Manitoba Committee Hansard — 18 March 2026 (Justice Committee, Sitting 1, 43rd Legislature, 3rd Session)

43-3-ju1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session – Forty-Third Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Justice Chairperson Carla Compton Constituency of Tuxedo Vol. LXXX No. 1 - 6 p.m., Wednesday, March 18, 2026 ISSN 1708-6671

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-Third Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ASAGWARA, Uzoma, Hon. Union Station NDP BALCAEN, Wayne Brandon West PC BEREZA, Jeff Portage la Prairie PC BLASHKO, Tyler Lagimodière NDP BRAR, Diljeet Burrows NDP BUSHIE, Ian, Hon. Keewatinook NDP BYRAM, Jodie Agassiz PC CABLE, Renée, Hon. Southdale NDP CHEN, Jennifer Fort Richmond NDP COMPTON, Carla Tuxedo NDP COOK, Kathleen Roblin PC CORBETT, Shannon Transcona NDP CROSS, Billie Seine River NDP DELA CRUZ, Jelynn Radisson NDP DEVGAN, JD McPhillips NDP EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FONTAINE, Nahanni, Hon. St.

Johns NDP GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach PC GUENTER, Josh Borderland PC HIEBERT, Carrie Morden-Winkler PC JOHNSON, Derek Interlake-Gimli PC KENNEDY, Nellie, Hon. Assiniboia NDP KHAN, Obby Fort Whyte PC KINEW, Wab, Hon. Fort Rouge NDP KING, Trevor Lakeside PC KOSTYSHYN, Ron, Hon. Dauphin NDP LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail Ind. LAMOUREUX, Cindy Tyndall Park Lib. LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas-Kameesak NDP LINDSEY, Tom, Hon. Flin Flon NDP LOISELLE, Robert St. Boniface NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Malaya, Hon. Notre Dame NDP MOROZ, Mike, Hon. River Heights NDP MOSES, Jamie, Hon. St. Vital NDP MOYES, Mike, Hon.

Riel NDP NARTH, Konrad La Vérendrye PC NAYLOR, Lisa, Hon. Wolseley NDP NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC OXENHAM, Logan Kirkfield Park NDP PANKRATZ, David Waverley NDP PERCHOTTE, Richard Selkirk PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Turtle Mountain PC REDHEAD, Eric Thompson NDP ROBBINS, Colleen Spruce Woods PC SALA, Adrien, Hon. St. James NDP SANDHU, Mintu, Hon. The Maples NDP SCHMIDT, Tracy, Hon. Rossmere NDP SCHOTT, Rachelle Kildonan-River East NDP SCHULER, Ron Springfield-Ritchot PC SIMARD, Glen, Hon. Brandon East NDP SMITH, Bernadette, Hon. Point Douglas NDP STONE, Lauren Midland PC WASYLIW, Mark Fort Garry Ind.

WHARTON, Jeff Red River North PC WIEBE, Matt, Hon. Concordia NDP WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC

1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE Wednesday, March 18, 2026 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – MLA Carla Compton (Tuxedo) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mrs. Rachelle Schott (Kildonan-River East) ATTENDANCE – 6 — QUORUM – 4 Members of the committee present: Hon. Min. Simard, Hon. Min. Wiebe Mr. Balcaen, MLAs Bereza, Compton, Mrs.

Schott PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 31 – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act David Grant, private citizen Karen Reimer, private citizen Bill 2 – The Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Amendment Act Ben McGillivary, private citizen Fernanda Vallejo, Latinas Manitoba Inc. Bill 3 – The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act Mary Johnson, private citizen Douglas Houghton, Coalition of Manitoba Motorcycle Groups Inc. Monique Curci, private citizen Ben McGillivary, private citizen David Grant, private citizen Zainab Mansaray, Canada Sierra Leone Friendship Society Inc.

Peggy Barker, Consumers' Association of Canada– Manitoba Branch Bill 4 – The Constitutional Questions Amendment Act Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Chris Barsanti, private citizen Ben McGillivary, private citizen Paul Moist, Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees Bill 30 – The Intimate Partner Violence Death Review Committee Act Fernanda Vallejo, Latinas Manitoba Inc. David Grant, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 2 – The Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Amendment Act Monique St. Germain, Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc.

Bill 4 – The Constitutional Questions Amendment Act Chris Turyk, Rainbow Resource Centre Chris Gamby, Criminal Defense Lawyers Association of Manitoba Marianne Hladun, Public Service Alliance of Canada–Prairies MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 2 – The Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Amendment Act Bill 3 – The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act Bill 4 – The Constitutional Questions Amendment Act Bill 30 – The Intimate Partner Violence Death Review Committee Act Bill 31 – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act * * * Clerk Assistant (Ms. Melanie Ching): 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 Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): I nominate MLA Compton. Clerk Assistant: MLA Compton has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, MLA Compton, will you please take the Chair. The Chairperson: Okay, we're all just going to adjust to the sound for now.

Apparently the sound person is on their way and we 'll see if we can make it a little better, but we're going to keep going for right now.

2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 So our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Simard: I nominate MLA Schott. The Chairperson: MLA Schott has been nominated to be Vice-Chair. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, MLA Schott is elected Vice-Chairperson.

This meeting has been called to consider the fol - lowing bills in numerical order: Bill 2, The Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Amend ment Act; Bill 3, The Manitoba Public Insurance Cor poration Amendment Act; Bill 4, The Constitutional Questions Amendment Act; Bill 30, The Intimate Partner Violence Death Review Committee Act; Bill 31, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act. Mr. Simard: May I move that we move Bill 31 to first on the list, followed by numerical bills.

The Chairperson: So it has been suggested that Bill 31 be moved to the beginning and then the rest follow in numerical order, so it would be Bill 31, Bill 2, Bill 3, Bill 4 and Bill 30. Is that agreed? [Agreed] Okay. Mr. Balcaen? Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): On committee business. The Chairperson: Mr. Balcaen, on committee business. Mr. Balcaen: Yes, as this is an extension of the House, I would like to bring forward a leave request for this committee to consider.

The base of this is that one of the presenters tonight, who has been a presenter on a number of different topics, received direction from the Clerk 's office that they could not wear a certain piece of apparel, and this apparel is a picture of their daughter. And the rules under the House state that, as per our standard practice, the displaying of signs, props, banners and other exhibits is not permitted. Clothing with inappropriate language or messages that could be construed as inflammatory is also not permitted. This practice applies to persons–to in-person and Zoom presenters. So Ms.

Reimer received the infor - mation that she could not wear her shirt that displays a picture of Jordyn and found it quite insulting because, as a mother of a deceased individual from a preventable impaired driving accident, it 's quite insultive that she can't wear this. So I would ask leave from this committee to make this right and allow Ms. Reimer to wear for her justice for Jordyn shirt during committee and for this presentation. Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, I want to just thank my colleague for bringing that forward. I think–I got to admit, I 'm a little surprised.

We 've had Ms. Reimer and many folks from the community here in the past. They are incredible advocates and they have, I think, always worn that attire. And so I think it might be worth, not only pro- viding leave for tonight, but revisiting that rule and just ensuring that it actually meets the standards of what we expect as legislators. So I would certainly agree with that, but we can look at that maybe even going forward. Mr. Balcaen: I appreciate the comments by the minister and I actually agree with them on this case. And so I would ask the committee if we could seek leave on this request.

The Chairperson: So it has been requested for leave for presenter Ms. Reimer to wear her shirt in memory of her daughter, as she presents. Is the committee agreeable to this? [Agreed] Leave is granted. All right, we 're doing a few things out of order, but we're going to revisit what we started before the leave request.

So this meeting has been called to consider the fol- lowing bills in numerical order: Bill 2, The Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Amendment Act; Bill 3, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act; Bill 4, The Constitutional Questions Amendment Act; Bill 30, The Intimate Partner Violence Death Review Committee Act; and Bill 31, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act. Mr.

Simard: Yes, I'd like to suggest and move that Bill 31 be considered first, then followed numerically by the rest of the bills. * (18:10) The Chairperson: It has been suggested that Bill 31 be the first one and then the rest will be Bill 2, Bill 3,

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 Bill 4 and Bill 30. Is that agreeable to the committee? [Agreed] Okay. It is agreed and that is our order. I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjourn- ment. A standing committee 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. I would also like to inform all members of the public in the gallery of the rules of decorum for standing committees.

Please note that any partici- pation from the gallery is not allowed. Examples of specific actions that are not allowed include clapping, cheering or interrupting presentations. Taking photos or video of the meeting is also not allowed, and please set your phones to mute if you have not done so already. I thank everyone in advance for their co-operation. Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in a committee.

In accor - dance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. Questions shall not exceed 45 seconds in length, with no time limit for the answers. Questions may be addressed to presenters in the following rotation: first, the minister sponsoring the bill or another member of their caucus; second, a member of the official op position; and third, an independent member. If a presenter is not in atten- dance 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 have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off. Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee mem- bers: Monique St.

Germain from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc., on Bill 2; Chris Turyk, Rainbow Resource Centre, on Bill 4; Chris Gamby, Criminal Defense Lawyers Association of Manitoba, on Bill 4; and Marianne Hladun, Public Service Alliance of Canada–Prairies, on Bill 4. Does the committee agree to have these doc - uments appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Moving on to the order of presentations. On the topic of determining the order of public pres - entations, I will note that we have out -of-town presenters registered, and they are marked with an asterisk on the list.

With this consideration in mind, then, in what order does the committee want to hear the presentations? Mr. Simard: Yes. I would suggest listening to Bill 31, followed by out-of-town, in-person presenters and then followed by bills numerically. The Chairperson: So it has been suggested that we do the Bill 31 presenters first, then the out -of-town, in-person presenters and then proceed with numerical presenters. Is that agreed? [Agreed] Thank you for your patience, and we will now proceed with the public presentations.

Bill 31–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act The Chairperson: All right, so standing committee on Bill 31, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act. So the first presenter I have is–oh, sorry. I 'm not reading the right script. I will now call on David Grant, private citizen. So, David Grant, please proceed with your pres - entation. David Grant (Private Citizen): I wasn't expecting to be first. I guess–I 've been here before, and I 've spoken against impaired driving before. I have not consumed an alcoholic beverage for more than 50 years, and every year I drive people home every night I can on Operation Red Nose.

I'm strongly behind dealing with impaired driving. I don' t have a personal history or tragedy, but I just know it's the right thing to do. I am on your side. If we can reduce the incidents of impaired driving, I want that. As I' ve explained, to no avail, to the WPS Winnipeg Police Board–and this is only slightly off topic–they're impaired because it 's all part of the program. Their Check Stop program is clumsy and can't catch drivers who are wily. Within a couple of minutes of it being set up, somebody has probably reported it to Facebook or some other site.

And so I 've been picking on them to try doing agile stops, where they stop for three or four or

4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 six minutes, stop all those cars and then run onto some other street, because then the Internet is useless. That's beside the point. So I 've been working on this problem. I've spent most of my life performing chemical analysis and developing test methods for organiz - ations like ASTM and AOAC; currently president of mid-Canada AOAC. It's a local group for professional chemists. And I use that as background because both these groups publish official chemical test methods. Zero is often a goal when you' re setting rules.

In this case, measuring zero, I think, is impossible. And that's why if the only change that happens to this bill, if instead of saying zero, it says some crazy low number, like 0.000-something, and that is achievable with field tests –you know, the evidence -gathering roadside test–if it's achievable and it's a real number. Zero sounds good, and in the newspapers, it sounds good. But from a practical point of view, saying a number that we can achieve at a roadside test is technically supportable.

I'm just afraid that if it says zero, some lawyer, because they 've fought this stuff when we started bringing in BAC testing. Lawyers are always saying, oh, it 's a mouthwash, or some other silly thing. And using zero sort of invites silliness from a lawyer. And I would use that: that we should– we, meaning Manitoba and you folks and Minister Wiebe– should be in touch with the manufacturers of the commonly available roadside toys, make sure they can do the job. You know, if they can go down to a bunch of zeros, that's good.

If the best they can do is a 0.008, then we should probably use that, just to make sure no lawyer tries to help people get away with stuff. And I remind you that I–sort of off topic, but I eat homemade bread, make it myself. I use only wheat flour, oatmeal, canola, rhubarb and just enough sugar to feed the yeast. And I 'm questioning whether I would fail after eating two slices of that bread if it's set at zero. Because, even though I don 't drink alcohol, in my bread, there is some. I bake. I don' t use vanilla in my baking, but anybody who does, the stuff you drip in that's called vanilla is mostly alcohol.

So I would, you know, be wary of that. None of this silly food, and so on, issue is valid when the test level is 0.05 per cent. Because these things only give you a very small number, like a less than 0.001–less than a 0.01. But anyway, I just raise that issue because we should be careful of that. And if it really does say zero, we–and we do the proper thing, which is a blood sample in a real lab, then I 'm sure they can detect extremely low levels. They can do a bunch of zeros there. But that 's a bit inconvenient.

And it would be nice to have t he convenience of officers at the roadside saying blow and fail at some very low number. So I 'm just offering that. And so I think that if nothing is done, I think some innocent people will be having to employ some lawyers. One of them could be in this room here as –at your table, but –and that would be a bad thing. So that 's all I'm asking is, you know, maybe I can work and–certainly willing to help Minister Wiebe, if possible, to develop work. I 've looked on the Internet at manufacturers and stuff, and I can 't find a –nobody cares about the low numbers until today.

So I would like to help make sure that it 's an enforceable number, enforceable at the roadside. And let's get this program going. And thank you for the time. * (18:20) The Chairperson: So thank you for your pre senta- tion. Do member–pardon me–do members of the com- mittee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Really, just a thank -you, Mr. Grant, once again. You're a model to others, not only your advo- cacy around impaired driving, I think is im portant to put on the record, but also your commit ment to democracy here tonight. It 's really commendable.

Thanks for your time. The standards that are set out in the bill are ones that are enforceable, and they were, you know, as part of the recommendations that came forward from MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD Canada, as well as from law en forcement. But I take your point about ensuring that this is durable legis lation; that's always our goal. Thank you. Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Well, thank you, Mr. Grant. [interjection] Oh, sorry. The Chairperson: My apologies. D.

Grant: Yes, I would–it' d be comforting to know that the roadside toys can come up with a number that says zero and really means it, you know, because,

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 as I say, some person who can afford a lot of legal help will mess up and get caught and, you know, with a 0.02 or something, and so you can expect that. We all expect it to be sturdy legis lation, but I would like to make sure that the roadsides are giving good numbers, and maybe I can get in touch with your office as far as the, you know, helping me be assured. So, thank you. Mr. Balcaen: Thank you, Mr. Grant, for attending today and bringing this infor mation forward.

You' re constantly here at com mittee and bringing im portant information forward, and it is appreciated. And I'm going to take just a little bit of liberty in regards to the question about a true zero reading, and just say that police that are out there doing this enforcement take great pride in their work, parti- cularly people that are assigned to the traffic units and doing that sort of enforce ment. And they also have discretion, and that can never be taken away from officers.

So I know that they would use discretion, and if they got a 0.0008, sort of, reading– The Chairperson: Sorry, but the member's time is up. Apologies. Mr. David Grant, would you like to respond? D. Grant: Yes, and I really should' ve clarified that I believe that the legis lation is not for me because I don't drive a heavy truck. But somebody else could be in a similar situation, hasn 't had a drink in years and the bread caught him. And so I agree with the opposition member that this is some thing the people take pride in, and if the meter says zero and the law says zero, maybe we're all happy.

And so, that was it. Thank you. The Chairperson: Are there any other questions for the presenter? Thank you. So I will now call on Ms. Karen Reimer, private citizen. Ms. Karen Reimer, please proceed with your presentation. Karen Reimer (Private Citizen): I'd like to thank you for and appreciate the fact that gave me a leave to wear my Jordyn shirt today. I appreciate it. I wish that I didn't have a reason to wear it, but I do. My name is Karen Reimer, and my family has experienced first -hand the life -altering devastation that impaired driving leaves in its wake.

My vibrant 24-year-old daughter, Jordyn Reimer, was acting as a designated driver when she was killed by an impaired driver and his accomplice on May 1, 2021. Jordyn was my second youngest of four daugh- ters. My daughters are not only sisters but they have always been best friends. They grew up together with a bond and love for each other that is indescribable. Jordyn's death shattered their worlds, has changed the core of who they are and who they now will become. It has altered the trajectories of their lives.

I lost all of Jordyn that horrible day, but I also lost very signif- icant parts of Jordyn's sisters that died with her. On March 18, 2025, MPI put out a news release telling Manitobans to drive sober after 15 lives had been lost in 2024. In this release, MPI 's chief cus - tomer product officer, Maria Campos, said, quote: The message to drive sober has been out there for years, but people are still ignoring it and choosing to drive impaired. We need to be firm that we will not tolerate impaired driving of any kind so that we stop losing people to completely preventable tragedies. End of quote.

This week, March 15 to 21, 2026, marks national impaired driving awareness week, so the timing of this meeting to hear and consider public input for proposed anti -impaired driving legis lation couldn' t be better. I support all efforts to combat impaired driving. I am here to support the amend ments in The Highway Traffic Act in Bill 31 as proposed by Mr. Matt Wiebe, Justice Minister. Impaired driving was first recorded and enacted as a criminal offence in Canada in 1921, and MADD Canada was formed in 1989. We have officially been battling this violent crime in Canada for 105 years, and still people are dying.

I'm here to advocate for changes impaired driving legislation that cannot continue to be at a snail's pace, as this contributes to victims and families enduring destruction and devastation year after year on repeat. Legislative changes on paper must be translated into actionable changes that are impactful and will save lives. Ideally, more lives would be saved with pre ven- tative measures that stop impaired driving before it can happen. MADD Canada is working tirelessly towards this by proposing legis lation that will require anti-impaired technology in all new vehicles.

This tech nology exists and has been passed through legislation in the United States nationally.

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 Long-term, this will virtually end alcohol- impaired driving in our lifetime. Until we eradicate impaired driving through prevention, we are forced to address deterrence and apply meaningful conse quences. Bill 31 proposes several amendments to enhance Manitoba's licensing and suspensions. Bill 31 proposes a zero blood alcohol concentration BAC rule that applies to class 1 to 4 drivers and it applies following certain offences and convictions.

This amendment introduces a new zero per cent BAC rule when drivers are operating class 1 through 4 vehicles, which are defined as commercial vehicles. This amendment is a welcomed improve ment to The Highway Traffic Act as it removes all risk that alcohol will impact safe driving abilities. Manitobans deserve to know with confi dence that com mercial drivers who are on our roads daily for employment are not providing any level of risk to the public due to alcohol consumption.

The second application of zero BAC is applied to drivers who register a fail or refuse a screening under the immediate roadside prohibition, IRP, and on all drivers who are convicted of any impaired- related offence until the driver has established a valid licence for two years after the first offence. A second offence within 10 years will result in the driver being subject to a lifetime alcohol prohibition. I support this amend- ment as it further–is a further measure to minimize the risk of alcohol use in these high-risk drivers. Bill 31 proposes increased roadside suspensions.

The next amend ment increases roadside suspension and applies to drivers who register a warn BAC of 0.05 to 0.79 per cent. It increases the driving sus - pension from three to seven days. Four days are also added to the suspension when a driver registers a warn if a passenger in the car is under 16 years in the vehicle. Mr. Wayne Balcaen, Justice critic, suggested this amendment in March 2025 and I am plea sed to see that the NDP gov ernment is open in–open t o listening to other parties and adopting ideas that are sound.

This amendment is a welcomed improve ment to The Highway Traffic Act, as it addresses the need to hold adults accountable for the vul nerable children within their care. I would like to see this taken a step further and trigger a report to Child and Family Services, as this is a serious incident that places a child's safety at risk. Bill 31 proposes consistent application of the ignition interlock program, the IIP. This amendment makes participation in the IIP mandatory immediately following any three -month suspension.

Currently, a driver directed through the IRP–which means they're not charged criminally –is required to participate in the IIP imme diately after their three -month licence suspension. This applies to drivers who refuse to be screened or register a fail. Currently, there exists a loophole when a driver is charged criminally, as they are not subject to the IIP immediately following their three -month administra- tive suspension. This amendment extends the post - suspension IIP requirement to all cases of three-month roadside suspensions, including drivers who are awaiting trial on criminal charges.

This amendment is a welcome improvement as it closes a loophole and helps consistently apply the IIP. * (18:30) Further con siderations: A vehicle becomes a weapon when a driver ignores the laws of the road. Manitoba Public Insurance has developed 10 steps of increasing number and severity of offences and imposes suspensions for using a vehicle as a weapon while driving impaired.

What is difficult for me to understand is the idea that there would be any other comparable 10 steps that are–that offer a criminal the opportunity to keep reoffending using a weapon such as a gun or a machete before they have a lifetime suspension using that weapon. I think it is clear to everyone that a vehicle is a weapon when the driver is impaired. Previously, on March 25, 2025, during public feedback to bill 5, I proposed three amendments to reduce impaired driving.

I encouraged the panel to review these pro- posed amendments and I would respectfully request that the government consider these, as they continue to develop and adopt further impaired driving legislation. I believe these are reasonable and within reach. I will highlight just one of these proposed amend- ments here, as it applies to drivers who kill innocent victims. Currently, when you kill someone for the first time while impaired, you get a five -year licence suspension. It is recommended that this be increased to a lifetime suspension. It is simply one and done. Driving is a privilege. It is not a right.

Ontario passed legislation creating a lifetime driving suspen - sion for first-time offenders who kill someone while driving, which came into effect on January 1, 2026.

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 We need to look to leaders like Ontario and follow suit. In

summary, I have the following recommen- dations and closing comments: (1) legislative changes to impaired driving must be developed through the critical lens of their impact; (2) data analysis must be used to make informed decisions to drive and guide impactful legislative changes. A formal FIPPA data request to MPI is recommended to analyze how many people within the categories of refusal, warn, BAC 0.05 to 0.79 per cent, and impaired, BAC 0.08- plus, fall within each of the class 1 through 6 drivers ' licences.

This will help us better understand our licence class demographic of problem impaired drivers and guide next-step legislative development; (3) impaired driving legislation is a non -partisan issue. It is a human rights issue. I would like to see the bills are not presented by different political parties but, rather, through non-partisan working groups.

This way the best ideas are sure to come to fruition and duplication of work would be eliminated; (4) it is recom mended that CFS be consulted to establish guide lines for reporting alcohol consump - tion and driving when vul nerable children are in the vehicle; (5) –that was four –further con sideration of impaired changes to category A and B offences be considered for future amendments; (6) it is recom mended that all amend ments presented as part of Bill 31 be approved and that the bill be passed. It is a –it is simply wrong to put the rights and privileges and conveniences of impaired drivers above victims.

We should not be not be sending the message that the privilege to drive f or criminals who have killed someone is prioritized over innocent victims ' basic rights. This must change. Ontario did it. We can do it too. I close now by thanking you for the oppor- tunity to contribute to the discussion on impaired driving amendments. I will end with a quote by Martin Luther King, Jr.: Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter. Jordyn's life mattered. So many innocent victims of impaired driving lives matter. Thank you; Karen Reimer: Jordyn, Andi, Nikki and Alex's mom. Thank you.

The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Jordyn's life mattered. I'm in awe of your strength. Once again, Karen, thank you for coming to the committee, presenting. When you say the impact of Jordyn' s death shattered your family, you know it impacted community, impacted this whole province. Everyone saw themselves in your family, and that includes myself. I'm committed to continuing to work with you on next steps. I 'm encouraged that you, you know, appreciate some of the work that 's being done here.

I also appreciate that you 're working with MADD Manitoba and MADD Canada, who are supporters of yours, and you support their work too. So let's work together. Let's keep working on this. It's been my commitment and will continue to be my commitment that we 'll get this –the toughest driving impaired laws anywhere in the country. The Chairperson: The honourable minister 's time has expired. Ms. Karen Reimer, would you like to respond to the minister? K. Reimer: Just to say thank you very much.

I appre- ciate the opportunity to be able to give a voice to it as a mother of a victim, and all I want to do is to work collaboratively to make changes that will save lives. Thank you. Mr. Balcaen: Karen, again, thank you for the opportunity that you've taken today to present to this committee. Very notable remarks, and I think they 're very powerful and very important. I'd like to comment on one area that you spoke about, and that's notification of Child and Family Services.

I can speak to the Brandon Police Service, as the previous chief, is –there is policy in place to notify Child and Family Services about individuals in a vehicle, but I think it 's a great idea to put that into legislation and codify it. The Chairperson: Ms. Reimer, would you like to respond to Mr. Balcaen? K. Reimer: Yes, thank you very much for that. I was not aware of that, so that's great.

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 And to–like you said, to make it more official across the board and legislation, that would be also very great. And I think that when we 're going to be expanding that, we would hope that a lot of the commercial drivers don 't have kids in the car, for instance. But I think it 's a good idea across the board for all driver's licences. Mr. Balcaen: Thank you again, and I will make comment on that because of past experience.

There is many commercial drivers that have children below 16 in vehicles with them, whether it be owner-operators, particularly during summer breaks, if they have their children with them and they' re driving and stuff. So it does happen. So that is, again, important to codify. Policies only go so far, but laws bring us that one step further. The Chairperson: Ms. Reimer, would you like to respond to Mr. Balcaen? K. Reimer: No. I guess just to say, I'm hopeful that it will be considered further as you guys –as you all develop more legislation.

MLA Jeff Bereza (Portage la Prairie): Karen, thank you for being such a fantastic advocate, but I'm sorry that you have to be an advocate. You know, as parents, when our kids go out, we want them to come home. We want them to come home safe. Your work that you're doing are making sure that other parents won't have to suffer like what you have. And thank you so much for that, for all that you' re doing. And, again, I just–I'm in awe of you. Thank you. The Chairperson: Ms. Reimer, would you like to respond to Mr. Bereza? K. Reimer: I appreciate those kind words.

Yes, I really wish that I wasn't wearing this shirt or having to talk about this all the time, but I am in a position where I need to help save other people's children, loved ones, and I just need to do what I can do to help. The Chairperson: Thank you. Bill 3–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act The Chairperson: I will now call on Ms.–we're moving to Bill 3. And I will now call on Ms. Mary Johnson, private citizen. Bill 3. So, Ms. Mary Johnson, please proceed with your presentation. Mary Johnson (Private Citizen): Thank you, and good evening. Thank you for hearing me this evening.

My name is Mary Johnson. I live in Beausejour. I've been retired since 2010, but I 'm an active community volunteer with our local Legion, with our local citizens on patrol, with the Coalition of Manitoba Motorcycle Groups and currently serve on the Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation. This presentation is personal, and it is my own. My concern is that this legislation change will prevent MPI from exploring other methods of calculating insurance rates that could benefit Manitobans more than the current method based on registered owner.

I have, to some degree, been following the dis - cussions on the CMMG meetings, as well as the Public Utilities Board rulings. * (18:40) In 2023, PUB recommended the government of Manitoba make legislative changes to prevent MPI to collect the data it states is required to proceed with changes to the basic insurance model. No legislation changes were made at that time. I was looking forward to the research that was requested by PUB to determine what the impact on insurance rates would be if changes were made to the current registered owner model and what those recommended changes would be.

You' ll see a lot of my–lot of this is going to be questions asking about the information. So I realize that the drivers with demerits pay a lot more for their driver's licences now than do drivers with merits. Certainly, in a family, that would lead to the vehicles being registered in the name of the person with the most merits, as that would provide the lowest insurance cost for the family. Manitobans are known to be frugal. A second–a single-person family does not have that ability and must pay the premium on both their licence and their vehicles based on their driver premium.

Is there a fairer and less costly method of calculating that premium? We don 't know without access to the research that only MPI has data to access. It appears there was some work done in 2024, as the PUB makes mention in its 2025 ruling: it' s a basic principle of insurance that the rating model should reflect risk and the evidence produced by MPI, including the testimony of MPI's chief actuary in this and past years, is that the primary driver model is more accurate at predicting risks than the current registered owner model.

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 But is the primary driver model the best model? Do we know, without additional research, how much difference it would make if the driver took full responsibility for the reason for their demerits on their licence, removing that cost from the insurance premiums on the registered vehicle owner? Insurance then would be for the vehicle alone based on that vehicle's risk factors and not that of the registered owner of the vehicle, as that risk would have been transferred to the driver.

Do we know without research how much the premium for the vehicle would be without the demerit penalty added to the vehicle insurance premium? We do not know without research what the impact would be on families. We do not know without the research if the current system is fairer for Manitoba drivers than a different system could be. Do we know if a vehicle owner is a safer driver because they own the registered vehicle?

Do we know if a non-vehicle owner is a riskier driver because they are driving someone else 's vehicle, or perhaps their vehicle but it' s registered in the other person 's name who has more merits? Are drivers more responsible if they take full responsibility for their own business ventures? It's kind of like your kid, if they don' t get– don't take respon sibility, how does that affect their behaviour in the future? I realize research and studies are expensive. I also realize that changes to technology are expensive.

We don't know without the research if changes to a different system of calculating insurance other than the registered vehicle model would result in cost savings to Manitoba families. Without the research, we do not know if the cost of the study and the necessary technology changes would be less than change in revenue with a system change. I understand from the 2025 PUB report that the Manitobans seem okay with the current model of insurance.

I won't read the quote–it's in the document– but basically summarized, it–PUB stated they weren't going to look at those findings because they didn't see that they were applicable to the customer 's views of the current rating model or the satisfaction. My research, then, for this presentation leads to the understanding that ingraining the current model is a political decision, not necessarily based on sound actuarial data, but on public opinion and potential cost, as well as unwillingness for change.

Ar e we, with this legis lation, cutting the potential for fairer, safer and more effective if–more cost-effective public insurance coverage for future Manitoba drivers and their families? I continue to support public insurance and wish it to continue into the future for my children, my grandchildren or future ' genegrations.' Just let's keep it fair, affordable and accountable, and I would ask you just to look at the questions that I 've asked when you're reviewing. Thanks. The Chairperson: So, thank you for your presentation. Do we have questions? Hon.

Matt Wiebe (Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation): Mary, you're in credible–2010, you retired, and then pro- ceeded to do so much for your community and for all Manitobans. You are amazing. I also appreciate that you've come here and you're advocating for this. I probably most appreciate that you ended your presentation by talking about the importance of public insurance, but also that you' re talking about the future–your kids, your grandkids. And that's really what we 're doing this for, is to make sure that it' s equitable for all Manitobans.

We share the risk when it comes to public insurance. We also share that reward, which means that we also give a bit of a break to those 16-year-old kids, like my daughter, who's just about to get ready to learn how to drive. I'm sure you've seen that for your kids and grandkids too. Am I out of time? The Chairperson: Yes, the minister's time has expired for a question. Mary, would you like to respond? M. Johnson: My kids, for sure. I was–we had one car in our family and I had four kids, so they all learned to drive on that one car on my insurance, so my registered vehicle. Mr.

Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Appreciate very much your presentation here today, and I think it outlines the important questions that need to be asked as we move forward in this, and there's a number of questions and–you know, particularly stating that it's a political decision and not necessarily based on sound actuarial data. So I appreciate your thoughts and your presentation as you brought them forward. The Chairperson: Mary, would you like to respond?

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 M. Johnson: Thank you, and, I guess, further to that, when I was doing the research, when I saw the recom- mendation for the driver model, I don't know if that was based on sound actuarial data either because we didn't see all of that discussion. So thank you. Mr. Wiebe: I–these rules are really restricted, so 45 seconds. I ran out of time because I was talking about how great you are and how much I appreciate your time.

I just wanted to further say, I know we have some meetings set up in the next couple of weeks with, you know, various folks talking a little bit more about this bill. I just wanted to offer to you that we can spend some time together and we could talk –your specific questions. Because just, you know, the format of this committee may not be the best to answer exactly some of the specificity you're looking for, but I'm happy to do that one on one. The Chairperson: Mary, would you like to respond to that? Are there any other questions? No? Okay, thank you very much.

All right, I will now call on Douglas Houghton, Coalition of Manitoba Motorcycle Groups Incorporated. Okay, and so, Douglas Houghton, please proceed with your presentation. Douglas Houghton (Coalition of Manitoba Motorcycle Groups Inc.): Good evening, Minister Wiebe, MLAs and staff. I'm Douglas Houghton. I thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 3, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act. I've been a member of the Coalition of Manitoba Motorcycle Groups, CMMG, for more than 30 years and have served in many director capacities, 'intuding' 'dilector' at 'liarge', treasurer and president.

CMMG's primary vision is to promote safe and affordable motorcycling for all Manitobans and in this respect has appeared annually before the Public Utilities Board since incorporation in 1993. I've also appeared on many occasions to make per - sonal representations. I'm attending today to confirm CMMG support of the Public Utilities Board direction to have Manitoba Public Insurance move toward a more actually related–actuarially based driver safety rating, DSR, model based on the private driver model rather than the current registered owner model.

CMMG and other interveners have recommended that PUB direct MPI to continue a transition to DSR levels towards actuarially indicated discounts for the 2027 general rate application and recommend that government retract the prose–proposed legislation. The registered owner model. M -P-O's–MPI's current registered owner model allows for premium avoidance by high- risk drivers. This model, which allocates premiums based on the record of the reg - istered owner, does not reflect the real risk created by the actual drivers of insured vehicles.

This model permits premium avoidance by high-risk drivers who can transfer vehicle ownership to a person with a higher DSR premium discount but continues to be the primary driver. In some cases, the registered owner may not even drive the insurance vehicle or have an appropriate driver's licence for that vehicle type. This is partic - ularly obvious in the case of motorcycles: the number of grandmas that own motorcycles that don't have motorcycle licences.

The government has announced that ensuring the registered owner model will ensure the vehicle insurance rates main–remain affordable for Manitoba families and that MPI remains stable and affordable. Instead, this legislation will 'remore' –sorry, reward high-risk drivers and penalize good drivers. When a high-risk driver transfers ownership to a registered owner, it lowers the vehicle's premium on that vehicle. * (18:50) However, premiums that they would have otherwise have paid under a primary driver model must be now recovered by the premiums of good drivers with higher DSR ratings.

The cost must be recovered somewhere. To illustrate, I'll use my own premium as example. Last year's DSR level provided me with a 40 per cent premium discount for three vehicles: a truck, a motorcycle and a collector car. My total premium is $4,750, but with a 18–$1,846 discount, I pay only $2,869. Should I have a major at -fault accident and sev - eral speeding variations, my annual premium would increase by $1,846 to the base level of $4,750. Should I have the opportunity to transfer own- ership to another person with a higher D -S-A rating, MPI loses that $1,846 in premium revenue.

When one considers that 40–34 per cent of accidents reported by MPI are caused by drivers who are not the registered

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 owner, this loss of premium income can be quite significant. This premium loss has to be recovered some - where and good drivers will pay. As well, not all high-risk drivers will have family or partner to whom to transfer ownership. That's incorporating basic inequity in the unfairness model. When a driver who is not the registered owner is at fault, the current methodology provides for an increase in the cost of the driver's licence. But to my knowledge, the registered owner's premiums are not affected.

There's little or no incentive for the registered owner to discontinue allowing these drivers to use their vehicle, nor for the drivers to improve their driving habits. As the premium discounts rise and more drivers are aware of this system, there'll be greater incentive for more high- risk drivers to register a vehicle with someone with a higher DSR rate. This could further negatively affect future premiums. If the registered driver model is to remain in effect, perhaps there should be a greater onus placed on the registered owner.

Since the registered owner who permits the high -risk driver to use their vehicle on a regular basis –on a regular basis–perhaps there should be a premium surcharge placed on the reg- istered owner's vehicle should it be involved in an accident caused by the high-risk driver. In my last statement account for Autopac cov - erage, MPI clearly states that the driver safety rating system rewards good driving behaviours. Thus, MPI created a 'bolus'-malus system of merits and demerits based on the driver rating scale of the driver.

This, however, has not always been the case and will certainly not be the case with the registered owner model. The primary driver model requires that each insured vehicle is assigned to one primary driver. That is, the driver whose driving record and ris k profile is used to calculate premiums because they're a person who drives the vehicle the most. A primary driver model ensures that the vehicle premiums are based on driving record. This ensures that those who cause accidents will pay the associated prem ium penalties and use–and reduce the premiums for good drivers.

It's a basic principle of insurance that ratings should reflect 'rist'. For the 2026 GRA, MPI's chief actuary stated that the primary driver model is the more accurate at predicting than the registered owner model. Enactment of this proposed legislation usurps the role of the Public Utilities Board as it interferes with its role in reviewing and regulating MPI and setting reasonable premium rates.

In addition, it is questionable whether MPI has undertaken the appropriate studies and col- lected the relevant data to determine how the driver – primary driver model would affect rates, and which be more affordable for Manitobans. I've been a supporter –and this is my own obser - vations now–I've been a supporter of Manitoba Public Insurance since its introduction in 1971. This view is not necessarily shared by many of our CMMG members who have spent 33 years challenging MPI's methodology for determining motorcycle premiums.

Although CMMG has not always agreed with PUB orders, I have personally found PUB to be compre - hensive and fair in its deliberations. MPI does not discriminate on the basis of age. I like this. Whether 16 or 60, all new drivers are treated the same when determining premiums. Our rates have generally been based on actual risk, rather than assumed risk, as by private insurance. Although Bill 3 does not affect age ability –eligibility, it does interfere with actual risk. I believe it is important to achieve an actuarially sound DSR system and to implement a fair model for determining premium rates for vehicles.

Whenever any government manipulates rates through a policy or legislation, whether it be for utilities, hydro or insurance, it risks future backlash. My fear is that a future government may insist on actuarially sound rates. The resulting rate increases may be substantial, creating rate shock that the public is receptive to accept a change to private insurance. That's something I wouldn't want to see personally. The primary driver model is not without its issues.

It may be more difficult to administer and monitor as it depends on the honesty of the registered owner to identify primary and/or secondary drivers, as the case may be. Some owners may take the chance of not listing other regular drivers who may have a lower, negative DSR rating. Unless there is an accident and detailed inves - tigation, there's no way to determine if all vehicles will be insured appropriately or there has been misreportation or falsification. Will this model also include other regular drivers, such as spouses who might share the same vehicle on an equal basis, but have different DSR ratings?

How would it work when

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 two or more vehicles are driven by different persons in the family? Personally, I would not affect the current ability to loan your vehicle to a friend or other family member on an occasional basis to run an errand or when their vehicle is in for repair, et cetera. In some cases, particularly with a spouse or young driver s in a family, it may be necessary for financing purposes to list the parent or other income earner as the registered owner.

Perhaps there should be some leeway given to new drivers who have not accrued any demerits but have not yet had the opportunity to gain merits. Other options: How about remove penalties from the vehicle insurance? I would much prefer the pri - mary driving model –primary driver model over the current registered owner model. However, should the registered owner model continue, there is a much simpler methodology to ensure that high- risk drivers pay a fair share of claims cost. Let's separate penalties from vehicle premiums.

Use the Canadian Loss Experience Automobile Rating, CLEAR, to deter - mine vehicle premiums based on the vehicle's risk and not just price. This can include other factors such as repair costs, injury and theft injury, and propensity to be involved in accidents. Let's transfer all penalties to the driver's licence. Drivers and riders cause accidents, vehicles don't. So perhaps the easiest and fairest solution is to apply all accident and offence penalties to the driver's licence and not the vehicle. There will then be no financial incentive to transfer ownership.

MPI has the data and driving records for all drivers. Therefore, the data required for this method is already available and runs with the driver's licence. It's a model that could incorporate fairness in premium methodology and much easier to enforce and administer. Currently, if one is at fault in an accident, there are additional charges on the driver's licence. How - ever, the majority of the penalty is applied to the –all the vehicles in their name, thus creating the incentive to transfer ownership to another owner with a higher DSR discount.

This incentive is even greater when the driver has more than one vehicle in their name. It is requested that the government of Manitoba delay this legislation until MPI has the opportunity to collect the appropriate data and ensure enactment of any changes for the DSR rating session–that it's fair, actually. I missed something there. That concludes my presentation. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity and for your attention to this matter. The Chairperson: Well, first, I just want to say that was extremely impressive. You finished right with the timer.

So thank you very much for your pre sentation, and do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Thanks so much, Douglas, and thanks for your work with the coalition of motorcycle groups. We've had a chance to meet a number of times and my door remains open to you and to your group to ensure that we're capturing all of the points here -you're raising here.

I think you did talk about how this is –you know, it's essentially–it's a simpler model because we have– it's a public insurance model, we can actually control the driver licensing piece which allows us to apply that DSR, the driver safety rating, to the amounts that people pay. But, you know, I think there's some good points that you've made and I wouldn't mind talking to you more, so, again, my door's always open; happy to chat with you more. [interjection] The Chairperson: Oh, Douglas Houghton, would you like to respond to the minister? D.

Houghton: I just thanked him for the compliment and the opportunity to visit again. Mr. Balcaen: Thank you very much for your input today. It's very important to have people attend at committee and give their perspectives of what they've seen and what they've viewed over the years, and you have a vast amount of ex perience; extensive list of considerations here.

So I thank you for that, and I think it's very important in your next closing paragraph: you said it's requested the government of Manitoba delay this legislation until MPI has the opportunity to collect the appropriate data and ensure enactment of any changes for this DSR rating system. Great point, and I wonder if you wanted to elaborate on that. D. Houghton: I don't have anything to follow up. I'll just give an idea, a comment on the last issue there was put in, where you put all the penalties on the driver's licence.

In the case where–the example I gave of my own licence, if I lost that nearly $2,000 of a discount rather than me transferring to another owner to not have to pay that. * (19:00)

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 If that was put on my driver's licence –that penalty, the same penalty– and discounted over the years as it would usually–would be done, there would be no incentive for me to transfer to another owner, and that would be a fairer system. It's on the driver and not the vehicle. The Chairperson: See no further questions, so thank you very much, Mr. Houghton.

So, before we move on to the next presenter, for the infor mation of the com mittee, we have had Monique Currah [phonetic], private citizen, from Kleefeld, registered to present, and they have been added to the bottom of the list for Bill 3. Mr. Wiebe: Yes, I just noticed the last presenter that you identified is from out -of-town, and so I think it would be appro priate to have all of the out -of-town presenters that are here in person to be able to present first, if that would be the will of the committee.

The Chairperson: So is it the will of the committee that this new presenter from out -of-town be granted permission to present now? [Agreed] Okay. So I will now call on Monique Curki [phonetic]. I apologize if I'm mispronouncing your last name. Please correct me. Please proceed with your presentation. Monique Curci (Private Citizen): Good evening. My name is Monique Curci. I am an injured Manitoban, a person with dis abilities and someone with lived experience navigating the Manitoba Public Insurance system.

I am also a founder of Manitobans for MPI accountability and co -founder of Mino Odewin, an advocacy group focused on equity, accessibility and systemic reform. I am speaking today not only from personal experience but from what I have been hearing from many other Manitobans navigating the system. I'm here to speak on Bill 3. While this bill aims to preserve stability within Manitoba Public Insurance's model, I am here to tell you that for many of the most vulnerable Manitobans, the current system is not stable; it is a barrier to recovery.

So Manitobans are required to use Manitoba Public Insurance; there is no alternative option. When a system is mandatory, it must meet a higher standard of fairness, accessibility and accountability. In prac - tice, many injured Manitobans are ex periencing a system that is difficult to navigate, in accessible in practice and at times very harmful. Navigating assistance while injured, parti cularly with a brain injury, is extremely difficult.

Brain injuries affect memory, compre hension, processing speed and executive functioning, yet claimants are expected to complete complex forms, understand policies, track deadlines and advocate for them - selves independently. The system assumes a level of functioning that may–many injured individuals simply do not have. Under The Accessibility for Manitobans Act in The Human Rights Code, accessibility is a legal obligation. However, I was advised in writing by MPI that it is my respon sibility to identify and com muni- cate my own accessibility needs.

As a newly injured person, I did not yet understand my limitations or how to define what I needed. Accessibility cannot depend on a person's ability to self -identify and advocate while injured. This is not accessibility; it is a barrier. Throughout this process there is a significant lack of clear guidance provided to claimants. Individuals are not con sistently informed of their rights, the full process or what is expected of them. This creates confusion and places the burden of navi gating the system entirely on the injured person.

When claimants disagree with decisions, they must go through an internal review process. This process is complex and requires deadlines–a detailed submission. Yet there is no guaranteed legal repre sentation, very limited access to advocacy and no structured support. Injured individuals are expected to build and argue their own case while managing recovery. Another major concern is how medical decisions are made within the system. Claimants may have long-term-treating health -care providers who have directly assessed and supported their care.

However, in many cases, those opinions are overridden by MPI's health-care services and/or consultants who have never met the individual. This creates a perception and often a reality that medical opinions are being selectively relied upon in a way that supports denial of benefits. When the opinions of treating profes- sionals are set aside in favour of internal or contracted assessments, it raises concerns about fairness, objec - tivity and trust in the decision-making process. Another concern is the use of surveillance and the broader experience of being treated as though one is not credible.

Many individuals feel as though they are presumed to be exaggerating or misrepresenting their injuries, particularly those with invisible disabilities. A system designed to support recovery should not make individuals feel investigated rather than

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 supported. When benefits are reduced or cut off, this can occur abruptly and without meaningful transition. Injured individuals may be left without financial support while still recovering. This creates financial instability and adds additional stress at a time when stability is critical for recovery. The First Nations tax-exempt income: In my own case, I identified a systemic issue related to how First Nation tax-exempt incomes were handled. While MPI has now taken steps to improve this moving forward, the issue still remains incomplete.

There is no-there was no clear mechanism to identify those previously impacted, review past decisions or provide redress. When systemic errors are identified, there must also be a process to address past harms. Otherwise, inequity remains. Indigenous rights and cultural supports: This also raises a broader concern regarding Indigenous rights and cultural –culturally appropriate care. Manitoba has committed to reconciliation and frameworks such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, there were gaps between these commitments and lived experience.

Individuals may be encouraged to access supports but face barriers when seeking culturally relevant or traditional healing practices. A system that does not meaningfully support culturally appropriate care raises concerns about equitable service delivery in alignment with reconciliation commitments. Escalation to oversight bodies: I have had to engage with ministers, the Ombudsman, and the Auditor General to –in order to address these issues. The level of escalation should not be required of an injured claimant, particularly one with disabilities.

Accessibility and fairness should be built into the system, not something that must be fought for through external oversights. This is not a single exper ience; this is through my advocacy work. I'm hearing similar concerns from many Manitobans, particularly individ- uals with disabilities and those facing many systemic barriers. Bill 3 strengthens and preserves the system without addressing accessibility gaps, lack of support, imbalance and decision making and limited account - ability. Strengthening the system without reform risks entrenching these barriers.

I have recom mendations: If Manitoba's going to maintain a mandatory public insurance system they must–then it must ensure that protective identification of accessibility needs; independent claimant advo- cacy from the outset; fair and transparent medical decision-making processes; a restorative redress mechanism for those impacted by systemic issues, including First Nation claimants; and improved access to culturally appropriate and relevant supports. Injured Manitobans should not be required to fight the designed–the systems designed to support them, especially while managing injury, disability and recovery.

A system can 'compear' –can appear compliant on paper but still fail people in practice. Strengthening the system without addressing these issues will only deepen the harm. Thank you for your time. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Wiebe: Yes. Thanks so much, Monique. Incred- ible presentation. Thank you for taking the time, being so impactful. The fact that you are somebody who's, you know, suffered injury but yet is able to come and advocate for others is huge. I look forward to talking more to Manitobans for MPI accountability.

I think some of the ideas you've already–you've raised were already actioning, actually, in a separate bill before the Legislature. So happy to share some of that detail with you. And just, yes, I want to encourage you in that work. I think the accountability you're talking about is one of the benefits of the public system we have. You can come here and speak directly to the minister. I think that's actually the way it should work, is that we can hear from you and hear your concerns directly. Thank you. The Chairperson: Monique Curci, would you like to respond to the minister? M.

Curci: Yes, thank you very much, I ap preciate that. You've definitely have supported me in the First Nation tax exemption. So I really appreciate you standing behind that –or your office standing behind that and holding MPI accountable for that. So–and I look forward to continuing to make sure that, you know, Manitobans are being treated fairly and having–everybody's needs are being met. So thank you. Mr. Balcaen: Yes, thank you very much for your presentation and for your advocacy. It's important that people that have been through the system and

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 that see the gaps and that see the issues come forward and bring that forward because, as legislatures – as legislators–we may not know the pitfalls of the trials and tribulations that you may have to go through. So I thank you for that, and if there's anything further that we can do as legislators, I would suggest and ask that you bring those forward to us so that we can address them at committees and at the legislative level. * (19:10) The Chairperson: Monique Curci, would you like to respond? M. Curci: Thank you. I appreciate it. This is all new to me.

This is my first night ever attending anything like this. I didn't know this was an option or that it was something available to us. So it was the last- minute thing. I'm –so I'm glad I was able to put some thing together and present and to hear the words that you guys are speaking. It really means a lot to feel heard. The Chairperson: No further questions? Thank you very much for your presentation. Bill 4–The Constitutional Questions Amendment Act The Chairperson: Okay, so we're going to move on to Bill 4. And I will now call on Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour.

Kevin Rebeck, please proceed with your pres - entation. Kevin Rebeck (Manitoba Federation of Labour): Hi, I'm Kevin Rebeck, president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour. The MFL is Manitoba's central labour body, made up of more than 30 affiliated unions rep- resenting the interests of more than 130,000 unionized workers from every sector and every region of the province in the public and private sectors and in the building trades. The MFL works to promote good jobs, fairness in the workplace and social and economic justice for all.

Conservative governments across Canada have been taking extreme measures by using the notwithstanding clause to strip away the Charter rights of people who they don't like, such as unionized workers, trans youth and teachers. Doug Ford attacked school support staff who were on strike for a fair contract and better pay by trying to use the notwithstanding clause to disregard their right to strike and force them back to work. Scott Moe in Saskatchewan invoked the notwithstanding clause to implement a ban on youth from changing their names or pronouns at schools without parental consent.

And most recently, Danielle Smith in Alberta invoked the notwithstanding clause to legis - late Alberta teachers back to work and override their Charter-protected right to strike. As right-wing governments become more extreme in their attacks, it's refreshing to see this bill that will require any future Manitoba legislation that invokes the notwithstanding clause to be referred to the Manitoba Court of Appeal within 90 days of its enactment. It would also require the Court of Appeal to offer an opinion as to whether the legislation in question violates the rights protected under

section 2 or 7-15 of the Charter, and if so, whether that violation is reasonable and justified under se ction 1 of the Charter. While we know this bill will not prevent the use of the notwithstanding clause by a future government, it would require the Court of Appeal to release a public opinion about any use of the clause. Requiring the Manitoba government justify their use of the clause before the court and for a judicial opinion about this, could be a useful tool for organizations, like unions, in fighting back against the use of the clause.

And while governments in other provinces are doing their best to attack the rights of workers, we're glad to see that our Manitoba government is doing the opposite in affirming and respecting these rights. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. And members of the committee have questions. Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, thanks so much, Kevin. Appre ciate all the work that you do, standing up for working people in this province. I appreciate that you've laid bare for the committee some of the ways that this has been used in other provinces.

Abused, some would argue. And certainly it's been used even just in the political discourse and the rhetoric around really, really important issues protecting workers and pro- tecting young people and minorities. You know, I think this bill is all about giving voters, giving citizens all the information so that they can hold governments to account if

section 33 is invoked.

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 I think you're doing a great job of standing up for working people, so thanks again for presenting here tonight. The Chairperson: Kevin Rebeck, would you like to respond? K. Rebeck: Sure. Yes, I very much appreciate government bringing this bill forward. I think having more dialogue and more explanation–I don't think Charter rights should be overridden at all. And if a government is going to take that draconian step, they should have to defend themselves repeatedly and in the public's eye and be held to account for that.

This bill takes steps to do that, so thank you for bringing it forward. Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Kevin, thank you very much for coming out to committee tonight and exercising your democratic right to express opinions and talk to this committee about that. So I would just like to thank you for coming out and appreciate your presentation. The Chairperson: Kevin Rebeck, would you like to respond? K. Rebeck: I appreciate coming here, raising these issues.

It's an important issue for workers, for their families, for our youth, and to make sure that rights are protected and enshrined is a cornerstone of the Canadian values. So we're glad to see this bill coming forward. The Chairperson: I don't see any more questions, so thank you very much. I will now call on Mr. Chris Barsanti, private citizen. So, Chris Barsanti, please proceed with your pres- entation. Chris Barsanti (Private Citizen): Members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to present to you today.

I'd like to start with a poem that you might have heard before: First they came for the communists / And I did not speak out / Because I was not a communist / Then they came for the socialists / And I did not speak out / Because I was not a socialist / Then they came for the trade unionists / And I did not speak out / Because I was not a trade unionist / Then they came for the Jews / And I did not speak out / Because I was not a Jew / And then they came for me / And there was no one left / To speak for me. Bill 21 in Quebec was passed in 2019. It was what you might call a game changer. Until then,

section 33 had largely only been used in Quebec as a form of protest. It was assumed that it would be political suicide to use the notwithstanding clause; that the electorate would punish any government that was so unwise as to blatantly violate our Charter of rights; that if

section 33 were ever invoked, it would only be done rarely and only when absolutely needed– until

Section 33 can be used to suspend sections 2 and 7 through 15 of our Charter rights.

These are generally all of the rights that people popularly view as their God-given natural rights, rights that Canadians proudly and dearly hold: freedom of conscience a nd religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; freedom of the press; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of association; the right to life, liberty and security of the person; rights against unreasonable search or seizure; the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned; the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment; the right for every individual to be equal before and under the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Pretty much the only rights not covered by the notwithstanding clause are our electoral and demo- cratic rights, our mobility and language rights and Indigenous rights. And then, in 2019, Quebec passed bill 21, which made it illegal for a wide range of public sector workers to wear religious symbols while on the job–a clear violation of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. However, not only was this law passed; shock- ingly, it was passed with the pre -emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, fully declaring it to be shielded from all of sections 2 and 7 through 15.

This meant that no court could say with any authority that bill 21 was in violation of our Charter. It allowed the government of Quebec to say, without any f ear of contradiction from the courts, that they were confident that bill 21 was compliant with our Charter. This was a game changer. The cat was out of the bag. And once one premier used

section 33 this way, it was only a matter of time before other premiers, or even possibly our Prime Minister, also used the notwithstanding clause to suspend our Charter rights. I wish I was wrong.

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 Unfortunately, since bill 21 was passed,

section 33 has been used or been threatened to be used 21 times these past seven years. It was almost used to require vaccinations in New Brunswick. It's been threatened to be used to require involuntary drug rehabilitation in New Brunswick and British Columbia. It's been used in Alberta to limit the ability for transgender individuals to seek care and participate fully in society, and in Saskatchewan and Alberta to restrict transgender individuals from safely assuming their authentic identities. It's been threatened to be used to impose min- imum prison sentences at the federal level.

And in Quebec, several other bills expand on the ban on religious symbols to 'inclede' –to include daycare workers, school volunteers and has even gone so far as to ban public prayer: all protected by

section 33. Shamefully, the notwithstanding clause is no longer being used rarely or in cases of an emergency. It has become a common, everyday occurrence. What was once thought to be political suicide is now a way to appeal to your base. And when the provincial elections came next, the voters did nothing. Supporters of

section 33 might say this is how it should be; that the voters had their say. I would remind the committee that an election is a multi- headed beast. While the notwithstanding clause has to be renewsed –renewed every five years –meaning that, in theory, the public could punish a govern ment for its use. * (19:20) The use of

section 33 ends up being just one of many issues with an electrical –within an electoral campaign and easily gets buried by other more pressing concerns such as health care, affordability, education or crime. While Canadians are very proud of our Charter, it's rarely front of mind, which is very unfortunate because our Charter is there to protect all Canadians so that we can enjoy these rights and freedoms and to limit what laws the governments can pass to inf ringe on these rights.

Governments across Canada have now learned that they can use the notwithstanding clause without fear and, having learned that, are using it more and more often. Soon, our Charter won't be worth the paper it's written on. And while it hasn't been used in Manitoba yet, I think it would be unwise to assume that it won't ever be used here in the future, nor do I think it's wise to assume that only one side of the political aisle might use it. Sadly, as politicians become more deeply polarized, politicians of all stripes will see a tool that can be used to win a quick few points with their voter base.

And if the past seven years have taught us anything, it will be used. First they came for the religious, then the trade unions, then transgender people and the homeless. It could be your freedom of speech that's next, or your right to protest. It's just a matter of time. Bill 4 is meant to be a solution for all of this. Generally, there are three guardrails that are proposed to help protect our Charter rights and limit the use of the notwithstanding clause. The first is that

section 33 never be used pre-emptively, that it will only ever be used after the court has been able to offer its opinion and all appeals have been heard. This preserves the necessary checks and balances within our system and keeps the electorate better informed. The second is that a clear and detailed explanation must be given as to why the notwithstanding clause needs to be used, how it is compliant with

section 1 of the Charter and that its use is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society and why other leg - islative means aren't sufficient. The third guardrail is that in order to invoke

section 33, a two third majority of the legislative body is required. This preserves legislative supremacy while making sure that its use is broadly supported and necessary and reduces the chances of it being weaponized against minority groups. Bill 4 only covers the first two guardrails. In requiring any use of the notwithstanding clause to refer to the court, the public will hear if bills violate

section 2 or 7 through 15 of the Charter and if those violations meet

section 1 of the Charter. But even if a court finds the bill to be in violation, any majority government can still easily use

section 33 to remove our Charter rights for purely political reasons. It's of great importance that our Charter rights be better protected by amending Bill 4 to include the third guardrail of requiring a supermajority in order to invoke the notwithstanding clause. It should also be noted that Bill 4 is too easily removed by any future government. Anything that is passed by a simple majority can easily be removed by a simple majority. That is why a second amendment to Bill 4 is needed. Bill 4 should use

section 43 of the 1982 Constitution Act that permits any legislature and

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 Parliament to pass a bilateral constitutional amend - ment that would enshrine all three of these guardrails. Any future changes would then need both the consent of the provincial Legislature and Parliament, making it much more difficult for any future gover nment to repeal the law and further erode our Charter rights. Bill 4 is a step in the right direction, or maybe only a half step. It does not offer all of the protection that it can, and those protections are far too easily removed.

Our Charter rights have always only been as good as the people upholding them. For nearly 40 years, the tradition of upholding those rights was enough. For the past seven years, history has shown the folly of believing that tradition would always be enough. Now we need laws to help support our tradition of human rights, and I ask all of you to make the necessary amendments to Bill 4 so that the notwithstanding clause cannot be used by a simple majority and that it cannot be repealed by the simple majority of the Legislature and will also need

an act of Parliament. When one right is threatened, they're all threatened. First, they came. Who among us will speak? Or even more importantly, who among us will act? Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. And members of the com mittee have some questions? Mr. Wiebe: Yes, thanks so much, Chris. Really, really good presentation and really forceful and clear. And I really appreciated it. I know we've heard from you previously through your cor respondence, but to hear in person, I really appreciated it.

You know, this really is about a balanced approach and a made -in-Manitoba approach, I would suggest, one where we have that prairie pragmatism, and I probably have a little more faith in the electorate than you're presenting here today. But I think there's maybe, you know, something to be said for trusting the electorate to a greater extent, and that's really what we're trying to achieve here.

Section 43 obviously would be a much more complicated step to take than we're, I think, allowed to do around this table. As you said, we need to, you know, work with the Government of Canada, but I do appreciate your interest in this and your perspective. It's been helpful. The Chairperson: Mr. Chris Barsanti, would you like to respond? C. Barsanti: Yes, and thank you for putting forward Bill 4. It is a step in the right direction, as much as like to see the additional guardrails.

You know, it's–it may not be as front of mind, as imme diate, to people as affordability or health care, but I think, as we look across Canada and see how it has been used in other provinces, while it may not seem as impor tant, as immediate, it is easily as impor tant as affordability and health care. We really don't miss, you know, what we've got until it's gone, and I can't imagine that some of your colleagues, like Mr. Oxenham or others, looking across the country, would feel safe with only just these two guardrails.

The super majority and tying it to the 1982 Constitu tion Act would really preserve our rights, rather than just leaving it up to a future government to repeal the legis lation by just a simple majority. And then we'd be back to square one. Mr. Balcaen: Just like the other presenters, I'd just like to say thank you for coming out today and presenting and taking up the –your democratic right to present at this committee. It's very important that we hear from all Manitobans on this, so thank you. The Chairperson: Well, just–Mr. Chris Barsanti, did you want to officially respond to Mr. Balcaen? C.

Barsanti: No, just thank you, and if there are any other questions. Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): You referenced a third guard - rail. What was your inspiration to suggest those guardrails? [interjection] Just–excuse me, sorry. I just need to recognize you first. So, Mr. Chris Barsanti. C. Barsanti: The third guardrail has been pro- posed by a number of organizations including the Canadian Bar Association and even dates back to – this is also commonly known as the Lougheed amendment.

So Premier Lougheed, a Conservative – former Conservative premier, has also recognized that having a simple majority being able to use the notwithstanding clause was probably not wise. The Chairperson: Okay, I don't see any further ques- tions, so thank you very much for your presentation. Before we move on, I've been given a note. There is a presenter, Ben McGillivary. He is an online presenter. However, he has a disability and is on for speaking to–or providing presentation to bills 2, 3 and

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 4. And for his needs, he's reaching the end of where he might be able to be available to present. Is it the will of the committee to allow Mr. McGillivary to present to those bills concurrently and right now? Mrs. Rachelle Schott (Kildonan-River East): Have we already heard from all of the out-of-town, in-person folks? The Chairperson: Yes, we have heard from all of the out-of-town folks who are here in person. Normally, we would go to virtual after the in-person, but as this person has a disability, their request has been made for his needs.

So is the table–is the committee agreeable? [Agreed] Okay. Bill 2–The Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Amendment Act (Continued) The Chairperson: Okay. So next we're going back to Bill 2. I will now call on Ben McGillivary, and he is presenting via Zoom. Okay. Oh–[interjection] Just one moment there, Ben. I'll just acknowledge you.

So, Ben McGillivary, please proceed with your presentation on Bill 2. * (19:30) Ben McGillivary (Private Citizen): Okay, yes, it won't– I won't be 10 minutes, but thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members of the com mittee, for the opportunity to speak a few–tonight on Bill 2. I strongly support this legislation being passed because I believe it's a very important piece of legislation. I thank you for your time and attention. Did everybody get that? The Chairperson: Yes. B. McGillivary: That's all I have to say. The Chairperson: Okay, thank you. And does the committee have any questions? Hon.

Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, thanks, Ben. Great to see you, and thanks for your participation in the democratic process. It really means a lot. Thank you. The Chairperson: And Ben, would you like to respond to the minister? B. McGillivary: Just to thank him for his time. Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Likewise, Ben, thank you very much for your presentation and for coming to committee and I'm sure what we'll hear on the next two bills as well. So, thank you. The Chairperson: And Ben, would you like to respond to Mr. Balcaen? B. McGillivary: No, just to say thank you again.

The Chairperson: Okay, I see no further questions. Bill 3–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Continued) The Chairperson: So, Ben, you can proceed with your presentation for Bill 3. Ben McGillivary (Private Citizen): The presentation will be the same. So, you know, what I just presented for all two, for the next two are the same. The Chairperson: Okay, thank you very much, Ben. Bill 4–The Constitutional Questions Amendment Act (Continued) The Chairperson: Okay, so just confirming, you said that–that's also the same for Bill 4 as well? Okay.

So I'll just open up one more time, is there any further questions from the committee? Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I just want –once again, thanks, Ben. Appreciate your time, appreciate your support of this legislation. I think it's important, so, thanks so much. The Chairperson: Ben, would you like to respond to the minister? Ben McGillivary (Private Citizen): Yes, no problem. Any time, Minister. Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): And, again, I was expecting a couple of times on the bills, but thank you so much for your pre sentations, partici- pating in this democratic process.

It's very important for us here at the Manitoba Legislature. So, thank you. The Chairperson: Ben, would you like to respond to Mr. Balcaen?

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 B. McGillivary: Thank you, Mr. Balcaen. The Chairperson: Are there any further questions from the table? I don't see any. Okay, thank you very much, Ben, for being here. Bill 2–The Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Amendment Act (Continued) The Chairperson: Okay, then we'll go back to Bill 2, now. And I will now call on Mx. Lou Roberts, private citizen. We're just going to double -check if they're online. Okay, so we're –Mx. Lou Roberts will be placed to the bottom of the list and we will come back to them. So I will now call on Mrs.

Fernanda Vallejo, from Latinas Manitoba Inc. And please correct me if I mispronounced your last name–oh, just give me a moment. So, Mrs. Vallejo, please proceed with your pres - entation. Fernanda Vallejo (Latinas Manitoba Inc.): Good evening, everyone. My name is Fernanda Vallejo, and I represent Latinas Manitoba Inc., a community organization that supports immigrant women and families in Manitoba, especially Spanish -speaking communities. It's an honour to be here today and to speak with you. I would like to speak in support of Bill 2, which addresses the non- consensual distribution intimate images.

In today's digital world, technology has created new ways for abuse and exploitation to happen. When intimate images are shared without consent, the emotional damage can be devastating. Victims often experience fear, shame, anxiety and long -term psy - chological harm. Many victims do not report these situations because they feel embarrassed–okay, or they are–yes, they don't want any kind of judgment on them. Strong legislation like this is important because it sends a clear message that privacy, dignity and consent must be respected online just as they are in the real world.

There is also another important reason why reporting these crimes matter. In some cases, when victims feel safe enough to report the non-consensual sharing of images, authorities may discover larger patterns of abuse or exploitation. Sometimes these reports help identify individuals who are targeting multiple victims or reveal broader networks of exploitation. So creating awareness or encouraging victims to report safely can help protect others and prevent further harm. When people trust that the law will protect them, they are more likely to speak up, and the victims speak up, communities become safer.

Protecting digital privacy is not only about technology, it's about protecting dignity, safety and respect for every person in our society. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, Fernanda, thank you so much for coming. You've got such an incredible voice for Latinas here in Manitoba. It's great to always hear from you, and look forward to chatting more as this bill–as this legislation goes through the process.

You know, I think you've identified a couple things. First of all, the barriers that certain commu - nities face in terms of sharing and reporting, I think that's an important element. And also the factor now, these are maybe old problems, but now new technology layered on top makes it so important to get it right and to address what young people especially, but all people, are experiencing today. So I just wanted to thank you for your pres - entation. Super well done. The Chairperson: Ms. Fernanda, would you like to respond to the minister? F.

Vallejo: Yes, so I don't know if we can create some solutions or how to create more awareness. I mean, you're the government, you can create a lot of, I don't know, marketing. I don't know how to make the victims feel safer to report –maybe in different languages? And as I mentioned in the other room, if you need ever something in Spanish, you can count on the organization, Latinas Manitoba. Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Thank you for your presentation, very impactful, and it's import- ant to make sure that we hit on some of those key areas, and what you said is the communication piece.

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 And I'll speak from a previous law enforcement career, as I know a lot of the officers go out into the community and talk about this particular legislation and the impacts that the Criminal Code have on this as well. So I would continue to advocate for education in schools and universities and in public about this particular legislation and what's enacted in the Criminal Code. The Chairperson: Ms. Fernanda, would you like to respond? F. Vallejo: No, thank you for the feedback. Yes, so hopefully we all can work together, yes. Mrs.

Rachelle Schott (Kildonan-River East): Nice to see you again. Thank you so much for all the incred- ible advocacy you do for your community and your ability to bring folks together from all different party lines, different places of origin. And, in regards to how we can help and work together, I think just really, as we saw at your recent women's day event, just make sure that folks know that, you know, government is accessible. They can go contact their local represen tatives, find someone like yourself that they trust and help lift up those voices. So just thank you so much for being here.

It's a great first step, and we look forward to continuing to work with you. The Chairperson: Ms. Vallejo, would you like to respond? F. Vallejo: Oh, thank you for your time and attention and bringing this matter to the table. The Chairperson: Okay, seeing no further questions, we will now move back to Bill 3. Bill 3–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Continued) The Chairperson: And I will now call on Mx. Lou Roberts. All right, Mx. Lou Roberts? Okay, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

I will now call on David Grant, private citizen. * (19:40) So, David Grant, please proceed with your pres - entation. David Grant (Private Citizen): Again, thank you. I can link this one to the–my talk on Bill 31. The reason that I stopped drinking is that in the '60s, my only vehicle was a motorcycle. And even as a teenager, I was smart enough to notice that alcohol and motorcycling was a really bad idea. So I'd go to parties on the motorcycle, act stupid, get on the bike sober and go home. And I've kept that pattern going for almost 60 years. So back to Bill 3. Good drivers enjoy reduced rates.

When I arrived here 40 years ago, that wasn't the case. So–and ironically, the MPI spokesman said the justification for charging careful middle -aged people the same as 16 -year-olds for insuring a car wa s that otherwise, if they use the risk model, kids with a bad record wouldn't be able to insure cars, to which I thought, that's probably a good idea. But anyway, that was the MPI policy in the mid-'80s, and we've moved on from that, and now there are penalties for people who are –have terrible records.

And I sort of agree with the gentleman who spoke before, that one way of dealing with this is to take more of the burden of bad record stuff and put it more on the driver's licence than on the vehicle, but the–because the other way of doing it –and I know some jurisdictions in the US –I have friends where they insure the car and no one else is allowed to touch that car if they aren't on the insurance company's list. Now, enforcing a system like that is very clumsy, because, you know, what if you need help; you're hurt or whatever, you need to lend your car. If it isn't on the list, you're in big trouble.

So I think the MPI system is better, and, again, like the other gentleman, compliment MPI in doing a bunch of things right. And the same with the whole idea of, in the old days, when I got here, my motorcycle was three times as expensive as it was in Ontario. And we discovered that part of that was that when a bus runs over your motorcycle, the motorcycle group pays for it, even though it was not at fault. And, ironically, I had that happen in 1970. Stopped at a light, the city bus behind me was planning on running the light.

So he putted the bike down the street, and it didn't hurt me at all, because I had my helmet on, and it just gently pushed me. I took a few steps, and shared information with the driver. But it did cause–realize that there was a problem back then, that MPI had not brought its fairness in – and I gather they have now, that the motorcycle rate group pays for the losses that they cause, and not for the losses that somebody else causes. So in t he '80s

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 and '90s, that was a problem, and I would compliment MPI on fixing that problem already. And I would say that the–Bill 3 is probably a good idea, and it could be adjusted, because I think it's the only practical way, is leave–is enact Bill 3. Initially, I didn't like it, but I think Bill 3 is good, as long as more of the burden is put on the driver's licence of the bad driver. And, basically, that's about it.

Thank you again for the time, and another good rule with a follow -up, and I'm sure you're in touch–the minister is in touch with MPI regularly, and two of us now have suggested shift that burden a little bit, and maybe that's what we'll see. Thank you. The Chairperson: So thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation): Yes, I think–I appreciate the comments, David, and I think you're on the right track.

We want to make sure that those bad drivers, or those who are unsafe on the roads, pay a higher rate, higher penalties, and that's accomplished through the DSR. We're giving a more of a discount for those who are good drivers. This upcoming year is the second year in a row, so that's a good news story. But it's also about keeping it simple, understandable; cut down on the red tape. And, of course, this is the model that Manitobans understand and trust, so that's what we want to support. The Chairperson: David Grant, would you like to respond to the minister? D. Grant: Thank you, Minister.

And I would remind you that right now we do penalize people who are bad drivers because they're a higher risk. My car that's out here goes out of my –it gets started up in the winter about three times a month. Go out for groceries and it sits there. So its risk is much less than yours because it's in use more, and we don't have a way of reflecting that, because this is not only a low-value car, but it's hardly ever out in traffic–never in rush hour. And I know the commuting people pay a bit more because they're exposed to that, and it would be nice if us old people that never use a darn thing had that reflected.

But I know we're doing the right thing, and the minister is helping with that. So thank you. Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Thank you, Mr. Grant, again, for coming to committee today and bringing these suggestions forward. Of course, your experience over the years with MPI and with driving, hearing your stories about your motorcycle adventures, you know, make us think about some of the issues that MPI has already addressed and will continue to address. So thanks for bringing your issues forward and speaking to this committee. [interjection] The Chairperson: So–David–sorry. No, no, just a moment.

I need to acknowledge you first before you speak. So, David Grant. D. Grant: And the ironic thing, without taking up too much time about that bus crash, is that I had been pulled over by–street police–street officers at the time, and I had accelerated to get through a yellow light before it turned lawful. But the street cops, a bl ock later, said, don't do that. So the next afternoon, going down the main street of Windsor, and I see a yellow light. So I stopped. And motorcycles at 20 kilometres can stop awful fast. So it wasn't really the bus driver's fault.

He was planning to run it, and I had just been warned, so I was super observant. So ironic. Thank you, again. The Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you very much. I will now call on Ms. Zainab Mansaray from Canada Sierra Leone Friendship Society Inc. And please correct me if I've mispronounced your name, but Ms. Mansaray, please proceed with your presentation. Zainab Mansaray (Canada Sierra Leone Friendship Society Inc.): Good evening. My name is Zainab Mansaray. I'm here on behalf of the Canada Sierra Leone Friendship Society Inc., affiliated with Canada-Africa Relation Enterprises.

I've been involved in Canada Sierra Leone Friendship Society since 2016–2016, yes. And due to the community, I've been involved since I came here.

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 Right now, I have 50,000 students alone, carrying my head. Sometimes they ask: Why you care about people? You live by yourself. Because I get more information from people. I work with homelessness. And I knew lots of the reasons why others are homeless. And I was the first one who raised up in Manitoba, saying: Oh, we have a high rate of homelessness. They need to do something about it. Cut it short. The reason I'm here today for Bill 3 about MPI, I understood saying politics, governments, the people, we are all one.

We need to bring something that we can at least mix -match or balancing. Bal - ancing in the sense that, based on the information I'm getting with the elders, right now from here I'm running again to go work with elders. I've been working for health- care aide for 18 years. I go on nursing, but I can't see blood. Then I go into international development and conflict resolution. So we gather with the seniors telling us about the generation, the problems, this, politics, all everything. We call it cultural educational club. But if it doesn't touch you today, it will touch your children.

It will touch your grandchildren. Some policies that we are –they are making, we need to think: What will come next? * (19:50) If you jump, like my parents used to say, if a chicken mother with ant jump over the firewood, the chicken will not. They will come down. I hope you understand what I'm saying. The MPI, yes, I understand, because me too, it judges me. Sometimes I'm a slow driver, and every- thing I do, I slow, I take my time. I came from Sierra Leone, West Africa. My mother, the day the queen entered into the house, the day he was born. So sometimes, when you travel, you know more and you get it more.

But I don't come and say, oh, this is me, until you go back to my country. I don't drink. I don't smoke. I don't –I only go places like this to gain more knowledge. So MPI, they need to go back to the cloister and discuss about people who smoke, people who drink, just like they do with the life insurance. That's–I want. Like, for me, I don't drink, I don't smoke. How could I go? But because of what we do, or because of my colour, or because of others' colour, especially we Africans, yes, we are –we understood her saying driving is a privilege. But we down there, me, I never drive.

They don't allow me to drive in my country. They –I drive here. But I drive a necessity. Because, like, as I'm saying, I work with the homeless. I have to pack the food in my trunk, taking it, giving people with no money, they don't pay me. Manitoba don't give me a dollar. I applied, they don't. But I'm pleading, speeding. The other day, elderly who want to die on my own with the puffer, the puffer at the back, she was sitting at the front. I passed by. Police harass me. They gave me two, three hundred dollars –tickets. I plead, no. Let them look according to humanity. Look at it.

And now, the MPI ask me to pay $680 for a –what they call, a licence. Why? Why are the wicked suffer–or what, the innocent suffer for weakness? Because of my colour? I just need you back to go to the drawing board, discuss about this with MPI. I understand maybe they go, because sometimes, as a worker, you go by what the staff say or the policy says. But the other one, I'm asking again, they need to put the MPI issue on the ballot box. Let's see who will I–how they call–who will vote? Because a lot of people are complaining. Others are moving out because Manitoba is stuck with us. So let me stop there.

Anyone, because, like, I'm running again, my people need me. And I care more. But MPI, they need to go back to the cloister. For we Africans, we came here to work to help. We don't come just because of –we came for a reason. Look, like, Afghanistan today; look at the Middle East today. People are running. We are innocent. But when we come here, we run, we leave everything. We ask for a loan, they don't give one. But they'll ask for a loan to educate, yes. We appreciate knowledge is good. But what we understood now, with what is going on, it's really, really –it's disappointing.

This is not so Manitoba friendly, looks like. So I'm pleading on behalf of my community, on behalf of the Canada- Sierra Leone friendship, behalf of the Canada- Africa relation, to look back to the drawing board. Not everybody, they see. Let them don't cover–don't read the cover of the book, or read what you see on the cover of the book, it's different with what is inside. Thank you. I'm open to any questions or concerns. The Chairperson: So thank you for your presentation.

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 And do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Ms. Mansaray, thank you. You are an inspiration. The incredible advocacy that you're doing on behalf of your community and for all Manitobans, it's really remarkable. Thanks for taking your time because your time is very valuable because you're doing so much work. So a couple of things I just wanted to say. We have the –some of the lowest auto insurance in the country here in Manitoba. It's something we can be proud of.

And I can assure you that there's–in no way would someone's colour or ethnicity or origin dictate what they pay for insurance. And we want to keep it that way. It's a public insurance model. That's for everybody. And so I just wanted to assure you of that and thank you for your time. The Chairperson: Ms. Mansaray, would you like to respond to the minister? Z. Mansaray: Yes. Thank you, Minister. Yes. Well, in fact, the last time we went to the courts, I advocate for youth that, yes, going into trauma or something, then they gave me an email so I can email you, the Justice, to discuss about these youths.

Because some of t hem, not only they are doing crime, but when you're–just like my parents used to say: Sorry, I came from so much province. So like those were saying, the one fish in a basket, the spoiled one, if you mingle with those fish, with the one fish that's spoiled, you spoil the whole story. So in terms of justice, when there is a crime for one, they gather it all. So I got information, everyday stories, stories including the seniors. I really appreciate, but if we join together to make Canada, Manitoba great. I've been here for 24 years. I never go out.

So like they are asking me, say, why you are still here? Go somewhere like–yes, they said there is so many places to go. Even, like, my parents, where they came from, Nova Scotia, I just go there once for when we do university. But thank you. I hope Manitoba, the Province, to recognize what we do. And so meet with the people. Mr. Balcaen: Yes. Again, I'll repeat, thank you for your advocacy, for showing up today, for expressing your concerns and supporting your community. I know in Brandon we have a similar advocacy group, the African diaspora, that they make sure that they look after their community as well.

And, you know, having contact with government is very important because we can continue to advocate for what your needs are. So thank you for coming to committee today and exercising your democratic rights. [interjection] The Chairperson: Just a moment. [interjection] No, that's okay, that's okay. Z. Mansaray: Yes. Thank you so much, thank you for recog nition and not only Africans, because like even in my community, Sierra Leone, they have their own. For me it's a diversity. Just like we say, like downtown, we African Black people, they hide.

They feel shy because some of us, they will–the community will be laughing at them, say look at you, you came here, look what you are doing, or whatever. * (20:00) But, like, our organization is a diverse–just because I'm the founder, I'm a Sierra Leonean, and –one that we met again, like the past, Jim Carr, when –yes, the minister, who found out the Canada -Sierra Leone information on the citizenship rights. So that's made me–but we are all one and it's a bundle for diversity. Thank you so much. I hope this will take into con- sideration. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. I will now call on Ms.

Peggy Barker from Consumers' Association of Canada, Manitoba branch. So, Ms. Peggy Barker, please proceed with your presentation. Peggy Barker (Consumers' Association of Canada– Manitoba Branch): Good evening, everyone. Thanks for the chance to speak to the committee today – thank you. My name is Peggy Barker, and I'm a board member of CAC Manitoba. CAC has, for several decades, been an intervener at the PUB hearings regarding MPI. So that's why I'm here today.

Recently, the Manitoba Seniors Equity Action Coalition joined us in the interventions and we're represented at these hearings by the Public Interest Law Centre. Bill 3 would enshrine in legislation the model where vehicle premium discounts are based on the registered owner. Now, a number of people already tonight have spoken about this, and I apologize if I'm repeating things. The change that would enshrine in the legis lation, the model, would interfere with the

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 core element of the Public Utilities Board's mandated jurisdiction. In addition, there's a lack of evidence supporting that this model is the most affordable and most effective in creating safe driving in Manitoba. A central element of the Public Utilities Board's rate-setting role includes the ap propriate allocation of costs between ratepayers.

In 2022, the Manitoba Court of Appeal confirmed that the PUB's rate approval mandate includes jurisdiction over the DSR, driver safety rating system, including the authority to examine and designate the specific methodology by which customers are grouped in order to ensure premiums are just and reasonable. This allows the PUB to impose premiums, discounts, surcharges and classifications, including through the DSR system.

The Court of Appeal also found, at that time, that the PUB can require Manitoba Public Insurance to change the way it classifies customers to ensure rates are just and reasonable and that the PUB can issue directives to MPI to provide information regarding the classification of customers. Vehicle premium discounts are determined based on the registered owner of the vehicle. This system allows people lower on the DSR scale and who may be riskier drivers to register their car to someone else in the household who has a better driver record and a bigger discount.

This distorts the system, as the vehicle premium does not reflect the driving record of the person most often driving that car. For many years, evidence in the PUB hearings has shown that safer drivers who are in the upper portions of the DSR scale are paying more than they should in relation to their risk. PUB has directed MPI–sorry for the acronyms–to do a study to deter mine the impacts on insurance rates of a different model, such as one based on the primary driver of the vehicle. To date, such a study has not been done.

MPI's data shows that in over one third of collisions on Manitoba roads, the driver is not the registered owner of the vehicle –over one third. And the proportion is even higher for the higher levels of the driver safety rating scale. In 2024, 47 per cent of the accidents involv ing vehicles registered to DSR-18 drivers occurred while someone who was not the registered owner was driving the vehicle. When people register vehicles to their household's safest driver to save money, the safest drivers are pay- ing more than they should based on their risk. It's not just a small number of drivers.

All drivers on the positive side of the DSR scale are overpaying relative to their risk. Over the years, evidence in PUB hearings has shown that a primary driver model could be a way for premiums to better reflect risk and better reward safer drivers. In the primary driver model, the vehicle insurance premiums would be linked to the primary driver of the vehicle, rather than the registered owner. And, beginning in 2021, PUB directed MPI to develop a plan to transition the DSR system from the current registered owner model to a primary driver model.

The plan was to include a pricing study, which would assess the impacts on rates of a change to the primary driver model, so that MPI, the PUB and interveners could make an informed decision based on what best interests –what were the best interests of MPI's customers. The study has not taken place. CAC Manitoba and the Manitoba Seniors Equity Action Coalition participate jointly in the PUB rate hearings relative to MPI. Due to this lack of evidence of rate impacts on MPI customers, we have never taken a position on the registered owner model versus the primary driver model.

Bill 3 also interferes with the PUB's mandated juris- diction and the independent regulation of MPI. Further, MPI has not yet done a study to determine which model is more affordable for Manitobans. There's no publicly available evidence that the current model best promotes affordability in the short or long term. So, in conclusion, affordability and safety are top of mind for MPI customers. The DSR, driver safety rating, is intended to reward safe drivers, encourage improvement among poor drivers and enhance public understanding of how driving behaviour affects insurance premiums.

If the model better reflected driver risks, it could better meet its objectives in encouraging safe driving. And this, in turn, would make roads safer for all, reduce claims overall and make rates more affordable in the long term. We urge the Legislature to preserve the independ- ence and mandated jurisdiction of the PUB in setting just and reasonable rates. We recommend that the registered owner model not be enshrined in legislation in order to preserve the PUB's jurisdiction over the allocation of costs to customers in setting ju st and reasonable rates.

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 18, 2026 And we recommend that the government release any evidence available that the registered owner model makes rates more affordable in the long term. I would like to repeat that CAC Manitoba is not at this point taking a stance on the model that should be used, but rather that PUB's jurisdiction over setting the allocation of costs to customers in a just and evidence-based manner must be preserved. Thank you for your consideration. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Thank you, Ms.

Barker, for your presentation. The work of the CAC in the PUB process is so very important, so thank you for that work. I also appreciate that you are working with seniors' advocacy group, which is–I know we have a meeting scheduled, and we, of course, received cor - respondence from. I look forward to that meeting.

We are focused, as a government, on affordability as a primary concern for us when it comes to public insurance, and so I'm hoping that there's going to be some opportunities at that meeting to talk about opportunities for us to further deliver on that promise to Manitobans. * (20:10) Thank you very much for your work. P. Barker: I appreciate your comments, Minister Wiebe, and I look forward to meeting with you and discussing this further. Mr. Balcaen: Well, thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation today: very impactful, very informative, touches on a lot of the facts of the matter that are before us on this legis- lation. So I appreciate your vast experience on this, your advocacy and for bringing that forward for Manitobans to hear at committee. Thank you. P. Barker: Once again, thank you for your comments. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here, and, judging from the number of people that have been responding to Bill 3, it's–it is definitely an area that is touching on a lot of people's concerns, so I'm happy to be able to work on it further. Thank you.

The Chairperson: See no further questions, thank you very much. And I'll just offer a friendly reminder to the com- mittee, when referring to the Chair it's –honourable Chair is the correct way, thank you. Bill 4–The Constitutional Questions Amendment Act (Continued) The Chairperson: Okay, we are moving on to Bill 4, and I will call now on Mr. Paul Moist. He is virtual, so he is coming online here. Mr. Paul Moist–okay, you're coming on. Here we go. So, Mr. Paul Moist, please proceed with your pre- sentation when–once you turn your camera and mic on, please.

Paul Moist (Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees): Okay, honourable Chair and members of com mittee, the Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees is the Manitoba affiliate of the 500,000- member Congress of Union Retirees of Canada, chartered by the Canadian Labour Congress, and we are retired union activists and proud members here in Manitoba of the Manitoba Federation of Labour. We appear this evening to support Bill 4, the use of

section 33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause, to set aside fundamental rights is an increasing and a worrisome trend in our country. Bill 4 will ensure that all such legislation in Manitoba, should it be introduced, must first seek the Court of Appeal's view on whether the legislation violates

section 2 or

section 7 to 15 of the Charter and whether the legislation is reasonable and de mon- strably justified pursuant to

section 1 of the Charter. Our focus tonight will be on labour rights, which are Charter protected in Canada and of fundamental importance in any democracy. Labour rights are, after all, human rights. The use of the notwithstanding clause in ending labour disputes–there's three examples since the invocation of the Charter. The first was in Saskatchewan in 1986. This legislation was ultimately withdrawn when the Supreme Court found that that legislation did not violate the Charter's freedom of association clause.

Charter inter- pretation thankfully has evolved since 1986, with the seminal Saskatchewan Federation of Labour case in 2015, the third in a trilogy of cases affirming the right to free collective bargaining, which includes the right to strike as a fundamental feature of collective bargain- ing rights in Canada and was therefore Charter protected.

March 18, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 The next example of the use of

section 33 in a labour matter was in 2022, a decision by the Ontario government to strip 55,000 education support workers of their legal right to strike. The workers, with massive public support, vowed to strike notwithstanding the introduction of bill 28, the Keeping Students in Class Act, which provided for massive fines for individuals and unions should they strike. Bill 28 was introduced on October 31, 2022, received royal assent on November 3 of that year and, on November 8, the government announced it wouldn't act on the legislation, and the union announced it would return to the bargaining table.

The legislation was repealed on November 14, 2022, by the Ford government, and a negotiated deal was achieved on November 20 and subsequently ratified by the parties. The latest example and the only other example of the use of

section 33 involves the Alberta government and their public school teachers last fall. After legal strike action of 23 days duration, the government introduced bill 2, the Back to School Act. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association called the legislation unhealthy for Canadian democracy. This bargaining remains unresolved, and the legislation is being chal- lenged in the courts by the teachers and, indeed, the entire Alberta labour movement.

Professor Jason Foster of Athabasca Uni versity stated, quote: Alberta's move is unprecedented in prov- incial labour history and only the third such use in Canadian history. It kind of makes a mockery of collective bargaining. Close quote. Canada's federation of labour leadership –we heard from the Manitoba leader earlier tonight–but all 10 leaders and three territorial leaders, representing over 3 million workers, called bill 2, quote, profoundly dangerous, saying that, when rights become optional, they cease to be rights.

Bill 4 seeks to preserve fundamental human rights, including labour rights, from the tyranny of the use of the notwithstanding clause to set aside such funda - mental rights. It's good legislation, and we hope it receives the unanimous support of the Manitoba Legislature. So we thank you for your time, and we're happy to answer any questions you might have, honourable Chair. The Chairperson: So thank you for your presentation. And do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Matt

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	43-3-ju1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	43rd 3rd hansardpdf ju1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2182043902af0ce3097ea0b32aa80be7f0331896

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