Manitoba Committee Hansard — 16 May 2017 (Justice Committee, Sitting 2, 41st Legislature, 2nd Session)

41-2-ju2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session – Forty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Justice Chairperson Mr. Doyle Piwniuk Constituency of Arthur-Virden Vol. LXX No. 2 - 6 p.m., Tuesday, May 16, 2017 ISSN 1708-6671

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-First Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLUM, James Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP BINDLE, Kelly Thompson PC CLARKE, Eileen, Hon. Agassiz PC COX, Cathy, Hon. River East PC CULLEN, Cliff, Hon. Spruce Woods PC CURRY, Nic Kildonan PC DRIEDGER, Myrna, Hon. Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph, Hon. Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FIELDING, Scott, Hon. Kirkfield Park PC FLETCHER, Steven, Hon. Assiniboia PC FONTAINE, Nahanni St. Johns NDP FRIESEN, Cameron, Hon. Morden-Winkler PC GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib.

GOERTZEN, Kelvin, Hon. Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Clifford Emerson PC GUILLEMARD, Sarah Fort Richmond PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC ISLEIFSON, Len Brandon East PC JOHNSON, Derek Interlake PC JOHNSTON, Scott St. James PC KINEW, Wab Fort Rouge NDP KLASSEN, Judy Kewatinook Lib. LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail PC LAGIMODIERE, Alan Selkirk PC LAMOUREUX, Cindy Burrows Lib. LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas NDP LINDSEY, Tom Flin Flon NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP MARTIN, Shannon Morris PC MAYER, Colleen St. Vital PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew, Hon.

Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine, Hon. Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Arthur-Virden PC REYES, Jon St. Norbert PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples Ind. SCHULER, Ron, Hon. St. Paul PC SELINGER, Greg St. Boniface NDP SMITH, Andrew Southdale PC SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC SQUIRES, Rochelle, Hon. Riel PC STEFANSON, Heather, Hon. Tuxedo PC SWAN, Andrew Minto NDP TEITSMA, James Radisson PC WHARTON, Jeff Gimli PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian, Hon.

Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC YAKIMOSKI, Blair Transcona PC Vacant Point Douglas

5 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE Tuesday, May 16, 2017 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Arthur-Virden) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Kelly Bindle (Thompson) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mrs. Stefanson Messrs. Allum, Bindle, Johnston, Ms. Lamoureux, Mr. Michaleski, Ms. Morley-Lecomte, Messrs. Piwniuk, Swan, Teitsma, Wiebe APPEARING: Hon. Ron Schuler, MLA for St. Paul PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 16–The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act Mr. Corey Shefman, private citizen Mr. Peter Markesteyn, private citizen Mr.

John Hutton, John Howard Society of Manitoba Bill 18–The Legislative Security Act Ms. Michelle Gawronsky, Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union Mr. James Beddome, private citizen Bill 25 –The Canadian Harm Prevention Act (Various Acts Amended) Ms. Michelle Gawronsky, Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union Mr. Steven Stairs, Winnipeg 420 Organizing Committee Ms. Sylvie Sabourin Grindle, private citizen Mr. Nathan Buschau, private citizen Bill 26–The Election Financing Amendment Act Mr. James Beddome, private citizen Mr.

Darrell Rankin, Communist Party of Canada–Manitoba WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 18–The Legislative Security Act James Beddome, private citizen Bill 25 –The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act (Various Acts Amended) Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Miranda Ferraro, private citizen Ashleigh Brown, private citizen Bill 26–The Election Financing Amendment Act Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour James Beddome, private citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 16–The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act Bill 18–The Legislative Security Act Bill 25 –The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act (Various Acts Amended) Bill 26–The Election Financing Amendment Act * * * Mr.

Chairperson Will the Standing Committee of Justice please come to order. This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 16 , The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act ; Bill 18, The Legislative Security Act; Bill 25 , The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act (Various Acts Amended) ; and Bill 26, The Election Financing Amendment Act. I would like to inform all in attendance that–the provisions of this rules regarding the hours of adjournment.

The s tanding committee meeting is considered a bill and must not be past midnight to hear public presentations or consider clause by clause of a bill except for the unanimous consent of the committee. We'll have a number of presenters registered to speak tonight as noted on the list of presenters before you. On the public of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we will do –have a couple of out -of-town presenters in attendance marked with an asterisk on the list.

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 With this consideration in mind, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): I would suggest we go through numericall y, but that we allow the out-of-town presenters to present first, as is our custom. Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreed with all the committee? [Agreed] So we'll proceed with out-of-town first, and then we'll proceed with numerically after that. Is that what you want to–we agree with, Mr. Swan? Okay, so we'll continue.

So, written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee members: Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour and b ills 25 and 26; Miranda Ferraro, of Bill 25; and Ashleigh Brown, of Bill 25. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in Hansard transcripts of this meeting? [Agreed] Before we proceed with the presentation, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider.

First of all, it is there –is anyone else in the attendance who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with the staff at the entrance of the room. Also, the information of all presenters, while written versions or presentations are not required, if you are going to be accompanying your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak to one of our staff.

As we, in accordance with our rules, the time limit of 10 minutes has been allocated for presenters, with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. Lastly, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in the committee.

The proceedings of our meeting are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript, and each time anyone wishes to speak, whether it is an MLA or a presenter, I wish to have to say the person's name. This is a signal for the Hansard to record and turn the mic on or off. Thank you for your patience, and we will proceed with public presentations. I will now call the out-of-town presenters. Bill 16–The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: I will call on Mr. Corey Shefman, private citizen, on Bill 16. Do you have any written materials to distribute to the committee? Mr.

Corey Shefman (Private Citizen): I do. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. So we'll get someone to– we'll have somebody pass them around. Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Shefman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the Legislature, members of the committee, for allowing me to speak to you today. I come to you current ly from Toronto, where I practise law. I, until January, practis ed law here in Winnipeg.

I am still licensed to practis e law in Winnipeg and I do actively practise law here, both in Winnipeg and throughout the province of Manitoba. * (18:10) It's my honour and privilege to present to the Legislature today on this question, I think, of vital public importance despite it, perhaps, seeming somewhat wonky. Inquests are anything but the remit of wonks; they are one of the most significant legal proceedings, judicial proceedings that we have in Manitoba and throughout Canada, and for that matter throughout the common law world.

Inquests allow us to explore why and how the worst possible situation in our society occurs, the death of somebody who, generally speaking, doesn't have control over their own life, who doesn't have the ability to control their circumstances: a person in prison, a person encountering a police officer, a person in a psychiatric institution, a child. These are, generally speaking, the people who become the subject on an inquest. And learning how and why they died and how to prevent future similar deaths is at the heart of the inquest process, but it goes beyond that.

The Supreme Court a number of years ago in a case referred to in my materials called Faber v. The Queen goes through a hundred years of

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 inquest jurisprudence and speaks about the three fundamental purposes of an inquest. And they all revolve around one thing, the public interest. They revolve around quelling public concern, public speculation. They revolve around addressing the circumstances which led to the death. And what we're talking about is a holistic view of how these deaths occur. Bill 16 addresses a very serious problem in the legislation, in The Fatality Inquiries Act.

For a number of years judges of the Provincial Court who conduct inquests and lawyers who act at inquests have generally agreed that The Fatality Inquiries Act is flawed and requires amendment. You will have no issue from me on that. I do have three major sources of concern about this bill, however, and the way that it was presented. The first source of my concern is that the introduction of Bill 16 directly undercuts an independent law reform commission process which was quite literally about to begin an investigation into The Fatality Inquiries Act.

The Manitoba Law Reform Commission, which, as I understand it, is a unit within the Department of Justice, was beginning a consultation process that would have brought together legal professionals who act in inquests from all sides of the spectrum to discuss ways to improve The Fatality Inquiries Act. When Bill 16 was introduced, we were scheduled to have our first meeting within the month. Unfortunately, when it was introduced, the commissioners decided that it wouldn't be appropriate for them to continue their consideration.

Quashing an independent review of legislation this vitally important is quite frankly horrifying. Secondly, there's no question, as I said, that these amendments are important, but they certainly weren't urgent. There was no urgent need to amend the legislation like this. There was certainly no urgent need to make sweeping changes to the legislation without, as far as I've been able to determine, doing any consultation whatsoever, let alone broad consultation with members of the community who are most aff ected by inquests.

And by that I mean, I'm not going to mince words, I mean racialized and inner -city communities, I mean, the indigenous community. The people who encounter the inquest system are the people who are most vulnerable. They are the people who are in jail and encountering police officers. It's no secret, and, frankly, it is not controversial to say that there is a systemic racism problem in our justice system. This is something that chiefs of police have said, the head of the RCMP has said, the Supreme Court chief justice has said; this is not a controversial statement.

And so, when we think about who encounters these systems most often, it is the most vulnerable people. And so for this bill to be introduced, for the amendments to be introduced without taking into account their perspectives is a very serious concern. I often tell people that if I'm doing something wrong I want them to tell me that; I want them to tell me that I'm doing something wrong so that I can fix it. That's the purpose of an inquest: to tell the government, to tell public institutions, hey, this thing you're doing could be done better, here's how to do it better.

The recommendations that come out of an inquest come from a judge who's heard from experts. The amendments to The Fatality Inquiries Act, in Bill 16, will take that process away.

It will give the Chief Medical Examiner, a medical professional with no legal training, no training in security, in institutional security in prisons, in infrastructure and in safet y measures, the ability to make recommendations which, frankly, would be no better than a layperson's recommendations, because outside of the medical field –because the Chief Medical Examiner, of course, is a doctor, outside of the medical field, the CME has no particular expertise.

What's equally concerning about these –this ability is that it is a significant enhancement of the Chief Medical Examiner's discretion, and there are a number of instances in Bill 16 where the Chief Medical Examiner's discretion is enhanced, most strikingly, in the sections which allow the Chief Medical Examiner to decide whether or not to call an inquest, where inquests used to be mandatory. And why discretion is important –there are two reasons why discretion is important.

The first reason is that the more and the greater the opportunity to exercise a–to exercise discretion, the greater chance that there is for implicit bias to seep into those exercises of discretion. When I talk about implicit bias, I'm talking about systemic racism. I'm talking about a person who is not themselves overtly racist, who has no hatred towards one group of people or another, but allows their implicit biases, the ones that they can't control that are built into the rules and procedures that govern our systems, to impact their decision making.

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 And that's why we curtail discretion in laws. That's why our legislatures –here, provincially and federally–fetter the discretion of decision makers. And the Supreme Court has addressed this in the case Roncarelli v. Duplessis, which is a seminal Supreme Court case dealing with exercises of discretion and abuses of discretion. And what the Supreme Court said, in so many words, is that you–it is not permitted to allow decision makers to simply make discretionary decisions without any guidance, without any principles to guide their decisions.

And yet that's exactly what Bill 16 does: it gives the Chief Medical Examiner almost unfettered discretion to decide whether or not inquests will be held, even where th ere are presumptively –there will presumptively be an inquest in Bill 16. The Chief Medical Examiner has the discretion to not call that inquest even where the criteria are met, and I address, in my written submissions, on a clause-by-clause basis, the most concerning sections. And so I'll point to you, on page 3 of my submissions, at

section –regarding

section 19(2), where we deal with– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Shefman, you have about a minute left. Mr. Shefman: Okay–where we deal with exactly this issue. And so I won't read into it, and I'll let you review it yourselves. But I would implore the committee to review my submissions, which I directed to the minister and the leaders of the opposition parties a number of weeks ago, to review and also to hear, with an open mind, the submissions of the other presenters today, who–both of whom –or at least two of whom who I know of, are very experienced in this area.

I think what it comes down to is a matter of this fundamental importance requires consultation. It requires input from the community. It requires input from stakeholders. Frankly, it requires input from the people who do this work. With the greatest of respect, I don't know that anybody sitting at this table has participated in an inquest; if I'm wrong, I apologize. But, without participating in an inquest, you cannot possibly appreciate the way that these changes– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Shefman, your time is up. Mr. Shefman, thanks for your presentation.

Is–does any member of the committee have any questions for the presenter? * (18:20) Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thanks very much, Mr. Shefman. I just –I don't have any questions for you. I think you have outlined quite w ell in your letter, and I received your letter as well. I really appreciate the time you've taken to be here tonight and the time that you've put into this. I know you're very passionate about this, and I do respect your opinion when it comes to this and t he work that you've done for this.

So I just wanted to thank you for being here and for the work that you've done on this file. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Shefman, go ahead. Mr. Shefman: Oh, thank you. Sorry. In response to your comment, Ministe r, I just wanted to reiterate that I do not object and I agree with you entirely that The Fatality Inquiries Act requires amendment, but I urge you to consult with the Law Reform Commission and with members of the community who this bill will impact and consider their input. Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr.

Shefman, I want to thank you for coming down and presenting, and also for the work that you did on your submission. You spoke about the proposed review by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission. It sounds like you were going to be participating in that process. Mr. Shefman, were you invited by the commission to be part of that? Mr. Shefman: Thank you for your question, Mr. Swan. The Law Reform Commission contacted me as a member of the bar who has represente d families of the deceased at inquests to participate in their review.

Without naming names, I am aware that other lawyers in Winnipeg and Manitoba, who represent institutions, who are often what would be considered to be on the opposite side of the table from myself, were also going to be participating in this review. It was a broad spectrum of viewpoints, of interests. And I think what's really important to note is that while I may have a particular view of the–of inquests and of the people who encounte r them, and others may disagree with me, I have yet to speak, and I have consulted quite broadly –I have yet to speak with a member of the legal profession who engages

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 with inquests in Manitoba, who believes that this is the right course of action. Mr. Swan: Mr. Shefman, were you consulted by the government or by the minister, and to the best of your knowledge, were any of those other lawyers or other experts, were they ever consulted by the government before this bill was introduced? Mr. Shefman: The information that I have is that none of the lawyers who are invited to participate in that process were consulted.

I can also advise that I did–prior to this bill being offered–being presented, I had the opportunity to meet with the minister on another matter and did raise the issue of amendments to The Fatality Inquiries Act, so, certainly, the government was aware that this was an issue which there was interest in the community to consult on. There was also an effort from another branch of the government to consult on this issue and that effort was also stymied when the bill was introduced. Mr.

Swan: One of the concerns I know you've raised in your materials is that this bill would take away the ability of the Attorney General to call an inquest, even if the Chief Medical Examiner decides that it's not warranted. Can you comment on that provision and your view? Mr. Shefman: Absolutely, and I think this goes to what I was talking about before about the expertise of the Chief Medical Examiner. The Chief Medical Examiner is an expert medical professional. That person is not a legal professional.

They don't have any particular training in the –in what is the public interest or how to consider the public interest, and that's why judges are the ones who make –normally make those calls, and in the past have made those calls. In other provinces where the Chief Medical Examiner or the coroner, which is the equivalent in other provinces, have the discretion to call or not call an inquest, the Attorney General almost always has a secondary discretion to either overrule the Chief Medical Examiner or to simply call an inquest if they believe that there's a matter of public concern.

I'd also note that, in Ontario, the legislation allows for what's called a family appeal where, if the chief coroner, which is their equivalent, decides not to call an inquest, the family is statutorily permitted–sorry, and the family of the deceased is what I'm referring to –statutorily permitted to appeal that decision, and that appea l can go up a number of stages, but what it really comes down to is accountability.

When the Chief Medical Examiner has complete discretion and complete unfettered discretion with no opportunity to appeal, the result is not going to be a more efficient process; it's going to be a less efficient process. Because what's going to happen is that families who are denied their inquests are going to have no other option but to file an application in the Court of Queen's Bench for judicial review. That's significantly more expensive, more complicated and more time-consuming than the current process.

And so if the goal of Bill 16 is to streamline the process to make it more cost-effective and efficient, this is quite literally doing the opposite of that. Mr. Swan: Mr. Shefman, you talked about section– Mr. Chairperson: Oh, sorry. Sorry, Mr. Swan. The time for questions is–Mr. Swan. Mr. Swan: Could I ask the committee for leave to have the questioning of Mr. Shefman go on for, say, another five minutes? I think t his gentleman is well-versed and has provided a pretty strong brief and I think this committee is really benefiting from his input tonight. Mr. Chairperson: Does the committee agree to have Mr.

Shefman to ask a quick question for another five more minutes? [Agreed] Mr. Swan: I thank members of the committee for that allowance, and I realize that the Liberal member may have questions, as well. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Swan. Mr. Swan: Yes, thank you. You talk about

section 19(3) of the proposed act which w ould provide that the Chief Medical Examiner would be given discretion not to call an inquest if a review into the death has been or will be conducted. You have recommended the word public be inserted before review and the words publicly available be inserted before the word recommendations. Can you tell the committee why you believe that that amendment would be important to make this bill stronger? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Shefman, go ahead. Mr. Shefman: I will. And that's an example of one of the ar eas where, as you've identified, I think we can improve on the suggestions. The

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 reason why public is important is because these recommendations are, of course, not –they aren't enforceable by the inquest judge and so they're only enforceable by the court of public opinion or perhaps by the ombudsperson. And so for them to be private means that the government institution, whichever institution that may be which is the subject of the recommendations, can't be held accountable.

I've represented families w ho have encountered, in particular, the corrections system where the internal reports that they get are so heavily redacted that there's very little visible besides the family member's name. If you're going to replace the inquest with something, it needs to be replaced with something equivalent. Mr. Swan: I promise you, Mr. Shefman, this will be my last question. One of the proposed sections is that an inquest would sometimes only be called if it was the view of the Chief Medical Examiner that there be recommendations on changes to provincial laws or provincial policies or practices.

Can you comment on that provision and what you would suggest might be stronger? Mr. Shefman: Frankly, there is no federal inquest process that's equivalent to what the Province has. And so if there is a death in, for example, a federal correctional institution, then one would assume that the Chief Medical Examiner could exercise their discretion to not call an inquest because it's federal jurisdiction. The fact is these people are in the province of Manitoba. They are generally arrested or arrested by a person who –a peace officer who is under the jurisdiction of the Province of Manitoba.

They will, one would assume, go back to live in the province of Manitoba after they would have gotten out if they hadn't died. The government of Manitoba has an obligation to its citizens, whether you like those citizens or not, to care for them, particularly when their ability to care for themselves because they are, for example, at the will of correctional officers, is compromised. We have to –we have an obligation to care for these people. Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): I'd like to thank Mr. Shefman for coming out tonight, as well.

I want to say that I really appreciated in your presentation how you talked about focusing on the public interest and there is a certain obligation on behalf of the government to take that into consideration. I'm happy that you were able to voice your concerns to the minister, whether it was in a separate meeting or not. She was made aware of this coming into the committee before bringing the bill forward. And just a simple question: If the bill were to be pushed forward, government, if you could make amendment, what would it be? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, excuse me, Mr. Shefman. Mr. Shefman: Sorry.

I'm really bad at that. The–I've outlined in my submissions a number of areas where –and this is my attempt at being constructive–rather than simply saying get rid of the bill completely, here are some very specific ways that you can improve the bill. Take what you're starting with, that's fine, but here are specific ways that you can make the bill better. * (18:30) And so, often it's as simple as adding a word or two. In some cases, to be frank, the sections are not salvageable. They w ill, without being dramatic, destroy the purpose of an inquest. They'll make inquests not fit for purpose.

But in many other cases, the bill is a good starting point. The problem, as I see it, with Bill 16 is that that's what it is; it's a starting point. That–it would have been a first draft at the Law Reform Commission, which would have been built on by talking to community stakeholders. And when I say community stakeholders, let's be clear, I'm talking about the police association; I'm talking about the correctional officers; I'm talking about the people who are affected by inquests. I'm not just talking about my clients. This bill does a disservice to the Winnipeg police, to the RCMP, to hospital staff.

It does a disservice to everybody who encounters i nquests because what it does is it makes inquests less effective. It makes inquests less able to recommend changes that will protect the lives of Manitobans. That's what we're talking about here, protecting the lives of Manitobans. It's right in the act; there is no blame laid in inquests. It is, in fact, statutorily not allowed to lay blame in inquests, and that's one of the beautiful things about inquests– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Shefman, the other five minutes is up now.

I know time goes by fast, so I want to thank you for your presentation, and we'll go on to the next –thank you very much–we'll go on to the next out -of-town presenter, and I'll ask

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 Ms. Michelle Gawronsky, and she's the president of MGEU, Manitoba. Do you have any material –written material that you want to pass out? Ms. Michelle Gawronsky (Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union): I do, Sir. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. We'll get one of the staff member–the pages to pass it out. Floor Comment: Am I doing both? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, go ahead, Ms. Gawronsky. Ms. Gawronsky: Bill 18 is the first one I'll speak on now. Bill 18–The Legislative Security Act Mr. Chairperson: Yes, Bill 18. Okay. Go ahead. Ms.

Michelle Gawronsky (Manitoba Government and General Employees ' Union): Good evening, Chairperson, honourable members and Minister Stefanson. As you said, my name is Michelle Gawronsky and I'm the president of the Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union. The MGEU represents over 40,000 Manitobans who live and work t hroughout Manitoba in a wide variety of workplaces, including Protective Services officers right here at the Legislature.

These members take great pride in the works that they do and take their role in providing safety and security, for all people in the L egislature and other government buildings, very, very seriously. Ensuring the public, politicians and the people who work in the public buildings are secure and safe is of utmost importance to them. We are all aware of recent threats and attacks on government buildings. Making changes to the security at the Legislature is very important. However, I would like to raise several concerns on behalf of Protective Services officers working across the province.

Bill 25, which gives Protective Services offic ers at the Legislature peace officer status, broadening their scope of duty and asking them to do more. Firstly, there is a widespread concerns throughout the civil service that people are being asked to do more with less, as aggressive, vacancy -management policies are implemented. For Protective Services officers, this is no different. We have members in this classification who have been working full -time hours for as long as 10 years but are still considered casual staff. What does this mean?

Someone wh o's been a loyal employee and dedicated their career for over a decade is treated differently than the person they work next to every day. Full time or casual, they are being asked to put themselves at greater risk as peace officers. It's only fair that they all be paid in line with other peace officers in the province. Secondly, we believe that all government Protective Services officers should be granted the same designation and the same training that goes along with it. Consistency in this job classification would ensure the same protection is provided at all locations.

The public and the workers at all government buildings deserve the same level of security, regardless of where they are. Their lives are as important as the people working in the Legislature. They have the right to safely return to their families at the end of their workday. Thirdly, by granting Protective Services officers peace officer status, they will be asked to check for ID, scan people and their belongings, remove potentially dangerous items and weapons, evict them–evicting or detaining individuals and using reasonable force to carry out these duties.

You must ensure that protective service officers are given the tools, resources and are trained to when to use their authority and how to do it in the safest way possible. Finally, the Legislature is a publicly accessible space and anyone who wishes to visit and look around or take

part in the democratic process should be allowed to enter. We want to ensure that people who are pea ceful and want to exercise their democratic rights are not kept from doing so. After all, this is my House too. The provisions in Bill 18 are a good start, but should be expanded to include other government buildings. Necessary investments in training, tools and wages are needed to be made in order to carry out the duties set out in this legislation. After all, we want the public and employees working at all government buildings to be protected, to return home safely to their loved ones. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Gawronsky. Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you, Ms. Gawronsky, and I just want thank you so much for being here

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 tonight. I know we've met on a few occasions and– several occasions–and I just want to say, you know, thank you for being here, but also for what you do for your employees. We have a tremendous amount of respect for what they do to ensure the safety of our public that comes to this building, that goes –and to those that protect those and office spaces beyond this building as well. So I just want to reiterate that to you and thank you for being here tonight and on behalf of your employees. Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Ms.

Gawronsky, thank you very much for coming down a nd presenting on Bill 18 tonight. We're going to be getting into the Estimates process in Justice in the next while, so I don't think it's any surprise to the minister that I will be likely asking some questions from what's contained in your brief to see what the minister's plans are for the upcoming year.

One of the concerns we have about the bill is that this will provide that the security arrangements, including arrangements that your members will be carrying out: checking ID, determining when somebody should be asked to leave the building, denied entry or even removed from the Legislative grounds; that's going to be contained in an arrangement between the Speaker's Office and the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) that will not be made public, that MLAs will not even be able to see. Does that seem reasonable to you? Ms. Gawronsky: I would actually have to take a look at that and try and figure that out.

If we don't have the availability to be able to see what's actually in it, how will we know how i t's going to work? How will we know that our members are protected themselves when the time comes where they're going to be doing their job in protecting others? I don't understand why a bill would be secret. I mean, to me, we'd all be able to see it, I would think. Mr. Chairperson: Is there any other questions? Further questions? Thank you, Ms. Gawronsky. Bill 25–The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act (Various Acts Amended) Mr.

Chairperson: Since you're an out -of-town guests and you're–also want to speak on Bill 25, we'll get you–stay up at the podium and you can do your presentation. Do you have written material that you want to present on Bill 25? Ms. Michelle Gawronsky ( Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union): I do, Sir. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, we'll get someone to pass them around. Please proceed with your presentation, Ms. Gawronsky. Ms. Gawronsky: Okay. Thank you so much. And, again, good evening and thank you for allowing me this time to speak.

I'm going to forgo the first line of my presentation that tells you who I am. I think everybody kind of knows by now. And, again, we represent over 40,000 Manitobans who live and work throughout Manitoba in a wide variety of workplaces, including staff at the Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries and the Liquor Gaming Authority of Manitoba. As we all know, it's only a matter of time before marijuana sales will be legalized in our country. And that means that this government has some important decisions to make and it would be great if Manitoba was leading the way.

We are pleased the government has introduced Bill 25 to ensure public safety is kept in the highest regard. The legislation is focused on ensuring Manitobans are not allowed to s moke marijuana in public places, indoors or in vehicles, and it addresses the issues of driving while being high or under the influence. There are fundamental matters in –of public safety, however, that many issues –the bill does not address. If the governm ent truly wants to ensure social responsibility, it has to implement a public model for the sale and distribution of this controlled substance.

Our members who work for Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries are experts in regulations and the sale of liquor, another controlled substance within the public system. Perhaps better than any of us, they understand that a publicly owned and operated system of marijuana sales and distribution, along with a robust regulatory environment, is the only way to keep the public health at the forefront. * (18:40) Other organizations also share these same concerns. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers Canada and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health are both advocating for a publicly owned and operated system.

The chief medical officers of Canada report on the legalization of marijuana said that a

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 government owned and operated model under the arm's-length agency would, quote, allow for stability, clarity of focus, provide insulation from industry influence, and to support the ability to resist the pressures for revenue generation in imperatives that would undermine the protection of public health. And it turns out Manitobans feel the same way. According to a Probe Research survey, two out of every three Manitobans, 65 per cent, think that marijuana products should be sold through a government owned and managed stores, similar to liquor stores.

To encourage a publicly debate about public health and safety, MGEU has released a detailed policy paper, The Public Advantage – Marijuana Legalization in Manitoba. Drawing on the extensive research about this subject, MGEU recommends that Manitoba chooses a public model that ensures safe sales; an impaired driving strategy; improved treatment options; public education campaigns, such as informing the youth of the brain damage that can happen if marijuana is smoked when you're under the age of 25; good, family-supporting jobs; quality service through stand-alone, publicly operated stores.

Public, stand- alone stores will allow for marijuana to be sold separately from liquor but still in a social, responsible manner, already well trained– by already well -trained staff that have the expert in dealing–the expertise in dealing with a controlled substance. Sorry, it's been a long day. Under a system of stores owned and operated by the government, there is no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to establishing a model and standards for safe sales.

Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries already has the existing capacity and expertise, with a proven track record of dealing with controlled substances in a social, responsible manner. Staff are already trained in how to deal with intoxicated people and ensuring products do not get in the hands of minors. There is also a very solid economic argument in favour of the government controlling the sale of marijuana. Sales revenue, we estimate, will raise an estimated $25 million annually to help the government reduce the deficit without breaking its commitment to protect and improve public services.

In particular, the revenue from marijuana sales could provide real investment into underfunding addiction programs that help families and save lives, or to fund public awareness campaigns and education programs to prevent drunk–drugged driving, similar to campaigns centred around drunk driving or texting and driving. When it comes down to it, our province decides to sell marijuana will be determined by what kind of community we want to be. Publicly controlled sales allow us to keep safety and health a priority fro m the point of sale to potential challenges down the road. It's only common sense. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Gawronsky. Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you very much, Ms. Gawronsky, and–Ms. Gawronsky. I appr eciate your comments on–with respect to both bills tonight; in particular, this one, though–the one in this case. And your comments about the importance of public health and safety is, certainly, the approach that we felt that we needed to take, and –in introducing this bill. And I know that–you know, so I appreciate your comments with respect to that. Of course, we've always said this is only the

part 1 of where we're going with respect to this. So we look forward to your comments on the rest of that as wel l. So appreciate it. Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Yes, Ms. Gawronsky, I appreciate your submission. I've had the chance to read over the position paper the MGEU put out back in December 2016, with The Public Advantage, and I hope all members of this committee have had a chance or will have the chance to look at it. Just so I'm clear, what you're proposing is that there be public sale of cannabis products. But just so it's clear, you're not suggesting this take place in existing Liquor Marts.

It's your positi on that there should be stand-alone shops where cannabis products are sold that would be run by the Liquor & Lotteries organization. Ms. Gawronsky: Yes, absolutely. Stand- alone is going to be the safest way to be able to provide it. It is going to ensure that the public knows there's a difference between liquor intake and drug intake. And, I think, the safest way to be able to do that and not have any crossing– I don't think that the best in public safety, to have someone be able to buy a bottle of whiskey as well as their marijuana in the same place.

It would be –it wouldn't be common sense to be able to do it that way. Stand alone. Mr. Swan: We understand that there was a government caucus, group or task force that was set up. We weren't invited to be part of that nor do we actually know what was discussed.

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 Did you have any dealings with that committee and, if so, can you tell us how that went? Ms. Gawronsky: If you're talking about the opportunity to meet with a few of the MLAs, yes, I did have an opportunity to meet with them and actually presented them with the paper. So I met with a number of the MLAs from government. Mr. Swan: Thank you for that answer. S o after you presented your position, did you hear anything back from any of those MLAs or from the minister about what MGEU had to say about this issue? Ms.

Gawronsky: No, not until tonight when I was invited to speak. Mr. Chairperson: Is there any other further questions from the committee? Well, thanks, Ms. Gawronsky, for your presentation. We'll continue with out -of-town speakers and we'll go on the same bill, Bill 25, and we'll call on Ken Cameron. He's with the Manitoba School Boards Association. Is he here tonight? So we'll put him down at the bottom of the list. We'll continue. I guess, now, we will go back to the list. Bill 16–The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act (Continued) Mr. Chairperson: We'll go back to Bill 16, and Mr. Peter–Dr.

Peter Markesteyn, private citizen. Mr. Peter Markesteyn (Private Citizen): That's right. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address some of my concerns regarding fatality inquiries act amendments, Bill 16. I'm Peter Markesteyn. I used to be the Chie f Medical Examiner–[interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Oh, sorry, Mr. –Dr. Markesteyn. If you go ahead, I'd have to identify you first. I thought I did so. Go ahead. Mr. Markesteyn: I'm Dr. Peter Markesteyn.

I used to be the Chief Medical Examiner of the P rovince, and I have some insights what it is like to be the Chief Medical Examiner and the impact what that has, what the legislation has on the functioning of that office. I will be short and, hopefully, to the point and I'm sure you're pleased I have no thing to share with you. But allow me to address these managements to the fatalities inquiries act by going back, how it all started, because it'll make sense, where you are now, if you know how you got there.

When I arrived in Alberta in 1982 as the first chief–or full -time chief medical examiner, I discussed my position and duties with the then-attorney general. We, amongst other things, discussed inquests, when to call them and who would call them. I most certainly did not want the responsibility of calling inquests. I came from Alberta and I learned that there one doesn't make friends doing so, either by calling them or more often, actually, by not calling them. The minister wondered if he should call them then, like is presently the case in Newfoundland.

He became quickly convinced that he would not be politically prudent to do so. I suggested an inquest review board like I was used to in Alberta. I was reminded of the cost of boards. This government, and I quote, has enough boards. The idea was rejected. It was then decided that if there's a Chief Medical Examiner would call the inquest supported by an unpaid inquest review committee, and that's the importance.

And that in case the Chief Medical Examiner decided not to call an inquest, the Attorney General would have the legislative powers to do so. * (18:50) That inquest review committee is important because I heard from my previous speaker on this bill–you get the impression that the Chief Medical Examiner is a legal ignoramus, which is actually true. But we try to address that. And the inquest review board –inquest review committee, has all these members that we met prior to calling any inquest.

Representative from the Department of Justice, representative from the native community, representatives from Child and Family Services, from the medical community, fr om the Child Advocate's office. In other words, it was a very broad committee. There were members of the police were there, as well, and was a rule that, when any death occurred–for instance, in a police shooting–the person who has a conflict of interest w ere deemed to have not been present at all. They can stay there, but they can't speak on the matter. And they advised the Chief Medical Examiner whether to hold an inquest or not.

As I said, the Attorney General would have the legislative power to do so. I must say, when I read

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 this bill, that this will now go to the Chief Provincial Judge, I think, is an improvement because it makes it less political. Only once did the Attorney General use the opportunity to call an inquest. He phoned me, he said, do you mind if I call an inquest. I said, I don't care, go ahead. And he did. Later, I heard, much to his regret –the relatives did not like it. Hanging dirty laundry in public, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then the subject of mandatory inquests came up as well.

It was decided that when a person legally was stripped of their civil rights and were not either in a position to deal with their health issues themselves and/or would not be in a position to be–to have basic protection against possible 'malfeants' i n cases like, as you know, death while under arrest or in custody, death to the action or inaction of a police officer and committed in the Mental Health Act –are to be committed under The Mental Health Act, not just the psychiatric patient. In those three categories, the inquest would be mandatory.

It was well recognized at that time, as now, that on occasions those inquests would appear superfluous and unnecessary. Let the Chief Medical Examiner deal with it. That would be quite sufficient. The inve stigation, as you heard quite correctly, by the Chief Medical Examiner in these deaths, is not and cannot be at the level that an inquest is. After all, the information gathered by the Chief Medical Examiner is not sworn.

As an example, may I remind the legislators that, in the case of the children's death in the Health Sciences Centre, the information initially received by the office of the Chief Medical Examiner through his investigation differed both in quantity and quality greatly from what was gather ed at the inquest that was called. I will suggest that the small savings by making these inquests discretionary and thus, sometimes, not calling them, may come a great emotional–come at a great emotional and political price.

Not calling an inquest might well cause concern in the community at large and, more importantly, to the relatives of the deceased. Also, but I must admit of less importance, is that the calling of mandatory inquests takes them out of the political arena, both with a capital P and a lower-case P. It takes away the political pressure to either call or, more frequently, not to call an inquest away from the Chief Medical Examiner who, more often than not, is in conflict of loyalties. Close ties and co -operative working relationships with law enforcement and medicine are essential in the performance of his duties.

The CME has friends in both circles. From personal experience, I can tell you that I have been threatened to a degree, that the general council of government suggested to lay charges. We decided not to do that. The Chief Medical Examiner is in enormous pressure not to call inquests. Society is judged by its treatment of its most vulnerable citizens and its protection of their civil rights. Maintaining mandatory inquests in thes e deaths would help to look after that. I ask you to please do not repeal that particular

section of The Fatality Inquiries Act. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Dr. Markesteyn. Thank you for your presentation. Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you very much, Dr. Markesteyn, for being here tonight and bringing some context to the history of the role that you played as a Chief Medical Examiner as well as an – with respect to how that– your role played in inquests. So I just wanted to thank you for being here tonight, and then bringing forward your information. Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr.

Markesteyn, thank you for coming down and giving a very interesting presentation based on your own experience in Alberta and in Manitoba. I was very interested to hear your discussion of the inquest review committee that would serve as a community voice to assist the Chief Medical Examiner in deciding whether an inquest is warranted including representatives from Justice, from indigenous communities, from Child and Family Services and police. Would that be a model that you think that Manitoba should look at as a way to improve the way the system works? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Oh, excuse me, Dr.

Markesteyn. I have to identify you first. Okay, so go ahead, Mr.–Dr. Markesteyn. Mr. Markesteyn: That is already in place. It's a committee, which is free of charge, not a board, but it functions identically. So the decision to call an inquest is a difficult one. And my wife used to say, when I was walking up and down, are you thinking of calling an inquest? She could tell, right. And it is very, very important to get input from the

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 community, because everybody rides white horses including the –and, therefore, we had, I thi nk, a balanced approach. The ultimate decision was by the Chief Medical Examiner. There were no minutes of the meeting, which, I think was a mistake. But, however, I was told, as the –I have no legislative authority that's not proper. I think that could be improved, and I think that should be improved. Mr. Swan: Thank you very much. And you put some comments on the record about mandatory versus discretionary inquests.

Is it fair to say you have concerns with the portions of the bill that would make more in quests at the discretion of the Chief Medical Examiner, especially when it's a death in custody or a death within another institution? Is that fair? Mr. Markesteyn: Especially those –there was only few categories that were mandatory. Most of the inquests we called are not mandatory, but, I think, to take them out of the mandatory and make them discretionary puts an enormous burden on the Chief Medical Examiner and is not helpful, in my opinion. Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): Thank you, Mr.–or Dr.

Markesteyn –am I pronouncing that correctly–for coming out this evening as well. I appreciate the history lesson. It's always nice to understand where it's coming from a little bit further. Were you, or anyone who you're aware of, consulted on Bill 16 prior to it coming to committee? Mr. Markesteyn: No. Mr. Chairperson: Is there any other further questions? I want to thank you, Dr. Markesteyn, for your presentation. We'll continue with Bill 16, and we'll call up Mr. John Hutton. Mr. John Hutton? And John Hutton is from John Howard Society of Manitoba. Mr.

Hutton, do you have any material that you want to pass around? Mr. John Hutton (John Howard Society of Manitoba): Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hutton, you can go– continue. You can start with your presentation. Mr. H utton: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson, Madam Minister, members of the committee. I do appreciate this opportunity. I won't have the same dramatic flair as Mr.

Shefman, but I'm also passionate on this issue. * (19:00) I'm John Hutton, the executive director of the John Howard Society of Manitoba, and we partner with Manitoba Justice in providing the supports and services to incarcerated men or those facing incarceration. We've been working for more than three decades providing supports for men as they reintegrate into the community. And for the last five years, we've offered a bail support and supervision program with the Province, targetting high- risk offenders.

I also, on behalf of John Howard Society, currently have standing on two different inquests looking into the deaths of individuals in custody. The first of these inquests is considering the death of Errol Greene, one of five individuals who died while in custody of the Winnipeg Remand Centre last year. The other inquest, scheduled to start l ate this fall, is looking at the death of two inmates at Stony Mountain Institution. I appear before you today to respectfully share three concerns regarding the bill.

My first concern applies to a perceived narrowing of the circumstances under which the Chief Medical Examiner could call an inquiry going forward, specifically

section 19(2)(

b) which states the Chief Medical Examiner may determine that an inquest should be held when she or he is of the opinion that, and I quote, an inquest may enable the presiding provincial judge to recommend changes to provincial laws or the programs, policies and practices of the provincial government or public agencies or institutions to prevent deaths in similar circumstances. As worded, this clause appears to exclude inquests from being called where the death in custody occurs in federal corrections, as the judge in those inquests would not be recommending changes to provincial laws.

I propose that the subsection in question be amended to continue to allow for an inquest to be called when the death occurs in federal custody, because these inquests perform an extremely important service. Earlier this month, a special report released by the office of the correctional investigator for Canada made a number of non -binding recommendations in

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 response to the 2015 death of Matthew Hines, who died in the Dorchester correctional centre, a federal facility in New Brunswick. Originally, the family of Mr. Hines was told by federal authorities that he was found unresponsive in his cell after dying from a seizure. In fact, none of this was true. The report of the correctional investigator showed that Mr. Hines died of asphyxiation in a medical unit as a result of being pepper -sprayed five times in succession by correctional officers.

From the report, I understand there's still been no decision by the Chief Medical Examiner in New Brunswick to call an inquest, despite knowing that CSC gave a false account of the reasons for the death initially. They are taking responsibility and are moving to put a number of lessons from that incident into practice, to their credit. If it were not–however, the correctional investigator is one individual with a small staff and cannot independently look into every death in federal custody. As well , while the report is public, the process of gathering the information is not.

I would say that that is not a substitute for a public inquiry and I think that we should continue to have, at least in Manitoba, the process of having a provincial inquest following a death in federal corrections. Here in Manitoba, along with the Canadian Mental Health Association, the John Howard Society has standing in an inquest looking into the –two separate deaths of inmates being held at Stony Mountain Institution. Both me n committed suicide within a few months of each other after being placed in solitary confinement, despite having a recognized history of mental illness.

Even though recommendations from the inquest will not be binding on correctional services of Canada, this inquest will serve, in my opinion, a crucial purpose. In keeping with the findings of the Supreme Court in Faber v . The Queen, an inquest enables the community, and I quote, an inquest enables the community to be aware of the factors which put their human life at risk in given circumstances, end quote, which may be replicated in provincial correctional centres.

And I continue to quote, "it reassures the public and makes it aware that the government is acting to ensure that the guarantees relating to human life are duly respected." End of quote. Without an inquest, there would be no addition- al awareness or public reassurance in this case. Manitoba Corrections officials would not benefit from the knowledge gained or any recommendations made as a result, even though they, too, must manage a population with profound mental health issues on a regular basis. And finally, without an inquest the families of the two men who died will not learn what happened.

It doesn't help that both of these deaths have b een invested internally by the correctional services of Canada, because the results of the investigations have not and will not be made public unless an inquest is held. My second concern is the inquest would no longer be held if a review into the death has been conducted under another act. I think I'm in agreement with Mr. Shefman in calling for a small amendment to that clause and adding the word: if a public review into the death has or will be conducted under another act.

I notice –I note that when t here is a death in provincial custody, a review is conducted by senior Manitoba Corrections officials under the authority of The Correctional Services Act. However, the results of the review are given to the minister and are not made public unless an inque st is called. So I would not want to see a private process replace a public process and that would be my recommendation to this committee. Also, I note that Bill 16 would remove the right of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to call an inquest or to have an active role in doing so. In my opinion, this should not happen.

There are disadvantages in removing the minister's power to call an inquest. As noted above, if the death occurred in a provincial correctional centre, the minister is to receive a confidential report on an investigation carried out by Manitoba Justice, information that the Chief Medical Examiner would not be privy to and therefore would not be able to consider when deciding if an inquest is warranted. If an inquest is not calle d by the chief medical officer and if the results of the confidential investigation suggest an inquest is required, then the minister must remain empowered to act.

Also, the Minister of Justice is the person responsible for what transpires inside all provincial correctional centres. The right to call an inquest when warranted is a way of exercising that authority and sends a message to the public that they do have the right and ability to know what happened when an individual dies under the protection and supervision of Manitoba Corrections. As a rationale for the change it was noted that the minister seldom, if ever, exercises that authority.

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 However, I'm concerned that the act as proposed would very likely curtail the circumstances in which the Chief Medical Examiner can call an inquest, which, in my mind, makes it more important that the minister be able to do so. In conclusion– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hutton, you have one more minute left. Mr. Hutton: Thank you. Some say inquests take too long and they produce recommendations that are no longer relevant. The appropriate response, in my mind, is not to reduce the number of inquests but to improve the process to ensure they proceed as quickly as possible.

When a death occurs in custody, whether it's provincial or a federal facility, the question always arises, was there something we could have done better to ensure the safety and well -being of the individual. This question must be answered each and every time in order for the public to retain its confidence in public institutions. This confidence was severely shaken last year when five individuals died over a period of seven months in the same facility. It is only through the process of an inquest that information comes to public light. It is only through this process the public learns about the impact– Mr.

Chairperson: Mr. Hutton, your time is up. Mr. Hutton: Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Hutton. Mrs. Stefanson : Thank you, Mr. Hutton, for your presentation tonight. Really appreciate your comments. You've obviously put a lot of work into this and some thought into this, and so I welcome your comments and I thank you for being here tonight. * (19:10) Mr. Swan: Thank you for coming down to present tonight. I want to recognize the work of the John Howard Society.

It's been a good partner of Manitoba Justice, whichever government happens to be in power, and I certainly hope that that will continue. I think your submission is quite powerful. Can you talk a little bit more about the position that you put forward that if an inquest is called for a death in a federal institution, Stony Mountain, that that can still wind up being a benefit to Manitoba Corrections, and it can actually result in changes to practices and policies within Manitoba Corrections. Mr.

Hutton: My understanding is that the internal reports that the federal corrections generate when there's a death in custody would not be shared publicly nor would they be shared with Manitoba Corrections. I may be wrong, that's my understanding. With the example of death of somebody that apparently commits suicide while in solitary confinement or administrative segregation, I think these are issues that are quite relevant in Manito ba Corrections as well.

Unfortunately, numbers are very high, that does lead to overcrowding that perhaps leads to more people being held in administrative segregation and that might aggravate existing Manitoba Health issues. So the information that I'm hoping will come out of this inquest, and I'm hoping this inquest is –continues to be held, should in form be very useful for officials of Manitoba Corrections, and certainly would give us an opportunity to discuss any recommendations that come out of that wi th members of the government and members of your committee in future. Mr. Swan: Thank you, Mr. Hutton.

Given the work the John Howard Society does and the people you advocate for, is it fair to say that the information that comes out of inquest reports f rom deaths in custody, deaths of people that are in police custody, is it fair to say that you believe that those lead to improvements in the way that we treat people that are in those circumstances? Mr. Hutton: I think they're very important. I should say that, in my opinion, there's already been a number of positive changes made at the Winnipeg Remand Centre, for example, and likely in response to some of the investigations that have already been carried out.

But I think it's very important to be able to know publicly what has happened, and the family to have that opportunity as well. There's information that families have. There's information that advocates have like the John Howard Society have. There's information that legal experts have, and that information wouldn't be added to the mix except in a public inquest setting. So I think there's opportunities for more learnings, and when somebody has died, I don't think there's any

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 such thing as too much information that we can take away from that and gi ve to the professionals to put into practice. Mr. Swan: We heard from Mr. Shefman tonight that this matter had–this entire issue had been about to be considered by the Law Reform Commission here in Manitoba. If the minister, in listening to what the presenters tonight have said, agrees to put a pause on the bill and refer the matter to the Commission, is that a process that you think you'd like to be part of on behalf of the John Howard Society and the people that you speak for? Mr.

Hutton: I'm –I try to be careful and not answer questions that I don't really know the answer to, and I'm not fully aware of the process in the role of the Commission. But I think the minister does know, and I can certainly say that we're always willing to share information, be part of a conversation and to try and bring a perspective from the people that we work with most closely to those who are making decisions and passing laws. Mr. Chairperson: Any other questions? Thank you M r. Hutton for your presentation. I appreciate it. * * * Mr. Chairperson: Okay, now we'll go on to the next, Bill 18.

I have –unfortunately, the person No. 1 on the list, James Beddome, has been –we have been advised that James Beddome, No. 1 on the pres enter list of bills for 18 and 26, is unable to make their presentation at this meeting, but would like to have a written brief considered by the committee as a written submission. Does the committee agree to receive the documents and have them appear in the Hansard transcripts of this meeting? [Agreed] So it's agreed by the committee, so we'll have it in Hansard. Bill 25–The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act (Various Acts Amended) (Continued) Mr.

Chairperson: So we'll call the next person, and it's going to be going to Bill 25, and we'll call Mr. Steven Stairs. He's from Winnipeg 420 Organizing Committee. Is he here tonight? Mr. Stairs, do you have any written materials to distribute to the committee? Okay, we'll get somebody to pass them around. Mr. Stairs, you can please proceed to your presentation. Mr. Steven Stairs (Winnipeg 420 Organizing Committee): Thank you. Can you guys hear me okay? Well, thanks for having me –appreciate it. I'm kind of a little bit less formal than some of the other people who have spoken tonight.

I just –I have some concerns and some questions. I don't know how we go about this. Maybe I'll speak and then you guys can ask questions, or vice ver sa, but then there's a little bit of background information towards my questions as I ask them, so bear with me. But, once again, thank you for having me tonight. I really appreciate it, to making the time to discuss Bill 25 and the implications that it m ight have on not only everyday recreational users of cannabis but also medical cannabis users, as well. A little bit of background; you guys don't know who I am.

For those of you who do know who I am, I'm sorry for rambling on again, but it won't be that long. Like I said, my name is Steven Stairs. I am, first and foremost, I'm a 33 -year-old parent who has two wonderful children and I have a great wife. So that's a good start already. One of the concerns I have regarding this bill relates back to my chil dren. Now, other than being a parent and a gainfully employed person in this province, I'm a university educated fellow. I've got two degrees; one in the computer analyst programming and one in entrepreneurialship.

And I'm currently working on a third one in political studies–might be sitting at this table one day with you guys. Part of the concerns that I have regarding this bill relate to children as well –sorry–children, as well as just the overall, I guess, guidelines and functions of this bill, spe cifically regarding how it seems to have kind of just glazed over some of the concerns and issues that are brought by medical cannabis users in this province, specifically, like, regarding the lack of consultations regarding this bill and the, just, disregard for the concerns of medical patients and sick individuals.

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 Just give me a second here. I'm sorry, bear with me. As a legally blind guy, I'm a little slow at reading my speech, so give me a second, please. Part of why I'm here specifically is as the –not only the president of the Winnipeg 420 Organizing Committee, which is the non -profit responsible for the annual celebrations of cannabis events out front every year on April 20th, but I'm also a cannabis user, a grower and a concerned advocate for the disabled in this country who specifically use cannabis, as well as the blind.

I have great concerns when I see something proposed by a government or authority or community group that poses undue hardships upon medical cannabis users, especially the disable d and marginalized groups of society already. And it really kind of, you know, gets me annoyed. Part of what has really annoyed me with this, and I'll kind of touch on that in a couple segments, is–I've already alluded to it, was the lack of consultation.

Now, I could go over all the different amendments from the highway transportation act to, you know, The Mental Health Act, and how it would individually affect certain demographics of cannabis users and medical patients in this province. I really don't want to drain on–just kind of not my schtick. I'm kind of a concise guy.

So what I'll do is I'll kind of touch on a couple concerns I have and then maybe we can kind of all understand where we all lie on our understandings of not only this bill's intentio ns but federally mandated court decisions and programs already that are in place that this might affect as well. * (19:20) Just regarding the highway transportation act, now, sorry, just to touch on–I don't know if you guys can answer this now or if you want to leave it to the end, but I just have a question regarding the addition and the amendment to 213(2) where it says subsection (1) does not apply if, and it goes through a bunch of caveats, but the –really, the caveat is that cannabis must be stored i n a locked compartment, et cetera, blah, blah, blah, about how it has to be out of the reach of individuals in the car, can't be readily accessible, you know, for safety purposes and such.

I have just a quick question on that. Does that include the glove box if the glovebox is locked with the key being in the ignition that would have to open it, so, therefore, it would not be readily accessible, which kind of makes sense to me. So, if that would be a possibility to add, in the glovebox, as a part of that wording in the amendment, awesome, if not, we can go on further afterwards in regarding fighting it.

Some of the legislation in here –kind of words–a different framework that doesn't really consult rights of patients with the intentions of the bill, and I mean that as that having a safe work environment or a safe, you know, transportation environment for, let's say, a cabbie or someone driving you to work or something like that, where they don't want to be exposed to cannabis or at the risk of consuming it somehow accidentally or something like that, I definitely understand.

However, saying that, like, a cannabis patient cannot consume cannabis, even an edible, in a vehicle while it's moving, kind of seems arbitrary. It doesn't really seem sensible when yo u're trying to protect people. I mean, this is a justice matter, right, we want to make sure that we're ensuring justice for all, right. I don't think it's very justified to limit someone's cannabis use medically based on some stigma or stereotype or misguided information that may be based on, well, what if they're second- hand exposed to it or somehow endangering the lives of the driver or something like that.

I don't believe that's a truth and I have concerns regarding that, specifically regarding how the y determine impairment for a medical patient. Since there's currently no real way to determine a physical impairment of cannabis other than road-side sobriety tests, which really aren't accurate regarding the actual THC and cognition level of impairment in a cannabis patient. So, on that note, I'm not sure how the government can choose to try or implement a bill that would limit access to a cannabis patient.

Quickly, for example, if I'm having a seizure in a vehicle that's being driven by someone else, cl early, and I need to consume cannabis, we don't necessarily have the time nor the want, I guess, to let me just suffer through a seizure while we are waiting to pull over or find an exit or something like that. That seems, again, kind of counterintuitive towards protecting people. On that note, because there's no way to 'identifally' prove if you're impaired, it seems kind of discriminatory to limit a patient's ability just based on the idea of impairment and keeping the road safe.

On that discrimination note, the Human Rights Code states that there should be no one who discriminated for a bunch of different reasons. They have, you know, sex, orientation, you know, ethnicity, your

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 social status, other thin gs like that which, you know, we all agree on, right, don't want anybody discriminating for no reason. But the one caveat here is it says, physical or mental disability as related characteristics or circumstances, including reliance on several –service animal, a wheelchair, mobility aid, et cetera. I guess the circumstances would be the key word there that would mean a medical cannabis user would be the circumstance that this would be discriminatory against, seems a little weird. I'll touch on that again. Some of the

definitions of discrimination and reasons for it would be differential treatment. Differential treatment relies on the definition of when an individual is treated differently based on generalizations about a group which they belong to. Kind of finish the definition of basically you cannot be discriminated against or differential treatment based on certain discriminatory factors. Now, because we're being limited based on nothing, that differential treatment than, say, oh, an insulin needle or an EpiPen, which isn't forced to be kept in the trunk. On that note, limiting a patient's rights under the Charter, Charter seven– or, sorry, Charter

section 7, regarding reasonable access, would then be kind of the compounding factor of what happened due to discriminatory and differential treatment. So, going forward again, back to the Charter, why would –and this is kind of the end of my statement here is why after kind of mentoring these things and going off about –I've presented you, by the way, with tw o copies of federal court decisions. One was R v. Smith and one was R v. Parker, both Supreme Court decisions that basically forced the government to enable access to medical cannabis for patients across the country.

One was for the original decision in 2001. The other one, the R v. Smith, was for the medical cookies decision; it would be referred to as very commonly, which was regarding edibles and access to those kinds of things. I included another one, but, however, it was 107 pages. You guys don't need to read that one; I'll submit that digitally–bad for the environment– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Stairs, you have one more minute left. Mr. Stairs: Excellent, perfect, I'll finish up. Good, then.

So, my statement really goes back to, after all those things that I've mentioned regarding Charter rights and discrimination and things like that, I just wonder where (

a) the government would consider amending some of these bills to include medical patients and making sure that their rights are protected going forward under the bill, or (

b) even if they can consider the fact that I honestly don't think that the Province has the jurisdictional authority to limit a federally mandated program of medical cannabis on the consumption levels in the province. So, on that note, I'll take questions. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Stairs. Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you very much, Mr. Stairs. In particular, I want to thank you for taking time away from your kids tonight and from your wife and so on, to be here. This is an important process in our bill passage through the legislative process.

We're one of a few p rovinces that allow people to come forward and–though this public consultation, to be able to hear what people have to say, and I really want to thank you for taking time out of your

schedule to be here and express your views very well tonight, so I want to thank you for that. Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Stairs, thank you for presenting to us tonight. Don't assume, necessarily, that the MLAs around the table are experts on this issue. You talked a little bit about the nature of different products. There may be some MLAs who believe the only way that someone can use cannabis is by smoking a joint.

Do you want to put on the record for the Legislature some of the other cannabis products that people may use, not just recreationally, but more importantly, may use for therapeutic reasons for their own mental well-being and their physical well-being. Mr. Stairs: Yes, thank you, Mr. Swan, for that question. I appreciate that, Minister, for your comments as well. Cannabis can be consumed virtually any way you ca n imagine. I don't mean to be trite on that, but if you can consume it orally, you can put it into anything. I mean that food- wise; I mean that liquid-wise.

I mean, consuming it orally, you can get it done. You can consume it through inhalation, other than smoking it, through things called a vaporizer, which is just forced air removing the moisture molecules and then creating a vapour that contains the THC and other cannabinoids' values in it, which give you the medical benefit. You can also do things like salves, creams, topical ointments, all those kinds of things, some with psychoactive effects, some with none.

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 And these are all kind of dependent on the –on a condition. I mean, so, for example, someone who might be, you know, a little new to cannabis, maybe an elderly person for something like that, maybe with, you know, a skin condition. They probably want something that's not psychoactive. I can tell you, my grandma does not want to get high. I really tell you.

She doesn't use a microwave, so there's no way she would want that, but there are options for CBD creams which are non -psychoactive, which give you all the analgesic, anti-inflammatory medical benefits of cannabis without the possibility of someone else getting high off it or something like that. So, there are a lot of ways that you can consume cannabis other than smoking it.

In fact, the B ill 30, which is the non- smokers prevention act and vaping products act, does not outline an elimination of medical cannabis in it for consuming regarding vaping laws because, jurisdictionally, there was no authority to do so, so. Mr. Swan: Mr. Stairs, is it fair to say that your biggest issue with the bill –I mean, and you have several, and you'll be part of the process, I hope, going forward as we move towar ds cannabis being legalized. Is it fair to say that your biggest concern is that there aren't really exceptions carved out for people who require cannabis for medical reasons. Mr.

Stairs: Yes, I think that would be a good summation of my concerns. I think the consultation process could have included more patients and therefore might have alleviated some of these concerns prior to this committee hearing. But hopefully, we can get through some ground- work here and maybe progress to the point where Manitoba is leading the country in a works-for-everybody kind of legislation model, than having to fight it back and forth through Charter challenges and things like that. I really think we could be a Canada leader here. Mr.

Swan: I'm asking this question; you don't have to answer, because it's your personal health information. I wonder if you can–if you're prepared to tell the committee how cannabis assists you with your medical issues, and can you give us some other examples of people that you've come across i n the work that you do, different situations they have that's alleviated by medical cannabis. * (19:30) Mr. Stairs: Yes, I –definitely, I can touch on that personally. I suffer from three genetic eye diseases that are degenerative from birth. One is RP, which is more commonly known as 'retinosis pigmentosis'.

It's a scarring on my retinal tissue. Virtually –picture a–an electrical cord that's still plugged in and still sends a signal, but it's frayed and it's shocking. It's not really safe. I also have cataracts, which are not the greatest, but manageable. And I also have glaucoma, which is the medical reason why I have cannabis. Glaucoma, for all of you that don't know, is a buildup of your inner ocular pressure. It's basically what sustains your eyes' l iquidity and viscosity and how it keeps moist, and all these other kinds of things.

Glaucoma is a blockage of the 'tribecular' mesh, which is the drainage around your eye that causes the liquid to flow back and forth through the front to the back. It's a neat system. Cannabis, when I consume it orally or through inhalation, reduces any inter -ocular pressure. It 'reluces' the stress on my optic nerve, and there's been studies to show that it actually has some regenerative properties regarding your retinal –your retinas. So that's pretty, pretty cool stuff for me, is – for a guy who, when I was 16, I was told that I'd be totally blind by the time I was 30.

And then, when I was 20, they told me I would totally be blind by the time I was 25 or so. And then I star ted using medical cannabis–I've been using cannabis kind of for a while but medically I started using cannabis in 2009, just after I turned 26. And I'm 33 now, and they don't give me a time frame so– Mr. Chairperson: I want to thank you, Mr. Stairs. Our question of five minutes is up, so I want to thank you for your presentation. Okay, we'll go on to–the next person on the list is Sylvie Sabourin Gilden –Grilden–Grinden– Grindle. Yes, Grindle . And she's a private citizen.

And do you have any presentation material to hand out? Ms. Sylvie Sabourin Grindle (Private Citizen ): I do. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, we'll get one of our staff members to hand it out. Please proceed with your presentation, Ms. Grindle. Ms. Grindle: Good evening, my name is Sylvie Sabourin Grindle. Thank you for your time.

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 Is this okay like this, or? Mr. Chairperson: Yes. Ms. Grindle: I understand that the harm prevention act is implemented to keep people safe. My back ground is early childhood education, and I recognize the importance of these acts in protecting citizens and vulnerable people, including children. I am here this evening because I fear that the harm prevention act will be harmful for my safety, and the safety of others. I have post -traumatic stress disorder. You may have heard about PTSD in a middle –in a military context.

Many soldiers suffer from PTSD after coming back from war or combat. However, many people like me –civilians–can also have PTSD. For 10 years, I was numb, isolated and I felt very different. I couldn't feel any joy. I eventually couldn't work, given these significant symptoms. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a serious mental illness. For the sake of time, I won't be describing this horrible, isolating and terrifying disorder in detail. Some resources are included on your sheet. More recently, in the past three years, I have been fortunate to be able to receive treatment.

I am one of the lucky ones whose life was not taken from this disorder. My treatment has involved two elements. The first one is intensive trauma -informed psychotherapy by a PTSD specialist, and the second is medical marijuana or cannabis. We are here to discuss cannabis. Medical cannabis has allowed me to feel. It allows me to experience a range of normal emotions, including feeling very intense, terrifying emotions that I have kept inside for so many years. In challenging and opening up to these emotions, I have finally been able to begin to experience joy.

In going through treatment, I have identified my inner rage relating to the tr auma. Marijuana calms my rage. I feared leaving my house to the point where I had difficulty even facing my family. Medical marijuana has given me the freedom and courage to spend time with family, begin the steps to be an active citizen and be here today to speak to you. I don't get stoned or high. I use it strictly for medical purposes. This is not a gateway drug for me. It is a gateway to recovery. I have no desire to do any othe r drugs or abuse alcohol.

My concern about this act is that it would impede my ability to use this medicinally. I am concerned about the implications for access to my medication when I need it. It would be unethical to take away an EpiPen from someone with anaphylaxis or insulin from a diabetic. How is this different? Would you put limitations on people with serious illnesses, both mental and physical, in addressing their medication? I worry about my ability to use medicine at any time, but mostly at tim es when I need it the most. Unfortunately, police officers are a PTSD trigger for me.

I am fearful that this act will cause me to fear police even more. I worry about my PTSD and symptoms associated with that and that police officers will not know how to interact with me when I'm feeling my most vulnerable. I do not want to be treated like a criminal for taking my medication when I need it the most, whether it is in my car, in a hospital or on the street. If my medicine is in my backpack, I do not want to be interrogated by police. I do not want to feel further stigmatized for my mental illness and the medication I take for my mental illness.

I ask that you consider marginalized people in your legal decision making. I did not ask for PTSD, but you can play a role in my recovery and make me and other suffering people feel safe in our community. I do not want to feel like I'm being punished for taking my medicine. I need laws to protect me. I want to continue surviving, and I want to continue my recovery freely. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Grindle, for your presentation. Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you very much, Ms.

Grindle, for your presentation tonight and for sharing what is a very personal story and really personalizing this and put a f ace to this, and that's why this committee process is very important. I always say in this job, in this role, that we learn something new from pretty much every person that we meet, and we learned something new from you tonight, and I just thank you for being here for tonight, for taking the time out of your

schedule to be here and for sharing your story with the committee. Thank you. Mr. Swan: Yes, Ms. Grindle. I want to thank you as well. It takes a lot of courage to stand up in front of a committee of MLAs and tell us about your own personal situation, and you are to be commended for that. I'm guessing that you actually are speaking for a lot of other people who use medical cannabis.

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 Now, there's nothing in this bill that would prevent you from being able to use cannabis at home, but your point is that you need your medicine with you–[interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, Ms. Grindle. Ms. Grindle: Sorry. Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, it has to be recorded, so I have to identify yourself. But go ahead, Ms. Grindle. Ms. Grindle: An example is my husband when he drives me to appointments. I must arrive there well medicated, so I smoke in the car. That's what I do. I– even in–it's on my lap if I smoke in the car. I have also oil.

Oil helps me be able to stay, like, inside. I've been here for a while now because I've been using oil as well. But it– I need to arrive at some place medicated, and it's how I function. And, if I go someplace–like, I have agoraphobia. I rarely leave the house. I'm here not because I'm crazy; it's because I'm desperate. I'm desperate for you guys' understanding of my situation and the situation of many others. I–when–if I go somewhere and I cannot medicate there, I go back in our car. I'm lucky we have a car. I get to go back in ou r car and medicate. It's a safe place for me to be.

I need to be able to –I actually spent some half a day in the hospital where I was unmedicated, and it was traumatizing. I was retraumatized there. It was terrible. * (19:40) So I do have this fear and I do have –like, I've–I went to a grocery store with –I was walking with–my husband had my backpack; I had my medication in my backpack. I get to a grocery store, we needed to hand it in, my backpack. I was a bit caught off-guard. I gave them my backpack, a nd then–and this didn't happen in the store, I needed to leave immediately. I asked for my backpack and they wouldn't return it right away.

It escalated, and that was not fair to put me through that, right. I did get my backpack, but, and then–and then, another time, in a grocery store, I decided to leave my medication in the car that time, not to bring it inside, you know. That time, we had our car as well, an d our car was towed unlawfully. So there I was, in the parking lot of a grocery store, and my car had been towed, so –with my medications in there, so then, it put me in a confrontation with, you know, the tow truck guy. Like, it's really not fair. It's like, I have agoraphobia.

It's difficult for me to go anywhere, so when that happens, it makes i t even harder for me to go anywhere, so–yes. Mr. Swan: One of the purposes of this committee, this is the stuff that has to be taken to pass a bill, but rather than just be passed on, there are different things that can happen. The minister or the Justic e critic or any other member of this committee can actually propose changes to the bill tonight or even in the Legislature tomorrow.

Is it fair to say that you'd be calling for changes to the bill, or improvements to the bill, that would recognize the ri ghts of people who need medical cannabis for their own personal well-being? Ms. Grindle: Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Oh, sorry. Mrs. Grindle–sorry–go ahead, Mrs. Grindle. Ms. Grindle: Thank you. Yes. Like, I want the right to be able to smoke in my car.

Like, I do it discreetly as is, but to not fear that if a police goes by, that it means that he has the right–he or she would have the right to stop our vehicle and use that –his or her judgment for my husband who's driving and to take his licence away and to –because, for me, to even, like, come face to face with –it's so terrifying. I escalate, and it's not fair to – that for me to go into society, I need to face that many fears, and this bill is giving me that it's just that much more afraid for me to be out in the community again. It's what I really want. So, I don't know.

Maybe I don't have anything specific to present or ideas specific, but–also, I find it discriminatory that it's included in the same category as alcohol and hard drugs, because it's not that, and that stigmatizes my medication even more so. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mrs. Grindle. If there's no other questions, thank you for your presentation. Okay, well, the next person we call on is – actually, she's not on the list, but that was registere d today–Mr. Nathan Buschau, and he's a private citizen. Mr. Buschau, do you have any materials to hand out? Mr. Nathan Buschau (Private Citizen): No, I don't. Mr.

Chairperson: Okay, thank you. You can go and proceed with your presentation, Mr. Buschau.

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 Mr. Buschau: Hello. My name is Nathan Buschau and I use cannabis to medically treat a neuro-immune disorder that largely leaves me housebound. Chronic fatigue syndrome, or myalgic encephalomyelitis causes a variety of neurological issues, including neuropathic pain, then worsens with stress and exertion. Due to my condition, I am largely housebound and in the day -to-day task of living, my wife assists me by taking –driving me places and that sort of thing. I have a few concerns about the proposed bill.

Firstly, the leading cause of death for people with a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome is suicide, so it's entirely possible that at some point in the future, I could live–I could end up in a psychiatric institution. Now, I would be given that my –I wouldn't be able to take medical cannabis in such an institution. I could be less likely to avail myself of those services when I need them, or my treatment might be less effective. So I'm very concerned that the bill, as it's proposed, could either threaten my health or even my life.

I have other concerns as well regarding the restrictions of transporting my medication. Due to my condition, it's entirely possible for me to forget that I have medication in a breast pocket of my winter jacket or something like that, and if my wife were to get pulled over for an unrelated incidence, and I could smell like I've been smoking cannabis, because I have, that might cause a very difficult interaction for us, especially considering that's she's– I'm unable to work because of my condition, and she's the sole provider for our family.

She's, as well, a commercial pilot, so that adds another wrinkle to it as it could have extended consequences for her career path. As well, considering that I –we have invested our personal–a lot of the personal funds that we had from my disability settlement from –due to my condition. The professed point of this bill is to protect cannabis from doing harm to people, such as–and I–I apologize. I'm having issues here. Okay. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Buschau, you can take your time, you know. No rush. Mr.

Buschau: I'm unable to see how some of the restrictions in this bill especially make patients safer, especially when they can affect our l oved ones in very negative ways. A lot of us rely on the assistance of them to get through the day in an otherwise –in what would otherwise be a very difficult time for us. I think that's about it. I'm sorry, I– Mr. Chairperson: Okay. I want to thank you for your presentation, Mr. Buschau. Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you, Mr.

Buschau , for your presentation tonight –it was obviously very right from the heart –and for also just sharing with us some of the challenges that you're facing with chronic fatigue syndrome, and, you know, just some of the challenges that you're facing with respect to this illness. It was a very heartfelt presentation. I want to thank you for being here tonight and for taking time to be here. It was an excellent presentation, so thank you. Mr. Swan: Mr.

Buschau, I want to thank you, as I did the person who spoke before you, for your courage for coming down and speaking in front of us, and I appreciate it's not easy for any private citizen to stand up in front of a group of MLAs. Is it fair to summarize your presentation to us that your major concern with the bill is that it doesn't adequately address the needs of people who use cannabis as medicine to help them get through the day for their own mental and physical well-being? Mr. Buschau: Yes, it would.

Specifically I was –I'm very concerned with the fact that it wouldn't be allowed at a medical –or a psychiatric institution, because people with my condition oftentimes have a lot of trouble with many of the pharmaceutical drugs. They're simply just too toxic for us to handle well, and we get many side effects that can be worse than the symptoms they're treating. Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): Thank you, Nathan, and all of the presenters here today on Bill 25. It takes a lot of cour age, which I'm just reiterating, as well as vulnerability and honesty, to come here and present on such a bill.

And I think that it brings in a whole new element, that human element, that needs to be considered when passing this bill, so thanks. Mr. Buschau: Thank you very much. Mr. Swan: Just one more question for you: the medical cannabis that you use, what form or what forms do you use cannabis? Mr. Buschau: For pain, inhalation works the best. It's the fastest acting, especially when dealing with

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 neuropathic pain, which a lot of other drugs just don't deal with at all. It's very good especially in, like, more of a acute situation. * (19:50) As well, edibles can be really great for after a stressful event, as my illness gets a lot worse with stress and exertion. S o, after I go out or I do something, the next few days or even a week can be very, very difficult for me and even more isolating afterwards. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Buschau . The time has come up for the questions. So I want to thank you for your presentation. * * * Mr.

Chairperson: Okay, next person that we have on the list is on Bill 26, Darrell Rankin, and he's with the Communist Party of Canada, Manitoba division. Is he here tonight? Mr. Rankin? Okay. We'll go back to –we put someone else on the bottom of the list. I wanted to ask again, for the second time around, Mr. Ken Cameron from the Manitoba School Boards Association. Has he showed up for his presentation? Okay. He'll be dropped off the list. So then we'll go back to Darrell Rankin and I'll call him again. Darrell Rankin, can you come to the podium? I guess we'll drop him off the list, too.

Has there been any other presenter to register since we started the committee tonight? If there's no other presenter, we'll be –that gets– concludes the list of presenters I have before me. Are there any other guests –is any –I asked it already, and seeing none, that 'wincludes' the public presentations. * * * Mr. Chairperson: In what order does the committee wish to proceed wit h the clause- by-clause consideration for these bills? Mr. Swan: Yes.

I wonder, usually we go numerically, but I'm wondering, given that there are a number of people who have come down to present on Bill 25, I wonder if we could move to Bill 25 first and t hen proceed with the other three bills in numerical order. An Honourable Member: Agreed. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. It's agreed that –by the committee that we would start with Bill 25. Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Crown Services): And then after that, can we just do numerical? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, we –that's what he said. Okay.

During the consideration of a bill, the 'primable' and the acting clause and the title are postponed until other clauses have been considered in their proper order. Also, if there are any agreements from the committee, the Chair will call clauses in blocks that conform to pages with the understanding that we will stop at any particular clause or clauses where member may have comments, questions or amendments to purpose. Is that a greed–propose, amendments to propose. Is that agreed? [Agreed] Okay. We will now proceed with clause by clause of Bill 25.

Does the minister responsible for Bill 25 have any opening statements? Mrs. Stefanson: I, first of all, just want to introduce my staff that are here with us tonight from the department: Julie Frederickson, the Deputy Minister of Justice and David Greening, the executive director of Crown Law Analysis and Development branch. And I want to thank them and for all of those in the department that have helped draft this legislation for us that is before us here tonight, Bill 25.

Bill 25 is an interim measure that provides tools to authorities to enable them to address harms that may arise during the interim gap period between the time that federal legalization of cannabis legislation is being considered in Parliament and the time that it is implemented, which is expected to be on or before July 1st, 2018. The bill is intended to respond to conc erns that persons might illegally use cannabis during the gap period if there is uncertainty about whether the existing laws against the sale and use of cannabis are still in effect and will be enforced.

There are also concerns about the potential for i ncreased drug-impaired driving during that time. The provisions of Bill 25 respond to the drug- impaired driving concerns by giving peace officers the authority to suspend a driver's licence for 24 hours

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a driver is unable to safely operate a vehicle due to being under the influence of a drug. Bill 25 will provide greater protections in the case of beginner drivers in the Graduated Driver Licensing Program by requiring those of them who receive the 24- hour suspension to be referred to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for a determination about whether further consequences should be imposed.

The bill will also prohibit consumption of cannabis in a vehicle that is on a highway and will limit the ways cannabis may be transported in a vehicle, both of which complement existing laws on open liquor in a vehicle and the consumption of alcohol in a vehicle. Another area of concern is the health risk that can arise if cannabis is smoked in enclosed public places and wo rkplaces. That is why Bill 25 amends The Non -Smokers Health Protection Act to extend its prohibitions against smoking tobacco in enclosed places and workplaces to apply to the smoking of cannabis.

Bill 25 will also amend The Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking Act, The Mental Health Act, The Public Schools Act to ensure that they continue to apply the –to cannabis for acts committed through the use of cannabis, even after the Government of Canada legalizes it for recreational use. In particular, the amendments in Bill 25 to The Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking Act would preserve the ability of victims to apply for a court protection order if cannabis is used as means to lure the victim into sexual exploitation or human trafficking.

Bill 25 amends –amendments would also preserve the existing Mental Health Act prohibition against giving cannabis to patients that are not allowed to use it, and the existing Public Schools Act prohibition against possessing, distributing, using or being under the influence of controlled drugs and substances, including cannabis on school property. I want to, at this time, acknowledge those who were here with us tonight, Mr. Steven Stairs, Michelle Gawronsky, Sylvie Sabourin Grindle and Nathan Buschau. I want to thank you individually for your presentations tonight.

You gave some heart –some of you gave some very 'heartfill' –heartfelt, very knowledgeable presentations tonight, and I want to thank you for being here. This is an important part of this legislative process, and we very much welcome and value the input of citizens in our community. We, of course, have spoken with many other community citizens who could not be here with us tonight as well, and I want to thank them for their input through l etters, through emails, through so on, for us, for their input into this legislation.

And I'm proud of the provisions of Bill 25, which provides sound measures to protect the health and safety of Manitobans from harms that may arise during the interim ga p period 'priors' to the implementation of federal legislation on legalization of cannabis for non-medical purposes. So, with that, Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening statement, and I look forward to comments from the rest of the committee. Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister. Does the critic of the opposition party have any opening statements? Mr.

Swan: Of course, the federal government has signalled its intention to legalize marijuana in accordance with a campaign promise that was made. Their intention is that the legalization would occur on or about July 1st of 2018, presuming that that moves through the House of Commons and the Senate. And we appreciate that that is a big change, and we appreciate that it is going to require the government to move to deal with a previously illegal substance now becoming legal. What we appreciate is difficult for government as it has certain properties of other products, but it is separate and apart.

It has some properties of alcohol in that it's an intoxicant, and we know that individuals can become impaired and unable to drive or operate machinery. We know it has some properties of tobacco; it can be smoked and the person doesn't necessarily want to the product used next to them. It has some prop erties that are different from both of those. We know that the active ingredient in cannabis, THC, and I'm not even going to try and give the full medical name for it, remains in the bloodstream for some time.

Unlike alcohol, which moves out of the system fairly quickly, THC can remain in a person's bloodstream but they may not be, in my view, impaired in any meaningful way, even though that may show up for days or even

28 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 weeks after use or proximity to someone else using cannabis. * (20:00) Unlike alcohol and tobacco, and I think that's the most important thing we've heard tonight, cannabis can be medicine and it is medicine for a lot of Manitobans, and maybe not the stereotypical Manitobans that some members may think. There are people battling cancer t hat use cannabis to deal with the nausea and the illness that comes with chemotherapy. There are individuals, and I'm sorry I put Mr.

Stairs on the spot, but he spoke about how medical cannabis eases the issues he has with his – with glaucoma. We've heard to night from Ms. –from a presenter who spoke about the assistance she gets with various issues. These are just a few examples of Manitobans who need medical cannabis, who–at this point–I think we can all agree maybe haven't been served that well by the way the medical cannabis system has worked in Canada, who are looking for the federal bill and provincial legislation to make their lives better. And I think there is more we can do with this bill to help that occur.

Governments, whether it's federal governm ents or provincial governments, maybe haven't studied this issue as much as they should have. The question is: If you're spending money on cannabis research, are you then promoting that cannabis becomes legal? And I know what the argument would have been i f governments had taken that step. But we need to take it very seriously, and I know the minister has a lot of work to do before July the 1st, 2018. And, as the NDP opposition, we want to make sure that our voices are heard and that we assist people who ca n be–who can benefit from this lot.

This bill amends seven other bills. It's not a complete code, and I think the minister acknowledges that there's–there are still major pieces to the puzzle in how the Province deals with the legalization of a formerly illegal substance. There are some impacts on the government which will affect finances. There's other impacts of the federal law changing that will assist the government's finances and, we hope, will work out to be a positive. In general, I can go on the record and say that our caucus agrees with the MGEU , that the distribution and the s ale and the regulation of cannabis should be public.

We can use some expertise that already exists, although it would be actually sold through stand-alone stores. We believe there's room for private industry. And that, already I believe, is being widely talked about in terms of cultivation, in terms of packaging, in terms of a number of other areas. We expect that Manitobans will look for ways to enjoy cannabis products outside of their own home, whether that's through cafes or lounges or whatever will ha ppen, and we want to have a good, mature discussion about that as we go forward.

We agree –and I think we are completely in agreement with the minister –we want to take measures to protect young people –those under 18– from using cannabis for recreational use. We want to make sure that cannabis is reasonably accessible, that it's reasonably priced to allow the government to earn a profit but not so highly priced that we avoid bringing the sale of cannabis within the system. If it works well, that will allow the minister to succeed in a few other areas by defeating a black market and taking profits away from criminal organizations. And we certainly support that being the case.

We believe, as New Democrats, there has to be better recognition for medical cannab is. Again, a number of Manitobans and the range of Manitobans who use cannabis as medicine is large, and I expect when the federal law changes and that stigma disappears and more doctors may be prepared to prescribe it, I expect we're going to see more Manitobans getting relief from medical cannabis, and we do have some concerns about the way that this bill will operate. We agree there are issues of safety.

The challenges that–unlike alcohol, where we now have clearly defined blood alcohol counts that ca n give some direction –we don't have that right now. We don't have that from the federal government, and we don't have that from the provincial government. I will put some –ask some questions, and I'm hoping the minister can put some comments on the record to give people some satisfaction as to how it's going to work. And I think that's all I've got to say –I'm going to have a number of questions for the minister. I hope the minister takes it–takes that in the right spirit.

It is important because the pres entations tonight will be part of the permanent record of this Legislature. The questions and answers, I hope, will also be helpful as we go forward. And we look forward to having

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 29 improvements to the bill, and also the other pieces of the puzzle as we move towards July 1st, 2018. So, with that in mind, we're prepared to go on to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. Mr. Chairperson: We thank the member. Okay, we'll go into clause -by-clause consideration. Clauses 1 and 2–pass; clauses 3 and 4–pass. Shall clauses 5 and 6 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Chairperson: I hear a no. The–Mr. Swan. Mr. Swan: I just want to ask a couple of questions and get the best possible answers from the minister.

We know that if someone is impaired at the present time, whether they're impaired by illegal drugs or impaired by prescription drugs, they can be pulled over by the police and there are certain tests the police use to determine whether or not they are too impaired to drive a vehicle. At the present time, I don't know of any federal standard and I don't know of any provincial standard which would objectify that or quantify that to determine where somebody is or is not legally impaired, to use language from drinking and driving.

Can the minister speak about that a little bit tonight for us as opposition members, maybe also for some of the witnesses that are here tonight –to talk about how she sees this at present and where she thinks this will be by the time that we get to next July? Mrs. Stefanson : I thank the member for the question. And certainly, we hope that we're at a stage where there is a device that is able to be used by police officers to determine the toxicity. I know that it is being worked on across the country right now. The RCMP and others are involved in that.

And we look forward to getting their recommendation and their input in that. I do know that the RCMP is very supportive of our bill right now, and–as are many others as well – the way it stands, espec ially when it comes to this, because we all have a great deal of concern when it comes to impaired driving and those who would choose that route. Of course, we do know that there are other sobriety tests that could be performed by officers who are properl y trained as such in roadside impairment.

Unfortunately, not all officers are trained in that–the roadside testing at this stage–but it is our hope that the federal government –and we're calling on the federal government to ensure that they provide the resources to ensure that those police officers are appropriately trained as such. We do know –and the reason why we're putting that 24-hour suspension in right now –and again, this is something that has worked in British Columbia for many years, but it gives u s the opportunity and it gives the officers the opportunity to remove people from the roads who they think could potentially be impaired.

And that has to be very, you know, significant; it's up to their discretion, of course, but it's–it has to be significantly impaired in order to do so. And it would be, you know, making sure that we're putting this health and safety of people in Manitoba first and foremost, ahead of those that they suspect may be impaired.

So, again, it's just –it's removing them from th e roadways for 24 hours until sobriety comes –you know, until they get sober, and, you know, and so those–we felt that it's very important to put those measures in place right now before the federal legislation comes through to ensure the safety of Manitobans. Mr. Swan: Well, is there any –but is there –what is the standard that's going to be applied then? Would– the minister says that a licence suspension can happen if they're suspected of being impaired. What is the standard that's going to be used to allow a temporary suspension of someone's licence? Mrs.

Stefanson : I thank the member for the question. And just further to what I have been saying, right now, the Criminal Code allows for officers to do this by way of their observations or opinion evidence. If they feel that there's the evidence there to–that–where they feel that, in their opinion, that someone is driving under the –is impaired while driving, then they have that ability to do so, to remove them from the roadways for 24 hours. * (20:10)

30 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 2017 Mr. Swan: I want to talk a little bit about the proposed clause 5, and that deals with particularly the driver's licence of a novice driver. We have graduated licensing in Manitoba, which provides that drivers in the first year or first five years of driving there is a zero tolerance policy with respect to alcohol. We know there can't be a zero tolerance policy with respect to cannabis, because there can be a trace, whether someone has used cannabis in the previous week or even if they're around people that might be using cannabis. Am I correct that this

section would allow a novice driver, who might otherwise, if they were an experienced driver, get a 24 -hour suspension, they could actually look at either losing their licence or moving back a step from an int ermediate driver to a beginner? Mrs. Stefanson : That will be determined by the registrar and they will determine whether or not if someone is–if who–if someone under a graduated or novel–novice driver licence is removed from the roadways as a result of the 24- hour suspension, it then goes back to the re gistrar who will determine at that point in time whether or not further actions will be taken. Mr.

Chairperson: Is there any other questions? Okay, we'll continue: Clauses 5 and 6–pass. Shall clauses 7 through 9 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Chairperson: I hear a no. Mr. Swan: Well, you know, we've heard a number of people tonight who have spoken about their use of cannabis as medicine.

And I've heard a number of them speak about the provisions dealing with a vehicle and that if somebody is using edible cannabis or if there is another form that they or their child or someone else requires, it would seem that it's quite possible that they could use that medicine without it posing any threat to the driver being safe or anybody else on the highway. So I do have a motion that I've prepared that I would ask Legislative Counsel to distribute. Mr. Chairperson: Which clause is it, Mr. Swan? What clause is it regarding? Mr. Swan: It'll be on clause 9 of the bill. Mr.

Chairperson: Are you done with any questions on 7 and 8? Mr. Swan: Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 7 and 8–pass. Now we'll deal with clause 9. Shall clause 9 pass but with amendment? Mr. Swan –okay, we'll just –I guess 9 hasn't passed, and we have an ame ndment that we're going to go through right now. We're going to deal with– and, Mr. Swan. Mr. Swan: I move THAT

Part 3 of the Bill ( The Highway Traffic Act ) be amended in Clause 9 (

a) by adding the following after the proposed clause 213.1(2)(a): (a.1) the vehicle is a motor vehicle – other than a motor vehicle used for the transportation of persons for compensation– and the cannabis is in the possession of a passenger who is also in possession of (

i) a prescription for the cannabis that is signed and dated by a physician or nurse practitioner, or (ii) a letter signed and dated by a physician or a nurse practitioner confirming that the cannabis is necessary for the passenger's physical or mental health; (

b) by renumbering

section 213.2 as subsection 213.2(1) and adding the following as subsection 213.2(2): Exception 213.2(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if (

a) the vehicle is a motor vehicle; (

b) the person consuming the cannabis is a passenger who is also in possession of a document described in subclause 213.1(2)(a.1)(

i) or (ii); and (

c) the passenger is consuming the cannabis by a method other than inhalation. Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by Mr. Swan THAT amendment to –THAT

Part 3 of the B ill (The Highway Traffic Act) be amended– An Honourable Member: Dispense.

May 16, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 31 Mr. Chairperson: The amendment is in order –does the committee agree to have accepted as printed on the amendment? An Honourable Member: Agreed. An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, what we're trying to do here is that we want to put it on the record that the amendment for

part 3 be reported exactly how it's been printed on this amendment here, and that's what we want for Hansard, that Mr. Swan read it, to be reported on Hansard. Okay. [Agreed] THAT

Part 3 of the Bill (The Highway Traffic Act ) be amended in Clause 9 (

a) by adding the following after the proposed clause 213.1(2)(a): (a.1) the vehicle is a motor vehicle –other than a motor vehicle used for the transportation of persons for compensation–and the cannabis is in the possession of a passenger who is also in possession of (

i) a prescription for the cannabis that is signed and dated by a physician or nurse practitioner, or (ii) a letter signed and dated by a physician or a nurse practitioner confirming that the cannabis is necessary for the passenger's physical or mental health; (

b) by renumbering

section 213.2 as subsection 213.2(1) and adding the following as subsection 213.2(2): Exception 213.2(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if (

a) the vehicle is a motor vehicle; (

b) the person consuming the cannabis is a passenger who is also in possession of a document described in subclause 213.1(2)(a.1)(

i) or (ii); and (

c) the passenger is consuming the cannabis by a method other than inhalation. The amendment is in order. The floor is open for questions. Mr. Swan: By way of explanation, we've heard from witnesses tonight. I've heard from other Manitobans who tell us that there are a number of situations why a passenger in a motor vehicle might actually need access to a cannabis product for their own mental or physical well-being. And this amendment is really as narrow as possible. It only allows the passenger to consume that cannabis by a method other than inhalation. We've heard about edible

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-2-ju2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 2nd hansardpdf ju2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	294803f97db3fc5373d2804a6309910d8f9c97be

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