Manitoba Committee Hansard — 8 April 2021 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 4, 42nd Legislature, 3rd Session)

42-3-sed4

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session – Forty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Mr. James Teitsma Constituency of Radisson Vol. LXXV No. 4 - 6 p.m., Thursday, April 8, 2021 ISSN 1708-6698

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

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

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

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

47 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Thursday, April 8, 2021 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. James Teitsma (Radisson) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Dennis Smook (La Vérendrye) ATTENDANCE – 6 QUORUM – 4 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Eichler, Helwer Messrs. Lindsey, Moses, Smook, Teitsma APPEARING: Ms. Cindy Lamoureux, MLA for Tyndall Park PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 41 – The Fair Registration Practices in Regulated Professions Amendment Act Ms. Katherine Stansfield, Manitoba Alliance of Health Regulatory Colleges Ms.

Jessica Praznik, Immigration Partnership Winnipeg Ms. Lizeth Ardila, SEED Winnipeg Mr. Seid Ahmed, Manitoba Association of Newcomer Serving Organizations Ms. Monika Feist, Success Skills Centre Ms. Viktoria Vladimirova, Eastman Immigrant Services Shawna Finnegan, private citizen Ms. Darcia Senft, Law Society of Manitoba Bill 61 – The Apprenticeship and Certification Amendment Act Ms. Tanya Palson, private citizen Ms. Ramona Coey, Mechanical Contractors Association of Manitoba Mr. Kyle Kalcsics, Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Local 254 Mr. Marc Lafond, Operating Engineers Local 987 Ms. Aarti Sharma, private citizen Mr.

Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Ron Hambley, Winnipeg Construction Association Mr. Sudhir Sandhu, Manitoba Building Trades Ms. Shawn Kettner, private citizen Mr. Patrick Falconer, private citizen Mr. Peter Wightman, Construction Labour Relations Association of Manitoba Mr.

Robert Duarte, Ironworkers Union Local 728 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 61 – The Apprenticeship and Certification Amendment Act Darryl Harrison, Winnipeg Construction Association Yvette Milner, Merit Contractors Association Ramona Coey, Mechanical Contractors Association of Manitoba MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 41 – The Fair Registration Practices in Regulated Professions Amendment Act Bill 61 – The Apprenticeship and Certification Amendment Act * * * Clerk Assistant (Mr. Tim Abbott): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order.

Our first item of business is [inaudible] Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Reg Helwer (Minister of Central Services): I nominate Mr. Teitsma Clerk Assistant: Mr. Teitsma has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Teitsma, please take the Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Helwer: I nominate Mr. Smook. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other nominations?

48 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Smook is elected Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 41, The Fair Reg istration Practices in Regulated Professions Amendment Act; and Bill 61, The Apprenticeship and Certification Amendment Act. I would like to inform all of–in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment.

The standing commit tee meeting to consider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause by clause of a bill except by unanimous consent of the committee. Written submissions from the following people have been received and distributed to committee members: Darryl Harrilson [phonetic] from–Harrison from the Winnipeg Construction Association, on Bill 61; and Yvette Milner from Merit Contractors Association, on Bill 61.

Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hans ard transcript of the meeting? [Agreed] Prior to our proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in a committee. In accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations 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 th eir name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off. Also, if any presenter has any written materials for distribution to the committee, please send the file by email to the moderator who will distribute it to all committee members. Thank you for your patience.

We will now proceed with public presentations. An Honourable Member: Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Minister Eichler, yes. Hon. Ralph Eichler (Minister of Economic Development and Jobs): Yes, just a p oint of clarification. I got a text from one of the presenters. Ms. Coey has some hydro problem issues–wanted her presentation to be recorded in Hansard. I was wondering if I could get a leave of the committee to have her presentation entered into Hansard, if that's acceptable, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you.

So the minister is suggesting that Ramona Coey's presentation be submitted in writing and added to Hansard. Is that agreeable to the committee? [Agreed] Do we just go–[interjection] Okay. I guess, yes. Bill 41–The Fair Registration Practices in Regulated Professions Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: Then I will now call on Katherine Stansfield from the Manitoba Alliance of Health Regulatory Colleges, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Ms. Katherine Stansfield, could you please turn your video on so that we can invite you into the meeting. Ah, there you are. Wonderful.

So, yes, unmute yourself, and you can then proceed with your presentation. Ms. Katherine Stansfield (Ma nitoba Alliance of Health Regulatory Colleges): Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee tonight. My name is Katherine Stansfield. I am the chair of the Manitoba Alliance of Health Regulatory Colleges, to be abbreviated to the alliance. I'm also the CEO and registrar of the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba.

On behalf of the Manitoba alliance of regulatory colleges, please accept our submission regarding Bill 41, The Fair Registration Practices in Regulated Professions Amendment Act. The alliance is comprised of all 23 regulated health professions in Manitoba. The alliance has several significant concerns regarding these amendments. In Manitoba, we are in the midst of a pandemic. As regulators, we are now providing direction to our health- care professionals on their duties to care for patients, standards of care, personal protective equipment, scope of practice and redeployment of health-care professionals.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 49 The alliance believes that that this is not the time to introduce such a bill. The alliance has been unable to fully reflect upon, analyze, undertake robust discussion or comment in a comprehensive manner that such a legislative amendment warrants. The alliance is formerly asking that this bill not be passed during this session at the height of the pandemic in Manitoba when the regulators of health professions are fully engaged in the pandemic response and that the bill be deferred.

Once the pandemic has passed, the alliance will be in a much better position to comm ent and engage in discussion on the substance of the legislative amendment. * (18:10) Our second point is in regards to subsection 5(2): A regulated profession that proposes to change its registration practices, as described in the information provided under clause (1)(a), must notify the director of the proposed change, at the time and in the manner and form required by the director.

It is not clear as to what the time, manner and form will look like, nor is it clear as to whether a response is required from the director before the change can occur, or, more importantly, what a response from the director would mean in relation to the proposed changes. Would the response be binding on the regulator? We would expect that there would be an appeal mechanism through which a regulator could appeal the response from the director. Clause 8.1(1): A regulated profession must take reasonable steps to collaborate with education providers and educators to (

a) identify opportunities to develop programs that may assis t internationally educated individuals and unsuccessful applicants in obtaining registration in the regulated profession; and (

b) develop programs identified in clause (a). This provision appears to apply to both internationally educated and domestically educated individuals. In the case of internationally educated applicants, some regulators have access to a bridging program for internationally educated applicants to bridge the gaps between their program and the Canadian practice setting. It is unclear, however, how such a program would apply to domestically educated applicants, and we would argue that it would be inappropriate to offer remedial opportunities to domestically educated applicants.

We would request that any application to domestically educated applicants be removed. Bridging programs are expensive to operate and are generally funded on a cost -recovery basis by the bridging program from either the applicant or from government funding. Certainly, due to conflict of interest considerations, th e funding could not come from the regulator. It is also important to recognize that there may not be sufficient numbers of internationally educated applicants in certain smaller professions, and that would make an operation of such a program unsustainable. Our fourth point is in regard to

section 15.2: By March 1st of each year, a regulated profession must prepare and submit to the director an annual report for the 12- month period ending December 31st on the registration of internationally educated individuals, and the report must include any other information requested by the director. Currently, regulators must submit various data to the Fairness Commissioner by March of each year. To our knowledge, very little has ever been done with these data, yet regulators put a great deal of work into collecting the information required by the Fairness Commissioner.

Additionally, every two years, regulators are required to undertake a review of registration practices. To add an annual report on top of this, in addition to the annual report we already submit to the Minister of Health, will increase the already heavy workload of all regulators to the point of hardship. We would request that at least one of the three reports required be removed.

Our fifth point is in regard to subsection 15.4(1): The minister may issue a compliance order to a regulated profession if the minister is of the opinion that the regulated profession has failed to comply with the Fair Registration Practices Code. We note that in subsection 15.4(3), regulators will have at least 30 days to make a written submission explaining the reason for the alleged non-compliance. However, there appears to be a great deal of subjectivity in the determination of the non- compliance. How would a failure to com ply be determined?

We would suggest that the bill be amended to require that any compliance orders issued to health regulators be co- signed by both the minister responsible for The Fair Registration Practices in Regulated Professions Act and the Minister of Health and Seniors Care (Mrs. Stefanson).

50 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 We submit that there should be a set of publicly available criteria upon which any such decision would be made. Clause 16(1)(h): prescribing the time periods within which regulated professions must make registration decisions and provide written responses and reasons to applicants. It is crucial to recognize that each applicant is unique and that much of the application process is actually driven by the applicants themselves. Any such time period must take this into consideration and would have to begin upon receipt of a completed application as determined by the regulator. Finally,

section 21 of the current Fair Registration Practices in Regulated Professions Act: if a provision of this act or regulation m ade under this act conflicts with a provision in another act or a regulation made under another act, the provision of this act or the regulation prevails to the extent of the conflict. While this

section has always been part of the FRPRPA, it is particularly concerning in the light of the current labour mobility focus. The Regulated Health Professions Act, which does or will in future govern regulated health professions, requires regulators of health professions to serve and protect the public interest. It would be difficult for regulators to knowingly set aside their regulatory mandate to serve and protect the public interest if it were in conflict with a labour mobility provision, as the interests of their economics and health care do not always intersect.

Further, regulators are concerned about an accountability to two ministers and the potential issues that might arise if the objectives of the two departments do not align. This concern is heightened in light of the new compliance order provision. We would request that a clause be drafted to ensure that Bill 41 is always interpreted in the public interest with regard to patient safety for those regulated health professions under the RHPA or who will be under the RHPA. We appreciate your consideration of these comments and recommendations as they represent the topics of greatest concern by members of the alliance.

We strive to work collaboratively with government in achieving our legislative mandate to serve and protect the public interest. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Stansfield. Do members of the committee have any questions for the presenter? Hon. Ralph Eichler (Minister of Economic Development and Jobs): Thank you, Ms. Stansfield, for your presentation–well done; lots of information, and I will duly note your recommendations, your thoughts.

I'm very proud of what we've accomplished with where we are to this point, but we want to make sure we get it right, so we certainly appreciate you taking time to join us here this evening. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Stansfield, would you like to respond to the minister? It's up to you. Ms. Stansfield: Thank you very much, minister. I appreciate the consideration of the committee. Mr. Chairperson: Any further que stions from members of the committee? Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Thank you very much for coming out tonight. We appreciate some very insightful suggestions there.

Perhaps we'll explore them further and look at making some kind of report stage amendments before this legislation becomes final. So we certainly appreciate the fact that you shared this information with us. Is there anything more you'd like to add that we haven't covered so far? Ms. Stansfield: I believe our presentation summarized our conc erns. Definitely there is more substance within each of those concerns, and we would look forward to any opportunity to discuss in greater detail, but I believe the presentation covered all of the major points. Mr. Chairperson: Okay.

Other members of the committee? * (18:20) Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Thank you, Ms. Stansfield, for your presentation. It was very good. I was just –I was wondering what the benefit would be to waiting until after the pandemic to discuss this further. I think there's a lot of merit to that and I was wondering if you would elaborate on that a little bit. Ms. Stansfield: Thank you very much for that question. As regulators, I'm sure you recognize the work that is going on, mainly behind the scenes, to support all of the pandemic efforts currently under way. So we

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 51 are fully engaged in ensuring that our registrants have the opportunity to be supported by their regulatory colleges. That doesn't give us a lot of time to put the effort and energy into looking at each of these concerns that we've raised today and determine if there are alternatives or if we have suggestions for change. And I believe that that dialogue would certainly strengthen this bill. So, to that end, we would request, respectfully, that the bill be deferred. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions, Mr. Moses? Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): Ms.

Stansfield, thank you so much for your presentation. I think it was very informative. I really appreciate, not only the time and effort you put in presenting it, but a lso all your colleagues at the alliance, who would have detailed the work to prepare for tonight, so I really appreciate that. I wanted to ask a –specifically about the–oh, you mentioned about the

section 8.1(1), where educational institutions would be pro viding some assistance to help applicants get through the process and the funding that might go into that, and how it might be a conflict with the college. I'm wondering if you can just provide some more details on that and what funding you'd be looking for to help from the Province, to get it to align with what's proposed in the legislation. Ms. Stansfield: This is a very important part of our submission, and we recognize that there are larger and smaller regulators and as there are health professions that have greater and larger numbers of registrants.

If I can speak for a moment from the perspective of the College of Registered Nurses, as the largest, in terms of numbers of registrants, we are able to provide the volume of applicants to a bridging program that is able to sustain a program that does provide that level of support to internationally educated applicants. And, as you know, regulators are not supported by provincial funding, so all of our funding comes from applicants. So that program is self-sufficient simply because of the volume.

However, there are many other regulators that have, in fact, you know, hundreds of registrants, rather than thousands, as we do. And it is just not possible for those registrants to bear the cost of a fully funded bridging program for internationally educated applicants. Therefore, there would have to be some other sources of funding available. Nor is it appropriate for a regulator to actually fund such a program, simply because the distance between the regulator and the process by which an applicant determines their competence needs to be very clearly distinguished.

So there is really very little that a regulator legitimately can do to develop or support financially a program that eventually is producing applicants that must provide their compliance or demonstrate their competence to the regulator. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, thank you, Ms. Stansfield for your answers and for–to the members for the question and answer. We have run out of time for this presenter so we will now move to the next presenter. I will call on Jessica Praznik from the Immigration Partnership Winnipeg and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Ms.

Praznik, if you can unmute yourself and turn your video on, it would be appreciated. Ms. Jessica Praznik (Immigration Partnership Winnipeg): Hello. Can everybody see me? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much for joining the meeting. Before you proceed, I did want to let you know that we have received your written brief and we're just printing copies for the members of the committee to see. But, in any case, you can now get on with your presentation. Please proceed. Ms. Praznik: Wonderful. Good evening, and thank you to the standing committee for this opportunity to speak with you all about Bill 41.

My name is Jessica Praznik and I am project manager at Immigration Partnership Winnipeg. We are a local immigration partnership that works to create a more welcoming and inclusive community for all newcomers, immigrants and refugees in Winnipeg by engaging stakeholders, identifying needs and priorities and facilitating collaborative action. In my role, I have the privilege to co-ordinate our employment sector table.

This sector table brings together newcomer employment service providers, human resource professionals, employers, the Chamber of Commerce, sector councils and public servants, with the goal of analyzing, prioritizing, building awareness around and acting on key issues that influence the success and inclusion of newcomers, immigrants and refugees in Winnipeg workplaces.

52 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 I want to start today by thanking the Province for taking the steps to address the challenges with Manitoba's registration practices faced by inter - nationally educated professionals, by introducing Bill 41. And moving forward in my presentation, I'll refer to internationally educated professionals as IEPs. The registration practices have continued to create and reinforce unnecessary barriers for IEPs. These practices and the structures which support them are forms of discrimination and lead to further marginalizations of newcomers in our province.

They've led to an excess of –excessive loss of time, money and self-esteem for countless IEPs, while at the same time the Province and the business community loses out on talented, qualified and skilled workers, innovation and human capital. I'm going to talk this evening about some of the work that we've done as a sector to gather input on Bill 41 from newcomer service providers and IEPs themselves. We felt that there was a lack of consultation with these key impacted stakeholders in the development of Bill 41.

So, together with the Manitoba Association of Newcomer Serving Organizations, SEED Winnipeg, Success Skills Centre, Seven Oaks Immigrant Services, Bran don Local Immigration Partnerships and a few others, we organize our own consultations. We held a consultation session on November 17th for service providers and another consultation with IEPs on February 27th.

I'd just like to point out that within just over a week of promotion of our IEP consultation, we had over 150 IEPs register for the consultation, despite it being a virtual event, this truly showing how IEPs want to share their experience and have their voices heard. The feedback we've–we heard du ring these consultations have informed our 'sesshur's' response to Bill 41, and I'll be sharing some of this feedback during my presentation while a few of my fellow colleagues will be highlighting other aspects of the feedback we heard, later on this evening.

The most common theme we heard during these consultations was frustration and defeat, due to the barriers IEPs face. One of the questions we asked during our consultation with IEPs was: If they could go back in time and tell themselves one thing about coming to Manitoba, what would it be? A common response we heard was that they could tell themselves anything, it'd be not to move to Manitoba. I just want to give you a second to, like, let that sink in.

Due to the barriers that IEPs face in having their hard -earned education and experience as professionals–sorry, as professions recognized, they have–they would've preferred not to come to Manitoba. Many skilled workers who come to our province often end up in survival jobs, instead of working in the field that they're educated in. And we have heard in the sector countless times and countless cases of secondary migration out of Manitoba for other provinces, due to our registration practices and the lack of gap training and bridge programming opportunities. The system is not working.

This is –this has a devastating effect on our communities and the economy. From 2015 to 2017, more than 3,000 IEPs applied for registration in a Manitoba -regulated profession. Only 16 per cent, or 488 of these applicants resulted in full–sorry, applications resulted in full registrations in the professions. Again, I just want to let that sink in: 84 per cent of 'applicason'–applicants did not get fully registered in their profession. What a devastating loss of human capital for our province. Therefore, Bill 41 is needed and welcomed by our sector. However, more is needed to be done.

My colleagues will speak more in depth about the barriers faced by IEPs that we heard during our consultations, such as the use of third-party assessors, unnecessary documentation and administration–sorry, administrative requirements, high registration fees, language proficiency guidelines, as well as the greater need for support for bridging programs, expanding occupational-specific language train ing and oppor - tunities for mentorship, networking and internships. * (18:30) So now I'll speak to the changes to the Office of the Manitoba Fairness Commissioner that are incorporated in Bill 41.

So, due to existing legislation and regulations, the commis sioner's role does not include support for individual IEPs nor have they been able–nor has the office been able to hear complaints from IEPs or issue compliance orders. We hope for their role to be strengthened in Bill 41, however, the Fairness Commissioner and its office is being moved to a director position within the department of economic development training, and its power seemingly will remain the same.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 53 There was not actually a consensus from our consultations regarding this transition other than there was a consensus of the need to strengthen the role of the position and to be able to hold regulatory bodies accountable for unfair practices. We hope that the new director position works to strengthen and support – sorry, strengthen the support for IEPs and reduce their barriers to registration. So, throughout our consultations, what was stressed by both service providers and IEPs was the need for clear information, ongoing support and advocacy for IEPs.

So IEPs have to navigate through multiple source s of information many times being inaccurate just to take a small step forward in their credential recognition processes. IEPs felt a one -stop information hub online is a much-needed support. Therefore, we call for Bill 41 to establish an access centre fo r IEPs so that the Province can provide clear information and assistance for IEPs with the credential recognition process both before they arrive in Manitoba and once they have landed here.

Many IEPs have high expectations when they immigrate to Manitoba, especially if their professions awarded them with high points under the Provincial Nominee Program. Therefore the Province has a role to play in supporting these individuals with accessible information, assistance with credential recognition process and advocacy when they are treated unfairly by regulatory bodies. We suggest a similar body to the province of Ontario's access centre for internationally trained individuals, which is legislatively established in Ontario's Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act.

While in general we are in support of Bill 41, what will be most important is in the manner in which the Province implements this legislation through regulations, policies and practices. So, to ensure the bill is implemented ef fectively to serve Manitobans, is to include and sincerely consult our sector and IEPs in the development of those regulations, policies and practices related to the act. We have a wealth of knowledge to share and we want to be part of the solution.

We hope that this is the beginning of a collaborative partnership in making Manitoba a leader in fair credential recognition across the country. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Praznik, for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Ms. Praznik, for your presentation. A lot of good information you brought forward. Certainly we look forward to carrying on our conversation with you and your colleagues. As I said earlier on, we want to make sure we get this right. We appreciate your support.

We know that through past examples of not being able to move forward in a very timely manner is why we want to move forward on it, so we appreciate your support. Thank you for attending tonight and taking time for us. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Praznik, would you like to respond in any way? Ms. Praznik: Just thank you and again, we really welcome the further inclusion of our sector and IEPs in the consultation moving forward–bringing any - thing around the act and regulations policies and practices. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, other members with questions? Mr. Moses: Thank you so much for your presentation.

It's wonderful to hear from you, and thanks for the thoughtful comments and bringi ng the voices of IEPs to light here. And thank you also for taking on the consultation role and being proactive and doing some of that work to hear their voices directly. I really appreciate your suggestions around what you can do to make the Fairness Com missioner having more authority and provide kind of an access centre for information for those who are looking for it.

What is–you know, from your consultation–what is a barrier that, you know, is currently right now a roadblock that you can think of as an example that this access kind of really might break down to make things easier for IEPs who are in our province? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, sorry, that's my bad. I was– I should–I have to recognize you formally first and I was engaged in a chat with the clerk, so I'm very sorry. Ms. Praznik, go ahead. Ms. Praznik: Anybody who knows me knows I love to talk, so that was more my fault than yours. So, yes, it's a great question.

So, having this online kind of one -stop shop of information would

54 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 really help reduce a lot of the barriers to misinformation. Lots of IEPs in their process of even immigrating to Manitoba need information about how to get regulated in their profession and it's not easily accessible. So maybe there's a bit of information on the regulatory body's page. Maybe there's a bit of information on World Education Services' website, but it's all–they have to, you know, navigate all of these different access sources –sorry, sources of information.

And another thing that happens is many people go to multiple friends, family, for information or service providers for information, and they can get different responses. So having this one -stop shop of information would be really valuable for them to getting their, like, accurate information but timely, fast, and they'd have realistic expectations about the time it would take to actually get registered in the profession and the cost and so to really settle out some of those expectations. Ms. Lamoureux: Thank you, Ms. Praznik, for your presentation.

I really, really agree with your point, how we have so many individuals choosing to immigrate to Manitoba only to be faced with barriers after barrier after barrier. And I was wondering if you would share with the committee just what some of these specific skill sets that immigrants are bringing to Manitoba with them are, and what we're losing out on as a province because of the barriers? Ms. Praznik: Yes, I think there's countless. If we think about, you know, having diversity within workplaces, i t brings in and increases innovation, performance, strategy, bringing in different voices.

And so this not having–losing out on IEPs that could possibly be working in these professional positions really does decrease our workforce's ability to be more innovative, more –increases performance, and it's – like, I think it's, you know, at the end of the day, having IEPs bringing in their experiences from their home countries or secondary countries that they've lived in can really increase problem solving, right? Like, they can bring in those different experiences and those different lens to approaching issues within the workplace. Also, at the end of the day, our province has –is very diverse.

So having a workforce that's reflective of our population also better s erves, like, customer service as well as others. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Praznik. Unfortunately, our time for questions has come to an end so we're going to move onto the next presenter. I will now call on Lizeth Argila [phonetic] from SEED Winnipeg. Lizeth, if you could unmute yourself and turn your video on. All right, hi there. Welcome to the committee. You can now proceed with your presentation. Ms.

Lizeth Ardila (SEED Winnipeg): Dear committee and Chair and other members of the committee, before I begin, I want to thank you–thank the Province for taking the steps and the time to address the challenges with the Manitoba registration practices faced by internationally educated profes - sionals, IEPs, by introducing Bill 41. My name is Lizeth Ardi la and I am the Recognition Counts marketing co-ordinator at SEED Winnipeg. As an immigrant myself, I am very familiar with the hurdles faced after moving to another country. Settling into a new life takes a lot of time, effort, money and emotional strength.

So I'm happy to work with an organization and a program that helps to reduce some of the barriers that many newcomers like myself and immigrants encounter. One of SEED's programs, Recognition Counts, offers loans for skilled immigrants who want to get their credentials recognized in Canada, particularly in Manitoba. Many of our clients face unnecessary steps to getting credentials recognized.

We see clients who spent an excessive amount of time, money and self - esteem in the process of credential recognitions while the province simultaneously loses talent, innovation and human capital. * (18:40) Let me share with you a real client story –excuse me–that exemplifies the difficulties that many IEPs experience. This is a story of an international educated nurse, RN, with over six years of professional experience working in a medical intensive-care unit in her home country.

She arrived in 2015 and decided to start the process of getting her credentials recognized in 2017 by taking the necessary language exams and paying the expensive non- reimbursable fees for her assessments. RNs need to pay over $2,000 for such assessments, and if they fail the Clinical Competence Assessment, CCA, it means that the examinees need

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 55 to retake the four -year course of nursing here in Manitoba or wait for the bridging courses, which often take–or often have a waiting list of two years. Once accepted to a bridging program, the student is required to refresh their English proficiency exam result and pay a fee of $395. So then she res earched and found that other provinces such as Ontario and Newfoundland offer RNs the opportunity to fulfill their nursing career and acquire her RN licence in less time and without so many complications.

She received an immediate response from the College of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, CRNNL. She wrote a petition to the C RNL [phonetic] so she could finish the bridging program before her safe practice expired, otherwise she have take the full bridging course, pay the bridging course fees, which is more than $8,000 right now, and had to wait for an intake to be offered. Her petition was approved and she received a spot in 2018.

After four months she completed her certification and flew back to Winnipeg with her family, and she started to prepare for her National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses. In August of 2019, she started reviewing for her exam and found out that the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba refused to accept out-of-province graduates who do not have experience working as an– a registered nurse. They require at least 450 RN hours before being able to reciprocate their licence.

She says there were so many barriers to live and work in Manitoba, and it was really exhausting, frustrating, making it almost impossible for most internationally educated nurses to transfer. Prior to taking her exam, she filed a complaint through the office of the Manitoba fairness commission somewhere in 2019 with other RNs in regards to the unjust treatment of CRNM, College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba, to international educated nurses and unreasonable requirements in reciprocating their licence in Manitoba.

However, nothing happened, and in December of 2019, she decided to transfer her licence to Saskatchewan and paid another $39 5 to refresh her English exam and finally reciprocate her licence to Saskatchewan. She successfully passed the exam and facilitated a transfer of her licence from Newfoundland to Saskatchewan, submitted all the requirements to a regulatory body and waited for her licence to be released. In March of 2020 she successfully got a job in Saskatchewan and started working at the biggest hospital in the province.

In spite of it all, she wants to come back to Manitoba to be close to her family and friends. She says that she hopes that CRNM's policy in reciprocating licences be evaluated. She says that the province is losing nurses to other provinces because they are being pushed away. She shared with us an estimated of the cost of the whole process was more than $20,000, and I have a breakdown that I can share with you through email after my presentation. This example is not unique among our clients. IEPs want this legislation to speak the need for reasonable cost to credential recognition and licensing fees.

Therefore, we would like to see the Bill 41 to improve the ways which equity concerns are being addressed across the regulatory bodies, reducing fees so IEPs who have families are not forced to pick up survival jobs that sometimes stay indefinitely because of the cost and barriers they face with the credential recognition process, and we recommend that the Province provide funding to regulatory bodies to provide internship positions, to smoothen the path into their professions.

Although we are in agreement that a change to the current legislation are necessary, the settlement sector, which helps hundreds of newcomers navigate, where they show recognitions, had no advanced knowledge of the introduction of Bill 41 and only had a short briefing unaided by the government staff, will need an opportunity to provide input. We felt that there was a lack of consultation by the government with the settlement sector, so we arranged our own consultation with the sector, as Jessica mentioned.

The sessions were held in November 17, after the Bill 41 was introduced and then we had another one on February 27th with IEPs. One of the common themes we heard during the session is that international educated professionals felt very frustrated with the barriers they face in getting their credentials recognized in Manitoba. We are thankful for this opportunity to make a presentation with our suggestions to the legislative committee. And once the legislation is passed, we hope you consult our organizations. Our sector has a wealth of knowledge and to share, and we want to be part of the solution. Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Argila [phonetic], for your presentation.

56 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for your contribution to what you do to help immigrants get their positions filled sooner and faster. Your stories were very informative. We have similar that we've heard over time. When I first became the minister in 2019, and members –some of the members on the committee now –certainly we know how serious this issue is and that's why we brought the legislation forward.

And we appreciate your comments and taking time to share with them – us–with us here tonight. So thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Argila [phonetic], would you like to respond to the minister? Ms. Ardila: Yes, thank you so much. Thank you for the opportunity. Mr. Moses: Thank you, Ms. Argila [phonetic], for your presentation. It's really informative and inspiring to hear the efforts and the lengths that an IEN would go through to get accredited, to do the job that, you know, that they are passionate about; having to– multiple provinces–to go through that process. Thank you for sharing that.

You know, I think that, you know, this bill does take some steps to alleviate some of those barriers, but I don't know if it goes far enough. So, I'd wonder, from you, if there are other, you know, issues that maybe the previous presenters or maybe that you have from your consultation have heard that would help to alleviate specific barriers that people, like in your story–like the IEN have faced, or other individuals have faced? Ms. Ardila: Yes, thank you so much. I think I can speak for our clients at SEED and most of them are nurses from ot her countries. And they face very similar barriers.

It's very costly, takes a lot of time. A lot of them have to renew their licences, and it's just a very costly and lengthy process. And a thing like consultation with the sector and consultation with IEPs will continue to strengthen the bill and just make it one that works for them. Ms. Lamoureux: Thank you, Ms. Argila [phonetic], for your presentation. It's really just more a comment. I do want to thank you for sharing this story, as it really puts thi s legislation in perspective for us and allows us to better understand it. It's like putting down on paper.

So, just thank you for your time and for sharing that with us. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Argila [phonetic], would you like to respond to Ms. Lamoureux? Ms. Ardila: Yes, thank you. Just thank you so much for the time. Mr. Chairperson: Any other members of the committee with questions for this presenter? Okay, seeing none, then I thank you Ms. Argila [phonetic] for presenting to us and wish you well. And we'll move on to the next presenter. Thank you. I will now call on Seid Ahmed from the Manitoba Association of Newcomers Serving Organizations. Seid Ahmed, if I could ask you to unmute yourself and turn your video on.

There you are. Wonderful. Welcome Mr. Ahmed to this committee and you may now proceed with your presentation. * (18:50) Mr. Seid Ahmed (Manitoba Association of Newcomer Serving Organizations): Good evening, Honourable Ralph Eichler and other members of Social and Economic Standing Committee. My name is Seid Ahmed. I'm the director of resettlement integration support at the Manitoba Association of Newcomer Serving Organizations, which is known as MANSO. It's an umbrella agency for more than 17 member organizations.

On behalf of the memb ers of the Manitoba Association of Newcomer Serving Organizations, who support thousands of newcomers who like to thank the Province for taking steps to authorize a challenge with Manitoba's administration by introducing Bill 41, and I'm so honoured to be here to present. On November 27, we hosted a special meeting of settlement sector stakeholders, to bring forward ideas to strengthen the legislation.

We had also IEPs consultation on February 27 [inaudible] and Jessica and others, and I want to share some of the feedback that were raised during the consultation, particularly in three areas: setting language proficiency guidelines for regulatory bodies, eliminating the ability to use third-party assessors and eliminating unnecessary documentation. As we all know, the young and the brightest top talent is encouraged to immigrate to Manitoba through

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 57 the nominee program and granted permanent resident status on the basis of point: point for the education, point for the English or French language proficiency, point for their work experience and for their age and adaptability. On the prairie list, the nominee program implied a promise of being able to use them in Manitoba to support the growth and competitiveness of the Canadian economy and to build capital within our aging labour force. But more often, when they are here, they are not deemed competent to work here. We all know that.

Assessing the credentials of the national educated professionals complex challenging, but crucially important. Regulators need to e nsure that only those IEPs that have entry -level competency of Canadian standards are registered in the interest of public protection. However, regulators must also ensure that there are no unreasonable barriers to technician. They have also to ensure that their practices are transparent, objective, impartial and fair. The question we need to find solution to links to our –the real motive behind why some regulators are not fair, why they are not impartial.

I don't want to, you know, argue English language proficiency tests should have lifetime validity without any barriers. But regulatory bodies in Manitoba typically use international standards for describing English language ability. They use international English language system, IELTS, as a benchmark for non-native speakers. So I want to pose the following question for you all. Can we claim our education certificate has lifetime validity as far as we renew our licence for every year? Is there any post -secondary institution that posts an expiration date on your diploma or degree or Ph.D.?

At what point would your undergrad degree just not count anymore? Have you ever worried that you missed a chance at being accepted into a grad or Ph.D. program because your undergrad degree has an expiration date? Do you really believe this course, international educated professionals, often decline once they have submitted their language result through the regulatory body without their fault?

Especially while they are studying or maintaining language skills, such as parti cipating in occupations [inaudible] language classes or working in English or French-speaking environments that demand either English or French. What kind of experiences they have when they were asked to rewrite the test due to the direction of is its th e core validity? Why most of the regulatory bodies use international English language testing system, IELTS? To serve as doors, door openers and gatekeepers.

This barrier exists within certain regulatory bodies that prevent people from having their qualification and experience recognized. Any serious attempt to fix the problem of credential recognition must include direct attention to a number of factors. Just I want to share some promising practices. International educated engineers qualification program, IEQ program, that's the Canadian language benchmark placement test. Students can request a waiver of the English language proficiency requirement. Students from 17 countries are exempt English language requirement.

So, in addition to adopting this in other existing policy practices, regulatory bodies can expand their criteria for language proficiency, such as more options for IEPs. For example, IEP can take Cambridge English assessment, C1 Advanced exam. It has no expiration date. The regulatory bodies can verify your result to confirm the assessment result or certificate is genuine, like IELTS. So the nuts -and-bolts aspects of Bill 41 need urgent attention to simplify and accelerate foreign credential recognition.

Our ability to use human capital is g reatly enhanced and it allows for a more talented and accessible pool of candidates. Employers seeking to fill critical labour shortages will be able to hire more Canadians and permanent residents. We hope the bill holds accountable those regulatory bodies that have unreasonable barriers to credential recognition. I believe Bill 41 should incorporate an action plan aimed at some concrete proposal that could be implemented by the regulatory bodies, as well as by the Province, that will allow this jurisdiction to integrate international [inaudible] skills into the Canadian.

So, the second point I want to talk about is eliminating a third party assessor. So, the process of having to go to a third party assessor has created significant barrier for IEPs. So, we request that measure be put into the act, eliminating the use of third party assessors, especially if regulatory bodies do not accept the third party [inaudible] recommendation as is. At the end, this is up to that regulatory body to accept [inaudible]. So, the third point I want to talk about, the requirement of unnecessary [inaudible] IEPs continue to face unnecessary steps to get their credentials

58 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 recognized, including the requirement of unnecessary [inaudible], which can be difficult to acquire from the country of origin for reasons beyond their control. For example, IEPs will need to submit criminal record checks from every country they lived in within the past six–but they already provided that document as a part of their immigration process. They are coming as permanent residents. All in all, the documentation requirement is more difficult in Manitoba than other provinces, and this is not consistent across the regulatory bodies.

And this causes increased costs, excessive time, loss in human capital, impacts the economy. So we recommend that the Province explore ways of streaming and simplifying the administrative process. I believe there is a number of major criteria that needs to be reviewed to avoid the waste of potential costs. So, we appreciate the difficulties and limitation of doing consultation during the pandemic. However, it is vital, you know, the Province consult the settlement sector on their experience with the credential recognition process to identify key areas for improvement and ways to implement.

And we'd be happy to offer our support and the support of our members in further developing this legislation for improvement. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ahmed, for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Eichler: Thanks for your presentation. Thanks for taking time to be with us tonight. Lots of good information in your presentation. We'll certainly take all those notes under advisement and look forward to saying thanks for supporting us on this bill. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Ahmed, would you like to respond to the minister at all? Up to you. Mr.

Ahmed: Thank you for the opportunity again. Mr. Moses: Thank you so much for your presentation this evening. It's a pleasure to hear from you and highlight the issues that people you work with have faced and the barriers that they've faced and the challenges. I think it's important that we seriously look at ways to reduce those barriers. And wondering, from your perspective, how many people that you deal with on a daily basis encounter these barriers and, you know, how many would you say maybe don't? Is it all of them encounter these barriers? Is it just some of them?

Or what percentage would you say if you can put a number on it to give us perspective on that? Mr. Ahmed: It's going to be difficult to put in numbers, but, really, that is common. Like, our chair actually, one of IEPs, he said he has submitted all his applications. It took one year to hear back from the regulator y bodies. At that time, you know, some of the documents already expired. Their English require–you know, the English–the test result? That has expired. So, he has to rewrite over again.

It took one year to respond to that initial application. * (19:00) So it was really common to hear all this frustration from internationally educated profes - sionals. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ahmed. Ms. Lamoureux: Thank you so much for your presentation. I really appreciate the way you are challenging us as elected officials to actually question some of the standards and revisiting those standards. You talk a lot about the IELTS, like, language as well as post- secondary education, and you're right.

And it makes –I'm questioning myself now: when is the last time these were actually talked about and debated? Why are we not revisiting these standards and having that conversation? So I guess my question to you would be, would you recommend we revisit these conversations and have these debates before Bill 41 passes o r after? Is there a difference? Mr. Ahmed: I think we're looking for an opportunity to consult, so we have, you know, just more input to share. There's a lot of, you know, just expertise and, you know, experience, you know, just working to– educated professionals.

I think, yes, we would be happy to share that. I think one thing is, I think this is wholly unnecessary steps. This could be easily removed. This is a barrier, actually, that add a lot of, like, you know, just causes

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 59 frustration, depression, pres enting to internationally educated professionals. So, as far as, you know, it's incorporated before or after, I don't think that matters, honestly. But I'm hoping, actually, Bill 41 will consider to incorporate all these key suggestions and considerations. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ahmed. Are there any other MLAs on the committee who have questions? Seeing none, then I'm going to thank you, Mr. Ahmed, for your presentation and for answering the committee's questions, and we will now move on to the next presenter.

I call on Monica Feist from the 'succells'–Success Skills Centre and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. I ask that they please unmute themselves and turn their video on as well. Floor Comment: Good evening, committee members– Mr. Chairperson: Welcome–sorry, I still need to recognize you before we can get into your presentation. So, welcome, Monica Feist into the meeting, and I encourage you now to proceed with your presentation. Thank you. Ms. Monika Feist (Success Skills Centre): Good evening, committee members, honourable Ministers Eichler and Helwer.

I want to thank you first of all for allowing us to speak with you this evening on the proposed bill and thank you for revisiting the act. My colleagues have said many of the things that I want to tell you. I may be repeating a few of those, but I want to reiterate. I'm Monica Feist. I'm the CEO of Success Skills Centre. As a backgrounder, I want to tell you a bit about Success Skills Centre.

We were formed back in 1985 to fill a very specific niche to address the needs for internationally educated newcomer professionals and skilled workers in order to gain their accreditation in their fields and to be able to work likewise in their occupations in Canada. For many years, we were the only organization in the province and one of a few in Canada to lead in this area. Over the years, our centre received funding first from the federal government, then on devolution to the provinces in 1998 provincially and then back federally back in '12-13, and now from neither.

But, instead, we have been able to continue with private placements, paid internships and testing contracts that we either have sought out or where we have been sought out to deliver. Some thousands have gone through our hands-on preparation programming, occupation-specific courses and related job place- ments. Excuse my pup. Many of our clients have successfully transitioned, and there are also many who haven't.

Some of their barriers are certainly common, such as age, language, money to pay for expensive exams especially, other barriers such as lengthy, lengthy accreditation processes that are very difficult to understand at times, even by us, along with duplicate requirement to prove their qualifications, a la ck of advocacy on their behalf, aside from our small staff, other organizations and some Canadian friends who have sympathy.

Greater barriers are that there have been a lack of ongoing bridging programs to help newcomer professionals and skilled workers to be able to fill the gaps that they were told that they actually have. Quite frankly, having been in this field for well over 30 years, I am absolutely dismayed at the starts and the stops of successful bridging programs that work, developed due to the la ck of commitment by government to continue their funding.

It is a repetitive fight to get funding for the not - for-profits and educational institutions to be able to deliver adequate programs and services and the necessary bridging of individuals that our Province invites to come to Manitoba through its PNP program. Provincial policy and the reality to the needs of those invited and the employers are not synchronized. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Province would invite such individuals– Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Feist, if I could ask –sorry to interrupt–but if I could just ask that you try not to rub the microphone with the papers or something.

We're getting sometimes feedback– Ms. Feist: Oh, terribly sorry. Mr. Chairperson: It's good sometimes, but then not so good for a little while, so I'll just let you get back to it. Thank you. Ms. Feist: Okay. So, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Province would invite such

60 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 individuals who have space engineering to Manitoba when we end up having to work with them to get them into the space engineering program in Montreal, and they ended up becoming an associate professor immediately after having languished in Manitoba for over a year, and I was able to get him into the University of Manitoba to teach a couple of subjects.

So, others–we have professors who are–have not a chance of teaching at the university or at the colleges here, and they don't want to do anything else when there are no jobs and then, as I said, we have to help them find jobs either in other provinces, and we've even found jobs for individuals down in Australia, believe it or not. If we have skill shortages the invitations should be to those so that a match can be made quickly and then the newcomer can hit the ground running. Sadly, that happens way, way too few times. So, onto the specifics of Bill 41.

I do want to commend you on some of the amendments to the bill, for making some items clearer. But there are some areas which do not appear to be great changes. It is not clear what mandatory time frames are required to respond to individuals submitting their documents for registration. Having to redo subject areas, and especially our experience, has been that when they do go back to take the subjects that they've been told that they are supposed to take, they actually outperform their Canadian peers.

The excessive fees for exams–talk about $20,000 for nurses–you're looking at close to 40 to 50 thousand dollars for doctors, depending on what their particular fields are. The whole area of lack of competency -based considerations just–some of it has started happening, but it's just very poor. I would really like to have much stronger defined

definitions in the act, timely decisions, responses and reasons and what reasonable time really is. I think that is very, very unclear in the act. Our organization is also concerned that the position of the Fairness Commissioner is being downgraded to a directorship. I was involved initially at the beginning of the year 2000 to even have the position and the particular office established because, certainly within government, there certainly wasn't the action within the government departments for the changes that needed to take place.

I feel it moves to a position of a minimum of three to four positions down from the minister, lessening the position's influence versus, of course, the present act's direct recording and also the arm's -length role that it plays. * (19:10) A three- to four-position–down-directed position can be silenced or filtered by those above who may not agree with the recommendations and that is not that uncommon within government. And it will not serve the minister well, nor internationally trained individuals.

The briefing provided to us did not bring clarity as to why the change is made really, unless the intent is to not allow an independent, arm's -length voice to be able to speak to what really needs to be said and done. As it is, I would have recommended keeping the position and the office and adding several advocacy staff who would work in a similar manner as those staff at the Manitoba Human Rights Commission to advocate on behalf of the clients. There is no such advocacy aside from organizations such as ourselves. I really would like to hear more from the minister on this.

There is still so much to be done in the registration process and the act should be more specific in what is expected of the 'registrating' organizations. Otherwise, I see this just as another make- work– excuse me, work exercise for all of u s. For example, I'd like to see it that the act ensures funding ongoing bridging programs, either ensures the department does for onboarding that would respond to the regulator's identification of needs and those identified by educational institutions and not-for-profits helping the newcomer professionals.

I'd like to see the act ensure paid work, integrated learning or paid internship for newcomer professionals and skilled workers to get them onboarded into related employment and time in the occupation for accreditation, because that is also a part of the requirement for accreditation, to make it happen as quickly as possible. I do like the national pharmacists association's recent internship program as a wonderful example, and it is one of the organiza tions where we've been very fortunate to be able to place over the years the– pharmacists from over–from other countries. Mr. Chairperson: Ms.

Feist –[interjection]– Ms. Feist, just a time check. You've got about 30 seconds left.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 61 Ms. Feist: So, I guess I'd l ike to ensure that they're providing navigators through the regulators, through the process. The U of M health hub is an excellent example, a one-stop website, absolutely essential. I look forward that we work with you and that you consult with us as we feel that we are on your side as a department and we want to be part of that solution to help our internationally trained immigrants become part of this province, rather than having to send them out of the province because there's better solutions there.

Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Feist, for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions at all for their presenter? Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation. I look forward to working with you as we go forward.

We've had discussions on this in the past but certainly it's important for us all to know that, as we started working on this at least two years ago, we've had consultations–we need to have more–but certainly this is a very good start and we appreciate you taking time tonight –you and your colleagues –to make presentations to us at committee here tonight. So thank you very much. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Minister. Ms. Feist, would you like to respond at all to the minister? Ms. Feist: Well, thank you. It has been a positive relationship.

We really appreciated that you took the time last week to actually meet with us all. So, thank you. Mr. Moses: Thank you very much, Ms. Feist, it's fantastic to hear from you. Thank you very much for your presentation and what you've shared with us this evening. I wanted to know just based on your experience with this–in this field for many years, what it's been like to see changes over the years and even the programs–specifically the bridging programs that you've seen–that have been successful.

What have been any commonalities that you say would have led to successful programs over your experience over the years? Ms. Feist: I guess the commonalities of the bridging programs particularly have been, and I think there are many of them–are very successful, was that there was that additional advocacy, the additional help, better understanding. It also–some of these bridging programs assisted individuals to getting into their practice, to actually get some w ork experience in place, provided some of the language–the occupation- specific language especially.

Basically, just onboarding in Manitoba, very much so understanding how things are done in Canada. Those would be probably the successful aspects of those 'bidging' programs. Ms. Lamoureux: Thank you so much for your presentation. I want to thank you for pointing out the importance of clarity just around–some of the

definitions around reasonable time. I think that, if there's still confusion around that, it speaks volumes that there has to be some further debate on this legislation. I'm hoping that through the committee and through third reading that the minister will be able to shed a little bit more light on some clarity for these

definitions. I also just wanted to create an opportunity–I know you got cut short there–if you had any final words or comments you wanted to share with the committee today. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Feist –sorry, I first have to recognize you. Ms. Feist: Particularly, I would really emphasize the whole issue of appeal mechanisms. I found it interesting that our first presenter spoke to having a possibility of having an appeal mechanism for regulators to the director, but I don't see any appeal mechanisms here for our internationally trained individuals.

And I think it's the appeal mechanisms that need to be looked at, both within the assessing organizations and also externally. I guess that would be my main one. And the need for advocacy. A bsolutely a necessity. And having somebody be able to speak on their behalf and navigate with them. I went into our website the other day for a client and, believe me, I got all confused. I couldn't believe it. I thought it was –had already been taken car e of. And I'd hate–I really think that's something that needs to be solved. The –clarify on the website, the

62 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 explanations, the transparency process–actually, there isn't a transparency in some of those regulations. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Feist. Are there any other MLAs on committee that have a question? Mr. Lindsey: So, I just have a very quick question. You made several suggestions like the add–staff advocacy, bridge funding, paid internships. Would you like to see the government hold off on introducing this particular piece of legislation until you've had a chance to–or, we've had a chance to convince them to put some of these things into the act? Mr.

Chairperson: Ms. Feist, we are nearly out of time, but maybe if you can respond in less tha n 30 seconds. Ms. Feist: I don't know. I–in one–on one way, I think the bill really does need some improvement, and if it means that there'd be –that some of these funding processes would also be put in place and the advocacy approaches, I would be prepared to wait a little longer. But, you know, we don't know how long this whole epidemic is going to go. We may be looking at a pandemic for another year or two, so are we willing to just keep delaying and delaying?

We can always bring it back to the table if the act isn't quite as full as it could be. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Feist, for your presentation and for answering the questions of committee members. We are now going to move onto the next presenter. I call on Viktoria Vladimirova and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Viktoria Vladimirova, I ask you to unmute yourself and turn your video on. Floor Comment: Good evening, everyone. Mr. Chairperson: Welcome to the committee, Ms. Vladimirova, and you may now proceed with your presentation. Ten minutes, thank you. * (19:20) Ms.

Viktoria Vladimirova (Eastman I mmigrant Services): Good evening, Chairperson, members of committee and staff of the Legislature. Thank you very much for the privilege to present today at the Standing C ommittee and share rural service sector experience. Eastman Immigrant Services would like to thank the Province for the effort to speed up and simplify the foreign credential recognition process for inter - nationally educated professionals. This is a very important move, especially during challenging times for the province of Manitoba and Manitobans. Let me introduce myself.

My name is Viktoria Vladimirova and I'm an employment facilitator for Eastman Immigrant Services at the Eastman and Interlake region . We are assisting newcomers with settlement, employment and other relevant needs in our area. One of the aspects of our service is to provide assistance with credential recognition process for internationally educated professionals. We assist with application forms, refer clients to regulatory bodies in the province for recognition in their field, but our clients are coming back for further assistance: misunderstanding of the process, language issues and financial problems.

Internationally educated prof essionals feel frus - tration and skepticism upon arrival to the province, and newcomer immigrants share that when they apply for Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program, they have to prove their post -secondary education, qualifi - cations, work experience. Internat ionally educated professionals perform research on –in their countries of origin, to make sure they will be able to go back to their occupational fields, but upon arrival, highly educated immigrants face the reality of the process and realize that sometimes it's almost impossible to go through.

It's either too long, too costly, too far, too late or another reason. Eastman Immigrant Services, representing Eastman and Interlake region, were not notified of introduction of Bill 41, The Fair Registration Practices in Regulated Professions Amendment Act, and didn't have a chance to provide feedback from the regional offices. Our experience would highlight the main steps for improvement. It's very important to remove barriers for internationally educated profes sionals. It's very important to keep professionals in Manitoba and provide job opportunities for the professionals in their fields of expertise.

I would like to share some experience that I witnessed during my years with Eastman Immigrant Services. Inter nationally educated nurses from the Philippines moved to Manitoba four years ago. They came prepared for the credential recognition process

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 63 in Manitoba but after their research of the process in other provinces, they discovered that in other–that the other provinces offer bridging programs for the nurses and shorter time for recognition. The nurses relocated to British Columbia and Nova Scotia. In 2018, a family of five doctors from Iran and the–Egypt moved to Steinbach, Manitoba. Two of them passed the qualification exams in Australia. Upon arrival to Manitoba, they realized that they have to redo the challenging exam again.

My clients, vets from the Philippines, with high credentials, many years of experience back home, don't want to start the recognition process upon arrival because of huge barriers in their way. During my 15 years of work with Eastman Immigrant Services, we know only two vets that went through credential recognition process and were recognized in Manitoba. Their comments were: It's very complicating; it's very stressful; you have to pass qualification exams in different province; you have to pay for all exams. The Province of Manitoba has limited funds for that.

You have to pay for accommodation and other expenses and the whole process might take from three to four years. We, as a province, need to create bridging and employment engagement programs, occupation- related language programs to stimulate fast recog - nition process. We need to eliminate long waiting times and requisition of unnecessary documents. It's our responsibility as a Province to give a chance to international educated professionals to return to their occupation in Manitoba, or at least in their field of expertise, and stay in the province.

It's in our interest to keep talented and eager -to-invest-in- the-province people with a huge–with huge potential. Thank you very much for your time and for you consideration. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Vladimirova, for your presentation. I ask if members of the committee have questions for the presenter. Mr. Eichler: Thank you for taking time this evening. Enjoyed your presentation; lots of good information in there. We're heard this over and over again with our timelines and the barriers that come.

We think it's really important to move forward with this legislation, so, thanks for taking time to be with us. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Vladimirova, would you like to respond to the minister? Ms. Vladimirova: Thank you so much for listening to me. Mr. Moses: Thank you very much f or your presentation this evening, Ms. Vladimirova.

I wanted to ask you: from your experience and from your perspective, being someone who's outside of the city and maybe even having further distance to having conversations or networking or getting that information, what other barriers do you think people– new immigrants who are outside of Winnipeg might face? You already mentioned some things like travel, accommodation. What are those barriers and, you know, what maybe you suggest to the Province to help resolve some of those? Ms.

Vladimirova: So the main barrier, of course, may be transportation because main offices are in Winnipeg, and when they apply, they have to contact regulatory bodies in Winnipeg. And sometimes it's travel time or it's waiting time or they are not able to gather information, you know. So we as an office are trying to do the best to accommodate those needs, but we don't have a lot of information. We are just a referral agency. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Ms. Lamoureux: Thank you for your presentation. I agree with what you're saying.

It's in our best interests as Manitobans, as legislators, to be taking down some of these barriers to ensure that when people are choosing to immigrate to Manitoba, this can be done in a lot smoother and affordable and fair way. I was wondering. At the very beginning, you mentioned–and correct me if I'm wrong–but that you were not consulted. And so I'm wondering if this is accurate, as well as then how did you find out about the legislation? Ms.

Vladi mirova: We as an agency attending employment meetings with MANSO organization, and this question was raised during one of our employment meetings at MANSO or with MANSO. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Vladimirova. Are there any other members of the comm ittee who have a question?

64 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 Okay, seeing none, I thank you very much for your presentation and wish you well, and we'll now move on to the next presenter. So, I would like to call on Shawna Finnegan and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. And I ask that they unmute themselves and turn their video on. Welcome, Shawna Finnegan, to the meeting, and you may proceed with your presentation. Shawna Finnegan (Private Citizen): My name is Shawna Finnegan. My pronouns are they and them.

I want to begin my presentation by noting that this bill is one of 19 bills that was tabled and passed through first reading with titles alone and no accompanying text that describes the purpose and content of the proposed legislation.

The tabling of so many bil ls without text is unprecedented in Manitoba history, in the legislatures of all other Canadian jurisdictions and in the established norms in every international jurisdiction that responded to inquiries by the Manitoba Legislative Library. * (19:30) By releasing the text of 19 bills over a short period of time, with so little time for public review and consideration, the PC government is effectively obstructing meaningful participation by the public in the legislative process. I want to share my deep gra titude to all the presenters at the committee this evening.

I've learned so much from the presentations and I fully support the requests that have been made to delay this bill until there has been sufficient consultation and input. With regards to the content of the bill, I want to say that I am a lay person. I am not experienced in law and so my question comes with a certain level of ignorance. But I want to share that I am confused about the purpose and the impact of replacing the commissioner with a director. Will the appointment of a director follow the same process of appointment of a commissioner?

I would appreciate hearing anything from the minister regarding the aim and the impact of this change. And I want to thank you all, again, for the time to speak with you today. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Shawna Finnegan, for your presentation. Are there members of the committee that have questions for this presenter? Mr. Eichler: Yes. Thanks so much for taking time. I know it's a stressfu l time of year, what we've been through, but certainly hearing your opinions are important to us. So, thank you for your presentation. Mr.

Chairperson: Shawna Finnegan, would you like to respond at all to the minister? S. Finnegan: No, but thank you very much for that response. Mr. Moses: Thank you, Shawna, for your comments this evening. It's very heartening to hear that there are members of the public who are as concerned about the hidden legislation and the bills that were not presented –the full text of –for many months, as we are in the Legislature. It's very, I think, upsetting to hear that the government would take this approach when time to pass legislation that should be fully transparent to all Manitobans.

So we are very discouraged by t hat decision and we, you know, are urging, of course, the government to do better and to take better steps and be more transparent with all legislations for all Manitobans. Thank you so much for your comments and your time this evening. I do appreciate it very much. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Shawna Finnegan, would you like to respond at all to the member? S. Finnegan: Just to say thank you very much for your comments. Ms. Lamoureux: My comments are actually very similar to the member from St. Vital.

I just–I wanted to thank Shawna for reminding us and those watching the committee right now of just how this legislation was introduced and how it was introduced on a platter with 19 other pieces of legislation with zero context behind it. And so it does raise some red flags; it makes us want to question it a little bit more. So I just want to thank you for reminding us of that. S. Finnegan: Thank you very much for your comments.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 65 Mr. Chairperson: All right. I will ask if there are any other questions from the MLAs on the committee? If not, then we thank you for your presentation and we will now move to the next presenter. I call on Darcia Senft from the Law Society of Manitoba and ask the moderator to invite them into this meeting. Darcia Senft, I ask that you unmute yourself and turn your video on. Oh, there you are. Hello. Ms. Darcia Senft (Law Society of Manitoba): Hello. Mr. Chairperson: Welcome to the meeting. You can now proceed with your presentation. Ms.

Senft: The Law Society of Manitoba has serious concerns about the proposed amendments to the act and the intention to have those amendments apply to the Law Society as the independent regulator of the legal profession.

Section 3 of The Legal Profession Act sets out our statutory mandate to, in a court, uphold and protect the public interest in the delivery of legal services with competence, integrity and independence. Each of those components is critical to our fundamental role to regulate lawyers in the public interest. The amendments insert the government into the process of governance of the legal profession, and this represents a departure from a long-standing regulatory framework where the Law Society independently regulates in accordance with its statutory purpose.

The dependence of lawyers and the regulators is a fundamental pillar of and is essential to a proper functioning democracy. Self -regulation or self - 'govermance' refers to the profession's ability to set and enforce its own regulation, free from influence as far as possible. This entails the profession's right to set its own rules and set up bodies to oversee compliance with those rules. Before the current act went to committee, by letter dated September 19th, 2007, the society's then- CEO Mr. Allan Fineblit wrote to minister Nancy Allan setting out concerns about the proposed legislation.

And he said, in Canada we are so accustomed to living in a free society that we generally do not pause from day-to-day to remember that some of the critical principles underpinning that freedom such as the prohibition against arbitrary arrest, the right to be brought before a judge within 24 hours of being arrested, the right to be tried in public and the right to consult a lawyer who is not employed by the government of the day, a re subject to the commands of the government of the day all depend upon the existence of an independent legal profession.

He went on to say that the legal profession should not be covered by the proposed legislation because it intrudes into our independence and self -governance. He asked on behalf of the society that the government respect the independence of the legal profession and exclude it from the

schedule in the act. Later at the committee stage, our then -president of the Law Society made a submissi on that echoed those very same comments of Mr. Fineblit. Our president asked that we be exempt from the act because the independence of the legal profession is one of the fundamental underpinnings of a democratic society. In the discussion that followed, there was reference to slippery slopes. That reference we submit was prescient warning because here we are some years later again stressing the importance of the independence of lawyers and the profession, and expressing concerns about this legislation.

At this point, we will briefly outline some of our concerns about specific sections of the bill.

Section 5 requires a regulated profession to notify the director of proposed changes to its registration practices. It's our understanding that the government i tself views this as a notification provision only. However, that

section must be read in context of the whole bill to fully understand its implications.

Section 15.1(1), sets out the director's power on his or her own initiative to review registration practices and any proposed changes to the registration practices–and I'm going to insert ourselves here –of the Law Society, including the use of third parties to assess qualifications of application for the purpose of determining compliance with the act. Advising the director of proposed changes may actually result in the minister exercising broad discretion to issue a compliance order under new

section 15.4(1). We note with concern that it is an offence under the act to be in non-compliance. We are even more concerned about

section 15.4(4) that prescribes what must be in a compliance order. It states that the order must set out any action the regulated profession must take to remedy the failure including, but not limited to making, amending or repealing any regulation, rule, bylaw, criteria used to assess whether requirements for registration have been met, or other measures specified in the order.

66 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 In other words, the minister may come to an opinion about the actions of the regulator, issue a compliance order, and make the regulator change the criteria it uses to assess whether registration require - ments have been met. Other sections in the bill amount to further erosion of the authorities statutorily given to the Law Society to self-regulate in the public interest.

Section 8.1(1) of the bill states that a regulated profession must take reasonable steps to collaborate with education providers and employers to identify opportunities to develop programs that may assist not only internationally educated individua ls, but also unsuccessful applicants in obtaining registration in their regulated profession; and then requires the regulator to develop programs that have been identified. This

section is particularly concerning because it amounts to an intrusion upon our ability to determine the most appropriate and feasible manner in which we have to fulfill and should be fulfilling our public interest mandate. We recognize that some on the committee may point to

section 14(3) and say there is some protection set out in the bill because there is a limit on the involvement of the director. It says that the director must not become involved in a registration decision or an internal review or an appeal on behalf of an applicant or potential applicant. However, the pro- posed amendments authorize the government, we submit, to become involved in the regulatory practices themselves, and therefore potentially affect many decisions. In preparing for our submission, we reviewed the comparable legislation in Nova Scotia and note that it takes a far more balanced approach.

There are many sections that we feel warrant close consideration by this committee, as they are significantly different from sections in Bill 41. I will just briefly refer to a couple of them.

Section 14(2) sets out the review officer's ability to, I quote, recommend, end quote, to a regulating body that legislation or regulations be made, amended or revoked. Of course, this contrasts broadly to the authority–or, pardon me–this contrasts with the broad authority gra nted to the director in the bill that is before you.

Section 16 addresses what must be included in reports provided about registration, but notably, subsection (7) sets out specifically that the review officer may exempt a regulatory body from any of the stated reporting requirements. Similarly,

section 22(1) sets out that regulations may be made, but at subsection (c), there is again express authority to exempt any regulatory body from any provision of the act or of the regulations. Finally,

section 25 says: Notwithstanding any - thing in this act, the review officer does not have the authority to set a regulating body's standards or objective requirements to assess the qualifications of individuals applying for registration. The Law Society is part of the Federation of Law Societies' national mobility agreement. The legal profession well understands the desire and need to remove barriers to ability, and all of the legal regulators in the country worked together for years on complex issues to craft an agreement that meets the need.

We meet the mobility requirements contained in the Canada free trade agreement, and we are not against the removal of barriers to the extent that it is advisable to remove them. We take our role to govern the profession and the public interest very seriously. One of our strategic objectives is to improve access to justice, and we have undertaken many initiatives to review –remove regulatory barriers to access. But we have to balance our objective to increase access with our statut ory duty to protect the public. It must be the lens through which we consider all aspects of regulation.

In that regard, we support the remarks earlier of Ms. Stansfield that public interest should always prevail over labour market mobility interests. The Law Society has worked very well with the Fairness Commissioner over the course of many years now, and we very much appreciate the opportunity to continue to work co- operatively with the Fairness Commissioner on a go-forward basis.

We are very grateful as well for the opportunity to come before you this evening to express our concerns about the effect of the proposed amendments on the independence of the legal profession should the Law Society not be exempt from these amendments. Mr. Chairperson: Thank y ou, Ms. Senft, for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Eichler: Thank you for taking time for your presentation. Lot of good information in there, some federally, some provincially, but overall very good comments. We appreciate it.

And thanks for taking time out of your evening to be with us here tonight.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 67 Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Senft, do you want to respond to the minister at all? Ms. Senft: Just that it's our pleasure to be here. Mr. Moses: Thank you very much for your presentation this evening, and thank you for providing the information on the effects this bill would have on the Law Society in Manitoba. I'm just asking, are you searching for–looking for an amendment to this bill that would exempt the Law Society from Bill 41? Is that what you're looking for? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Senft, sorry. I have to acknowledge you first. So, Ms. Senft, go ahead.

Ms. Senft: Well, we did ask for that some 14 years ago and were unsuccessful–and arguing about recent concerns about the slippery slope, and here we are. If that is the only way to exempt the Law Society from these new amendments, then I'd say yes. We will still do what we know we have to do and already do in the public interest. If there is s ome other way that you can come up with to ensure that we are exempt from all of these sections–the proposed amendments that cause us grave concerns –then we'd be open to that, of course. Ms. Lamoureux: Thank you so much for your presentation.

I really appreciate the thoroughness of it. I was wondering, you talked about how–like, the importance of you're onboard, you want to remove barriers, and there's a right way, a correct way to remove these barriers. I was wondering if you could share with us what some of those ways might be, if you have ideas of ways that we could approach that. Ms.

Senft: I was referring to a lot of our access initiatives such as even the bill that was –we spoke to a couple of weeks ago, The Legal Profession Amendment Act, where the Law Society itself asked the government to amend our act so that we could provide further exemptions to the unauthorized practise of law provisions, recognizing that there are all sorts of individuals out there who are providing important legal services , although they are not lawyers because they are meeting unmet legal needs.

And we also sought specifically in the government, and we are so grateful that the government responded to our requests, and have put in not only that amendment but also an amendment that would allow the Law Society to create a whole new category of legal service provider called a limited practitioner, who would conceivably, we expect, to have far less of a need for as much education that a lawyer currently requires. You need, you know, your undergrad degree or at least two years, three years of law school, one year of articling, writing of the bar exams.

Clearly, if we put a limited scope on that ability to practice, to provide some legal services, there wouldn't be the need to go through all of that. That's one way that we are hoping to remove some barriers. We are still in our consultation period. We've received over 50 responses from the profession. We're awaiting some comments from the judiciary and then we have to go further to the public because that's who we have to serve in the public interest. And sometimes we're on the difficult position where members of the profession might think, well, what are you doing? You're going too far.

We went to law school, we did all these t hings. And we say, you know what, that's not for us to be concerned about. Our concern, our statutory mandate, is to protect the public. The corollary to that is we have to make sure that even limited practitioners have some idea what they are doing, and they're competent to provide services within the limited scope that we imagine. So it's this balancing act that is so critically important, and we know that removing regulatory barriers is a good thing. We support it. In fact, as I said, all of the law societies did.

You know, and we commend all of them for working hard at that effort. But we have to always keep the public interest at the forefront over any concerns about economic interests and labour mobility interests. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any o ther members of the committee with questions? Seeing none, then I thank you very much, Ms. Senft, for your presentation today. That concludes the list of presenters for Bill 41. Bill 61–The Apprenticeship and Certification Amendment Act Mr. Chairperso n: We will now move on to the presenters for Bill 61.

So I'll now call on Tanya Palson, private citizen, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Ms. Palson, I ask that you unmute yourself and turn your video on. Okay, I can see you now, so I

68 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 welcome you to the–to this committee, and you may now proceed with your presentation. Thank you. Ms. Tanya Palson (Private Citizen): Thank you for having me and allowing me to speak today. My name is Tanya Palson, I am here speaking as a concerned private citizen, as well as contributing statements on behalf of Manitoba Building Trades, and our 13 member unions. Together, with our affiliate unions, we represent roughly 10,000 skilled trades professionals.

And I'll be speaking generally in favour of changes and modernization to the structure of Apprenticeship Manitoba that we see in Bill 61, while at the same time addressing some existing concerns from our segment of the construction industry. Manitoba Building Trades –as a private sector entity, w e work as a human resource and project partner with many of the large, unionized general contractors in Manitoba. We're the only construction association that represents the needs and interests of on-the-tool workers specifically and solely.

Our tradespeople work in the industrial, commer- cial and institutional sectors of the construction industry, so they build big. They're the ones who build schools, hospitals, entertainment complexes, power generating stations and more of the critical infra - structure our province relies on.

And while we represent such a large labour force and deal with members in the apprenticeship system every day, we and many of our largest employers and employer associations recently found ourselves – without consultation and without notice–dealing with extensive and detrimental changes to apprenticeship ratios, supervisions and designations past the regulation changes. * (19:50) That many motions were passed by the apprenticeship board in February of 2020 and a few of those motions were signed off as regulation and came into effect in mid -December and yet neither of the building trades or our employers were aware of these changes until mid-January, 2021.

I believe –and I use this as an example to demonstrate just how broken and detache d from industry Manitoba Apprenticeship has become. So we are indeed supportive of this bill on the ground that Bill 61 does move in the right direction by addressing transparency in consultation with industry. It can't be argued that the apprenticeship sy stem is due for an update. However, there are many unknowns and we have been unable to receive clarity on a few concerns that I believe this committee should be aware of.

One is, you know, will the construction industry receive proportional representation to the amount of appren- tices they represent either as board members, committee members or within the proposed industry groups? Various–secondly, various types of construction projects–residential, commercial, industrial and heavy road construction–all have vastly different methods of operations, skill requirements and apprenticeship needs. It should not be considered a full consultation without consideration given to this reality in our sector and, up to date, that hasn't been so.

The apprenticeship board, the department and the government will miss critical information from segments of the industry if, for example, a residential- construction representative were advising on regulations that will impact industrial electricians working at an industrial plant . You know, wiring a home and wiring a hydro dam are two entirely different undertakings with entirely different risks. Thirdly, Bill 61 enables the board to establish standards of training and practical experience for programs.

Therefore, it is critical that a process for voices of journeypersons and on- the-ground supervisors be represented within the apprenticeship system. This is something that is lacking at the current board as it stands, and there –sorry, and based on the text of Bill 61, it is either unclear or lacking consideration to the board- appointment process to make sure that the people with the job-set experience are having the voice at the table proportionate to the amount of apprentices they represent.

Again, while it's important that changes are made to the current system, it's just as important to make sure these changes have the desired effect on actually improving the system, approving accountability and improving apprenticeship overall. Right now in Canada –and the same applies to Manitoba–the average age of apprentices entering into the system is 30 years old. That's 10 years of critical learning after high school where, you know, multiple barriers in either lifestyle or access to education or financial situations can become a barrier to getting back into an apprenticeship system at that age.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 69 Also, nationally, our apprenticeship completion rate is only 50 per cent. So, not that this bill specifically relates to that but if it were to approach those changes, we need to have all the voices at the table and getting more voices at the table will help you make the best decision possible. So I just hope that that is considered as Bill 61 goes forward and, again, we hope that it does and I hope that my–I hope that the committee has heard and considers my statements. So, thank you for your time and I'm happy to take any questions. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Palson, for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Ralph Eichler (Minister of Economic Development and Jobs): Thanks, Ms. Palson, for your presentation. Of course, I'm not sure you're aware but we've been working on the side of legislative change for the last two years. So, it started by a previous minister; it carried on by myself. So thank you for taking time this evening. Very informative and I look forward to working together as we move forward. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Palson, would you like to respond to the minister? Ms.

Palson: No, thank you. I'm good. Mr. Chairperson: All right–Mr.–Moses–brain fart– thank you. Mr. Moses, you can ask your question. Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): Thank you. I'm very much appreciative of the time you spent this evening and so thank you for your presentation, Ms. Palson. I'm very interested to hear your comments on the ratio changes that took place in December. You spoke a little bit about that in your presentation. I know they were concerning for many people involved in the apprenticeships so I'd like to hear your thoughts on that, and specifically how it relates to this current bill, Bill 61. Ms.

Palson: Thank you, Jamie Moses. I have a couple of thoughts on this, for sure. I mean, it is actually interesting to –and I wasn't aware that this bill has been in the works for a couple of years, which is good to know, but also raises additional concern as to why the apprenticeship ratio's changed from one -to-one to two- to-one, just three months short of this bill being introduced. Again, this bill does not directly relate to the ratios; it relates more to the govern ance of Apprenticeship Manitoba.

But we just saw probably the most substantial change we have seen and will see in decades, which is changing the ratios overnight, and as I mentioned in my statement, we weren't aware. Most of our employers weren't aware. Most of our employer associations, both union and non- union, were not aware of the change coming through.

Meanwhile, 61 shows that there is an admittance that the consultation with industry has been lacking, and yet the most critical change that we've had in the apprenticeship system in a decade has come through before we're given the chance for Bill 61 to hopefully reform some of the issues that I've pointed out. So I know our group is consistent on pushing the message to hold that regulation change, alt hough it has gone through, to allow for some of the positive aspects of Bill 61 to come forward.

The two- to-one ratios will result in many, many journeymen being laid off, as they'll be replaced by 'accreniceship' – apprentices. We don't have the current project volume or demand right now in our market; something from a one-to-one to a two -to-one ratio works really well when you have so, so much work and you don't have enough people to fill the jobs locally. That's not the case right now. One of our biggest projects, Keeyask, is winding down and we don't really have any other major infrastructure investment that is confirmed for the next, you know, looking ahead for the next few years.

So, what's going to happen is there's going to be a lower wage rate drive down, basically lowering your average crew rate with more apprentices, letting journeymen go. This is going to decrease the amount of training available for apprentices, the quality of training available. It'll increase safety risks on job sites and it's just not a good move right now. That is my opinion. That is the opinion of Manitoba Building Trades. I believe other people will be speaking to that tonight, as well. But, specifically, that we are happy to see what's moving forward in Bill 61.

We just question why the two-to-one ratio was put in just three months before we were 'supposingly' redoing the system, admitting that it's not good at industry consultation. So that's what I have to say on that.

70 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Palson. Ms. Lamoureux, you've got 40 seconds remaining on the clock. Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Okay, thank you Mr. Chair, and thank you so much for your presentation. Just to sort of continue on with what you were talking about with the two-to-one ratio, would you say that this is sort of the biggest downfall of the legislation and would there be merit to having further consultation and debate on this legislation, if it meant pushing the legislation off for six months or a year, whatever it may be? Mr.

Chairperson: Ms. Palson, 15 seconds. Ms. Palson: I would say that the regulation for the apprenticeship ratio has already come through. We would ask that the regulation be changed back to one- to-one, to allow Bill 61 to continue going forward as is, and wait to make a regulation change once there's a new consultation process set up. Mr. Chairperson: All right, I thank you very much, Ms. Palson, for your presentation and we've now come to the end of the time allotted for questions to you. So I will now move to the next presenter.

And I'm going to call on Ramona Coey from the Mechanical Contractors Association of Manitoba. I'll remind the members that previously, when we weren't sure if Ms. Coey could join us, we did agree to have her presentation a dded into the Hansard, but she is available to present in person, so I now ask the moderator to invite Ms. Coey into the meeting. And, Ramona Coey, I think I can see you. Yes, there we go. Ms. Ramona Coey (Mechanical Contractors Association of Manitoba): Wonderful. Mr. Chairperson: And so I just ask that you now proceed with your presentation, whether or not you have hydro. Ms.

Coey: Yes, I was sitting here in the dark, so thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to present this evening. My name is Ramona Coey and I represent the Mechanical Contractors Association of Manitoba. * (20:00) MCAM, as we are known, is a provincial trade association who has represented the mechanical – Manitoba's mechanical industry for over 50 years. Our members represent a cross- spectrum of the mech - anical industry; rural, urban, union, non- union, contractors, suppliers and sub-trades.

Mechanical contractors and the tradespeople we employ construct and service the mechanical systems of Manitoba 's residential, institutional, commercial and industrial vertical infrastructure. The Mechanical Contractors Association supports government's ef - forts to modernize Manitoba's apprenticeship system. We appreciated and participated in the 2017 governance review. We appreciated and participated in the department's review of Bill 61 on March 3rd.

Government's intentions to create a modernized apprenticeship system which embraces a culture of effective and efficient engagement of stakeholders, reduction of re d tape and administrative burden, responsiveness and transparency was clear. MCAM has identified opportunities to strengthen the text of Bill 61, ensuring government's intentions are met not only by the current government, staff and board, but also by those who serve in those positions in the years to come. MCAM's intentions, rationale and suggested amendments are provided to you in our briefing.

This briefing has been circulated to you by the committee clerk and I would ask, as Minister Eichler has ask ed earlier on my behalf, that it be included in the Hansard. This briefing outlines three amendments. I will touch on them just briefly and them open it for questions. The text of Bill 61 does not support government's intentions regarding the duty to consult through sector-based committees. On the March –at the March 3rd overview, there was a very clear intention that government expected the apprenticeship system to structure a duty to consult through sector-based– Mr.

Chairperson: All right, I think we may have lost Ms. Coey. I don't know if you're able to hear us at all, but we're not able to hear you at the moment. Perhaps if you can hear us, if you try turning your video off, that might enable us to get audio back and then we can perhaps proceed. Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): I request leave for Ms. Palson to return–

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 71 Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Coey. Mr. Lindsey: I'm sorry. Wrong name. For Ramona Coey to return later in the presentation once she has managed to re-establish her connection. Mr. Chairperson : Is that –is there leave from the committee to allow her to reconnect at some future moment? We're at about–just three minutes or so into her presentation. [Agreed] Thank you. Leave has been granted. Then, for now, I guess we will move onto our next presenter. I will now call on Kyle Kalcsics and ask the moderator to allow them into the–invite them into the meeting.

Kyle Kacsics [phonetic] from Local 254, Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, please unmute yourself and turn your video on. I see you there now. You may proceed with your presentation. Mr. Kyle Kalcsics (Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Local 254): Good evening. Thanks for your time. I'm Kyle Kalcsics, business manager of local 254. We have approximately 1,300 members that either have been thr ough an apprenticeship or are currently in apprenticeships. I'm generally in favour of the changes and modernization to the structure of Apprenticeship Manitoba. We need to give the apprentices the best opportunities to succeed.

Some of the recent changes are not benefitting them, such as the change to ratios, as was brought up earlier. This raises concern for the health and safety and supervision of apprenticeship. To us, apprenticeship is mentorship, and changing the ratios doesn't do that. We have seen the impacts recently on the lack of proper industry consultation with regards to regu- lation changes that will negatively impact the skilled trades workers and our sector as a whole. Bill 61 appears to move in the right direction by addressing transparency and consultation with the industry.

However, there are many unknowns that we've – unable to receive clarity on, concerns that –this concerns–that the committee should be aware of. Will the construction industry receive propor - tional representation to the number of apprentices that they represent, either as board members, committee members, or industry representatives, PACs, as we knew them –Provincial Advisory Committees –or to have balance, employee and employer represen - tatives. With the removal of the PACs , will there be some similarity, meaning providing the proper exposure?

Various types of construction projects, as was talked about earlier as well –residential, commercial, industrial and heavy construction–have vastly dif - ferent methods of operation and s kill requirements and apprenticeship needs. It should not be considered proper if the department will miss critical information on segments of the industry.

So, for example, if a residential construction representative were to be advising on regulations that will impact industrial projects such as our members, steamfitters, plumbers, refrigeration tradespersons, on a project such as Roquette, it's much different than a residential project. Bill 61 enables the board to establish standards of training and practical experience for 'progracs.' Therefore, it is critical that the process for the voices of journeypersons and in- the-field supervisors to be represented within the apprenticeship system. This is something that's lacking as the current board, as it stands.

Once again, I agree, while it's important that the changes are made to the current system, it is important to make sure that the changes have the desired effect of improving the system and proving accountability and getting more voices at the tabl e to make the best decisions possible. I hope the committee has heard what I have to say and I now take time to answer any questions. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Kalcsics, for your presentation. I would ask if members of the committee have questions for this presenter? Mr. Eichler: Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your presentation. Your point's well made.

I'm a welder, but I'm not really a welder. I have a class I licence but I'm not really a truck driver. Your points are well made. I want to thank you for taking time and we appreciate your support and look forward to working with you on the finalization of this bill. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Kalcsics, would you like to respond to the minister at all? Mr. Kalcsics: I appreciate the recogniti on. Thank you. Mr. Lindsey: So, one of the previous presenters, Tanya Palson, had–perhaps it was Ramona Coey –I

72 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 can't remember which one now –they made a sug - gestion that there's a

part in Bill 61 that really weakens or loses the duty to consult with people such as yourself. So, would you like to see an amendment so that, rather than saying that the–they may consult, that they must consult, or they will consult? Would that amendment make some sense to you, to guarantee that they actually sit down and talk to you, not necessarily that they do everything you want, but at least you have the opportunity then? Mr. Kalcsics: Absolutely. That would definitely help.

At the end of the day, we all should want the safety of apprenticeships–apprentices and have the mos t effective apprenticeship system. So, by consulting with industry experts, you know, such as myself, like you say, many years of service as well as overseeing, so absolutely. Mr.

Lindsey: I want to recognize your comments around the ratios and that's why I brought up the part about getting consultation guaranteed back into this Bill 61, because we know that there was no consultation when they changed the ratios, that it happened in the dead of night just before Christmas and it was only by happenstance that somebody happened to notice it. * (20:10) So, I just wanted to make sure that the minister understands how important it is to have people with the right qualifications being listened to as part of this whole process, and there's committees that are talked about that –is there anything you would like to see there that really makes sure that the right people are on those committees determining what the trade qualifications or the apprenticeship qualifications would be?

Is there anything missing there? Mr. Kalcsics: As I stated earlier as well, you know, apprenticeship is mentorship. And by changing those ratios the mentorship is less. I don't think anybody can disagree with that. And, with it being less, that's what poses safety risks as we're suggesting . And, absolutely, industry should be consulted wholly. And, you know what, when people like myself speak, we speak on behalf of tradespeople, it's not about union or non- union, it's about tradespeople and apprenticeship safety. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you.

Is there any other members of the committee that have a question for the presenter? I'm just going to give a moment to see if Ms. Lamoureux maybe got booted out and now she's back. Ms. Lamoureux, would you like to ask a question of Mr. Kalcsics? Ms. Lamoureux: I appreciate you checking in on me there. I don't have a specific question, I just want to thank Mr. Kalcsics for his presentation today and making it a little bit more relatable, and having the minister also be able to account for himself within the presentation. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Kalcsics, any response to that? Mr.

Kalcsics: Much appreciated. As I said, this is about the safety of the apprentices and anything that we're dealing with will help. If I say, if there's more input and more guidance from all industry, that will provide a better product at the end of the day. And that's what we all want. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Kalcsics. Are there any other questions from other members of the committee? Seeing none, then I thank you very much for your presentation. And we will now revert back, I believe, to the seven minutes remaining, to Ms. Coey if we are able to admit Ms. Coey back into the meeting.

So I'd ask the moderator to invite her back into the meeting. And, Ms. C oey, I just ask that you unmute yourself and turn your video on. There you are again, and hopefully we're able to continue. You have about seven minutes remaining, please proceed. Ms. Coey: Wonderful, thank you. And I can see that you can see that I am sitting here in the dark so this is nice. I will just– I'm not sure exactly where our connection was lost –so, essentially, our association has three suggested amendments. First was that, that the text of the bill does not support government's intentions.

We heard loud and clear that the government feels they're responsible to consult the industry and we don't feel that the text supports that. Through the implementation of the sector -based committees as outlined in the overview on March 3rd, MCAM has provided minor amendments to–or suggested minor amendments to clauses 8 and 9.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 73 These amendments will strengthen the bill to be in line with those intentions. Second, the wording of the act does not support the intention of transitioning voluntary trade programs effectively from the regulations to bylaws. Again, a minor amendment to clause 8 will recapture this intention. The final amendment that we would propose concerns clause 9.3, programs for Red Seal trades. MCAM members appreciate the Red Seal Program. MCAM respects the work of the Canadian Council of Directors of Apprenticeship.

MCAM agrees consid- eration should be provided to the Red Seal Program when developing local trade programs; however, the implications of aligning our apprenticeship program with the Re d Seal Program without jurisdictional consideration and authentic stakeholder input is not workable. Manitoba's apprenticeship programs are enviable. We should not legislatively abdicate our right to control or have significant influence over them. MCAM h as provided a workable amendment for clause 9.3.

In the spirit of the opportunity for direct public input in the legislative process, MCAM provides my comments and a circulated briefing for due consideration by the committee. Are there questions? Mr. Chai rperson: Thank you, Ms. Coey, for your presentation. And now I would ask if members of the committee have any questions for the presenter. Mr. Eichler: Ms. Coey, thank you for persevering through your struggles. We know how important power is and, of cour se, the social media and our connectivity to be able to present and share our views.

So, thanks for taking time and I hope that you enjoy the rest of your evening and you get your power back on real soon. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Coey, do you–would you like to respond to the minister? Ms. Coey: Thank you for that. Thank you for allowing me to come back on, Minister Eichler and Mr. Chair and committee. And I sincerely hope that the intentions by which you presented Bill 16 to the industry –and that came through with your consultation efforts in the governance review –and the feedback that you've received are captured through potential amendments by the committee to Bill 61. Mr.

Lindsey: Thank you for your presentation. I just– can you expound a little more on your third suggested amendment, just between the Red Seal occupation and the National Occupational Analysis? What exactly is missing that we should be trying to capture in this regulation? Ms. Co

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	42-3-sed4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	42nd 3rd hansardpdf sed4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	315d6bac9bcab65dc9273e5612541c85358df1e4

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