Manitoba Committee Hansard — 16 May 2022 (Justice Committee, Sitting 4, 42nd Legislature, 4th Session)

42-4-ju4

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session – Forty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Justice Chairperson Mr. Len Isleifson Constituency of Brandon East Vol. LXXVI No. 4 - 6 p.m., Monday, May 16, 2022 ISSN 1708-6671

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-Second Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALTOMARE, Nello Transcona NDP ASAGWARA, Uzoma Union Station NDP BRAR, Diljeet Burrows NDP BUSHIE, Ian Keewatinook NDP CLARKE, Eileen, Hon. Agassiz PC COX, Cathy Kildonan-River East PC CULLEN, Cliff, Hon. Spruce Woods PC DRIEDGER, Myrna, Hon. Roblin PC EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne, Hon. Lac du Bonnet PC FIELDING, Scott, Hon. Kirkfield Park PC FONTAINE, Nahanni St. Johns NDP FRIESEN, Cameron, Hon. Morden-Winkler PC GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin, Hon. Steinbach PC GORDON, Audrey, Hon.

Southdale PC GUENTER, Josh Borderland PC GUILLEMARD, Sarah, Hon. Fort Richmond PC HELWER, Reg, Hon. Brandon West PC ISLEIFSON, Len Brandon East PC JOHNSON, Derek, Hon. Interlake-Gimli PC JOHNSTON, Scott, Hon. Assiniboia PC KHAN, Obby Fort Whyte PC KINEW, Wab Fort Rouge NDP LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail PC LAGIMODIERE, Alan, Hon. Selkirk PC LAMONT, Dougald St. Boniface Lib. LAMOUREUX, Cindy Tyndall Park Lib.

LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas-Kameesak NDP LINDSEY, Tom Flin Flon NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Malaya Notre Dame NDP MARTIN, Shannon McPhillips PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC MOSES, Jamie St. Vital NDP NAYLOR, Lisa Wolseley NDP NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC PEDERSEN, Blaine Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle, Hon. Turtle Mountain PC REYES, Jon, Hon. Waverley PC SALA, Adrien St. James NDP SANDHU, Mintu The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron Springfield-Ritchot PC SMITH, Andrew, Hon.

Lagimodière PC SMITH, Bernadette Point Douglas NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Vérendrye PC SQUIRES, Rochelle, Hon. Riel PC STEFANSON, Heather, Hon. Tuxedo PC TEITSMA, James Radisson PC WASYLIW, Mark Fort Garry NDP WHARTON, Jeff, Hon. Red River North PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC Vacant Thompson

83 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE Monday, May 16, 2022 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Josh Guenter (Borderland) ATTENDANCE – 6 QUORUM – 4 Members of the committee present: Hon. Messrs. Goertzen, Helwer Ms. Fontaine, Messrs. Guenter, Isleifson, Wiebe APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights Hon.

Doyle Piwniuk, Minister of T ransportation and Infrastructure PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 2–The Public Services Sus tainability Repeal Act Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Kyle Ross, Manitoba Gov ernment and General Employees' Union Darlene Jackson, Manitoba Nurses Union Jennifer Carr, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada Pierre Ouell et, Pro fessional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (by leave) Paul McKie, Unifor Jeff Traeger, United Food and Com mercial Workers, Local 832 Jason Hawkins, private citizen Erik Thomson, Uni versity of Manitoba Faculty Association Gina McKay, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Manitoba Bill 8–The Court of Appeal Amend ment and Provincial Court Amendment Act Susan Dawes, Prov incial Judges Association of Manitoba Ian Scarth, Manitoba Bar Association Lisa LaBossiere, Criminal Defence Lawyers Association of Manitoba Bill 17–The Family Law Act, The Family Support Enforcement Act and The Inter -jurisdictional Support Orders Amendment Act Lawrence Pinsky, Family Arbitration and Mediation Legal Institute WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 2–The Public Services Sustainability Repeal Act James Bedford, Manitoba Teachers' Society Bob Moroz, Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals Bill 8–The Court of Appeal Amend ment and Provincial Court Amendment Act Monique St.

Germain, Canadian Centre for Child Protection MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 2–The Public Services Sustainability Repeal Act Bill 8–The Court of Appeal Amend ment and Provincial Court Amendment Act Bill 15–The Drivers and Vehicles Amend ment and Highway Traffic Amendment Act Bill 17–The Family Law Act, The Family Support Enforcement Act and The Inter -jurisdictional Support Orders Amendment Act Bill 21–The Highway Traffic Amend ment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amend- ment Act * * * Clerk Assistant (Ms. Katerina Tefft): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Justice please come to order.

Before the committee can proceed with the busi - ness before it, it must elect a new Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Josh Guenter (Borderland): I nominate Mr. Isleifson. Clerk Assistan t: Mr. Isleifson has been nominated for Chairperson.

84 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, Mr. Isleifson, will you please take the Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Good evening everyone, and our next item of busi ness is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Reg Helwer (Minister of Labour, Consumer Protection and Government Services): I nominate Mr. Guenter. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Guenter has been nominated. Any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Guenter is elected Vice-Chairperson.

So, tonight's meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 2, The Public Services Sustainability Repeal Act; Bill 8, The Court of Appeal Amendment and Prov incial Court Amend ment Act; Bill 15, the drivers and vehicles amend ment and highway 'trackiv' amendment act; Bill 17, The Family Law Act, The Family Support Enforce ment Act and The Inter-jurisdictional Support Orders Amendment Act; and Bill 21, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public I nsurance Corporation Amend- ment Act.

I would like to start by informing all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hours of adjournment. A standing com mittee meeting to consider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause-by-clause of a bill except by unanimous consent of the committee. As for–written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to commit- tee members: James Bedford, the Manitoba Teachers' Society on Bill 2; and Monique St. Germain, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection on Bill 8.

Does the committee agree to have this document appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] So, prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in a com mittee. In accord - ance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for pre sentations, with another five minutes allotted for questions fr om committee mem- bers. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first must say the person's name. This is a signal to Hansard recorders to turn the m ics on and off. On the topic of deter mining the order of public presentations, I will note that we do have out-of-town presenters in attendance and they are marked with an asterisk on your list.

With these considerations in mind, in what order does the committee wish to hear presentations? Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I'd recommend, as is our normal practice, to allow for those out -of-town presenters to go first. I guess that would just apply though to those out -of-town presenters that ar e in attendance here tonight, Maybe I'll get some clarifica- tion, but I'll make that motion. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. If it is the will of the com- mittee to go with the out -of-town presenters who are in person, then we can certainly do so, if that is wha t you're proposing. Okay, are there anything else?

Is that agreed? [Agreed] Okay, thank you for your patience. Agreed. And so, we will now proceed with our public pre- sentations. Bill 2–The Public Services Sustainability Repeal Act Mr. Chairperson: Okay, so I will now call on Mr. Kevin Rebeck from the Manitoba Federation of Labour. So, as your report is going out, I will now call on Mr. Rebeck. Start your presentation, sir. Kevin Rebeck (Manitoba Federation of Labour): It's nice to be in person. It's been a while.

The Manitoba Federation of Labour, the MFL, is Manitoba's central labo ur body, repre senting some 30 affiliated unions and the interests of more than 125,000 unionized workers.

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 85 Manitoba's unions have stood in opposi tion to The Pu blic Services Sus tainability Act, the PSSA, since it was first introduced as bill 28 in the spring of 2017. Since your gov ernment was elected, we were clear with you that Manitoba could balance the budget, along with your gov ernment's stated eight - year timeline, without interfering in the collective bar- gaining process and unilaterally freezing the wages of over 120,000 dedicated and hardworking Manitobans.

We were clear with Brian Pallister and the rest of you from day one that this law should be repealed or, better yet, that it should never have been introduced in the first place. So I'm not here tonight to praise you for being late to the game at a time when Manitobans are working hard but finding it harder and harder to get ahead. You've deliberately stood in the way of public sector workers as they tried to bargain fair contracts with their employers. These are people who have to feed their kids, pay their rent or mortgage, pay taxes and spend money in the local economy, just like any other Manitoban.

I know your gov ernment's looking to get some credit for taking steps to repeal a law that should never have been passed in the first place, a law that each and every member of the PC caucus voted for, including Premier Stefanson. The fact is, your government's decisions have hurt working families. You've hurt the public services that we all rely on and you've made a mess of the collective bargaining process in the public sector.

You –all of you–unilaterally froze the wages of nurses, pan - demics–paramedics, health -care aides, teachers, school bus drivers, school custodians, group- home staff, social workers, snowplow drivers, construction workers, plumbers, electricians and many others.

The PSSA has negatively impacted 120,000 working families, people who work hard every day to deliver the public services that we all count on, and it continues to harm workers even now, at a time when working families are seeing sharp increases at the pumps, at the grocery stores and in the price of basically everything else we need to live, work and raise a family.

To protect the right to collective bargaining in July of 2017, a coalition of Manitoba 's unions with members who work in the public services impacted by the PSSA joined together to form the Part nership to Defend Public Services and challenge the PSSA in court. While the Manitoba Court of Queen' s Bench ruled in 2020 that the PSSA was uncon stitutional, calling the law draconian, the Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned that decision in 2021.

Through the strength and solidarity of working people, since our initial victory at the Court of Queen's Bench Manitoba's unions have been able to settle over 80 collective agreements above the terms of the PSSA through a combination of strikes, binding arbitrations and negotiations. But even today, five years later, tens of thousands of public sector workers are working under expired contracts because of the mess that this law and your government have caused to the collective bargaining process in our province.

There are the people who provide this –these are the people who provide the services that Manitoba families count on every day. They are people who we relied on through the COVID-19 pandemic, who you all said were heroes, and yet while you were publicly calling them heroes, you froze their wages and ripped up their right to collectively bargain fair contracts with their employers.

We all know that actions speak louder than words, and you failed to actually stand up and support working families in the province. * (18:10) In previous decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that the right to collective bargaining is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we have said all along, the right to collective bargaining is the right to a pr ocess, not to the outcome of an agreement, and that's fine because bargaining is what we do. We believe in it, and we know it works when the process is fair. And collective bargaining works for several reasons.

First, it requires workers to come togethe r and prioritize things such as benefits, safer working conditions, fair wages, retirement plans, and then negotiate their narrowed- down list with their employer. Second, collective bargaining requires compromise. Just as employers don't want to see their operations halted, workers don' t want to see the services they provide affected or the paycheques their families rely on disappear. Lastly, the process pro- vides stability for workers and employers through the life of the contract.

All along, we said we want this law off the books and for gov ernment to get out of the way and let workers and employers bargain, because it's a process that works when it 's allowed to work free from gov- ernment interference.

86 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 As you know, the Part nership to Defend Public Services has asked the Supreme Court to give us an opportunity to hear our appeal of the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision, as there are im portant matters of law regarding the Charter rights of workers to collective bargaining still to be settled. As Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench and Court of Appeal issued drastically different rulings, we believe it's essential to have the laws made clear for everyone by the Supreme Court.

If you're actually interested in anything other than following in Bri an Pallister's footsteps, to repair the damage you've done you need to do a whole lot more than just repeal the law. If the Stefanson gov ernment is serious about wanting to reset the relationship with workers and unions, you need to do two im portant things immediately. First, stop interfering in public sector bargaining, both through this law and through micromanaging what employers can bargain through restrictive mandates. It 's shameful that tens of thousands of workers have been without a contract for years because of this gov ernment.

Second, withdraw your opposition to the PDPS application to have the Supreme Court consider the constitutionality of your government's wage freeze legislation. Let the highest court in the country decide if this law is un constitu- tional or not. You can' t pretend that repealing this is about resetting the relationship while you 're also trying to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing our case. The COVID- 19 pandemic has only highlighted how important public sector workers and the services they provide are, and they are im portant to all of us.

While your gov ernment has been calling these workers heroes, you haven 't been treating them with respect. Costs are going up across the board these days, and it 's getting harder for working families to keep up. You should be investing in the public services that keep life affordable and the public sector workers that we all count on. We know that collective bargaining works when it's fair; it 's a tried and tested pr ocess that allows workers and employers to reach fair deals that make sense for both sides. But it only works if government allows it to happen freely and fairly.

We urge you to get out of the way of the collective bargaining process in the public sector . Let the people who know their workplaces best come together and hammer out fair deals that both sides can live with. The PSSA should never have been introduced in the first place. Simply repealing it now will not undo all the damage you 've caused to w orking families in our province. In order to start making a difference in the lives of working people, you need to take concrete and meaningful steps like the one I outlined tonight. It's time for government to start working for working families. Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: And I thank you very much for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenters? Hon. Reg Helwer (Minister of Labour, Consumer Protection and Government Services): Thank you, Mr. Rebeck, for your presentation. Mr. Chairperson: I believe we lost your audio, Mr. Helwer. Try that. Mr. Helwer: All right, we'll try that again. So, sorry about that. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Helwer, go ahead. Mr. Helwer: So thank you, Mr. Rebeck. So thanks for your presentation and good words. As you know, we're repealing this piece of legis lation, and we feel it's time to move on. K.

Rebeck: Well, I 'm glad it 's being repealed, but there is more that needs to be done. As I 've laid out, that there are still tens of thousands of workers who've been without a contract since this whole process started, and gov ernment has impeded collective bar - gaining along the way. Repealing this bill is a good first step, but it needs to be followed very quickly with getting out of the way and letting collective bargaining happen, and I'm hopeful that you and other members of your caucus will support that and make that a reality. Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Well, thank you, Mr.

Rebeck, for coming here tonight. I know that you, personally, but the MFL in general and labour across the board have been in credibly active in standing up against this kind of legis lation, as you said, taking it all the way to court and fighting on behalf of all working people in Manitoba. You know, obviously, here we are now with Bill 2, a very thin, very simply –bill, just simply repealing this bad legislation that the government had put forward.

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 87 Why did you feel it was necessary for you to come here tonight to give even more time to this proce ss? What are some of the messages that you want to send to working people about what they can do and what we all need to do to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't come before the Legislature again? K. Rebeck: Thank you for that. Yes, I did feel it was incredibly important to come and speak to this bill. It is repealing the law.

That' s something we 've asked for all along, but that quite simply isn't enough to make the real difference that can undo the damage that even introducing this law has caused. We've been through court–Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal now. We 've gotten two radically different rulings. We believe it needs to be heard at the Supreme Court, and this gov ernment's not sup - porting that call to the Supreme Court for them to hear this case and to give some real answers for what the rules of en gagement are when it comes to collective bargaining.

We think collective bargaining is a very fair process; it even has rules for when things break down and sides can't come to an ag reement, how we move forward and get an agreement. No one wants to have strikes or lockouts. People want to have a deal and people can reach them, but not if gov ernment's interfering in the way that this government has.

We've had an individual case with the University of Manitoba where we knew this government illegally interfered in the bargaining process very clearly and was proven in court, and we worry there 's been too much of that kind of inter ference that has impeded working families being able to get collective agree- ments and deals. And so many are working under expired contracts; it's hugely problematic, so I thought it was im portant to come and deliver that message today. Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Miigwech, Mr. Rebeck, for being here tonight, and to present to the committee.

I don't really have a question; it's more of a com- ment and a reflection on your presentation. I think that it is so important for citizens, for Manitobans to come forward and to share how damagi ng this piece of legislation has been. And you did so in your presenta- tion when you said 120,000 Manitobans were impacted by this piece of legis lation that each and every one of these members sitting here celebrated, were so excited about. And now we have a minister who wants to forget about all of that history, all of the damage that they've done to Manitobans. And his line is that it's time to move on.

And so I hope that the members here tonight – I would welcome the members that are partici pating from the PC caucus to, you know, clip your com - ments, show it in caucus so that each and every one of them here, and in their whole caucus, knows how damaging this legislation is, and that they should be ashamed of themselves. Miigwech. K. Rebeck: Thank you. Yes, we're just–we still have members today –far too many–that are sitting there, waiting for answers at the bargaining table, that have fallen further and further behind as inflation and costs have gone up.

The same people that we' ve called and thi s govern- ment has called heroes, but they sure haven 't treated them like that. And we do hope that it's more than just repealing this law; that gov ernment takes concrete steps and takes action to show that they 're prepared to let bargaining happen fre ely, fairly and let the experts – workers and employers–negotiate the deals that are fair. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, and we thank you for your comments, and we 've run out of time, so thank you again for your presentation this evening.

So, going down our list, this is going to be a little complicated, based on the move that was placed for it. I have the list of out-of-town presenters in front of me, but I'm not sure if any more are in the room. Do we have any more out -of-town presenters in the room? So, seeing none, we will just continue down our list, then. We have Mr. Kyle Ross from the Manitoba Gov- ernment and General Employees' Union. Mr. Ross, if you could turn your camera on. So, Mr. Ross? * (18:20) I understand he is on, so we 'll just wait until we can see the camera. There we go. Thank you and good evening, Mr.

Ross, and the floor is yours. Please proceed with your presentation.

88 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 Kyle Ross (Manitoba Gov ernment and General Employees' Union): Good evening, Chairperson, honourable members. My name is Kyle Ross, president of the Manitoba Gov ernment and General Employees' Union. Thank you for the oppor tunity to speak to the bill tonight.

The MGEU represents 32,000 working Manitobans who live and work through out Manitoba in a wid e variety of workplaces, including em ploy- ment–employed directly by the Province of Manitoba, Crown corporations, universities and colleges, health- care facilities, social service agencies, and arts and culture organizations. The vast majority of o ur members have been impacted by the restrictive measures imposed by bill 28, The Public Services Sus tainability Act, and they continue to deal with the fallout to this date.

We strongly opposed this regressive anti -worker legis - lation when it was introduced in 2017 and we continue to call for the free and fair collective bargaining. The reality is that thousands of workers continue to work with expired contracts as a direct result of delays in the collecting bargaining process. Thou- sands more were forced through agonizing protracted negotiations and accepted contracts under duress.

The public service, the dedi cated workers who supported the COVID pandemic response in public health, statisticians who tracked the virus, sheriff 's officers, conservation officers and highway workers clearing snow on our roads have all been disrespected through the process. What our members want is respect and meaningful investments in the services that Manitobans rely on, because public services are only as strong as those delivering them.

The conse quences of bill 28 have become a wave of recruitment and retention issues that are impacting the quality of service that Manitobans rely on, as wage rates fall further behind and–rapidly rising cost of living. Senior public servants with years of ex perience are choosing to retire, as no im provements to wages or working conditions are on the horizon, leaving with valuable in stitutional knowledge and exper ience.

MGEU members continue to report that they are doing more with less, often working the jobs of two and three people as budgets are further constrained and vacancies go unfilled as the demand for services grow. Bill 28 had a large role to play in this erosion of these services. We strongly agree with the repeal of this legis lated attack on bargaining rights, but the irreparable harm that this legis lation has had on our members cannot be minimized. As a first step, we call on your gov ernment to fully restore productive and meaningful collective bargaining. I'm not here to tell you that negotiations are easy.

They aren 't. Difficult choices need to be made on both sides of the table, but the compromises that are reached and these agreements that are signed provide stability for the employer and for workers. Collective bargaining works. Secondly, we call on your gov ernment to not oppose the application to have the Supreme Court consider the constitu tionality of your gov ernment's wage freeze legislation. We want the courts to rule on this–on the constitutionality of the bill 28. There is lots of work to do since Premier Stefanson has been sworn in.

We have heard some encouraging signals to reset the relationship your gov- ernment has with workers. We want to do that too. But trust is something that takes time to build, and we are committed to doing the work through fair collective bargaining and any other table we are invited to. We urge you to forge a new path, a different approach that works for working families. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairperson: And I thank you, Mr. Ross, for your comments. The floor is open for questions for com mittee members. Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Mr. Ross, for your pre sen- tation.

Good to see you again, even if it is virtually, and that we ap preciate your commen ts. And, yes, it does, indeed, take time to build trust, and that's where we're working on these days. Thank you. K. Ross: Thank you, Honourable Mr. Helwer. I think we have lots of work to do, and I think our members have been impacted by this legislation and I really hope you guys can see in your way to not oppose us at the Supreme Court. Our members have felt the pain of this and I really ap preciate you guys taking time to listen. Mr. Wiebe: Well, thank you very much, Mr.

Ross, for coming to committee virtually here this evening. I think it's incredibly important to hear from you, as you represent so many working people in this province

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 89 and, as you've outlined, so many folks that have been impacted to such a high degree. I'm just wonderin g if you could just, you know, give us a snapshot of how this bill, how bill 28 continues to impact your members, you know, especially considering, I guess, you know, the impacts of inflation and cost of living increases that we 've seen. How is it that the legis lation that was brought forward in the past, how does that continue to affect your members even today? K.

Ross: Well, this legislation chilled all the tables for bargaining, so which–without bargaining or continued ongoing bargaining, some contr acts are out of date four years. So we have members working on wages from four years ago with the cost of inflation continuing to rise. So they've really seen their buying power and their ability to enjoy life decrease.

It's been very challenging for them, and this legislation was a big piece of that, and it was –really caused our members to suffer where we just want to get to the table and bargain and get to a good deal where both sides can have some stability and move forward. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you, Kyle, for your presentation, which was very good. You have talked about this former legis lation or the legislation that's being repealed as causing waves of resig nations, retirements, and I just wondered if you had any estimates of how many people have resigned or retired.

And also, we heard a few minutes ago about a lot of workers still with expired contracts. Do you have workers with expired contracts in your union? K. Ross: Thank you for the quest ion. Yes, we have many with –workers with expired contracts, and we have seen our civil service members shrink by close to 3,000 members. So we have many members doing the jobs of two and three people in the civil service. It's been largely due to the stagnant wages, where there's op portunities to go elsewhere, and these are great people that do great work, and it 's very challenging for them, and they care about what they do.

So when they try to do this work and they're killing themselves, basically, to get this work done, because it needs to be done, because they want to do well for Manitobans, it's very challenging for our members. So thank you for the question. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions? Hearing none, Mr. Ross, thank you very much for your presentation this evening. Next, we'll move on to Ms. Darlene Jackson from the Manitoba Nurses Union. Can I get you to turn your camera on, and we 'll proceed when you're ready. Welcome, Ms. Jackson. The floor is yours.

Darlene Jackson (Manitoba Nurses Union): First, let me extend my thanks to the committee chairperson and committee members for allowing me the oppor - tunity to speak to you today on Bill 2, The Public Services Sustainability Repeal Act. Speaking as a president of the Manitoba Nurses Union, I can definitively say that this bill, which repeals The Public Services Sustainability Act, PSSA, is a step in the right direction. That said, it will take more than a repeal of the PSSA to repair the damage done by it to the relationship between public sector workers, like nurses, and this government.

The decision of the PC gov ernment to pass the PSSA early in their tenure clearly signalled to public sector workers that the new government viewed them as nothing more t han a cost to be controlled in their dogged pursuit of a balanced budget. It signalled that the gov ernment did not care how much service or dedication these employees demon strated, they were simply a burden on the gov ernment's books. It also showed that they were willing to essentially cut real wages for these workers by way of imposing arbitrary wage freezes disconnected from, and showing no regard for, the effects of inflation.

The MNU, whose members were expecting, at the time, to bargain new contracts to replace the ones that had expired on March 31st, 2017, were sideswiped by the passage of the PSSA. In an effort to defend our members against a bill that violated their Charter rights, we joined with other unions in a partnership to defend public services. With that, a long, legal battle began, one that had yet to–one that has yet to conclude and which does not simply end with the repeal of PSSA. Let me be clear. I am here today to support passage of the bill which will repeal the PSSA.

However, I am also here to say that if the government wishes to build a more positive relationship with nurses and other public sector workers and begin to repair the sub stantial damage created by the PSSA, they must also show us they are willing to let the highest court of our land make a final deter mination

90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 on the constitutionality of the PSSA. To simply repeal it without also supporting the objective of a final ruling that will provide clarity on the ability of gov - ernments to pass such laws will leave a wound to that relationship. * (18:30) Nurses want to know if this can ever happen again. All unionized public sector workers deserve some closure on this issue. Such closure should only come from a final ruling from the highest court in the land.

The psychological and financial toll of the PSSA saga has been high on all parties involved and needs to come to a definitive conclusion. For the MNU, the PSSA, along with the HSBURA–representation votes and gov ernment restructuring of health care, set off a drawn-out, multi- year battle for a new collective agreement and led to unnecessarily complicated and lengthy negotiations. The effect of the PSSA was having on health- care employers' approach to bargaining was undeniable, despite the bill never been proclaimed.

Once passed, employers knew they were expected by the gov ern- ment to freeze and drastically minimize any wage increases in the new collective agree ments going forward. The legal challenge surrounding the bill was undoubtedly a factor in why it took employer–health- care employers so long to finally come to the table and began negotiating in October 2020 with Manitoba nurses who had been without a collective agree ment for 3.5 years at this time. In fact, we had to threaten to file an unfair labour practice just to get the employers to commit to sit down with us and truly begin negotiating in October 2020.

Of course, that 's not the end of the saga. After reaching an impasse in spring of 2021, we ended up having to strike an agreement to bring a mediator on board for the remainder of the negotiations and to secure a right to arbitration were the mediation to fail. In order to get a mediator and a commit ment to arbitration, it became necessary–our members had to relinquish their right to strike during this round of bargaining. And I 'd like to point out they had over - whelmingly voted to strike before this agreement for mediation and arbitration was made.

Nurses had voted that way not because they wanted to go on strike, because–but because that w as the only way to get government to seriously bargain with them and re - evaluate its unacceptable position. By the time the Manitoba Nurses Union got an agreement, they [inaudible]. The employers had massive retroactive calculations and payments to make. Nurses who were already exhausted from their tireless service during the ongoing COVID pandemic only got this agreement after extreme frustration and 'inordirate' amounts of time and resources dedi cated to bargaining and mediation.

Can you imagine how it must feel to be working harder than ever before, provi ding a critical service during an exceptionally difficult time, facing the prospect of contracting COVID or carrying it home to your loved ones, and then having to fight that hard to get the gov ernment to recog nize your value in some tangible way? I can assure you, it leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

That is why I urge you today to pass this bill, but, furthermore, as a real sign of a willingness to repair the relationship with nurses and ot her public sector workers, I urge you to support a hearing on the legality of the PSSA by the Supreme Court of Canada. Manitoba nurses know that repealing the bill today does not prevent this government or a future govern- ment from introducing the same or similar legislation at some later point in time. Manitoba nurses should not have to continue to worry about this possi bility. We deserve closure.

Supporting our request for the Supreme Court to rule on this bill, should they choose to, is the path for this closure. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: And we thank you for your pre - sentation. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Ms. Jackson, for your pre - sentation. And I certainly agree this is a step in the right direction. We have many steps to take, and again, thank you to your members for all the work that they've done during the pandemic and continue to do as we move ahead, here. D. Jackson: I ap preciate those words, Mr.

Helwer, but I couldn't urge you more to allow the full process to continue at the Supreme Court. Mr. Wiebe: Thank you so much, Ms. Jackson, for your presentation here today. You know, we 've certainly, as elected MLAs, hear day in and day out from nurses in our own communities who are, you know, frustrated, feel

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 91 completely burnt out and overworked. And, you know–to add to that list of frustrations that they have with the mis management within the health -care system and the disrespect that they 've felt from this government–on top of all of that, of course, they've had to deal with this ultimate disrespect when it comes to the bargaining process. So, I appre ciate you bringing that forward here. Obviously, it is a–still a difficult time for nurses in our health- care system.

Can you talk about what impact this –you know, this uncertainty that 's been created by the gov ernment has had in terms of the number of overall nurses who are still in the system versus, you know, those who maybe have just decided enough is enough and taken retirement, taken positions elsewhere and just said they 've had enough with the situation in Manitoba? Can you give me a sense of what the impact has been because of legislation like this? D. Jackson: Yes, I can. Thank you for the question, Mr. Wiebe.

I can tell you that this bill, and the lengthy, protracted negotiations and the four and half years without a collective agreement had a huge impact on Manitoba nurses. We saw a mass exodus of nurses who left the system probably working harder than they ever had before, and felt they were not valued, they were not acknowledged and not respected at all by this government. So we now have, we know, more than 2,500 va - cant nursing positions in this province. We do know that we, in the province of Manitoba, almost hit a million hours of overtime last year–992,000 hours of overtime.

And we know that our agency nurse use has skyrocketed to over 505,000 hours. So this has had a massive impact on nurses, and I believe that it 's going to continue to have an impact until we can actu ally retain and recruit nurses in this system. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Mr. Gerrard: We've got, as you have already mentioned, a real shortage of nurses at the moment, more than two and half thousand. There was impacts from a lot of things. What proportion of that impact do you think came from this bill, and as a result of this bill? Was that a major factor in so many nurses leaving? D.

Jackson: I think it definitely was a major factor. We had had many, many nurses who were b asically hanging on to see –you know, to look at the new collective agreement and, based on its merit, make decisions. And what happened was, after four and half years, we just had nurses saying, I can 't work in this system any longer. I cannot do this and I can't wait for a new collective agreement.

So, our question is, is had we been able to negotiate a collective agreement and had there not been bill 28 looming above the employers ' heads, would we have managed to retain nurses in the system with a good collective agreement? Yes, I believe we would've. Mr. Chairperson: Any further questions? Hearing none, thank you very much for your pre- sentation. We'll now move on to our fourth presenter, Ms. Jennifer Carr, president of the professional insti- tute of the public service Canada. Ms. Carr, I'd just ask you to turn on your video when you're ready. Ms. Carr, welcome, and you can start your pre - sentation.

Jennifer Carr (Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada): Thank you, honourable commit- tee members. My name is Jennifer Carr and I 'm the president of the Professional In stitute of the Public Service of Canada. With me is Mr. Pierre Ouellet, our negotiator for PIPSC provincial members and a labour relations specialist wh o can help answer your questions today.

We thank you for the 'opportunitity' present in this important discussion. * (18:40) PIPSC is the bargaining agent for some 60,000 public service pro fessionals across the country, the majority of whom are em ployed in the federal gov ernment, but we also represent over 150 members of the province of Manitoba Association of Gov ernment Engineers, otherwise known as the MAGE group. Until recently, we also represented many health -care pro fessionals in the province, who are now represented by another union, following the forced amalgamation of provincial bargaining units.

So we've always kept a close eye on the labour situation in Manitoba. Back in 2017, like other prov incial public sector bargaining agents, we were totally against The Public

92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 Services Sustainability Act that was introduced by the government of the day. Bill 28 was nevertheless imposed on hundreds of thousands of hard- working public servants. Provincial and federal gov ernments in Can ada have had a long and controversial history of resorting to legis lation to impose wage restraints on their employees and to restrict their collective bargaining rights. Bill 28 was a particularly nasty example of this sort of legis lation.

In our view, it violated both the Canada–Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada 's inter national obligations without reasonable justification. So while we are pleased that it is on the road to being repealed, it is critical that, going forward, no government in Canada should be able to use legis - lation to inter fere in the process of meaningful collective bargaining and infringe on the association of freedom, as protected by the Charter, S2(d). Let 's not forget that the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that the process of collective bargaining is protected by the Charter.

I know that the prov incial government doesn 't want to move this through the courts. It says that the act will be repealed, so why bother? But, in fact, it is absolutely critical that the issue be resolved once and for all. Public sector workers and Canadians need to know the constitu tional ground rules of collective bargaining. Our gov ernment's at liberty to enact wage- freeze legis lation at any time to obtain monetary outcomes they desire without engaging in a collective bargaining process. Can they avoid Charter scrutiny by withdrawing the legislation at the eleventh hour?

These are the questions of public importance that ought to be answered by the Supreme Court of Canada, and we fully support the Manitoba Federation of Labour's action on this front. Dedicated public servants have continued to deliver public services to 'Manitobians'–Manitobans, and Manitobans counted on these services throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This has only highlighted how important these workers and these services they provide are to all of us. While the gov ernment has been calling them heroes, they haven 't been treated with respect by their employer. Civil servants have already d one their share.

Last year, when they were faced with the possi bility of layoffs, they all agreed to take five days of leave without pay to support the gov ernment in the pandemic context. They have already and largely con- tributed to assisting it in these matters. They deserve better treatment. So, to conclude, we urge the prov incial govern- ment to stop interfering in public sector bargaining. Tens of thousands of workers have been without a contract for years and it's high time to get them signed deals.

And the gov ernment must make it a clear and genuine commitment not to oppose the partnership to defund public service application to have the Supreme Court consider the constitutionality of its wage-freeze legislation. Let the highest court in the country decide if this law was unconstitutional or not. I thank you very much for your time today and we would pleased to take your questions. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, and we thank you very much for your presentation. Now, before we proceed with questions and answers with Ms.

Carr, we have received a request that her colleague, a negotiator Pierre Ouellet, be permitted to help Ms. Carr answer questions if necessary as a technical advisor. Is there leave to allow Mr. Ouellet to speak on the record as Ms. Carr's technical advisor, if necessary? [Agreed] The floor is open for questions. Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Ms. Carr, for your presenta- tion. As you stated so eloquently through out the pre - sentation, we are trying to move on and this is one step in that process. We understand there are many, many more.

And thank you for your repre sentation at the Manitoba Association of Gov ernment Engineers; I believe MAGE, I believe, is the acronym there. Thank you. J. Carr: I thank you again for your comments. I would hope that this gov ernment will allow us to continue with the application or the–to the Supreme Court so that we can have this matter finalized once and for all. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Wiebe: Well, thank you very much, Mr. C hair, Ms. Carr, for your presentation here this evening. It's incredibly important that we hear from all voices who have been impacted by the PSSA and the impacts that

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 93 it's had on your individual members, so we really ap- preciate you taking the time to join us here this evening. My question is with regards to the case that 's before the Supreme Court. And, can you just talk about how im portant a step it would be for the gov- ernment, you know, even here tonight when, you know, we have the minister saying he wants to move on and wants to rebuild the relationship?

How important would it be for him to say here tonight that the gov ernment would not be pursuing this at the Supreme Court, and maybe could you just, maybe, speculate why the gov ernment hasn 't been willing to do that to this point? J. Carr: Thank you for the question. I think I summarized it in my presentation; it's the fact that, if the gov ernments are allowed to put forward legislation to effect collective bargaining while we're at the table and then withdraw them at the eleventh hour, it's just a tactic that paralyzes us at the bargaining table.

I think it's important that this government commit to just saying that it won 't interfere with the leave to the Supreme Court because, like I said, it is important for this to be decided from the highest court in the land. You know, we are fighting this on many levels, and we think that it 's important that we have the day in court to make sure that, you know, this type of legislation can't interfere with collective bargaining of public servants in the future. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation.

We've heard about the number of people in the public service who have resigned and reti red, but it seems to me, from what I 'm hearing, that there was quite an impact not just on people leaving, but there was an impact on those who stayed in terms of morale, in terms of mental health or wellness and in terms of productivity. I wonder if you could comment on that? J. Carr: I will let Pierre take that question.

Pierre Ouellet (Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada ): The–to put just a little context around this, the MAGE collective agreement expired back in 2019, and it's just–and we're in the process of signing the new collective agreement . It took a number of years just to get things going, and members were faced with possible layoffs and then the five-day leave without pay. And all this we received from the government, an offer of four years–a four -year contract at zero, you know, per cent per year. So, the impact on the members?

I mean, you have no idea how committed and dedicated this group is to the province of Manitoba and to the popula tion of Manitoba. Going through all this, staying where they are at the moment and still being very proud of being a MAGE member; it 's just absolutely stunning, because I would have expected many people to just leave, but no–they insisted to stay and be a part of the solutions and not the problems. So, the impact is huge and yet, this group–that 's the MAGE group–you know, is behind this province a hundred per cent, and all they 're asking now is respect.

That 's all there is to it; they want to be respected for what they do, wha t they are, who they represent, and I think repealing this legislation is one thing, but it needs to be more than that to restore faith, you know, in this Province and in the bargaining process. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: And we thank you very much for your participation and, Ms. Carr, we thank you very much for your presentation this evening. Okay, so on our list you will have a Mr. Bob Moroz. Our understanding is he will be late this evening, so we will move him to the bottom of the list and we will go with Mr.

Paul McKee [phonetic] from Unifor. If you 're ready, Mr. McKee [phonetic], please come to the podium. And if you have any documenta- tion to hand out, we can certainly take care of that for you. * (18:50) Hearing none, welcome. The podium is yours. Paul McKie (U nifor): Just a crack for the record, although I have no idea how it appears in Hansard, but the pronunciation of my last name is McKie, rhymes with pie, as in apple, or 22 over 7. Take your choice. So, good evening. I 'm here tonight repre senting Unifor, the largest private sector union in Canada.

Our 315,000 members work coast to coast to coast in all sectors of the economy, including workers in the public sector directly and indirectly. We represent about 10,000 Manitoba workers, including publicly funded workers at Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries, Lord Selkirk School Division,

94 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 Manitoba Hydro and the University of Manitoba. I'm the area director for Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as well as a servicing represen tative in Manitoba in charge of 20 collective agreements. My comments today will be relatively brief – perhaps not as brief as Bill 2, which is amongst the shortest bills I've ever seen. Even the explanatory note to this bill is exceedingly small. This bill repeals The Public Services Sus tainability Act, which is unpro - claimed, and three other legislative references to it.

So, I'm here today, not to praise this gov ernment for the repeal of a horrible piece of legislation, but to mark the close of an anti-union, anti-worker campaign supported by every elected member of this gov ern- ment. This was a war on labour, and it was a disaster. This war on organized workers exposed the lie that wage restraints were done for economic reasons. This wasn't about helping the prov incial economy; it was about hurting public sector workers and their take - home pay. This was more about payback than it was about paycheque.

So I'm not here to pat you on the back for taking back The Public Services Sustainability Act. Perhaps in a more charitable momen t, I might slow -clap you out of the room. While it is nice to see the death knell for this atrocious legislation, it is a matter of too little, too late. The damage wrought by the PSSA is done. You cannot un-ring that bell. The legacy of the PSSA is vit riol, vexation and very, very expensive litigation. This act wasn't here a long time, but it did so much damage. This gov ern- ment, and publicly funded employers this government directs, enforced the wage restraints of the PSSA.

You may repeal this act tomorrow, but I represent workers who still work under collective agree ments foisted upon them by this gov ernment and the PSSA. Long after the PSSA vanishes, it lingers on in the poor paycheques of Manitobans. This government has painted a picture of public sector workers as overpaid and underworked. Yet, so many workers funded by public money make wages that are far less than six figures. School bus drivers, food services workers, part -time workers in casinos all have felt the sting of repressive wage legislation, a sting made even worse compounded by COVID.

In some of the cases I mentioned, I'm now in bargaining to renew collective agreements where wages have fallen behind the rate of inflation by more than 11 and a half per cent. My workers are a ngry. They 're angry at their employer and they're angry at this government. Some have opted to leave their em ployment to seek better work elsewhere in the private sector. They leave not because they want to, but because they have to.

Some in this government may applaud the initiative to better oneself and seek employment in the private sector, but this ignores the very necessary and good work that public sector and civil service workers do every day. That work gets harder and harder to do when you cannot attract and retain workers to make Manitoba work. How many good workers left for greener pastures because of the PSSA? We may never know that exact number. The modus for the repeal of this legis lation may not be as altruistic as our Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) has laid out.

Certainly, it is no secret that labour 's lawsuit against this legis lation could be before this nation's Supreme Court. Perhaps this is a Hail Mary move to get the court to refuse labour 's leave to appeal. Nonetheless, we say good bye and good riddance to the PSSA. This may not be an appealing government, but today at least it is a repealing one. Finally, I wish to thank you for this oppor tunity to speak out in this forum.

I 'm very proud of our democratic institutions and practices here, particularly how we allow public debate like this on each piece of legislation that our elected members debate, even bills as short as this one. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairperson: And we thank you presentation. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Mr. McKie, for your comments. And, yes, it is a very brief piece of legis lation. It has one intent, and sometimes things are exactly as they seem. This is an intent to repeal a legislation and to move on.

It takes two parties to be part of that moving on, and we ready and willing and able to do that. And thank you to your members for being a part of our government employees and we appre ciate the work that they've done. P. McKie: Mr. Helwerth [phonetic]–who, I note, is the first Labour Minister of this government after six years in power–yes, it is a first step, and we applaud,

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 95 however lightly –golf clap, perhaps –that you have done this, and we look forward to more progressive measures as we move forward. Thank you. Mr. Wiebe: Well, thank you very much, Mr. McKie, for coming here this evening. I think, in your short pre sentation, you really summed it up very, very well and, I think, put some of the frustration that you're hearing from your members on the record and expressed that, I think, very well for the committee. So I want to thank you for that.

You know, I mean, I 'm sort of just blown away that the minister seems to be, you know, putting this on labour or on you or on the presenters that have come here tonight, that, you know, he's made the first step, now it's up to you to move on. You know, when we've heard time and time again the impact that this has not only had over the last number of years, but continues to have and, again, I think you laid that out very, very well.

So, you know, we 've heard over and over again that one of the concrete steps that this gov ernment could take, the the minister here tonight, in fact, could take, is to publicly say that they would withdraw their opposition to the application that's before this report. Do you think that that would be a helpful step? Or maybe I'll just open it up this way, you know, allow you to speculate: why would the gov ernment be unwilling to do that? Why –what do you think the motivation behind them not willing to take that step would be? P.

McKie: I don't think it would surprise anyone in this room to know that I 'm a cynic and that I believe that this gov ernment hopes that by repealing this legislation that it doesn't go to the Supreme Court. If we don't get a ruling on this–this has a–this has ramifications beyond just Manitoba. This kind of legislation–in fact, this particular, the bill 28, was modelled very much on the Nova Scotia legis lation. And we need to have a definitive view by our Supreme Court on this legis lation to stop gov ernments from interfering in the collective bargaining process.

And it will–it–not having an answer is not the answer. We need this to go forward. We need to get a definitive answer from the Supreme Court. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, thank you for coming and talking about this legislation and its impact. One of the things that you mentioned was that there are still workers who, I guess, had got contracts while this legislation was hanging over their head and are still way behind in where they should have been. Can you tell us a little bit more about that and whether those workers are now having an opportunity to catch up or whether they're–those contracts are still ongoing? P.

McKie: Those contracts –in two of those cases, those contracts, I 'll be bargaining this year. One of them I have already started and it remains to be seen whether we can make up for an in credible amount of lost time and money. It –there are certainly collective agreements that are funded directly by this gov ern- ment where there are things like binding arbitration for teachers and that, where that is an option. It is not an option in a lot of quasi-provincial–like the University of Manitoba, for instance, or l otteries, where that avenue doesn 't exist. The only avenue is free collective bargaining.

And when you inter fere with the monetary part of bargaining, you stop progress everywhere. It just shuts down bargaining, as the justice rightly put in her decision in the Court of Queen's Bench. So we are trying, now. We are just in the sort of beginning steps of going through collective bargain- ing with those units to see if we can make up for the lost ground, and I don't know how that's going to turn out and what we'll have to do in order for it to turn out for those people. * (19:00) Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Any further questions? Hearing none, thank you very much for your pre- sentation this evening.

Next, we 'll move on to our seventh presenter, Mr. Jeff Tra eger from the United Food and Com - mercial Workers, Local 832. Mr. Traeger, if you could turn on your camera when you're ready. Welcome, sir, and the floor is yours for your pre- sentation. Jeff Traeger (United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832): I'm here today to support the Manitoba Federation of Labour's call for this govern- ment to withdraw your opposi tion to our application to go to the Supreme Court, which is how I view Bill 2.

96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 I come before you today as a president of UFCW Local 832, a union representing over 19,000 hard- working members almost exclusively now in the private sector, and I want an answer for my members and for all Manitobans. I want an answer to the question: Has this gov ernment been acting in a way consistent with the constitution of Canada? Despite a leadership change and this gov ern- ment's efforts to project a plan to move forward together, this government's continued to blatantly act against your previous commitments.

We were told your gov ernment would pursue a balanced budget that didn' t hurt families. Instead, families have been directly harmed by the my-way-or- the-highway approach to legis lation, and harmed greatly by the PSSA, even though it wasn' t proclaimed. This damage has been done to working families already. Now they deserve to know if this was your plan all along, or if you broke the law of this land.

Time and time again, this government proves it has a healthy appetite for helping busi ness and those who have deep pockets while hurting bot h working Manitoba families and our economy: freezing public sector wages through the PSSA; cancelling the final increase to the security guard minimum wage, putting thousands of Manitoba guards into a similar situation as public sector workers. Our member s working in security are experiencing in creasingly risky and stressful conditions on the job, and their wages are not rising to acknowl edge the value of their efforts.

Suppressing minimum wage increases, putting us smack dab at the bottom of Canada come this September. This government's lack of meaningful action to support working people has forced Manitobans to make extremely difficult choices for the future of their families. You heard already tonight about nurses leaving Manitoba. We know that a lot of young people are leaving Manitoba because they can 't make ends meet on $11.95 and an hour, and $12.35 will not be any better. This is the true cost of bill 28. These former Manitobans deserve to know if this gov ern- ment acted unconstitutionally.

In the fall of 2020, our Winnipeg School Division bus drivers had to choose between accepting the poor conditions of their work place and the embarrassing offer included in The Public Services Sus tainability Act, or to go on strike amidst COVID, with kids finally returning to in -class learning, so that they could stand up to these conditions. And they did go on strike. And they went on strike for nine months, and they got a lot better than what they were offered at the bargaining table, so it turned out to be exactly the right thing to do, and that's the message this government is sending workers.

When you hurt public sector workers and don' t allow unions to bargain fairly, there 's a ripple effect throughout Manitoba. Our bus drivers from that school division exper ienced huge shows of support from the families they serve. The parents understood that they had to stand up to these unfair con ditions, and that it wasn't our members' fault that families were dealing with huge inconveniences; the blame was and still is on this government. Those bus drivers deserve to know if this government acted unconstitutionally.

At UFCW, we represent thousands of uni versity students, many who have had their studies interrupted by your government interfering with their professors' ability to earn fair wages, a claim that was proven by the Manitoba Labour Board. People come from around the world to study in Manitoba, and if we can't pay our academics what they 're worth, the quality of what we have to offer will soon be down in the dumps, right beside your minimum wage. And those students and those professors deserve to know if this gov ern- ment acted unconstitutionally.

I'm here as a president of a union, but I 'm also a citizen and I want to have good rel iable health care that I can count on. Your gov ernment's law has and continues to do incred ible harm to our health -care system. Before the health -care sector bargaining review act, we represented over 3,000 members working in health care at St. Boniface, Grace Hospital and Thompson Hospital. Even before COVID came our way, we had health-care workers worried about their job stability, worried about their ability to provide quality care for Manitobans in need.

Our health- care system relies heavily on thousands of workers –health-care aides, porters and so many more –many of whom are only making a few bucks above minimum wage. And guess what? Those workers deserve to know if their govern- ment acted unconstitutionally. And we don't need volunteers for our health-care system. We need to pay workers fairly. We need to invest in the long -term health of our province, their people and its economy. On behalf of Manitobans, I'm here to advocate for fairness. We've had two very different rulings on your government's wage freeze legislation, and we need the

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 97 clarity that only having our appeal heard at the Supreme Court will provide. If this is really about moving forward together, you need to look beyond numbers to the people you 're hurting, the working families who are the backbone of our province. And now, more than ever, they need a gov ernment that makes them a priority. When is the Stefanson govern- ment going to do that? And guess what? Every single Manitoban deserves to know if this govern ment acted u nconsti- tutionally.

If you repeal the PSSA through Bill 2, you'll be sending a strong message to Manitobans that you know bill 28 was unconstitutional. And Bill 2 is not an olive branch, as you've been trying to portray it here tonight, but it's a ploy to get the gov ernment off the hook. And to be completely frank, Bill 2 is a coward's move. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairperson: And we thank you for your pre - sentation. The floor is now open to questions. Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Mr. Traeger. Thank you for your presentation. It's very direct; I appreciate direct- ness. I think it's a very bold move, myself. Thank you.

And we are attempting to move forward, as I've said. And there's opportunities there for all of us, and it 'll take a lot o f work before we realize that, but we' re ready to do the work. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Any comments, Mr. Traeger? J. Traeger: Oh, just that if you 're going to move forward on behalf of Manitobans, maybe you want to ask them what they'd like to see. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for that. Mr. Wiebe: Mr. Traeger, thank you so much for taking the time.

I appreciated your presentation, parti- cularly because of the breadth of the experiences that you can bring to the committee here tonight, and sort of the variety of different folks that you represent and just how this legislation has impacted them. I think it's important for us to understand that and to hear that directly from you, so I appre ciate you bringing that forward. You know, I would disa gree with the minister.

I don't believe that this is a bold step in any fashion – you know, to simply turn tail and run, and as you said, not really listen to anyone or to any of the working people of this province about how we can do things better. You know , if the minister were to take bold action here tonight, if there was some thing that the minister could say or could indicate direction from his government that clearly indicated a break from, you know, the Brian Pallister government and agenda that was brought forward, you know, with most of the existing Cabinet and caucus in place, I would remind folks.

But if he was to make a distinct break, what kind of step could he take here tonight that would indicate to you that he 's taking this next step serio usly and is actually listening to working people in this province? J. Traeger: Well, public consul tation would be a good start.

If they believe that the people of Manitoba are happy with the way the PSSA impacted public sector wages–and, by the way, really had a very strong impact on private sector wages as well, because we had employers coming to the bargaining table and saying, if two zeroes and 1.5 per cent over four years is–or 1.75, sorry, over four years is good enough for government workers, then it's good enough for people who work at Maple Leaf, or people who work at Safeway or people who work at any number of private sector locations. * (19:10) The–this government doesn't–I don't know, other than having Stefanson's face as the person in c harge, I can't tell any difference between the way this gov - ernment is acting and the way it acted in the past.

I don't feel as though this move is an olive branch at all; this is an attempt to get out of a bad ruling from the Supreme Court against the Gov ernment of Manitoba. You know, a year and a half out from an election, I think it reeks, and I think you could start by admitting that that 's some–part of the motivation, if you want to show that you 're different from the Pallister government. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation. I agree with you that, you know, we need a Supreme Court ruling to get clarity.

You put this very, very clearly, that–and I just want to confirm this–that without that Supreme Court ruling, there is going to be a continuing cloud in the air, and continuing uncertainty, and that 's going to be continuing prob- lems for us in Manitoba in terms of bargaining. Is that right? J. Traeger: Exactly right. And what I would say is that, if we don't get a ruling on the constitutionality of this kind of legis lation, there 's nothing stopping a future government from going down the same road. We've had bill 28 for a number of years now, and it's

98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 had a hugely negative impact on the wages of private and public sector workers –mostly public sector workers, I will admit–but it's had a huge impact. So, if we don' t have a ruling from the Supreme Court, what I see happening is this government or one like it in the future putting forward the same type of legislation so that they can get a three-year break, and then when we call them on it, they say, oh, we're going to repeal it. Mr. Chairperson: We thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Traeger. Next, we 'll move on to Mr. Jason Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins? Mr.

Hawkins, we 'll just ask that you turn your camera on when you're ready for your presentation. Jason Hawkins (Private Citizen): Hello. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Good evening and welcome, Mr. Hawkins. The floor is yours. J. Hawkins: Firstly, in healing with this go vernment after Brian Pallister started the framework of destroying our province. It was obvious, when he was elected, there was a clear target on labour and the unions that represent the hard-working Manitobans.

I realize no one has a crystal ball, but fast-forward from the day the legislation was introduced, this gov- ernment attacked security guards, health -care workers, teachers, school bus drivers, among others. Yet when a pandemic hit, these people–who the gov- ernment identified as heroes –while o ur gov ernment officials stayed in the safety of their homes, health - care employees put their lives on the line to protect Manitobans; yet those employees were not allowed their right to fair bargaining, fair wage increases. As we have seen in the courts , this bill has not been supported.

Repealing this is a good first step in healing the negative feelings this gov ernment has placed on the hard-working Manitobans. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The floor is open for questions. Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Mr. Hawkins, for your comments. I ap preciate we 're in a very different time and that's where we 're trying to move on. And I appreciate your comments that it's a good first step. I certainly agree with that, and there 's lots more work to do. J. Hawkins: I want to be clear, it's a first step in a long road.

You know, many of our Manitobans are in hard situations right now, financially, emotionally, physic- ally. You know, our health-care people are beat down. Our hard- working Manitobans who protected us in this time deserve the fair right to bargaining. Mr. Wiebe: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Hawkins, for the pre sentation. Though it was on the shorter side, it– you certainly got your passion across and I certainly see that as the passion that I see from a lot of workers in Manitoba who are frustrated with this government.

So I just wanted to ask a little bit more about what you're saying about, you know, one step in a long road. The minister now, over and over again, is standing up and saying, you know, we should move on. Workers–what–you know, get over it. What are some of those steps that this government can take when it comes to this long road that you talk about that would help to restore some confidence that this government, you know, actually could show some respect to workers in this province? J. Hawkins: Well, I think in starting, allowing this to go to the Supreme Court, you know.

Admitting the government was wrong in introducing this in the first place. It wasn 't about protecting Manitobans. It was about attacking our hard-working people. Like I said, these are one step in a long road of healing the effects of what this gov ernment has done, especially going into a pandemic. Now, coming out of it, we should be looking at what we can do for these people. You know, when the pandemic hit, every time Mr. Pallister came onto TV, you know, in his news conferences: what he could do for busi ness. There is nothing ever there for what he could do for the working Manitobans.

He didn' t help working Manitobans. He gave our seniors who already got pension, you know, had pension plans and old-age security, he gave them a bump in pay. He didn't give a bump in pay to the hard-working people who'd had–who, yes, you know, have a decent wage. But he didn' t give it to them because they didn 't qualify due to their wages. Yet they were the ones on the front lines, affected the most by how the gov ern- ment did not allow for fair bargaining. Mr. Helwer: Something the member said twigged me–he's putting words in my mouth.

Never tonight or previously–I want that withdrawn–have I ever said to any union to get over it. I have said, that I appre ciate this is a first step. We are moving on; there is a lot

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 99 of work to do. I would appre ciate the member withdrawing the allegation that I said those words. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hawkins, any comment? J. Hawkins: No comment. Mr. Chairperson: Yes, and again, as we all know, we're here for the pre sentation and questions and answers to the presenter. So while you may have your own point on that, Minister Helwer, we 're going to move forward to Mr. Gerrard. Mr.

Gerrard: You've talked about as a –somebody who's, you know, I believe, on the front lines of workers in Manitoba, of the impact emotionally and I guess on people 's mental well -being of the bill 28 and the low wages and all the other things that went along with that. I 'd like to have you, if you would, expand on that a little. J. Hawkins: Well, I mean, let's look at our, you know, assisted living. Let's look at our home, our elderly, our assisted living for, you know, our beloved parents. Look at the low wages that are in there. You know, what did we do for them? What did this gov ernment do for them?

Again, I go back to the point of every time Mr. Pallister came onto TV, it was what he could do for busi ness. It wasn 't what he could do for the hard-working Manitobans. Mr. Chairperson: We thank you very much for your presentation this evening. Move on to o ur, I guess, our eighth presenter, Mr. Erik Thomson from the Uni versity of Manitoba Faculty Association. Mr. Thomson, if you could turn on your camera when you're ready. Erik Thomson (Uni versity of Manitoba Faculty Association): Sorry, I vanished there. It 's fine that I can see. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Thomson. Thank you for joining us.

The floor is yours. E. Thomson: Oh, thank you very much, as –my name's Erik Thomson. I 'm the vice president of UMFA, the Uni versity of Manitoba Faculty Association. I'm an associate professor of history. It's my pleasure to help represent over 1,250 of my colleagues, professors, instructors and librarians at the University of Manitoba.

And I 'll keep my remarks short because a lot of people have spoken, the evening's getting late and many of those people have a broader and deeper knowledge of labour relations than I do. * (19:20) I just wanted to remind the com mittee of the history here, that the Pallister gov ernment interfered in our bargaining in 2016, so we felt the PSSA's spirit before the act was put on the legislative docket. This interference con tributed to the strike in 2016 and damaged our members ' interests, as the Court of Appeal has agreed and the Court of Queen's Bench has recently awarded us damages for.

The effects of the PSSA fester and contributed to the strike that occurred last fall. It continues to complicate our relationship with our employer, and it's likely damaged not just, you know, our relationships with our employer, but the in stitution, which has sunk in international rankings during all of these years. I know that many talented Manitoba students have sort of looked at this history of strikes and limited resources and poor morale and chosen to pursue their studies elsewhere. I don 't know whether they'll really come back.

I know that this approach to bargaining caused interruptions to my classes and to students' education, to the detriment of their quality of education and to their experience at the University of Manitoba. And so, therefore, I welcome this shift in approach represented by the repeal of the bill. I hope that the gov ernment will drop its op posi- tion to the PDPS's application to the Supreme Court, so that there 's more clarity about the approach that wage restraints and how they 'll work in collective bargaining in the future.

I also hope that the gov ern- ment won 't appeal the damages and the remedies recently awarded to our members and to UMFA by the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. And while this moves on from the, maybe, narrow experience of UMFA and the particular experience in the University of Manitoba, I urge the government to make it a priority to settle fair contracts across the public sector, not only with this legis lation repealed, but with the damages that are done and have doubtless happened in other workplaces, as we 've heard from others, to settle fair contracts across the public sector.

And so, that's all I had to say and I thank you for allowing me to come and say it. Mr. Chairperson: We thank you very much for your presentation. The floor is now open for questions.

100 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 Mr. Helwer: Thank you, I assume, Dr. Thomson. I– Floor Comment: Even professor, but I 'm never big on titles, so. Mr. Helwer: Okay, good. Well, I don 't want to offend, so –but thank you for your pre sentation and your perspective as a professor at the university. I ap- preciate you coming to committee and letting us know the impact that it's had on you and your classes. Thank you. E. Thomson: Thank you. I appre ciate the minister 's concern. Mr. Wiebe: Professor Thomson, thank you for joining us here this evening.

You know, I think your exper ience has been on the minds of many Manitobans, because you 've been out there really fighting this bad legis lation and its impacts. And I appreciate you bringing your perspec- tive and, you know, laying out some of the impacts that this has had not just to the faculty, but to– you know, the impacts to the uni versities themselves as well, which I think is an important element here, and I appreciate your perspective on that.

Can you talk a little bit more about the impact that we've seen on–for students in this province, and spe - cifically how the impacts that they've felt over the last number of years–you know, on top of just the impacts of COVID–but on top of that, to have to deal with this sort of uncertainty within the classroom. Can you talk about what–the impact that will have on the province going forward as we try to recover and restart our economy and come out of this pandemic? Any insights that you can give would be appreciated. E. Thomson: I'm–thank you for the question. I think it's a very difficult question to answer.

I think teachers and university teachers will be dealing wi th gaps in preparation, with emotional sort of damage from COVID for the–you know, I don' t know, for the rest of my career, I think, we 'll see gen erations with different gaps and different things that will need to be made up. It will produce real chall enges and, hopefully, a few opportunities in teaching, as well. Layered on top of that there was, of course, these strikes.

And also, I mean, the effect of the PSSA and the constraints on collective bargaining mean that many of the other issues that w e should be talking about with our employer have been sort of clouded by other issues. So, issues about things like learning tech- nology, how its functions and how it works, is caught up in these other dimensions. And, I mean, the last and utterly incalculable step is, who 's decided not to come here, you know, students that choose not to come, students that look to other institutions as places to go, and faculty members that look elsewhere to go.

Those can be very long - term damages that are very difficult to discern and, you know, it can be a joy of the year to have a parti - cular student that really responds to certain teaching and grows in learning a certain subject, and who knows how many we've missed? Mr. Gerrard: Yes. Thank you for the pre sentation and the discussion. Perhaps you can help us, because clearly there's a long way back. What other steps need to be taken to get the Uni versity of Manitoba back on track from your perspective?

And also, since you 're a history professor, whether there 's any historical parallels where uni versities have suffered great damage like this as a result of poor approaches by gov ernment to dealing with faculty members? E. Thomson: Thank you. Thanks for the question. I don't want to speak to pro fessional knowledge beyond what I know, but yes, uni versities–the relationship between universities and governments is complicated.

It –sometimes uni versities benefit tremendously from actions of governments, including wrong-headed and, you know, the –perhaps the greatest gift to a single univer sity culture was Nazi Germany driving a bunch of talented scholars away. But of course, that's not on this level. This is a subtle shift and 'shubtle' changes in morale. And so, are there –is there a great parallel th at comes to mind? No, I 'm not sure which is the –a perfect parallel. What was the other part of your question, if you could remind me? Mr. Gerrard: Yes. The other part was, what measures need to be taken to restore– Mr.

Chairperson: Mr. Gerrard, sorry to interrupt you, we've run out of time, so I 'm just wondering if– is there leave for Mr. Gerrard to finish his question and then we can hear the answer? Is there leave? [Agreed] Go ahead, Mr. Gerrard.

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 101 Mr. Gerrard: Just–I mean, you have a good perspective of what's happening at the university and, you know, repealing this bill is not enough. What other steps have to be taken, as well, to get things back on track at the university? E. Thomson: Thank you and I 'm sorry for stepping over. I suspect there 's some work that 's already been done. There 's been a start of en gagement between members of the faculty and members of the adminis - tration.

Clarity about what budgets are, so people can make decisions in–over the long term, and that those decisions are a little bit to the side of, you know, what are we going to have next year so we can begin to plan and make priorities that reflect the views of, you know, the Senate of what needs to be taught and what's quality teaching. A commit ment to education an d, you know, clarity about the funding of the system so we know how many students we'll have and what their pre par- ation will be when they come to the university and so we can do as good a job as we can when they reach that university level.

In ways, we have these steps. We have the reme- dies. The strike has made up some of the damages and the arbitrator 's award has made up some of the damages of these last years. So, maybe we're at a point when relationships between manage ment and, you know, the mem bers of UMFA will begin to heal a little bit.

But now there's all these lagging structural issues and, of course, things like the pandemic that are new, you know, not just to me, but–and to the University of Manitoba, but to higher edu cation around the world, and part of that is going to be a real challenge, making up for the loss in quality of education over the last two years.

But some –probably there 's also advantages and new techniques that we 'll see and have to evaluate, hopefully on a basis of confidence that we' re, you know, dealing with a well -funded institution that has people that, you know, can take the time to deal with students as people and bring them along. * (19:30) Mr. Chairperson: Professor Thomson, thank you so much for joining us this evening. We'll next move on to Mr. Mike Howden. Mr. Howden, if you 're on camera, just turn your camera on when you're ready to proceed. So, Mr.

Howden is not on the call, so we 'll drop him to the bottom of the list and we 'll call on Ms. Gina McKay from CUPE Manitoba. Ms. McKay, if you 're on, please turn on your camera. Ms. McKay, thank you for joining us this evening. The floor is yours. Gina McKay (C anadian Union of Public Employees, Manitoba): Good evening, Chairperson and committee members. My name is Gina McKay , and I 'm the president and national regional vice-president for the Canadian Union of Public Employees in Manitoba. I 'm joining you this evening from Winnipeg, Manitoba, on Treaty 1 territory today.

I would like to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to speak with you all this evening on Bill 2. To give some context, CUPE Manitoba represents approximately 37,000 public and private sector workers across Manitoba. Our members work in health care, edu cation, post -secondary edu cation, public utilities, social services, child care, municipal- ities and more. The Manitoba gov ernment's intro duction of bill 28, colloquially known as the wage freeze bill, threw labour relations in this province into chaos.

Thousands of Manitoba workers suffer ed for years, including before the pandemic, because this gov ern- ment's inter ference in free collective bargaining, as we've heard this evening. Worse yet, these workers have gone years without fair wage increases, including through the pandemic, working under the shadow of The Public Services Sus tainability Act, which continues to impact Manitoba workers' lives. The government's goal was to devalue Manitoba workers' wages and livelihoods, forcing them to work for less.

The backwards piece of legis lation has hurt people, and CUPE will not let this gov ernment get away with causing this much pain for so long. To this day, public sector bargaining tables continue to offer zero per cent wage increases due to the legacy of The Public Services Sus tainability Act, some employers refusing to tell us where the mandate is coming from, citing some 'omnious' spectre that is directing them to continue offering zeroes, sometimes without explanation. And while this PSSA is set to be

102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 repealed, the damage it has done continues to affect negotiations in all sectors of work in this province, as we've heard this evening. Seventeen thousand CUPE health -care support workers currently have a strike mandate. This was due, in part, to the government's goal to freeze wages, along with other harmful pieces of legislation that did pass, like the health-care sector bargaining unit review act, which threw health care into chaos. Other bargaining tables, including school divisions, claimed that they were offering zeroes because of the mandate.

CUPE fought back at the bargaining table in dozens of school divisions, and we did not accept zeroes at all. We pushed these employers to understand that the zeroes were not legislated and that school support staff deserved better, especially during a pandemic. CUPE members had to take strike mandates in order to break this gov ernment's ghost mandate, disrupting their work, their lives and impacting the love for the work that they do. Some of the K-to-12 school members even went on strike for over 60 days during the coldest of months in Manitoba.

Yet, after all of this time, the gov ernment finally decides to withdraw The Public Services Sus tain- ability Act. Some workplaces already accepted these zeroes, and we've heard that tonight, even though the workers deserve so much more. The past few years have shown the real, human impact of a gov ernment that interferes with free col - lective bargaining. Low wages and sub- inflationary wage increases also disproportionately impact women, gender-diverse workers, Indigenous peoples and workers of colour, who make up a large part of our membership, and also front-line workers.

This is why we also believe that, in addition to repealing The Public Services Sus tainability Act, the gov ernment should also withdraw its opposition to the Partnership to Defend Public Services application to have the Supreme Court consider the constitutionality of the wage freeze legislation. And I know we've heard that echoed here tonight quite strongly.

We're urging the gov ernment to make clear to every public sector employee across all types of work, including health care, including school divisions, Crown corps, social services and more, that the prov- incial gov ernment will not inter fere with collective bargaining going forward. We believe The Public Services Sus tainability Act should never have been introduced. We know the impact that this legis lation continues today–and how it continues today. It must be withdrawn and this gov ernment mu st be held accountable for the damage it has done to all working Manitobans, whether unionized or non-unionized.

Thank you so much. Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your pre senta- tion. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Helwer: Thank you for your presentation. Some very interesting insights that I've taken note of, and appre ciate the work that your members have done during the pandemic. You know, we obviously couldn't have made it through without them. We 're still making our way along and they've been a big part of that. Thank you. G. McKay: Thank you, Minister Helwer.

Yes, I'm hoping really what gets reiterated here is that we –what we have in common is that we want public service workers to stay in Manitoba, right? We want them to thrive as Manitobans instead of looking to neighbouring provinces and changes of careers to make ends meet. So, thanks, and I 'm happy to answer any questions. Mr. Wiebe: Gina, good to see you again, and thank you so much for the presentation, for taking time out of your busy

schedule to be here tonight to inform the committee a little bit of the perspective of your members. And once again, I feel like the presen tation that you've given has been a good cross -section of Manitobans and a good cross -section of those folks that, you know, we all called front -line heroes and – thanks, you know, our front-line workers. And we've certainly heard those sentiments and, in fact, just from the minister now.

I guess my concern is, is that, you know, those are words, and what we've seen, in fact, is action that, you know, betrays this gov ernment's true motivations when it comes to working people. So, I guess, you know, again, you know, the minister is saying, you know, thank you to the front -line workers and he wants us all to just move on. Do you think Manitoban workers are ready to move on under this government with the same sort of rhetoric coming from this minister again tonight?

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 103 G. McKay: Yes, thank you so much. Are workers ready to move on? You know, how do you move on when you have deep-seated zeroes in those contracts, right? So,

(1) I think it 's hard to recognize that peace because, you know, we need the concrete action. You know, workers in Manitoba are still tabling zeroes–or, receiving zeroes at the table. And we see 17,000 health-care support workers five years without a contract, some of those workers not even having pandemic pay, right? We have people–we're looking at retention, we're looking at, you know, we're looking at public service workers moving away from their jobs. Are they ready to move forward? You know, it 's hard to. It 's hard to move forward, especially when you think–the impact of five years without an increase.

I was doing some math earlier while I was listen- ing along, thinking, you know, for a $13- or $14-an- hour-wage job, it would take you almost 50 per cent or 60 per cent of your day just to fill the gas tank today, on May 16th. Those impacts for workers–how do you move forward? You either look at getting second jobs, sometimes out of the sector, or changing careers. So I think, you know, what we 're seeing here is that without those deep- seated changes made and statements made and language backing up the fact that there won't be interference in the future, these are the things that are im portant, right?

We need to actually look at how can we correct things, and then how do we look at the deep-reaching–that this wage freeze bill has really created, not just in public sector, but also in the community sector that 's really seeing the impact of Manitobans, right, accessing com munity services more than ever, and also seeing those zeroes tabled in a community sector as well. * (19:40) Mr. Gerrard: Yes, thank you for your presentation. Over the last year, we've seen a big loss of people from Manitoba, of Manitobans who' ve moved elsewhere and fewer Manitobans coming here.

Do you think that the public sector sus tainability act and the chaos that happened in labour relations contributed to people moving away fro m Manitoba? And how do we now reverse that? Is just repealing this enough? I would think we've got to do more. G. McKay: Yes, excellent point. Absolutely. Workers are leaving, right? Retention: we 're seeing not only retention in those sector jobs, but also in the schools, in the education system that's training those workers.

I met with the Southern Health Region not too long ago, and those support workers were saying, we– (1) we can 't fill shifts; (2) we have unbelievable vacancy; (3) our wages haven't increased in five years and we can 't even get people to come into–to do the training, right? So we're really recognizing, Jon, that workers are looking elsewhere, that they' re adding second and third jobs, and that doesn' t make for a sustain able future. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. McKay, thank you very much. We've run out of time. We thank you for your presentation and for your question-and-answer period.

Bill 8–The Court of Appeal Amendment and Provincial Court Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: So, we'll move on now to presen- tations on Bill 8, and Ms. Susan Dawes, the Provincial Judges Association of Manitoba. Ms. Dawes, thank you for joining us this morning. We do have your pre sentation, so please proceed. Susan Dawes (Prov incial Judges Ass ociation of Manitoba): Good evening. I'm legal counsel for the Prov incial Judges Association of Manitoba, or PJAM, as I 'll refer to it. I provided a presentation brief, which you now have.

PJAM represents all 41 full -time prov incial court judges, including the chief judge and the associate chief judges. It also represents 14 senior judges as well. On behalf of PJAM, I 'll address two aspects of Bill 8: the amendments to judicial edu cation and the judicial appointment process. So, first to judicial education. In considering these amendments, the Legislature must consider the need to uphold judicial independence, and in particular that the executive and legislative branches of government must respect the independence of the judicial branch of government.

As the judicial counsel has put it, training sessions provided to gov ernment must serve the interests of

104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 justice alone and not that of external forces, govern- mental or otherwise, so control over judicial education is a necessary component of –pardon me–of judicial independence and must therefore rest with the judiciary. Current judicial education is planned and imple - mented under the direction of the chief judge and an education committee made up of judges of the c ourt. Current judicial education is robust and already entails education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context.

Judge s currently receive at least 10 days of judicial education per year, and the Prov - incial Court has a core edu cation program delivered through two annual multi-day education sessions. Individual judges build their own education plans. They access high-quality education through numerous national and international associations, including the National Judicial Institute and the Canadian Associa- tion of Prov incial Court Judges, and both provide wide ranges of educational offerings, includ ing programs about the law on sexual assault and social context. The proposed new

section 8.1.1(1) is worded permissively in that it says the chief judge may esta - blish seminars for the continuing education of judges, including seminars on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. I note that because this legislative provision could be misconstrued as a direction by the Legislature to prescribe specific judicial edu cation–educational content, rather, for judges. If so, the Legislature could be seen as attempting to influence the specific topics to which judges should pay parti cular attention and thereby their thinking. That would be a violation of judicial independence.

Additional education for judges also has financial and judicial resource implications. Adequate judicial– adequate funding for judicial education is essential for public confidence in the adminis tration of justice, while the federal gov ernment, for example, fully funds judicial education for federally appointed judges. The Provincial Court of Manitoba does not have guaranteed funding for its education, and I address the two types of funding that are received in the pre sen- tation brief.

Funding for the educa tion contemplated by Bill 8 would come from the court 's core edu ca- tion budget, and that parti cular budget amount of $40,000 per annum has remained the same since 2005. The impact of inflation alone, not to mention the increased complexity of matters dealt with by the court, have meant that this budget is no longer adamant–adequate to meet the court 's needs. Simply put, the public interest demands tha t all judicial edu- cation be fully funded, including that contemplated by Bill 8.

Additional educational would also impact judicial resources, and if judges are to be taken out of court for more education days, consideration must be given to the judicial complement, and only an adequate judi - cial complement will ensure the timely administration of justice. I'll turn now to the amendments to the judicial ap- pointment process. PJAM has asked me to highlight the history and strengths of the current process to assist with your consideration of the amendments set out in Bill 8.

One key benefit of the existing process is that it clearly separates the respon sibility of the Judicial Appointments Committee from the respon sibility of government. Currently, a confi dential process is led by an in dependent committee which includes mem - bers appointed by gov ernment, and the work of the committee is depoliticized in that it–that the needs of the bench and the views of the profess ion are considered along with the views of gov ernment in deciding on a short list of candidates to share with the minister.

The current process was esta blished in 1989 and '90 following inde pendent research and recom men- dations by Manitoba's Law Reform Commission, and the minister of Justice, Mr. James McCrae, consulted and collaborated extensively with the chief judge, as well as with two judges of the court, in crafting what is now the current process. Minister McCrae explained that the objective of the amendments at the time was to enhance the in dependence of prov incial judges by taking their nomination out of political hands.

The minister made specific reference to the composition of the appoint ment com mittee in his comments to the Legislature where he said: As members can see, gov ernment does not have a majority on this com mittee, so there can be no question of the government stacking the committee to get persons it wants appointed approved without thorough inquiry and scrutiny. Minister McCrae also emphasized that the in dependent process would improve public confi dence in the admin istration of justice. The result was a process which has served the

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 105 court and the public well by ensuring that the govern- ment chooses the most highly qualified candidates for appointment. Now, a number of key features of the existing process would be changed by Bill 8. With the Bill 8 amendments, non -government appointees would no longer form a majority of the committee. This change could create a public perception of politicization of the Judicial Ap pointments Com mittee and of the identification of candidates to be considered for ap- pointment.

Further, the removal of the chief judge as chair of the Judicial Appointments Committee and the requirement that a non- judge chair the com mittee would weaken the JAC's independence from govern- ment. Regarding the candidates provided to the minister by the com mittee, the current rigorous, inde pendent process for selecting candidates for judicial ap point- ment enhances public con fidence in the candidates ultimately selected for judicial appointments.

And the short list currently prepared by the JAC limits the potential for politicization of the appointment process. * (19:50) Requiring the committee to provide the minister a list of all current candidates who meet the baseline qualifications for ap pointment, whether recom - mended or not, diminishes the role of the JAC in the judicial selection process. It would a lso provide the government with access to what are now the JAC 's confidential con siderations concern ing candidates who are not recommended. And it would also significantly expand the options available to gov ern- ment for judicial ap pointments.

The changes reduce the separation of the JAC 's work from the gov ern- ment's con sideration and thereby risk undermining public confidence in the appointment of judges. The current process does not provide for any re - evaluation of the JAC 's assessmen t of a candidate. Under Bill 8, the minister may request the re - evaluation if the minister disagrees with the JAC 's evaluation of the candidate. The re-evaluation process allows the minister to second -guess the JAC 's first- hand evaluation of candidates wit hout any apparent rationale. This creates a potential for real or perceived political interference.

The presentation brief I provided includes a chart which compares the provinces and territories in respect of four criteria: does the chief judge chair the committee; is a majority of the commit tee non-gov- ernment; does the committee recommend a short list; is gov ernment precluded from requesting a re - evaluation of the candidates. Manitoba 's current process satisfies all four of these indicia of indepen- dence,

whereas the process resulting from the proposed amendments will satisfy none. I won 't take you through each of the other provinces and territories; the situation varies. I will say that if these amend ments are passed, Manitoba 's process would be in line only with Nova Scotia, where amendments were passed recently and were met with public criticism. So, the chart is there for your infor - mation to illustrate the high standards of indepen- dence and depoliticization achieved by Manitoba 's current process and the changes that the amendments would bring.

So, on behalf of PJAM, I want to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this evening. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. The floor is now open for questions. Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you, Ms. Dawes, for your representation on behalf of the prov incial court judges. On the two issues you raise, I 'm mindful, and I support your position in terms of permissive language as it relates to sexual assault edu cation and the independence of judges.

I know this was a very, you know, live issue both in Parliament and in Manitoba, and I think that both sort of landed in the same place in trying to ensure that this im portant education was happening but also recog nizing the independence of judges in their education. So, I think that we've landed in the right place, and I ap preciate you restating the position of the provincial judges. Recognize that funding for education is always an issue–today we tabled the Judicial Compensation Committee that Mr. Werier headed up, which touches somewhat on these matters, but not entirely, I know.

And then, on the issue of judicial appoint ments– and I recog nize that this is always a challenge and – federal gov ernment made changes a few years ago that are closely or more aligned with this particular proposal, and there was criticism and comments about that as well. I think it 's done okay in terms of the approval process or the appoint ment process for judges since the federal gov ernment made their changes. There will always be criticisms, I think, no matter what the system is.

106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 I appreciate you raising Mr. McCrae's comments. I think, ironically, he was appointed as a judge – citizenship judge; it' s different, but –later on –but I have a lot of respect for Mr. McCrae. And I appreciate the comments that you bring, and I know you bring them with the right–on behalf of the judges with all the right intention. And hopefully this system, I think, will be aligned with the federal system, which has proven to, I think, largely be accepted. But I'm mindful of your comments and I've taken note of them. S.

Dawes: Thank you for that, Minister Goertzen. Certainly, I was pleased to hear today that the Judicial Compensation Com mittee report had been tabled. And PJAM, of course, looks forward to timely consideration of that report and, of course, a response from the Legislature to it. Certainly, there is a recom- mendation in there for an increase in education allow- ance. As I said, however, the funding for the education that is in respect of Bill 8 would come from the court's core budget and remains a concern for PJAM.

On the other point that you raised about the federal changes to the ap pointment process and Manitoba aligning with those, I would say this: it 's very difficult to sort of quantify or to qualify the ap - pointment process for the judiciary, and I take your comment, Minister Goertzen, that, you know, it 's– appears to have done okay in the federal system. The question is always, how can we ensure that we have the highest quality candidates coming forward and how do we promote that? We promote that through the most independent, the most depoliti- cized process, in our respectful view.

So thank you for your comments and the answer– the opportunity to answer that. Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Miigwech for your presentation this evening. You know, I have a lot of concerns in res pect of the changes in Bill 8, in respect of the ' dudicial' ap- pointments committee. We know that, I guess, in the last year and a bit, there was an appointment process, and names were given to the former minister of Justice, who didn't do anything with those names and kind of sat on that. And then this bill came forward and they made changes to the ' dudicerary'–'dudicial' appointments committee.

I actually think that it 's stacking this com mittee. It's stacking this commit tee–whether or not t he minister agrees with this, and I know that he 's saying that there 's changes that occurred federally. It 's stacking the com mittee when you have more –you have more folks that are–what was the wording in here? I just want to make sure–the number of commit- tee members who are not lawyers or judges is increased from three members to four members, and then with the removal of the chief judge–to me, that's not good.

I think that's stacking that, and that's an op- portunity for the government to put in folks that they would like to see that are maybe parti cularly more aligned with their ideology. I think that is incredibly scary, particularly when we see what's going on in the States with Roe v. Wade, when we know that Trump put, at every single level , judges that fit his ideology– Mr. Chairperson: Order. Order. Sorry to interrupt, but we have run out of time, and I would like to give the presenter an oppor tunity to provide comments.

Is there leave for the presenter to provide closing comments on her presentation? [Agreed] Go ahead, Ms. Dawes. S. Dawes: PJAM would not propose to get into the politics of the issue, as Ms. Fontaine has done here, but certainly I reiterate that the view of the association is very much that the current process has a lot of strengths, has been a gold standard across Canada, and that that should inform consideration of the bill. So, thank you very much and good evening. Mr. Chairperson: And we thank you for your pre - sentation this evening. So, we 'll move on to Mr. Ian Scarth from the Manitoba Bar Association.

Mr. Scarth, whenever you're ready. Ian Scarth (Manitoba Bar Association): Good evening, committee, and good evening, Chair. My name is Ian Scarth. My pronouns are he and him, and I 'm president of the Manitoba Bar Association and honoured to be here this evening on Treaty 1 territory in the homeland of the Métis Nation. The MBA is the Manitoba branch of the Canadian Bar Association and the voice of the legal profession in Canada. Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair Here in Manitoba, we have approximately 1,650 members, consisting of lawyers, legal academics, law students and members of the judiciary.

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 107 We're distinct from the Law Society in Manitoba, which is the regula tory body of the profession. T he Bar Association not only advocates for the interests of its members, it also advocates for core –certain core principles, one of those being the rule of law, which also requires the independent judiciary free from any influence from other branches of gov ernment, including the executive and the Legislature.

The Manitoba Bar Association enjoys a relationship with all of government representatives in consultation over legislative amendments, whether it 's their party or another party, to deter mine what is the best for the law, and that's where I attend before you today. * (20:00) An in dependent judiciary is fun damental to maintaining public confidence in the judicial system, and I'm here to adjust Bill 8 and the impact it will have on the in dependence of the judiciary and the public conference in –confidence in the adminis tration of justice.

Two specific concerns I intend to address: (1) the amendments respecting the judicial ap pointment process, and (2) the amend ments concerning judicial education; and I intend to spend more on the first topic, as my friend has so eloquently addressed the second.

The judicial ap pointment process–the legislative changes that were introduced to the House were intro- duced on the basis that they had a couple of changes and effects: (1) they were to enhance the account - ability of the appointment committee, (2) they were to better inform the minister 's selection of appointees while retaining con fidentiality, and (3) the compos - ition of the com mittee will ensure a balance. No explanation was provided beyond this and no consul- tation with the stakeholders of the committee, and that includes the Law Society of Manitoba, the Manitoba Bar Association.

That also includes the chief judge or the judges of the court. As the president of the Manitoba Bar Association, I've had the distinct honour of serving on the Judicial Appointments Com mittee and can advise that the committee, in its current form, is highly effective, accountable and balanced. The current process was established following recommendations of Manitoba's Law Reform Commission and extensive consultations between the gov ernment, the chief judge and two judges of the court.

The result–a judicial appointment process which separated the responsibility of the com- mittee from the government and limited the influence that the gov ernment could have on judicial appoint - ments. With the exception of two senior judges appointed in 1988, all of our current Provincial Court judges have been selected under the current legis - lation. Most recently, a provincial judge in Thompson, Manitoba was appointed under this process, not withstanding the amendments before the House. The Prov incial Court has a roster of highly qualified judges who serve the Manitoba popula tion on a daily basis.

It is known as a court of excellence due to the appointment of highly qualified and diverse set of candidates. The amendments proposed by Bill 8 will disrupt the current selection proc ess that has served Manitoba well for almost 35 years and have the effect of politicizing the selection process. Mr. Chairperson in the Chair The first change in the first amendment relates to the chief judge being removed as the chair. In the current process, the chief judge is responsi ble for organizing the committee, carrying out vital adminis- trative functions.

Although the chief judge is respon- sible for the administrative side, no one voice on the committee carries any more weight, and this includes the chief judge; it's all one vote. Each member of the committee is afforded the op portunity to provide input, and only after a thorough review of the appli - cation package and a discussion would a selection take place.

Removing the chief judge and precluding another judge from acting as chair will place the obligation on another member of the com mittee–whether the president of the Law Society, the president of the Manitoba Bar Association or a layperson–to fulfill that administrative role on this com mittee. This will simply not be possible, as no adminis trative infra - structure exists and could create a multitude of issues relating to the proper gov ernance of the com mittee, delays and breach of the strict con fidence that the committee holds in interviewing all of its –the people who apply.

In other jurisdictions where the chief judge is not the chair, an admin istrative structure is arranged to manage and deal with the collection of infor mation and arranging of me etings. It 's not the case in Manitoba; that infrastructure doesn't exist. Currently, the chief judge is responsible for that. Removing the chief judge from that role takes away that security of that process. In addition to adminis trative dif ficulties, the diminished role of the chief judge on a com mittee

108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2022 weakens the committee's independence from govern- ment, especially con sidering that the minister may now call for re -evaluations. I 'd encourage you–and I know you have –to read that legis lation carefully, where it says that the minister may call for re - evaluation, but then says the com mittee must. Now you have a minister who is potentially calling the president of the Law Society, president of the Manitoba Bar Association or a layperson a nd requesting that re -evaluation.

I just ask you to consider whether or not, in the circumstances, that that will overstep the bounds of the judicial independence. The composition of the JAC–one of the proposed amendments is to add a fourth person, and the concern of a fourth person is that now we have an imbalance.

Whereas before there were two judges, the president of the bar and the president of the Law Society, and then you had three lay people to balance it out, the majority of non -government appointees, now you have a balance with four gov ernment appointees coming forward to speak to this com mittee. That allows the gov ernment to place four people through order-in-council on this com mittee to provide perspective as to what and who should be appointed. Now, the values and the insight brought by the lay people is invaluable to the committee.

They bring a fresh view that's not from anybody who would know these people, and they review the applications on that basis, and, again, their comments are invaluable. But the gov ernment's appointees cannot be seen to unbalance the other control mechanisms that 's been built within this legislation that, again, has existed for 35 years. So a fourth person can have the effect of diminishing the publ ic perception and that the com - mittee is no longer inde pendent from gov ernment interference.

And I say this with all due respect to this being proposed forward, but the question is why, after 35 years, has this now been proposed when we have also have other appointments coming through? Increasing the number of candidates provided to the minister also has a number of concerns.

Some have been outlined by my friend, but the previous process after the interview is selection, vetting, reviewing applications, interviewing everyone –three to six candidates were put forward to the minister for selection and the minis ter had then had the oppor - tunity to review that list and choose from those candidates to select an appointment. Now, all candidates who apply must be put to the minister so that the minister can evaluate whether or not anybody else should be given reconsideration.

We say that that's just too invasive of the gov ernment to have their hands into a committee appointing judges, and that erodes the necessary judicial independence. The–I've already spoken about it, but the minister's ability to request a re-evaluation of a candi- date effectively allows the minister to second -guess the committee's decision and all the work that they've done; that is, reviewing the applications, interviewing the candidates and having thorough discussions that involve, again, all of the people who are currently on the committee. There's also concerns over lack of con sultation.

One question that means to be addressed, given how this legislation originally came in, is why wasn 't the MBA, the Law Reform Commission, the Law Society or the Provincial Court consulted about the changes in advance of obtaining an–excuse me–in advance to obtain their perspecti ves about the operation of the committee? I don't have an answer. The MBA wasn't consulted. If we were consulted in advance, our response would have been that the system has proven to be strong. Show me a candidate who hasn't been strong. Show me a concern with this. Show me a concern that has come forward, we'll address it.

We also represent 1,650 members, and no concerns were brought before our members that is requiring changes to the Prov - incial Court nominating process. As the voice of the profession, we would have been alerted to the concerns and we 'd would raise those directly with the minister or the Justice critic, or any other members who would–we'd be able to speak to. Yet, Bill 8, without con sultation, proposes changes that will have the ef fect of increasing the political influence, undermining public trust in judicial appointments. I'll make some very brief comments because I know I'm running out of time.

I spent most of my time on the first issue, as I said. The concern over the mandatory education is the gov ernment inserting itself into the judiciary and putting too much emphasis and creating a window into governing what judges do. Currently, our judicial education is planned and implemented under the judge –direction of the c hief judge and education committee. They already receive education on matters related to sexual assault and social context. Any legislative influence over judicial education raises concerns, as the effect can impact the

May 16, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 109 public perception of judicial independence. To im

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	42-4-ju4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	42nd 4th hansardpdf ju4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	05f965d53eab81b1a8105e9d814a0a5842c66f00

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).