LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Friday, May 20, 2022


The House met at 10 a.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(Continued)

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

(Continued)

Committee of Supply

(Concurrent Sections)

Room 254

Health

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): Would the Com­mit­tee of Supply please come to order.

      Before we begin, I have a leave request for this section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply. Our long-standing practice is for the op­posi­tion to sit at the com­mit­tee table to the right-hand side of the Chairperson.

      But because the minister is partici­pating virtually today, I'm asking if there is leave of the com­mit­tee to waive this practice? This would make it much easier for the members of the op­posi­tion to see the screens that are situated in this room. [Agreed]

      Thank you.

      This section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply will now resume con­sid­era­tion of the Estimates for the Department of Health. Questioning for this de­part­ment will proceed in a global manner.

      The floor is now open for questions.

      MLA Asagwara. [interjection] Oh–MLA for Union Station.

MLA Uzoma Asagwara (Union Station): Good morning, everyone. And good morning to the minis­ter.

      I believe the last time we were in this com­mit­tee, the minister was provi­ding some infor­ma­tion in re­gards to the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog, so I think we'd like to start there again today.

      Spe­cific­ally, I'd like to ask about spending allo­cations of the funds for the surgical and diag­nos­tic back­log. Can the minister provide a breakdown?

      The last time we were, again, in com­mit­tee, the minister had provided a breakdown in regards to the $50 million that was in the last fiscal budget, and what that–what those dollars–I guess the breakdown of $10 million. The minister articulated some clarity around that, and then 40.

      But I'm wondering if the minister can provide a breakdown of where funds were spent. So, for ex­ample, how much was spent on private external contracts? And how much ad­di­tional funds were spent to enhance existing public capacity, like, for example, enhancing surgical bookings in hospitals?

      So, how much of those funds were spent on pri­vate, external contracts and how much was spent on enhancing public capacity?

      Thanks.

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): Good morning to everyone in Com­mit­tee of Supply for Health today, as well as the hon­our­able member for Union Station.

      I would like to seek some clari­fi­ca­tion from the member in terms of the member's definition of private. So, is it service delivery organi­zations that we've had contracts with for decades, or is it the new proposals that have come forward to the task force that we have now contracted with through our requests-for-supply arrangement? Can I get more clarity on that question, please, Mr. Chairperson?

      Thank you.

MLA Asagwara: I ap­pre­ciate the minister seeking that clari­fi­ca­tion.

      I'm spe­cific­ally speaking to private external con­tracts, so the RFPs. So any new contracts that were negotiated, agreed upon–as related to the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog–through private entities.

      Thanks.

Ms. Gordon: I'm now able to respond to the question from the hon­our­able member for Union Station with regard to arrangements to address wait times for surgical and echocardiography services for '21-22.

      I do want to start by saying the ability to 'procrare' services from multiple vendors has enabled service provision to Manitobans that would otherwise have not occurred given successive waves of COVID‑19 and the unpredictability of the need for elective surgery cancellations in hospitals. So I'm going to summarize performance on system efforts and refreshed contracts under­taken through the RFSA process.

      So, the de­part­ment estimates that vendors will per­form, on average, approximately 85 per cent of RFSA-contracted procedures for '21–2021-2022. Western surgical centre will perform about 40 per cent of contracted plastic procedures, and these reasons are associated with closure of St. Boniface elective surgery slates during pandemic, and there was also a lack of anesthesia resources. Maples Surgical Centre will perform about 60 per cent of contracted general surgery procedures, such as hernia, orthopedic spine and laparoscopic 'coletsectomy.' Reasons for some of the underperforming are associated with surgeon availability and other issues.

* (10:10)

      Public system vendor feedback continues to in­dicate that surgical services are continuing at a high level. Vendors awarded with endoscopy services through the call for interest posted on October 5th, 2021, have started provisions. Shared Health, HSC, will perform about 40 per cent of the contracted endoscopic procedures. LifeSmart cardio and Maples are also performing some of our surgeries. LifeSmart Cardio 1 completed 488 out of a possible 512 echo­cardiography procedures in '21-22. Maples completed 359 out of a total of 399 procedures in '21‑22.

      And the de­part­ment is working with Procurement Services and the surgical diag­nos­tic task force to plan for the '22-23 RFSA services. We are going to be issuing, I think it is next week, our sixth RFSA.

      A six‑month extension to '21-22 RFSA agree­ments has been signed by seven out of eight vendors currently provi­ding services. Shared Health has con­firmed that they will need more time to work on our RFSAs to ensure provision of continuity for April 1st to September 30th.

      But that is what I am able to report today, Mr. Chairperson: that our RFSAs–five in total–have led to, I've reported before, 11,000 various surgeries. And we're continuing with our sixth RFSA.

MLA Asagwara: I thank the minister for that re­sponse. I was seeking clari­fi­ca­tion–I'm not sure if she missed that part of my question, but I was spe­cific­ally seeking clari­fi­ca­tion on the funds spent on those private external contracts.

      So, if the minister could please provide a break­down on the actual dollars spent and that have been–sorry, been spent on the private external contracts. She  just provided a breakdown on percent­ages and amounts of procedures completed, et cetera, but I'm looking for actual dollars spent on private external contracts.

      Thank you.

Ms. Gordon: I thank the hon­our­able member for Union Station (MLA Asagwara) for clarifying that it is the dollars they are seeking.

      I want to start by stating that the dollars that I will be sharing are current as of March 31st, 2022. They're not final or–nor have they been audited, and it does not include medical remuneration or payment to the actual provider that performed these services.

      So, echocardiography through Cardio 1 is $128,711.68. Echocardiography through Maples is $105,998.34. Cataracts performed by Vision Group: $776,250. Cataracts performed by western: $3,319,200. Urology prostate cystoscopy performed by CCMB, which is CancerCare Manitoba: $52,686. Foot procedures performed by Pan Am Clinic: $54,560. Local hand procedures at Pan Am Clinic: $291,550. Hernia, of which there are three types: laparoscopic–no dollars paid; hernia to Maples Surgical Centre: $321,903.16; open hernia–again, to Maples–three hundred nineteen thousand, eight-hundred and–no, I'm sorry, correction–open hernia for Maples: $318,333.60. Orthopedic spine procedures, of which there are three types, paid to Maples Surgical Centre: laminectomy–$387,423; first level decom­pression–$358,020; second level decompression–$295,272.

      And we also have procedures–ear, nose and throat–again, at the Maples Surgical Centre, of which there are four types: tonsillectomy–$140,231.70; septoplasty–$287,774.40; tympanoplasty–$109,185.05; 'mastiodectomy'–$779,976.50. Laparoscopic 'cholos­tectomy' at Maples–$330,267.50. Pediatric dental surgery at western–$521,400. Plastics, of which there are four, paid to western surgical centre: breast–$404,352; trunk–$35,100; extremities–$126,144; endoscopy–Shared Health, HSC and Winnipeg Clinic–we'll start with Shared Health, HSC–$416,075; Winnipeg Clinic–$36,588.09.

      Again, I want to reiterate that this does not include medical remuneration. These are payments to the vendor and not to the provider, so those would be ad­di­tional dollars that have not been listed based on the RFAs that have been issued. And, again, this is as of March 31st, 2022. The numbers are not final and have not been audited for full accuracy, so I would like the member to consider these to be not final and an esti­mate at this point until it has been finalized. So, we're still waiting for end-of-the-year finalization of the spending around the RFSAs.

      Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

MLA Asagwara: I thank the minister for provi­ding that breakdown. I may want to go back to that and–just to get a bit more clarity.

* (10:20)

      But I'm wondering if the minister can provide a response to my–the second question I asked initially, which is: How much ad­di­tional funds were spent to enhance existing public capacity? An example, just to help clarify the question for the minister, would be through enhancing surgery bookings in hospitals. So, if the minister can provide how much of the funds were spent to enhance existing public capacity.

      Thank you.

Ms. Gordon: I thank the hon­our­able member for Union Station (MLA Asagwara) for the question.

      I do want to begin my remarks by stating that some of the en­hance­ments in hospital I have read it into the record in my earlier response. Shared Health is–as well as CancerCare Manitoba, those dollars are certainly in-hospital expenditures or additions that we made in funding.

      I'm also going to provide other dollars that have been spent under our priority procedures and wait-time reduction. Again, these are preliminary estimates and, as of March 31st, they have not been finalized, and they do not include medical remuneration. So, again, it's payment to the vendor and not the providers.

      Prairie Mountain Health, hip and knee surgeries: $419,876; WRHA, hip and knee surgeries: $2 million; Shared Health, for sonographers: $409,000; Shared Health, MRI, CT scans and ultrasounds for Brandon Regional Health Centre and Health Sciences Centre: $2,705,602.

      We also have a line for miscellaneous expenses, but I would have to take–I don't have the breakdown–which is $3,400.

      Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

MLA Asagwara: I thank the minister for that response.

      I'm wondering if the minister could provide, just for my own under­standing, a better under­standing of what these en­hance­ments might be. I can understand maybe the spending on, I suppose, procedural–procedures, like, fun­da­mentally some of those things getting done to address the backlog. But, spe­cific­ally, can the minister outline what en­hance­ments–so what ad­di­tional measures within that were taken, reflected in those funds, to address the backlog via public. So, I want to make sure that I'm really clear because I want to be able to get a clear response from the minister.

      So, the minister has provided a breakdown of monies that were spent on private, external contracts. I've asked for the minister to provide clarity around the funds that were spent to enhance public health-care system capacity in addressing the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog.

      What I'm looking for now is for the minister to provide clarity on exactly what those funds went into, what strategies were employed to enhance public capacity. So, not just the procedures that were com­pleted and where but, spe­cific­ally, ad­di­tional mea­sures that were supported by way of those dollars to enhance public capacity. If she could provide clarity on that, that would be greatly ap­pre­ciated.

      Thank you.

Ms. Gordon: I thank the hon­our­able member for Union Station for the question.

      I would like to provide a surgery update as of May 17th here in Winnipeg. And I want to start by just putting on the record that I'm so pleased that we're at 115 per cent surgical capacity across the system. So, definitely back to pre-pandemic levels and doing above that. So, you know, my–once again, my thanks and my praise goes out to the health leadership and every­one that's on the front lines performing these surgeries.

      But here in Winnipeg, just to give you a sense of that, there were 1,143 non-emergent surgeries com­pleted the week of May 9 to 15th at Winnipeg sites. This is 150 more surgeries than the number completed during a similar week in 2019–so, May 13th to 19th, 2019–when 993 surgeries were completed. That means Winnipeg's surgery program operated at 115.1 per cent of pre-pandemic levels last week. And, Mr. Chairperson, the number of surgeries completed last week is 55 more than the week before, so this marks a 5.1 per cent increase week over week.

      All emergent and urgent surgeries, including car­diac and cancer procedures, continue to be prioritized. Non-urgent surgeries are reviewed by physicians to prioritize patients who medically should not wait any longer for procedures to be performed.

* (10:30)

      And, as well, the number of emergent surgeries performed last week remains steady, as it has through­out the pandemic. There were 184 emergent or life-saving surgeries performed last week in Winnipeg. So, it's down 57 from the previous week, or 23.7 per cent, and down 53 from a similar time period in 2019.

      But there were 261 surgical slates in Winnipeg last week, not including some of the private clinics such as western and others. So, this is up three from the previous week, but 12 below pre-COVID norms, meaning slates were scheduled at 95.6 per cent of pre-pandemic baselines. So, we continue to do more work, but I'm so pleased to see at Concordia 100 per cent of pre-COVID capacity; at the Grace, 103.2 per cent; HSC Winnipeg, we have some work to do, we're at 89.6 per cent; Misericordia, 95.7 per cent; Pan Am, 100 per cent; St. Boniface, 93.3 per cent; cardiac, 93.3 per cent; the Victoria, 100 per cent; and HSC women's, 100 per cent.

      Again, as a reminder, the number of surgeries performed during a slate will vary depending on the acuity of the patient and the complexity of the pro­cedure. So, for example, an endoscopy will not take as long to perform as neurosurgery. As well, the time allotted for surgical slates may vary from those per­formed pre-pandemic due to demand, that may result, from time to time, in fewer surgeries.

      So, Mr. Chairperson, I did want to just put that on the record, and in terms–if we even look at the month of May, in terms of emergent surgeries: May 1st, 222; May 8th was 241; and May 15th as 184. And if we look at non-emergent for the same period: 1,068 for–at the start of May; and the middle of May, on May 8th, 1,088; and by May 15th, 1,143.

      So, we continue to work on our surgical slates and our surgical capacity, not just to–I've been asked this question several times, are–do we just want to get to pre-pandemic levels? Well, no; we need to do more than pre-pandemic levels if we are to reduce our backlog. And so our health-care staff, our surgeons, our health leaders are very committed to ensuring that we go beyond the pre-pandemic levels.

      But again, I'm just very, very pleased to report that we're at 115 per cent surgical capacity needed. Manitobans are getting surgeries.

MLA Asagwara: I thank the minister for that response and, certainly, the minister and I are on the same page in recog­nizing that we need to go well above and beyond pre-pandemic surgery and diag­nos­tic procedure levels in order to make sure that Manitobans get access to the care they need in a timely manner, that we mitigate poor health out­comes as a result of delayed access to care.

      Dr. Matear did state pretty clearly a few weeks ago that the backlogs were increasing before the pan­demic, unfortunately. And so, I think it's im­por­tant for us to recog­nize that, while certainly the pandemic has had a tre­men­dous impact, that in fact, in many areas, the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog was growing before the pandemic.

      And I know the minister has heard me speak to this many times and talk about the impact of the cuts to health care under this gov­ern­ment, closures of emer­gency rooms and the loss of critical-care capa­city, as we lost expertise during those closures and cuts due to those folks who worked in those areas–you know, some of those folks not being able to continue working in those areas in the hospitals they were previously, and not being able to move over to other facilities, and just the impact of those changes overall in the system.

      And so, certainly, I recog­nize it's im­por­tant for us to get above and beyond pre-pandemic levels. It's also im­por­tant to recog­nize that pre-pandemic levels were going in the wrong direction.

      And so, with that, I do want to talk a bit about this year's budget. We've talked a lot about the previous year and the year before that, those budgets. We know that this year's budget includes $110 million to ad­dress the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog.

      The minister can certainly correct me if I'm mis­taken, but I do believe it was made clear in the update provided yesterday that it doesn't appear as though those funds will be spent in full in this current fiscal year. So, certainly, I invite the minister to correct me on that point if I'm mistaken, but my under­standing is that the $110 million allocated this year to address the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog will not, unfor­tunately, be spent in full in this fiscal year.

      I'd like to, with that in mind, ask the minister about operating capacity at Concordia Hospital. When does the minister expect–and by when, I mean what date, what month, year–does the minister expect ad­di­tional operating capacity will be in place at Concordia Hospital?

Ms. Gordon: I thank the hon­our­able member for Union Station (MLA Asagwara) for the question.

      In her preamble leading the question, some com­ments were made that I would like to address, Mr. Chairperson. One of those comments is that backlogs for surgeries and diagnostics was occurring prior to the pandemic, and I want to assure the member that steps were being taken to address–

* (10:40)

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): Order. Order.

Point of Order

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): The member for Union Station would like to raise a point of order.

MLA Asagwara: I just want to remind the minister that I do use neutral pronouns, and so I'm sure she didn't even realize it, but I just want to flag that so that moving forward it's not an issue.

      Thanks.

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): The member has a point of order, and I'd just ask all members to be respectful of each other's–the way we all want to be addressed.

* * *

Ms. Gordon: I do apologize to the hon­our­able member for Union Station for misgendering the member. That was not my in­ten­tion, and I truly apologize for that.

      I will continue with my response that steps were being taken before the pandemic to address the issues that came out of the Wait Time Reduction Task Force report, which was in 2017, and as a result of that, priority procedures wait‑time reduction, there's a $10‑million allocation to the de­part­ment's Health budget continuing year over year. So, the first appeared in budget '20, 2020-2021, and continues 2021-22, and it will show up in the budget again for 2022-2023 to address the need to focus on priority procedures wait-time reduction. So, I do want to bring that to the member's attention.

      I also wish to share that the member for Union Station may not be aware, being recently new to the NDP's caucus, that during the NDP's time in office they shut down the following 18 emergency de­part­ments. In the Southern Health-Santé Sud: Emerson in 2002; Pembina Manitou, 2004; MacGregor in 2004; St. Claude in 2005; Gladstone in 2008; Vita in 2012. In Prairie Mountain: Reston in 1997; Erickson in 2003, Rossburn in 2003, Wawanesa in 2006, Birtle in 2006, Rivers in 2007, Baldur in 2007, Benito in 1997, McCreary in 2004, Winnipegosis in 2012. And in the Interlake-Eastern Regional Health Author­ity: Whitemouth in 2000 and Teulon in 2016.

      I also want to address the member's comment about the–Dr. Matear's comments related to the al­loca­tion of the $112 million for the Diag­nos­tic and Surgical Recovery Task Force. And I want to read his response verbatim: Yes, meeting the needs of the patients, the gov­ern­ment has committed one hundred and tell–ten million dollars to our efforts this year. Our in­ten­tion is to spend all of that, if we can, on efforts to reduce the diag­nos­tic and surgical backlog.

      The other aspect is that the sum of that will be invest­ment in longer term sus­tain­able capacity of the system, which is based on patient needs, based on target wait times and is one of the components of the task force plan. I think the time that it takes to properly plan for each of those service lanes and the diag­nos­tic and surgical services within scope, being able to identify what we need, then look at–we obviously have proposals we're looking at currently. Where does that–to what degree do those proposals address the backlog and then being able to identify what is the remainder and how do we solicit proposals that can help address the whole of the backlog.

      So, all of those processes take time, and I think the workup of not just the plans but working through the proposals, supporting the proposals are coming forward so that they are–

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): The minister's time has expired.

MLA Asagwara: I can ap­pre­ciate the minister enthu­siastically provi­ding infor­ma­tion. However, I did not hear in her response an answer to my question about when the minister expects ad­di­tional operating capa­city to be in place at Concordia: what month, what year, the date.

      So, if the minister could please provide that response, I would ap­pre­ciate it.

* (10:50)

Ms. Gordon: Mr. Chairperson, I also want to add, for the hon­our­able member's infor­ma­tion, that after re­ceiving the wait time task force report in 2017, in response, in November 2018, it was announced that an ad­di­tional $5.3 million would be invested to reduce wait times for hip, knee and cataract surgeries. And the ad­di­tional funding resulted in an esti­mated 2,000 ad­di­tional cataract surgeries in 2019, which was a 16 per cent increase, and an ad­di­tional 1,000 hip and knee re­place­ment surgeries performed in 2019, a number which represents a nearly 25 per cent increase in Manitoba volumes.

      The 2019 incremental volume will be delivered–at that time, it was announced that it would be delivered in Winnipeg facilities. Approximately 4,100 hip and knee re­place­ments and 12,900 cataract surgeries were performed in Manitoba in 2017 to 2018. Of this volume, 3,000 hip and knee re­place­ment surgeries took place in the WRHA and greater than 10,000 cataract surgeries.

      So, again, increasing the volume of hip and knee re­place­ments and cataract surgeries was previously recom­mended by the wait times task–reduction task force, and in addition to the added funding that I've mentioned, service innovations also included offering cataract surgeries with freezing only–to patients meet­ing clinical criteria–rather than with sedation, and offering same-day hip surgery.

      So, for example, no hospital admission to select patients, as well as reducing the number of hospital stays and imple­men­ting a hip and knee clinic to reduce the number of people referred for surgery. So I just wanted to share with the member some other en­hance­ments that I did not refer to.

      And I want to talk a little bit, again, about the $110 million in Budget 2022 for the Diag­nos­tic and Surgical Recovery Task Force and the im­por­tant work that they're doing on behalf of Manitobans. So our gov­ern­ment has invested these dollars to address the pandemic backlog, but I want to be very, very clear and em­pha­size that there's no amount that our gov­ern­ment won't spend to address the backlog.

      So, the Diag­nos­tic and Surgical Recovery Task Force is planning and working on initiatives, several proposals and several ideas that have come for­ward  from industry and from within the system, Mr. Chairperson. And we know that these initiatives will lead to spending every penny of the $110 million with a goal to approach the gov­ern­ment for more.

      So our gov­ern­ment is confident in the work of the Diag­nos­tic and Surgical Recovery Task Force and we know that out­comes are already being achieved. This is demon­strated by the updates that are being provided at one of the an­nounce­ments at the Concordia Hip and Knee In­sti­tute. We had a patient from Sanford–who went to Sanford for spine surgery; at three weeks post-surgery was able to join us at the an­nounce­ment to share her out­comes of her surgery.

      And we want to tell Manitobans more good news, but as a result of the by-election blackout restrictions we couldn't elaborate on those. But we are going to have more good news for Manitobans coming in June, and look forward to the hon­our­able member hearing of those.

      In terms of the start-up date for Concordia, the fifth operating room, it will be in 2023. It's difficult at this stage to pin down the date, the month, as a result of supply chain issues and disruptions and construc­tion and timelines. It's not always in the hands of the project team, but we are aiming for 2023 and know that it will be operational and that members of the public will be able to get their hips and knee surgeries.

MLA Asagwara: Well, the minister really seems set on exhausting every second of the time available to provide a response to a question I've asked multiple times. I do thank the minister for eventually getting to answering the question that I've posed multiple times. So, thank you for provi­ding that response.

      I would like to ask about the reporting actually–the updates, rather, on the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog. The minister just touched on that a little bit.

      I mean, Doctors Manitobalike the minister, I was at their gala last night. It was really a wonderful even­ing to lift up and acknowl­edge the hard work of Manitoba physicians and to celebrate a few folks who have really stood out and that their colleagues refer to as heroes in the work that they've done during this pandemic. Dr. Reimer is an example; Dr. Lavallee, Dr. Anderson, were just a few of the folks who were honoured; Dr. Postl–I didn't capture all of the folks who were recog­nized last night, but certainly we thank all of them for their efforts and recog­nize their sig­ni­fi­cant immeasurable con­tri­bu­tions to the well-being of Manitobans.

      And Doctors Manitoba has been wonderful in pro­vi­ding regular updates to Manitobans about the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog, and what I hear con­sistently from Manitobans, not just my own con­stit­uents, is their disappointment that the best infor­ma­tion, most con­sistent and regular infor­ma­tion that they can receive and they've been receiving, has not come from this gov­ern­ment. It has come from, instead, Doctors Manitoba, and we thank Doctors Manitoba for their efforts in this parti­cular area. But it does beg the question why the minister hasn't been able to similarly update Manitobans on the backlog and why she still has yet to commit to a date by which the backlog will be cleared.

      So those are my questions to the minister. Why has the minister not been able–not been willing, not been able, to regularly update Manitobans on the details of the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog, and why has she not committed to a date? We've asked many, many, many times and, more im­por­tantly, Manitobans have been asking relentlessly for a target date, a timeline for when the backlog will be cleared.

* (11:00)

      Why hasn't the minister provided either of those things to Manitobans?

Ms. Gordon: I thank the hon­our­able member for Union Station (MLA Asagwara) for the question.

      I know that the hon­our­able member for Union Station also worked in the health system and would be familiar with what I'm about to share, that many surgeon offices maintain their own wait-list. I know one of the offices that I worked with actually had it on an Excel spreadsheet that was maintained by the main nurse in the clinic where these surgeries and diagnos­tics were being completed.

      So, it takes time. It requires working with doctors' offices and service delivery organi­zations to pull that infor­ma­tion, also looking at the centralized wait-list for other procedures.

      So, you know, I think Dr. Matear also mentioned this yesterday, that Doctors Manitoba is using CIHI data mixed with a lot of other data sets, and they them­selves have said on a number of occasions–and I–yes, I was at that dinner last night and had some con­ver­sa­tions about that, and they have been very open with the public that it's not accurate. It's what they have available to work with.

      And what our task force is attempting to do is to get accurate infor­ma­tion in the hands of Manitobans, and that's why they're meeting, even this week–it could be today, because this is the end of the week–with Doctors Manitoba. This is a group that is work­ing col­lab­o­ratively and around the table of solutions with service delivery organi­zations and organi­zations like Doctors Manitoba. It's not an adversarial ap­proach at all to helping Manitobans. It's about how do we get the best, accurate infor­ma­tion in the hands of Manitobans.

      The Manitobans that are talking to me about their surgeries are wanting to know about their wait time. And that is what we're working on in col­lab­o­ration with Doctors Manitoba. And I look forward to seeing that work completed.

      But I do want the hon­our­able member to know that we're coming–this Diag­nos­tic and Surgical Recovery Task Force is coming around the table with Doctors Manitoba. They've had many discussions with our chair of the steering com­mit­tee, Dr. Peter MacDonald, many in-person meetings. Everyone is doing what–the best they can to get accurate–let's–I want to em­pha­size that word–accurate infor­ma­tion. Again, it requires speaking to several physicians' and surgeons' offices and pulling data, and that changes.

      And I think Dr. Matear also spoke yesterday that the way diagnostics are going to be counted is about to change.

      And so all of that has to be taken into con­sid­era­tion. We don't want to do a rushed job. We don't want to do anything that will provide inaccurate infor­ma­tion to the public. So, Doctors Manitoba has their man­­date. They have been sharing infor­ma­tion with the public. They've said to the public that it's not accurate.

      And we respect the organi­zation and the infor­ma­tion that they have shared, and we respect and thank them for the in­cred­ible work that they're doing to come to the table with the Diag­nos­tic and Surgical Recovery Task Force to provide accurate data to Manitobans.

      Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

MLA Asagwara: With all due respect to the minister, her response was really, sort of, in a–sort of was an–a bit of an indictment on her and her gov­ern­ment's failure to provide the infor­ma­tion that Manitobans have been asking for.

      High­lighting that Doctors Manitoba has–without the–without even a semblance of the level of resource the gov­ern­ment has–has been able to provide Manitobans with con­sistent infor­ma­tion, albeit maybe imperfect, but certainly much more com­pre­hen­sive and con­sistent and dependable than this gov­ern­ment has yet to do. This–the minister's response really and truly has only amplified the fact that this gov­ern­ment is failing wholly to provide details and infor­ma­tion that, quite frankly, the gov­ern­ment should be readily and con­sistently provi­ding to Manitobans at this point.

      The minister talks about people coming around the table and working col­lab­o­ratively. We know that. We know that Doctors Manitoba, physicians offices across the board are willing and wanting to work with this gov­ern­ment to make sure Manitobans can get answers to the question. The issue here is the minister and her gov­ern­ment being unwilling to put their resources to good use, to proper use, and provide this infor­ma­tion.

      The minister–I'm actually a bit–I'm a bit blown away by this minister downplaying the role that she plays, her gov­ern­ment plays, in being able to, you know, coalesce all of this infor­ma­tion and accurately–perhaps imperfectly, which I think many Manitobans would be perfectly fine with. They recog­nize it may not be perfect but, certainly, after all of this time has passed for the minister to basically, I mean, just say Manitobans are just going to have to keep waiting, and to act as though she doesn't have all of the resources available to her to get this infor­ma­tion out to Manitobans in a con­sistent and trans­par­ent and com­­pre­hen­sive way is not acceptable. And it's, quite frankly, just not believable.

      And so, again, I will ask the minister: Why has she not committed to a date to clear the backlog? Why has she and her gov­ern­ment failed to provide con­sistent updates and trans­par­ent infor­ma­tion and reporting on the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog? Because according to the minister, everybody who needs to be around the table to make that happen is there.

      And so that really and truly–to me–high­lights that the issue here is the gov­ern­ment. And perhaps the minister can speak to the barrier. The–what is it exactly that is inhibiting the gov­ern­ment from doing what Manitobans have been calling for, and which would certainly put, you know, well over a hundred–almost about a hundred and seventy–imperfect number–thousand Manitobans at ease to have access to that infor­ma­tion.

      So, why has she not committed to a date? And will she commit to a date to start provi­ding trans­par­ent, com­pre­hen­sive, regular updates on the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog to Manitobans?

* (11:10)

Ms. Gordon: Mr. Chairperson, can I ask for a five-minute break, please?

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): Is it the will of the com­mit­tee to have a five-minute recess? [Agreed]

The committee recessed at 11:11 a.m.

____________

The committee resumed at 11:16 a.m.

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): All right, the five-minute recess is over. I call the com­mit­tee back to order.

Ms. Gordon: I do want to say and place on the record that the Diag­nos­tic and Surgical Recovery Task Force does provide monthly updates, and so, to give any impression that they're somehow not doing that would be factually incorrect. They provide monthly updates.

      During the last by-election for Fort Whyte, we sent all our materials to the review com­mit­tee for a by-election blackout. We were advised that–of what we could say and what we could not say, and we followed through with an online update. And Dr. Matear was out yesterday with an update. And so, we do provide updates.

      I also want to address the member's comment about Doctors Manitoba and the infor­ma­tion that is being provided currently to Manitobans by stating that Doctors Manitoba does have representatives on the task force that is under Dr. Matear. And they have assigned two repre­sen­tatives on behalf of their organi­zation that are part of the task force and are working with the steering com­mit­tee. Those individuals are Dr. David Hochman, who is a general surgeon, and Dr. Pam Hebbard, who's an oncological surgeon, as well.

      So Doctors Manitoba is represented at the table. And so, it's not just the organi­zation that–as a stand­alone organi­zation that we're working with. They have repre­sen­tatives on the task force.

      And I do have concerns with the member's com­ments about the availability of infor­ma­tion, because as I mentioned before, the member, like myself, work­ed in the system and should have an under­standing of how these surgery clinics operate. And many of the doctors have their own wait-lists, and they're in dif­ferent formats. And the task force is at work collating a monumental amount of data, and that's not easy, and it's not simple and it's complex.

      And so, it's not just about, you know, having press conferences and putting out infor­ma­tion for infor­ma­tion's sake; it's about provi­ding Manitobans with ac­curate infor­ma­tion. And Doctors Manitoba has been very forthcoming in stating that they're putting out estimates, it's not accurate. They, I think I recall, said in one of their statements or media availability, that they are working with the task force on trying to collate data and pull data from many different sources to provide the most accurate infor­ma­tion.

* (11:20)

      So if the member's asking for the task force to go with inaccurate infor­ma­tion just to have infor­ma­tion out there, I think that would be wrong. And so we are going to continue to provide updates.

      Manitobans are receiving their surgeries. They're receiving their diag­nos­tics–tests, and they're aware that they can also approach their individual surgeons and physicians to ask about their wait times for their surgeries. And that has always been available, and they're aware that we are working diligently to get more robust infor­ma­tion available, dashboards and more, but most individuals are saying to me that they're talking to their physician, they are getting updates on when their surgery or diag­nos­tic may be upcoming.

      And the–I thank the Diag­nos­tic and Surgical Recovery Task Force for the work that they're doing with all our partners and stake­holders and physicians within the system and outside of the system to collate and pull all this monumental data together so that we can make sense of it and provide accurate infor­ma­tion to the public. And I support their work, and I also support the two members from Doctors Manitoba that sit on the task force currently for their efforts.

MLA Asagwara: So, it's very clear that the minister is not willing to provide Manitobans with increased greater regularity, in terms of surgical and diag­nos­tic updates on the backlog. It's also very clear that this minister will not provide Manitobans with a date or a timeline by which they can expect the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog to be cleared. And that's unfor­tunate.

      It's in­cred­ibly disappointing because, as this minis­ter is well aware, there are nearly 170,000 Manitobans who have been des­per­ately awaiting those more regular updates and a timeline, target date for when the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog will be cleared to really provide and instill some hope so that they can have an end date in sight to their suffering. And I don't use that word lightly. That is what folks are using as a word to articulate their lived experiences as they wait for a life-changing–life-saving, in many cases–surgical pro­cedure or diag­nos­tic test.

      And so that is a really difficult–rather, disappoint­ing response from the minister, and I know that it's going to be really disappointing for many Manitobans who are hopeful that perhaps they would get a dif­ferent response from the minister in regards to those questions.

      What I'd like to move to is to talk a bit about a response to a matter under ad­vise­ment last year that the Health Minister explained that a physician–and this is in regards to Lifeflight, so the minister's aware.

      So, in her response, the minister explained that a physician accompanies interfacility transfers only 30 to 50 per cent of the time. Further explained–it was further explained that a doctor on board for out-of-province transfers is rare.

      The previously gov­ern­ment-operated–and I'm sure the minister is aware of this–the previously operated government–sorry, gov­ern­ment-operated Lifeflight included a dedi­cated team of medical pro­fes­sionals, including doctors, who responded. So I think that's a really im­por­tant distinction to be made. And I'm sure, again, the minister's well aware of this.

      So my question is, why are doctors on board for only 30 to 50 per cent of interfacility transfers?

Ms. Gordon: I do want to respond to the member's question by stating unequivocally that these are clinical decisions that are being made–physician-related decisions. They're certainly not specific to a gov­­ern­ment. And even in the NDP's gov­ern­ment–time in gov­ern­ment, these clinical and medical decisions were being made, not here at the Manitoba Legislature, but based on the circum­stances of the injury the person may have ex­per­ienced.

      And there's a medical director, as I understand it, on call to assess whether clinicians need to be on the Lifeflight or the STARS, for example, air ambulance. And, in some cases, they may even require a specialty service like respiratory therapy to be on the flight. But it's a medical director, a clinical decision that is being made.

      And, again, it's been in place for decades, and even under the previous NDP gov­ern­ment. It's not speci­fic to a gov­ern­ment. It's not specific to a gov­ern­ment's decision whether an individual who has sustained a certain accident or injury should have clinicians onboard on the flight. They do not call over to the Leg. for those directions. It's not based on a gov­ern­ment. It's based on a medical director making a clinical decision.

      And, again, that has been in place for decades, and I don't see it changing, because I don't see politicians at any time being asked to make medical decisions at the bedside or at a scene of an accident or at an injury. It will be medical pro­fes­sionals that are trained to assess a patient's health status and what the needs–clinical needs are of that patient and to make the decision about who needs to be on a flight.

      Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

MLA Asagwara: I thank the minister for her response.

      What strikes me, however, is that the–previously, the gov­ern­ment-operated Lifeflight did include a dedi­­cated team of medical pro­fes­sionals, including doctors, who responded.

* (11:30)

      And so, there has been a change, and that change in terms of who was on these flights occurred when gov­ern­ment changed. And so how does the minister account for that difference?

Ms. Gordon: I just want to correct some inaccuracies that are being placed on the record, Mr. Chairperson, factually incorrect infor­ma­tion.

      And so, I want to go back to some infor­ma­tion from 2011 wherein it states the Lifeflight program mandate requires, in brackets, through regula­tion, closed bracket, staffing with aeromedical attendants, in brackets, critical-care registered nurse quali­fi­ca­tions, closed bracket, for moderate-acuity patients with the addition of an on-call emergency or intensive-care-qualified physician to provide care to the most unstable patients from rural and northern Manitoba.

      So, I want to be very clear that this does not mean that a physician or certain clinicians were always on the plane, sitting on a seat. It means that the team had access to these specialties and the–not necessarily that they were physic­ally on the flight. And the decision as to who would be physic­ally on the flight is–was being made by medical directors, clinicians within the pro­gram area. They always have access to on-call emer­gency or intensive-care-qualified physicians–does not mean they were physic­ally on the flight.

      This goes back decades. I'm reading from infor­ma­tion in 2011 that says Lifeflight is the prov­incial specialized air ambulance program with a mandate to provide inter­ven­tion, stabilization and air transport of critically ill and/or injured residents of Manitoba to the city of Winnipeg's tertiary hospitals.

      Again, they have access to on-call emergency or intensive-care-qualified physicians to provide care to unstable patients. Doesn't say that they are always on the flight, but they are always available.

      Thank you.

MLA Asagwara: The minister still hasn't answered my question. It's my under­standing, it's our under­standing, that when gov­ern­ment ran this service, when gov­ern­ment ran the Lifeflight service, the presence of highly trained doctors and nurses was much higher.

      Now, this is some­thing that I've heard from numer­­ous folks since 2019, certainly, since I was elected: it was much higher when it was ran by gov­ern­ment. The minister hasn't actually disputed that point.

      My question is: why now? Why that change? Why is it that medical pro­fes­sionals are on board so infrequently since the change from Lifeflight being run by the gov­ern­ment to a private entity?

      The minister surely must have an answer for that decrease in the presence of doctors and nurses–highly trained folks–being a part of these interfacility trans­fers. What's the answer to that?

      Thanks.

Ms. Gordon: I am deeply concerned with the direc­tion that the hon­our­able member for Union Station (MLA Asagwara) is taking with putting infor­ma­tion on the record that is not factual and to place anecdotal infor­ma­tion and hearsay on the record. If the member has an exact situation they would like to bring forward or my office to look into, I'd be happy to do that. But I can't answer on anecdotal infor­ma­tion or hearsay infor­ma­tion.

      What I can state and the factual infor­ma­tion I can put on the record is that when Shared Health was created, staff from the emergency response services, under the direction of Dr. Rob Grierson, went to Shared Health. They are–so there's a strong emer­gency response service program for the air ambulance under Shared Health that is–consists of critical-care experts that are available to these air ambulance services. To my knowledge, that has not changed.

      And so I just want to put the facts on the record and not anecdotal infor­ma­tion or hearsay possi­bly shared with the member where there is no accuracy of that infor­ma­tion. Staff are–went to Shared Health. They work under the direction of Dr. Rob Grierson. There's a strong emergency response service, and it's able to respond to the needs of Manitobans for these types of services.

      Again, if the member has a specific situation or circum­stance or incident they would like to bring forward, my office would be happy to look into it and provide a response. The member knows. They have written many letters to me on individual cases and case work. Happy to look at those individual cases, but the infor­ma­tion that's being provided is anecdotal, I can't respond to it, and it's hearsay.

      Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): I thank the minister, and I would just ask, if possible, if the minister could centre herself on the camera for the sake of the broadcast, that would be greatly ap­pre­ciated.

MLA Asagwara: So the minister is–should know, because I stated it at the begin­ning of this line of questioning, that I directly referenced a matter under ad­vise­ment last year. The minister explained–the minister actually explained–that a physician accom­panies interfacility transfers only 30 to 50 per cent of the time; further explained that a doctor on board for out-of-province transfers is rare.

      Okay. With that in mind, and also knowing that these transfers, since this service has moved from being run by the gov­ern­ment to being privatized, we know that doctors–highly trained doctors and nurses–being on board has decreased.

* (11:40)

      The question is, is why are these medical pro­fes­sionals on board so infrequently? That's a pretty straight­­for­ward question for the minister to answer.

      This is the minister's respon­si­bility. This is an in­cred­ibly im­por­tant area of provision of care in our province. The minister, I'm sure, has heard many times from folks who've had experiences being trans­ferred this way. She's well aware of what this service is; she's provi­ding infor­ma­tion on what this service is.

      So, I mean, the minister certainly isn't surprised, I'm sure isn't surprised, that the presence of highly trained doctors and nurses was higher when it was run by gov­ern­ment. My question is, why? Very straight­for­ward, direct question: why are these medical pro­fes­sionals on board so infrequently?

      That's a really im­por­tant question for the minister to be able to answer and to have a com­pre­hen­sive under­­standing of why that's the case and what the implications are of that in terms of health out­comes for Manitobans, you know, many of which are in in­cred­ibly vul­ner­able medical states.

      You know, as we've seen during this pandemic, we saw 57 Manitobans transferred out of province. Very tragically, we're all well aware of the tragic outcome with the young mother, Krystal Mousseau, which, still, there are questions around that parti­cular tragedy. And so it is–I'm not asking these questions because I'm trying to just, you know, fill time. I'm asking these questions of the minister because I be­lieve she has the answers and these answers are really im­por­tant.

      It's in­cred­ibly im­por­tant for people to know when they're going to–if they should need an interfacility transfer, should they need to access this service, what the prevalence is that highly trained medical pro­fes­sionals will be on board and who those pro­fes­sionals are. And there has been a change since this service has no longer been run by gov­ern­ment. The minister should be able to clearly com­muni­cate why that change has occurred and the impacts of that change.

      So, again, why is it that doctors are only rarely on board for transfers out of province? We do know that, that doctors are rarely on board for transfers out of province. Why is that?

      And why the decrease in the presence of highly trained medical pro­fes­sionals, be it doctors or nurses, when folks are being transferred interfacility?

      Thank you.

Ms. Gordon: I do want to–I'm not sure why the member is putting on the record that I am unable to answer the question as to the why, as they stated. The why will always be a clinical decision that is being made by medical directors and clinicians that are part of this program. There is–a doctor is always available to go. The decision on whether or not the doctor goes on the flight is a clinical decision, and so that's the answer to the why.

      I do want to state that there's a fun­da­mental dis­agreement with the facts in terms of what the member is stating, that there has been a decrease in the clinicians being part of the flight. And I would like the member to provide the Com­mit­tee of Supply with evidence that clinicians were on the flights more frequently.

      Where is the evidence? Because there's a fun­da­mental disagreement with these facts, and if the mem­ber has available data and concrete infor­ma­tion, specific infor­ma­tion that shows that there was a higher rate that my de­part­ment is not aware of, I would like that infor­ma­tion to be provided. That is not the infor­ma­tion that I have available. And again, the decisions are not being made in my office, in my de­part­ment. It is being made by clinicians based on the injury or the accident that an individual has sustained. And it is my role, as a minister, to allow for that autonomy in medical decision-making, and once those decisions are made, to feel assured that the medical profession–pro­fes­sionals have made the right decision in the best interests of the client that they serve.

      And, again, a fun­da­mental disagreement with the facts exists and I'd like the member–the hon­our­able member for Union Station (MLA Asagwara)–to provide evidence that there–that clinicians, physi­cians, certain specialities were on flights more fre­quently. If the member could provide that infor­ma­tion, I would ap­pre­ciate it.

      Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

MLA Asagwara: Well, thank the–I thank the minister for that response.

      Interestingly enough, the minister just clearly stated that what I've stated is different than what infor­ma­tion the minister has on hand. And the minister, being the minister, and having access to that infor­ma­tion and just clearly stated that what I've said to be our under­standing is different than the infor­ma­tion she has available to her.

      I'd ask the minister to table that, please, if she's willing to provide that.

Ms. Gordon: There appears to be an inability to come to some agree­ment or some under­standing on the facts. But what I can state for the Com­mit­tee of Supply is some of the in­cred­ible invest­ments our gov­ern­ment is–and it's factual–is making to the health system, Mr. Chairperson. So, $7.2 billion total for health care in Budget 2022, and that is the most sig­ni­fi­cant health-care invest­ment in the history of our Province.

      I say it many times–I'm able to share this infor­ma­tion with my con­stit­uents that are subjected, on a regular basis, to hearsay and anecdotal infor­ma­tion and that–it is the most sig­ni­fi­cant health-care invest­ment in the history of our Province. And it's $1 million more than the previous gov­ern­ment ever invested in health care.

      I also share with my con­stit­uents and all Manitobans regularly, that $3.1 million is going to­wards pandemic supports to protect the lives and live­lihoods of Manitobans, and $630 million is also in­vested to strengthen the fight against COVID‑19 and prepare for other variants and pressures on our health-care system.

* (11:50)

      Mr. Chairperson, just today our Chief Prov­incial Public Health Officer, Dr. Roussin, mentioned that we have in–across Canada, two cases of monkeypox, and 20 are under in­vesti­gation. Luckily, we don't see any of those cases here in our province yet, but there will be other variants; there will be other strains of ill­nesses. And so, $630 million has been invested, and $30 million to add 28 ad­di­tional beds to our intensive-care units, raising our bed baseline up to one–[inaudible]–72.

      So, our gov­ern­ment has taken proactive steps. We're not looking at the problem, researching the problem, surveying the problem. We are making key invest­ments in our intensive-care units and our acute-care facilities.

      And just to share again: with the Diag­nos­tic and Surgical Recovery Task Force, $110 million to ad­dress the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog, for a total–we tend to talk just about the $100 million, but it's a total of $160 million. And then $10 million con­tinuing year over year after year to improve priority procedures and wait times.

      And then our in­cred­ible invest­ment and part­ner­ship with the Concordia Hospital, hips and knees to 400–$4.9 million to add a fifth operating room that will add 1,000 surgeries, annual. And $400,000 in the Spine Assessment Clinic to increase the number of assessments for Manitobans, ensuring 900 patients re­ceive their treatment or care plan sooner.

      And I answered a question in the Chamber this week, and so pleased to talk about our new mobile CT unit and two, Mr. Chairperson–two–new mobile MRI units which will soon deliver nearly 12,000 CT scans and over 7,000 MRIs annually.

      And then our invest­ment in people: $19.5 million to add 259 ad­di­tional nurse training seats this year. It's part of our plan to increase seats to 400. And $11.6 million to add the next phase, permanently expanding our nursing seats in Manitoba.

      And I was so pleased to be in Thompson yester­day and talking with the head of the Uni­ver­sity College of the North–went on a tour of their nursing simulation labs. And it is because our gov­ern­ment is investing in Uni­ver­sity College of the North by way of $4.3 million for 37 ad­di­tional nurse training seats. And I got to see the housing units for those nurses that are coming in from many different areas to take ad­vantage of those supports that our gov­ern­ment has put into Uni­ver­sity College of the North.

      And then $23,000, Mr. Chairperson, for each internationally educated nurse to go through their licen­sure process, become 'licened,' obtain their licence and join our in­cred­ibly rewarding and ful­filling health-care system.

      And in addition to these invest­ments, we're hiring 35 more paramedics across our province.

      Our gov­ern­ment remains committed to the health system, whether it's in a facility, air, land. We are committed to Manitobans.

MLA Asagwara: So, the minister has made clear–the minister has stated very clearly multiple times now that there's a fun­da­mental disagreement over the facts. The minister has also clearly stated that what I have stated about the presence of highly trained pro­fes­sionals–doctors and nurses–during these interfacility transfers has changed. The minister has stated clearly that what I've stated is different than the infor­ma­tion they have available to them, that they are looking at.

      This seems like a wonderful op­por­tun­ity for the minister to clarify this disagreement over the facts and to simply provide the infor­ma­tion the minister has available to her to clarify this point. I truly do not understand the resistance to provi­ding that infor­ma­tion transparently. The minister has stated clearly she has the infor­ma­tion. I would ask the minister to simply provide it.

Ms. Gordon: I don't know how I can be more clear to the member for Union Station's (MLA Asagwara) question that it is always the medical director, the medical pro­fes­sional that makes the decision re­gard­ing who–which medical specialty goes on the flight. And that has not changed for–it has not changed and has been in place for decades.

      Again, if the member has specific data and specific infor­ma­tion they would like to bring forward–table, perhaps, and if not table, I would be more than happy to accept that infor­ma­tion here in my office and–for review and will respond to the member's specific circum­stance or incident or situation. But, again, it's the–it hasn't changed for–and has been that way for decades. It is medical clinicians that make the decision regarding who accompanies a patient, a client on an air ambulance.

      Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): Thank you, Minister.

MLA Asagwara: Well, you know, I have to say that, unfor­tunately, again, I'm disappointed that the minis­ter won't provide a clear response to that question. She's clearly stated there's a disagreement over the facts, and the minister also clearly stated that what I have articulated is different than the infor­ma­tion that she has.

      And so I can't wrap my head around why the minister wouldn't be eager to provide that said infor­ma­tion in order to clarify this disagreement over the facts. This is very im­por­tant infor­ma­tion that this minis­­ter, for whatever the reasons are, will not provide today.

      And, you know, this decrease in medically trained–highly trained medical pro­fes­sionals, rather–doctors and nurses being on these flights as frequently they had–as they had been in the past when this was run by gov­ern­ment is a sig­ni­fi­cant change. And it's one that warrants a clear explanation from this gov­ern­ment and an articulation from this gov­ern­ment, in terms of what the implications have been and the impacts have been.

      So I will move on from that line of questioning, and I will simply encourage, if the minister has a change of mind or heart and decides that she does want to provide the infor­ma­tion she stated she has, maybe via email or at a later time, obviously, I would love to receive that infor­ma­tion. And, of course, Manitobans would, I know, be very grateful to have clarity on this parti­cular matter.

      I'd like to move on and ask the minister a question around an issue that has been very visible lately, and that is around the college of physicians recently put­ting the Uni­ver­sity of Manitoba on notice that its pro­grams were at risk if they didn't address deficiencies in residency.

      This is some­thing that was flagged very recently. There continue to be concerns in this area, I'm sure the minister is well aware. Simply put, our hospitals are so overrun, are so beyond capacity, that the quality of edu­ca­tion for interns is suffering.

      The minister will recall that Dr. Brian Postl, who we both saw receive a service award last night at the Doctors Manitoba gala–and very deservedly so–stated, and I quote: COVID arrived into a system that was not prepared for it and was already stressed remark­ably thin and had been living with budgets of austerity for several years. End quote.

      That's a sig­ni­fi­cant statement and it's one that clearly outlines that decisions made by this gov­ern­ment under an austerity agenda have com­pro­mised the ability of residents to suc­cess­fully complete their residencies, that the program is, in fact, at risk as a result.

* (12:00)

      So, my first question is, what is the minister actively doing, currently doing, to address the con­cerns of the college?

      And my follow-up question to that–if the minister could maybe provide an answer to both in her re­sponse, I would ap­pre­ciate it–what is the minister doing to ensure that core internal medicine intern­ships, which we know is essential for these residents, is not put at risk?

Ms. Gordon: I just want to read some facts into the record and not take out excerpts that suit a certain narrative of a very highly recog­nized program. And it's a March 26th memo from Brian Postl, dean and vice-provost, Rady Faculty of Health, signed, says: To the Max Rady College of Medicine faculty staff and learners–and the top–the subject is PGME accreditation site visit 2022.

      This morning, we received a debrief from the PGME accreditation external review team. There were 46 programs that were reviewed–let me make sure I'm sitting in the centre–that were reviewed during their visit over the last week. There were many remark­able strengths noted at our in­sti­tution, which included our deeply engaged and col­lab­o­rative leader­ship at all levels, the depth of our clinical resources and the support for residency training programs.

      The preliminary feedback is that we are an ac­credited in­sti­tution with follow-up by action plan out­comes report in nine areas as follows. Follow-up report in two years: residents are appropriately super­vised, resident edu­ca­tion occurs in a safe learning environ­ment, resident edu­ca­tion occurs in a positive learning environ­ment.

      Follow-up report at next regular review: there is a post-graduate dean with author­ity and respon­si­bility for all aspects of residency edu­ca­tion, the post-graduate dean has ap­pro­priate time and support to oversee residency edu­ca­tion, there are 'adecate'–adequate resources and support to allow residency programs to meet accreditation standards, resident leadership is encouraged and promoted, there is a process of systematic teacher assessment and feed­back, there is an effective process for the pro­fes­sional dev­elop­ment of admin­is­tra­tive personnel involved in resident edu­ca­tion.

      Our in­sti­tution was noted for having one lead in practice innovation related to the work of the PGME TRAP Com­mit­tee, Ongomiizwin and the disruption of all forms of racism policy.

      The status of the 46 programs that were reviewed this week is as follows. Thirty-one programs received full accreditation: adult inter­ven­tional cardiol­ogy, anatomical pathology, anesthesiology, cardiac surgery, child and adolescent psychiatry, CIP colo­rectal surgery, critical microbiology, neurosurgery, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, head and neck surgery, pediatric emergency medicine, plastic surgery, physical medicine and rehabilitation, public health and pre­ven­tative medicine, respirology–adult, rheumatology–adult, surgical foundations, thora­cic surgery, urology, vascular surgery.

      Seven programs achieved accreditation with follow-up by action plan outcome report: general internal medicine; neonatal perinatal medicine; pediatrics; gynecological oncology; nephrology–adult; psychiatry; medical genetics and genomics.

      Five programs achieved accreditation with follow-up by external review: family medicine; cardiol­ogy–adult; radiation oncology; enhanced skills; nuclear medicine. Three programs are on notice of intent to withdraw: internal medicine; neurology–adult; obstetrics and gynecology.

      I wish to thank everyone that partici­pated or con­tri­bu­ted to the PGME accreditation for their efforts. We are generally pleased with the results, although there is clearly more work to do. We will begin meeting shortly with specific programs to discuss next steps.

      I would also like to sincerely thank Dr. Cliff Yaffe, Dr. Kurt Skakum, the PGME dean's office and the IAU for their hard work and dedi­cation.

      And, Mr. Chairperson, I'm so pleased to read into the record–

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): The minister's time has expired.

MLA Asagwara: Well, that was–I mean, I'm always willing and happy to hear the words of the esteemed Dr. Brian Postl; however, it is yet again disappointing that this minister chose to deflect and avoid clearly, concisely com­muni­cating what, if any, steps she is actively taking to ensure that core internal medicine internships are not put at risk.

* (12:10)

      We cannot afford to lose a single physician from Manitoba. We need to bolster our public health-care system. We need every doctor doing their residencies, working, practising, aspiring to–here in Manitoba, to stay in Manitoba. And what we're seeing are physi­cians leaving the province due to the lack of support and resources from this gov­ern­ment and the state of disarray, burden on the system as a result of this gov­ern­ment's decision making.

      This question was an op­por­tun­ity for the minister to clearly state what steps she is taking within her capacity as the person who is leading Health in our province to ensure that we retain the necessary expertise to improve health-care out­comes for Manitobans. I am in­cred­ibly disappointed that the min­is­ter instead chose to deflect and provide no response that would show she is being accountable to the physicians here in our province.

      With those final remarks for the day, I would like to cede the rest of my time to the member for River Heights.

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): Minister, I–you would have an op­por­tun­ity to respond if you like, or I can hand the mic over to the minister for River Heights. Just let me know–the member for River Heights.

      Yes, go ahead. The hon­our­able minister.

Ms. Gordon: Sadly, the–and maybe due to the member being new to the NDP caucus and unaware of times under the NDP gov­ern­ment's gov­ern­ance of this province that programs were–within our health sys­tem were also placed on notice, and there was ab­solutely no ex­pect­a­tion on the part of the uni­ver­sity that they would lose their standing to train doctors.

      I have asked my de­part­ment to obtain that infor­ma­tion, which will be tabled at a later date, because we don't have that handy right now, but it did happen during the NDP gov­ern­ment's gov­ern­ance, and we will make that infor­ma­tion available.

      Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): I thank the minister.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, thank you for the op­por­tun­ity.

      I'd like to start with several questions dealing with the backlog in eye surgeries.

      In the infor­ma­tion provided earlier today from the minister, there were contracts to vision health and to Western Surgery.

      Was there money also provided to the Misericordia eye centre? And how–what's the minis­ter's view, moving forward, of what the balance will be in terms of surgeries done at the three locations?

Ms. Gordon: I thank the hon­our­able member for River Heights for the question.

      The request for supply arrangement is the process by which the service delivery organi­zations and hos­pitals can make requests above their baseline funding for these types of surgeries.

      To date, Misericordia has not submitted a pro­posal, and I'm seeing that today–as of today, they have performed–they are at 107.3 per cent of their pre-COVID capacity. Prior to that, what I do see is that the regions are globally funded to provide dollars to their various surgical slates. And, obviously, due to COVID, they were not able to reach their baseline. But, again, I see, as of today, they're at 107.3 per cent.

      So, I don't–I can understand why we haven't seen an RFSA come forward from the Misericordia be­cause, during the pandemic, they were below their base­line funding for their eye surgeries. So, the answer is, we do fund them and we can provide beyond–and the regions can, as well, go beyond the baseline funding, but the Misericordia was not at their baseline.

      But today, again, very pleased to see they are above 100 per cent, and I'm sure that will continue to be the case going forward.

      Thank you.

Mr. Gerrard: I thank the minister for that answer.

      Now, it's my under­standing that there are approxi­mate­ly 9,000 people waiting for eye surgery and that's, I think, primarily, perhaps almost exclusively, cataracts.

      I wonder what the minister's goal is over time: probably not to reduce that to zero but to reduce it to a low number. What would that number be? Or, to reduce the waiting times, and if it's a goal to reduce the waiting times down to a certain level, what would that be?

* (12:20)

Ms. Gordon: I thank the hon­our­able member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) for his sup­ple­mentary question related to eye surgeries.

      The Wait Times Reduction Task Force report in 2017 did call for–had a recom­men­dation that called for an infusion of dollars for priority procedures, which included eye surgeries. And that is why our gov­ern­ment has added $10 million to the budget for the de­part­ment to provide for these priority proced­ures.

      And, imme­diately, in 2018, which is just the year following the Wait Times Reduction Task Force's report, our gov­ern­ment added 2,000 ad­di­tional cataract procedures to help reduce the wait times. Again, we thank all the service providers, including Misericordia hospital, western vision centre and others that are assisting with reducing the wait times for eye surgeries.

      The current task force and the experts that are part of that task force will provide advice on the ap­pro­priate volumes and levels going forward to reduce the–and, really, our goal is always to eliminate, because for one individual who's waiting, their ability to carry out a fully rewarding life is impacted. So it is always our goal to eliminate, but certainly our focus is on reducing very quickly the wait-lists for in­dividuals that are waiting for eye surgeries that could include cataract surgeries, and we look to all our service delivery organi­zations.

      If, at this time, the Misericordia Health Centre or hospital feels that they want to put forward a request for a supply arrangement proposal–we're issuing that request, it will be going out and we accept proposals. And eye surgeries are certainly part of the volumes that we want to see increased and the waits decreased.

      Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Gerrard: I thank the minister for that comment and for that answer.

      There's a bit of an interesting situation happening, in terms of how the wait times are calculating, as I understand it, for eye surgery. Many of the cataract procedures, there would be two surgical procedures, one for each eye because both eyes would need to have their cataracts addressed.

      And so a person, for example, might come in and see an ophthalmologist, have the recognition that there's two surgeries. That person then waits, let's say, 32 weeks for the surgery on the first eye, and then the person waits an ad­di­tional, say, four weeks, for the second eye.

      So, the first eye, there's been a wait of 32 weeks; the second eye there's been a wait of 36 weeks. But, in fact, what is being calculated is the second eye wait time is only after the first eye is done, so it's calculated as four weeks.

      So you end up with an average of those two wait times being reported as 32 plus four, 36. Average is 18 weeks instead of the average being an average of 32 and 36 weeks, which would be 34 weeks.

      So it seems to people who are actually receiving surgery that the wait time being shown is actually shorter than what they're ex­per­iencing.

      I wonder if the minister would comment or be prepared to have a look at that and see if there could be some changes.

      Thank you.

Ms. Gordon: I thank the hon­our­able member for River Heights for bringing that forward.

      This is some­thing that the min­is­try and the de­part­ment and the task force is working col­lab­o­ratively to review. We're looking for a standard approach that is similar to what CIHI uses, which is a national ap­proach to how we calculate the wait times for not just cataracts included, but other procedures as well. And right now, we're very heavily focused, as well, on diagnostics. I think Dr. Matear shared some infor­ma­tion at the press conference yesterday about that.

      But, yes, we are committed to taking a look at this and developing a standard approach. It will align with the national approach being taken by the Canadian Insti­tute for Health Infor­ma­tion.

      Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Gerrard: A fairly quick question because we don't have much time left.

      Is the respon­si­bility for preventing diabetes with the Minister of Health (Ms. Gordon) or is it with the minister of mental health and wellness?

Ms. Gordon: The response to the member's question is that primary pre­ven­tion rests with the min­is­try of  com­mu­nity–Mental Health and Com­mu­nity Wellness, and secondary pre­ven­tion, because that often involves prac­ti­tioners in the clinical and health system, lies here in the min­is­try of Health.

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): In the 15 seconds that remain, would the hon­our­able member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) like to ask some­thing else?

Mr. Gerrard: Just perhaps, for next time, the minister could give me an answer about what that secondary pre­ven­tion effort under her de­part­ment looks like.

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): Order.

      The time for our meeting this morning has come to an end. I thank the members for their co‑operation and good behaviour.

      And, the time being 12:30, com­mit­tee rise.

Room 255

Municipal Relations

* (10:00)

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

      Does the hon­our­able minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Eileen Clarke (Minister of Municipal Relations): I do. Good morning to my–

Mr. Chairperson: Oh, just–[interjection] The hon­our­able Minister of Munici­pal Relations.

Ms. Clarke: I want to say good morning to my col­leagues as well as op­posi­tion colleagues. Happy to say that it's not raining this morning, even though I listened to the storm all night long. Hopefully, we have better days ahead.

      I want to start by indicating that we are all on Treaty 1 territory this morning, home of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dene people, as well as the Homeland of the Red River Métis. And I'm pleased to do that.

      I'm also pleased to be able to make a few com­ments with you this morning on '22-23 Estimates and discuss some of the im­por­tant activities of our Department of Munici­pal Relations.

      But I would also like to acknowl­edge, before we start the hard work of the de­part­ment staff and the pro­fes­sional work that they do within the Manitoba munici­palities, the City of Winnipeg, as well as with the Association of Manitoba Munici­palities, the Association of Manitoba Bilingual Munici­palities, planning districts, mutual aid districts, non-profit and com­mu­nity dev­elop­ment organi­zations as well as our many other clients. I know that this good work is also being recog­nized by the com­mu­nities and the munici­palities that we do serve.

      Despite challenging fiscal times, this gov­ern­ment continues to make sig­ni­fi­cant invest­ments that support the operational and infra­structure needs of local gov­ern­ments. These invest­ments are instrumental to eco­nomic dev­elop­ment and the well-being of Manitobans and their com­mu­nities.

      Our de­part­ment maintains the Strategic Municipal Invest­ment Fund of $313 million for munici­palities to sustain key services, core programs as well as priority capital projects; $172 million of this funding will be provided to the City of Winnipeg and other munici­palities unconditionally as munici­pal operating grants, allowing the munici­palities to prior­itize support that best fit with the needs of their com­mu­nity. This will include $1.7 million for the Mobility Disadvantaged Transportation Program.

      In addition to the munici­pal operating basket, Budget 2022 will continue to provide operating sup­port for key strategic public safety priorities, in­cluding continuing support for the Gun and Gang Violence Action Fund and Gang Response and Suppression Plan, drug-impaired driving, school re­source officers and maintaining annual public safety funding for policing services that is provided by the De­part­ment of Justice.

      Resources will also be provided in other de­part­ments for solid waste reduction and recycling, com­posting programs, West Nile virus larviciding, as well as public library services. This dedi­cated operating fund­ing from other de­part­ments will total over $65 million in '22-23.

      An ad­di­tional $137 million will be earmarked to support key strategic capital projects, which includes water and wastewater treatment plants, solid waste facili­ties, public transit, roads and bridges and re­creation projects. Spe­cific­ally, this includes a 28 per cent increase of $4.2 million to $20 million to the annual budget to support munici­pal water and sewer products administered by the Manitoba Water Services Board.

      Overall, the capital basket will also serve as a source of funding for green infra­structure pro­jects  supported under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, including the City of Winnipeg's North End water pollution control centre and their transition to zero-emission buses.

      We will continue to monitor the impacts of the ongoing COVID‑19 pandemic on munici­palities across the province. Since the onset of the pandemic, almost $283 million in incremental funding has already been provided to com­mu­nities in Manitoba. This represents an increase of 45 per cent from base prov­incial grant funding over the two years, and I want to commend the shared effort of all munici­palities in mitigating these impacts and share my positive outlook on the reopening of our economy for continued growth and vibrancy in our com­mu­nities.

      In recog­nition of the impact of recent severe weather on Manitoba's roads and highways infra­structure, our gov­ern­ment is investing $15 million in a one-time grant program that will provide munici­palities with financial support for road construction, rehabilitation and preservation projects. Of this $15 million, the City of Winnipeg will receive nearly $9 million, with the balance being distributed to other munici­palities on a per capita basis.

      In addition to our gov­ern­ment's Budget 2022 invest­ments in highways and munici­palities, we are pleased to offer this extra support to reduce the financial burden on the City of Winnipeg, as well as all munici­palities.

      Our gov­ern­ment has continued to enhance its support to com­mu­nity-based organi­zations all across the province. This year's budget more than doubles the  prov­incial budget for Building Sus­tain­able Communities program to $25 million from $10.3 million.

      The BSC com­mu­nities program helps build thriving, sus­tain­able com­mu­nities that provide a high quality of life for Manitobans. This funding leverages invest­ments in com­mu­nity dev­elop­ment by local gov­ern­ments, non-profit organi­zations, as well as other partners.

      Our gov­ern­ment is also increasing funding from $4 million to $9 million for the Province's Green Team program that will give more than 20,220 young Manitobans work in the summer months. An ad­di­tional $1 million is provided in Environ­ment, Climate and Parks for Green Team staff and prov­incial parks, resulting in a total of $10 million in youth jobs for this year.

      The Green Team funding is provided to improve neigh­bourhoods, promote com­mu­nity involvement and help develop young leaders ages 15 to 29. These pro­jects also stimulate local economic activity and im­prove job creation in urban as well as rural com­mu­nities, parti­cularly through the recovery from the economic effects of the COVID‑19 pandemic.

      Our gov­ern­ment is committed to helping young Manitobans develop and succeed while at the same time ensuring the strength of Manitoba's economy in the workforce as we move forward.

      Our gov­ern­ment's committed to reducing red tape  and promoting dev­elop­ment. To support this operating grant, funding to the Winnipeg Metropolitan Region increased to $540,000 towards imple­men­ta­tion of the capital planning region.

      We've also provided $500,000 for the capital planning region servicing study, which aims to develop a co‑ordinated approach to prov­incial invest­ment in new infra­structure and strategic infra­structure im­prove­ments that will grow economic dev­elop­ment through­out the capital planning region. Our invest­ments in the capital planning region will help reduce barriers to dev­elop­ment, thereby promoting economic recovery and growth and ensuring Manitoba remains attractive and competitive for busi­nesses.

      Our gov­ern­ment recognizes the importance of training the next gen­era­tion of Manitoba's emergency respon­ders. We are 'mainingtaining' capital invest­ment allocation of $1.7 million in '22-23 to support a purchase of new equip­ment and capital im­prove­ments for the Office of the Fire Com­mis­sioner, including upgrades at the Manitoba Emergency Services College and practical training site in Brandon. These invest­ments will ensure that all Manitoban com­mu­nities will have access to emergency response training op­por­tun­ities and the expertise that our staff can provide.

      Our gov­ern­ment promised a new era of col­lab­o­ration and part­ner­ships, and we have delivered and  will continue to 'limmer' on this promise. The Manitoba gov­ern­ment esta­blished individual work­ing  group tables on the col­lab­o­ration with the City of  Winnipeg, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, the Association of Manitoba Bilingual Munici­palities as well as the Manitoba Munici­pal Administrators' Association.

* (10:10)

      Through these part­ner­ships, our gov­ern­ment will see direct input on ongoing munici­pal operating and infra­structure funding needs. We will engage in en­hanced discussions with the City of Winnipeg to improve practices in areas of mutual interest.

      And, finally, after the proclamation of the first-ever Munici­pal Gov­ern­ment Awareness Week of recog­nition of munici­palities' exceptional dedi­cation to service Manitobans, we will annually celebrate the work of munici­pal gov­ern­ments, recog­nizing them as an integral part of demo­cracy and effective service delivery at the grassroots. Our gov­ern­ment recognizes that working together is the key to building a stronger Manitoba, and we are committed to moving forward together with our partners from all across the province.

      We're working hard to support Manitobans and Manitoban munici­palities during these very unique times. We are committed to provi­ding the funding and resources that will allow Manitoba com­mu­nities to thrive economically, culturally and socially. Through col­lab­o­ration and part­ner­ships with advocacy and com­­mu­nity groups all across the province, we will move confidently and purposely into the future.

      Mr. Chair, would you like me to intro­duce our staff at this time as well?

Mr. Chairperson: Not at this time.

Ms. Clarke: Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: There will be time later. [interjection] No, sorry, can't hear you.

Ms. Clarke: I just need to remove a phone that I did not expect was here that's going to cause me disturbance, so I'll just be 30 seconds.

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

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

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Well, I do when the minister is–I'm not going to make a statement without the minister.

      Yes. Ah, there she is. Is she good?

Mr. Chairperson: Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Mr. Wiebe: I do, thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able member from Concordia.

Mr. Wiebe: Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

      I do hope that the minister can hear us here today. I see her head nodding, so that's great.

      I'll try not to take too much time. I realize that we don't have much time this morning, so I do want to get to questions as quickly as possible. But I did want to start by thanking the minister for coming to com­mit­tee here today and for hopefully answering some ques­tions. And, again, if we can move through things quickly.

      I do want to just, you know, recog­nize that, you know, the minister, I think, is–has taken a different tone with regards to her–the way that she handles this parti­cular de­part­ment. Obviously, that's noted by muni­ci­palities and the relationship that she has with them, going back to her previous life, I could call it. But I think that's extended to the work that she's doing here in the Legislature as well. So, hopefully, we can have a good con­ver­sa­tion in that spirit.

      That being said, I'll just put on the record, I am, you know, some­what frustrated by the fact that, right now, I'm staring at a camera instead of looking in the face of the minister sitting across the table from me. And while I recog­nize we–you know, tech­no­lo­gy allows us to operate from different places now, I think there is some­thing different that occurs in com­mit­tee when we can sit across from one another and have a con­ver­sa­tion.

      So, I just wanted to start by saying that, you know, obviously, the building block of the relationship be­tween the prov­incial gov­ern­ment and the munici­palities in this province begins with the munici­pal basket funding that munici­palities rely on to deliver services to their ratepayers. And, you know, this is now the seventh budget in a row that we are discussing a funding freeze. And the impacts are starting to be felt–they've been felt over the last number of years and they're continuing to be felt, I should say.

      I know that that's a message that the minister has heard, loud and clear, from the Association of Manitoba Munici­palities. I know that she has done the work to go out and speak to munici­palities, so she's hearing that individually from them as well. And I may have mentioned it a time or two in question period as well, and probably will, going forward. But I just think that it's so foundational to, again, to that relationship that we expect to have with our munici­palities. If we want to see them as true partners–as a level of gov­ern­ment that we respect–it begins with respecting the work that they do in delivering those services.

      And what we're hearing over and over again from munici­palities is they're trying to do, you know, 2020 projects and deliver 2022 services in 2016 dollars, and that's just not sus­tain­able. It hasn't been sus­tain­able for a while, and it continues to not be sus­tain­able. So, the frustration is there.

      Again, I know that the minister's heard this, you know, to the extent that, you know–and usually a cordial relationship that's held between the minister and the association, you know, maybe boiled over a little bit the last–in the last public meetings, because I think the frustration is getting to the breaking point.

      Layered on top of that is, you know, right now a crisis situation in–with flooding across this province. And munici­palities are on the front lines. They are the ones who are dealing with this. And I anticipate there's going to be a lot to talk about coming out of the flood­ing season. Certainly, there is some items that we might be able to talk to–talk about today in terms of long-term mitigation projects.

      But I, you know, I think this just highlights crumbling infra­structure, you know, a lack of services or a declining level of service that municipalities are able to deliver. And then an emergency situation on top of it, such as the flood, really highlights where that core basket funding really makes a difference.

      In addition, I do want to spend some time today talking about the 50-50 transit funding agree­ment, which, of course, this gov­ern­ment saw fit to eliminate fairly early in their term. But, you know, the minister has talked about–and did so in her opening state­ments–the electrification and zero-emission goals of not just the City of Winnipeg, but other munici­palities, and so I do hope to get some infor­ma­tion about how we can–how she sees that they can meet those targets.

      And, you know, again, if we're talking about overall level of–levels of respect, you know, the minister's words are one thing, but she inherited a set of–suite of legis­lation known as bill 37 in the last Legislature. And, you know, it continues to be a bone of contention with munici­palities, because they see the erosion of their autonomy and their ability to be accountable to their citizens in the way that they should be.

      So, there's a lot to talk about here. At the end of the day, as I said, I believe that the minister's coming to this in a very honest and forthright kind of way. What I question–I continue to question–I think all of us have questioned on this side of the House–is, you know, how different will this gov­ern­ment really be when, you know, it seems like the policies of Brian Pallister continue to be the policies of this new gov­ern­ment. And while the words may sound different, the actions to this point have been the same.

      And I've had a chance to read through our very paltry Estimates book–which, you know, I think my colleagues have spent lots of time talking about the frustrations of not having all the infor­ma­tion in front of us–but I see nothing different in terms of, you know, an increased level of respect.

      So, maybe I'll just end it there and hope to get to some questions. Thank you.

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

      Under Manitoba practice, debate of the minister's salary is the last item considered for a de­part­ment and the Com­mit­tee of Supply. Accordingly, we shall now defer con­sid­era­tion of line item 13.1.(a), containing–contained in reso­lu­tion 13.1.

      At this time, we will ask the minister to intro­duce the staff in attendance.

Ms. Clarke: Very happy to intro­duce a staff that I am very comfortable with and very honoured to work with.

      We have on the call today with us Deputy Minister Bruce Gray. We have Mike Sosiak, who's the assist­ant deputy minister; he's also the executive financial officer, admin­is­tra­tion and finance. We have Nick Kulyk, and Nick is the director of out­comes and strategic policy. We have Ryan Schenk, who is the fire com­mis­sioner for Manitoba. Lesley McFarlane, who's the assist­ant deputy minister of Munici­pal Assessment and Advisory Services division, as well as Stephen Walker, who is the director of planning.

      So, we have a full complement of staff with us today.

* (10:20)

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

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

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Wiebe: I'm glad you mentioned the global nature of the discussion, because I'll be honest, with the short amount of time we have here, I may be jumping around a bit more than usual, but I ap­pre­ciate if the minister hopefully can accommodate that.

      Very quickly to start off, on page 20 of the Estimates book, the final paragraph, 7(a), refers to the Munici­pal Relations mandate letter dated March 2020. I'm wondering if the minister has an updated mandate letter, or if she is still operating and carrying out the directives under her predecessor's mandate letter from 2020?

Ms. Clarke: I'll just acknowl­edge by my hand when I'm ready to speak. And I want to thank my respected critic for his opening comments–very well taken.

      I do apologize for being virtual. However when the–with the distance I have from the city of Winnipeg, I also have a lot of con­stit­uency work that needs to be done, and, this weekend in parti­cular, I have some really serious issues to deal with in regards to con­stit­uents that are struggling with a tough issue. So I was able to deal with that very early this morning prior to this meeting.

      But I do thank you for your comments. I feel we've got a respected working relationship in a 'vory' short period of time. And I also want to acknowl­edge your attendance, again, at Association of Manitoba Munici­palities spring convention. I think it was well-attended. And you're right, a lot of munici­palities are frustrated, as, you know, a lot of people are struggling coming out of COVID and even more so now when I see the devastation of the water on my drive home late last night. So, we are a province in crisis, for sure, but I look forward to discussing all the issues that you asked about.

      I actually am one of the ministers that really enjoys this process of Estimates, and it gives us an op­por­tun­ity to discuss things that we don't 'nimally' get in question period. So I also want to acknowl­edge that my door is open to you at any time. If you want to discuss any issue in parti­cular in person, I would be more than please to do that.

      I will respond to your inquiry about mandate letters. Premier Stefanson has not issued new mandate letters and–but when she asked that I return to Cabinet and offered me to go back to Munici­pal Relations, of course, I was very honoured to do so. I have a passion for munici­palities. I understand both sides of this parti­­cular de­part­ment, and I look forward to working with them.

      I think we've gotten off on a good start. We will not be getting new mandate letters from this parti­cular Premier (Mrs. Stefanson). She's indicated that we will be working together as a team, and that is some­thing that I really ap­pre­ciate. So she has placed her trust in me to move this de­part­ment forward, and I look for­ward to that.

      Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the minister for the comments.

      I'd just let the–just–at this time, I'd just like to remember–remind members of the com­mit­tee to dir­ect comments and questions through the Chair.

Mr. Wiebe: Try my best to direct my comments through you while staring at a camera while having the minister off to the side on a screen. It's a brave new world, I guess, but here we are.

      So, I ap­pre­ciate the minister's comments, and, you know, I think she recog­nized me, you know, maybe I counted four or five times in her speech at AMM. So, you know, she's done the work to recog­nize the work that we're doing as an op­posi­tion and, you know, time we're spending with munici­palities as well, so I do ap­pre­ciate that.

      So, further I guess, to that–the question that I asked–or maybe just a further comment and then I'll ask a different question. You know, I think–and there's a lot to criticize about the style and workings of Brian Pallister. Again, I think we've done that a few times here in the Chamber. That being said, having those mandate letters, I think, you know, had set a certain tone.

      So, I just want to be clear–I guess, well, I guess I will ask a question–I want to be clear that the minister–the Estimates book refers directly to a direct­ive from the mandate letter.

      So is she operating and, again, trying to meet the goals of that mandate letter? Or is she saying there is no mandate that the Premier has given her publicly to move forward in her de­part­ment?

Ms. Clarke: In regards to the mandate letter, as I've indicated, the Premier has not issued new mandate letters, Mr. Chair.

      Having said that, I was briefed when I became the minister back in January in regards to the main issues that the de­part­ment was working on and will be con­tinuing to work on, which are related to the col­lab­o­ration tables that I mentioned in my opening com­ments. I think that has been a very strong move for­ward, and in this de­part­ment in parti­cular, especially when we're working on a–very serious changes within our province and the Winnipeg metro region.

      And you referenced bill 37 in your opening re­marks as well. I think that is one of the most im­por­tant changes that I have seen going forward when I think about bill 37, and you have indicated that you have heard that there are concerns. I did make it very public at the AMM convention that I was also called with concerns, regarding the very sig­ni­fi­cant changes that are coming forward, from individual munici­palities.

      And I also indicated at that time that I took a four-week period to do my own review–not with staff, but I did it personally, myself, and reached out to many different stake­holders to ensure that I knew very clearly what the concerns were–who was concerned, who was not, who was sup­port­ive. And I felt that I had a really good under­standing when I made the decision to move forward with bills 33 and 34, which are direct­ly connected to bill 37 in the planning and permitting.

* (10:30)

      So, the planning and 'permanding' were recom­men­dations in the previous mandate letter, as well as the Capital Region growth plan, stable 'bastek' fund­ing. From that perspective, I do believe the de­part­ment has really gone a long ways in reaching the goals that were set out in the original mandate letter of 2020.

      Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Minister.

      And I would just–again, I'd like to remind–mind you, maybe I didn't explain it fair enough last time–but when you're making a reference, not to be using the word, you, towards another member, just re­fer­encing the member.

Mr. Wiebe: Well, again, I ap­pre­ciate your guidance, Mr. Chair. But just so the minister knows, I didn't notice, and I don't know if it's–anyway, it's nice to just have a con­ver­sa­tion rather than be quite as formal.

      Anyway, through you, Mr. Chair.

      So, I just–you know, I think what I'm hearing from the minister is–I mean, it's in her Estimates book, there are elements of the–if not wholesale, the pieces of the mandate letter, which she continues to execute, which I think is telling in terms of, again, the overall actions of this gov­ern­ment.

      Couple of routine questions that I'm hoping we could maybe just take as notice–or, if the minister has the infor­ma­tion in front of her, and I'll do a twofer here, so hopefully that counts.

      And can the minister under­take to give a list of all technical ap­point­ments in her de­part­ment, including names and titles, and under­take to give an organ­izational chart that lists all employees and program areas beyond the very high-level chart that's in the Estimates book?

Ms. Clarke: Very little changes in our de­part­ment going forward with my ap­point­ment in January. There was also a new special assist­ant that was hired into that de­part­ment, and–Daniel Stokes–as well as a new executive assist­ant who came soon after that, as well, and that's Nicole Turner.

      In regards to a more detailed organizational chart, our de­part­ment would–does not have that available today, but we would be very pleased to take that under ad­vise­ment and to present that to you.

Mr. Wiebe: Thank you very much. I ap­pre­ciate that.

      And in the same vein, can the minister provide me with the number of vacancies and the vacancy rate within the de­part­ment and, more spe­cific­ally, the cur­rent vacancy rate for land-use planning in her de­part­ment?

      Again, if she has that second vacancy rate handy, I think that's helpful for the rest of the con­ver­sa­tion. But if that is some­thing that needs to be taken on notice, that would be ap­pre­ciated as well.

Ms. Clarke: At this current time–and this is as of February '22, so it's very current–we have a vacancy of 74 out of 362. A good deal of this vacancy is created by attrition and retirements that have currently taken place. That equates to about 20 per cent. We are actively recruiting, and we have very–since that time, we have ordered new–ordered–hired new munici­pal services officers, which I was able to meet at the AMM convention. And that recruitment continues. So, that seems to be going well.

      In regards to the planning, I don't have a specific number taken out of that number, but I once again would be more than happy to get that to the member and take it under ad­vise­ment for today.

      Thank you.

Mr. Wiebe: Well, I ap­pre­ciate that. I think that is an im­por­tant number to return to the com­mit­tee as soon as the minister has that available.

      I think overall, you know, a 20 per cent vacancy rate across a de­part­ment is staggering. And I can ap­pre­ciate the minister is saying that she's–you know, they're trying to hire up, but, you know, the work needs to be done now. And as we talked about, the impact of COVID, issues around flooding and infra­structure struggles, not to mention, you know, the uncertainty that comes around with bill 37, I think really speaks to the fact that not having enough staff to do the work is a major issue. I think that's certainly a concern going forward.

      So, again, you know, just to build on the dis­cussion around bill 37, you know, I did, as the minis­ter mentioned, spend some time at the AMM and–including hearing the pre­sen­ta­tion from the planning board about their work that they're doing. I do think that there's a hope among munici­palities that, cer­tain­ly, the–or, I guess, maybe more so among the CAOs of munici­palities–but that there is a hope that, you know, the–some of the burden, the bureaucratic burden, that bill 37 imposed on munici­palities will be alleviated and–by subsequent legis­lation, as well as the fact that, you know, any kind of delays that were anticipated will be dealt with, hopefully, in an ex­peditious manner.

* (10:40)

      But, you know, certainly there is a major concern around the ability of municipalities to have autonomy and a say, so maybe can the minister just, at a high level, give us, you know, sort of a–the Coles Notes on some of the discussions that she's had around those concerns, how she plans to address those and may­be  more spe­cific­ally within the Manitoba–or the Winnipeg Metro Region, how she is sort of trying to deal with some of those concerns around autonomy for surrounding com­mu­nities that have been sucked into this Manitoba–or the Winnipeg Metro Region planning district.

Ms. Clarke: I'm pleased to be able to discuss with you–as you've indicated, you've had concerns, which I have openly admitted that I have listened to a lot of those concerns as well.

      I have–since I've taken the oath to be this minister for munici­palities, my con­ver­sa­tions continue. Some­times it's municipal officials calling me, or sometimes I just take the opportunity to call them, and I have to share with you that my special assist­ant, Daniel Stokes, has been making several phone calls the past couple of weeks, just reaching out to mayors and reeves for an open discussion to gather more infor­ma­tion on my behalf that will serve me well in going forward.

      And I was very clear at the municipal convention during a fireside chat with Reeve Blight, that I plan on working in a very open and trans­par­ent way going forward. There is going to need to continue to be a lot of com­muni­cation, and our col­lab­o­ration table is actually working on a com­muni­cation strategy, so that it's very difficult–and I certainly understand that, when you have this number of munici­palities working together on one strategy, that not everyone is going to be at the same place at the same time.

      And so, I take it as my respon­si­bility to ensure that those who need who ad­di­tional com­muni­cation, those who need ad­di­tional under­standing and want to have a voice and input in this bill going forward, whether it's bill 37, 33 or 34, that our de­part­ment is listening and that we will ensure that correct infor­ma­tion gets out there, not hearsay and not gossip or com­muni­cation that isn't factual. We will make every effort to ensure that very distinct, factual infor­ma­tion is shared.

      I was at an event just yesterday with the Minnipeg [phonetic] metro region, and I have to say that there was a lot of excitement in that room on some of the initiatives that they are working on going forward as a united group of officials across this province. But spe­cific­ally in the metro region, they have a lot of enthusiasm. And we'll make sure that those that aren't quite there yet, that they get the infor­ma­tion that they need on a timely basis.

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, you know, and, you know, I think I heard the comment from my colleague here from Transcona that, you know, excitement isn't neces­sarily enough. I think the devil's in the details, which is why we're trying to get–you know, ensure that the current framework as it exists, you know, is respecting those–that local autonomy, under­standing the dif­ferent needs of municipalities.

      So, just to be a little bit more specific in my ques­tions here, one major concern that the bill generated was that it granted developers the ability to appeal munici­palities' land-use decisions to the prov­incially appointed Munici­pal Board–so, sort of take a decision that was made at council and supersede it by going straight to the Munici­pal Board.

      So, spe­cific­ally, I wanted to know, can the minis­ter tell us how many land-use decisions have been appealed to this point? And can the minister say how many of these appeals were upheld?

Ms. Clarke: In response to the question for our de­part­ment, we are only aware of one appeal at this time, and it has not yet been concluded.

      I do want to say that appeals–we see appeals as being a last resort. There is now going to be the op­por­tun­ity to have an arbitrator and to mediate prior to going to appeal. And we are quite certain that with–done with the proper mediation, that we can avoid a lot of appeals.

      We've been working with munici­palities recently to make sure that all their bylaws are very clear, and this already has–I've probably served in appeals not going forward sometimes, as we've come to find, it is a lack of com­muni­cation and bylaws not being com­pletely clear.

      So, you know, this is meant to be timely in order to move projects forward. We don't want to be taking up ad­di­tional time and we need con­sistent decisions. And further to that, we are working very hard to shore up the Munici­pal Board, to make sure that they are very knowledgeable on the issues that they are dealing with and have a good ex­per­ience in under­standing what exactly they're dealing with.

      We have not had problems with that in the past, but we are making extra efforts to make sure that, if it does go to an appeal, that they will get a very fair hearing and it will be 'expediated' as quickly as possible.

      Thank you.

* (10:50)

Mr. Wiebe: Well, this is, I mean, a very serious issue. And, you know, I hear the minister say there's only one current land-use decision that's being appealed–currently being appealed that–before the Munici­pal Board. And I may know which one that is, but I may not. So, if the 'minisker'–minister can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on the specifics on this parti­cular case.

      But the concern that I heard related to a proposed dev­elop­ment for East St. Paul–heard directly from councillors out in that com­mu­nity–certainly gave me quite a bit of concern. The proposal has to do with the  proposed housing dev­elop­ment on the former Meadows golf course. The proposal, as I understand it, is a very sig­ni­fi­cant proposal in terms of the number of homes that will be in that parti­cular piece of land.

      For those of us that know the area, it's–you know, it doesn't have great access. You know, McGregor Farm Road was the former access and now you have to go all the way up to Birds Hill Road, come back down. You know, there's a whole bunch of issues that have been identified by the com­mu­nity.

      And, you know, the frustration that I've heard is, is that, you know, councils feel quite clear about this, that it didn't fit with, you know, the–anything with regards to the land use, or the land dev­elop­ment policy, or, you know, the plan that the munici­pality had. And yet, unfor­tunately, because of bill 37, it was possible now for the developer not to go to arbitration, as the minister would like to see all of them go to, but simply just go to the Munici­pal Board and challenge it there. And the frustration then becomes for not just the council but the residents that they also represent, that their voices are being discounted, or not being listened to.

      And, you know–and again, a, you know, munici­pality like East St. Paul; I don't think anybody could argue that they're not developer-friendly. They've done great work to ensure that they are working with all kinds of different housing dev­elop­ments and com­mercial dev­elop­ments and the rest. I mean, there's lots going on and there's lots of room there yet to build out in East St. Paul.

      They have a very specific way of looking at that. Again, a proposal like this comes forward, doesn't fit with what they're looking for, would ultimately cost the munici­pality a lot of money, and the ratepayers, ultimately, to pay for this dev­elop­ment, and they feel like their voices are being drowned out.

      So, again, I might be barking up the wrong tree. That might be a case that's already been settled. So, I guess the question is, is, you know, if it has been settled, can the minister identify that and maybe comment about how that process went? Or, if that's the one that she's referencing, how can she justify that the ratepayers in a com­mu­nity like East St. Paul don't have a say about the future dev­elop­ment in their own com­mu­nity?

Ms. Clarke: Today, at this time, I am personally not aware, nor is my staff, if the current appeal is the munici­pality that the member is suggesting.

      But I do want to express that, you know, it is a quasi-judicial Munici­pal Board. They're there to speak in fairness and to understand and listen to both sides–the applicant as well as the munici­pal repre­sen­tation. This is their op­por­tun­ity to be heard in a very trans­par­ent way.

      If the munici­pality at this hearing would have to give a very clear decision for their–or a very clear under­standing on their decision, but, ultimately, the board of–you know, for the peal, and the board is also respon­si­ble to give reasoning for their decision.

      In the past, munici­palities have not–they can make a decision to not move forward with an appli­cant, and they have not had to have any reason, parti­cular, they can just move–they can make that decision and it can be. So this provides a fair playing field for both the applicant as well as the munici­pality.

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wiebe: Well, I–you know, I mean, I would take issue with that characterization that it's somehow a level playing field when you balance the demo­cratic­ally elected will of an entire popu­la­tion of an RM versus one developer. And then they are all now of a sudden on a level playing field, you know. And, you know, to–being decided by this, you know, quasi-judicial board that's–you know, has binding decision-making powers granted by the minister that it–all of a sudden, everybody has to adhere to.

      Now, I think that the reason I mention this parti­cular case–and again, I don't know if that's the one that the minister is referencing here–and I hope, you know, I hope her officials could find that out–I believe the Munici­pal Board is within her purview, so I think that's some­thing that she should be able to share on the record. But, you know, again, the concern here is that, you know, this board that, you know, makes these decisions is now being tested in a way that I think will have wide-ranging precedent-setting implications going forward.

      This is the exact example that AMM and all those munici­palities that fall within the Winnipeg Metro Region, planning district and then beyond that, you know, across the province and other places where this might come–become an issue because of the powers of bill 37–have all identified this as the exact example that they were fearing, that, you know, there's–you know, they do all this work to plan and execute a well-thought-out dev­elop­ment plan and then–you know, I–again, with the, you know, the–you know, coming from their demo­cratic right and their demo­cratic man­date that's given to them by the citizens that they represent. And then it's thrown out the window, potentially.

* (11:00)

      So, I mean, I think if there is only one case before the Munici­pal Board, this would be–appeal, I should say–this would be the one that I would hope that the minister is paying very close attention to, and, you know, ultimately, she makes the decision on who sits on that board so, you know, the buck stops at her desk as far as I'm concerned. And so there's a big concern about how this one is handled, and I do hope that, ultimately, the citizens have–the residents have their say.

      But, that, you know, despite whatever happens with this parti­cular case, I think we'll see more of these coming forward, so I'm sure the minister will hear more about these from–not from just from us, but from munici­palities them­selves directly.

      I do have some questions–maybe I'll just end off with the–end off this portion on bill 37–I do have some questions with regards to Winnipeg Transit, the 50-50 funding agree­ment and electrification of buses, but maybe I'll just allow the minister to respond to those concerns about bill 37 and its impacts.

Ms. Clarke: I understand, you know, the concerns that the member is putting forward, and this is exactly why I have made it very clear to the col­lab­o­ration table that is working on these parti­cular bills in regards to planning in the Winnipeg Metro Region.

      But I've also made it very clear to our own staff that I will be following this process. It is new, and as I've already indicated, there are partners and stake­holders, some that are a bit–that are very, very ag­gressive with this when it comes to the industry, and some in regards to munici­palities.

      And I will also share with the member that not all munici­pal councils are in agreement within them­selves eternally in regards to this process and this bill. And, consequently, we get very mixed com­muni­cation sometimes.

      I also am very aware that we're facing a munici­pal election this October, which, ultimately, could very much strain–change the structure of who's been work­ing with this for the past three years. It'd be, you know, the members from each council that have been working col­lab­o­ratively to move this forward, and, consequently, we could be having a large number, per­haps a small number, of changes in the partners working on this col­lab­o­ration group when the Winnipeg Metro Region–so there's a lot that I am being very attentive to and that I have made it very clear to our de­part­ment as well as the col­lab­o­ration table for the Winnipeg Metro Region that I will be watching and I will be listening.

      But I think I would also like to share with the member, having been a mayor myself, and even prior to my time as being a mayor, I have been a busi­ness person in my com­mu­nity for 50 years, and there has been dev­elop­ments stopped because of the council that has really done harm to our com­mu­nity and held us back in the past.

      I've also seen this in Winnipeg. I've talked to devel­opers who were very interested, as have–are other de­part­ments within our government, where there are investors that are very interested in investing in Winnipeg or the metro region or other places in Manitoba, where they've basically been so frustrated by the process and the wait times that they have left, they've gone to other provinces and we have lost out.

      And economically, that's a big loss. It's a loss of income for our Province, it's a loss of jobs. There's a lot to be considered here, and yes, it's going to take time, but we need to move forward. We want to pro­mote our province as a great place to invest in, and we will do so, but in order to do that we need to have one set of planning rules, cut the red tape and make sure that we are a welcoming province and that we can move forward in a really positive way.

      So, I thank you for your questions on that issue, and I'm more than happy to col­lab­o­rate with you–or to–with the member opposite going forward as we transition.

      Thank you.

Mr. Wiebe: Well, I mean, I do think that that deserves further comment just because I'm quite shocked, to be honest with you, that the minister would so blatantly put on the record that she believes that the goals of the Winnipeg Metro Region should supersede the will of demo­cratic­ally elected councils.

      You know, hopefully, I'm not overreaching in that characterization, but I heard her say that, you know, money's left on the table. Well, sure, sometimes money is left on the table because the residents of a parti­cular munici­pality deem it to be contrary to their–to the well-being of their citizens. That's how gov­ern­ment works. We want gov­ern­ment–we want people to have a say. We don't want it to just be, well, this is, you know, what's best for our developer, you now, what's best for the bottom line.

      And just to put very clearly on the record, from what I understand, the dev­elop­ment, the proposed dev­elop­­ment that we're talking about here would propose–so just to set in context or, you know, from what I understand, the munici­pality of East St. Paul has around 3,000 homes and residences. And the proposal, when it first came forward, was to put 1,500 new homes in what is now zoned as, I think, com­mercial or light industrial in an area that's not serviced by water, not serviced by sewer, is built on top of a major drainage system for the munici­pality, that has no access by–for services in any other way, has no roads built to it, is completely outside of the dev­elop­ment.

      And, again, we're not talking about a munici­pality that's like a stick in the mud that's saying, we're not going to do anything here. There's huge dev­elop­ments that are being built up through the, you know, the Esso lands are being developed as we speak–huge, huge op­por­tun­ity to build within the RM of East St. Paul. But this is completely outside of their plan.

      And when the developer was told, well 1,500 homes, and we're talking, like, you know, what, 30-foot lots or some­thing like eight-storey condos, like, doesn't fit with the dev­elop­ment plan what­so­ever. Maybe does down the road in Transcona–in parts of Transcona, not to bring in my friend from Transcona once again–but certainly doesn't fit with–if anybody lives out there, I mean, understands this just inherently besides the kind of the technical pieces that have been shared with me.

      But, again, so what was the outcome of that rejection at the city council–at the munici­pal level? That's fine, we'll go to the Munici­pal Board. Oh, and by the way, the dev­elop­ment, now, it's actually 2,000 homes. And we're going to put even more homes in there. I mean, it just–so this is, again, it's pre­cedent setting, and what it shows to all munici­palities and, you know, for the benefit of Manitobans, to understand what the metro region is–18, I think it's 18 munici­palities. I mean, this is a massive piece of land.

      Selkirk, for goodness sake, is included in the metro region. Selkirk, who came to bill 37 hearings to say, you know, I'm not sure the minister understands–the premier didn't understand, apparently–we're our own city. We draw people in. We have our own metro region. Like, Selkirk is not part of Winnipeg, you know? Gov­ern­ment services, hospitals, you know, in­dustry, like–anyway, I'm getting off track. But I think all–what my point is, all munici­palities are recog­nizing that this is the potential risk that comes with this kind of legis­lation. And so this is precedent setting.

      And, again, the minister appointed every person on the Munici­pal Board. The minister has the ability to set the tone, here. And for her to say, there's money left on the table; we got a dev­elop­ment first, who cares what the ratepayers are saying? Again, I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I just–like, that's the tone I feel.

      And to say, well, there's munici­pal elections and we're probably going to have more–you know, again, I don't want to guess what the minister was trying to say there, but are we going to have more, you know, developer-friendly councils that are coming forward in the next election or does she anticipate that the opposite is going to be true? Because that would be my guess, is there's a lot of people who are going to say, wait a minute, why don't I have a say in this, and who are the councillors that stood up with me during bill 37, during this process that the minister is over­seeing now?

* (11:10)

      So, anyway, the minister can correct me if I'm wrong on any of those points.

Ms. Clarke: I certainly do want to correct the member opposite. He is very much misinterpreting my com­ments.

      When I have given him examples of projects in the past that perhaps were overlooked by a council, I'm referring to councils with councillors that have their own agenda, councillors that have invested in­terests that go against what the project might be. This is not your everyday projects that are proposed, you know, in any parti­cular munici­pality, and I don't want in any way to indicate what I spoke was referencing the one munici­pality that he keeps referring to. I was speaking a very generalized manner.

      I am very aware of this, having worked with AMM for seven and a half years. I'm very aware of it back in those days. I'm also aware of it in my own com­­mu­nity in the past, and I am aware with–during the time that I have been in prov­incial gov­ern­ment. It does exist. It is typically council members, whether it's head of council or any other council member, that can get other councillors on board to pursue a vote that goes in his or her direction that will either keep a com­petitor out or get a competitor in; it goes both ways, absolutely.

      But I am saying I am very aware that this does exist in the past and it has kept dev­elop­ment that could be good for a munici­pality, could be good for the metro region. And I'm not singling out the Winnipeg Metro Region here at all. I am not singling out a muni­ci­pality. I'm speaking very generally. It has existed, it does exist and it would be my hopes that we can find a balance to this.

      This is not to, in any way, overrun a council in their decisions, what's good for their munici­pality and regula­tions are still being worked on. We are still listening to munici­palities; we will continue to listen to municipalities. This is not a done deal.

      We–this is working. There will be a review every three years. The next one is already scheduled for 2024. So, this con­ver­sa­tion continues. It is not a one-and-done deal just because bill 37 is passed. Bills 33 and 34 have com­mit­tee on Tuesday night, and I look forward to further discussion on this.

      And as I've indicated to the member, I am open to discussion at any time if there's parti­cular cases that you–that are talked about or heard about. I do not have any knowledge on the munici­pality that he is presenting, and today I'm actually glad I don't because I don't want to give a biased infor­ma­tion on anything like that.

      But I, myself, do not fear the future. I have always been very optimistic, always looking forward to grow­ing my munici­pality. When it was my busi­ness, I always looked for better ways, I always looked for better out­comes and I always try to be very aware of our changing world. And I know a lot of the munici­pal councillors are the same, and I've already indicated that not everybody's on the same page. I am very, very aware of that, and I will always take that into con­sid­era­tion.

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wiebe: So, yes, I do want to move on. We could spend, I'm sure, all day talking about some of the details there.

      But I did want to spend some time talking about the munici­pal 50-50 transit funding agree­ment. And on page 17 of the minister's Estimates book, the–one of the stated goals of her de­part­ment–and again, she mentioned this in her opening comments–is to support the City of Winnipeg's transition to zero-emission buses.

      So, I mean, you know, one of the–the 50-50 tran­sit agree­ment, again, for those of you who are follow­ing along at home and may not be quite as well-versed on this as the minister would be and members of–in this com­mit­tee, the 50-50 transit agree­ment was a binding agree­ment between the Province and the City of Winnipeg that allowed for, you know, not only base-level funding that would in–help ensure that fare stayed low or reasonable, that service was of a certain standard that was equitable across the city, but also–and this is, I think, the most im­por­tant point for my discussion–or, my point that I want to make here today is–is that it allowed the City–or, it allowed the Province to have a seat at the table, right?

      So, you know, transit within the city of Winnipeg is a munici­pal service, but because the Province had this binding agree­ment, they were able to sit at the table and they were able to–and I remember this very clearly from my days back in gov­ern­ment–that we were able to sit at the table and to say, what are the priorities that we're hearing from our con­stit­uents and from the people of Winnipeg.

      And we would sit down in the same way that the City of Winnipeg would do so, we would hear from Functional Transit Winnipeg, we would hear from com­­mu­nity activists and groups, we would hear from the City of Winnipeg bus drivers and their union. We would listen to, you know, kind of all sides, and then we would also look at priorities like what the minister is identifying here, you know, a transition to zero-emissions buses. This is–I mean, this–again, so I don't want to bring in the member for Transcona (Mr. Altomare) every single time I speak, but I have to bring him in here now, because, of course, New Flyer Industries is in his con­stit­uency.

      And I was very honoured to join him and the Leader of the Op­posi­tion in a tour not too long ago of the plant. And, like, you know, I mean, if you ever want to see in­cred­ible, amazing work that's being done in this province by the average, hard-working people of Transcona–I didn't mean to call them average, I mean that, you know, they are very much like many of us in Winnipeg, but have taken on not just, you know, the work in terms of building buses, but building some of the most state-of-the-art buses in the world.

      And what struck me when I was there was, like, I felt like we were walking through like a– [interjection] Yes, we saw buses that were going all over the world just when we were there. And what I remarked afterwards was, it–I expected it to be like an assembly plant like you might find in Oshawa, or, you know, in these big assembly plants. Instead what we saw was it was almost like being in a Ferrari plant, because every single bus, from start to finish, was customized, was hand built and individually built for the customer that it was going to.

      But we saw these going all over the world, instead of, like, down the street, you know. Like, I can't take a zero-emission bus from Kildonan Place mall to the Legislature, but I can go to, you know, San Francisco, and I can take one down the street there, or in Toronto now, I guess–the latest contract.

      So, anyway, my point simply is–because I did want to talk about New Flyer, because I was blown away by the people there, the amazing work that they're doing–but just to say, because of the lack of the 50-50 transit agree­ment, we've lost that ability at the prov­incial level.

      So I just wanted to ask the minister, how does she–how is her de­part­ment going to meet this goal without having the kind of structured agree­ment with the City of Winnipeg and other munici­palities around their transit needs?

* (11:20)

Ms. Clarke: I'm sure the member opposite is aware that the transit funding was moved to the basket fund­ing back a few years ago when that was done with all munici­palities, where their basic funding comes through a basket model where they have the ability to spend it where they so choose.

      The City of Winnipeg has adapted and–a new transit master plan which we are very aware of, and I just want to, you know, when you indicate that we don't have a seat at the table, the transit is a very much a topic of the col­lab­o­ration table that I shared pre­viously that has been struck to work on any issues between the City of Winnipeg and our gov­ern­ment.

      That working table has gone really well, and I spoke to Mayor Bowman when I was first put in this position in regards to that working table, and he also indicated that this has really been very positive going forward and that we have a much better working relationship.

      And I just want to em­pha­size as well that my working relationship with Mayor Bowman is ex­treme­ly good. It was in the past and it continues to be. We speak on a regular basis very casually or very quickly when anything comes up; we contact each other and that's working very well.

      I do want to make the member also aware that, just in the past couple of weeks, we've added the con­ser­va­tion de­part­ment to that col­lab­o­ration table as well. And this will cover off, you know, concerns where you have going to zero emissions because we are very proactive in that respect. So, it will include active trans­por­tation, clean water and wastewater and a lot of those other issues that we are facing as a province. That will also now be a part of this col­lab­o­ration table, and I really want to acknowl­edge that I feel this is a very good step forward.

      I'd like to make the member also aware of the ICIP request that was sent through our Province to our partner in the federal gov­ern­ment for funding for tran­sit, to go along with the transit master plan.

      And our Province has committed to $170 million for the first phase in this master plan. To date, we have committed $92 million to the transition to zero-emission buses. We've also committed $61 million to our new transit garage for the City of Winnipeg, which would be well-equipped for electrification and the buses that would be expected to be there.

      And in regards to those funds that I've just mentioned to you–the member, we have already flow­ed $40 million of that funding to date.

Mr. Wiebe: So, I just–I do have a lot of other ques­tions that I do need to get to, but I just wanted to get a little bit of further clari­fi­ca­tion.

      So, the minister is talking about the table. I guess what I'm asking is whose plan is–are they following? Are they following her own de­part­ment's plan as, again, referenced in the Estimates book? Is she–are they following a plan that has been developed by the City of Winnipeg to meet their zero-emission targets and is she getting direction from them? Or is she following a plan that is being developed by the minister of climate and the environ­ment, and I–very happy to have my colleague from Wolseley here, who's obviously our critic and very knowledgeable with this.

      So this is and–a report that's coming forth, we understand from the advisory council, to the minister of con­ser­va­tion and climate. Who's in the driver's seat here, no pun intended, with regards to this goal of transitioning to zero-emission buses? Are they taking their lead directly from the City of Winnipeg and then sort of being the arbiter of what goes forward, or are they driving the plan within the de­part­ment, their own de­part­ment? Or, again, are they taking direction from the overall climate strategy being dictated over in the de­part­ment of climate and the environ­ment?

Ms. Clarke: Now, I would just like to share with the member opposite the master plan–the transit master plan that I'd just spoke of was–that is directly under the supervision–under the direction of the City of Winnipeg. They created it. They did have large public hearings. They listened to their ridership. That is their plan.

      What I am saying, our De­part­ment of Munici­pal Relations is one of the stake­holders at a col­lab­o­ration table that has been formed between the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba so that they can internally, with our staff, discuss whatever issues come to the table so that they don't erupt; that they can work col­lab­o­ratively to come to the best decisions and make the best decisions that can be brought back, whether it's to the De­part­ment of Munici­pal Relations.

      And I'm–I do want to be very clear that the de­part­ment of con­ser­va­tion was added to that table most recently. It is very recent. I'm not even sure that they would've been on a meeting at this point, but it was recog­nized that some of the issues that need to be discussed would definitely include that de­part­ment of our gov­ern­ment.

      Thank you.

Mr. Wiebe: I do want to move on to a new set of questions, but I neglected to mention some­thing, so I'm just going to throw this in as a one-off, and if the minister wants to give any insight, that's fine. If not, that's also okay.

      It was mentioned by my colleague from Wolseley and others that, you know, active trans­por­tation is a major part of the trans­por­tation solutions for not only the City of Winnipeg, munici­palities across the pro­vince and prov­incially, right? So we, in the past, have had a direct–directorate or at least a staff person within the de­part­ment that was charged with building or monitoring or furthering active trans­por­tation in the province. I know that that position was eliminated.

      So, again, just as a one-off, if the minister knows any–knows–has any infor­ma­tion about priorities when it comes to active trans­por­tation and if they plan on hiring somebody to fill that position?

      But I do want to move on with regards to the RCMP funding issue. This is, of course, the minister knows, comes out of the settlement with regards to pay for the RCMP. This impacts many munici­palities.

      In the past, we've gotten into kind of a back and forth in the–in question period. You know, not to criticize the format of question period, but it's not always the most conducive to get to solutions.

      And, in fact, in the past, when I've asked this in QP, I think it was answered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Goertzen)–there might have been others that stepped up and answered this. Anyway, but–I–it does fall under this de­part­ment, because I think there's some munici­palities actually, in fact, are paid the Province; the Province gets paid from the feds. This is a big problem. This is impacting budgets.

* (11:30)

      I'm just wondering if the minister has–if there's been a reso­lu­tion to this issue in terms of the funding shortfall that munici­palities will be facing?

Ms. Clarke: I just want to revert back very quickly to the member's questions about active transportation and, you know, dedi­cation to those–that parti­cular issue.

      I do want to make it very clear that our gov­ernment is very committed to active transportation, regard­less of where it is. There is funding that comes throughout several different de­part­ments that are taking this into con­sid­era­tion and working with persons for this 'actstive' transportation.

      So, Trans­por­tation and Infra­structure; the de­part­ment of mental health; Sport, Culture and Heritage as well as our de­part­ment all are actively involved in this. And there is funding–or there has most recently been a lot of funding gone out through building sus­tain­able 'cosmmunities,' but there's also several other funding models within our gov­ern­ment that support active trans­por­tation–certainly some­thing that we are very, very interested in pursuing and building on.

      I want to address the question in regards to the RCMP funding and the member's question. There was a joint letter that went out from Justice–because Justice is handling a lot of this on behalf of our gov­ern­ment–but it was jointly signed by the former minister of Munici­pal Relations. And I want to add that we have not received a response to date, but it is an issue that I've had sig­ni­fi­cant con­ver­sa­tions with the Association of Manitoba Munici­palities on behalf of their members.

      Thank you.

Mr. Wiebe: Well–and I ap­pre­ciate the update. And, you know, maybe I won't, you know, ask too much more with regards to the details. But I just wanted to put on the record that, you know, as the minister indicated, this is a major concern.

      I guess the question I would have, to follow-up and then we can move on, is, you know, for those munici­palities who had to, this spring, put together their budgets with a 23 per cent hole in their policing budget shortfall, how is it that the minister has sup­ported those munici­palities, at least in the short term?

      And, I guess, again, you know, I mean, we're hear­ing about this, this is a concern, but it's also like a–has real-world impact on what munici­palities are able to deliver to their ratepayers. So, you know, is the minister–what kind of steps–this should be, I imagine the highest priority when it comes to negotiations with the federal gov­ern­ment–what sorts of, you know, ad­di­tional steps outside of the letter and sitting back waiting for a response has the minister under­taken to get this issue resolved ASAP?

Ms. Clarke: I just want to share with the member opposite that we are not aware that any munici­pality has, to date, had to financially output any of these ad­di­tional funds that are being put upon them.

      This is a multi-year funding that we're looking at, and there's still a lot of discussion in regards to retroactive. So it's an issue that is still very much under discussion, and I'd be pleased to see if I can get an updated report from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Goertzen) on this issue for you.

Mr. Wiebe: I ap­pre­ciate that clari­fi­ca­tion and com­mitment to get ad­di­tional infor­ma­tion. Likewise, with regards to budgetary impact coming from–ultimately coming from the federal gov­ern­ment, is the direct result of changes made by this gov­ern­ment with regards to the edu­ca­tion property tax rebate.

      Now, I know we've spent the last few days in the Legislature debating this, so I will restrain myself from going too far down the road about overall com­ments with regards to that rebate and the way that is was administered.

      But one of the impacts that we've seen with regards–unintended, I would imagine–is the impact from the payments in lieu of taxes paid by the fed­eral gov­ern­ment. So, when the Province reduced the commercial and in­sti­tutional property taxes by 10 per cent, the federal gov­ern­ment also reduced their payments in lieu by the same. And this doesn't matter too much to most munici­palities across the province, but the minister will know that this impacts some munici­palities. You know, most notably, I guess, the Stony Mountain munici­pality that contains Stony Mountain In­sti­tution–it impacts them to a great degree.

* (11:40)

      And so the minister will know I wrote to her about this matter, and I'm simply looking for an update to ask her the status of those negotiations and whether that shortfall has been addressed by the federal gov­ern­ment or by the prov­incial gov­ern­ment, if she could give us some insight with regards to that impact.

Ms. Clarke: I would just like to have a comment on the edu­ca­tion tax rebate that has been robustly debated, for sure.

      I've never gotten to give my focus on it, but as a munici­pal official in the past, and as an AMM director and vice-president, and as a nomination candidate, and as an election issue–the rebate on edu­ca­tion tax in rural Manitoba has been one of the biggest issues I've been hearing about since 2007. It has been ongoing; it has been loud and it has been very clear. And I under­stand, in rural Manitoba, the impact on taxes and how it affects one individual, whether it's a farmer, a resi­den­tial owner, a multiple-residence owner, it's very different. But from my perspective, every–I only had one issue that was more im­por­tant in the past–and it was the Neepawa hospital–in this whole area.

      And edu­ca­tion property rebate–and I want to be very clear, the people across Manitoba realize and understand that edu­ca­tion has to be funded. We all know that, and everybody is in agree­ment. We want our kids to have the best edu­ca­tion. We want to have quality teachers. We want to have proper, safe schools for all the children and we want Manitoba to do really well in the de­part­ment of edu­ca­tion. However, there has to be a better way to fund it, and we are absolutely adamant that we are going to find and move forward in a better way of funding edu­ca­tion. Edu­ca­tion will in no way go short because of this change in taxation.

      This type of taxation for edu­ca­tion has been not used across all of Canada for many years, and I will be upfront and saying that we are behind time, and it's time that we look at things differently. There is ade­quate revenue in this province. We are building this province; it is growing, and edu­ca­tion is the founda­tion of that. So I want the member to be very assured that this is a good step forward, and we will ensure that it will be the same people paying taxes. It's the same people that pay taxes, call it whatever you want, but there will be a proper funding for edu­ca­tion moving forward.

      And, in regards to the tax that you talked about that will be lost to munici­palities from this through the federal gov­ern­ment's portion, the prov­incial gov­ern­ment is covering 100 per cent of that shortfall. It equates to approximately $3 million; I don't have the exact number at my fingertips. But this will be included in their fall payment, their basket funding. We put forward 75 per cent of the basket funding early in the year, which is at this time, and then there's a second fall payment for the ad­di­tional 25 per cent, and any munici­palities that have that shortfall that was in lieu of taxes will be receiving it at that time.

      And I thank you for that question.

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wiebe: Well, you know–and not to take the bait on getting into the discussion and the debate that we've already had over the last number of days–what I think I've heard from munici­palities and, you know, sort of the worries that they've had over the last num­ber of months because of this change, is indicative.

      I mean, there's a lot we could argue about–and again, we have in the Legislature–about the nature of this tax rebate, who it's going to–you know, whether we should prioritize this massive tax break to cor­por­ations and folks who have expensive homes. But I won't get into that.

      What I would say is, is that, once again, I'm hear­ing from residents in my own con­stit­uency who are saying, why are my taxes going up? And then they're waiting for a cheque to come in the mail, which, you know, was–I thought I had heard the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) and others say that last year, we had to get it done quickly, so that's the reason we're doing it this way, but it would be different going forward.

      Here we are in the same situation. And I think that this situation that the munici­palities are facing is that same, you know, sort of rushed, poorly planned out, poorly thought out and very poorly executed plan that this gov­ern­ment continues to have with regards to tax rebates. Again, I'm not going to get sucked into the debate, you know, despite that minute and a half that I just did.

      Okay, I do have other questions that I want to get to. Spe­cific­ally, I wanted to ask the minister about the concerns that I'm sure she's heard from number of munici­palities with regards to section 83(2) of The Munici­pal Act. This is the section of The Munici­pal Act which gives author­ity to council and in–has been very recently used by council in certain RMs to cen­sure or limit the ability of the mayor in those munici­palities to have the powers that, you know, normal, average Manitobans would understand that they're electing their mayor to have.

      And, you know, spe­cific­ally, I know that there's been concerns that have come directly to the minister and there's also wider concerns that have, you know, circulated amongst the Association of Manitoba Munici­palities and others who are saying that, you know, no matter where you land on individual cases within munici­palities, there is concern about section 83(2) and that, even if that's not the intent of the legis­lation, because, you know, I mean, it was never abused for 25 years, it was–you know, it was in place and nobody ever, you know, used it in this way–lately, because it's being used this way, that there is a loophole that, quite evidently, needs to be closed.

      So I'm wondering if the minister has looked at this parti­cular aspect of The Munici­pal Act, and whether she has some comments about the way that this parti­cular clause is being used in the real world on demo­cratic­ally elected councils?

Ms. Clarke: I will share with the member opposite that I have not spe­cific­ally sat down and looked at this parti­cular section of The Munici­pal Act, and I will also acknowl­edge that I am aware, from calls that I've had in regards to individual cases which I will not discuss in this manner, at this parti­cular time.

      In regards to loopholes, this is clearly some­thing that I will have to look at.

      We're seeing a lot of discrepancies within coun­cils, and that concerns me. It's–I'm–we're in a very short time frame here between now and the next elec­tion, and I know that there are a lot of stresses inter­nally with probably more councils than the member opposite even is aware of. And that does concern me.

      We have become a very intolerant bunch of people in our province, and I think it goes well beyond. I'm seeing behaviour, and I've–I'm seeing it more since COVID. I think we have all been through some very emotional and very stressful times. I think people's ability to cope has been really com­pro­mised. That concerns me.

* (11:50)

      I met with a lot of councils, I've talked to council members and they're really struggling. And I am [inaudible] a psychologist by any means, but as you've indicated, there is a section in The Munici­pal Act that speaks to this. And I'm really–I will be honest, I'm really at a crossroads. I don't know if this is just a parti­cular response to what's going on in our province and our world right now where people have become so intolerant and disrespectful of each other, but, ultimately, The Munici­pal Act does speak to specific actions.

      And I would like to commit to the member oppo­site that I would be very open to having a very in-depth discussion with the member as well as with my staff, and that we do look at this, because we are facing an election in October and I've already dis­cussed with the AMM that I am very concerned about what people–the general public are seeing and hearing.

      Is this going to deter people–good people from running for these positions? Whether it's school trustees, we're seeing the same disrespect at that level, or, you know, even within our own gov­ern­ment. We talk about it during question period, and the decorum–and I will be very open in saying these–this type of behaviour really concerns me. It is not the type of behaviour that I would ever be a part of.

      So, I will just leave it at that. I am very concerned. I will look at this section of the act and decisions will have to be made going forward.

      Thank you.

Mr. Wiebe: I'm encouraged by the words of the minis­ter and do take seriously her commit­ment here to under­take a thorough review of not only this parti­cular section but, you know, ways that we can enhance our local demo­cracy.

      I share her concerns about overall decorum. You know, I guess I would just add, you know, pre­domi­nantly, the words that I've heard, or the concerns that I've heard have come forward from–parti­cularly from women who have, you know, stepped forward to serve at the munici­pal level. And, you know, so I–and so, just further to her comments, to the minister's com­ments, I would just say I think there's also a big con­cern there when, you know, in parti­cular, if folks are not feeling like they want to come forward, in parti­cular for women to feel intimidated or, you know, that they would be somehow threatened or made to feel uncomfortable or belittled–I mean, there's a whole number of examples we could go through, but as the minister said, maybe not the forum.

      So I would just say that I would gladly take her up on this–on that discussion, and if there is a way that, you know, we can work together in a non-partisan way to look at this parti­cular issue, under­standing the timelines with regards to the munici­pal election that's coming up, you know, I would one hundred per cent be open to those con­ver­sa­tions. So, I'm very happy to hear her say that.

      Again, just in the–under the under­standing that we would be jumping around quite a bit, just wanted to ask about the minister's–on page 20 of the Estimates book, the minister's–the de­part­ment's goal of reducing the number of–total number of regula­tory require­ments, the red-tape-reduction mandate.

      So I see that there is a target of a 2.5 per cent reduction–just reading the numbers out of the book, here–45,044 current regula­tions that the de­part­ment–fall under the De­part­ment of Munici­pal Relations. And so, you know, my math is maybe not as quick as it should be or could be if I had this written down, but that 2.5 per cent from such a large number seems like quite a number of regula­tory require­ments that are being reduced or eliminated.

      Can the minister just give us a, you know, a ful­some list, if she could, of regula­tory require­ments that will be eliminated this year? Or if, you know, I would imagine the list is ongoing or being developed, and if it is, then just, you know, maybe the top five that they're trying to work through at this time?

Ms. Clarke: I just want to go back, just very briefly, to the member opposite in regards to our comments in decorum.

      And I don't know that the member was present–AMM did have a morning breakfast that had a panel in regards to women in politics or women in council, and there was some really good discussion there. And I have openly offered AMM to work with them prior to the next munici­pal election to become very public, and I've already partici­pated in a video that they're putting together in regards to this issue.

      So I would very much look forward to working with the member opposite as well as the member from the Liberal caucus as well, going forward. I think this is some­thing that is a respon­si­ble step forward for us to do, and I think that would be a good decision.

      In regards to reducing red tape, there are a few that I can give you examples of that are currently being worked on. And one–some of this relates more spe­cific­ally to the City of Winnipeg in regards to demolition. We have removed a 'quirement' of having duplicate require­ment to do demolitions that has been really withholding unsightful properties because of tax arrears, et cetera. So, in the future, they won't have to have both the tax collector and the demolition to do with the tax arrears. To go forward, they will only need one item to be in place.

      Also, from our gov­ern­ment perspective, we are really stream­lining in regards to electronic hearings and other com­muni­cations and meetings, et cetera. So a lot of these, when we're talking about reducing red tape, are more in line with, I guess you'd say, modern­izing gov­ern­ment and modernizing those steps that follow within the De­part­ment of Munici­pal Relations.

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wiebe: So, very quickly, to the minister's men­tion of the women's breakfast at AMM.

      And, you know, I spent some time speaking with–actually speaking with a number of women who at­tend­ed afterwards because I wanted to, you know, know more about what was talked about and ways forward that we can all work together. But, you know, over and over again they said, well, why weren't you there? And I said, well, it was a women's breakfast. I didn't know I was allowed.

      And, you know, as somebody who–as a man who tries to give as much space to those who traditionally don't have as much space, I'm always willing, you know–women's breakfast, more power to you, and I want to be giving you that time and that space. They're like, no, no; you're an ally. Like, you should be there and you should be listening.

      So, lesson learned, and in the future, I'll be there, albeit very quiet and listening, but definitely want to be there.

* (12:00)

      I don't want to spend too much time on the regula­tory require­ments. I was hoping to give time to the Liberal member, who I know I can't comment on–anyway, maybe if the Liberal member is watching somewhere, partici­pating, they can be aware that we are hopefully going to have some time at the end to–of today's session to give her some time.

      But just very quickly on the regula­tory require­ments, I–you know, I mean, I think there's a broad con­­sensus with regards to modernization, especially around tech­no­lo­gy, and, you know, the example that was given, I think the minister, you know, that there's definitely a lot of room to improve.

      My concern is, you know, once again, I see a hard target within the de­part­ment, and this is another one of these Brian Pallister hangovers that this gov­ern­ment continues to adhere to. And, you know, Brian–you know, in the pantheon of these hard and fast red-tape-reduction warriors, you've got the–you know, such auspicious names as Brian Pallister and Donald Trump, who, you know, who said, to come hell or high water, I'm going to reduce the number of regula­tory require­ments–red tape, so to speak–every single year, no matter what.

      And, you know, it's often pointed out to them, well, wait a minute, what if, you know, they're really good–like, what if we don't have any bad regula­tions that need to be removed? But, again, when, you know, that target is in the Estimates book, it just speaks to that idea that, no matter what, those regula­tions have to be cut.

      So maybe I could just ask the minister could follow up with a commit­ment to give us that list, the com­plete list? Maybe, you know–I'm not sure when that would be, maybe she could tell us when it would be complete: is this an ongoing process? Maybe she could give us the list of all the regula­tions that have been slated to be cut or are–have been cut to this point? And then maybe just a commit­ment to update the–update me going forward?

Ms. Clarke: I would be pleased to see what we can put together, what's already exists on that list.

      But I do want to assure the member–and I think he knows me well enough by now–that I will not be reducing any red tape that I don't believe is in the best interests of munici­palities. I am there and I understand munici­palities, and I would never intently move for­ward with red tape reduction that I don't deem in a respon­si­ble manner.

      And I will just reflect back to my previous term as munici­pal minister, and I worked on the red tape reduction then, too. And just to tell him, the individ­ual, that when we're talking about red tape reduction, this has not been under­taken for so long.

      One of the red tape reductions previously, that I was respon­si­ble for, was the require­ment for frost shields no longer to be on vehicles. And, you know, it's those type of small things that are literally filling our books that just are–they just don't exist anymore. So I would not fear these reductions as quoted by num­ber spe­cific­ally.

      We need to have goals. I think goals are a great thing to have. I think we all need that to keep us moving forward in a positive manner. But I certainly would indicate that there's no fear of red tape reduction that is not constructive.

      Thank you.

Mr. Wiebe: Just wondering, again, to switch gears fairly quickly–hopefully, the minister can ac­com­modate this.

      Just a question with regards to a letter that she would have received back on March 18th from the Pembina Valley Water Cooperative, and it just out­lines, I think fairly well, the concerns that those folks in that part of the province have with regards to the crunch that they're facing with regards to potable water as well as water for agri­cul­ture, for irrigation.

      And, you know, the situation that the–or the cir­cum­stances that they're painting, again, that I believe the minister would be aware of, are pretty dire. You know, they are–and that region of the province is growing, they are looking for, you know, looking for–or there's lots of busi­ness industry that wants to set up. There's certainly a lot of people that are moving into the area, and one of the limiting factors–and, in fact, this has had a real-world economic impact, there have been busi­nesses that are relocated; they've gone else­where because the ability of the district to deliver water.

      So I ask this in the context of the Water Services Board and, just, if the minister has any insight, has into the–and, again, I know this minister was one of many that have–should be aware of this issue, so if she could direct me to the, you know, correct de­part­ment, if need be, but I just wanted to get–if she could give me some insight as to what the–what her response has been to the Pembina Valley Water Cooperative and the situation that they've laid out to her?

Ms. Clarke: I'm happy to share infor­ma­tion.

      We had–our de­part­ment had a very good in-person meeting with Pembina Valley Co‑op within the past month, and I have to say that their growth and their expansion is very exciting. I will also share that I think they have done an amazing job within their co‑op–their water co‑op–as have many others. I've talked to Cartier most recently as well. And Pembina Valley has a very good plan put together going for­ward, absolutely.

      And I would also like to share with the member that we have a working com­mit­tee within our gov­ern­ment that is working with Pembina Valley as well as other stake­holders in that region as well. So, those con­ver­sa­tions will be continuing.

Mr. Wiebe: Can the minister just inform us–inform the committee of who is on that working group? Who sits on that working group?

Ms. Clarke: Of course.

      Munici­pal Relations–we are certainly engaged with them. Gov­ern­ment Services–we've been working with Minister Helwer very closely on other projects in that area as well. As you've said, it is a growing area. They are attracting a lot of industry. So, the Minister of Economic Dev­elop­ment, of course, is included in this as well as environ­ment and climate and parks, and definitely Agri­cul­ture is a part of this as well.

      And I want to add to that, you know, it's not just Pembina Valley Co‑op. We have also recently met the ministers–basically, all the ministers that I've already indicated. We met recently in Brandon with a very large group of Keystone potato producers. So this–what we're facing isn't just in the Pembina Valley; it's all across our province.

      There are a numer­ous great projects moving forward. And, of course, a lot of it involves water, so we are looking very closely and working on our water strategy going forward.

      And we happen to have the Keystone potato pro­ducers–we happen to have industry represented there as well, and we're very fortunate that two of the executive members for, I believe it was McCain, who were in attendance, and they were very impressed with our meeting and also very impressed that the steps and the commit­ment that Manitoba is taking to work with the producers as well as the water co‑ops in our area to ensure that we can move forward and we can supply the needs–not just of the com­mu­nities for clean, potable water, but also for the ag producers, and extend that into industry.

* (12:10)

      And we have had other new projects come for­ward most recently, so this is some­thing that will–it will be a very top priority going forward.

Mr. Wiebe: And, you know, and just–I don't want to spend–again, I have too many more questions to ask, but maybe I'll just throw this out there–it's just a sort of under­standing: is the minister saying it's a working group of the ministers, or individuals within depart­ments? Again, maybe we could talk about this offline, or she can give me some indication whether she has just a quick answer to that.

      The–once again, I'm just going to put it out there that, you know, the member for Tyndall Park (Ms. Lamoureux) had indicated that she wanted to ask some questions. I'm–I don't know if she's on the Zoom call; maybe she's watching somewhere in the ether. Anyway, just trying to summon the member as the whip for, I guess, both caucuses right now.

      Anyway, very quickly, the MPP program–the Mitigation and Preparedness Program–obviously, with the sort of imme­diate disaster-level, you know, situation in many munici­palities across the province with regards to floodwaters right now, this is obvious­ly a very much an evolving situation, but I'm wonder­ing if the minister can just kind of comment.

      There's going to be, obviously, a lot of impact with regards to the flood. I think the budgetary im­pacts are, you know, are still being–are still rising and are still being, sort of, trying to be understood, I'm sure, across gov­ern­ment, you know, as I look out the windows right now and see rain, you know, having fallen or falling right now.

      So, the question is simply with regards to the MPP program, if the minister has any insight as to, you know, what impacts this flood season will have on that program and funding impacts going forward and potential shortfalls.

Ms. Clarke: Yes, this is definitely a topic that we should discuss; it's very con­cern­ing.

      I've worked–I've been up front and centre, back in 2011, in the flood and every flood since then, and more recently 2020 in my area and in the Westman area.

      We've had sig­ni­fi­cant com­muni­cation with our munici­palities going forward and through­out this, and it's very clear that this parti­cular event, whether it's on the east–southeast side or the western side like we're ex­per­iencing now, the damage–the assessment of this damage is going to be sig­ni­fi­cant; there's no doubt about that.

      I think the Minister of Trans­por­tation indicated yesterday that we're well over $100 million and there's no idea or any way of knowing right now what that final figure will look like. It's probably going to be several weeks before we'll get anywhere close to a final figure on this. Having said that, I am very pleased that this is a gov­ern­ment that has a very large con­tingency fund for these types of emergency ex­pen­di­tures and a great deal of con­fi­dence in that.

      So, working–we will continue working with the munici­palities very closely to ensure that all the DFA claims are dealt with in an expedient manner. I think this is a good op­por­tun­ity–I just have to really send a big thank you to the minister of infra­structure and trans­por­tation, as well as all his de­part­ment staff, but also to emergency measures. We've had really good responses coming in about how helpful they've been.

      I have not had any distress calls from any munici­pality, and I think we're in the 30 range of munici­palities–and that's about 25 per cent of munici­palities in this province that are under a state of emergency right now. And I have not had one call in fear or panic that they are not getting the help that they need right now. And I also have to speak to the mitigation that's been done in the past few years, and even since 2020, to ensure that our com­mu­nities and our munici­palities are better prepared for these types of events. We're seeing them more often and they're, in some respects, getting more severe.

      So, no lives lost. Yes, people displaced, but not to the level that it certainly could have been that we saw back in 1997. So I feel very confident going forward that we're on top of this, and that munici­palities are also knowing and under­standing there are also respon­si­bilities and how to move forward in regards to their claims.

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wiebe: Well, I think this warrants some further discussion, but I take the minister's point about sort of the evolving situation that's happening right now. And so, you know, depending on when we get back to Munici­pal Relations in Estimates, this actually might be an ap­pro­priate con­ver­sa­tion for the fall.

      Just very quickly on this, I do think that the minister, you know, quite rightly, pointed out some of the mitigation projects that have been under­taken in Manitoba. And, you know, you don't have to look too far, even in Canada, certainly in the United States, around the world, really, the impacts of climate change are really testing the mitigation projects that have, you know, happened over the last number of years. And, you know, I mean, this isn't, I guess, some­thing to be happy about, but maybe some­thing to be proud about here in Manitoba, that we have faced flooding; we have faced this kind of impact to our com­mu­nities for so many years that we're pretty good at it, right?

      But that being said, there's kind of a new level now that we're seeing, again, because of climate change, that I think com­mu­nities are grappling with and always work to be done with regards to managing the water that we deal with here in this province. So again, I'm sure we'll have more to talk about there.

      Again, quickly, I'm not sure how much time I have, but the Munici­pal Service Delivery Im­prove­ment Program, M-S-D-I-P–I don't know if that's the right acronym–you know, maybe the minister can help me out with that acronym. But, anyway, the munici­pal services delivery program. Just as a point of infor­ma­tion, wondering if the minister could tell us how much was paid out through that program in–from–in the last budget year.

      So–sorry–not what was budgeted, but was ac­tually paid out. What made it out to munici­palities from that fund that was allocated?

* (12:20)

Ms. Clarke: Lots of great infor­ma­tion on this pro­gram to share with the member.

      I will start out by putting on record that this is a $5‑million program that was to be spent over four years. And in the first year we had–actually, we were well oversubscribed. We had 49 munici­palities apply for the first year, which was beyond what we could capably handle in the first year.

      So, anyways, we worked with 11 munici­palities for a total of $1.1 million for the projected ap­plications; $700,000 of that was already paid out and $400,000 was–is overlapped because they were con­tinuing into this fiscal year. So, there's another $400,000 from those first 11 projects that will be paid out this year.

      I would add to that, the applicants are finding this process to be very worthwhile. So, it's a good project, and I actually look forward to talking to some of the munici­palities that have been involved in this and just getting some feedback from them.

      I will add, you're probably interested into know­ing that Winnipeg did not apply in the first round, but they have expressed interest and do want to apply likely going–there will be another intake later this year. It has to go back to Treasury Board, of course. And we're looking forward to that coming later this year.

Mr. Wiebe: Okay, ap­pre­ciate that.

      And again, I have more to ask there, but in the interest of getting as much in as possible: one of the, you know, major concerns, again, expressed through the Association of Manitoba Munici­palities last June, I guess–yes, we're coming up on a year–I spent a lot of time virtually travelling the province at our district meetings–this year, looking forward to actually being in the com­mu­nities, but last year it was still virtual. One of the major concerns at that time, of course, was ICIP funding, and delays that were happening at that time continue to happen, I'll put on the record.

      But the question that I have, very spe­cific­ally, is on those projects that have been approved. And one of the issues, again, that came through AMM and in talking with individual munici­palities who have pro­jects that are–that have been awarded ICIP funding, they have indicated an issue they are now running into where the application was originally done in 2019.

      The Province–you know, and again, we could quibble about why it's held up–but, you know, the money didn't flow until just very recently. And now, they're going back and they're looking at, you know, shovels in the ground and they're saying, wait a minute, you know, construction inflation has­–I mean, inflation in general's gone through the roof–but con­struction inflation especially has gone through the roof. And those projects that we had priced out under 2019 dollars, now we're looking at, you know, building in 2022, and there's no–we don't–the amount awarded and the amount that we had originally nego­tiated is not sufficient. They can't go back to the federal gov­ern­ment. They don't have the money to make up the shortfall in some cases.

      So, I'm wondering if, you know, if the minister has any insight into what, you know, initiatives her gov­ern­ment is going to take to rectify this situation, and maybe she can just give me maybe a list of those projects that have been awarded ICIP funding, but have not begun construction.

Ms. Clarke: Unfor­tunately, we're quickly running out of time here, so I will reply to this on our next time.

      I just want to take this op­por­tun­ity to thank the member for the–

Mr. Chairperson: Order. Hour being 12:30 p.m., com­mit­tee rise.

Chamber

Economic Development, Investment and Trade

* (10:00)

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): Good morning, everybody. Will the Com­mit­tee of Supply please come to order.

      This section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply will now resume con­sid­era­tion of the Estimates for the Department of Economic Dev­elop­ment, Invest­ment and Trade.

      At this time, we invite the min­is­terial and op­posi­tion staff to enter the Chamber.

      Could the minister and critic please intro­duce their staff in attendance.

Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Economic Development, Investment and Trade): I'm joined by my deputy, Kathryn Gerrard; and the assist­ant deputy minister, Melissa Ballantyne, from Finance and Cor­por­ate Services; and assist­ant deputy minister, Michelle Wallace, Industry Programs & Part­ner­ships.

Mr. Chairperson: As previously stated, in accordance with subrule 77(16), during the con­sid­era­tion of de­part­mental Estimates, questioning for each de­part­ment shall proceed in a global manner.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): So, last time we chatted and discussed during the Estimates process, I ended with some questions around minimum wage. And re­cog­nizing that minimum wage is not the minister's respon­si­bility; it's–under the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen), but it will undoubtedly have an impact on the economy and on labour markets.

      It's been stated this gov­ern­ment is concerned with the later–labour shortage. And so wanted to get the minister's perspective on the low minimum wage that we have here–soon to be the lowest in the country come October–and the impact that will have on the economy in Manitoba, with specific comment on the labour market in Manitoba.

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able minister. [interjection] Will speak in a moment.

Mr. Cullen: Just for the member's infor­ma­tion, I know we did some work–the department has done some work compiling some infor­ma­tion from Statistics Canada, the Fraser In­sti­tute as well as some labour force survey data, and made some projections modelling data.

      Unfor­tunately, this is a couple years old, so–dates back to 2019. We can probably make some inter­pre­ta­tions of where we're at now in terms of the–today's labour market. I'd say it probably has changed some­what since then. Obviously, there's a real demand for labour which I think is clearly driving up wages.

      But just for the member's infor­ma­tion, back in 2019, and this again, these are Manitoba numbers, they found that it was most common, it was the younger workers working part-time while living at home and attending school, were those that were making minimum wage.

      So, again, 2019 figures, they esti­mated just over 31,000 Manitobans were minimum wage earners, which at that time was about 5.6 per cent of the total workforce. And it was esti­mated that just over half of those workers were part-time, and a little less than half were full-time, so about 17–close to 18,000 part-time, approximately 14,000 full-time. And more than half of those workers were in that 15-to-24 age category, and then another 34 per cent were in the working-age employees, the 25 to 54.

      It was predicted at that time that just over half of the minimum wage earners had a high-school edu­ca­tion or less, and about 30 per cent have completed a post-secondary edu­ca­tion.

      And further, most minimum wage earners are a son or daughter or relative living with their family, which was over half, and almost half had other house­hold arrangements, including as a couple, a lone house­hold head, or single. So, certainly, that gives us a bit of a perspective from 2019.

* (10:10)

      I would suggest–and I would very interested in what–how many–what percentage of the workforce are actually on minimum wage now. In my dis­cus­sions with the busi­ness com­mu­nity, there is a tre­men­dous demand for labour, and they're telling me that they're being forced to pay in­creasingly higher salaries to employ people and keep people employed.

      So I would expect that we would have less than that 5.6 percentage of the workforce actually on mini­mum wage. We're certainly digging into this a little deeper, see if we can get some more up-to-date numbers in respect of minimum wage and who, in fact, and how many are on minimum wage here in Manitoba.

      We are certainly open to having a discussion about minimum wage here in Manitoba. We are doing some work, having a look at what other juris­dic­tions are doing, in terms of their changes to minimum wage. Certainly, that's all part of it.

      And the other thing that we're looking at, too, is historically–and I think the trend still exists–Manitoba has the lowest cost of living anywhere in the country. So that, certainly, is–can be a Manitoba advantage for sure.

      So there's a lot of factors to bring into play here. We are doing some work on it, you know, across gov­ern­ment, to see what the impacts of changing mini­mum wage would be. But we're prepared to have those con­ver­sa­tions and do that work.

Mr. Moses: So by the, you know, the minister's statement, I think he acknowl­edges that there is a labour shortage in–[interjection]–oh, yes, thank you for the reminder. Just–I'll take the opportunity to intro­duce my staff here, Rylan Ramnarace, who's joined me today.

      To follow up on my question, the minister, during his previous response, said that there is a labour shortage that we're facing here in Manitoba. I think that's, you know, pretty clear. And the minister also said that, to address this shortage, private sector is being forced to increase their wages and pay higher to attract labour into the positions that they're trying to fill.

      And so wouldn't that same principle apply when the gov­ern­ment is trying to address and solve the labour shortage problem: that we should increase wages for workers in order to attract them into these jobs?

      And the wage that the prov­incial gov­ern­ment con­trols is the minimum wage. So if we're trying to address the labour shortage in Manitoba, wouldn't the minister follow the same principle that the private sector is taking to solve the problem by increasing the minimum wage to address the labour shortage we're facing?

Mr. Cullen: A couple of things that I do want to point out in respect–again, these are 2019 statistics. Manitoba actually, at the 5.6 per cent rate of minimum wage earners in comparison to across the country. The country was at 10.4 per cent, so almost double the rate across the country versus where we are in Manitoba in respect of those making minimum wage. I think that's im­por­tant to note. And I would suggest that our people here in Manitoba making minimum wage are probably lower now than they were then, given the demand for labour and the fact that employers are having to pay more to attract employees and to keep employees.

      Just a little more on the–on this sector here, it appears that, you know, minimum wage can occur across all industry sectors, but it would appear that the retail trade, the ac­com­moda­tion and food services would tend to be the most common sectors where minimum wage employees occur. So I just wanted to pass that on for the member.

      Going back to 2018, and the report said 33 per cent of minimum wage earners in the country worked in retail trade and 26 per cent in ac­com­moda­tion and food services. I would expect those trends are probably similar and probably similar for Manitoba as well.

      I think the other thing to bring to bear here, when we do the Manitoba labour market outlook report, and this was for the '21-25 period, we were expecting over 140,000 job openings over the next five years and figuring that more than half of those jobs would require post-secondary training. So, clearly, those folks in this market will not be making minimum wage.

      And I think the other thing too, and to my point about labour demand, we have, I think, as of the 'latist'–latest report, we had the second lowest un­em­ploy­ment rate in the country.

      So, clearly, there's a demand for labour here in Manitoba, and I would expect, as a result of that, Manitoba busi­nesses are being forced to pay more for employees. I think the last report had us at 5 per cent un­em­ploy­ment rate, again, second lowest in the coun­try from–if memory serves me correctly.

Mr. Moses: So the minister doesn't clearly see, I sup­pose, how increasing minimum wage would perhaps have a positive impact to addressing the labour shortage as, I suppose, given his response.

      But the point I want to address in this question is the fact that, by the minister's own admission, the private sector is increasing their wage in order to attract more labour into those positions. So we know that there are some positions, spe­cific­ally, you know, higher positions, above minimum wage, with those wages are increasing, by the minister's own admission and statement today. So those wages are increasing. And yet, the people at the bottom who are earning minimum wage have seen very little increase in their wage.

      And so the policy the minister has of not in­creasing the minimum wage to keep up with the rate–wage increase we're seeing in the private sector means we're going to see a wider gap in income inequality in Manitoba. This is the policy that we're currently see­ing in this gov­ern­ment, and so I want to address this with the minister. That income inequality gap that is continuing to increase, how is the minister justify that, and why doesn't he increase the minimum wage to close that gap?

* (10:20)

Mr. Cullen: Well, I think the member's making a lot of assumptions here, unless he has material to justify his comments here this morning. And quite frankly, if he does, I would love to see those numbers because that's exactly the type of infor­ma­tion that we're trying to ascertain, as well.

      Again, we're referencing infor­ma­tion that's a couple years old, and we're looking–trying to drill down to get some relevant infor­ma­tion, in respect of more timely infor­ma­tion. So, if the member has that type of infor­ma­tion, I would love to see it.

      I would suggest the demand itself is creating an increase in wages, and I would think that's–that would pertain to the minimum wage category which, I'm sure, is much less than the 5 per cent–5.6 per cent that was referenced some time ago. So, I think the market­place on its own is driving up minimum wage, and that's why we're curious to try to get some up-to-date infor­ma­tion.

      To the member's question: I did admit we are taking this seriously, and we are looking at our mini­mum wage, what can be done and what other juris­dic­tions are doing. I think the member–I don't know if he's had the op­por­tun­ity to review legis­lation that was brought in about six years ago that, quite frankly, does tie our hands to some degree in terms of increasing minimum wage, so it was a cost-of-living provision in that legis­lation. And, obviously, that's some­thing that we're having a look at, the existing legis­lation, what could be done to, you know, potentially make in­creases or at least have a look at it.

      The industry has told me, the employee side–employers side, pardon me–would certainly like to be consulted on this as we go forward. So, any move­ments we do, we would certainly invite con­sul­ta­tion from Manitobans on this, and really look forward to having that discussion.

Mr. Moses: Well, we know that minimum wage is well below the poverty line in Manitoba, regardless of our cost of living. It's absolutely well below our poverty line.

      Many other juris­dic­tions in our country are moving up to the $15-an-hour minimum wage, and in many cases, that $15-an-hour minimum wage still wouldn't put people up to–above the poverty line or into a living‑wage category.

      And so, the minister's been saying this 5.6 per cent are making minimum wage, and–without data, you know, suggesting that it's less than that. I don't know if there's evidence to suggest that it's really less than that. But irregardless, the minimum wage at 5.6 per cent is below the poverty line, below that $15, and so, everyone else who is making $12, $13, $14 is still below the poverty line. Increasing the minimum wage up doesn't just affect the 5.6 per cent who are making minimum wage; it affects all the other people who are making just above it, and are still below the poverty line, and are still not at a living wage.

      So, the minister has to realize it affects far more than this 5.6 per cent. I want to know if the minister can acknowl­edge that, and if he can provide any num­bers to say how many people are working full time and are still living below the poverty line?

Mr. Cullen: Obviously, we're into some–clearly, gov­­ern­­ment policy discussions, when it comes to esta­blish­ing a living wage and wages that would meet the poverty line. And that's some of the work that we are under­taking across gov­ern­ment to see what other juris­­dic­tions are doing and how our legis­lation works and how the–what the implications would be to making increases.

      In terms of the direct question about poverty line and em­ploy­ment, I mean, that's probably some infor­ma­tion that the De­part­ment of Families may be able to provide the member. So when the Minister responsi­ble for Families comes up, that might be a question to direct to Families.

      The one thing that we have found–this is pre-pandemic versus where we find ourselves this February. So over the course of two years, February to February, we have found that the average weekly earnings have gone up 10 per cent in Manitoba.

      So I can't say for sure that that would be reflective of those making minimum wage, but I would suggest that that correlation may certainly be in place. So I think that's a signal, as we are rebounding from the COVID era, again, the demand for labour and short supply of labour are clearly driving salaries up, and I would expect that would be the same thing for minimum wage earners.

      I think the other thing, too, that the members opposite quite often forget is the basic personal exemp­tion when it comes to income tax; some­thing that I know the previous gov­ern­ment had no interest in raising the basic personal exemption, so those making fairly low income were subject to taxation early on.

      And we as a gov­ern­ment have decided that that's not fair, that we should be at least indexing the tax brackets to at least the minimum increase in consumer price index. So we've done that year after year, and that has taken tens of thousands of Manitobans–low-income Manitobans–off the tax rolls completely.

      So, again, it goes back to my comment about life being more affordable in Manitoba than anywhere else in the country. We're taking those measures to make sure that we're addressing those affordability issues that Manitobans are facing.

* (10:30)

      Clearly, now more than ever, with inflation and hyperinflation and increase in food costs and gas tax, that's why we think it's so critical to provide as much assist­ance to Manitobans as possible. And indexing the tax brackets for income tax is certainly critical. We know we have more work to do, but at least we're certainly headed in the right direction on that front.

      And speaking of assist­ance to Manitobans, we're happy that the op­posi­tion finally came onside yester­day and supported our–probably the biggest tax rebate in Manitoba history to property owners in respect of the edu­ca­tion property tax. That is probably–that will put $350 million into the hands of Manitobans over the course of the next several months.

      So, this is much-needed tax relief when it comes to Manitobans, especially in this time of higher costs of living. So we're excited about that; I'm just glad the op­posi­tion finally decided to agree with our stance on that and provide those rebates back to property own­ers. And not only property owners, but those that are renting, as well. A sig­ni­fi­cant new policy shift to renters who may be on the lower income spectrum, and I think very sup­port­ive of that as well. So, I would view that as a step in the right direction, and a $350‑million assist­ance to Manitobans, I think, is going to be quite timely.

Mr. Moses: I'm disappointed that the minister's–begin­ning of his comments couldn't provide any per­spective and referred this to the Minister of Families (Ms. Squires). I know that predecessor had taken an approach and use terms like whole-of-gov­ern­ment approach to solving problems.

      So, I'm really disappointed that now, it seems that we're back into these silos where the minister can't reference things that are, you know, even significantly related to his De­part­ment of Economic Dev­elop­ment, but are tangentially also related to a de­part­ment like Families, and the minister won't respond to a question about how minimum wage and the impacts of in­creasing it to up to $15, for example, would have a sig­ni­fi­cant increase in impact on the economy for people who make above minimum wage but not up to a minimum wage, like $12, $13, $14. And so it's disappointing the minister won't even make a com­ment, and the gov­ern­ment is still so siloed with some of its operations.

      But I think the question I want to ask around minimum wage is that it's clear the studies have shown the higher minimum wage is–higher wages–means more money put back into the economy through spending, right, and I think that's some­thing that we would, you know, want to see. And especially true with the lower income folks, because they use that as disposable income instead of saving it like wealthier Manitobans.

      So, can the minister explain what sort of eco­no­mic impact and benefit we could see from raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would have on, as the minister said, the 31,000 minimum wage workers in Manitoba?

      And, as well, Mr.–yes–

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able member for St. Vital (Mr. Moses), to continue.

Mr. Moses: And that 31,000 number that the minister said is only the people earning minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage would have, undoubtedly, an impact on all the wages in between, so it would be a much larger number than the 31,000 if we were to raise it up to $15 an hour.

      Can the minister explain what all that extra dis­posable income going into our economy would mean for the busi­nesses in Manitoba?

Mr. Cullen: To the member's question, we actually are taking a whole-of-gov­ern­ment approach to this, and we did have a wholesome discussion about minimum wage and impacts to Manitobans. So we are taking a whole-of-gov­ern­ment approach to this.

      I certainly don't have the figures in front of me in respect of his question, and–I would–I'm just trying to expedite a solution for him and an avenue to address it expeditiously.

      But I will say, we are taking a whole-of-gov­ern­ment approach to looking at minimum wage, the im­pacts to Manitobans; the impacts to the economy; certainly, what it needs in respect of what other juris­dic­tions are doing as well. So the work is certainly under way on that front.

      In terms of, you know, the member's questioning, that would be a huge under­taking, because there would have to be a lot of different assumptions made in terms of the impact of raising minimum wage. I don't know if anyone has done that in the country; that's some­thing that we'll try to ascertain if that work has been done with gov­ern­ments or with any con­sulting organi­zations. But that's some of the–that's the work we're prepared to engage in.

      Now, I recog­nize the previous gov­ern­ment was all about how do we make sure Manitobans are making more money so that we can tax them. That was the tax-and-spend mentality of the previous gov­ern­ment, and in respect of the previous gov­ern­ment not indexing the basic personal exemption when it comes to income tax, not indexing the brackets in respect of income tax, taking more money from the lower-income Manitobans, and we've taken a dif­ferent approach.

      Our approach is to give as many low-income Manitobans assist­ance. We've taken tens of thousands of low-income Manitobans off of the income tax roll completely, whereas the NDP chose to ignore that. So we're provi­ding assist­ance there.

      We have provided ad­di­tional increases, too, to different sectors including child-care workers and those in the CLDS sector, as well, recog­nizing support for them.

      The other thing is, we're working with the federal gov­ern­ment in terms of enhancing child care, provi­ding $10-a-day child care for those Manitobans making lower incomes. We're going to be expanding the child-care subsidy to thousands of low-income Manitobans, which will certainly help those low-income Manitobans.

      In terms of some of the other benefits, we've pro­vided increased shelter benefits to low-income Manitobans, Rent Assist, EI. Rent Assist has been indexed and, you know, $12 million for new income support programs for people with long-term dis­abil­ities.

      So we are taking measures to assist those on low-income families. And probably the single biggest thing that we did as a gov­ern­ment was to reduce the prov­incial sales tax, when the op­posi­tion–NDP gov­ern­ment at the time–increased the prov­incial sales tax. That had an impact of–to Manitobans of over $300 million, and probably the most affected by that were some of the low-income Manitobans.

      So we've reduced the prov­incial sales tax. Today it would probably be in excess of $350 million we're saving Manitobans each and every year, and, again, the low-income Manitobans would be the–probably the most impacted by the reduction in the prov­incial sales tax.

      And, in addition to that, we've also taken the prov­incial sales tax off of a number of goods and services, which, again, will impact low-income Manitobans quite sub­stan­tially.

* (10:40)

      So we recog­nize the challenges those on low incomes face. At the same time, we are looking at the implications of raising the minimum wage, as well.

Mr. Moses: I think the minister's last comments kind of show a little bit how out of touch he is with Manitobans because some of the items that the gov­ern­ment has taken the tax off, the PST off, are not the items that an average low-income Manitoban will spend money on: expensive haircuts, for example. These aren't the costs–average, everyday costs that a low-income Manitoban earning minimum wage or there­abouts might choose or be able to spend their money on. You know, so I think it really shows how out of touch the minister is with the lived reality of some Manitobans.

      But just to talk a little bit–just to, you know–I want to get the minister's thoughts on what, you know, raising that minimum wage up to $15 would really mean. And, I mean, just even rough numbers or–minimum wage in Manitoba is just a shade under $12 an hour right now. If you were a minimum wage 'werner' working 40 hours a week, and you worked 50 weeks a year, Minister–the minister ought to know that that $3-an-hour wage for 31,000 people would be about an extra $186 million flowing through our eco­nomy; that that would go a long way to boost the dis­posable income for folks. That would benefit some of those same retail sectors where minimum wage work­ers are working.

      And so, this has a benefit for the minimum wage workers; it has a benefit for the retail sector where there's greater disposable income flowing through our economy.

      And so, I want to know what the minister really objects to raising the minimum wage, which would benefit low-income Manitobans and boost our eco­nomy in a time when we need it.

Mr. Cullen: I didn't say I was opposed to increasing the minimum wage, so I just caution the member oppo­site on that. I'm saying we're taking a whole-of-gov­ern­ment approach to evaluating the implications of the–increasing the minimum wage. We've always been a gov­ern­ment that consults on issues in respect of minimum wage and other policy-type issues with Manitobans, and we will continue to do that.

      And our gov­ern­ment certainly has rolled back prov­incial sales tax, and we have taken prov­incial sales tax off of a number of–besides haircuts, I mean, everybody–most people will be getting haircuts. Preparing wills, any type of insurance or tenants' in­surance you want, personal income tax returns. Vehicle registration fees have been reduced, eliminated probate fees as well.

      In fact, our gov­ern­ment has provided $886 million in tax savings since 2016. That includes $607 million to families and individuals, another 279 to Manitoba busi­nesses, so that Manitoba busi­nesses can employ Manitobans.

      We made a commit­ment of a 2020 tax rollback, and in fact, we've gone above and beyond that. We have provided the average Manitoban with an average of $2,400 in tax savings. That's an average of $4,000 for tax savings per household.

      So, we're taking a lot of measures to make sure that we leave as much money in Manitobans' pockets as possible. We know the previous gov­ern­ment and their ideology in terms of taxing Manitobans as much as they can, and we've taken a different approach to that.

      Mr. Chair, we certainly are investing in Manitobans. We've committed in this year's budget over $100 million for the–training and upskilling Manitobans. We have delivered em­ploy­ment and train­ing services to over 27,000 Manitoba job seek­ers to assist them. We've supported 15,000 Manitobans with em­ploy­ment and training services through 13  of  our Manitoba job, skill and developmental centres  across the province. We've supported 7,500 Indigenous job seekers, and more than 7,800 new­comer job seekers were also supported through some of our programs over the past year.

      We've committed to working with Manitobans to make sure they have the skills that the market is de­manding today and the skills that the market will be demanding into the near future. So that's why we're excited about this year's budget. We're excited about the money that we've allocated in this de­part­ment to assist Manitobans to get to work and to move on and move up in their labour market.

      So I would say we've taken a whole-of-gov­ern­ment approach on this. We will continue to take a whole-of-gov­ern­ment approach when it comes to the issue of minimum wage.

Mr. Moses: I just want to say that I think it's–again, it's completely out of touch for the minister, and quite frankly, outrageous, to think that a low-income Manitoban who maybe doesn't even own a home would benefit from a tax decrease on probate fees. Or, you know, can barely put food on their table but would benefit from tax break on an expensive haircut. I mean, this is just this gov­ern­ment telling on itself saying that it doesn't understand the challenges that low-income Manitobans really face.

      But I'll move on away from the minimum wage de­bate, Mr. Speaker, and–deputy–Mr. Speaker? Deputy Speaker? [interjection] Deputy Speaker, thank you. [interjection] Chair. Mr. Chair. Thank you.

      And I want to just ask about the Communities Economic Dev­elop­ment Fund. Since 2017, March, it's been under a busi­ness loan moratorium, meaning no 'lew'–new loans have been approved for busi­nesses since then.

      Can the minister explain why? Clearly, during the last few years of COVID that there's been a need for busi­ness loans to benefit the economy in the North, and it seems that the Com­mu­nities Economic Develop­ment Fund clearly has a role to play. But it's, under this gov­ern­ment, not done so, in provi­ding busi­ness loans for busi­nesses outside of the fishery industry.

      So, why is this the case, and will the minister lift the loan moratorium for non-fishing-industry busi­nesses from the CEDF?

* (10:50)

Mr. Cullen: So, in terms of the Com­mu­nities Economic Dev­elop­ment Fund, that organi­zation is working directly with northern busi­nesses and com­mu­nities. They are respon­si­ble for programs and services that would provide op­por­tun­ities for busi­ness dev­elop­ment and growth to companies and individ­uals in northern Manitoba. The loan component of what they did was only one aspect of the economic dev­elop­ment work that the cor­por­ation has done in the past and, quite frankly, continues to do, into the future.

      The member is correct. CEDF does continue the loan program, financing program, for the fishing industry and com­mercial fishing industry. I think, as of December '21, there was 251 loans, for over $1.8 million were–have been disbursed, so obviously, an im­por­tant component to the com­mercial fishing sector.

      I will say, even though the Com­mu­nities Economic Dev­elop­ment Fund is still working closely with com­mu­nities in northern Manitoba, we have created another de­part­ment to deal spe­cific­ally with northern resources and northern dev­elop­ment, and we're excited about the work that de­part­ment is doing. So that de­part­ment will be working closely with CEDF over the–over time. Certainly, my de­part­ment will be working closely with that de­part­ment and CEDF, as well, to see what op­por­tun­ities exist.

      Certainly, access to capital has been a topic of con­ver­sa­tion in Manitoba for quite some time. There is, obviously, lots of–plenty of other lenders in Manitoba that are willing to find–fill this space, and I think that's an im­por­tant role for CEDF, is to work with the busi­ness com­mu­nity in northern Manitoba, work with the other lenders that are willing to fill the space and, you know, provide that type of financing.

      In the broader terms, we've created the economic dev­elop­ment com­mit­tee of Cabinet, and Economic Development Board to look at economic dev­elop­ment op­por­tun­ities, and we're excited about that. And part of that is to–how do we attract invest­ment and make sure that Manitoba busi­nesses have the capital that they need.

      So we've enhanced our tax–small busi­ness ven­ture tax credit program, we've made that permanent to assist Manitoba busi­nesses. And I can say that, over the course of the last few months in meeting with Manitoba busi­nesses, they've been quite excited about that parti­cular tax credit, and a number of busi­nesses have indicated their ability to grow because of that fund. And that allows individual Manitobans to invest in small busi­ness companies here in Manitoba.

      So it's a very–been a very suc­cess­ful program; that's why we've made that tax credit permanent. And we've also made it permanent and the ability for that tax credit to be applicable to the new venture capital fund that we are in the process of esta­blish­ing. And we have set aside the initial $50 million for the ven­ture capital fund to leverage ad­di­tional funding from the sector to provide input and capital for Manitoba busi­nesses. So we're excited about having that par­ticular fund, and fund of funds operational this fall. And that will provide ad­di­tional opportunities for Manitoba busi­nesses, including Manitoba busi­nesses in northern Manitoba.

Mr. Moses: So the minister referenced the $1.8 million this year from CEDF. In 2016, that was $3.1 million. So can the minister explain why there's this drop in funding for fisheries approvals?

      In addition, fishers–the fishing industry, as the minis­ter, I'm sure, knows, is a seasonal industry, but yet, the interest accrued on those loans is all year round.

      Is the minister interested in looking at the idea of matching that to the seasonal nature of the industry, where if they're only getting their income during one time of year and making payments, but, you know, they're in–accruing interest all year round–is the minister interested in matching that to the seasonal nature of that industry?

* (11:00)

Mr. Cullen: Well, I think the upside of having CEDF located in northern Manitoba–they do provide those services to the northern busi­ness com­mu­nity and they understand the northern busi­ness com­mu­nity.

      And they do work closely with the individual busi­ness there and the individuals in northern Manitoba. And they them­selves will set policies around lending, and I–it's not all that different than our Manitoba Agri­cul­tural Credit Cor­por­ation, who pro­vide loans to Manitoba farmers and the Manitoba farm business.

      Again, Manitoba farmers, similar to the fishing industry–a lot of them are on a seasonal basis and quite often only receive their income at one time through­­out the year.

      So that's the advantage of having experts under­standing those respective busi­nesses. And certainly ap­pre­ciate the good work that the people at CEDF are doing in working with Manitobans in northern Manitoba, because they do understand the issues there.

      And again, very same situation at MACC. Those individuals know the agri­cul­tural industry, the agri­cul­ture sector. That's why we have experts setting policy as it pertains to the agri­cul­ture sector, and it seems to have worked out quite well.

      So, excited about having the experts with the right expertise dealing with local issues, local com­mu­nities. And really under­standing the implications of those individual busi­nesses–whether they be in northern Manitoba or whether they be in rural–in the farming area of Manitoba.

Mr. Moses: It's become even more evident than it was before, the need to, you know, provide op­por­tun­ity for women in busi­ness.

      Through­out the course of the pandemic, with the many struggles that, you know, busi­ness owners have had, women in cor­por­ate world have had during the course of the pandemic, 'hadding' the extra burden of many child-care issues on top of their respon­si­bilities in–to, you know, run a busi­ness, be an entrepreneur, or perhaps, you know, try to climb the cor­por­ate ladder, as it were.

      And so as a result, you know, we want to make sure that women feel very comfortable in the culture–in the busi­ness culture in the com­mu­nity, make sure that they're welcomed in busi­ness circles.

      So I bring up the issue–this issue as a result of the comments last week that the minister made. In front of a busi­ness forum, I think that many women–many men as well, and any gender of person–might have felt insulted by and, you know, not welcomed by those comments. I won't repeat the comments today, you know, but I know the minister knows what I'm re­ferring to, the specific words.

      And I want to know what the minister feels like, and whether he feels like these sorts of comments welcome women into the busi­ness world, wel­come  them into our economy, and what he says to those as the leader, as the Minister of our Economic Development, in–of a leader of our economy in Manitoba.

Mr. Chairperson: Just before I acknowl­edge the minister, it seems to be my microphone is really hot and right on the edge of feedback. Is there a way to turn that down just a little bit so that we're not running that risk? [interjection] No. [interjection]

      I can speak up, yes. I'll speak a little louder, but that, I think, exacerbates that potential. I'll leave that with the tech people. Just a comment or an ob­ser­va­tion.

Mr. Cullen: Yes, obviously, we're interested in getting Manitoba women into the workforce and be­coming busi­ness owners as well. So in terms of where we're at now, sort of post-pandemic, the female un­em­ploy­ment rate in Manitoba is 4.8 per cent. And that is right alongside where we were pre-pandemic, so it's certainly encouraging to see Manitoba females getting back engaged in the workforce. This compares to the Canadian average of 5.1 per cent. So we're certainly ahead of the national average there in terms of having females employed.

      And, again, second lowest un­em­ploy­ment rate in the country, so we're encouraged about Manitobans getting back to work. And we know there's tre­men­dous op­por­tun­ities in the work­place here in Manitoba. Busi­ness com­mu­nity has told us that they need labour. And they're actively looking for labour, and I would say they're also–been telling us that they're prepared to pay for that labour. So I think this is a really great op­por­tun­ity for everyone in Manitoba to get to work, including females. Probably no better time in our his­tory than with all these op­por­tun­ities that exist for us.

      I remember meeting recently and going back even several years with the Women's Enterprise Centre. Certainly excited about the work they're doing in terms of having women involved in the workforce, and I think there's an op­por­tun­ity for us to work even more closely with them in the coming months to see what kind of op­por­tun­ities exist there and how we can help facilitate some of those discussions. And there may be some op­por­tun­ities within our de­part­ment to make that happen.

      Our gov­ern­ment has recog­nized the importance of child care when it comes to having women em­ployed, and that's why we've been working closely with our federal gov­ern­ment in terms of the $10-a-day child care.

* (11:10)

      Again, that will be available for Manitobans, especially those on lower incomes. We'll be ex­panding the child-care subsidy to thousands of other Manitobans. And I think this really provides the net­work and the op­por­tun­ity for child care, to allow all Manitoba families to engage in the workforce.

      So, as this whole plan unfolds and rolls out over the next while, we're again excited about getting even more Manitobans back into the workforce because there is so many op­por­tun­ities for people to work here in Manitoba.

Mr. Moses: I've spoken with, you know, many people over the last few days who heard the minister's insulting comments towards women at the busi­ness forum last week, and they were, too–felt hurt by it and felt like it was a sign and a signal that the busi­ness com­mu­nity isn't really for women, that the minister's clearly using his position, ought to recog­nize that in his position the words he says is a signal for the priorities and the words of the gov­ern­ment and what the greater, larger busi­ness com­mu­nity is working towards.

      So when the minister makes comments that might insult women or denigrate women, I think it's to show–I think it will undoubtedly have a negative impact on women's likelihood and incentivization to pursue the busi­ness industry or become entrepreneurs or make invest­ments in Manitoba.

      So what does the minister–what sort of actions are the minister going to take in light of his comments to ensure that women are–feel welcome in our busi­ness com­mu­nity? Will the minister take any sensitivity training?

Mr. Cullen: I think I've been very straight­for­ward in terms of my apologies, in terms of my remarks last week at the Busi­ness Council. I extended that to the members of the Busi­ness Council, all members of the House, all Manitobans. So–unequivocal apologizing for that. Our gov­ern­ment and I go back to my earlier comments. We're trying to do every­thing we can to allow Manitobans–women and females to become engaged in the busi­ness com­mu­nity here in Manitoba. We're more than happy to have the dialogue with Manitobans how that happens. So many op­por­tun­ities here, but I would say now, more than ever, our gov­ern­ment is trying to create the environ­ment to allow all Manitobans to partici­pate in our economy, and just more op­por­tun­ities than ever before.

      You know, I would say last week we had a great op­por­tun­ity to have a discussion about op­por­tun­ities in Manitoba with the Busi­ness Council. The Busi­ness Council is–has similar aspirations as we do. How do we provide invest­ments here in Manitoba? How do we create sustainable em­ploy­ment here in Manitoba? How do we create sus­tain­able growth in Manitoba, and how do we work with the private sector to develop op­por­tun­ities for Manitobans? And how do we work with our post-secondary partners to make sure that Manitobans are engaged in the workforce?

      We are committed to strengthen the economy here. We are investing in the economy. We want to build the future of Manitobans. That's what Manitobans have asked us to do. And we will continue to work with the busi­ness com­mu­nity, in fact all Manitobans, to make sure we're provi­ding as many op­­por­­tun­ities for Manitobans as possible. Whether that be the Busi­ness Council, whether that be the Manitoba chambers, the Winnipeg chambers, other partners that we're working with, whether it be Economic Dev­elop­ment Winnipeg, CEDF, rural Manitoba economic dev­elop­ment, World Trade Centre, Women's Enterprise Centre, we're certainly prepared to work with all those organi­zations to make sure there's–those op­por­tun­ities are provided for Manitobans.

      We certainly have set aside, again, $100 million in this year's budget to provide training and upskilling of services for the Manitoba labour market. And we want to make sure that those Manitobans have those op­por­tun­ities to move up in the labour market. And we're trying to create, through positive attacks, com­petitive strategies, that will provide Manitoba busi­nesses the op­por­tun­ity to grow. When Manitoba busi­nesses grow, that provides op­por­tun­ities for Manitobans.

      The reality is the more productive and enhanced economic activity we have in Manitoba, the more money we have for the social services that Manitobans have come to expect. Such things as our record invest­ment in health care of $7.2 billion, our record invest­ments in K‑to‑12 edu­ca­tion, this year over $3 billion, and our invest­ments in post-secondary, and our record invest­ments in families and social services, all of those things that Manitobans have come to expect. And the only way we pay for those social services is to have Manitobans working and have a robust economy.

Mr. Moses: I know that many Manitobans were of­fend­ed by those comments. Men in busi­ness were offended; women in busi­ness were offended; and gender-diverse folks in Manitoba were offended by those comments. And it creates an environ­ment in our Manitoba economy where women feel like it's maybe not their place to be involved. When the minister and the person in charge of stimulating our economy is making those comments it feels like it gives a green light for other leaders in our economy to make those types of comments that would offend and denigrate women.

      Sensitivity training would go a long way to edu­cate and enlighten the minister about the things that are, perhaps, ap­pro­priate and not appropriate to say. And so I'll give the minister another chance to answer the question.

      Will the minister agree to take sensitivity training?

Mr. Cullen: Well, in respect of the member's ques­tions, you know, apologies have been expressed to the Busi­ness Council, to all Manitobans, and I'll say that our gov­ern­ment is committed to working with all Manitobans in terms of the op­por­tun­ities that exist in Manitoba.

* (11:20)

      Just this past year, we invested $50,000 for two initiatives that support women pursuing non-tradi­tional careers, under the expansion of the Empower program at the Manitoba Institute of Trades and Tech­no­lo­gy, to train women in the infor­ma­tion and com­muni­cations tech­no­lo­gy industries. The program includes a focus on increasing Indigenous women's repre­sen­tation. We have support of the Manitoba Construction Sector Council to promote careers for women in the heavy construction industry in part­ner­ship with the River East Transcona School Division.

      And just last August, the–our gov­ern­ment an­nounced an invest­ment of more than $600,000 to part­ner with the Manitoba Construction Sector Council to  deliver a skilled trades training initiative for Indigenous women in four northern and remote com­mu­nities. This parti­cular initiative will provide an op­por­tun­ity for Indigenous women to acquire valuable skills in a sup­port­ive environ­ment and includes on­going mentorship during training and through­out their careers.

      So, certainly, we are making invest­ments for women in the work­place, and we look forward to continuing that parti­cular work.

      I will say, you know, as we continue to spur invest­ment here in Manitoba, again, op­por­tun­ities abound for allowing people to get back to the work­place. Our $50-million venture capital fund is a really tre­men­dous op­por­tun­ity for Manitobans in the near future. Some of our tax credit policies that we have now made permanent will create more op­por­tun­ities for all Manitobans to partici­pate in the economy.

Mr. Moses: I think, you know, taking sensitivity training would not only go to help educate the minister but it would also set a really good example that leaders in our busi­ness com­mu­nity who make mistakes can learn and get better.

      And by the minister–if the minister showed willingness to take sensitive 'tivity' training, I think it would go a long way to encourage other leaders to do the same and improve on them­selves and make the busi­ness com­mu­nity in Manitoba a more welcoming place, not just to men but to women and gender-diverse people, ensure that our economy is benefitting from all 'astributes' of all peoples in our–Manitoba.

      So, I've asked the minister twice about whether he's willing to take sensitivity training, and he hasn't committed to doing so, so I ask the minister, why not?

Mr. Cullen: Well, I ap­pre­ciate the line of questioning the member goes down here, and I have offered my apologies to the Busi­ness Council, to the Chamber, to the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson), to my caucus and, in fact, to all Manitobans. We, as gov­ern­ment, are continue–will continue to work with the busi­ness sector, will continue to work with all Manitobans to provide op­por­tun­ities.

Mr. Moses: So, it's clear that multiple times I've asked the minister if he's willing to take 'sensivity' training in light of his comments, and he hasn't answered me. He also hasn't answered why he's hesitant, why he's refusing to do so.

      And so, I want to ask, then, and–if that's the case, if the minister's willing–not willing to really better himself and be an example for the busi­ness com­mu­nity, especially for women, in light of his comments, then what is he actually going to do to regain the trust of women in busi­ness, gender-'divolks'–verse–gender-'divolks'-diverse people in busi­ness, what is he going to do to regain their trust? To regain their respect after his comments? And to ensure that we do have a welcoming and–busi­ness environ­ment in Manitoba?

      What is the minister going to do if he's not willing to take sensitivity training and not willing to answer why he doesn't want to take that training?

Mr. Cullen: I think we all have the op­por­tun­ity to learn by our mistakes. I've certainly recog­nized that. I've admitted that publicly. It was an error in judgment. And apologized unequivocally for those comments.

      I've had numer­ous con­ver­sa­tions with the Business Council subsequent to that. I think they are prepared that we will move on because we do have great work that we have to do here in Manitoba, in a time of great op­por­tun­ity. So, we are committed to doing that.

Mr. Moses: So, in the Estimates book on page 22, in point 9, strength, respect–Strengthen Respect in our Workplaces, there's a new performance measure which is: 9.a, achieve an annual target percentage of de­part­­ment employees who have completed man­datory respectful work­place training; new measure, with a target of 90 per cent.

      Will the minister himself take this training?

Mr. Cullen: I will say, our gov­ern­ment is working to enhance the respect in workplaces. I know the pre­vious gov­ern­ment had some issues there, and we recog­nize the challenges that the previous gov­ern­ment had faced, so we've taken some proactive measures to enhance the respect in work­place.

      Further in our Estimates book, we talk about equity and diversity benchmarks, as well. And this de­part­ment, we'd set a benchmark of having 50 per cent women employed; and as of this February, we had–79  per  cent of the employees in Economic Development, Invest­ment and Trade were female.

* (11:30)

Mr. Moses: I will have to ask the minister again, I don't–maybe he didn't understand the question or didn't hear it because he clearly didn't provide a response to my specific question about an initiative in his own Estimates book, performance measure, that–a new goal to achieve an annual target percentage of de­part­ment employees who have completed man­datory respectful work­place training.

      I would like to know if the minister, in light of his comments–insensitive comments–toward women last week, if he himself is going to be taking this training, which he has a goal of 90 per cent of the de­part­ment achieving.

Mr. Cullen: I–from going by memory, I believe I did take this course at one point in time, but I'm probably due to take that course again, and I will endeavour to under­take that.

Mr. Moses: So, of course, you know, if you've taken a training before, a refresher is always needed. And I think, in light of the comments, I'm glad to hear that the minister is planning on taking this work­place–respect-in-work training, which I think would go to signal that we need to increase and improve the culture of welcoming women, gender-diverse people into our busi­ness com­mu­nity, at all levels of our busi­ness com­mu­nity.

      And so I'm glad to hear that the minister is planning to take this training, and I look forward to the next op­por­tun­ity–perhaps in Estimates, next op­por­tun­ity we have, next year–to follow up, to ensure that this training was done. As a leader in our com­mu­nity, in the busi­ness com­mu­nity, in the economic dev­elop­ment world in Manitoba, has taken the training to hopefully encourage other people to take similar respectful work­place training in Manitoba. So I'm glad that the minister is going to be now doing that in light of his insensitive comments towards women.

      I'll move over to talk a little bit about some of the budget cuts that we've 'seheen'–and while the minister might quibble with word cuts, as he's done in the past, I respect that.

      But I will ask the minister, can he provide an explanation why funding for industry programs and part­ner­ships has decreased from $55.5 million in 2021-22 down to $42.7 million in 2022-23?

Mr. Cullen: Thanks for the member for raising this im­por­tant question and it does give me an op­por­tun­ity to clarify this budget line item.

      This budget line item is directly related to COVID‑19 assist­ance. So the member may know the federal gov­ern­ment provided one‑time funding over the course of two years for COVID‑19 economic re­covery efforts.

      So this funding was used to suc­cess­fully support time-limited em­ploy­ment and training initiative for workers' and employers' impacted sectors. So, the $47 million was over two budget years; the last budget year was–reflected approximately $16 million of that. So again, we'll say for reference, approximately $16 million was used from the federal transfer to support busi­nesses in Manitoba.

      That federal support is no longer available in this fiscal year, so that is why you are seeing that net reduction of approximately $16 million on that parti­cular budget line.

Mr. Moses: So, in the years prior to the COVID‑19 pandemic, the amount for industry program and part­ner­ship was still higher. And so this is a decrease that's obviously not just related to the pandemic because prior to the pandemic, in the budget year before that, the amount was higher.

      So, can the minister explain the decrease from even pre-pandemic levels of this budget line?

Mr. Cullen: Certainly recog­nizing that we've had a change in de­part­ments and change in structure of de­part­ments, and I'm not sure what docu­men­ta­tion the member is referencing. If the member could provide us a copy of the docu­men­ta­tion that he's referencing–obviously, that sounds like it's going back pre-pandemic; so, a number of years.

      It would take us some time to deter­mine exactly what line item he is referencing. Again, given the fact that we've had different de­part­ments, different budget items in terms of supporting busi­ness, again, this one item, when we call it financial assist­ance, we want to make sure we're comparing apples to apples.

      So if the member has a certain docu­ment that he's referencing for us to do the homework on that and ascertain the answer to his question, it would be very helpful if he would provide that docu­men­ta­tion to us.

Mr. Moses: Sure, I can table this now, from the 2020-2021 budget–

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The tech has just died on me here. I just–I know the member always wants to stick within the time limits and suddenly our timer has died, so–oh, there we go. We're back. We'll just reset things here.

* (11:40)

      Okay, the time has not changed, but the timer is now back in order.

An Honourable Member: So this is tabled from the 2020-2021 annual report where the esti­mated amount for the industry programs part­ner­ship was budgeted at 50–approximately $56 million, so that was set before the COVID‑19 pandemic hit. And so I'm wondering why now we're seeing the cuts from this program.

      In addition–

Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, when you pause, they turn the mic off, so I have to recog­nize you again. If you'd like to continue in your question, you certainly have four-plus minutes on the clock. You're welcome to ask–[interjection]–okay, the hon­our­able member for St. Vital (Mr. Moses), go ahead.

Mr. Moses: So, I've asked the minister about why there is that decrease in the number for industry, programs and part­ner­ship from the year prior to the pandemic to what we're seeing now.

      My also–my ad­di­tional question is, in the tabled docu­ment from the annual report, there seems to be a math error in the esti­mated line where they esti­mate at 2020-2021, when it tables out the amounts or salaries, em­ploy­ment, other expenditures, financial assist­ance, grant assist­ance and other expenditures recovery, the total amount, if you add those lines individually, is not the total of $56.381 million. It would amount to a higher amount; it just doesn't add up, literally.

      So I would like the minister to clarify, are one of these individual numbers correct or perhaps is that total incorrect?

Mr. Cullen: Yes, that does appear to be an error in the 2021 annual report there, for sure.

      In terms of the actual, the $37 million, that piece is reflective of the federal gov­ern­ment support, so hope­fully, that helps clarify that parti­cular line.

Mr. Moses: So, clarifying that the minister said that the Grant Assist­ance line should be updated to account for federal gov­ern­ment support? The minis­ter's just saying that that line, it's–

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able member for St. Vital (Mr. Moses), to continue the question.

Mr. Moses: Is the minister saying the grant assist­ant line of $37 million, approximately, is correct and then the total, and the total–and the–where it says subtotal ap­pro­priations, should be higher, about approximately $75 million?

      And then, as a result, as a course of the pandemic, you know, that amount, you know, actual number differed, and then now the budgeted line is $42.7 million in the current budget.

      So I just want to clarify what the error is, whether the subtotal should be higher or whether this Grant Assist­ance line is incorrect.

* (11:50)

Mr. Cullen: Yes, just trying to work through a pro­cess here and timing on how these figures were arrived at. It certainly appears in the report, though, the sub–the total subappropriation of $56 million is an error. That's the way we see it.

      The–and, again, the estimates column is an esti­mate, and that was based on what the de­part­ment would have a best guess and what–and the federal transfer would look like for COVID support. So those are the best guess numbers I would say in terms of the esti­mate line.

      I think probably the reality is to focus on the actuals, what numbers were spent. From what we can tell, those numbers that are reported in the actual cate­gory are correct.

      Hopefully that helps clarify for the member.

Mr. Moses: So, clarifying that that subtotal ap­pro­priation should be higher, adding the numbers up, I have seventy-five million, two hundred eight. If I add those up, just the numbers there, right? That means that if that's your esti­mation in the 2020-2021, which would have been set, you know, before the pandemic, now, we're looking at an esti­mate on this year's of $42,692,000. That's a sig­ni­fi­cant cut. That's a cut of $32.5 million from a budget that was set pre-COVID to one now. That's a massive drop.

      And so I'd like the minister to explain what accounts for this massive change in funding for Industry Programs & Part­ner­ships.

Mr. Cullen: So, I think what the member is com­paring, if he looks at the current Esti­mates book, is the $80 million set aside last year versus the $67 million this year, repre­sen­ting a $13-million decrease.

      And again, most of that is applicable to the re­duction in the gov­ern­ment–federal gov­ern­ment sup­port programs for COVID, because we no longer–and this year, we'll be receiving–to our knowledge–federal COVID support for pro­gram­ming in Manitoba.

      As a result, that's why you'll see the decrease in expense revenue for this broad subap­pro­priation.

Mr. Moses: I want to thank the minister for answering my questions today. I'll provide some time for the member for St. Boniface to ask some questions.

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able member for St. Vital (Mr. Moses).

      I'm sorry. The hon­our­able member for St. Boniface.

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): Thank you, I was flattered there for a moment.

      Yes, thank you very much, It's nice to have an op­por­tun­ity to ask some questions.

      And I do really just want to focus on the–as much as possible, on the Estimates and just get some back­ground on some of–just some follow-up on some of the proposals that have been discussed.

      So, I'll just start with the Small Busi­ness Venture Capital Tax Credit. They've got a baseline in targets. The baseline is 12 per cent, then it moves to 25 per cent.

      Just–you know, I know that there are challenges for some small busi­nesses accessing–can the minister say, you know, it's a–those seem to be low targets, but also what–explain, if possible, what the challenge has been around about subscribing to that, or what–why do we have a low partici­pation rate, of you know, 12 to 25 per cent in the small busi­ness 'venturtive' capital tax credit, if there's any accounting or ex­planation for that?

* (12:00)

Mr. Cullen: I thank the member for the question regarding this im­por­tant tax credit.

      So the targets in the book–I think it's im­por­tant I explain the targets in the book, first of all. So, when a busi­ness approaches us, they will deter­mine a level of funding that they want to be available for the tax credit. And then, once we approve that, then it is up to the company to ascertain and find that invest­ment. So what we were saying, the baseline target for, I guess now, or I guess right now we're at 12 per cent, and we want to enhance that, quite frankly. I mean, that's the whole idea of provi­ding a tax credit is to seek ad­di­tional invest­ments there.

      I can't–I don't know exactly why we're not achieving greater rates right now. That–I haven't heard that from Manitoba busi­nesses. The busi­nesses that I've been hearing from are–they're excited about the tax credit. They're now excited about the en­hance­ments where we've made this a permanent tax credit to them. And we've also made it applicable to the new venture capital fund as well. So in context, this would be the '21 tax year; 25 Manitoba busi­nesses have raised $19.1 million through this parti­cular tax credit, so that's where we're at as of 2021. Hopefully now that we've made this signal that this is a permanent tax credit, we'll attract more invest­ments for Manitoba busi­nesses.

Mr. Lamont: Thank you for that. I know there was an Innovation Growth Program, and I just wanted to follow up on that because I had a con­stit­uent who had some challenges just because it seemed to be that there were–there was a very high bar. They're actually a local manufacturer; they were all things–they're–they ended up being defined–they ended up being denied funding in part because of the–it was essentially the burden of paperwork, that it was–they were quite surprised in that they–the levels of paperwork or demands that needed to be requested.

      So I was just wondering whether there had been many challenges in terms of that or in terms of–or had there been any changes to the Innovation Growth Program just because I know that they were surprised. And I'll see if I can find the specifics of it, but it was called Prairie Velo. They build ac­ces­si­ble self-powered vehicles for people with dis­abil­ities. It's all built here, but they were having trouble accessing the fund simply because of the very high bar that was placed–they were on that.

      So I was just wondering if you had had any feedback or if there–do you–perceived any feed­back and challenges around the Innovation Growth Program just in terms of essentially obstacles or just a very high bar being set in order for people to qualify for funding.

Mr. Cullen: Thanks for raising this parti­cular ques­tion. This is a relatively new program designed for the small, medium enterprises. It looks like as–I think it's in the past year–then, we had 16 Manitoba companies approved for $727,000, so there has been some success to date.

      Clearly, from a gov­ern­ment perspective, we want to balance simplicity with–at the same time, pro­tect­ing taxpayers. So, again, this being a relatively new program, the de­part­ment has gone back one on one with the companies that were suc­cess­ful and the com­panies that were not suc­cess­ful.

      So we have recog­nized there were some chal­lenges, so the process will be stream­lined and, in the very near future, there will be new applications coming forward as well.

      So, to the member's point, point taken, and recog­nize there's some challenges and remedial action will be taken.

Mr. Lamont: And just, I have found it–I found the reference is not in terms of a question, but just for the minister's infor­ma­tion, was it–the application required proof of matching project funding, but the applicant, in this case, was provi­ding in-kind con­tri­bu­tions which were not treated by the program as matching funding.

      And the other–the major challenge was it's–the cor­por­ation's funded via share equity, have to have at least $25,000 in retained earnings. The balance sheet showed $100 in common shares and five point one thousand dollars in retained earnings. But for a–certainly for a small, I mean, for a small busi­ness, that would have been–normally, that would have been reasonable. So that was it, it was just that that was the specific obstacle.

* (12:10)

      So I–and I did see that the gov­ern­ment is bringing forward a $50‑million program for venture capital, which is excellent.

      I was just wondering just–in terms of–I know–I understand that there are a number of different re­porting entities, I was just wondering how is any–like because–it's MTA that is–was selected to deliver it. I was just trying–how was MTA selected and why MTA rather than, say, one of the other reporting entities, like one of the–an economic dev­elop­ment fund, Economic Dev­elop­ment Winnipeg or the Manitoba dev­elop­ment cor­por­ation–or the rural Manitoba economic deflow–why, why do it through MTA rather than–how was MTA selected and why do it through MTA rather than through one of these other existing organi­zations?

Mr. Cullen: Thanks for raising this im­por­tant ques­tion. We are excited about the new venture tax–or for the new venture capital fund, for sure. We're in the process of putting the bylaws around the actual fund and the mechanism itself, and that's going to take us a few months to develop.

      In the meantime, we need some advice in terms of esta­blish­ing that structure. And we set up a small group to assist us in making sure we get the structure in the bylaws correct around that parti­cular fund and that cor­por­ation, the manage­ment cor­por­ation, there. In the meantime, we have the money set aside, and given that the structure–the fund itself hasn't been esta­blished, we needed a mechanism to hold the money and then work with us in developing that structure.

      And we did look at a number of different options for that for this short period of time. We're quite optimistic we will have the fund functional this fall.

      So we–the Manitoba tech­no­lo­gy 'exhilarator' is an organi­zation that is ex­per­ienced in working with entre­preneurs and certainly emergency–emerging com­panies, and they–they're playing in that field, quite frankly, right now. So they're very familiar with the venture capital field, and they're also familiar with the–prior to venture capital, the angel investors.

      So they're certainly in that space on a regular basis. They do have expertise over there at the CEO level, for sure, that can help us in terms of making sure we get the actual venture capital component right. So we're just using that organi­zation to, in fact, hold the money for now and then provide advice to make sure that we get the actual venture capital fund correct, with the intent that the money will be hopefully trans­ferred to the new venture capital this fall and be operational.

Mr. Lamont: Thank you for that answer. Yes, just–there's a question on recon­ciliation and diversity train­ing that on page 16 it says it'll begin to track the number of employees who've completed mandatory diversity and inclusion training.

      But the goal is 70 per cent for this de­part­ment, and in some other de­part­ments it's 90, so I'm just won­dering why that's–why is it a different than what other de­part­ments might be?

Mr. Cullen: Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, we did have quite a vacancy in the de­part­ment and we're in the process of hiring a number of staff. So certainly it's our ex­pect­a­tion to get as many people through that program as possible.

      You know, I expect this target is pretty low. We'll certainly go back and have a look at what other de­part­ments are doing, and that's, to me, a target that certainly could be reassessed for another year.

Mr. Lamont: Just a question, I guess, on un­em­ploy­ment, which is always–it's a big issue, but there are two issues around it: one, I think, is that you know our un­em­ploy­ment rate–I think it's been going up a little bit–one is that we see an out-migration of Manitobans, right, so that sometimes your un­em­ploy­ment drops or your labour force can shrink. But the other is around First Nations em­ploy­ment.

      So–and I know this is a challenge but is actually in some ways–so one of the questions is that when we measure un­em­ploy­ment, it–the fed–it is a problem with the federal gov­ern­ment that Statistics Canada does not measure un­em­ploy­ment on reserve, right?

      So I'm wondering if that's some­thing that–so in a sense, and you have reserves where there can be very high un­em­ploy­ment–I was just wondering whether–I mean, we could talk, that all us–all parties could come together and challenge the federal gov­ern­ment to start measuring un­em­ploy­ment on reserve. But is that some­­thing that you might consider or, certainly because this is a–it's a sense that if you're measuring it, you're not–we can't pay attention to it. But this is a challenge because it–my concern is that we end up understating. Well, first of all, they're all Manitobans, and second, we end up understating the actual levels of un­em­ploy­ment.

      And I know that it's not–again, it's not for the prov­­incial gov­ern­ment, or whether that's some­thing you might consider looking at, just in terms of getting a more accurate picture of un­em­ploy­ment and what we have to do to respond to it in Manitoba.

Mr. Cullen: Yes, the member raises a very valid point, especially now where we find ourselves in a labour shortage in, quite frankly, pretty well every sector of the province and every region of the pro­vince, including northern Manitoba.

      To me, this is a real op­por­tun­ity to engage Indigenous popu­la­tions in the labour force and, quite frankly, the member is right. It has been a challenge going forward but we have taken some steps, as a gov­ern­ment, to try to assist in that through training and other programs. We have had a number of very serious discussions with our post-secondary schools in terms of how can they help us in this endeavour.

      And the member may know I was in this role six years ago and my deputy at the time was Jamie Wilson, and we had this con­ver­sa­tion a number of times. And I'm happy to see Jamie is over with Red River College, Red River polytechnic now. So, in–ideally focus on this parti­cular issue.

      So, we're serious about trying to make that happen and work with our post-secondaries to see what we can achieve on that front.

      So, thank you for raising that.

* (12:20)

Mr. Lamont: Thank you for that answer, yes, because it is–it–because it's not being measured, it's sort of–there's a real risk that it's being–it ends up being over­looked by everyone, right, by us, but with the federal gov­ern­ment as well. So, it's this argument of acknowl­edging that there's this issue here that needs to be addressed.

      And just–I guess, my last question is that, we have a new Economic Dev­elop­ment board secretariat office; just how is that different in terms of en­gage­ment or structure than the Economic Dev­elop­ment office that was in place since 2016?

Mr. Cullen: Thank you for the question.

      And to the question about venture capital funds, I have a quick one–two-page brochure here that I think will help the member understand the venture capital–how it will be esta­blished. And I'll get that over to him before we leave today.

      So, yes, the concept of the new Economic Develop­ment board is to make sure that we're attracting invest­ment and that we're trying to make decisions at the speed of busi­ness as opposed to the speed of gov­ern­ment.

      So, the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) will chair the actual com­mit­tee of Cabinet, I'll vice-chair, and there'll be six other ministers there.

      Recog­nizing then–when companies come to either–new to Manitoba or existing companies that want to invest, they're–have to deal with a number of de­part­ments. So the concept is to get those de­part­ments at the table to try to address those issues. So if we meet on a regular basis, address those issues as quick as we can and then move on.

      So the com­mit­tee will be supported by a secretariat; Michael Swistun has come on to be secretary of that secretariat. And the secretariat will be composed of–it'll be relatively small, concise and, ideally, nimble so that we can respond to these busi­nesses quickly.

      We will bring on some of the existing people in economic dev­elop­ment from across different de­part­ments, and then we'll also be bringing in the private sector to help as well, probably on a contract basis, you know, as needed, with the right skills to assist that parti­cular industry in moving through the system.

      So, quite a bit different–you know, we're still going to be working with the de­part­ment and our external partners, Economic Dev­elop­ment Winnipeg, rural economic dev­elop­ment cor­por­ation, CEDF. We just have to make sure that everybody understands their role and respon­si­bilities, and then how do we all work together to make sure we're not overlapping and duplicating services.

      So the secretariat will be respon­si­ble for some of those, I would say, more challenging, more intricate busi­ness that–having to deal with the whole of gov­ern­ment. So, that's the concept.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there are any further questions?

      Seeing no further questions, we will now turn to the reso­lu­tions, begin­ning with the second reso­lu­tion as we have deferred con­sid­era­tion of the first reso­lu­tion containing the minister's salary.

      At this point, we will allow virtual members to unmute their mics so they can respond to the question on each reso­lu­tion.

      Reso­lu­tion 10.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $67,099,000 for Economic Dev­elop­ment, Invest­ment and Trade, Industry Programs and Part­ner­ships, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 10.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $92,010,000 for Economic Dev­elop­ment, Invest­ment and Trade, Workforce Training and Em­ploy­ment, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 10.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,157,000 for Economic Dev­elop­ment, Invest­ment and Trade, Economic Dev­elop­ment Board Secretariat, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 10.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $8,000,000 for Economic Dev­elop­ment, Invest­ment and Trade, Loans and Guarantees Programs, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      The last item to be considered for the Estimates of this de­part­ment is item 10.1(a), the minister's salary, contained in reso­lu­tion 10.1.

      At this point we request that all min­is­terial and op­posi­tion staff leave the Chamber in con­sid­era­tion of this last item.

      The floor is open for questions.

Mr. Moses: I move, that line item 10.1(a), minister's salary, be reduced to $33,600.

Motion presented.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion is in–[interjection] The hon­our­able member for St. Vital (Mr. Moses) has moved that line item 10.1(a), minister's salary, be reduced to $33,600.

      The motion is in order.

      Is there any debate?

      Seeing none, is the com­mit­tee ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the amend­ment pass?

An Honourable Member: Yes.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Chairperson: I hear some noes.

Voice Vote

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour, say aye.

Some Honourable Members: Aye.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: I think the Nays have it.

Mr. Moses: On division.

Mr. Chairperson: On division.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: Reso­lu­tion 10.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $10,586,000 for Economic Dev­elop­ment, Invest­ment and Trade, Admin­is­tra­tion and Finance, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      This completes the Estimates of the De­part­ment of Economic Dev­elop­ment, Invest­ment and Trade.

      The next set of Estimates to be considered by this  section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply is for the Department of Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations.

      What is the will of the–oh, the hon­our­able member for St. Vital.

Mr. Moses: Can I canvass the com­mit­tee to see if it's the will to call it 12:30?

Mr. Chairperson: You can.

      Is it the will of the com­mit­tee to call it 12:30? [Agreed]

      The time being 12:30, com­mit­tee rise.

      Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Andrew Micklefield): The hour being 12:30 p.m., the House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 24th, 2022.

      Have a great long weekend, everybody.


 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Friday, May 20, 2022

CONTENTS


Vol. 53c

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(Continued)

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

(Continued)

Committee of Supply

(Concurrent Sections)

Room 254

Health

Asagwara  2221

Gordon  2221

Gerrard  2235

Room 255

Municipal Relations

Clarke  2237

Wiebe  2239

Chamber

Economic Development, Investment and Trade

Cullen  2257

Moses 2257

Lamont 2269