LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Madam Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.
Please be seated.
Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): I move, seconded by the member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine), that Bill 204, The Post-Secondary Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policies Act (Various Acts Amended); Loi sur les politiques visant à contrer la violence à caractère sexuel et le harcèlement sexuel dans les établissements postsecondaires (modification de diverses dispositions législatives), be now read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, I'm proud to have been seconded by my colleague from St. Johns. It's a firm belief of mine that every student in our province deserves to be able to pursue their education free from sexual violence or sexual harassment. That's why this law will set a common standard across all of Manitoba so that every university and college is required to have a policy dealing with sexual misconduct, that such a policy be designed in consultation with students and that there be public reporting of incidents of sexual misconduct on campuses, at colleges and universities.
Again, this is about setting a common standard across the province so that we can be sure that if a young person from Winnipeg wants to study in the North, or if a Manitoba student from the rural community wants to come study in downtown Winnipeg, they know that there's a common playing field with regard to guaranteeing their safety.
Madam Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]
Committee reports?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Estimates for Legislative Review for 2016 for the Department of Health, Seniors and Active Living.
Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Estimates for the Legislative Review for 2016 for the Department of Growth, Enterprise and Trade.
Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Estimates for Legislative Review for 2016 for the Department of Justice.
Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Families): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Estimates for Legislative Review for 2016 for the Department of Families.
Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Estimates for Legislative Review for 2016 for the Department of Education and Training.
Madam Speaker: Ministerial statements?
Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Crown Services): Madam Speaker, 146 years ago, on May 12th, the Manitoba Act was passed by the Parliament of Canada, received royal assent, and Manitoba joined the Canadian Confederation as its fifth province. Fifty years ago, in 1966, May 12th also saw Manitoba's official flag dedicated and unfurled for the first time.
But nothing quite defines the spirit of Manitoba like our participation as local volunteers, and perhaps volunteers make our communities stronger, safer and more beautiful. What better time to recognize our volunteers than Manitoba Day.
On May 24th, the constituency of St. Paul held the 2nd Annual MLA's volunteer appreciation reception, where I had the privilege of recognizing the volunteers of the Springfield Regional Committee.
Joining us in the Chamber today are Chairperson Ann Cooke, Doreen Bonneteau, Adele Burell, Claire Ernst, Beth Pochuk, Phyllis Raitt, Laurel Schyer, Doreen Weitzel. These volunteers sort and price items for sale at the local thrift shop called Another Time Around, which is staffed completely by volunteers. The proceeds are used to provide financial assistance to help children to attend camp or dance classes and to support Kids in Kare. Children whose families have requested a Christmas hamper also receive special attention on their birthday with a personal birthday card and a gift certificate to Kildonan Place.
To these volunteers, thank you for sharing your love for our communities, for being an inspiration to us all and demonstrating to the rest of Canada and the world the true essence of Manitoba. Thank you, volunteers.
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, this past Saturday I was so pleased to attend the Rhythm and Roots Gala at Maples Collegiate in support of the Seven Oaks Wayfinders program.
Over 400 community members, parents and funders raised $55,000 in celebration of the students and staff who make Wayfinders an incredible partner in Manitoba's education system.
Wayfinders is a mentorship and outreach program that helps students graduate from high school and develop life skills. Wayfinders works with students needing additional resources including homework support, a meal program, mentorship opportunities, work placements, scholarships and extracurricular activities like art lessons, gardening and sports camp.
More importantly, the phenomenal staff at Wayfinders offers students a sense of home, comfort, family, respect and love as they journey through their high school years, a time that can be often difficult for some students.
On Saturday, we celebrated students like Macray, who has attended Wayfinders since the age of 14, now graduating high school with a four-year scholarship to the University of Manitoba.
* (13:40)
Macray grew up socio-economically disadvantaged and looked to Wayfinders to provide a safe space to succeed academically. Macray has a sense of hope for his future and, thanks to Wayfinders, has the tools to succeed.
And like Jeremy, a grade 11 student who, until joining Wayfinders, was struggling to attend class, with one-on-one tutoring and reams of encouragement, Jeremy's confidence and motivation grew. He has now signed on to attend the Wayfinders summer program and plans to graduate high school and attend Red River College.
This year, 70 students will be graduating and moving on to post-secondary education thanks to the support they received from Wayfinders.
Today we are joined in the gallery by some of the Wayfinders staff and students. Please join me in acknowledging and celebrating Wayfinders' most important work in the lives of Manitoba students.
Mr. Brad Michaleski (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, the week of June the 5th to 11th is Canadian Environment Week, and it is a great time to reflect on the positive progress that agriculture technology has had on the industry and our environment.
Maintaining good soil and water quality are important global issues, as production systems adapt to policy and demand changes.
Science and technology has played a major role in developing the agricultural industry, an industry which quietly goes about its business yet has contributed immeasurably to the positive evolution of our society as a whole. Our education systems, our infrastructure, our health-care system, our quality of life are a product of this agricultural evolution, and we all have a stake in it.
Over the last decade or so, Manitoba producers have been participating in the environmental farm plan, a self-assessment and awareness plan which highlights environmental issues of soil and water. Producers from all sectors of production are making use of this tool, albeit as finances and confidence allows.
Summer fallow, as an example, as an annual production practice has largely disappeared, replaced by minimum disturbance and direct seeding technology that has gone further to incorporate satellite and variable fertility technology to enable one pass instead of traditional two to five, making tremendous progress to lessening environmental impact and improving the health and quality of our soils, water and air.
Livestock producers are adopting practices to address nutrient loading, improving the quality of our water and soil resources.
Is there more work to be done? Absolutely.
Madam Speaker, by implementing their action plans and adopting beneficial management practices, Manitoba producers are part of the solution and make Manitoba grown more marketable to environmentally conscious consumers around the world.
Environmental sustainability as it pertains to agriculture is a dynamic issue because it is simply not only a producer issue. As opinions, our products, tastes and demands continue to expand, it's important to remember that science and technology has found many ways–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
An Honourable Member: Leave?
Madam Speaker: Is there leave for the member to complete his statement? [Agreed]
Mr. Michaleski: It's important to remember that science and technology has found many ways through the years to help commodity producers feed the world safely, consistently and affordably and will remain instrumental in maintaining, preserving the environment going forward.
In the spirit of Canadian Environment Week, I congratulate all the agricultural producers on the positive environmental progress they do.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): Reconciliation cannot begin unless the truth is heard. That was the message this Saturday at the KAIROS Blanket Exercise held on the Legislative grounds. Indigenous youth leaders and settler allies shared histories and built relationships, taking one another's–taking another step towards reconciliation.
The blanket exercise is part of an ongoing effort to teach Canadian indigenous history, building a more inclusive narrative. Participants stand on blankets that represent the land that is now called Canada. Stories are read aloud, taking people on a journey through pre-contact, colonization and indigenous resistance.
The stories build empathy among storytellers as blankets are taken away. People are left with less and less land to stand on, mirroring the indigenous experience. It is a way to help people understand the resilience and resistance of indigenous peoples who feel the pressures of ongoing colonialism.
After the exercise, people join in a sharing circle. People are often unaware the exercise can be a painful reminder of personal stories and it can be a very emotional experience, but it's also a way to honour traditional indigenous territory and peoples.
Madam Speaker, true reconciliation means that the story of Canada must be adapted to reflect and recentre the voices and stories of indigenous peoples. There's still much work to be done and I'd like to thank all of the organizers who made this amazing event possible.
Miigwech, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Are there any further members' statements?
Hon. Cathy Cox (Minister of Sustainable Development): I'm honoured to rise in the House, Madam Speaker, to recognize Allan Rouse: a dear friend, a lifelong volunteer, a World War II veteran and a pillar of our River East community.
Nearly 50 years ago, Al and his wife, Helen, established deep roots in North Kildonan and are still proud to call River East their home. They chose to raise their daughter Allyson here, knowing it was the kind of neighbourhood that fostered the same values and principles that guided them throughout their life.
On Sunday, May 29th, I had the honour of attending–excuse me–the Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 215 Veterans' Dinner where I had the honour and privilege of presenting Al Rouse with a certificate congratulating and commending him for his 70 years of continued service to the Royal Canadian Legion. A lifetime member, Al served in many capacities including the chair and first vice‑president.
At 90 years of age, Al continues to give generously of himself, still participating in the many Remembrance Day services hosted by our local schools. A World War II veteran, having served with the Canadian Navy from 1939 to 1945 in both Europe and the South Pacific, Al continues to commemorate and remember those brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice while protecting our great country of Canada.
Al's accomplishments are many, and in addition to a 43-year career with the Province of Manitoba where he served as a county court clerk and magistrate and clerk of the peace, Court of Queen's Bench. He also enjoyed a 25-year term as a trustee representing the River East School Division.
He's also served on many community boards including the EK YM-YWCA, the Concordia board and foundation and the Manitoba Medical Service Foundation.
Al is an active member of the John Black United Church and remains involved with the Kiwanis Club of East Kildonan, achieving 50 years of service as a Kiwanian.
He's been awarded many humanitarian awards including the Martin Bergen Award, the City of Winnipeg Community Award, and the Order of the Buffalo Hunt, and there is also a little cove located just behind my home, in–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Introduction of Guests
Madam Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's gallery where we have with us today the 2016-2017 Legislative pages: Nathan Dueck, Denee Rylee, Lily Reder, Sydney Puhach, David Nyhof, Kaylyn McDonald, Karsen Lee Winters and Sarah Miller.
On behalf of all of us here, we'd like to welcome you here today.
Fiscal Disclosure
Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): It has been increasingly difficult to get answers from the Premier and his government on even the most basic questions.
* (13:50)
Take the supposed $122 million in savings the Premier talked about in the budget. Day in and day out the Premier has tried to deflect attention away from the fact that he has no answer.
Why doesn't the Premier admit he made this number up?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Well, I'll try to explain it clearly for the member, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House. The anticipated deficit that the previous administration left the people of Manitoba is over $1 billion. The projected deficit for the coming year is $122 million less. Therefore, there would be savings of $122 million as a consequence of the reduced spending as it was anticipated would be undertaken by the previous administration and will not be by this administration.
Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Official Opposition Leader, on a supplementary question.
Ms. Marcelino: The Premier has characterized the $122 million as savings. What he's talking about is accounting. The Premier says he cares about openness and transparency, but one of his first acts was to mislead Manitobans.
Will he apologize?
Mr. Pallister: Thank you to the member for the question. I appreciate her raising it. The previous administration predicted last year in their budget that they would run a deficit of a little over $400 million. The actual deficit that they're going to run is over $1 billion so they missed it by over–well, about $600 million.
Madam Speaker, we're proposing to reduce the deficit amount from the amount that we were left with by 12 per cent, and we think that's a good accomplishment and a good start on getting back to balance here in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Official Opposition Leader, on a final supplementary.
Ms. Marcelino: The most bizarre comment the Premier made on this issue–and this is a Premier that is becoming known for his bizarre comments–is that the Finance Minister was too busy to list the savings. Really, Madam Speaker?
How long will it take to draft up a non-existent phantom list?
Mr. Pallister: I can't compete with the members opposite on the bizarre front at all but I can say this: Their bizarre charges, their bizarre allegations and their bizarre attempts to frighten Manitobans failed miserably in the last election.
They claimed that there would be massive cuts; there are no cuts in this budget at all. They claimed that there would be massive layoffs and that people should be frightened; there are no layoffs in this budget at all. They claimed that, of course, the legacy they've left us with was far less than the legacy they left Manitobans with, to the tune of $600 million.
These are all false claims–false, false, false–very bizarre claims to make, but I understand they were desperate when they made them. They shouldn't continue to make them, however, in the light of our budget which protects front-line services and the people who provide them, which lowers taxes on Manitobans and which protects our services and enhances our ability to provide services to Manitobans in the future in a sustainable and well‑managed way, Madam Speaker.
Fiscal Disclosure
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): The Premier (Mr. Pallister) is reported to have said in the media, and I quote, that he doesn't want it reported that he's not being open and transparent, unquote, and yet it's hard to conclude anything other than that, Madam Speaker, when he suggested they'd made 102–$122 million in savings and has yet to provide any evidence of that $122 million.
Will the Finance Minister table for the House a list of the $122 million he said he has found in the budget?
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I thank my colleague for the question because it gives me an opportunity to reflect on the record of the previous government when it came to hitting their fiscal targets.
Now, the member must understand that he disclosed only a year ago that the government was planning to run a $442-million deficit. They revised that to $666 million when they brought a non-budget in March, but now the true number is seen as it really stands, at $1 billion. This is a challenge for all Manitobans, so I'm perplexed that the member asks this question, knowing full well that his government missed their targets each and every time.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Allum: It's pretty obvious that the minister is not being straight with the people of Manitoba.
This is a budget that includes no fiscal projections, no affordability section, no answers on what will be cut and when.
Will this minister be open and accountable, not only to this Chamber but to the people of Manitoba, and table a list of the alleged savings that he says he's found? It's that simple, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Friesen: I appreciate the question.
The minister–or the member talks about shooting straight, but let's understand that his government would set out a target each year, a projected deficit, then they would revise that number each year. As a matter of fact, they outspent their planned budget each and every year for the last 10 years. Since they took power, the accumulated overspend is almost $3 billion.
Now, the member knows that we're able to save money with the reduction of Cabinet, $4 million each and every year. The member knows that we're able to save money on not overpromising when it comes to the SSTR, and we're happy to keep the Seniors' School Tax Rebate and direct it to those who need it more.
All of these things, and more, result in savings that reduces the deficit. We're committed to that work of reducing the deficit.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Allum: Madam Speaker, you know, we'd be happy to reflect on the targets set by the Finance Minister if he would just share them with the people of Manitoba.
The Finance Minister said over a week ago that he would provide a list of the savings of the alleged $122 million. More than a week has passed.
Time flies, I know, in the House, Madam Speaker, so will the minister just do the right thing today, table the list and come clean with the people of Manitoba?
Mr. Friesen: The member feigns indignation, but he understands that this is work that he now sometime–somehow says we can't produce, but his government could not produce this work. They failed each and every year to reduce their spending. They failed to hit their targets.
We are proud to bring out a budget that actually holds the growth of spending to 3 per cent–to under 3 per cent, while revenues will increase more.
This is a good-news story for Manitobans. Manitobans perceive it as much.
Only they seem to see it differently.
Pimachiowin Aki UNESCO World Heritage Site
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): It's becoming quite clear that making claims they can't back up is becoming the early hallmark of this government.
I will give the Minister of Sustainable Development a chance to redeem her party's performance so far.
Could she please explain to the House the government's new-found interest and support in the Pimachiowin Aki UNESCO World Heritage Site designation?
Hon. Cathy Cox (Minister of Sustainable Development): Madam Speaker, thank you to the member opposite for that question.
Obviously, all of our forests, our wildlife, our natural resources are such an important asset to all Manitobans, and all of Manitoba is so rich and diverse in having all of those resources. We're proud of them, and we're so happy that Manitobans can continue to enjoy them.
So thank you for that question.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Altemeyer: Well, that's awesome. Everyone enjoys–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Altemeyer: It's wonderful that the minister enjoys forests. It doesn't seem that she realizes–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Altemeyer: She doesn't appear to realize, Madam Speaker, that her colleague, the minister for Crowns, is attempting to review a Bipole III transmission line which would go right through the heart of the UNESCO World Heritage Site.
* (14:00)
It's not just forests. It's the people in the First Nations communities who live there.
Will the minister please clarify: Is it UNESCO, or is it a bipole?
Mrs. Cox: And thanks again for that important question.
As I've said earlier, Manitoba and Manitobans enjoy our forests. We're rich and diverse in our wildlife, our fishing, our hunting and all of that that we appreciate so much. And we will continue to ensure that we protect and preserve our forests and our natural resources.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Altemeyer: Ow.
Madam Speaker, I think the minister's CD is stuck.
Very simple question: Where on earth does Hydro's board, as instructed by the minister for Crowns, think it has the jurisdiction to skip over section 35 duties to consult with the First Nations communities on the east side of Lake Winnipeg before even entertaining the idea of putting a transmission line down the east side of Lake Winnipeg?
Does the minister not realize that that type of an approach could jeopardize the ruling that's coming from UNESCO in July, less than a month from now?
Mrs. Cox: Thank you again.
I would just acknowledge the fact that the members opposite always followed their rules and regulations and always ensured that any legislation that they put forward they ensured that they debated, and just like the surface management act.
So thank you so much for that.
Pimachiowin Aki UNESCO World Heritage Site
Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): Madam Speaker, will my favourite Minister of Crown Services please indicate what direction he has given the Hydro board as it relates to the review of Bipole III and the World Heritage project?
Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Crown Services): I'd like to thank my critic for the question.
As we've made it very clear, our government has given the Crown corporations some questions that we want recommendations on. And one of those is the bipole line 3. And we know that they are working very diligently on that issue. And we wait for a report and a recommendation in the near future.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Tyndall Park, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Marcelino: Madam Speaker, if the Crown boards are truly fully independent from politics, and the minister has delegated responsibilities to them, all responsibilities to them, pray, tell us: What exactly is the minister's job?
Mr. Schuler: I'd like to thank the member for his question.
And one of the jobs that I have is to ensure that NDP members don't politicize the Crowns, and, for example–and that, Madam Speaker, is a full-time job. It was this government.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Tyndall Park, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Marcelino: Madam Speaker, I like that. I get it that he doesn't have a job.
Will the minister provide leadership for the Hydro board, or has he tied his own hands and cannot protect the World Heritage project? Which is it?
Mr. Schuler: I thank the member for the question because it's important to put facts on the record.
And what we are going to do as a government, our government is going to ensure that unlike the member and all of his fellow colleagues who walked down the hallway to the Crowns and took Jets tickets, would they–which they were not deserving of, which they weren't entitled to, we're also not going to allow them to politicize Manitoba Hydro where they went to the point of a $1.2-billion hydro line now costing ratepayers over $4 billion. It was supposed to be $1.2 billion, is now going to cost $4 billion.
We need no lessons from members opposite.
Committee of Cabinet Status
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, Healthy Child Manitoba is a nationally recognized cross-departmental initiative launched by the previous government that aims to achieve the best possible outcomes for Manitoban's children by targeting their physical and emotional health, safety and security, learning success and social engagement. It is legislated through The Healthy Child Manitoba Act, which mandates that a committee of Cabinet must be formed to track the progress.
When was the Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet struck, and which minister is the chair of said committee?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): I appreciate the question that was asked. It certainly is an important issue, and we know that there are many different areas that are determinants of health outcomes for children.
Children need to have early intervention, of course, and ensure that parents have that support. We know that there are other issues around immunization that help to protect children, Madam Speaker, and there are many, many issues that help determine the health determination of children. And we as a government, the entire government, not just my department, not just any other department, are committed to that.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a supplementary question.
Ms. Fontaine: Many of the families in my constituency of St. Johns rely on programs 'ofter'–offered under Healthy Child, programs like the Healthy Baby Prenatal Benefit, which enables low‑income women to meet the nutritional demands of pregnancy by providing financial support. Under the act, the Minister of Finance may make grants for programs and organizations on the recommendations of the committee.
What kind of recommendations did the Finance of minister receive in advance of the budget from the Healthy Child committee?
Mr. Goertzen: Certainly, that is a serious issue, and I know that my friend has raised it in a serious way from St. Johns, Madam Speaker.
And there are many different things, of course, that we heard from those who need assistance and who need help, who need a hand up, Madam Speaker, and we believe that's important to give people a hand up, whether that is Rent Assist in bringing the median market rate to 75 per cent to ensure that there's assistance, whether that's taking people off of the tax rolls so that they have more money when they're working.
Those are the sorts of things that we brought forward in the budget, and those are the sorts of things that the member voted against.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a final supplementary.
Ms. Fontaine: So for my two questions I didn't hear even one Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet.
So I'm just asking very simply: When is the committee going to be struck up, and who is the minister in charge, and will this government commit to that committee?
Mr. Goertzen: Well, Madam Speaker, we certainly saw a commitment, a commitment that came forward in Budget 2016 that would ensure that those who are struggling the most would be able to keep more money in their pockets. We had a commitment in Budget 2016 to ensure that there is housing for those who have the most difficult time getting safe housing. And I know that that's one of the key portions to ensure that somebody who is struggling has safe and adequate housing.
That's the commitment that was made throughout the government, and we'll continue to keep that commitment.
* (14:10)
Lower Health-Care Costs
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): Madam Speaker, seniors are having to choose between eating healthy, paying rent and taking the prescribed medicine.
According to the 2012 Canadian Medical Association Journal, almost one in 10 seniors who need prescribed medications do not take them due to an issue of affordability. I believe that if prescription medication were more affordable, this would mean cheaper health care here in Manitoba.
My first question is simple: Does the government agree that more affordable medication would contribute to cheaper health care here in the province?
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): I thank the member for the question. I know that she asks it with all the right intention on behalf of those who have that challenge.
We know there are many different struggles that people have in the health-care system. We know that individuals who need to call an ambulance sometimes struggle about whether or not they can actually pay the bill, and I'm proud to say that we're moving towards a system where we have the ambulance fees cut in half.
The issue, of course, of affordable drugs is one that all provinces across Canada are struggling with, and I'm glad to be working with other provinces in Canada to lower the cost of purchasing drugs and pass those savings on to consumers, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, on a supplementary question.
Impact on Low-Income Seniors
Ms. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, last Friday, I brought up the dire need for cheaper prescription medicine for seniors on low income. I'm relieved that the Minister of Health agreed with me and said, and I quote: "the member is correct. One of the great challenges that we have in health care is, in fact, the high cost of prescription drugs." End quote.
My question is to the Minister of Health: Will he please provide this House with a specific answer of how he is planning to deal with the 10 per cent of seniors who are not taking the prescribed medication due to affordability?
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Goertzen: And, Madam Speaker, the member is correct. I absolutely did say that in the House, and now I'll repeat it. It is one of the great challenges that every Health minister, every government, is struggling with across Canada in terms of the affordability of prescription drugs.
I will continue to be working with my colleagues across Canada, and there is good work that is happening, and it's already happened in terms of reducing the costs of prescription drugs. There's more that's going to be announced on that because there's more good work that's happening, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, on a final supplementary.
Ms. Lamoureux: I'm curious to hear what this good work that is happening is.
Madam Speaker, imagine being a senior on fixed income and the medication you require has become a financial burden to the degree in which you have to decide on spending your limited finances on food or medication. This forces many low-income seniors to use food banks and other sources.
My question to the Minister of Health is: Can he please provide hope to these seniors and tell us when this government will bring forward a plan to deal with his–this very serious issue of prescription medication and affordability?
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Goertzen: Madam Speaker, the member asks for updates on the good work that is happening. It is happening across Canada where different jurisdictions are working together in ensuring that we have a central purchasing of prescription drugs. There's–that is going to be looked at and further expanded to other drugs.
That's the good work that is happening, and it'll continue to happen under our government, Madam Speaker.
Air Canada Act–Bill C-10
Mr. Scott Johnston (St. James): I'm proud to represent the constituency of St. James, home to the strong and diverse aerospace industry in our province. So many of 'constituentses'–constituents work in this industry, which provides jobs and economic activity in Manitoba. We need to stand together in support of this vital industry, and we are concerned by the federal government's proposed legislation with regard to the aerospace jobs.
Could the Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade please update the House on how stakeholders across our province have reacted to the proposed Bill C-10 from the federal government?
Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade): I appreciate the question from the member for St. James. He clearly recognizes the importance of the aerospace industry and the negative impacts on Bill C-10.
In our consultations, we've heard from people like Dayna Spiring, president and CEO of Economic Development Winnipeg. And she told us, and I quote: Bill C-10, in its current form, does not ensure a commitment to Winnipeg's growth potential in the aerospace and aviation industries. End of quote.
Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we believe in good jobs, a stronger economy for all Manitobans, and we're asking all members of the House today to support our motion, going forward, on Bill C-10.
Matching Provincial Funding Commitment
Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): Madam Speaker, capital investments in post-secondary campuses across Manitoba allow us to innovate and carry out research that will create the economy for today and tomorrow, projects like the Assiniboine Community College centre for health, energy and environment.
Right now there's a unique opportunity with the federal government's $2-billion Post-Secondary Institutions Strategic Investment Fund.
Will the Minister of Education commit in the House today to make available the necessary provincial matching funds so post-secondaries in Manitoba can access federal infrastructure dollars?
Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for the question.
As the member well knows, this is a long-term, ongoing project regarding ACC's relocation. And certainly we are very interested in making sure that it is well funded in the future. And we are looking very carefully at whether or not this is a good place to put investment dollars for Manitobans.
But I can tell the member that we are certainly positive in regards to the outlook for this project.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Rouge, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Kinew: The answer showed a bit of equivocation, where he was positive on the outlook but noncommittal on whether it would actually be of value.
It was a similar lack of clarity, which I read about in the Winnipeg Free Press today, when Assiniboine Community College noted that they had not heard directly from the Minister of Education regarding this North Hill development. Instead, they're relying on second-hand information from the federal government, who in turn asked the provincial government.
Can the Minister of Education explain how leaving a post-secondary institution to rely on second-hand information rather than direct contact is consistent with the stock answer that we hear in this House every day about how they're consulting with stakeholders?
Mr. Wishart: Well, I certainly appreciate the question.
It was only a few days ago that I was actually at the ACC graduation, the first time a minister had been there in 11 years.
And, yes, Madam Speaker, I certainly enjoyed the opportunity to have a face-to-face discussion with the people, the–and not only the graduates but the staff and the members of the board, as to the future of that institution.
Something that we do is called consultation. You should look it up, because your history in regards to that is extremely poor.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Rouge, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Kinew: I'm also happy to play the game of who went to ACC first. I was there last year to speak to their staff on a professional development day about indigenous issues.
It just goes to show, once again, in the answer here, the government says they're for innovation but they won't commit to the capital projects that will make innovation possible. They say they're for labour market outcomes but they won't commit to the capital projects that the labour market says it needs. The government says it will consult with stakeholders while leaving stakeholders in the dark even while attending their convocation ceremonies.
How can this minister claim to have a government that believes in openness and transparency when all we hear is obfuscation and a lack of clarity?
Mr. Wishart: Madam Speaker, certainly, the government–or sorry, the past government was very keen to promise anything to anyone during the election 'camplaign,' in fact, $600 million worth of promises that they probably never would've kept. Manitobans certainly saw through that.
We're looking at the value of each one of these investments. And I can tell you we are taking very seriously proper investment on behalf of Manitobans to get the best results for their hard-earned tax dollars.
* (14:20)
Mining Industry Development Concerns
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, we haven't heard a lot of answers, so I'll give the minister a chance to give a simple answer.
Over and over again, the government has ignored calls to act on the issues that matter most to northern Manitoba families. They barely mention the North in their budget other than their no North program.
Mining is one of the most important industries in Flin Flon, and northern families are concerned that this government hasn't acknowledged the need to extend mining operations and make new exploration plans possible.
Does the Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade recognize that there are hundreds of jobs at stake?
Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade): I appreciate a question on the mining industry. I was–unfortunately it took the opposition a long time to get there. I think it's probably because of their dismal record in the mining sector in Manitoba. We have one of the worst records in terms of mining exploration dollars in Manitoba. Less than almost 2 per cent of the total investment in mining is coming to Manitoba.
This new government believes in jobs. This government believes in a great economy. This government will be doing things to improve the mining sector in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Lindsey: I guess it wasn't a simple answer after all.
Our NDP government has worked hard to get new mines open which are creating 900-plus new jobs, but the only remaining mine in Flin Flon will be closing down by 2020, and this government has so far been silent on the question of what will take its place. There is also the potential of a mine at Lynn Lake.
What new mining measures will the minister commit to today to protect hundreds of good jobs and create new jobs for families in the North?
Mr. Cullen: Well, Madam Speaker, the fact remains that under their watch there was nine mining operations closed over the last few years.
Madam Speaker, we intend to turn that around. We are going to be working with the mining industry. In fact, I'm going to be meeting with the industry in less than an hour and we're going to talk about the good things that this new government will do in mining.
We know this opposition has, over the past, dug a very deep hole for Manitobans. This government will fix that hole and we will get things done in Manitoba for the mining sector, and things will be better in the mining sector in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Lindsey: Our NDP government believed in making sure local communities benefit from larger mining projects as well as the companies themselves. That's why we created the Mining Advisory Council which brings together First Nations to share the economic benefits as well as create new training and employment opportunities.
However, we've already seen this government refuse to commit to keeping community benefit agreements in place on the east-side road projects, even though they create hundreds of local jobs and bring hope to northern communities.
Will this government commit today to making more shared benefit agreements an essential part of their mining plans going forward?
Mr. Cullen: I do appreciate this important question on this important sector in Manitoba.
You know, after 17 years, you would think the government could have at least got a framework for the duty to consult together, but they haven't. They completely failed on the duty to consult. As a result there is so much uncertainty in the industry that companies are refusing to come here and invest exploration dollars. It's a sad state of affairs up 'til now in this–in terms of the mining sector.
Madam Speaker, we have some tremendous ideas. We're working in collaboration with the industry, with the business community, with First Nations, and we will develop a duty-to-consult framework that produces results here in Manitoba. That is our objective.
Expansion of Programs
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Manitobans were surprised that the Throne Speech a few weeks ago made no mention at all of crime prevention or public safety. The budget speech contained little more, containing only 17 words of anything within the mandate of the Justice Minister without any reference to any meaningful new initiatives to continue to create safer communities here in Manitoba.
Will this Minister of Justice admit that she and her government simply don't have any new ideas on public safety?
Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I want to thank the–my honourable friend for the question.
We, of course–we recognize the importance of keeping our communities safe. We're working with stakeholders across the province to make sure that we continue to ensure that those–that community safety is a top priority for our province and for our government, and we will continue to make sure that that is the case.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Minto, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Swan: Well, Madam Speaker, at 17 words in the budget, 17 bullet points in the mandate letter, none of which say a single word about building safer communities, and, frankly, I wish that the minister would have some ideas and have put something forward before now.
Restorative justice is a great idea, of course, pioneered by indigenous people in this province who have been practising restorative justice principles for hundreds if not thousands of years. Restorative justice matches with the values of all Manitobans.
Why did the Throne Speech and budget not make any reference to expanding opportunities for restorative justice which are good for offenders, victims and communities?
Mrs. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the member spoke about 17 bullets. Well, in fact, it was 17 years of mismanagement by this NDP government that has dug such a deep hole in this province, and it's unfortunate that over $800 million is going towards the servicing of the debt for many, many years under this government, and that's money that could have been put forward for these kinds of justice initiatives including restorative justice initiatives.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Minto, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Swan: Well, Manitobans in many communities want to talk about public safety. Great work was done and I'm now hearing the minister acknowledging she doesn't have any new ideas. The creation and support of problem-solving courts in Manitoba have resulted in excellent outcomes for public safety and better outcomes for offenders, including low–incredibly low reoffence rates for the Winnipeg Drug Treatment Court.
This budget and this Throne Speech contain no commitment to expanding the successful programs like the Drug Treatment Court and the Mental Health Court pioneered by this NDP government.
Madam Speaker, why won't the government expand problem‑solving courts, getting good–good–results for offenders, victims and communities?
Mrs. Stefanson: I want to thank my honourable friend for the question.
Of course we know they had 17 years, and among those 17 years many–quite often, we were among the violent crime capital of Canada. So they–we will take no lessons from members opposite when it comes to how we will go about working with Manitobans to ensure the safety of our communities. We are working diligently; the department is; all stakers with–stakeholders within the justice system are working diligently to ensure the safety of all Manitobans.
Senate Committee Presentation
Mr. Alan Lagimodiere (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, agriculture is the background of Manitoba, accounting for approximately 25 per cent of our economy. For far too long our province's producers have not had the kind of partner they needed in their provincial government, and they are excited to work with us and make our agriculture industry even better.
Could the Minister of Agriculture inform the House of his recent work with the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to ensure that the agriculture industry remains strong in Manitoba?
Hon. Ralph Eichler (Minister of Agriculture): I want to congratulate the member from Selkirk. What a great opportunity to stand up and represent. I'm sure he's going to do a fine job for us, Madam Speaker.
I had the honour yesterday of making a presentation to the Senate committee on agriculture, forestry and Manitoba's perspective on international market access and priorities.
We have a large, diverse and land base. Agriculture generates $6 billion in cash receipts. Food processing produces about one quarter of goods manufacturing with $4 billion in sales.
* (14:30)
Manitoba is ready. This dialogue is important for the first step in collaborating with the federal government to ensure economic growth grows in Manitoba on this side of the House.
Madam Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition:
(1) The Legislative Building is a public building where everyone should be welcomed and feel comfortable.
(2) Washrooms in the Manitoba Legislature and other government buildings are labelled as men and women, which do not fit the gender identities of all Manitobans.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to designate one washroom in the Legislative Building and all other government of Manitoba buildings as a gender neutral washroom.
Signed by many fine Manitobans, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: In accordance with our rule 133(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
(1) The Legislative Building is a public building where everyone should be welcomed and feel comfortable.
(2) Washrooms in the Manitoba legislative and other government buildings are labelled as men and women, which do not fit the gender identities of all Manitobans.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to designate one washroom in the Legislative Building and all other government of Manitoba buildings as a gender neutral washroom.
Signed by C. Lundy, A. Dooner and B. McRae, among other great Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: Grievances?
House Business
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on House business, would you please canvass the House to see if there's agreement for the official opposition to have staff on the floor of the Chamber for Estimates consideration for those departments that have to be considered in the Chamber, in accordance with past practices of the House?
Madam Speaker: Is there leave? [Agreed]
* * *
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I believe we are willing–or ready to proceed to the motion that is on the Order Paper, sponsored by the member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson).
Madam Speaker: As indicated by the Government House Leader, the House will now consider the government resolution on the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade (Mr. Cullen), that,
WHEREAS Manitoba is home to a world-class aerospace industry, the largest in western Canada, employing 5,400 people directly and many more indirectly in related sectors; and
WHEREAS maintaining a competitive aerospace industry outside of eastern Canada is in the national interest; and
WHEREAS federal amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act virtually eliminate any obligation for Air Canada to maintain high‑quality, skilled, heavy maintenance jobs in the province and is contrary to the interests of Manitobans; and
WHEREAS the federal government has pushed through its amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act without adequate consultation or firm commitments to the Manitoba aerospace sector and despite clear opposition from the provincial government, business and labour organizations.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba oppose passage and proclamation of Bill C-10 and continue to do so until such time as specific commitments made by the federal government and Air Canada are sufficient to reassure Manitobans that changes to the Air Canada Public Participation Act and related accompanying investments in training, innovation and job creation will provide a net benefit to the Manitoba economy.
Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Justice, seconded by the honourable Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade,
WHEREAS Manitoba is home to a world-class aerospace industry, the largest in western Canada–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Madam Speaker: Dispense.
Mrs. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today to speak about this motion, and I just want to thank my colleague the Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade for seconding this motion.
I am hoping that all members of this House will see fit to stand in favour of this motion and send a clear signal to Ottawa that we are standing up for Manitobans. That is what this is about today. We–this is about protecting jobs in our aerospace industry, and our aerospace industry, Madam Speaker, is very important to the province of Manitoba. In fact, we're home to the world-class–home to a world-class aerospace industry right here in our province, and it's the largest in western Canada with approximately 5,400 employed directly and many more indirectly in related sectors as a result of spinoff job creation as a result of this incredible industry in our province.
And so it's very important that we protect this industry in Manitoba and what's unfortunate–and I did, Madam Speaker, have the opportunity to present to the standing committee in Parliament on this very issue. We have serious concerns with respect to job losses for Manitobans. There was indication prior to the election that–from the federal government, there was an indication that there would be a net benefit as a result of this, of any legislation that would be brought forward, and we're not getting that indication now. It seems that members of the Liberal Party have backed off on that, and we need to ensure that we stand with all Manitobans and make sure that we protect those jobs here in our province.
So this is a very important motion, Madam Speaker, and I look forward to hearing from members opposite. I do understand that there could be a friendly amendment that is brought forward with respect to this motion and I know that the members opposite will bring that forward. We will be in favour of that, depending on the details of it, but we are in favour of, in principle, of any kind of friendly amendments to this, to help strengthen it and strengthen the fact that all of us will be standing together here in support of this motion, in support of jobs in Manitoba.
So, with those words, Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to bring this motion forward. I look forward to hearing from members of all parties within this House and I hope that we again will send a message, a clear message to Ottawa that this is not the time to be rushing through this legislation that will have a negative impact for Manitobans.
We would like to have the opportunities to support Bill C-10 and–but we can't, in its current state. We need to assure–ensure that there is a net benefit to the Manitoba economy with respect to this legislation, should it be passed. And we have not been given any kind of indication by the federal Liberal Party that that will be the case as of right now.
So, until we are assured and reassured, Madam Speaker, that this will have a net benefit to our Manitoba economy, we cannot, at this point, move forward in support of Bill C-10, and I look forward to hearing from all members of this House, and I hope that we will stand together today because this is about protecting jobs for Manitoba. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Minto–
An Honourable Member: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Point of Order
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights, on a point of order.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): The Justice Minister has said that she prepared a–made a presentation in Ottawa. I think it would be fair in terms of the debate that she table the copy of that presentation so that it would be available to everybody.
Mrs. Stefanson: I'm pleased to provide a copy of my presentation in Ottawa. Of course, it is a matter of public record. It was presented to a parliamentary committee. We know that any presentation to a parliamentary committee is a matter of the public record so I have no problem supplying that to the member opposite, and we'll also include the–a copy of the Hansard and the record that was set out by the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Mr. Kevin Rebeck was there as well, in support of–or, sorry, to oppose the bill as well. So we'll make sure that he gets a copy of that as well.
* (14:40)
Madam Speaker: It is not technically a point of order, but if the minister tables it that should end the matter.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): I'm pleased to speak in response to this government motion on The Air Canada Public Participation Act. I won't hold anybody in suspense. I think it's a good resolution and we will be supporting it. As the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) has commented, though–as the Minister of Justice has commented, we think it can be made a little bit better, and I've provided the Minister of Justice with some thoughts and a proposed amendment which I will talk about. I'll give some reasons for that, which I think can make it even better what it is that we're calling upon the federal government and Air Canada to do.
I'm very proud to speak to this resolution, this motion. I do have a deep personal connection to the way that this city and this province have been treated by Air Canada and successive federal governments when it comes to the aerospace industry, and I say that because I myself grew up in an Air Canada family in the heart of St. James in the Silver Heights area. As some members of this House know, Mount Royal Road is really an extension of Runway 31 which results in cracks in the foundation in the walls. I know the member for St. James (Mr. Johnston) understands this. And, certainly, when planes are coming in, when you're living in that part of the city, you know it.
I used to play soccer for Silver Heights community club and we had a tremendous home field advantage when we played our home games north of Ness Avenue. When the planes were landing, it seemed that they would come in just feet above where the game was taking place. When that happened, the other team would generally cover their ears and go to ground, and it sometimes was the only chance we had to get down and score a goal.
My father was an aircraft mechanic for Air Canada, and his career and the aftermath are really a microcosm of the story of this airline and its relationship with the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba.
The latest chapter is now playing out in Ottawa in the House of Commons and the Senate. The House of Commons, after debate on this bill, was sharply limited by the Liberal majority in the House of Commons. It went on to the Senate. It was introduced for second reading just yesterday.
Now, my dad graduated from Daniel McIntyre Collegiate in the West End in the early '50s, got his grade 12. He might have actually gone to Tec Voc, but the school hadn't opened at the time that he started high school, and he certainly was interested in aircraft. And he got on with the Trans Canada Airlines, the forerunner to Air Canada. He was laid off. He went out to Calgary to work for Canadian Pacific Airlines. He worked various jobs, including salvage. When a plane would go down in the North, he was part of a crew that would go up and try and pull the plane out of the bush or out of a lake to try and salvage those parts. And, put short, he had hydraulic fuel in his blood, my dad, and wanted to make a career in aerospace.
He had the opportunity to come back to Winnipeg to resume his career with Trans Canada Airways. He worked with TCA from 1955 until he retired in 1990. In his 35-year career he started working on propeller planes, like super constellations and Vickers Viscounts, and by the end he found himself working on jet planes, like the Boeing 767 and the Airbus with size, complexity, and computer diagnostics that wouldn't have even been considered back in 1955.
So much so, as one of the older mechanics at Air Canada, towards the end of his career he was handpicked by the management at Air Canada to work on a special project. Coming up to one of their anniversaries somebody had somehow found the old Lockheed 10A, the first airplane that Air Canada had every flown, at a barn somewhere in Kansas or Oklahoma. The airline was persuaded to buy it. It came to Winnipeg where he and a team of older mechanics restored it, not just to look good, but to actually fly, and it was at that point that my dad actually got to meet with then-CEO of Air Canada, Claude Taylor, who helped tighten a few screws on the airplane.
Once upon a time Air Canada was a family. It was certainly a place that was recognized as a good place to work. It was a team of employees who collectively worked to get people where they wanted or where they needed to go–hopefully with their luggage–that's always been a problem, but it was certainly a good place to work. And his work at Air Canada provided a job to support our family in a comfortable middle-income in a comfortable part of the city.
The first house my mom and dad bought after they lived in an apartment on Sherbrook Street was located on Ferry Road just north of Silver Avenue. He was able to walk to work because my parents did not have a car for the first several years that they were married. The old TCA or Trans Canada Airlines hangar is well-known to anybody in this House who's visited the Aviation Museum.
Being an aircraft mechanic is hard work and was so for my dad, especially earlier in his career. Like police officers or firefighters, mechanics do not work a standard 9-to-5 shift, and he worked a six-three schedule, meaning he would work six days and then be off three days, and he rotated in his career every nine days a new shift of days, evenings or midnights. And I got to tell you, as a young person growing up in the house, it was not easy when dad was working midnights at Air Canada. It was tough to be quiet and it was tough for him to get the right amount of sleep. I expect it was actually a lot like having permanent jet lag doing the work he did.
Now, of course, Winnipeg had a heavy maintenance base in Winnipeg. It made sense geographically; it made sense operationally, and there was a lot of optimism for Air Canada back in the '60s. They changed their name from Trans‑Canada Airlines to Air Canada right around the time that Canada's new flag came into being back in 1965. The idea was to celebrate the optimism in the country approaching a centennial. I'm not sure if that had anything to do with me being born in 1968, but it was certainly an exciting time for Air Canada.
But, having said that, Madam Speaker, I actually came within a whisker of moving to, and growing up in, Quebec. When I was just one year old in 1969, the government of Pierre Trudeau decided to move much of the maintenance capacity in Winnipeg to Montreal, which meant that the highest paying mechanic jobs, the certified mechanics, actually were relocated to Quebec, and for all others like my dad it meant the prospect of hundreds of jobs being transferred to the province of Quebec.
And what I can tell you happened at Air Canada is they started at the bottom of the seniority list for regular mechanics to go and they started working their way up. Many of the people on that list walked away; many of them took jobs with CP Air or Transair or other companies. Some left the industry altogether, and some took the transfer with the hope of returning to Manitoba one day. My dad watched nervously as they went higher and higher up the seniority list and, actually, when they finally had enough people to be transferred to Montreal, he was actually the next guy on the seniority list that would have gone.
I don't know what we would have done. I expect he would have remained in a much less in maintenance base in Winnipeg. So we stayed in Manitoba, and my dad continued his career.
In 1978, Air Canada was turned into a Crown corporation, and in 1988, the Mulroney government privatized Air Canada, sold it off to the highest bidder. But there were certain conditions put on that sale: three main conditions. One was that ownership of Air Canada would remain 75 per cent in Canadian hands; No. 2 was that Air Canada would continue to be bound by the Official Languages Act, which is why if you're on a flight from Winnipeg to Calgary you get the French instructions on Air Canada and not necessarily on WestJet; and the third was that Air Canada would maintain overhaul centres in each of Winnipeg, Mississauga and Montreal.
Now, like with other public assets being sold–and we have experience with that here in Manitoba–well, of course, we were told there was a lot of promise in the sale. It was being sold to the people of Canada, of course, the very ones who owned it, and the airline became a commodity. And things changed forever at Air Canada. It did become a less‑than‑happy workplace for a whole number of factors. So my dad was actually quite happy in 1990, just a year after the sale was finalized, to retire and begin collecting his pension, and, frankly, he didn't have a lot of contact with Air Canada after that time despite having his lifetime unlimited travel pass with Air Canada, which, unfortunately, was entirely not transferable.
Now Air Canada continued to have troubles. It merged with Canadian Airlines early in the 2000s when that airline ran into trouble, and Air Canada itself ran into trouble. And I remember the day that my dad received his letter about his pension. When Air Canada was privatized, Air Canada pledged, of course, it would retain all its commitments to pensioners, which they did until the point when they said maybe they wouldn't. When markets were good, the company actually stopped making payments to the company pension plan. They took a contribution holiday, and then, of course, when markets went down, they claimed there was a shortfall. So they advised all retired employees who'd paid into their pension throughout their careers that there was a shortfall and there was no guarantee they'd continue to receive the pensions they worked for. Not unlike what happened to MTS employees who, of course, had a 20-year legal battle to try to be treated fairly.
Air Canada did go into bankruptcy in 2003. At one point there was even some talk that a company was going to take them over. They installed Brian Mulroney as the chair. It was a consortium led by none other than Dan Quayle, who we all know is the former vice-president of the United States. Thankfully, that didn’t happen. Air Canada emerged from bankruptcy protection, but a number of other bad things happened.
* (14:50)
Air Canada's management decided they were going to contract out the maintenance work that had been done by Air Canada employees in Winnipeg, Mississauga, Montreal and elsewhere. Where before Air Canada had been able to win contracts to perform maintenance for other world airlines and make a profit from it, well, by this time they decided it was too much trouble and they contracted it out.
And notwithstanding the law that was passed in 1988 with the privatization of Air Canada, Air Canada simply handed the work over to another company, a company called Aveos. And it wasn't too long ago that Aveos, the company which received that contract and did that work, went bankrupt, leaving 400 employees, many of whom had worked with my dad, out of work in Manitoba.
And, after that, Air Canada decided that instead of finding another Canadian supplier, instead of finding somebody else here at home to do the work, they contracted out that heavy work to El Salvador. And, indeed, Madam Speaker, they decided it was a better plan to fly a plane empty all the way to El Salvador so a mechanic there, who can't afford to fly, could take a job away from someone in Winnipeg or Montreal or Mississauga.
I know some might consider that choice to be smart shopping but, frankly, I don’t. And it was bad business for Air Canada; it was bad business for the people of Manitoba, and it was bad business for all Canadians.
It wasn't that long ago that Air Canada also closed its flight attendant base in Winnipeg and they transferred it to Toronto. They didn't lay-off the flight attendants; they simply told them that they could continue to live wherever they wanted, but they would have to report for work in Toronto, and that would require an extra flight, hours and hours, sometimes even extra nights, just to be able to do the same job they used to do out of Winnipeg.
So things continued to change for Air Canada, and now we see what is really the unkindest cut of all. We now have Conservatives in Manitoba stepping up, and I give the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) credit, and I give her party credit for raising this. I see they’re now waking up to what happened to Air Canada when it was privatized in 1988 and sold off to the highest bidder.
And perhaps it's a happy consequence, by a change in government in Ottawa they've been able to find their voice on this. We certainly could have used their voices when we were fighting for the jobs of flight attendants here in Manitoba. We certainly could have used their voices back when we were fighting for the jobs of maintenance employees here in Manitoba.
But you know what? We'll take the next best thing, and that's why we're suggesting with some improvements we could actually do good things for the people of Manitoba and try and encourage the federal government to improve, and if they won't improve it, do away with Bill C-10.
The amendments with Bill C-10, the changes to Bill C-10 that are now working their way through the Senate, don't protect Manitoba jobs. They don't do anything to assure the people of Manitoba that good jobs in aviation like the one my dad was able to have, will come back to Manitoba.
Now, the federal bill states that the work is supposed to stay in Canada. The comments of some of the government members have been that the work is supposed to stay in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, but there's been no binding commitment that would do anything other than give Air Canada complete discretion to define the level of employment, the type of work, and the volume of work. And if this was a situation where we had a corporate partner that we think had treated Manitoba fairly in the past years, perhaps we'd have a different sense.
I know that the Minister of Justice and her Cabinet have concerns. I want everyone to know that we have these same concerns.
The federal government seems to have entered into secret negotiations with Air Canada. We don't know if Air Canada is truly obliged to create good jobs here in Manitoba. We don't know if these jobs are guaranteed. We don't know if Air Canada must maintain these jobs. We don't know how long they have to maintain these jobs, and we don't know if these jobs are permanent. And this has been, unfortunately, a long battle with an airline that, again, I consider myself to be a part of the family with–that has changed so much since it was privatized back in the late '80s.
Now, when Aveos locked out and then laid off approximately 2,400 unionized employees out of its three Canadian airframe maintenance centres, including 400 here in Winnipeg, as I've said, our previous government did act. Now, of course, first, there was picking up the pieces. Our government insisted workers do job search assistant skills assessment and retraining. It is true some of these employees were able to find work elsewhere in Winnipeg.
I'm very proud of the work that we did to help great companies like StandardAero expand. I actually had the chance to be at a major air show in France when we announced that StandardAero had won a major contract for the refurbishment of airplane engines right here in Winnipeg, Manitoba. That took up some jobs, but obviously hundreds of other workers here in Manitoba lost their jobs without any promise it would return.
In response to a legal claim that was filed by the Province of Quebec in April 2012, Manitoba joined that fight, and the Quebec Superior Court ruled that Air Canada was in contravention of the act because it had not maintained required heavy maintenance operation, and, if I have time, I'll talk a little bit about what the judge had to say in that case.
When Air Canada appealed the ruling, the Quebec appeals court agreed with the trial judge and ruled against the corporation, and it's been disappointing in light of all this that the Government of Canada has steadfastly refused to enforce its own legislation.
Madam Speaker, the act that privatized Air Canada intentionally and specifically included requirements to ensure that these high-skilled, high‑tech, good-paying jobs stayed in Winnipeg and Montreal and Mississauga. When Air Canada was privatized, concerns were raised by labour, by communities like Winnipeg, and local and provincial governments and, unfortunately–and it's not the only privatized corporation where we see this to be the case–the concerns that were raised at the time have proved to be valid concerns.
Together with Quebec we supported the IAMAW, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers to call for the federal government to support the provisions of the act, and with Quebec we successfully argued in court that Air Canada has an obligation to respect the Air Canada Public Participation Act. But, unfortunately, the Liberal government now, instead of doing what they had called on the previous Conservative government to do and enforce the legislation, instead decided they're going to change the legislation to take away those–the protection–to take away those commitments and leave those workers who lost their jobs truly without hope.
And there have been good debates in the House of Commons. I've had a chance to look up some of the debates. Some members from Manitoba and elsewhere have put some very good comments on the record. Alexandre Boulerice, who's the NDP MP for Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, did have some comments for the new government in Ottawa on their sudden decision to do an about-face and leave those former maintenance workers out in the cold. And here's what Monsieur Boulerice had to say: The Conservative government of the day stood by and did nothing to enforce the law, but the Liberals wanted to demonstrate their support for the workers as well as their camaraderie and solidarity.
We even saw the current Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, demonstrate with unionized workers on Parliament Hill, chanting solidarity and demanding that the Conservative government of the day enforce the law. His argument, a good one, was that the least a law-and-order government could do was enforce the law, particularly when doing so would get to save a good well-paid job in a high-tech sector.
As soon as the Liberals took over, they changed their tune. So long, solidarity; hello, relocate; forget about our good jobs. Who cares about the aerospace sector? The government is basically telling these people that their jobs are gone for good.
When they came to power, the Liberals realized they did not have to enforce the law because they could just change it. That makes things much easier for sure there is no need to enforce the law when it can be changed so that Air Canada is no longer required to carry out aircraft maintenance in Canada.
We have to wonder whether that is the Liberal plan for job creation; namely, eliminating the good jobs we have here in Quebec, in Mississauga and in Winnipeg and shipping them off to the United States and Europe because that is what will happen under Bill C-10. This bill means abandoning the workers represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers supported by the FTQ, which is the Quebec trade union.
They took their case to the Quebec Superior Court, which ruled in their favour in 2013. Air Canada appealed that decision and the case went to the Quebec Court of Appeal. In 2015, the Quebec Court of Appeal also ruled in favour of the workers, and Monsieur Boulerice goes on to say: I would like to quote Justice Marie-France Bich of the Quebec Court of Appeal, quote: "From the moment that Air Canada decided to close this centre . . . or reduce its activities in such a way that they were no longer at the same level as they had been in 1988, it broke the law." End of quote.
This could not be any clearer. Bill C-10 threatens to pull the rug out from under the workers by making it that much harder to take this kind of legal action. When they're arguing their case before the Supreme Court, if section 6 of the act is amended, there will be a whole new legal framework. The changes to the Air Canada Public Participation Act set out in Bill C-10 are extremely weak or virtually non-existent in terms of Air Canada's obligation.
* (15:00)
There is no longer any requirement to keep jobs in this country, let alone a minimum of jobs, a certain volume of work or a percentage of tasks that must be carried out in Canada. In short, they're giving Air Canada a blank cheque. The government wants to provide flexibility, but before long Air Canada will be doing contortions to outsource the good jobs that we have in Canada. I'm saddened to know that our government is not giving a second thought to lives of 2,600 families and is prepared to cynically abandon them after publicly supporting them. That is sad.
Well, powerful words from a member from Quebec who stands in solidarity with our workers here in Manitoba and also in Ontario. And what did the member from Cowichan-Malahat-Langford, Alistair MacGregor, another New Democrat, have to say? Well, he said there are many examples of the Liberals saying one thing and then doing another. That is an unfortunate statistic that we've had to deal with. The current Prime Minister, when he was just the Member of Parliament for the riding of Papineau, stood with Aveos employees. He said that the law was very clear that Air Canada had to maintain the maintenance in those cities. The fact the government is not enforcing that law is something to which we have drawn attention.
Now that he is the Prime Minister, the member is singing from a different songbook. He has forgotten the fact that he used to stand in solidarity with workers and proclaim that the Liberal Party was there for their jobs and would always stand by them. Now we see he's taken the side of Air Canada. He's forgotten his solemn promise to these workers. I certainly hope people will remember that as we continue on through the years.
He goes on to say, the NDP opposes Bill C-10 because we want Air Canada to maintain jobs here. We oppose it because Air Canada is going to outsource maintenance jobs. The bill legalizes layoffs. Air Canada has been seeking carte blanche from the government. If Bill C-10 receives royal assent, it will certainly have that carte blanche.
And we also hear from one of our local MPs, my friend and my former constituency assistant, Daniel Blaikie, who represents Elmwood-Transcona. And Daniel, again–I mean, he has people in his riding that work in the aerospace industry that were very troubled by what happened at Air Canada, as frankly every single member of this House, at least those of us who represent Winnipeg ridings, do.
And what Daniel Blaikie wanted to talk about was how Bill C-10 came about, and as many of you may know, it actually created quite a stir in the House of Commons because the Conservative and the New Democratic opposition actually got the matter up for a vote far quicker than the governing Liberals thought was going to be the case. And what does Daniel Blaikie have to say?
He says, Bill C-10 is instructed because it was only the last Monday we sat before the break that Bill C-10 came to a voter report stage. Because the member for Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley changed his vote, we had a tie vote. He had voted against it at second reading and then voted for it at report stage, and that came down to a tie. Because of that tie vote on Bill C-10, we got to see what the government is really like with respect to every member having his or her say. Not all of its members showed up because perhaps they did not think it was important. I will not presume to say why they were not there; however, the result of the tie was clear. The government did not say it was great; Parliament had spoken and had one vote less, that would be fine. Instead, it lost its temper. It brought forward a motion that was completely draconian, that would have handcuffed Parliament and created a climate where people were prone to losing their temper. Therefore, I think we saw another insight into the real mind of the Liberal government through Bill C-10.
So, Madam Speaker, here we have a situation, strangely enough in Ottawa, not looking that different from the situation here in Manitoba on this matter subject to, we think, some amendments to the motion. We're prepared to support the resolution or the motion that the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) has brought forward. We are prepared to stand in support of the aviation and aerospace industry here in Manitoba. We will stand in support of those remaining people who worked as Aveos, who still have skills and abilities that we could harness and channel and use to create growth and wealth here in Manitoba, and we stand with the aerospace industry across the country.
So, Madam Speaker, I do wish to introduce an amendment to the government motion. Again, I think the Minister of Justice has referred to it as a friendly amendment, and I hope it'll be taken in that regard.
So I move, seconded by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway),
THAT the resolution be amended by deleting the "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED" clause, and substituting the following:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba oppose passage and proclamation of Bill C-10 and continue to do so until such time a specific and binding commitments made by the federal government and Air Canada are sufficient to reassure Manitobans that changes to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, and related accompanying investments in training, innovation and job creation will provide a net bet to the–net benefit to the Manitoba economy including, but not limited to, permanent jobs in Manitoba supporting the overhaul and maintenance of aircraft.
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: The amendment is in order. Are there any speakers on the amendment? If there are–
Mr. Gerrard: I rise to talk about the bill and about the amendment and want to make some comments about the situation that we are in today with respect to this resolution and the amendments which have come forward.
I think all of us recognize the importance of the aerospace industry to our province. We have grown up as a centre for aircraft. We were very important in the early development of aircraft. We have been the centre for many years in the building of aircraft and the maintenance and the overhaul of aircraft, and it is important that we continue to do what is needed for our province to make sure we are positioned for the future and into the future in making sure that we have, in this province, a continued presence and very strong presence of the aerospace industry, which includes many good jobs, as well as a strong contribution to our economy.
That contribution to the aerospace industry is going to be dependent on our ability here in Manitoba to deliver the highest quality maintenance, the highest quality building and maintenance of aircraft, and that is what we need to be aiming to do because, in the world today, we are in a competitive global environment. You can no longer keep jobs in Manitoba by putting a fence around them. You have to create the conditions where, in fact, the companies want to build and want to stay here because this is just a phenomenal and a great place to be.
I have looked, Madam Speaker, and paid some attention to the agreement which was reached in March and that agreement was that there would be a Manitoba centre of excellence in maintenance repair and overhaul in Winnipeg, and that this centre of excellence would be very important in being able to position Manitoba and Winnipeg, in particular, in being a very strong part and an increasingly larger part of the aerospace industry in Canada and globally.
* (15:10)
It's my understanding that, from what I've been told, that this is a partnership among the Province of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Airports Authority, Yes! Winnipeg and industry partners to create this centre of excellence on the Winnipeg Richardson international airport's campus.
It would have been nice to have had the presentation by the minister that was made in Ottawa to see more details of the commitments that the minister was specifically asking for, but let me go on and talk a little bit about what I understand about this agreement.
And this agreement has the provision for Air Canada. It's a long-time partner and tenant at Winnipeg's Richardson international airport, that Air Canada will sublease the existing hangar facilities to three aerospace companies who are new to the maintenance repair and overhaul sector in our province: Cargojet Airways Limited, Hope Aero Propeller & Components Incorporated, and Airbase Services. Each of these companies have their own specialty and will draw upon local workforce expertise to perform aerospace repair and overhaul functions for themselves, for Air Canada and for others.
Barry Rempel, who's the president and CEO of the Winnipeg Airports Authority, has commented that he sees this as just the start of an effort to generate future development opportunities, to boost Manitoba's economy, and to breathe new life into the existing aviation employment assets on the west side of the airport campus.
I must say, Madam Speaker, that I was very disappointed in the government in not spelling out here in this Chamber the specific commitment that the government is asking for with respect to this memorandum that has been signed, this agreement that has been signed, I gather, and so that there are many details which are not readily available.
I would have expected that there be participation by the Red River College, University of Manitoba and possibly other post-secondary education institutions in this effort, if, indeed, it was going to have the collective presence and ability to help build the future of the aerospace sector in Manitoba.
I would have expected that this partnership would have the participation of the Composites Innovation Centre. The Composites Innovation Centre is a very important centre in Manitoba, building and doing very innovative work with regard to composites. This is particularly important with regard to the aerospace sector where composites are increasingly more and more important.
And, indeed, it's important to note that when we're looking at the development of composites that there are, in fact–it's not just the Composites Innovation Centre, but, indeed, Boeing composite manufacturing facility is the largest of its kind in composites, I gather, in North America.
So we have, you know, the industry partner in this area of composites. We have a composites innovation centre. I was very disappointed that there was no mention of the Composites Innovation Centre in this agreement.
So there was also no reference to the fact that there is work ongoing at the moment to try and establish a consortium, a consortium called EMILI, which would be very important in building the advanced computer processing machine learning capabilities here in Manitoba. The EMILI development is important because it's probably one of the major, if not the major or largest, contribution to computer development that Canadians have made.
And, indeed, interestingly enough, the initial contributions were made in Toronto, but the company Sightline, which has brought this innovative approach to Winnipeg–and we are now waiting for the commitment from the federal and provincial governments to make sure that EMILI, in fact, comes in to pass.
And I'm disappointed that in the speech by the minister there was no clear overall vision in terms of what the minister is trying to accomplish. This centre of excellence for aircraft maintenance and overhaul seems to be a pretty good idea but, unfortunately, we are not given by the minister much in the way of details of the discussions that have been occurring and where we are with respect to these agreements.
The importance, Madam Speaker, of having pride in our industry here is, I would suggest, significant. We have a large industry. We hope that it will grow and, in fact, be much larger than it is currently. And we need to be doing the things that can be done to build and position the industry here for the future. But we are not going to do it just by writing laws that, you know, people and workers or businesses must stay here. We are going to do it by making sure that we are a progressive government and that we are positioning Winnipeg and Manitoba for a very strong future because we are doing the innovation, we are doing the forward thinking, we are doing the positioning of our province much better.
One of the reasons why companies have moved personnel and people out of Winnipeg and out of Manitoba is, in fact, the payroll tax, a payroll tax which the NDP put on quite a number of years ago and probably has resulted in 100,000 jobs leaving Manitoba. That's a lot of people, but it's individual businesses making decisions based on their looking at how they would position themselves in today's global environment. And we need to make sure that we are doing the things that we have to do to be competitive here, to have very high-quality jobs, to have the centre of excellence here in Manitoba, that that centre of excellence includes the partnerships with our post-secondary education centres, it includes partnership with the Composites Innovation Centre, it includes partnership with EMILI. And I would hope that there would be a binding commitment in the financial support from the federal government to make sure that EMILI proceeds and that there will be a support from the provincial government which is also so critical to making this happen.
So, Madam Speaker, we must be not just thinking of the past, we must be thinking and building for the future. We must realize the type of competitive environment that we are living in. We know that aerospace is rapidly moving in terms of technology. We know how critical it is to keep up with this technological progress, and that we are positioned here to take advantage of the pace of technological change by positioning us in Manitoba to be at the very forefront of that change.
And it is for that reason that I have gone through and talked about my disappointment in the lack of the ability of the current government to specify exactly what their vision is for this centre of excellence which is being talked about, exactly what the provincial contribution is going to be to this centre of excellence, exactly what it will be composed of and what it will look like and what it will do and how it will contribute to the growing and important, we hope, aerospace sector here in our province.
* (15:20)
And so, Madam Speaker, as Manitoba Liberals, we want to make sure that we are working together, and we are going together with all parties in supporting this resolution because we think that that is fundamental for Manitobans, that we must work together to make our case that we should have the support, the job opportunities, the building of businesses and industries here in Manitoba that we need for our province and our economy to grow. And we know that under the NDP, the Province has often been not very sensitive or helpful to the needs of businesses, so we have lost a lot of businesses and a lot of jobs. We know that there is a lot of room to improve and one of the ways that we need to improve is position us as that future-thinking, future‑developing, right at the very forefront of the leading edge of what is happening in the aerospace industry.
It is of interest, Madam Speaker, that there are important partnerships between the aerospace industry and various educational and training institutions and one of them is the–is CAHRD, which is the centre for Aboriginal training and development and they have been producing a lot of people who are working in the aerospace industry and this is a very positive contribution which, in fact, we should embrace because it's important that we are providing and ensuring jobs for people in our indigenous community, in this sector, because this is a sector which has such tremendous potential for the future.
But, in positioning Manitoba, we need to get beyond just saying that we want the status quo, that we want no change. We need to provide a vision of the future; we want to make sure that that vision is so strong that the federal government will be leaping forward to support it, that businesses and industry will be leaping forward to come and be here, to create jobs here and be extraordinarily important partners in all that is going on and developing here.
I think we have a pretty good geographic position in the centre of North America. We have tremendous advantages. We have the potential for developments like CentrePort and–but we need a minister who is going to be able to put the picture together, who's going to be able to provide the vision. We don’t want a minister who's just going to give us a short overview which provides no details, no details in which people can build and develop and see that there is a really creative and important and imaginative and strong vision for developing the aerospace industry here in this province.
Let me talk for a moment about the EMILI development.
Point of Order
Madam Speaker: There's a point of order being raised.
Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I apologize for interrupting the member from his presentation.
I just wanted to table the three copies of the presentation to standing committee of myself and Mr. Kevin Rebeck as well. So I'll table that for the House, as requested earlier.
Madam Speaker: I don't believe that's a point of order, and, hopefully, it does address the issue before us. And we'll turn it–thank you–to the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson), and we'll turn it back to the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard).
* * *
Mr. Gerrard: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her tabling this presentation and I look forward to having the chance to read it in-depth.
But, I–in a quick glance, I believe that, you know, this presentation could be and should be stronger and I hope that when this all-party resolution, which I expect will pass today–[interjection]–yes, absolutely, we're supporting this. I have already said that. And we're supporting this because it's important that we're all working together and all in the same direction.
My interest is in making sure that the proposal and the resolution go to Ottawa with the very, very best possible vision and details and requests in terms of what we want as a centre of excellence here in Manitoba. And I think that what I have heard so far, what I have listened to so far from both the Conservatives and from the NDP, is not providing sufficient, exciting vision of what we want to do here and we can do better. And we're going to have to do better if we're competing in a global environment.
So we're fully behind this resolution, Madam Speaker, but we want to make sure that the letter and the word and the message that goes to Ottawa is very strong on exactly what we are looking for, exactly what we were asking for, that we are asking for some very specific commitments. We are asking for a centre of excellence like no other: a centre of excellence that is going to position Manitoba for the years ahead; a centre of excellence that's actually going to bring in all the critical partners like the Composites Innovation Centre; a centre of excellence that looks at new partners, new potential partners like EMILI and make sure that when we're talking to the federal government, that we're saying, look, this is a part of what we want because it is so important.
And I'm going to say a word or two just about EMILI, because this is a development in terms of advanced learning by computers, which is going to be critically important for many, many businesses and industries, as well as improving health care for the Health Minister, as well as providing a vital help with many other areas. And so, Magellan is already a partner in this EMILI initiative, but it needs the funding commitment federally and, I would hope, provincially. The vision for EMILI has been spelled out a lot more clearly than the vision for this centre of excellence. I think it is very important that we, here, in our province are standing up as we are doing today and supporting the members of Parliament in Ottawa, the Cabinet ministers, MaryAnn Mihychuk and Jim Carr, in their efforts to make sure that Manitoba gets the best possible opportunity out of this.
What we need–what we need–is to make sure we have that vision for the future of how we're going to build. What the NDP want is defense in the past, but what we want to do is build for the future. And that's why I would ask the minister to make sure, when she approaches the federal government, that she has those details in hand, the specific commitments that are so critical that vision for the centre of excellence that is envisioned here, and we are behind that option. We are behind putting pressure to make sure that that vision and that commitment it actually comes to pass and that we are building for a very strong future for the aerospace industry here in Manitoba.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Before we proceed with the next speaker, I received some information which I would like to share with the House. I received a letter today dated June 8th and the letter is to me. It says: This letter is to advise that the House leaders are in agreement that the House will sit this Friday, June 10th, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. to consider departmental estimates in the Committee of Supply.
House Business
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Yes, Madam Speaker, on House business.
Could you please canvass the House to see if there is leave for the three sections of the Committee of Supply to sit for consideration of departmental estimates tomorrow morning from 10 a.m. until 11 a.m. The House will resume normal business at 11 for consideration of regularly scheduled private members' business.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House for the three sections of the Committee of Supply to sit for the consideration of departmental estimates tomorrow morning from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., with the House resuming normal business at 11 a.m. for the consideration of regularly scheduled private members' business? Agreed? [Agreed]
* * *
Madam Speaker: The next speaker, then, on the amendment is the honourable member for Assiniboia.
* (15:30)
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Assiniboia): I should stop right now–and now the opposition's really clapping now.
Friends, this is an important issue. I was in the federal Cabinet when this arose in 2011-2012, and I recognize how difficult this issue has been for the employees of Aveos. There is a law that was clearly broken. That law was going through the court process, which is completely appropriate, but it takes time and people's lives move on. And it's taken a long time–we're now five years from that time, and people got frustrated. People were motivated to even have a sit-in in my office. They were very gracious but concerned for their livelihoods, for their families.
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
So I just want to first say that, because we always have to remind ourselves that legislation has effects on people and their families. What the Liberals have done, nationally, is one of the great pieces of political hypocrisy that I have ever seen.
Now, I appreciated the member from River Heights, his comments just a few minutes ago, and he was doing so well until he started mentioning his federal colleagues, because it is his federal colleagues from Manitoba that are pushing forward the changes that we are so much against. We're–all of us–we're united, together, the Official Opposition, the government, and the three independent members, sometimes referred to as the Liberal Party. So the Liberal Party, provincially, does not agree with the federal party–that is clear. You vote–the provincial party votes in favour of this bill or this resolution. It is saying to their federal cousins: you guys have screwed up, and you've really put the screws to Manitoba.
The–and let's just investigate–let's investigate this a little bit. In 2011 and 2012, I remember when this first came up in question period by the Liberals. They were indignant. They said terrible, terrible things, but what the Minister of Transport, John Baird, said at the time was the only thing he could say, which was the government expects Air Canada to follow the law–Air Canada to respect not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law.
And, fast forward a little while later, Minister Lebel became the Transport minister, and I was the minister of state for Transport, federally. And he was asked the question, and, again, the answer was the law is the law. You have to follow the law, and that's what the courts are for.
Now, at the Standing Committee for Transportation, again, we were asked that question. I remember very well we were doing Estimates and was asked the question, and Minister Lebel's answer, again, was the law is the law. We expect Air Canada to fulfill its obligations.
Since that time, the legal proceedings have moved on. The courts have sided with the plaintiffs, the province of Quebec and Manitoba and the union, in their lawsuit against Air Canada. Air Canada appealed; they lost again. Air Canada lost. And rather than fixing the problem, the Liberals put in the fix. And the fix is they are changing the very rules that govern the legal dispute. So they're–it's like playing baseball, then changing the rules to cricket. You know, it is just completely disingenuous.
Now I can't–because I heard about this at the door, and I need to say it is tough as an MP or an MLA when people are so emotionally invested and you talk about process but they want solutions immediately. So you can–but it's also easy to provide people with false hope, and during the election, that is what the Liberal candidates at that time did when they came across this issue. They said one thing but, obviously, did another. And the most egregious case, perhaps, was in my former riding of Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley, where the member there voted against the bill–okay, that's good. He was doing the right thing. Moving on. But then when there was a unique, very rare parliamentary opportunity to defeat the bill because the Liberals had–didn't have enough people showing up at work, they–that member from that constituency, who was so righteous and indignant on the issue, flipped his vote and allowed the bill to continue. So he's only against it when he can't do anything about it, but as soon as the power wrests and he has the ability to stop it, he doesn't.
And I think this is probably what we're experiencing with the other members of the Liberal Party in Manitoba. The leader from River Heights mentioned they–two Cabinet ministers in the–in Manitoba. If they were doing their job, we wouldn't be talking about this because it would never have come to the floor of the House of Commons because it's so much against the interests of Manitoba.
Now another interesting exchange I read in Hansard that happened a few weeks ago was–that goes to the bit of the dynastic politics that seems to exist in Manitoba, but it was an exchange between Daniel Blaikie, now the MP for Elmwood‑Transcona, and Kevin Lamoureux, who is the father of the member from Burrows.
* (15:40)
Now I wouldn't normally hold a sibling or a child accountable for their father's actions, but that is what the member from Winnipeg North seemed to be doing with Mr. Blaikie, and it went like this. He said, well, to the criticism that the member wasn't supporting Winnipeg, he said, well, your dad was in the Selinger government and therefore you could have done something more or influenced the government to be more aggressive.
I don't really know what he was trying to get at, but I'm going to flip it around and say, because Kevin Lamoureux, who is the House leader–parliamentary secretary, who is leading the charge on this bill in Ottawa that's against Winnipeg's interests, and say, well, if you're going to bring Daniel Blaikie and their–his dad into it, I wonder how his daughter will vote in this.
So there we have it. I'd like to be around that dinner table. The–[interjection]–I've been told I'm not invited.
But the point is if we're going to do this as a group, as a team, as a non-partisan effort, our Liberal friends in this Chamber will have to do some heavy negotiating with their Liberal cousins or, in some cases, biological relatives.
The fact, again, is Air Canada, and what the member from Minto said about Air Canada and their treatment of Winnipeg, I agree with, a hundred per cent. Like, you just–this is just one item and perhaps someday we'll get a chance to go after the other ones.
But it is important to see that Quebec only dropped its lawsuit after a commitment to buy from Bombardier to buy–or, no, from Air Canada to buy from Bombardier a bunch of C Series airplanes. And there's $1 billion of transfer–or $1 billion from the Quebec government that has gone to Bombardier, which means, because Quebec receives transfers, that is probably about 40 per cent money from the federal government, unless they're using debt financing. Anyway, 40 per cent Canadian taxpayer dollars going to subsidize Bombardier and the government is looking at subsidizing another billion from the federal side in one aerospace industry, in one location. And they're going to leave Winnipeg out in the cold.
It's–you know, I come from the Conservative movement. And in my formative years there was something called the CF-18 affair, and that pushed us, pushed a lot of people into the Reform Party or even, dare I say it, the Liberal Party, but out of the Conservative Party. I think there was one person that went into the NDP, but they've passed on–[interjection] Yes. But they–the fact is that that was a long time ago, but lessons have learned and have not been learned and what–we have the same players coming in again. It's Bombardier. It's Ottawa. There's other reasons to be very concerned with the–how the procurement is going for military planes, F-35s, and the impact that that will have on Winnipeg and Magellan, Bristol.
The Manitoba aerospace industry is the third largest industry of its kind in Canada and one of the largest industries in Manitoba, but it doesn't seem to get the respect it deserves from Ottawa. This motion that's been brought forward by the Deputy Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) will help strengthen the argument that we have. That Manitoba does matter, principle matters, and what people said at the door matters. And what the Liberals have said at the doors is turning out to be completely false. They provided false hope, and that's always tough for somebody–you know, I–my answer was always, well, it's in front of the courts and the law is the law, the government doesn't–it passes laws it doesn't enforce, you know, that's what the courts are for. You know, people don't generally care about that, but that's the process, and so to have someone to just say, yes, oh, yes, for a cheap vote with no integrity is difficult to watch sometimes.
Madam Speaker in the Chair
So I hope people become educated in the process here, and let's face it, Air Canada has made a minor commitment to Winnipeg, that's not out of the goodness of their heart. It's because they're scared of the lawsuits that'll come down their back the way the Air Canada participation act is written today. Now the government, the federal government, is taking all the legal leverage that we have as a province and pulling it out from under our feet, and given past performance, I don't think Air Canada will be doing much in Winnipeg unless they are forced to do so, and that is a sad reality.
And, of course, there is no better place for this type of work to happen than Winnipeg. We have low landing fees, 24-hour airport, superb workforce, great living condition, but the guys down in downtown Montreal, Toronto, think–sometimes think that Canada ends in Mississauga. You know–and it would be, in fact, arguably better to do all the maintenance in Winnipeg because of our geographic location and skilled labour and so on.
But in the debate in Ottawa we don't see our Manitoba members standing up for us, only when they think with one exception, but that exception proved completely disingenuous because they had the opportunity to vote down the bill and they refused to do it and it went to a tie vote and here we are.
* (15:50)
In Manitoba, jobs like this go far. There's a lot of spinoff from these kind of jobs, and the economic impact, I would argue, is greater.
And Air Canada is doing well. How much has its stock gone up in the last four or five years? I remember it was a penny stock. When was the last trade? It was, what, 12 bucks? Anyway, it seemed to be doing okay.
Air Canada also has a lot of intrinsic advantages of being part of Canada, for being in Canada, and one of them is their duopoly in air transportation, which is protected by Canadian regulations. They have preferred access on international routes from Pearson to international destinations. They have had assistance in–with their legacy pension plan during the downturn from the federal government. So they are, on one hand, private company and, as a Conservative, we would generally say that private companies should be able to make their own decision.
But they do benefit from the Air Canada participation act. They are subject to the Air Canada participation act. They receive incalculable economic benefits from Canada's aviation policy when it comes to foreign and domestic flights. So part of the quid quo pro should be–must be to fulfill its obligations. And we know what the obligations are; the courts have said it. But Air Canada, with the collusion of the government, is changing the rules–changing the rules–changing the law. So now–what the deal was when they were protected, in all these different areas, now they–there's nothing that can hold them to account. I wonder in the debate if the Liberal members can share with us what specific actions they are going to do to ensure that the federal members of Parliament vote against C-10. Be interesting. A public declaration would be quite convenient to show solidarity.
You know, and that's not unprecedented. The Conservative Party of Manitoba, and everyone else, hit the roof during the CF-18 affair. And that was the right thing to do, because what the federal government, and I don't care what stripe it was, was doing the wrong thing. It would be completely in Manitoba's interests if the Liberals would do the same on this issue, to put pressure on your colleagues or your–anyone who you may be related to. The–and wouldn't that send a strong message? I know it would put your federal colleagues in an awkward position, because it would show their hypocrisy during the election, it would show how bad Bill C-10 is. It would show how important the issue is to Manitobans. But I would ask the Liberal: Are you here to serve your party? Are you here to serve your province? Are you here to serve your constituents? And if it's to serve your constituents or your province, then you must condemn the federal government for its actions on this.
Now, on the flip side, if you decide not–if the members decide not to make a public declaration condemning their federal cousins or biological members of their family, it would simply demonstrate more hypocrisy, more disingenuous words, more misleading of the public and, sadly, the likely passage of Bill C-10, removing any of the levers that Manitoba has to ensure that we have a strong aviation industry in Manitoba.
And I'll just say there's a bigger picture here. This is the first domino. We're looking at military procurements that seem to be changing, that will affect our aviation industry. There are Transport Canada regs coming through that will affect our aviation industry and all, potentially, to the detriment of Manitoba but to the benefit, at least in part, to other regions of the country. And I don't mind other regions doing well. But when it's at the expense, clearly, at the expense of Manitoba, we all need to stand up to be counted, and we need to be consistent.
When the vote is–doesn't matter and you vote against something, well, doesn't really–sure, okay, that's fair, I guess. But when you stand up and the vote means something, like happened just a few weeks ago where the member from Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley really saved the government from embarrassment because there weren't many Liberal members at work that day, but that would've been a great opportunity to represent to his constituents. But he showed his true colours. He demonstrated the government was unable to–or simply doesn't care about Winnipeg or Manitoba, and probably the West. They might care a little bit about the BC lower mainland just because of the number of seats. But I would hope that together we can support the motion, but just not in a vote today: publicly tweet it out, go to Facebook, put it on your website, call your friends, call your dad, you know, call everyone to make sure that they know that Bill C-10 is not in the interests of Manitoba. It must be defeated. It was disingenuous to bring it forward in the first place.
You know, these guys, they were on Parliament Hill singing Solidarity Forever. Like, give me a break. Solidarity–solidarity with what? With themselves, I guess.
We live in a great country that would be greater if Aveos stays in Winnipeg.
* (16:00)
Madam Speaker: Are there any further speakers on the amendment?
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): I rise this afternoon. It's interesting; it's refreshing, perhaps, to see the Tory government come out in support of workers. I certainly hope that's the tone that we can see going forward for the rest of the bills and business that this Tory government brings forward. It's certainly not something we're used to seeing, so I look forward to the new orange Tories.
Keeping jobs in Manitoba is critical. Keeping good-paying jobs in Manitoba is critical, but it's more than just jobs. It's keeping families in Manitoba. It's providing the opportunity for advancement so that people can go to school and know that there's good jobs for them to go to.
By doing away with these maintenance jobs, the province of Manitoba as a whole will suffer. The Canadian perspective will suffer. The former speaker talked very briefly about this being the first domino. It certainly is not the first domino. That first domino fell a long time ago with the beginning of free trade agreements and getting rid of manufacturing jobs in Canada, and it's nice to see governments finally waking up to the fact that we need to keep good‑paying jobs in this country and in this province, and we fully support keeping those jobs here. Certainly, I've spoken to people at the Manitoba Federation of Labour and other union people that certainly support this government in this particular initiative to make sure that these jobs stay here, to make sure that the federal Liberal Party lives up to what the law says they're supposed to do.
They certainly had no mandate to do this in the first place. It was never an election issue. It's something that they're trying to force through now. I'm not sure where their heads are at as they do this. It's certainly not in support of the greater good of Canada and certainly not in the support of the greater good of Manitoba. So, certainly, we need to be cognizant of that.
The most important thing to come out of this is that it shows that we in this House can work together when it's for the benefit of all Manitobans, and this, I again hope, is one of the first things we see. Maybe this will be the first domino as we work together for the betterment of Manitobans.
Free trade agreements as a whole have not been for the benefit of workers in this country and not been to the benefit of workers in this province. The proposal about accepting the Trans-Pacific trade partnership will not be for the benefit of workers in this province, so, hopefully, by the passing this bill and by us all supporting this going forward, we will realize that the importance of working people cannot be forgotten. Taxpayers cannot be forgotten. Creating good jobs that create more taxpayers cannot be forgotten.
So I certainly fully support this particular piece of legislation–or this particular resolution. It's important that the federal government knows that the people of Manitoba are not happy, that the people of Manitoba are demanding that these jobs stay in Manitoba. We need to make sure that whatever the final outcome of this is that we've sent a clear message from this House to the federal government that there needs to be firm commitments that jobs will stay here, that manufacturing will stay here. Manufacturing in the area of aerospace is important, and it will provide the training and the workers as we try to move to a green economy, that it will lead to the innovation that will allow different manufacturing jobs to grow and prosper here, which will then allow more workers to be present. And that can only be good news for the province of Manitoba.
We need to make sure that, as we move forward through the rest of this session, that things like working people are not forgotten, that things like jobs are not forgotten, that the jobs, not just in Winnipeg but jobs in the province of Manitoba, good-paying jobs, manufacturing jobs, mining jobs, resource sector jobs, green jobs are important. And we need to make sure that we, as a House, as a government, as the opposition, move forward to make sure we’re not just protecting the jobs that we've got, but they're creating new and exciting opportunities for working people, new and exciting opportunities for young people. We need to make sure that, as we fight to protect these jobs, that we keep an eye on jobs of the future so that people that have been disadvantaged for far too long have the opportunity to participate in good-paying jobs, to have an opportunity to participate in the future.
So that's why I am, certainly, supporting this. It's about the future. It's about protecting the future. I hope that as we go forward, like I say, that we can protect more jobs, that we can create more jobs, that we can work together to make sure that that is what we are about: looking after Manitobans, making sure we're creating the jobs that are important to Manitobans, protecting the jobs and creating new jobs.
I guess, without rambling on for far too long, I'll wrap up at this point in time and just say that I, certainly, support this and I support our amendment. And I look forward to working together to protect Manitobans in the future. Thank you.
Mr. Scott Johnston (St. James): I rise to speak in favour of this resolution. First, let me tell you how warm and fuzzy the room is and how much I appreciate it. It's been my first experience, in seeing this side of the House, and I think it's admirable. And I appreciate it very much–to all the members in the House.
I wish to thank the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) for presenting this motion to the House. Madam Speaker, we are compelled to stand up for Manitoba jobs. [interjection] I thank you.
I know the honourable members will join me in supporting this resolution to protect and preserve the Manitoba aerospace industry.
The aerospace industry means so much to our economy. Manitoba is home to a world-class industry that directly employs approximately 500–400 workers. The industry also employs many Manitobans in related sectors. And this industry contributes revenues of over $1.6 billion a year. Manitoba's working families have generations of commitment to building and developing our Manitoba industry into the third largest in Canada. Our aerospace sector is diverse and is on the cutting edge of technology and innovation, and the outlook for Manitoba aerospace is positive.
I've known many dedicated workers, both union, management, tech and operations, all proud to contribute to the success of Manitoba's aerospace industry.
Madam Speaker, all of these people ask for a fair shake. During the campaign, I met a number of people who work in the aerospace industry, and I am proud of their commitment to excellence. Some of them supported me and some of them didn't, but they were all supporting Manitoba business and prosperity.
What impressed me the most was their loyalty to the industry, which has a solid foundation in Manitoba. These people should have job-protection security. These people were led to believe that the federal government were not going to amend Bill C‑10. And I stand in the House today asking for the support of members to ensure that these people can sleep comfortably at night, resting assured that their jobs will there in the morning.
* (16:10)
Our industry leaders such as StandardAero, Magellan Aerospace, Boeing Canada and Cormer Aerospace are innovators in the aerospace industry. They have invested right here in Manitoba, Madam Speaker. They are our partners. Manitoba's stakeholders are united in seeking a direct and long‑term commitment to Manitoba aerospace from our federal partners and Air Canada.
Manitoba stakeholders understand actions taken by the federal government can have a definite detrimental impact on the sustainability of Manitoba's aerospace sector. One of the most notorious was the CF-18 contract. These types of conflicts serve no one's interests and should be avoided at all costs.
It is important that our new government work with industry and partners to ensure our province has the opportunity to benefit from global competitiveness and growing aerospace sector prosperity. Our partners desire the opportunity to help our workers and province prosper.
Manitobans are concerned that the current federal government is proceeding in a way that favours Quebec interests over those in Manitoba. Manitoba should not be expected to settle for less than what Quebec is receiving in proportional terms.
Madam Speaker, we negotiated in good faith. We had a deal. For the federal government to turn its back on our agreement is deplorable. The proposed amendments can eliminate jobs in Manitoba, and that cannot go unchallenged. The proposed changes will allow the potential elimination of skilled maintenance jobs in Manitoba, and we cannot let that happen. Our workers, partners and province deserve a solid commitment in an agreement, and that is what we thought we had.
Madam Speaker, our province of Manitoba has invested to ensure our aerospace industry is moving forward. We created CentrePort, which is a transportation hub which provincial and federal investment was involved, and it's the largest inland port foreign trade zone in Canada. We are working towards the New West Partnership, which increases access to markets, a trade partnership which will strengthen Manitoba's aerospace industry. And I realize that there is some discussion in regards to the TPP, but we believe that opening huge Asian markets will also be advantageous to the aerospace industry and help maintain jobs in Manitoba. All these enhancements are beneficial to the aerospace industry.
Manitoba has a long and coveted history with our proud military. We house Canada's 17 Wing. The search and rescue servicing of Canada's north from Winnipeg further indicates our province's support for Canada's aerospace industry.
I appreciate the support for this resolution. I thank my honourable friends in the NDP for standing with us on this. Madam Speaker, I wish to also note that throughout the House of Commons debate, members of the PC Party and the NDP party stood together to address the significant impacts of Bill C‑10, and that was honourable. I also would like to thank my honourable friends from the Manitoba Liberal Party for also joining us. We may have philosophical differences, but on this issue, we stood together, and Manitoba will benefit.
Today's motion is an opportunity for all members of the Legislature Assembly to join Manitoba's new government in standing with business and labour to protect jobs and expand opportunities in Manitoba's global competitive aerospace industry.
I thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I'd like to rise today to speak on The Air Canada Public Participation Act resolution, and I was extremely impressed with the member for Assiniboia's (Mr. Fletcher) speech today. And I have to say that I was there in Ottawa for part of his term that he was there and was actually a critic before the Transport committee on this very issue back in two thousand and–I guess it was around 2010.
But at that time the issue really was whether or not the government would step in and enforce the legislation that was actually passed by the Conservatives way back when they privatized Air Canada in the first place. That was in 1988, in fact.
And in a effort to get the privatization of Air Canada accomplished at the time, the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, Don Mazankowski said, and I quote, the legislation puts the force of law into the government's commitment to maintaining the airline's operational and overhaul centres in Montreal, Winnipeg and Mississauga.
These are not maintenance centres that we're talking about here; these are overhaul centres. This is heavy-duty work involving many, many people, hundreds and hundreds of people, and specifically in Montreal, Winnipeg and Mississauga. Nowhere else were these overhaul centres situated.
Now, while the legislation guarantees that these operations will be maintained, the same sound business reasons that they were established for in the first place will be the best guarantee they'll remain open, the point here is that this was a guarantee by the Deputy Prime Minister in 1988 to gain support for the idea that Air Canada should be privatized in the first place.
So, when you roll forward to the period of time that the member for Assiniboia and I were members of Parliament, at that time, Air Canada was, you know, constantly visiting the Transport Minister's office and the Prime Minister's office, lobbying for God knows what exactly, but a lot of things, lots of issues, certainly against the air passenger bill of rights, for one. But the fact of the matter is that they were defying the Conservative government at the time by attempting to allow Aveos to move these jobs to Central America. I believe that's where they were going to go; it was El Salvador or Nicaragua or somewhere. I don’t have my notes from those days handy here, but I still have them. And that's what it was.
So we, in the opposition at the time, the newly elected member for Winnipeg North was only an MP for maybe three weeks or so at the time, but we were ganged up against the government of the member for Assiniboia, trying to get them, that Conservative government, to enforce this legislation that was passed by Don Mazankowski and his Conservative government of Brian Mulroney back in 1988.
So we were doing all of this at the time, and I was meeting with the union and so was the member–the new member for Winnipeg North, and I got to admit he did a phenomenal job. He was way more aggressive than me. He flew back to Winnipeg and he put on a–some sort of suit of armour, went out and protested with the workers and–at the airport, in fact, I think, if I'm not mistaken. And I'd turn on my TV and there's the new member out there. He was out there two or three times, I think, promoting and supporting the union in their efforts to allow Aveos to honour these commitments, to keep this overhaul base in Winnipeg. That's what it was all about in those days.
Well, guess what happened after that? After the 2011 election, Aveos evidently went bankrupt and the workforce of 400 here in Manitoba essentially disappeared. And people had to move to other parts of the country because the Conservative government of the day was not prepared to step in and enforce the legislation that a previous Conservative government had passed in the first place. So at that time we felt the Liberals were kind of on the right side, that we were–they–we were both supporting the workers to keep these overhaul bases where they are.
* (16:20)
So it is kind of interesting how things change over time because now what's happened is the Liberals are the federal government, and they find themselves in a awful situation here where we have aerospace being, you know, a big–major part of our economy and another big industry in Quebec. And that's been a tension for–as the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Fletcher) pointed out, for a large number of years going back to CF-18, and he's dead on when he says that, you know, the old CF‑18 debacle that we all saw here in 1987 can happen again, just in a different form. It can be involved in the military procurement that's coming up in other aspects.
So now where do we find the Liberals? Well, we find the Liberals trying to be on both sides of the issue, you know, and the member for Assiniboia is the one member in this House who's calling them on that. You know, the member for St. James (Mr. Johnston) said, oh, it's nice to have them onside. Well, they're happy to hear that. They want you to say that, well, we're happy you're onside right now, because they want to get through this terrible situation that they've got themselves in. That's the truth of the matter here.
You have–I don't know how many members they have in the federal House right now from Manitoba, but the question is, where are they? What have they been saying? What have they been doing about this issue? Well, the member for Assiniboia has pointed out what they're saying and they're doing. They're in there quietly piloting the legislation through that's going to mean we're going to lose permanently all of these jobs. That's what they're doing.
And so now the members in this House want to be part of an all-party committee because they want people to forget what their federal cousins are doing. That's the truth of the matter, and we should not let them do that. We should say that, yes, they should stand up and they should say what's really going on there, that their members are part of a national government that's telling them what to do, that they have to vote for things that are not–you know, an issue here that's not going to be popular in Manitoba.
And for–I was going to say leader–the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), who was trying to explain his position in all of this, he said that he thinks that the federal members are working for some, like, some greater good, I can't, you know–some centre of excellence I think he called it. That's kind of way out there, and I don't know what he means by that. I didn't hear all of his explanations.
But my point is that you can't have it both ways or you shouldn't be able to have it both ways, and that's what they're trying to do, and the member for Assiniboia has called them out on that matter.
So, Madam Speaker, I know we're short of time here today. We have many other speakers, and I do have a lot more to say on this matter.
An Honourable Member: More.
Mr. Maloway: But, no, I think that it's time for other people to have their time, so we can, you know, have our vote on this resolution today.
Thank you very much.
Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Families): Well, I very much appreciate the opportunity to stand here and talk–address this important issue. It's also good to be able to stand with members from the other side of the aisle. I know there's some good people here that want to stand up for what's right for Manitoba, and that's exactly what I think needs to happen.
I can tell you in my current role–although my current legislative constituency is a little bit different from my area when I was a city councillor, I did on City Council represent the airport area, which is obviously extremely important to the well-being, not just of the city, to the province, but to the area, and I can tell you on numerous occasions we–although at the city level we weren't directly involved in aerospace, they are an important ingredient, I guess, in terms of what the economy–what the jobs mean in Manitoba.
I had a number of occasions to join other colleagues, other members of other different levels of government, to understand and to explore kind of the aspects that some of these companies in the aerospace industry mean to our local economy and mean to the local area. I know the member from St. James spoke very eloquently just in terms of what these jobs mean to our area, and I can tell you the companies like Magellan–I had an opportunity in my City Council days, as well as my time in reprieve from outside of politics, when I did some work as a consultant of how important these jobs are. And these jobs aren't just things that just go away; they're not McJobs, I guess what you'd say. They're a skilled workforce that's really important to the people that generate them. There's also lots of spinoff industries that are associated with this that are important for these areas.
There's companies like StandardAero, obviously, who–another important player that's a part in this area, and, you know, the member from Assiniboine spoke very highly and, you know, very articulate in terms of his–the important role that the aerospace industry plays in terms of our economy. If you look at some of the numbers that have been talked about, Manitoba is one of the homes to some of the world‑class techniques in terms of aerospace.
The jobs that we're talking about, and I think this is underestimated, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5,400 jobs that are associated with this important industry. And I can tell you, not just from a government point of view, these are people that are in real jobs that live in, whether it be St. James, whether it be in Assiniboine, whether it be in Kirkfield Park, whether they be in the Maples and other areas like this, it's extremely important for the role. And Manitoba has a very diverse economy, but, if you look at the growth of industries, the industries that are important, the aerospace industry is one that people are able to come, you know, people that have–are in the second generation sometimes of being in the aerospace industry. It's an industry where there's lots of training that's associated with it. Its people can grow and prosper and do extremely well. And that's why I am so happy to be supporting the motion that we're speaking to, and I'm happy that other members from other different parties are here to support that as well.
Manitoba companies, obviously, face some pressures, I guess, if you'd be associated with it too. And other members have talked about the historical nature of things with the CF-18, for instance. Some examples where other jobs, in other areas of the country, whether it be Quebec, which obviously has a lot of aerospace industry as well, has taken precedence, and the member from Assiniboine–I can't pretend to speak as articulately as he did in terms of this–but it's extremely important that Western Canada has their fair share, their 'faige' say in these types of items. And you can understand from a political party–there's a number of political parties that went through this process, with the CF-18; there's people that have standed up from all different walks of life, from all different parties, that talked about this in the late '80s. And you start to see a trend that happens, and that's what's so disappointing. And I think this is something that's extremely important that really needs to be addressed and needs to be–needs to–stand up to talk about these things.
It has been covered off, the arguments of why this is happening or what was said during election–recent election campaigns, and the opportunity for the government of the day to make important changes or listen to the good, fine folks in Manitoba. But I can tell you, for our particular region, and now I'm speaking for the member for St. James and Assiniboia, there is important aspects in terms of the aerospace industry. Our area is something that focused in on CentrePort, which I'm a true believer, and I think that CentrePort is something that can really transform our economy, if done right. And that's heavily dependent, obviously, on the aerospace industry, is extremely important to it.
You also have other competing interests in competing areas. You talk about the New West Partnership that was brought up, and I'm not sure there's a total agreement from peoples–from all different parts of the political parties here, but you can see how these things play and the aerospace industry plays into other areas such as this.
You know, these–the Air Canada–the elimination of some of the jobs is something that's going to have direct impact on things, and that's why you'll have people from all different walks of life, people from different political philosophies. I'm sure there's not a lot that I agree in–with some of the members, but we're here standing for the people of Manitoba, essentially, to ensure these jobs are there.
There's a whole variety of people from all different walks of life that have talked about the importance of this and the importance of ensuring that Manitoba's interests are finally represented. There's people from trade associations, and some of them have been quoted here today. But, just to name a few, you've got people like David Chartrand, who talks about Bill C-10 as simply a–will simply allow Air Canada to move all of its aircraft, maintenance and overhaul work abroad. It will undermine the entire aviation maintenance and aerospace sector in this country. It puts at risk thousands of good-paying, high-skilled, high-tech jobs that could provide employment for Canadians for decades and decades to come, and that was Mr. David Chartrand.
You know, there's people, as well, in terms of some union workers. The international association of mechanics and aerospace workers, who's Fred, I believe his name is Hospes, who also talked about this. In a, you know, just a quote from him: In the current form, the act endangers the livelihood of MRO industry. In particular, this bill allows Air Canada to change the type or volume of any of all the aircraft maintenance work as well as all the levels of employment.
* (16:30)
So it talks about people from all different walks of life. You've got union leaders. You've got people from all different areas. You've got the Manitoba Federation of Labour, Mr. Kevin Rebeck, that also talked about this. Some areas that he associated with this–I quote what he had to say: We know Air Canada's actions violate the current act because the act is clear, precise, and specific. It has been disappointed that the Government of Canada has thus far refused to enforce its own legislation. It has been even more difficult to rationalize since the Quebec court ruling against Air Canada. And that was Mr. Kevin Rebeck from the Canadian Federation of Labour.
You also have people that have a vested–not just a vested interest, but understand the importance of composites, and someone who is involved in the CIC, the Composites Innovation Centre, Mr. Sean McKay. Mr. Sean McKay talked about the federal government. This is a quote, Madam Speaker: The federal government, through its Air Canada Public Participation Act and as a result of the significant financial support to the airline, has mandated Air Canada provide economic opportunities for Manitoba. It is considered important requirement to be maintained, if not, in a heavy maintenance, then in the usage of the company's influence and resources to develop commercial, viable alternatives that are symbolic of the Canadian aerospace industry. It is essential to 'substaining' and growing Manitoba's aerospace industry, which is based on a continued strong industry and government participation.
And that's someone who necessarily is someone that helps in terms of the composites that airplanes are made of, which is extremely important for things, people like Bristol–or rather from Magellan, rather, and from StandardAero.
You also have people like Barry Rempel who have talked 'exclusely' about this through the Winnipeg airport authorities.
I'm getting some good support here from the other side, I see, from the former member.
Mr. Barry Rempel–[interjection] So, with that, Madam Speaker, I think I have come to the conclusion of this, but you understand my point. My point is that these jobs are extremely important to our society, and they're important to Manitoba economy. I'm very supportive of this and happy that, especially the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway); I know he's very supportive of this in nature and giving me the thumbs-up sign.
So thank you very much, and on behalf of our government.
Mr. Kevin Chief (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, glad to put some words on the record about the resolution brought forward by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) and do want to say that I'm also glad that we're seeing a consensus in the House on this. Of course, this is incredibly important to Manitoba. In particular, I do want to recognize that they are supporting the friendly amendments to it, and we're going to make it stronger, collectively, and I think that that's important.
As we know, Manitoba is home to world-class aerospace industry, one of the largest in western Canada. Over 5,000 people work directly, and that doesn't include the indirect jobs that come from our aerospace industry. And I do want to say for the record that having a competitive aerospace industry outside of eastern Canada, as it says in the resolution, is actually good for the country. And so to make sure that those remarks are on the record are important.
I do want to say that I know that the minister for 'gothe'–Growth, Enterprise and Trade just recently brought a ministerial statement forward on the importance of the aerospace industry, celebrating and highlighting Aerospace Week last week, and so, you know, we recognize how important the aerospace industry is. And we're seeing in Manitoba, of having the third largest aerospace industry in the country, and, of course, it includes our composite manufacturing centre as well. One of the things that attracts so many people to Manitoba to live, work and invest is our strong aerospace industry. And I think that's important.
I do got to say, Madam Speaker, I do want to connect a little bit of this to Point Douglas. And, you know, one of the biggest partners with an organization, because there are so many not only job opportunities but training opportunities, and we have one of the youngest and fastest growing demographics, because of our young indigenous population, because of our new Canadian and refugee population. We see partnerships, and we have one right over at the Aboriginal Centre, now known as Neeginan Centre. And there are a lot of young people, particularly indigenous people, that are seeing more opportunity in the aerospace industry. And what I want to say is that the aerospace industry has worked incredibly hard to reach out to organizations to make sure that this–these demographics of people recognize that there are jobs for them in that industry. So it's not just protecting the jobs here now, but it's also about future jobs that are going to come.
One of the things that we know, in the aerospace industry, is that it does have a global reach, worldwide connections, international reach. And people who work in these jobs continue to make their biggest impact right here in Winnipeg, right here in Manitoba. And part of the celebration that we had last week, with the aerospace industry, was the incredible work that the folks in the aerospace industry do with young people. And we celebrate that.
One of the things that we know with–that we want to be able to do is that young people, not just our students that are in college and university, but young people, our elementary school students, our junior high school students recognize that there isn't any job they can't get. And they have to recognize–and the aerospace industry makes sure that those young people know, all throughout the province, that there's going to be a great job for them in the aerospace industry.
And they work hard to give young people a tap on the shoulder. And how do they do that? Well, they take young people that are in the classroom, and they bring them right down to where these jobs are. They give them tours. They get to showcase and highlight the incredible opportunities that are there for young people. And, often, we see many of them taking that workplace and bringing it into the classroom. So they're sending a very strong message to young people. And we've been able to do this, because we have always fought and worked hard to make sure that these jobs would be there for young people, for Manitobans.
And that's why this resolution's so important, is because we want to make sure that we're doing everything we can to protect those jobs. And I know that there's been a lot of leadership provided. And one of the things that we collectively see–we got support on this resolution and trying to send a very strong statement to the federal government about how important this is. You have a–the Conservatives in government, you have the New Democrats here, you've got the Liberals here, supporting this resolution to say these jobs are important to Manitobans, and we're going to do everything we possibly can to fight for these jobs.
Now, you also–it's not just provincially that we see this co-operation, but we also see it federally and, with the New Democrats working with the federal Conservatives to make sure that there's a strong statement sent that we're going to continue to fight for these jobs and for Manitobans.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade): It's indeed a pleasure today to rise and speak to this particular resolution. I do want to commend the member for Tuxedo, the Deputy Premier (Mrs. Stefanson), for bringing this important resolution forward and, certainly, acknowledge her work on this file over the last few weeks.
Clearly, our government believes it's a very important issue for not just Manitoba but all of Manitoba. And that's why we've asked the Deputy Premier to take the lead role on this particular file. And certainly, she, within our first few days of office, in fact, made a presentation to the committee at–in Ottawa, on this particular piece of legislation. And, obviously, at that point in time, we made very strong comments about our position relative to Bill C-10 and, certainly, its negative impacts that it will have for Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba.
Obviously, we recognize the important industry we have in Manitoba. It's a very, very robust industry. We think there's potential for more here in Manitoba. We think there's tremendous opportunity in the aerospace industry.
* (16:40)
I will note just–I believe it was last weekend we had the air show out in Portage where the Snowbirds participated. And it was just an overwhelming number of people showed up to view that air show. So, obviously, there's an interest from the public in aeronautics. And one thing that maybe the general public isn't aware of is just how big and how important that industry is here in the province of Manitoba. And that is one of the main reasons that we feel that we have to stand up against the opinion of the Liberal government in Ottawa. We believe this Bill C-10 will have very detrimental effects to jobs here in Manitoba.
And, Madam Speaker, I–when I talk about jobs, it's not just the jobs that are directly related to the aerospace industry. There is other, many indirect jobs that are associated with this industry in Manitoba, and in one of the ones that I'm excited about is the composite industry. We have, hopefully, a growing composite industry here. We have a 'composints' innovation centre here in Manitoba, and this particular centre is looking at brand new technology in terms of producing materials, and one of the industries they're really working with is the aerospace industry.
So there's some incredible new technology that's going on there in terms of composite development in the aerospace sector, and there will be tremendous–tremendous–spinoff if we're able to maintain that core aerospace industry here in Manitoba.
And that really, to me–there is–there's the direct jobs; we certainly don't want to lose any direct jobs here in Manitoba, but any direct jobs we lose will also result in subsequent job loss from those other industries that are working around the aerospace industry. So we are getting the message loud and clear from the business sector that we have to stand up for these jobs in the aerospace industry, and Bill C-10 takes away the promises that were previously made by the government here in Canada.
And we believe, we as a group, if we will be speaking in support of this resolution, it will send a strong message to the government in Ottawa. I was happy today when the member for Minto (Mr. Swan) brought forward a resolution–or, and amendment to our resolution, which, I believe, will actually strengthen what we're saying to the federal government.
So we certainly look forward to–we're happy to have their support of our resolution. I'm–I expect that all parties recognize the important role of the aerospace industry, and it is nice when all parties can get together to send a positive message in the right direction.
So, with that, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to echo the strong support we've had from the business community, certainly from the labour community as well, in terms of moving this issue forward. And we hope, at the end of the day, we will be able to send a strong message to the Liberal government, and they will respond positively to our concerns here in Manitoba.
Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker: Are there any further speakers on the amendment?
Question. The question before the House is the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Minto.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Agreed? [Agreed]
Recorded Vote
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): I'd like to request a recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been called.
Call in the members.
The question before the House is the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Minto.
All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Okay, sorry–it's another one of those rookie mistakes.
* (16:50)
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allum, Altemeyer, Bindle, Chief, Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Fontaine, Gerrard, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Kinew, Klassen, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Lamoureux, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Saran, Schuler, Selinger, Smith, Smook, Stefanson, Swan, Teitsma, Wharton, Wiebe, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): Yeas 51, Nays 0.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please rise. [interjection]
Deputy Clerk: Yeas 51, Nays 0.
Madam Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
* * *
Madam Speaker: We shall now consider the resolution as amended.
Are there any futher speakers on the resolution as amended?
If not, is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the resolution as amended? [Agreed]
Recorded Vote
Mr. Cullen: Madam Speaker, this is clearly an important issue for Manitobans. And I request a recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allum, Altemeyer, Bindle, Chief, Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Fontaine, Friesen, Gerrard, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Kinew, Klassen, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Lamoureux, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Saran, Schuler, Selinger, Smith, Smook, Stefanson, Swan, Teitsma, Wharton, Wiebe, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Deputy Clerk: Yeas 52, Nays 0.
Madam Speaker: I declare the resolution, as amended, carried.
Mr. Cullen: I just wonder if you would canvass the House to see if there's leave to call this resolution unanimous.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to call this resolution vote unanimous? [Agreed]
Leave has been granted.
* * *
Madam Speaker: Oh, the honourable–I'm waiting for you to talk.
Mr. Cullen: Would you canvass the House to see if there's leave to call it 5 o'clock.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to call it 5 o'clock? [Agreed]
Well, the hour being 5 o'clock, the House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. And go, Bombers, go.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
CONTENTS