelming asset to the Minister of Families and the entire office.

      And new to my office and joining us here today, as well, is my new executive assist­ant, Cosette Beaudin, who has been on the job for 10 days, I believe, and is a tremendous asset and is very–her con­tri­bu­tions to the office are greatly ap­pre­ciated and I'm very pleased to be working with both of these brilliant assistants.

Mrs. Smith: Can the minister tell me the vacancy rate for the de­part­ment as a whole?

Ms. Squires: There are 2,015 FTEs in the De­part­ment of Families, excluding the FTEs assigned to the Manitoba Developmental Centre.

      There are 328 vacancies, which translate to a 16.1 per cent.

Mrs. Smith: Can the minister provide me the vacancy rate by division of her de­part­ment?

Ms. Squires: Sure.

      I would like to ask the op­por­tun­ity to bring that infor­ma­tion back. We need a little bit of time–a few days–to put that infor­ma­tion together.

Mrs. Smith: Miigwech, I ap­pre­ciate the minister taking that under ad­vise­ment, and we look forward to getting that infor­ma­tion as soon as possible.

      In its 2021 annual report, the Social Services Appeal Board identified concerns for EIA recipients in getting access to outpatient physio­therapy after surgery.

      What steps, if any, is the minister taking to address these concerns?

Ms. Squires: My de­part­ment is currently consulting with the De­part­ment of Health to look at future op­por­tun­ities and options.

Mrs. Smith: Can the minister tell us how long that that review's going to take before people start to be able to have access to physio­therapy after surgery?

      It's really im­por­tant for people, especially in their recovery, to be able to have access to that. So, I'm hoping it'll be done in a timely manner because we have quite a few people that are having surgery these days and, you know, need access to that.

      So, how long is that going to take?

* (16:50)

Ms. Squires: So, we are in the very early stages of researching ways in which we can expand the programs for people to access physio­therapy programs.

      I can say that we are looking at the success of a chiropractic model that we've imple­mented where we do have–where people on EIA may receive ad­di­tional chiropractic benefits as well as having a special chiro­practic clinic that we've esta­blished and funded at the Mount Carmel Clinic, which is ultimately removing barriers to access for individuals in the com­mu­nity to receive.

      And so, we're looking at the success of this pro­gram and looking at ways in which we can expand service delivery.

Mrs. Smith: Okay, I ap­pre­ciate folks being able to access chiropractic, you know, at Mount Carmel Clinic.

      But the question was about outpatient physio­therapy after surgery and how long it's going to take for that con­sul­ta­tion, because people are, you know, waiting in pain, or this is, perhaps, limiting, you know, their ac­ces­si­bility to get out or their recovery. So, it's specific to physiotherapy outpatient after surgery.

Ms. Squires: We are in the early stages, and I don't have a timeline.

Mrs. Smith: Okay. I'm hoping that it's not going to take too long, because again, like it's–helps with people's recovery.

      Our team has heard from someone on EIA who has been denied coverage for hormones, so pro­gesterone and injection estrogen.

      Is the minister aware of a policy or other changes in this area that would result in a loss of benefits?

Ms. Squires: So, I can confirm that we follow the formulary esta­blished under the Pharma­care program under the Health De­part­ment, and doctors can also apply for exceptional drug status if someone is–if someone needs access to a drug that is not on the formulary and yet an assessment is confirmed that that drug is needed.

      I can't speak spe­cific­ally or list off what drugs are on the formulary, but if the member has a con­stit­uent with a specific case that they would like me to review, I'd certainly be willing to under­take that.

Mrs. Smith: Okay, I ap­pre­ciate that minister's offer, and, again, it's specific to progesterone and injection estrogen, which I'm assuming probably isn't on the 'formulaire'–'formulairely'–'formulaire.'

      And–so, if a doctor were to write a letter to an EIA recipient requesting that, what is the likelihood of some­one getting that treatment approved?

Ms. Squires: The De­part­ment of Families does not employ the expertise required to make a medical assess­ment or deter­min­ation of that sort.

      Doctors are certainly familiar with the excep­tional drug program, and that the EIA client would be subject to a medical assessment. And if the doctor had applied for exceptional drug status, there would be no barriers for receiving those treatments.

Mrs. Smith: Miigwech, I thank the minister for that answer and I do hope that that would take–be taken under ad­vise­ment as more and more folks are trying to access these drugs, you know, when they're transitioning. And certainly, it's some­thing that is–that they need to be able to do that.

      The Manitoba dev­elop­ment centre is slated to close in 2024. Can the minister provide an update on the plan to close that facility and the transition plans for staff at that facility?

Ms. Squires: So, currently, MDC has 102 residents remaining and work is under way with an individ­ualized care plan for each of those 102 residents. There are seven agencies that are actively engaged in esta­blish­ing new com­mu­nity residence for some of these clients to transition into. And we're looking at building capacity amongst other agencies that are already esta­blished in com­mu­nity.

      In regards to the workforce, we do have a work­force adjustment team that has been created to strategize recruitment retention options and to really ensure that the employee impacts are reduced. We're working diligently with Shared Health, in parti­cular, in the region, finding options for each of the em­ployees at MDC.

Mrs. Smith: There are currently 359 positions remaining at MDC. How many of these positions does the minister anticipate–

Mr. Chairperson: Order.

      The hour being 5 p.m., committee rise.

Chamber

Indigenous recon­ciliation and Northern Relations

* (15:00)

The Acting Chairperson (Obby Khan): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply will now resume con­sid­era­tion of the Estimates for the De­part­ment of Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations.

      At this time, we invite min­is­terial and op­posi­tion staff to enter the Chamber, and I would ask the minister and critics to please intro­duce their staff in attendance.

      As previously agreed, questioning for this de­part­ment will proceed in a global manner.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Ian Bushie (Keewatinook): Just to kind of continue on where we left off yesterday: the minister had spoken about–and this was in regards to the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation unmarked graves, cemetery issue that I'd–we'd spoken about yesterday. The minister had mentioned that they were–they played an intermediary role and was also led to believe that that was, in fact, a neutral position to perhaps just kind of be the go-between. But the minister also made reference to the fact that they were forced into the intermediary role when the landlord and the land­owner informed the de­part­ment that he would not grant access as promised. And as such, the minister just kind of forwarded infor­ma­tion along.

      I'm just wondering, can the minister say, then, in an intermediary role, was that a neutral position? Or was there advocacy to the landlord on behalf of Sioux Valley?

The Acting Chairperson (Obby Khan): The honour­able–oh.

      The hon­our­able Minister of Indigenous Reconciliation and Northern Relations.

Hon. Alan Lagimodiere (Minister of Indigenous Reconciliation and Northern Relations): As we were saying yesterday, this was a very sensitive situation, and the de­part­ment has worked closely with both the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and the landlord as well as de­part­ments across gov­ern­ment to support pro­tec­tion of the children's graves.

      However, the land­lord, though agreeing to allow access on September 23rd, notified the de­part­ment staff that he had changed his mind, and staff attempted to re-engage and negotiate, but the 'landloder' was unwilling to enter­tain access and unwilling to notify Sioux Valley of his decision.

      The gov­ern­ment continues to support the com­mu­nity in the identification, investigation, the pro­tec­tion and com­memo­ra­tion of Indian resi­den­tial schools and burial sites.

* (15:10)

Mr. Bushie: Yesterday, the minister referred to the fact that his de­part­ment had, and I quote here, brokered an agree­ment between Sioux Valley and the landowner. And I'm just wondering–I'm hearing, then, that that, in fact, agree­ment was broken by the land­lord. And I'm just wondering if the province and the minister's de­part­ment has a con­se­quence for the land­lord for breaking that agree­ment.

Mr. Lagimodiere: Given the sensitivity of this situa­tion, at this time it would be inappropriate for us to comment further on any actions that can be taken or may be taken by the prov­incial gov­ern­ment. Manitoba does continue to co-develop multi­juris­dictional ap­proaches to find, memorialize and protect missing children through distinction-based en­gage­ments with regional Indigenous organi­zations and the council.

Mr. Bushie: So, then, I'm led to understand that the minister is, in fact, just straight out not going to tell us what they're going to do. So I also assume, then, that also means no advocacy on behalf of Sioux Valley because that was basically the premise of the question, is what kind of advocacy and what kind of con­se­quence would there have to a deal that the province brokered, that the de­part­ment brokered, to allow Sioux Valley Dakota Nation to be able to actually search the site for unmarked graves–that has been identified, by the way.

      So, I'm hearing, then, from the minister that they're not going to share that infor­ma­tion with any­thing that's going to be done, if at all anything is, in fact, going to be done.

      There was also cor­res­pon­dence put forward to Sioux Valley from the gov­ern­ment where the province is going to advocate that Canada take a stronger role in resolving this issue and that they find a path to acquire the land to support the search.

      I'm just wondering, does the minister also have a role to play there or feel he has a role to play there to help acquire this land and support this search for Sioux Valley Dakota Nation?

Mr. Lagimodiere: And, once again, I want to stress, for the record, that this is a very complex and sensitive situation and we don't want to jeopardize the ongoing discussions.

      We acknowl­edged yesterday that we have taken to discussions with all levels of gov­ern­ment, including the City of Brandon, and we continue to explore all avenues available. As you will know the TRC Calls to Action 75 calls upon the federal gov­ern­ment to work with prov­incial, territorial and munici­pal gov­ern­ments to develop and implement strategies and procedures related to burial sites.

      As such, we will take an approach that is con­sistent with the 'truse' and reconciliation Call to Action 75. And the searches are a complex process, and we recog­nize that a multifaceted Indigenous-led approach is required, involv­ing the col­lab­o­ration of various levels of gov­ern­ment.

Mr. Bushie: So, again, I'm hearing that the minister and his de­part­ment are basically taking a wait-and-see-what-everybody-else-does approach first and kind of be the last ones to the table to be able to bring forth these issues. And, again, not work col­lab­o­ratively but rather, expect everybody else to come to the table and the Province be the last ones to the table, including some of the cor­res­pon­dence that's going back and forth where the gov­ern­ment has invited chief and council to, quote, use their voice and call Canada to take respon­si­bility.

* (15:20)

      But also, I guess, the question that a lot of com­mu­nities have, and in this case the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation has, is that the prov­incial gov­ern­ment should also be using their voice to advocate on their behalf. And it seems like it's actually the opposite, and the advocacy is not taking place for the com­mu­nity to help with the situation. And under­standing, and I mean the minister has mentioned many times, it is a sensitive issue, a sensitive topic. But at the same time it's a topic that needs to be discussed.

      And you can't simply hide behind the fact that it's a sensitive issue and then try and avoid respon­si­bility, because there is a respon­si­bility by the federal gov­ern­ment and prov­incial gov­ern­ment to deal with this issue of unmarked graves, and in this case, the Brandon resi­den­tial school cemetery site. It's an issue that's been raised many, many times by Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, and it's not some­thing that should be taken lightly. And it seems like it is; it's being passed back and forth between federal, prov­incial respon­si­bility, and that's again kind of the way gov­ern­ments have also looked–had always looked at First Nations' issues, especially here in Manitoba. They bounce them back and forth between federal and prov­incial respon­si­bility.

      So it's unfor­tunate that this gov­ern­ment and this minister is taking the wait-and-see approach, wait and see what somebody else does first, and then maybe we'll partici­pate at that point in time, rather than taking the lead. So, that being said, I just wanted those words on the record in regards to the issue with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and Brandon Indian Resi­den­tial School cemetery site.

      I do have a question now, to kind of switch gears on that, is about northern affairs. The review of the northern affairs program cost $500,000. I'm just wondering if the minister identified any issues in this report, and when are you going to act on any recom­men­dations, if any.

Mr. Lagimodiere: Once again the member opposite has chosen to misrepresent the actions of this gov­ern­ment on the record. And this is disrespectful to all those who are working so hard to work towards resolving this issue.

      And I would like to state for the record that Sioux Valley did tell me, when the NDP were in gov­ern­ment, they reached out to that gov­ern­ment at that time and asked them for support to search the burial grounds in Brandon and were flat-out turned away. So, you know, the NDP have no plan, they've never had a plan, and they never will have a plan to work with First Nations with respect to these burial grounds.

      [inaudible] of a solution. We have commuted that–communicated that collectively to Sioux Valley Dakota Nation–

The Acting Chairperson (Obby Khan): Sorry to interrupt, hon­our­able minister. Your audio cut out there for about 20 seconds. So if we could back up a little bit as to what you were saying there so we could hear you again.

Mr. Lagimodiere: Okay, sorry for that. You hearing me okay now?

The Acting Chairperson (Obby Khan): We can hear you now. It was about 20 seconds ago.

Mr. Lagimodiere: Okay, so, what was stated in fact, was that our de­part­ment staff have taken a leadership role in co‑ordinating a col­lab­o­rative identification of a solution, and we have commuted that–com­muni­cated that collectively to Sioux Valley Dakota Nation along with Canada.

Mr. Bushie: Okay, thanks for sharing your talking points about the whole man-with-the-plan kind of knowledge there. But I also ended off that previous question with their review of the northern affairs program that cost $500,000, and I'm just wondering if the minister could identify any issues in this report and if you're going to act on any recom­men­dations and when.

Mr. Lagimodiere: The issues or recom­men­dations of the report cannot be released due to Cabinet con­fi­dence.

Mr. Bushie: What is the current vacancy rate in the northern affairs program?

Mr. Lagimodiere: Would the member clarify for me, is he just talking–is he talking about the entire de­part­ment or just the northern affairs?

Mr. Bushie: Well, I guess we'll say the entire de­part­ment.

Mr. Lagimodiere: As of today, there are a total of 15 vacancies, and we continue to do what we can to actively recruit to fill these positions.

The Acting Chairperson (Obby Khan): Are there any further questions?

      Seeing not, we will go ahead with the reso­lu­tions. The last item to–

      Reso­lu­tion 19.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $29,114,000 for Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations, Indigenous and Northern Relations, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2022.

Resolution agreed to.

* (15:30)

      The last item to be considered for the Estimates of this de­part­ment is item 19.1(a), the minister's salary, contained in reso­lu­tion 19.1. If necessary, at this point, we request all–we request that all min­is­terial and op­posi­tion staff leave the Chamber for the con­sid­era­tion of this last item.

      The floor is open for questions. If a motion comes–

Mr. Bushie: I move,

      THAT line item 19.1(a) be amended so that the Minister of Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations' salary be reduced to $21,000.

Motion presented.

An Honourable Member: Seconders.

The Acting Chairperson (Obby Khan): Seconder is the member from Transcona. Motion is in order and the debate can now proceed.

Mr. Bushie: Mr. Chair, again, this is about affordability and being able to take home a paycheque when others may not be able to take home anything. So I think in–it's the right thing to do, so this minister and this gov­ern­ment cannot take home a salary that's unfair to the rest of Manitobans. And I think they need to truly lead by example, and leading by example would mean, in fact, to actually take your own pay cut and take your own reduction in pay.

      You can't lead a de­part­ment and expect others to follow, expect Manitobans to kind of do their part to help us all and, at the same time, take home a larger piece of the pie for yourselves. And including this goes back to when Brian Pallister kind of circum­vented the rules here a little bit and got himself a pay raise by that way.

      I'd also like to thank the minister for the en­gage­ment, here, over the last little while during Estimates. And I realize I'm not able to share certain things, but I would like to point out that the minister talked about en­gage­ment just with us, meaning the op­posi­tion, and why we didn't come up to his office and have dialogue on a number of different issues. And I know I really can't say whether a member is present or not present here in the Chamber, but there is an op­por­tun­ity to actually–and we do have that op­por­tun­ity to sit face-to-face here in the Chamber on a daily basis, or we can do that via Zoom.

      And I feel that attending in person is really some­thing that's beneficial to us all. It's some­thing that we've–we did our sacrifices during the pandemic so that we could actually get back to face-to-face and have that real com­muni­cation go back and forth. And others choose to do that on Zoom because they choose to not be accountable and to not really take into con­sid­era­tion the back and forth, and really get the feel of the room, and the feel of the issues.

      And there's been a number of occasions where it may or may not have been health-related to choose to partici­pate in Zoom–or choose to partici­pate in person, but I truly believe that in person is the best way to have this com­muni­cation, including during Estimates process. And I'm sure Indigenous people here in Manitoba, when they partici­pate and they go through this Estimates process and QP and go, they'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

      Miigwech.

The Acting Chairperson (Obby Khan): Any other members wishing to speak in debate of the motion? Seeing none, shall the motion pass?

Some Honourable Members: Pass.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Voice Vote

The Acting Chairperson (Obby Khan): All those in favour, say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

The Acting Chairperson (Obby Khan): All those opposed, say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

The Acting Chairperson (Obby Khan): In my opinion, the Nays have it.

      Recog­nize the member from–oh, sorry. Hon­our­able member from Keewatinook.

Mr. Ian Bushie (Keewatinook): On division.

The Acting Chairperson (Obby Khan): The motion is defeated on division.

* * *

The Acting Chairperson (Obby Khan): We shall now go to the last reso­lu­tion.

      Reso­lu­tion 19.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,979,000 for Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations, Admin­is­tra­tion and Finance, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      This completes the Estimates of the De­part­ment of Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations.

      The next step–the next set of Estimates to be considered by this section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply is for the De­part­ment of Advanced Edu­ca­tion, Skills and Immigration.

      Shall we briefly recess to allow the minister and critic the op­por­tun­ity to prepare for the com­mence­ment of the next de­part­ment? [Agreed]

The committee recessed at 3:35 p.m.

____________

The committee resumed at 3:47 p.m.

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

Advanced Education, Skills and Immigration

* (15:50)

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): Will the Com­mit­tee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply will now consider the Estimates of the Depart­ment of Advanced Edu­ca­tion, Skills and Immigration.

      Does the hon­our­able minister have an opening statement?

An Honourable Member: I do not.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those comments.

      Does the official op­posi­tion critic have an open­ing statement? No?

      We thank the critic for those remarks.

      Under Manitoba practice, debate on the minister's salary is the last item considered for a de­part­ment. Accordingly, we shall now defer con­sid­era­tion of line 44.1(a) contained in reso­lu­tion 44.1.

      At this time, we invite min­is­terial and op­posi­tion staff to enter the Chamber, and I would invite the minister and critic to please intro­duce their staff in attendance. You guys are welcome to invite your staff in, if you have anyone–you're welcome to, if you'd like to.

      And minister, do you have staff with you you'd wish intro­duce?

Hon. Jon Reyes (Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Immigration): Yes, I do. Along with myself, I have my deputy minister, Eric Charron; my assist­ant deputy minister of Finance and Cor­por­ate Services, Melissa Ballantyne; and my assist­ant deputy minister for Immigration, Karmel Chartrand.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, minister.

      Would the critic like to intro­duce any staff? [interjection] No? Okay, they'll be here shortly. No problem.

      In accordance with subrule 77, subsection 16, during the con­sid­era­tion of de­part­mental Estimates, questioning for each de­part­ment shall proceed in a global manner with questions put on the reso­lu­tions once the official op­posi­tion critic indicates that questioning has concluded.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): Is the gov­ern­ment working on new tuition fee policies currently?

Mr. Chairperson: Minister, if you could give me a wave. The reason being that the tech people at our end mute your mic. So just give me a wave before you start talking and I'll recog­nize you, and then we'll unmute you at the technical end here. So, get my attention somehow and then you can go ahead. Did you want to speak now, Minister?

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Chair, I will respond once I've raised my hand.

Mr. Chairperson: Please go ahead, hon­our­able Minister. You've muted your mic, Minister. Okay.

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Chair, I know that the critic had asked me a question with respect to–can he repeat the question? I just got–sorry, we were just talking to someone.

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able member for St James–St. Vital.

Mr. Moses: Is the gov­ern­ment working on new tuition fee policy currently?

Mr. Reyes: Yes, we are working on that. We've done some–we've completed some con­sul­ta­tions and we are working on doing those efforts.

Mr. Chairperson: Minister, I–I'm sorry to interrupt you. We can't really make out what you're saying, or I can't. Do you have a headset or some­thing that you can plug in, or are you able to come down here? [interjection] Go ahead, Minister.

Mr. Reyes: Yes, the response to the critic was, yes, we are–there has been con­sul­ta­tion that has been completed that we're working on–

Mr. Chairperson: Minister, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I cannot hear you clearly. You need to either plug in a microphone or just come down to the Chamber, and we've got every­thing set up here that works great.

Mr. Reyes: I'll put on my headset.

      Can you hear me better, Mr. Chair?

Mr. Chairperson: I believe so. Let's try that again. Why don't you go ahead and answer the question about tuition.

Mr. Reyes: Yes, it is being worked on. Con­sul­ta­tions have been completed and we are continuing to engage.

Mr. Moses: I thank the minister for the question–for the response.

      He said the con­sul­ta­tions are completed, I would like to know when the new tuition policy would be announced or published, and will that be done before the start of the next school year in September 2023?

Mr. Reyes: I'd like to thank all post-secondary part­ners and Manitobans for partici­pating in the con­sul­ta­tion process regarding the future tuition fees and student fees policy in Manitoba.

      Through­out our con­sul­ta­tions, we heard from our post-secondary partners, faculty and student associa­tions, students and other Manitobans. Their feedback and input has been very–has been invaluable toward informing the dev­elop­ment of a policy.

      The future policy will consider the balance be­tween student affordability, tuitional sus­tain­ability and fiscal respon­si­bility. We look forward to continue working with our partners to develop a flexible and responsive policy that will ensure that quality post-secondary edu­ca­tion remains accessible and afford­able for Manitoba students.

Mr. Moses: Thank you for the response. I'd like to get more clarity on when the new policy would be announced.

      So, would that be in time before the next 2023 school year, so that's September 2023? Would it be earlier to give, perhaps, students more time to plan on what the tuition changes would be and how it would impact them?

      When is the minister going to provide this infor­ma­tion, since he's already said that the con­sul­ta­tions are complete?

Mr. Reyes: De­part­ment is in the process of develop­ing the policy based on the con­sul­ta­tion feedback and a juris­dic­tional scan of tuition fees, student fees and policies across Canada. The de­part­ment intends to submit the draft policy for governmental approval in December of this year, which is pretty soon, and for imple­men­ta­tion, early 2023.

Mr. Moses: So, just to clarify, you said it would be December, and what would be in December? And then it would be announced in early 2023, meaning first quarter–January, February, March of 2023? Just wanted to clarify that. Or perhaps before the end of February–if he could be more specific.

Mr. Reyes: Just to let my critic know that the letters go out to the post-secondary in­sti­tutions in the–around the end of January, begin­ning of February, and imple­men­ta­tion start–begins in the start of the school year in the fall of 2023.

Mr. Moses: Does the minister and the gov­ern­ment still support the creation of performance-based fund­ing models for uni­ver­sities and colleges?

* (16:00)

Mr. Reyes: [inaudible] have told us they want to demon­strate how they are helping students succeed and will continue to work with us as we move forward to improve out­comes over time.

      Based on the Auditor General report of 2020, it states, you know, better account­ability of PSIs on behalf of Manitoba taxpayers. Through con­sul­ta­tions, our PSIs are in agree­ment, and I understand that they have a role to play to satisfy the report of the Auditor General, and that's why con­sul­ta­tions are ongoing.

Mr. Moses: Okay, so the con­sul­ta­tions are still on­going, as the minister just said, for performance-based funding. That's correct, so it means he's supporting the idea of performance-based funding. If I can under­stand that's correctly what the minister's saying, that he supports the idea of performance-based funding model for uni­ver­sities and colleges, and the con­sultation for that–the imple­men­ta­tion of that plan is still ongoing, is that correct?

Mr. Reyes: No, that's not what I stated. I've stated that the intro­duction of a framework is con­sistent with calls from the office of the Auditor General's 2020 report.

      On oversight of post-secondary in­sti­tutions for publicly funded uni­ver­sities and colleges, the recom­mendations include developing a modern framework with defined performance benchmarks and stronger reporting require­ments, which the post-secondary institutions are in agreement with, and we are con­sulting with them, and they understand that they have a role to play with regards to the report.

Mr. Moses: So is the system that the minister's describing one in which performance measures would be set out for uni­ver­sities and colleges, and based on whether those uni­ver­sities and colleges meet those performance measures, funding for that in­sti­tution would be tied to how those measurements are met? Is that the process that the minister's just described?

Mr. Reyes: No funding decisions have been made. This is an account­ability framework exercise, and we're looking to develop account­ability framework metrics that will satisfy everyone involved and, most im­por­tantly, for the Manitoba taxpayer.

Mr. Moses: So the account­ability framework that you're describing, does that include any performance metrics for colleges and uni­ver­sities?

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Chair, can you have the–my critic repeat the question, please?

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able member for St. Vital to repeat the question.

Mr. Moses: The account­ability framework that you just mentioned, Minister, does that include any performance metrics that is tied to funding for colleges or uni­ver­sities?

Mr. Reyes: Our framework will be incorporating best practices from models developed by other juris­dic­tions and feedback from post-secondary stake­holders in Manitoba. No decisions have been made as of yet consulting. We're determining with what the frame­work will be. We're consulting to explore models with all PSI stake­holders, and we'll propose a model on a new account­ability framework when these are completed.

Mr. Moses: In the minister's last response, not the most recent, but the second-last response, he men­tioned that one of the primary goals was to ensure that it was satisfactory for taxpayers.

      I also want to just throw to the minister that perhaps he should be keenly aware that students in Manitoba should be of main focus when it comes to funding framework. The health and success of our in­sti­tutions should be also a key part of that, a primary objective and satisfying, as well as the faculty who work at all these in­sti­tutions. And I think that if the minister is creating a framework with the key ob­jective of satisfying taxpayers only, it misses out quite a bit of very, very critical stake­holders like students, faculty and the admin­is­tra­tion them­selves.

      So I'll put that to the minister that he should per­haps keep that in mind if he's creating new account­ability framework without having some of the key stake­holders as top priorities.

      So this account­ability framework, which I think it's clearly geared towards a model that includes some performance-based measure for uni­ver­sities and col­leges, will that–this account­ability framework, as the minister puts it–will that be ready by September 2023?

Mr. Reyes: I think that my critic, you know, I've mentioned many times in the House, and he knows this well or he should know. But you know what, it's not surprising they probably don't have a plan and they'll never have a plan, but we have consulted with students. Their feedback is very especially insightful. We consulted also with faculty associations. We had excellent feedback.

      So for him to say that we didn't consult with other stake­holders, you know, it's very, very, you know, I guess, you know, the critic can think of the way he wants, but, you know, our gov­ern­ment is working hard for the taxpayer, to include all stake­holders in­cluding students. Again, their feedback was very insightful and the faculty associations as well. So they provide excellent feedback.

      And again, no decision has been made yet, but I can tell you that we're consulting to explore models with all PSI stake­holders, including the feedback that we got from students and faculty associations on a new account­ability framework with–when these are all completed.

* (16:10)

Mr. Moses: I never said the minister hadn't consulted with those groups. I just wanted to make sure the minister listens to those groups and really hears their feedback.

      I did want to just get further clarity on the time frame of this framework. Will it be imple­mented for the 2023 school year–that's the start of September 2023 school year?

Mr. Reyes: You know, we are improving our ac­count­­ability system for post-secondary in­sti­tutions as part of the action plan in the Manitoba Skills, Talent and Knowledge Strategy. It's a very im­por­tant docu­ment. I don't know if the critic has read that docu­ment.

      Again, the intro­duction of the framework is con­sistent with the calls from the Office of the Auditor General 2020 report on oversight of post-secondary in­sti­tutions for publicly funded uni­ver­sities and col­leges. Recom­men­dations include developing and moni­tor­ing a framework with defined performance benchmarks and stronger reporting require­ments. This will ensure that our invest­ment in post-secondary in­sti­tutions is achieving the intended results and that post-secondary edu­ca­tion is aligned with gov­ern­ment priorities.

      Uni­ver­sity and colleges have a role to play in shaping the new framework, and that's why we've been in constant engagement with them. They have provided constructive feedback on critical aspects for a new account­ability system. We'll continue to engage with our post-secondary stakeholders to work toward our vision for a high-quality edu­ca­tion system that prepares Manitobans for long time–lifelong success, including students and faculty associations and other stake­holders that are pertinent. Our framework will incorporate best practices for models developed, again, by other juris­dic­tions and feedback from post-secondary stake­holders in Manitoba.

Mr. Moses: Since the minister has under­taken so much work with this project, I think, you know, Manitobans–spe­cific­ally students–would like to get a sense of what the time frame looks like on when these changes would arrive. You know, I would think that if the minister is so positive on the plan that he'd be, you know, pretty resident–reticent to want to share at least a ballpark of when Manitobans can expect the new plan to roll out. So, will this be announced and be ready for the start of the September 2023 school year?

Mr. Reyes: You know, it's very im­por­tant, you know, that we get this done right, and that's the reason why we've been consulting with all stake­holders. We know that advanced edu­ca­tion in this province is very crucial after a post-pandemic period. The metrics that we collect and that they'll be done–will be done in a fashion where it will be done properly to ensure that the framework will respect the autonomy, size and diversity of our colleges and uni­ver­sities.

      That's why no decisions have been made with respect to, you know, the metrics. But that's the reason why we're engaging with post-secondary in­sti­tutions and stake­holders that are pertinent to this framework.

Mr. Moses: I recently met with faculty members from the Uni­ver­sity of Manitoba. They organized an event to–discuss topics like performance-based funding, tui­tion fees, differential tuition fees.

       And one of the common–I would say, almost uni­ver­sal–thoughts on this were that they're, quite frank­ly, not necessary. That they would–if imple­mented, would make the post-secondary system in Manitoba worse off.

      So my question is–and the minister said that he has consulted with faculty. Well, what did they tell him about this plan? What was their feedback about these initiatives that the minister is proposing?

Mr. Reyes: I want to thank faculty associations for their recent partici­pation and con­tri­bu­tions during our formal con­sul­ta­tions on a new tuition and student fees policy on a post-secondary account­ability framework.

      You know, our de­part­ment appreciates all faculty associations' level of en­gage­ment. I'm encouraged its members remain active on matters of importance to Manitoba's post-secondary edu­ca­tion system.

      You know, the–my de­part­ment, we look forward to working with faculty associations and its members again in the future.

Mr. Moses: So, faculty members told me loud and clear that this type of initiative would include performance metrics for funding, that would include differential tuition fees–would be a resounding nega­tive effect–impact on our uni­ver­sities.

      And I want to know whether the minister got this message as well, if this was what came out of his con­sul­ta­tion meetings, and what the minister says about that response to the framework that he's currently working on.

Mr. Reyes: I just want to let the–my critic know that con­sul­ta­tions are ongoing. We need to get, you know, very im­por­tant stake­holders involved, including Indigenous groups. You know, we have to listen to all views.

      But, again, I want to thank, you know, the partici­pation of faculty associations and students for their con­tri­bu­tions during our formal con­sul­ta­tions on this new tuition fees and student fees policy, which will bring on a new post 'coundly' frame–framework. The de­part­ment appreciates their partici­pation, and we'll continue to listen to all views.

* (16:20)

Mr. Moses: So I just want to know if the minister can provide a little more clarity or detail there because all the meetings that I've had on this topic, from–including students and from admin­is­tra­tion as well as faculty members have been a resounding no to these proposals. And it's odd to me that the minister seems to be moving forward with this when there's a re­sound­ing and a large amount of pushback on this idea.

      And so I would really love some clarity into, you know–give the minister an op­por­tun­ity to prove why this change is necessary and why he's continuing to move forward with this plan when there seems to be a large amount of op­posi­tion to it.

      And I–because I'd really love to just get as to why we are making this change. I don't think that's been clearly explained to many faculty or students or, quite frankly, you know, even members in this Chamber, people in Manitoba, why these changes are needed.

      So I'd really like to get a sense of why this is, you know–minister claims that account­ability is needed. Account­ability can be achieved in many ways without going to differential tuition. Account­ability can be achieved without going towards performance-based funding. So if the minister wants to achieve account­ability, he can do so without bringing in these initiatives.

      My question is why does the minister feel the need to bring in performance metrics, differential tuitions, when it is clearly, according to the experts and the people most impacted in our post-secondary system, would be a resounding negative into our post-secondary edu­ca­tion system? Why does the minister push forward with this?

Mr. Reyes: Clearly–I say again, clearly, the critic has not read the Office of the Auditor General report with respect to post-secondary account­ability framework.

      At these meetings that he has supposedly heard, clearly–and I say again, clearly–they've all said ac­count­­ability is im­por­tant to all those stake­holders.

      So I recom­mend that the–I strongly suggest that the critic read the off–the report of the Office of the Auditor General so that he can familiarize himself on why account­ability is im­por­tant from the people that he heard at these meetings, and that my de­part­ment has heard.

Mr. Moses: Can the minister just give me a–answer a factual question for me? How much has tuition in­creased for students at uni­ver­sities since 2016?

Mr. Reyes: What I can tell the critic–my critic, that the average tuition in Manitoba is just around–a bit over $5,000, with a prov­incial con­tri­bu­tion of 39.2 per cent to PSI revenue.

      If we compare our numbers with British Columbia, which is governed by the NDP, the NDP gov­ern­ment of BC contributes 32.4 per cent to post-secondary in­sti­tutions' revenue–6.6 per cent less than Manitoba–while the average tuition is almost 20 per cent higher in BC as compared to Manitoba.

      So, our gov­ern­ment is committed to investing more in post-secondary while keeping tuition one of the lowest in Canada, and he's heard that time and time again because it is factual.

Mr. Moses: I asked the minister how much uni­ver­sity has increased for students since 2016. As he is not able to provide the number for me now, can he endeavour to find–get the specific numbers from tuition in 2016 versus tuition in 2022?

Mr. Reyes: I just want to state some stats from Stats Canada with regards to undergraduate students, the average tuition.

      As I stated, while Manitoba is just averaging just over $5,000, in Nova Scotia, it's actually $9,000. Our neighbour next door, Saskatchewan, it is $8,500. Even PEI, which is a smaller province than Manitoba, is just over $7,000. Alberta is $6,500. British Columbia, $6,100. Ontario, $8,000. The Canadian average is $6,700. But ours in Manitoba is $5,000 for the average tuition for a undergraduate student here in Manitoba.

Mr. Moses: I mean, I'm sure that the minister would have the figures on the average tuition for students, since his gov­ern­ment's been in office since 2016 'til now. I'm sure they have that infor­ma­tion.

      I'm wondering if they can share it with us. I don't see what the–his hesitation is, why he can't endeavour, agree to endeavour to take that on to provide both the tuition increases from 2016 to now for uni­ver­sities as well as for colleges. If the minister is so confident that his tuition rates are low, then I don't think he would be–any hesitation to sharing the figures over several years, if he's very confident in its affordability offer.

      So I ask the minister, just one more time, if he can provide the average tuition for uni­ver­sity and colleges in Manitoba since 2016 up until 2022.

Mr. Reyes: So, when it comes to affordability, I don't know if these critic heard me. The average tuition for an undergraduate student in Manitoba is just over $5,000; Nova Scotia, $9,000.

* (16:30)

      Our gov­ern­ment is committed to ensuring Manitobans have access to higher edu­ca­tion. We're finding a balance between affordability, in­sti­tutional sus­tain­ability and quality edu­ca­tion. That's why these con­sul­ta­tions are very im­por­tant, not only with our post-secondary in­sti­tutions, but our faculty associa­tions and our students. Their feedback has been very insightful which has been really good en­gage­ment with everyone to ensure that we meet the objectives of the report of the Office of the Auditor General, which the critic has not read.

Mr. Moses: I don't understand why the minister is accusing me of not reading a docu­ment I never said I didn't read. I don't know where that's coming from, Minister–I'll put to the minister.

      I also want to say that I think it's very telling he doesn't want to share his tuition data over the last record of this gov­ern­ment. It doesn't matter what the current–in many respects, it's irregardless of what the current tuition is, because I'm asking about whether it's increased over time.

      Manitoba students who started their programs four years ago are paying significantly amount–sig­nifi­cantly more now. That increase is a huge different in the lives of Manitoban students. It makes them question whether they want to have a career here, an edu­ca­tional career here in Manitoba, whether they want to stay here or whether they want to go to another province.

      That increase in tuition is what I was asking the minister about. Maybe he did not understand me. That's why I had to ask it three, four and now–two, three and now I'm on the fourth time of asking this question: whether the minister can provide me what the increase in tuition is? Does he have a problem under­standing what I'm asking? I asked him about the increase in tuition, not the current tuition. And, yes, I have read the docu­ment. The minister does not need to put false infor­ma­tion on the record.

      Now, I want to move on to a different question. I would love to move on to a different question, but I'd love the minister, even more, to answer my question about whether–about how much tuition for colleges and uni­ver­sities has increased since 2016.

Mr. Reyes: You know, during the dark days of the NDP, with regards to advanced edu­ca­tion and post-secondary, they took an ideological approach. Neglect.

      We, since 2016, have been cleaning up their mess–cleaning up their mess. And that's why the report came out. A report came out that the Auditor General has recom­mended that we have metrics to ensure account­ability that all our stake­holders have agreed upon. A report that the critic allegedly has read or not read, so I don't know why he's so offensive when it comes to that. But the thing is, we're cleaning up the mess and we're ensuring that we meet the infor­ma­tion that was put onto that report by the Office of the Auditor General.

Mr. Moses: Is the minister interested–is the minister con­sid­ering reinstating public-provided health care for inter­national students?

Mr. Reyes: You know, all summer I've been meeting with many folks, and I'm sure the critic has, too, as well. I've met with many inter­national students from many countries–Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, China.

 And you know, one thing–you know, I'm always eager and excited to meet them because these are highly likely future Manitobans because they like to come here because of–first of all, No. 1 is they actually have connections here. They say the reason why I came here is because, you know, I have friends here that go to these post-secondary in­sti­tutions like the Uni­ver­sity of Manitoba, Assiniboine Com­mu­nity College, Brandon Uni­ver­sity.

Number 2, the great programs.

Number 3, affordability. The low tuition costs. That's what they tell me as the minister, that tuition costs are lower than other juris­dic­tions. I can't afford to go to British Columbia or Ontario. I decided to come to Manitoba because they have a pathway. They have a pathway with regards to, you know, coming here as an inter­national student and then, you know, stream­lining into our Prov­incial Nominee Program that a PC gov­ern­ment created in 1998, may I remind him.

      So, these are individuals that are very im­por­tant to Manitoba because they are studying here. We offer low tuition rates, the reasons why they're coming here.

      And with regards to him asking me about the ques­tion on inter­national student health care, I would ask him to ask that question to the De­part­ment of Health.

Mr. Moses: Thank you for the response, Minister.

I think, you know, many inter­national students are watching this. They're paying attention. This is their health, their livelihood on the line, and so I know that the minister, as he explained, cares deeply for inter­national students.

And I urge him to–you know, if this is some­thing that he supports, if he supports the idea that inter­national students should be back on the provincial health-care plan, then I encourage him to say so today and to encourage his Health Minister to reinstate them if it is in her de­part­ment's respon­si­bility.

      And be clear about it. Inter­national students are watching this. Tell them that you support the idea of having them back on their health–on the prov­incial health-care plan, and tell them that you're going to support advocating for them to the Health Minister to get them reinstated on the–onto the prov­incial health-care plan.

      I'd like to hear that from the minister, and if he can't do that, please explain to inter­national students why he is not able to do that.

Mr. Reyes: I know this week there has been a lot of religious festivals and holidays, including Navratri, and I want to wish, you know, inter­national students from India, those of the Hindu faith, a happy Navratri.

I met with Nidhi [phonetic], the other day–two days ago, and, you know, again what I just said there she told me–like I asked her, from India to Manitoba? Why? Why are you studying in Manitoba? Because I'm always curious, and I always ask these questions. And, again, she told me because she had a friend here, she had a friend connection here, she had a family connection here, and the low tuition costs and the programs that we offer at our fine post-secondary in­sti­tutions here in Manitoba.

And she's aware–and I don't know if the critic's aware, because I've said this many times–that when inter­national students, as part of their tuition enrol­ments, they have health-care coverage and they will receive the same benefits as domestic students once they enrol in their health-care benefits.

* (16:40)

      But, again, I want to tell Nidhi [phonetic], and all the students from India, because it is Navratri this week–those of the Hindu faith–one of our largest source countries for immigration; I believe they are No. 1 at this time–a happy Navratri, and thank you for choosing Manitoba because of the low tuition cost here in our great province of friendly Manitoba.

Mr. Moses: Inter­national students in Manitoba pay the highest for their private health insurance out of any inter­national students in the country. That's a fact. And the minister's inability to see this as a problem, or at least his inability to work to solve this problem, is frustrating because, irregardless of tuition, the levels of tuition in Manitoba, inter­national students have to pay for that health care; they have to pay the highest amount for private health care for inter­national stu­dents in the country here in Manitoba because the minister's gov­ern­ment refused to allow them to be on the health-care plan, a change that happened under this gov­ern­ment's watch in 2018.

      Minister's made no commit­ments to reinstating them today when given the op­por­tun­ity, and I'd like to give the minister an op­por­tun­ity to change course again to benefit the thousands of inter­national students here who are calling to be reinstated on the prov­incial health-care plan. Because, quite frankly, in addition to having to pay out of pocket for the private health-care plan, the services, if they need health-care services, they–the inter­national students have to pay up front for those services before getting reinstated by their insurance plan. In addition, health-care service pro­viders are often unsure about whether they qualify for health-care services, so many students are leery and unsure about going to get services in the first place. And that leads to worse health-care out­comes. It leads to worse health-care out­comes. And why would we ever want to put our students in that sort of a position?

      So I'll ask the minister, what is he actually going to do to take this issue seriously? Is the minister going to consider pushing for inter­national students to be reinstated on the prov­incial health-care plan?

Mr. Reyes: I don't know. I guess the member did not hear me the first time, but I'll explain again more–maybe more in detail.

      Since January 2022, I've had many discussions with hundreds of inter­national students from countries like Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, China, Nigeria and all across the globe that choose Manitoba as their top destination to study. And the common theme in their discussions is that our low tuition and our affordable living costs in Manitoba are the fun­da­mental reasons for students to choose Manitoba.

      The average–in comparison to tuition costs, you know, the average tuition in Manitoba for an inter­national student is just under $18,000 versus Nova Scotia is $20,000; neighbouring Saskatchewan, $22,000; NDP-governed British Columbia is $30,000; Ontario is $42,000. The Canadian average is $33,000. Again, our average inter­national tuition for under­graduates is just under $18,000.

Mr. Moses: Has the minister done any analysis on the impact of cutting support–health-care support for inter­national students? And the analysis I'm asking about is would that be for, you know, perhaps, health-care out­comes, or in–or, rather, economic impact as a result of the cut of health-care services for inter­national students?

Mr. Reyes: Again, I want to ensure that all 'internash' students, that they have health-care coverage in Manitoba as part of their tuition enrolment, and that, you know–health, again, doesn't fall under my pur­view, and he can ask the question to the De­part­ment of Health with regards to that.

      But let me tell inter­national students again that they have health-care coverage in Manitoba as part of their tuition enrolment.

      And again, on behalf of the Province of Manitoba, thank you for choosing friendly Manitoba to study because of our low tuition rates that I've heard since I became minister for this portfolio in January 2022.

Mr. Moses: I know in the–in previous–what was known as bill 33, The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act, there was a section around deter­mining fees for uni­ver­sity students.

      And I'm not talking about for student unions, I'm talking about non-student-union-related fees. There was the ability for the de­part­ment, the minister, to create regula­tion on student fees for uni­ver­sity students.

      Is the minister planning on making a change to that regula­tion or–and would that be for this year or next year? Is he doing any work on that part for stu­dent fees, and spe­cific­ally ones that are not related to student unions?

Mr. Reyes: I want to thank the member, my critic, for that question.

      I want to thank all post-secondary partners and Manitobans for having partici­pated in our con­sul­ta­tion process regarding the future tuition fees and student fees policy in Manitoba.

      Through­out our con­sul­ta­tions, we heard from our post-secondary partners, faculty and student associa­tion students and other Manitobans. Their feedback was very valuable. Their input was very valid toward informing the dev­elop­ment of a policy–in this case, the future tuition fees and student fees policy. This future policy will consider the balance between student affordability, in­sti­tutional sus­tain­ability and fiscal respon­si­bility.

      I look forward–my de­part­ment looks forward to continue working with our partners to develop a flexible and responsive policy that will ensure that a quality post-secondary edu­ca­tion remains ac­ces­si­ble and affordable for Manitoba students.

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Moses: Can the minister provide the most recent wait times for students trying to access Manitoba Student Aid?

* (16:50)

Mr. Reyes: As I said earlier today, we are continually 'entancing' our processes and products that include Manitoba Student Aid. I know that my staff are working hard each and every day to ensure that the applications and enquiries from clients are addressed in a timely manner.

      We know that the previous NDP gov­ern­ment didn't know how to run a Manitoba Student Aid sys­tem and wasted $15 million–$15 million of taxpayers' money–on an outdated student aid software resulting in delay in students' applications and disbursements of funds. The lack of action on their part has created a mess for our gov­ern­ment. We have a plan to improve that.

      So again, I want to thank all the hard-working staff at Student Aid for enhancing the processes and products to ensure that we meet the students' needs.

Mr. Moses: Many students complain about not being able to get through the phone lines of the Student Aid as well as no response to emails and having a hard time getting any infor­ma­tion from the Student Aid offices.

      What is the minister doing to address these? Is he increasing staffing or is he making any changes to address these to improve Student Aid for Manitobans?

Mr. Reyes: What I can tell my critic is that 16,000 applications have been processed. That's ap­proxi­mately 60 per cent of funds being dispersed for a total of $74 million, right? I know my staff has been working hard on cleaning the mess that the previous NDP gov­ern­ment, who didn't know how to run the Manitoba aid system, because they left us with this mess, and again, wasted $15 million on outdated stu­dent aid software, resulting in delays; and we're clean­ing up that mess.

      But you know what–the Manitoba Student Aid division is working very hard to get those funds out, but I can tell you that 60 per cent of these funds have been dispersed. During this time, it's been a very peak time to get these out there, but again, the de­part­ment is working hard to enhance the processes of Student Aid.

Mr. Moses: Some students bring up the fact that, you know, this is a prov­incially run student aid program and they're going–attending a prov­incially funded post-secondary in­sti­tution, for example, the University of Manitoba, and saying how it's confusing that they, you know, might be facing penal­ties and inability to attend a publicly funded uni­ver­sity and also, you know, issues with this publicly funded student aid.

      And so, wondering if there's a connection that could be made there to help uni­ver­sity, a publicly funded uni­ver­sity, understand that there's issues that are beyond the students' control with Manitoba Student Aid that would–and allow them to continue their edu­ca­tion at that publicly funded in­sti­tution while the issues with Manitoba Student Aid get sorted out so that the student doesn't get caught in the middle; their edu­ca­tion doesn't get suffered. Under­standing that there is a lot of public funding going in, obviously with Manitoba Student Aid as well as the in­sti­tution that they're attending.

      So has the minister considered any plans or pro­posals to allow students to continue their edu­ca­tion so that they don't suffer in any way while they might be living through delays with Manitoba Student Aid?

Mr. Reyes: We always work in close part­ner­ship with our post-secondary in­sti­tutions, and we are working with our post-secondary institutions to defer tuition. We've had regular com­muni­cation with them. We know that it's very im­por­tant that students who have not received their aid, you know, get their student aid in a timely manner.

      But the thing is, though, we have com­muni­cated with PSIs to defer tuition, and we've had some really good con­ver­sa­tions about that. They've been very un­der­­­standing. And regular com­muni­cation is ongoing until we have the situation solved.

Mr. Moses: I thank the minister for that response. So to be clear, if a student is having specific problems accessing edu­ca­tion due to a delay in their student aid, what process should they follow? Should they be contacting your office to have that looked at in terms of the specific–their specific case? Because many times, when they reach out to Student Aid, they're not getting a response, there's extreme wait on a phone line and the folks there aren't able to be as helpful.

      Should they be reaching out to your office, Minister?

Mr. Reyes: As I've said before, you know what? We're committed to students. We're committed to ensuring Manitobans have access to higher edu­ca­tion, and in this case, to Manitoba Student Aid. We want to find a balance between affordability, institutional sus­tain­ability and quality edu­ca­tion.

      With regards to the question that my critic asked, I just want to let him know that I know that Manitoba Student Aid is working extremely hard to ensure that we get these funds out for these students. But to answer your question directly, there–to the member of St. Vital, is the first step is to contact that respective post-secondary in­sti­tution first, and then if there is any issue at all, please contact my de­part­ment, and we'll assure that we get back to the student who is affected.

Mr. Moses: In the annual report for Advanced Education, Skills and Immigration, page 30, it's clear that the grant or grant assist­ance was decreased from last year as well as the grant assist­ance for ap­prentice­ships.

      I'm asking the minister, you know, how he ex­pects to continue to provide–ensure that our post-secondary in­sti­tutions are thriving and suc­cess­ful when we see year after year reductions in funding for  post-secondary in­sti­tutions that we see again evidenced on page 30 of the annual report.

Mr. Reyes: The one thing that I can tell the critic is that, you know, the de­part­ment has started public con­sul­ta­tions with regard to skills at ap­prentice­ship to modernize the ap­prentice­ship model to address the labour market shortages as part of our five-year–

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

      The hour being 5 p.m., com­mit­tee rise.

      Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday morning.

      Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.


 

 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, October 6, 2022

CONTENTS


Vol. 70b

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Committee Reports

Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development

Sixth Report

Smook  3033

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Food

First Report

Wishart 3034

Tabling of Reports

Goertzen  3035

Members' Statements

Rick Chrest

Helwer 3035

Pembina Curling Club

Wasyliw   3035

Thanksgiving

Teitsma  3036

Marilyn McGonigal

Kinew   3036

Vincent Williams

Lamoureux  3037

Oral Questions

Home-Care Services

Kinew   3037

Stefanson  3037

Increase in Project Nova Costs

Kinew   3038

Stefanson  3038

Increase in Project Nova Costs

Sandhu  3039

Goertzen  3039

Provincial Carbon Pricing

Naylor 3040

Wharton  3040

Post-Secondary Education

Moses 3041

Reyes 3041

Northern Health-Care Services

Bushie  3042

Helwer 3042

Domestic Violence Shelters

Lamont 3043

Squires 3043

Stanley Knowles School

Lamoureux  3044

Stefanson  3044

Manitoba Hydro and Public Utilities Board

Guenter 3044

Friesen  3044

Prairie Mountain Health Region

Marcelino  3044

Johnston  3045

Petitions

Bibliothèque Régionale Jolys Regional Library

Altomare  3045

B. Smith  3046

Louise Bridge

Maloway  3046

Bibliothèque Régionale Jolys Regional Library

Sala  3047

Home-Care Services

Marcelino  3048

Hearing Aids

Gerrard  3049

Lamoureux  3050

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(Continued)

GOVERNMENT business

Committee of Supply

(Concurrent Sections)

Room 254

Seniors and Long-Term Care

Johnston  3051

Asagwara  3052

Environment, Climate and Parks

Wharton  3056

Naylor 3057

Room 255

Families

Squires 3060

B. Smith  3062

Sala  3070

Chamber

Indigenous Reconciliation and Northern Relations

Bushie  3074

Lagimodiere  3074

Advanced Education, Skills and Immigration

Reyes 3077

Moses 3078