Manitoba Committee Hansard — 24 October 2018 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 6, 41st Legislature, 3rd Session)

41-3-sed6

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session – Forty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Mr. Dennis Smook Constituency of La Verendrye Vol. LXXI No. 6 - 6 p.m., Wednesday, October 24, 2018 ISSN 1708-6698

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

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

Vital PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine, Hon. Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Arthur-Virden PC REYES, Jon St. Norbert PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples Ind. SCHULER, Ron, Hon. St. Paul PC SMITH, Andrew Southdale PC SMITH, Bernadette Point Douglas NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC SQUIRES, Rochelle, Hon. Riel PC STEFANSON, Heather, Hon. Tuxedo PC SWAN, Andrew Minto NDP TEITSMA, James Radisson PC WHARTON, Jeff, Hon.

Gimli PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC YAKIMOSKI, Blair Transcona PC

139 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Wednesday, October 24, 2018 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Dennis Smook (La Verendrye) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Arthur-Virden) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mrs. Cox, Hon. Mr. Fielding, Hon. Mmes. Mayer, Stefanson Mr. Lamont, Ms. Marcelino, Messrs. Piwniuk, Smith, Mrs. Smith, Messrs. Smook, Wiebe Substitutions: Ms. Lamoureux for Mr. Lamont at 9:03 p.m.

PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 8 –The Government Notices Modernization Act (Various Acts Amended) Ms. Kim MacAulay, Manitoba Community Newspapers Association Mr. Brent Wright, Gilroy Publishing Mr. Laurie Finley, Steinbach Carillon Mr. Jim Mihaly, Brandon Sun Mr. Dan Koshowski, Winnipeg Free Press Bill 12 –The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2018 Mr. George Fraser, Remedial Massage Therapists Society of Manitoba Inc. Bill 24 –The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act Mr. Carlos Sosa, private citizen Ms. Sylvie Sabourin Grindle, private citizen Ms. Janet Forbes, Inclusion Winnipeg Ms.

Karen Sharma, Manitoba Human Rights Commission Ms.

Megan Linton, Charter Rights for All WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 8 –The Government Notices Modernization Act Lynn Taylor, Thompson Citizen –Nickel Belt News Nancy Johnson, Prairie Newspaper Group, Glacier Media J Brodt, private citizen Samantha Gallaway-Boulbria, private citizen Andrea Geary, private citizen Luanne Anderson, private citizen Mark Buss, Clipper Publishing John Kendle, Canstar Community News Christine Waddell, private citizen Bill 12 –The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2018 Andrew Tod, Manitoba Federation of Labour Joe Masi, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Kevin Hamilton, College of Pharmacists of Manitoba Jonathan Alward, Canadian Federation of Independent Business Bill 24 –The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act Patrick Falconer, private citizen Michael Barkman, Make Poverty History Sheree Capar, C anadian Union of P ublic Employees Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Bill 27–The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Amendment Act Laurene Myrvold, private citizen Lynne Fernan dez, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Manitoba Jonathan Alward, Canadian Federation of Independent Business MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 8 –The Government Notices Modernization Act (Various Acts Amended) Bill 12 –The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2018

140 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 Bill 24 –The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act Bill 27–The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Amendment Act * * * Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order. Our first item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Colleen Mayer (Minister of Crown Services): I nominate Mr. Piwniuk. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Piwniuk has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr.

Piwniuk is elected Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 8, the government notices 'modernification' act, various acts amended; Bill 12, The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2018; Bill 24, The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act ; Bill 27, The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Amendment Act.

I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment: a standing committee 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. In addition, if necessary, the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will again –will meet again to consider these bills tomorrow, October 25th, at 6 p.m., in room 254. We have a number of presenters r egistered to speak tonight to the various bills, as noted on the list of presenters before you.

On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we have some out -of-town presenters in attendance, marked with an asterisk on the side. With this consideration in mind, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I think, with respect to those folks that have come from out of town and have travelled a ways to be here, and as per ou r tradition in this place, I think we should consider the out-of-town presenters first. Mr.

Chairperson: It has been made that we–agreed by everybody? [Agreed] We will accept the out-of-town presenters first. Written submissions. A number of written submissions have been received and distributed for the committee 's consideration. A list of individuals providing these submissions has also been distributed to committee members. To save the Chair from having to read these names out, does the committee agre e that this list of individuals providing submissions –here in Hansard?

Agreed? [Agreed] Written submissions to Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development: Regarding Bill 8 –The Government Notices Modernization Act (Various Acts Amended): Lynn Taylor, Thompson Citizen– Nickel Belt News; Nancy Johnson, Prairie Newspaper Group– Glacier Media; J Brodt, Samantha Gallaway -Boulbria, Andrea Geary, Luanne Anderson, Mark Buss, Clipper Publishing; John Kendle, Canstar Community News; Christine Waddell.

Regarding Bill 12 –The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2018: Andrew Tod, Manitoba Federation of Labour; Joe Masi, Association of Manitoba Municipalities; Kevin Hamilton, College of Pharmacists of Manitoba; Jonathan Alward, Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Regarding Bill 24–The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act: Patrick Falconer, Michael Barkman, Make Poverty History; Sheree Capar, CUPE.

Regarding Bill 27–The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Amendment Act: Laurene Myrvold, Lynne Fernandez, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Manitoba; Jonathan Alward, Canadian Federation of Independent Business. And does the committee further agree to have these written submissions appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Public presentation guidelines. Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. First of all, if there's anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening,

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 141 please register with staff at the entrance of the room. Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff. As well, 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 their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters list. Speaking in committee. Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. 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 Hansard recorder turn on the–turn the mics on and off. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations. Bill 8–The Government Notices Modernization Act (Various Acts Amended) Mr. Chairperson: I will now call Kim MacAulay, Manitoba Community Newspapers Association, on Bill 8. Do you have any written materials for distribution to the– Ms. Kim MacAulay (Manitoba Community Newspapers Association): I do, yes. Mr. Chairperson: –committee? Once the material has been distributed, we will proceed with the presentation. Ms. MacAulay, you may proceed with your presentation.

Ms. MacAulay: Good evening, everyone, and thank you for allowing me to appear before you this evening. My name is Kim MacAulay, and I 'm the chairperson of the Manitoba Community Newspapers Association, and I 'm also the owner and publisher of The Clipper Weekly and the Lac du Bonnet Clipper newspapers serving the North Eastman region.

Unfortunately, several of my colleagues who were present for the original, ill -fated standing committee of October 11th are not able to make it this evening, as this committee was rescheduled for the busiest, most important day in four years for us newspaper people –an inopportune time to say the least, but we do appreciate your time nonetheless. I'm here this evening representing our 48 member publications and their concerns regarding Bill 8, specifically the sections which remove the requirements to advertise public notices in newspapers. * (18:10) To be clear, we take no issue with

part 1 amending The Queen' s Printer Act and consider it prudent action to tidy up the wording in various acts as it pertains specifically to the current standard of advertising within the Manitoba Gazette. And we would like to acknowledge and express our appreciation of this government 's promise not to proclaim the sections of Bill 8 pertaining to mandatory newspapers advertising at this time. But therein lies the rub: at this time. This promise just isn't good enough. Having this wording on the books to be enacted at any time in the future is a dark, foreboding cloud Manitobans should not have to live under.

Regardless of when these sections may be enacted in the future, the Manitoba Community Newspapers Association maintains that providing public access to information online is not the same as providing public notice in newspapers delivered right to the homes of hundreds of thousands of Manitobans every week. These sections of Bill 8 essentially authorize government to bypass independent media while posting important information to M anitobans solely on a government -controlled website few have ever heard of and fewer still have ever visited.

And yes, your department has explained that for some of the acts included in Bill 8, the option of advertising in newspapers does still exist. But we do not agree that duly informed public should be left up to chance. Government obligations to inform and notify its citizens of important changes and initiatives should not be optional. The legislative requirement to publish public notices in third- party, independent media such as newspapers was created by our elected forefathers to ensure open, transparent and

142 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 accountable governing. It was made law, as an independent media is a fundamental component of our democracy. A government -controlled website is not. This government should not be saying, trust us. Politics doesn 't work that way, and our forefathers knew that. They put into place mechanisms to ensure elected officials were bound by law to act in the best interests of their electorate. They wrote it into the governing acts of Manitoba. But now, this government wants to rewrite those acts. This government wants us to just trust them. What has changed?

Does this administration believe public trust of government officials and their activities has be come so deeply steadfast in our society that we no longer need these mechanisms of surety? If that was the case, none of us would be here this evening. I will forgo extolling the shortcomings of online access, as you are well aware of them. That was, after all–as you stated, Minister Cox–your reason for not enacting these sections of Bill 8. But there 's much more to this debate than simple Internet connectivity. This picture is much larger than that. It is also, as I stated, one of public trust.

Public notice advertisements are, in essence, the government's own reporting. Currently, those reports are provided by an independent third party and cannot be altered after the fact. MCNA also maintains the removal of the requirement to advertise public notices in newspapers, as stated in Bill 8, is a direct threat to the public awareness of our citizens. Even if every Manitoban had reliable high- speed Internet, under these new rules, they may still be denied proper notice of significant changes or activities tha t will affect their daily lives because they did not know when and where to look for it.

Expecting Manitobans to seek out information they do not even know exist is entirely unrealistic. This attempt to undermine the significance and contribution of an independent media is an attack on fundamental components of our democracy. The purpose of public notice is not simply to inform, but to provide the opportunity for our citizens to be engaged and involved in the activities of its government–for the electorat e to have a say in the proceedings governed by the elected.

The sure track to tyranny is to deny citizens that opportunity of participation by abandoning your responsibility to provide adequate public notice. This piece of legislation, proclaimed or not, w ill undoubtedly lead to a deterioration of democracy and public trust at their most basic levels. Premier Pallister wrote last year: Everything our government does passes through the filter of what is best for our citizens and our province, not what is best for one group of citizens or one part of the province, but for all our citizens in all parts of Manitoba. Those are our values, that is how we govern.

How did Bill 8 pass this government 's own filter, and where were those values in the creation of Bill 8? Now, you may choose the convenience of dismissing our argument as self -serving, since Manitoba newspapers earn revenue from publishing public notices, but I can assure 'yer'–assure you, I 'm sorry–the amount of revenue earned by our 48-member publications from the notices detailed in Bill 8 is inconsequential, as you are no doubt aware. Our motivations are clearly not monetary.

I can assure you all, I have spent more in gas travelling from my office to this building than I will ever make off advertisements from Bill 8. We are taking a stand for our citizens, for democracy and for an appropriate process of governing. You know that the 48 MCNA -member newspapers have largely been willing to support a government who we believe is acting in the best interests of Manitobans. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe Bill 8 was conceived with the best interests of Manitobans in mind.

So we, once again, find ourselves having to defend the rights of our citizens to be informed of significant events and actions that affect their daily lives from a government willing to ignore that responsibility, whatever its motivations may be. Every column inch of our newspapers comes with a cost for the resources of reporters, typesetters, pagination and layout, proofreaders, ink, paper and distribution expenses.

All these costs exist even for MLAs' regular columns, the glad- handing photo ops and the steady stream of government press releases that our members have, so far, been willing to subsidize the publishing of, largely out of their own pockets. But today our members are all watching with great interest and are giving very serious consideration to the future of this arrangement and, indeed, whether they are willing to continue to support a government who will take such

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 143 ill-conceived action that will ultimately prove harmful to all Manitobans and to democracy itself. Many of our members, myself and fellow community newspaper publishers here tonight have already committed to ceasing this arrangement, pending the outcome of these proceedings. We are all here this evening because there is a process in place to ensure the concerns and criticisms of citizens are heard and for those concerns to be thoroughly and thoughtfully considered, and there is a process by which government may amend or otherwise alter its course as a result.

We have respectfully followed this process and ask that you simply do the same. You know the sections of Bill 8 altering newspaper advertising requirements a re not appropriate nor in the best interests of Manitobans at this point in history. You know this because you stated so yourself when telling us you would not proclaim these sections. As you ultimately did with Bill 19, we implore you to, once again, do the right thing for all Manitobans and either scrap or amend Bill 8. Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. MacAulay. Do any members have questions? Ms.

Flor Marcelino (Logan): Thank you, Ms. MacAulay, for coming over tonight–today being a very busy day for people engaged in publishing. You have presented in the past, as well as today, very clear, strong, compelling arguments for this bill not to be enacted. Do you still believe –you believed then, a nd I think– I just want to confirm that you believe now this bill should totally be revoked? Ms. MacAulay: If that 's what it takes, yes. I don' t– we don' t disagree with putting the Gazette online. That's prudent action; that should be done.

But to tie all the rest of it in, I mean, making such a broad omnibus bill is a–there's a lot of aspects to it that if it was just scrapped and a bill –I'm not even sure if a bill's necessary to make the Gazette free online, so I don't really know the principle of it entirely. Hon. Cathy Cox (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage): I wanted to thank you, Kim, for taking the time out of your very, very busy day today, especially, to come down a second time to make this presentation. We've had discussions in the past in my office, and I appreciate hearing from you.

But I want to ensure that you know that we had full intentions of having the committee last week, and it was –we were not responsible, in any way, shape, or form, for the delay and causing you to come here this evening. So thank you again for making the presentation. I really appreciate hearing from you. Ms. MacAulay: It wasn't really a question, but thank you, Minister Cox. I do appreciate that and, yes, it's a busy day. I won't be going to bed ' til tomorrow night sometime, I'm sure–so. Mr. Chairperson: Do any other members of the committee have a question? Mrs.

Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): You had made reference to today is, like, a busy, busy day for people in the new spaper business. Do you think it 's fair to say that today was also, you know, a day that could have been tomorrow, rather than a day when, you know, the election was happening, when people are out covering elections that probably could have been here? Ms. MacAulay: That was certainly our hope. We were very much hoping this would happen Thursday night. There are several members who were registered to appear on October 11th, the first time this was called, and they can 't be here tonight.

There's a lot of new spapers that run mom -and-pop type shops; there 's four or five employees. They cover, maybe, five or six different municipalities. They just can 't be here tonight, and it 's unfortunate. The president of our association can' t be here tonight; him and his wif e are both on the job. I have to go home –eventually, I'll get back and I 'll pick up where I left off, but it will be sometime after midnight, presumably, when this is done tonight. * (18:20) Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other members that have questions of Ms. MacAulay?

If not, we thank you very much for your presentation and we will move on to the next presenter. I will now call on Mr. Brent Wright from Gilroy Publishing. Mr. Wright, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Brent Wright (Gilroy Publishing): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: As soon as the information is distributed to the committee, you may proceed with your presentation. Mr. Wright, you may proceed.

144 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 Mr. Wright: I come here today as a concerned citizen of Manitoba as well as an individual with over 38 years' experience in the newspaper industry. I work with six different publications in five locations: Dauphin, Roblin, Russell, Swan River and The Pas. This experience has given me some insight as to how people receive and accept information. If there is one thing I 've learned in those 38 years, it is that community newspapers are a trusted source of information. The public regularly turns to our local paper when they want to know what is really happening.

Removing public notice from newspapers will hinder public awareness and be a detriment to our democratic society. To rely on the Internet to deliver these important messages is, at best, a pipe dream and, at worst, a deliberate effort to censor the information the public receives. I do not believe that the public will spend time gleaning the pages of the Manitoba Gazette to see if something of relevance may be listed. Further to this, areas of our province have limited or no access to Internet. Are these Manitobans not entitled to the same information as the rest of Manitoba?

There may very well be a day sometime in the future when public notice through the Internet is sufficient, but that day is not now, nor is it in the foreseeable future. It is not the–is it not the government's obligation to inform citizens of its actions as a fundamental of democracy? When I look at the list of acts covered by this bill, I immediately have grave concerns. The human rights act, The Public Health Act are two that are very alarming.

Could it not be argued that everyone's human right is to know what changes are being made to The Public Health Act that could possibly affect their personal or their family's health? Proper public notice should be given through local community newspapers and posting it in public places as well as on websites. Based on those proper public notices, citizens can then determine if a particular public notice is of concern to them. At this point, they can do further research, allowing them to come to informed opinions on these matters. Just making information available to public does not equal public notice.

If they do not know that there is something to look for, why would they look? Placing public notice on a website in conjunction with published and posted public notice will result in a better informed public. This would be an enhancement to public notice efforts. Websites could then be used as a tool they are and provide valuable background information regarding issues, again, resulting in information to the public. Further to this, I would ask, what is the cost of an ill-informed public? At what point do the citizens lose confidence in their elected officials and the process in place?

Soon they start to question what is actually happening and/or what is being hidden and why. On any given issue, a lack of information causes ignorance. Ignorance creates dissension, and dissension often results in change. I respectfully suggest that there be amendment to Bill 8 to leave the requirement to publish p ublic notice in newspapers and add the requirement to post it in the Manitoba Gazette. By not proclaiming, enacting this part of the bill, it leaves the door open for enacted further down the road, with no further consultation. And I believe this is not in the best interest of our democratic society.

On one last note, it has been implied by some that this is being driven by our government –current government's failed relationship with some of the province's print media and is an effort to get back at them. If this is actually the case, then it is a sad, sad day when our society and its elected officials actually allow this to happen. Respectfully, Brent Wright. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Wright. We will now open for questions from the committee. Mrs. Cox : Thanks, Brent, so much, for coming down and making your presentation.

I just wanted to ask you that you have, in fact, heard, that we've said many times that we will not be proclaiming the aspects of Bill 8 that include the public notices in newspapers. Floor Comment: Right. Mrs. Cox: Yes, okay. Thank you. Mr. Wright: Yes, I 've heard that it will not be proclaimed, but in my opinion, that doesn' t cut it. It shouldn't be there to start with. It is nothing but a tool to hang over media 's head, and it 's a tool that can be implemented at any point should someone in the current government or a future government decide, you know what?

We don' t really want that information out; let's just enact that clause and away we go.

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 145 It's dangerous. It is absolutely dangerous and contrary to a democratic society. Ms. Marcelino: Thank you very much, Mr. Wright, for coming over tonight to speak to our committee, the public's committee. You've presented us also some very clear, compelling arguments. And you, as our former presenter had said, there is–this particular bill has the dark, foreboding cloud hanging over your heads. If the government will do away with that line, that it will–they will do away with this foreboding cloud over your heads, would you be approving this bill? Mr.

Wright: I believe that the proper wording for this bill, but this bill should be amended to include publishing in newspapers. It should also include posted public notice in RM offices, municipal offices, city halls, whatever, as well as the Manitoba Gazette. I believe that getting as much information to the public on any issue is absolutely fundamental to our democracy. That's the bottom line. The public is entitled to know what's going on. Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Thank you, Mr.

Wright, for coming down and presenting very passionately, I think laying out very clearly your position and articulating it very, very well. My question is about consultation. Obviously, we've heard a lot from folks in your business over the last little while. You know, when committee was called, you all stepped up and were ready to come down and make sure that we understood the position that you're taking. * (18:30) But prior to this bill being introduced–or, after it had been introduced, I guess, was there any consultation?

Did you have an opportunity to express your views and your concerns with the minister or with anyone in government, and how was that received? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright: Sorry. I'm also a member of the Manitoba Community Newspaper Association 's board of directors. We requested meetings with the minister; we never got them. We requested –at one point, we requested–a long time ago–a meeting with Mr. Pallister. Never got it. I have never attended a meeting on these two subjects. I 've attended meetings with Ms. Cox regarding recycling and stuff, but never on these. Mr.

Chairperson: Are there any further questions for Mr. Wright? If not, we want to–oh. Mrs. Cox : I just wanted to put on record that we have had meetings with Kim as well as with Laurie Finley. A few meetings as well to discuss this–Bill 8. Just to put that on record. Thank you. Mr. Wright: I personally did not attend any of those meetings. Mr. Wiebe: So I guess, maybe that's– Mr. Chairperson: Oh. Yes. Go ahead. Our time for questions has expired, but I wasn' t watching the clock, so I'll let you go quick. Mr. Wiebe: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wright: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

I will now call on our next out -of-town presenter, Laurie Finley, Steinbach Carillon. Do you have any written material? Mr. Laurie Finley (Steinbach Carillon): I do not, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairperson: Then you may proceed with your presentation. Mr. Finley: Mr. Chairman, Minister, MLAs, as stated, my name is Laurie Finley. I'm the publisher of the Steinbach Carillon newspaper. Our newspaper supports the readers and constituents of not only Steinbach but a large part of southeastern Manitoba covering an area from the Trans-Canada Highway south to the US border.

Our newspaper serves a population in the surrounding area of approximately 60,000 people. With editorial correspondents from over 30 of the southeastern communities, we are the only source of local news and information for the city of Steinbach and the nine municipalities we cover. Today I 'm here to talk about Bill 8 and the potential impact this may have on the readers and constituents that our newspaper reaches. There are parts in this bill in regards to amending The Queen' s Printer Act and tidying up other wording that needs to be done.

The issue I want to speak on today is the sections of Bill 8 referring to the mandatory publishing in newspapers of public notices.

146 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 The publication in print of public notices is an important and needed form of communication that needs to be continued. We are concerned that the changes in this bill and not making it mandatory to publish these notices challenges democracy and the right for the public to have pr ior notice of changes that potentially may affect them.

The posting of this information on the Manitoba Gazette website does little to ensure that the public will indeed see these notices, as people would have to go daily and sort through pages on the webs ite to be able to see if there's information there that would affect them. Access to Internet service and cell mobility service, as been mentioned before, is also an issue not only throughout Manitoba but the southeast where we publish our newspaper. This makes it even more difficult for the public to be able to access information if it was just online.

As well, newspapers provide a permanent archive record of the publication of these notices, eliminating any potential challenges to the question of whethe r there was notice given, as websites do not provide the same easily accessible public record that newspapers do. I understand that sections of Bill 8 dealing with mandatory publishing of notices will not be 'procraimed' at this time, but leaving the lan guage in the bill means it can be proclaimed at any point without further consultation, and we feel that 's just a dangerous precedent.

We believe this bill needs to be amended to reflect the requirement for mandatory publication of public notices in newspaper, as has been the practice for decades. If and when an appropriate time comes that this method of communication no longer has the mass reach that we continue to have at this point and that there are clear alternatives, then the appropriate changes can be tabled at that juncture and the proper discussion and consultation take place. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Finley. I will now open the floor for questions. Mr.

Dougald Lamont (Leader of the Second Opposition): Are you aware of anyone who 's in favour of this bill, other than the people around this table or in this–who work in this building? Mr. Finley: I am not. We have had discussion, obviously, with people within our readership area and, obviously, peers in the newspaper business, and no one that I have spoken with sees that this change at this juncture is the right thing to do. Ms. Marcelino: Thank you, Mr. Finley, for your presentation, and thank you for your service to the Carillon, a very important newspaper not just in your region, but throughout all of Manitoba.

It seems the sticking –or the disgusting

section that you 're not comfortable with or that you don' t agree with is the word, this bill will not be proclaimed at this time. If that were to be removed, amended, would you be supporting this bill? Mr. Finley: Our feeling is that th e language in regards to the mandatory publication of public notices should remain as it is in the bill at this point and not reflect that there –that it (

a) is not mandatory to publish, and we also don't feel that it should be in– kept into the bill and just not proclaimed at this time. We just feel that if there 's an appropriate time for a change, it can be tabled again and a change made. Mr. Lamont: I believe it 's–I mean, there 's been other concerns. Do you believe that it's sufficient that they're just f ailing to –saying–promise that they 'll– will not proclaim these various sections, or is it absolutely essential that those be stripped out? Mr.

Finley: I think that, you know, from my standpoint, we feel, and I feel, that, you know, the safe bet is for those pieces of the bill to be stripped out. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing as no further questions, we will thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Fin ley, and we will move on to the next presenter. I'd like to call on Luanne Anderson, private citizen. Luanne Anderson, private citizen? Seeing as that Ms. Anderson is not present, she will be moved to the bottom of the list. I will move on to the next presenter, Jim Mihaly, Brandon Sun. Do you have any written presentations for the committee? Mr.

Jim Mihaly (Brandon Sun): I do, yes. Mr. Chairperson: And if –I hope I 'm pronouncing your last name correctly. Mr. Mihaly: Close. Mihaly, but it's a– Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed with your presentation, Mr. Mihaly.

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 147 Mr. Mihaly: Good evening. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak with you regarding Bill 8, The Government Notices Modernization Act. My name is Jim Mihaly, and I 'm publisher of the Brandon Sun, Westman This Week and Carberry News-Express. I've been in the industry full-time for more than 35 years. I was nine years old when my parents started our newspapers in northern Alberta. Those papers are still in the family and in operation today. Newspapers serve a vital role. They provide a sense of community and reflect that in our coverage.

Government needs to be transparent with the people they work for, the taxpayer. It 's important to remember that. Flying under the radar by not publishing key public notices will only frustrate the taxpayer that much more. * (18:40) Here are a few points you should know regarding the importance and the role of our newspaper plays in southwestern Manitoba. First, it's well read and the readership is on the rise. The Sun has probably served Brandon and the Westman area since 1882.

The Brandon Sun enjoys the highest adult readership of any printed newspaper in Canada for the second year in a row; 79 per cent of adults read our print product each week, c omparing this to daily papers in centres such as Regina– 45 per cent, Medicine Hat –56, and Lethbridge –52 per cent. When print and digital are combined, 83 per cent of adults in Brandon said they read the Sun weekly. The 83 per cent, or 39,000, does not incl ude our substantial rural readership.

More stats for you: 94 per cent of our weekday print readers are exclusive to the Sun, and 35 per cent are weekly digital readers are hard-to-reach millennials. As long as we continue to provide local news, we will continue to be relevant and continue to grow our readership. It's all about presentation and making that product attractive to read and accessibility. Proposing to post notices via government website exclusively will result in significantly less Manitobans being informed. Your online product is not widely available and is not formatted where information is readily available to the average Manitoban.

Additionally, and quite importantly, newspapers are trusted, impartial, and and credible sources for Manitoba residents. We 've already observed a decline in the past two -plus years relative to provincial government advertising in newspapers in the province. I might add just before I left my office today, and I received –our circulation manager came into my office and the Legislative Library just cancelled their subscription to the Brandon Sun because of budget cutbacks. So that just happened today and there was a little bit of a credit in there and they wanted the dollars back, so there 's just a point there.

Some use social media as a tool which is –but it shouldn't complement traditional media, not replace it. Studies show social media to be the least trusted source of important news. We focus on local coverage. Corporate Canada continues to recognize and reach–and relevance of our product. Giants such as Bell MTS, TELUS, Ford, GM and CN continue to utilize us to convey their message. I could go on, but I think you get my point. In conclusion, I suggest to this committee that Bill 8 be amended to preserve th e requirement to publish proposed planning changes in newspapers.

It 's fine also to have these proposals posted on websites, but that alone is not an effective way of informing the public about matters that they may want to be aware of. The message you ar e sending to advertisers potentially and potential advertisers who continue to support community newspapers across the land concerns me the most. By acting on this proposed amendment, it could potentially damage the reputation of these newspapers that they are no longer relevant in the government's eye.

It's important to note that the legislation primarily makes it mandatory to post public notices in the Manitoba Gazette, basically the government providing the service for free and saying it is not good enough for proper public notice–sorry–that it is good enough for proper public notice. What type of message are we sending to supporters of newspapers in this province? Not a good one. And, lastly, I leave a copy, which was presented to you, of a recent op ed piece that we decided to publish recently in the Brandon Sun at no charge. I believe you recognize the name.

The provincial government sought out credible news outlets to convey this important message. Thank you for providing this time and listening to various presentations this evening.

148 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Mihaly. Ms. Marcelino: Thank you, Mr. Mihaly, and especially for 35 years of your work in the publishing industry . It speaks a lot about your commitment to the interests of the public and the best interests of democracy. Mr. Mihaly, you have made some amendments – or the amendment you just suggested is sound and doable. If the minister would take up your amendment an d introduce it tonight, will you be supporting this bill? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Mihaly. Mr.

Mihaly: Sorry–I did that before, too. I 've got to get that straight. Next one I'm not going to do that. I mean, obviously, we 're here to speak on t hat and just remain status quo as we have today. I mean, that's–yes, that's–remove it, I guess, yes. Mrs. Cox: I have the same problem, Mr. Mihaly, so don't worry about that. But, anyway, I 'd like to thank you so much for taking the time to come out toda y and also indicate to you that this bill does not preclude, though–what 's contained in the bill does not preclude departments from, you know, advertising or putting notices in newspapers.

So I just wanted to make you aware of that. And, as well, you know, I publicly stated many times that we are not going to be proclaiming that

section of the newspaper. So I just want to ask you again if you 're aware of that fact, that I 've publicly stated that, even at the Manitoba Community Newspapers Association gala? Mr. Mihaly: Yes. Mrs. Smith: Thank you for coming and presenting tonight. You know, I 've heard the minister say over and over again that they 're not going to proclaim it, but I've also heard other presenters say that they feel like that's being held over their head. So, you know, we 've held over this bill for a reason.

You know, we feel that it 's silencing, you know, voters, people, you know, who need to know what's going on within the government. I come –I've lived in a First Nation; I've lived in rural areas where there's no Internet. So those people are excluded, you know, from getting any information. So, you know, I've heard you ask for an amendment for this either to be taken out or for them to just say simply in the bill that they have to publish in a newspaper rather than just online.

So, you know, hopefully the minister is listening, she hears you, because I 've heard every other sing–every other presenter before you ask for the same thing, and she keeps saying that it 's not going to be proclaimed, but we know that that 's a black cloud that can be held over your head. So, you know, again, you can ask the minister to just make sure that that is taken out or the wording is changed to make sure that those notices are put into publication. Mr. Mihaly: Correct. Was there–okay. That's– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lamont, you had a question? Mr.

Lamont: Yes, have you seen a drop in provincial government advertising, or I don't know. I don't–I can't ask you to speak on behalf of the other members, but have –has there been a–I know that there were some restrictions on provincial government advertising. I was wondering could you see a drop-off in the spend? Mr. Mihaly: Yes, I can–we–our fiscal year run–your fiscal year runs the calendar year. A–quarter 2 would be when you compare it to quarter 2 of 2017, the advertising revenue is approximately down $18,500.

And, again, that 's–we understand some of the –we're all looking at how we can be viable out there, but it 's $18,500. Leading the way is Manitoba Hydro. So that's down from the same quarter a year ago. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Marcelino, we have time for a quick one. Ms. Marcelino: Very, very quick, Mr. Mihaly. How much is subscription to the Brandon Sun? Mr. Mihaly: Two hundred and we just expense part of that back to the government, so. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other questions for Mr. Mihaly? If not, we thank you very much for your presentation, and we will move on to the next presenter. Thank you.

I will now call on –our next out -of-town presenter would' ve been Mr. Kevin Rebeck on Bill 24, but he has informed us that he will not be presenting tonight. So that basically concludes our out-of-town presenters.

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 149 We will now move back to Bill 8 and to Mr. Bob Cox from the Winnipeg Free Press. Mr. Cox . Is he here? Mr. Cox is not here. He will be moved to the bottom of the list and be called once all the other presenters have been called. We will now move to Dan Koshowski, Winnipeg Free Press. Do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Dan Koshowski (Winnipeg Free Press) : Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairperson: Am I present –pronouncing your name properly? Mr. Koshowski: Yes, you are. Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: As soon as the materials are distributed you may proceed with your presentation. * (18:50) You may proceed with your presentation, Mr. Koshowski. Mr. Koshowski: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable committee members, as mentioned, my name is Dan Koshowski , and I'm the vice president of finance at FP Canadi an Newspapers Ltd. Partnership, which owns the Winnipeg Free Press and Brandon Sun daily newspapers, in addition to other city and rural and weekly papers. I 'm here to urge you to defer consideration and passage of Bill 8, The Government Notices Modernization Act.

The purpose of government notices is to display information in places where the public is likely to come in to notice. It 's my opinion a review of how the public is informed about the various activities of government is an important process to c omplete before implementing any change. However, to my knowledge, a comprehensive review has not taken place. Bill 8 was first introduced seven months ago. At that time, our publisher, Bob Cox, wrote to the minister responsible to urge her to undertake a full review of public notice provisions. He volunteered to participate in such a review.

A month later, the minister indicated to the Manitoba Community Newspapers Association that the bill would be passed, but sections pertaining to newspaper notices would not be enacted immediately. Subsequently, the bill was put over to the fall session of the Legislature, which is why you find yourselves dealing with it today. Since originally introduced, it 's our understanding that no review has taken place; instead, the original legislation is being put forward. It is unclear if the government still intends not to proclaim certain sections of the bill.

Passing legislation with unproclaimed sections is confusing for everyone. We believe this legislation is flawed and dangerous to our democracy here in Manitoba. It replaces an orderly system that requires government to use independent and verifiable media for public notices with a system that is entirely in the hands of government, where information is placed on a w ebsite that most Manitobans have never visited. Indeed, we believe most Manitobans don' t even know it exists.

The bill would eliminate mandatory notices in relevant newspapers and replace it with requirements that notices be placed in the digital Manitob a Gazette, which will be available free of charge. That sounds great: free access to public notices. But there's lots of government information that is available that the public takes no notice of whatsoever. The basis of public notice legislation is that government much reach out to the public to provide information on its activities in order for people to make well -informed decisions and have input into the decision- making process.

Public notices provide transparency and accessibility to citizens who want to know more about government actions. Public notices give people a chance to voice their concerns and gives government a sounding board with–which might allow for improved decision making and an overall better outcome. They allow the public to be an acti ve participant in a democratic society. People see what government is doing and they can take action if they want to. Putting information on a website that few have ever heard of does not ' constintute' reaching out to the public.

If you have a website and nobody knows about it, how do they find it? People certainly know about newspapers. They remain at the core of communities across Manitoba. They continue to be relied on by many as their primary source of local news and are an effective way of reaching p eople en masse and being an historical archive of messaging. There are no large economic barriers to reading newspapers. Many are distributed freely in communities across the province. Our own company delivers free papers to every household in Winnipeg

150 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 every week. We do the same in Brandon. Those papers go to households even where residents don' t pay for Internet service and wouldn' t have access to the Manitoba Gazette. The Manitoba Gazette is a special -purpose website used by some residents regularly, I 'm sure. People are creatures of habit, and many still enjoy the experience of reading a general -purpose newspaper, each with their own specific reasons for selecting the –a newspaper to spend their time reading.

They read government notices as part of their overall interaction with a newspaper, and expecting a large percentage of these readers to incorporate a regular review of the Manitoba Gazette website into their weekly routine after a switch is turned with the implementation of a bill is unrealistic, in my view. We also reach broad audiences digitally, and public notices appear in our digital editions, which have much larger audiences than any government website. Most importantly, newspapers remain inde - pendent of government. The Manitoba Gazette is not independent.

True public notice needs to be broadly distributed through reputable, trusted channels and should not be provided by a publication controlled by government. That being said, the digital age has changed communication profoundly. It is impor tant that governments act to modernize legislation with this in mind. It is certainly an appropriate time for a full examination of mandatory public notices and how they should be disseminated to the general public. Unfortunately, it is our understanding t hat this legislation is going forward without this examination.

I would suggest that the best course of action would be to amend The Government Notices Modernization Act so that its sole purpose is to update and modernize the Manitoba Gazette while leaving in place provisions for mandatory public notices in newspapers. This would allow for a full review of public notice provisions to determine how best to fulfill this very important function. As mentioned previously, our organization would be happy to volunteer to participate in such a review.

As a long-time advocate of greater public awareness of what governments are doing, we applaud the government for taking action to improve access to various government notices by publishing them online and free of char ge on a weekly basis by modernizing the Manitoba Gazette. While this is a big step forward, the legislation as proposed also takes a major step backwards by removing the requirement and some statutes for publishing certain public notices in newspapers. All of this is respectfully submitted, Dan Koshowski, vice president of finance, Winnipeg Free Press. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Koshowski. I open the floor for questions. Mr. Lamont: Thank you very much for your presentation. I understand that the Premier (Mr. Pallister) has occasionally called the Winnipeg Free Press the opposition. And I 'm going to start by saying you don't have to answer this que stion. I know that the Premier has opened a lawsuit against the Free Press for saying he didn't pay his taxes on his luxury home in Costa Rica. He has done that. And again, you don't have to answer that. Is that lawsuit ongoing? Mr. Koshowski: That is my understanding, correct. Ms.

Marcelino: Thank you, Mr. Koshowski, for sharing with us your valuable time as well as those sound, strong suggestions for this government regarding Bill 8. Just curious, Mr. Koshowski, does the provincial government, through the Legislative Library still subscribe to the Free Press? Because we heard from– we've just heard that they revoked their subscription to the Brandon Sun. Mr. Koshowski: As I' m sure you 'll appreciate, we have–still have a large number of readers in Winnipeg. I 'm not aware of all of the specific accounts.

I'd be pleased to look that i nformation up and get back to the committee if you so desire. Mr. Wiebe: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Koshowski, for presenting here this evening. I think you add an important voice to this conversation. Of course, you know, the Winnipeg Free Press is the newspaper of record here in the city, so it is important to have your voice here. I guess I just wanted to comment on your remarks with regards to the confusion that you 're feeling, that I'm actually feeling as a legislator who – you know, I think I ki nd of understand this place a little bit.

But I can 't quite wrap my head around why a government would bring forward a bill that has a particular clause or part of it that– you know, they're saying, no, we 're not going to proclaim that.

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 151 Like, I 'm just– you know, maybe this is a bit of editorializing. You can take this as far as you want. But other than using that as a tool, you know, that potentially could be used against media in the future through a stroke of a pen by a minister, what other reason could there be for a government to bring a piece of legislation that has this kind of language in it, but then say, oh, don' t worry about it; we 're not going to do that right now? Mr. Koshowski: I can't speculate on and nor answer what the intentions were for lea ving the language as is.

I would just reinforce that –our comments that it 's in agreement with what you said: it 's very confusing to leave language like that in legislation, to say that it won't be acted on in future. It doesn't–to us, it doesn't make a lot of sense. * (19:00) Mrs. Cox : I would like to thank you, Mr. Koshowski, for making the presentation today. Appreciate the information. As we 've heard many times today, that we 've indicated –I have personally stated that we are not going to be proclaiming those sections.

We've said many times that connectivity is not good enough yet across the province and, of course, until we have certainty that all individuals have ability to connect to the Internet, that this is not the time to proclaim those segments of the bill. So I just wanted to provide you with certainty of that, and thank you again for speaking today on behalf of Bill 8. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Koshowski? We thank you for your presentation. Seeing no further questions, thank you very much, Mr. Koshowski. For the committees, just for their information, we have a Luanne Anderson as presenter No. 5.

If you look on your list of written submissions, she has presented a written submission, so she will be taken off the list. We won 't be calling her at a further time because we do have a written submission from her. Bill 12–The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2018 Mr. Chairperson: Therefore, we will now be moving on to Bill 12, The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2018. We will now call on Mr. George Fraser, Remedial Massage Therapists Society. Mr. Fraser, do you have any written material for distribution to the committee? Mr.

George Fraser (Remedial Massage Therapists Society of Manitoba Inc.): No, I don't. Mr. Chairperson: Then you may proceed with your presentation. Mr. Fraser: I'm George Fraser, a retired association manager, who has, during my career, made several appearances before committees of the Legislature with respect to the creation and ongoing implementation of The Regulated Health Professions Act of Manitoba, referred to in Bill 12,

an act approved by the Legislature in 2009. I will speak tonight mainly from a personal perspective, but also on behalf of the membership of the Remedial Massage Therapists Society of Manitoba, for whom I provide some volunteer leadership on self -regulatory legislative matters advocated by the profession from time to time. Again, specifically, I 'm addressing Bill 12 's reference to The Pharmaceutical Act and its direct references to The Regulated Health Professions Act. For the record, I 'm not a massage therapist and I 'm not a pharmacist.

As stated, I will be making comments and observations with proposed changes to The Pharmaceutical Act assented to on December the 7 th of 2006, proclaimed on January the 1st, 2014, after eight long years, and to The Regulated Health Professions Act of 2009, partially proclaimed, 2014. The RHPA is an important act that still is nowhere near being functional in its key objective, to protect the public whenever they receive health care from health-care professionals.

Before you tonight are –a simple adjustment that takes out of The Pharmaceutical Act, clause 74, which is a requirement for the majority of members of the college to actual ly vote on a regulatory change. And bill–and in Bill 12, the –that removal is also complemented by removal in The Regulated Health Professions Act of–there 's discussion here today of unproclaimed requirements. Well,

section 211 is an unproclaimed

section of The Regulated Health Professions Act, also dealing with voting. But this –both of these are consistent with the intent of the RHPA, The Regulated Health Professions Act of 2009. I 'm here this evening to

152 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 give full support to this change. It is about tim e this bizarre exemption was removed and corrected. This legislative correction goes back to the original hearings held in June 1st and 2nd of 2009, with respect to then Bill 18, The Regulated Health Professions Act.

It eliminates, in my opinion, a major political error introduced by the government of the day and supported by the opposition party, whereby the pharmacists of Manitoba were granted a special exemption from the RHPA requirement to establish councils for each profession that vote upon all matters of regulation, not the individual members of a profession, and this addressed the principle of public interest versus profession interest, which is critical in a regulated health profession act found across our country. No other existing college was granted this privilege.

During those two evenings in 2009, the vast majority of representation, unfortunately, was from pharmacists for and against this exemption and from other professionals who were adamantly opposed to this privileged, flawed carry -over from the prior governance model for pharmacists whereby every pharmacist in Manitoba got a vote on regulatory matters. The pharmacists were essentially pitted against each other on matters of these exemption rights and no concern for other professions.

It was an era of Internet pharmacies, the emergence of large corporate pharmacies, and the decline in the influence of independent pharmacists. Opinions were expressed in the context of a very public legal battle within the profession, and it played itsel f out over two nights again here in this room. And the main problem with the one-vote-for-each-member model was that the pharmacists could not muster enough attendance at meetings to complete a requirement for a majority decision.

The Health minister of the day in 2009, Theresa Oswald, expressed her personal frustration that evening and stated ethical concerns over lengthy delays for regulations awaiting approval and implementation by the pharmacists ' flawed voting model. The public was obviously poorly served by all of this, but despite all of these concerns, the government of the day broke its newly minted legislation model and proceeded to provide this exemption for pharmacists.

We are here tonight to be witnesses to the fact that it has taken almost 10 years to reverse its flawed existence within the RHPA structure and to witness a return to sanity by the pharmacists. I wish the pharmacists were here tonight, but they're not.

I do not know the complete details of the turnaround, but I'm here tonight to applaud the wiser wisdom of today 's leaders from the pharmacy community, as obviously cooler heads have prevailed and a greater trust has emerged that an elected council elected by pharmacists, together with appointed public representatives appointed by the Minister of Health, can and will take their leadership role seriously as other professions will, too.

Once this is done, the College of Pharmacists will be in a much better position to assist the Minister of Health and the public by making t imely decisions on regulatory change for their profession. A return to the universal model of the council making decisions as described in the original draft of the RHPA will be especially helpful as communities tackle current issues of opiate addictions, overmedication, and ever -increasing demand for prescribed medications.

But–and there always is one–the members of this committee and other members of the Legislature should not pat themselves on the back with these changes tonight, nor should they think that the issues of pharmacists or other health professions are being fully met by the current implementation process for the RHPA. They are not. The decisions by the Manitoba government to proceed with an RHPA concept began in 2003 with province-wide consultation to create a gold standard for health regulation in our province.

The act is structured around the dominant principle of public protection and, again, not profession interest and common regulatory references for all health professions. It outlines, in particular and in detail, such things as common complaints and discipline processes. In 2009, 22 regulated health professions supported the introduction of the RHPA, together with two aspiring applicants –the paramedics and the massage therapists.

Both of these applicants were approved for entry into the RHPA model in 2015 and paramedics, thankfully, are currently making the transition to the RHPA predicted to take two more years, probably 2019 and 2020. * (19:10)

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 153 This Bill 12 is all about red tape, and you've got quite a task ahead of you to figure your way through that one, and efficiencies. But my observations are that the citizens of Manitoba and the original 22 health professions, plus the two applicants, were led down the proverbial poli tical garden path, then through a bureaucratic maze that was under - resourced for the challenges created, tied up in knots of decision-making, everyone inappropriately bound by as much red tape as possible.

Committee members should know that since 2009, only four professions have made the transition to the RHPA since that time. Next June, and maybe I'll be here for that, will be the 10th anniversary of the approval of this comprehensive RHPA legislative document built on the premise, again, of public protection. Now, for this government, represented by the previous minister of Health, who' s not here tonight, who publicly admitted to me, he, too, is frustrated with delays associated with the RHPA and now a new Minister of Health, who also still cannot offer a clear pathway on how to handle the backlog.

Pharmacists should be very concerned, too, for despite this small but appropriate correction here tonight, it appears that the profession will wait at least until 2022 and beyond before they make their official transition to the RHPA. For despite this small but appropriate correction–sorry–beyond–before they make their transition, the Government of Manitoba has consistently been missing its projections and deadlines since the RHPA discussion began in 2003. There is no evidence that anything has changed with Bill 12, and the red- tape ball continues to grow and take on a life– Mr. Chairperson: Mr.

Fraser, your 10 minutes has expired. If you could wrap up in the next couple of seconds. Mr. Fraser: I sure will. There are two lists facing us for the transitional process, and I just wanted to point out that despite the advances made with Bill 12, the pharmacists are still facing a difficult task ahead. And, in fact, we will go through two–the upcoming election and the next election after before the predictions made by the bureaucracy on when this process will be completed. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser. I will open up the floor for questions. Mr.

Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Well, I just wanted to thank you, Mr. Fraser, for coming out. I remember as–in my time as Health critic, sitting in and listening to you present to our committee many times, and I think every time that you came you–I left with some more knowledge about your specific struggles i n terms of achieving what you 're trying to achieve. So I appreciate that tonight. Thank you very much for bringing that information to us. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Fraser –are there any other questions from–Ms. Smith, Point Douglas. Mrs.

Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): You're coming specifically to talk about the RPA, but do you think it 's fair to say that putting that in this big document, as you called it –you know, it 's an uphill, you know, battle, to get through this whole thing–do you think it 's fair for this government to put all of those different things that don' t relate to one another in this bill? Mr. Fraser: Well, I always fear omnibus bills. I think most l egislatures are in a similar position in that respect.

I also understand, however, at certain times in the life of any l egislature, you have to do this bundling up to bring forward corrections, not unlike Bill 10 that came through to reduce a number of councils and committees –advisory committees and that, in terms of numbers. And so that was somewhat of an omnibus bill too. It does make it exceptionally difficult.

When we –when I was here last time, there was about six more people to speak on this bill, including the pharmacists, and I would, you know, I was hoping that they would be here this evening, because, just from my perspective, this was a monumental thing picked out of a really huge bill. Mrs. Smith: I just want to thank you for coming and for your time when you came last time. It wasn 't our intention to hold up that night, the committee. A nd we have no say over the night that this government chooses to have presenters.

So I agree with you that, you know, we would have had more presenters had it been on another night. And, you know, it 's unfortunate that some people are silenced because of the night that this government chose to have presentations on, so thank you again for your presentation and your time. Mr. Fraser: Well, one comment: there 's always procedural rules. And my personal opinion is, procedural rules, in this special honour tha t the–this committee structure has in Manitoba should be revisited and protected in the future despite what is going on in the House. Hon.

Colleen Mayer (Minister of Crown Services): Thank you, Mr. Fraser, for coming out

154 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 tonight and letting your voice be heard. I think that's very important, and I want you to know that I value your input. I know you 've been here before to present, and I hope to see you again. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware, as this bill is put out to reduce the red tape that we find that–in our government, and you have commented in that. There are nearly 875 burdensome and unnecessarily regular requirements that we are eliminating by putting this bill forward, and I believe that this is nearly $1 million annually that we 'll save stakeholders.

So I just wanted to acknowledge that so that you were aware of that. And thank you again for coming, and I hope to see you again. Mr. Fraser: I appreciate what you're saying, and I'm here–my frustrations are always here when I arrive with respect to massage therapy. For that, I apologize. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Fraser. Seeing as no other questions, we will now move on to the next presenter. That concludes our list of presenters for Bill 12. Bill 24–The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: We will now move on to Bill 24. Presenter No. 1, Mr.

Kevin Rebeck, had informed us that he will not be presenting tonight, so he will be taken off the list. We will move to our second presenter, Carlos Sosa, private citizen. Mr. Sosa, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Carlos Sosa (Private Citizen): No, I do not. Mr. Chairperson: Then you may proceed with your presentation. Mr. Sosa: Members of the Legislative Assembly, my name is Carlos Sosa, and tonight I appear here as a person with a disability in opposition to Bill 24, The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act.

Today is municipal election day here in Manitoba, where citizens of our pr ovince are voting for their local reeves, mayors, city councillors, school trustees and even voicing their opinions in plebiscites. As part of our democratic process, citizens also participate by volunteering for their local candidates.

It is extremely co ncerning that this committee scheduled its meeting tonight when we have a democratic process under way in this province and this city and that we are –especially when we are discussing the rights of the most vulnerable in our province, and I think that is a very shameful and short-sighted move by this government to, again,

schedule a meeting like this tonight. On nights such as tonight, people with disabilities, people of colour, women, indigenous populations often face many barriers to participate in our community, whether that be accessing Handi-Transit to come to meetings like this or whether they even have money to pay for the bus to come to meetings like this as well. Over the last couple of years, this current provincial government has also changed t he identification requirements to get into this building, which have a detrimental impact on those living in poverty.

People living in poverty often face many barriers when it comes to accessing identification. Another issue with this meeting is the lack o f accommodations for people living with disabilities, which include providing ASL and LSQ

interpretation and real-time CART transcription services. I thought we were the most accessible province in the country with The Accessibility for Manitobans Act. I think we still have a long way to go with providing accommodations for people with disabilities at this meeting. * (19:20) Bill 24 will change the way in which cases are considered by the Social Services Appeal Board. The amendment proposes that the appeal board does not have to consider Charter rights when considering cases. In a city and a province that is home to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, this seems to be quite ironic.

Essentially, what is being proposed by this government will take our province in a downward direction when it comes to the rights of the most vulnerable in our province, and it will really take us back to the 1970s when people with disabilities, our indigenous populations, people of colour, women all had to fight for incl usion, especially in the services that we all receive. And, if you support this bill as it currently stands, our rights will be taken back 50 years. And that will be a very sad day in this province.

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 155 As someone who has previously worked for Employment and Income Assistance and Manitoba Housing, working with marginalized citizens who will be affected by this legislation, I am concerned for them. The clientele that I worked with included people with disabilities, women, people of colour and indigenous popula tion, which all live disproportionately in poverty and have higher unemployment rates than the rest of society.

The proposals in Bill 24 not to consider Charter rights as part of the Social Services Appeal Board is extremely concerning, especially with peo ple with disabilities who face many barriers to access to justice due to poverty and systemic attitudes. What is also concerning is the lack of consultation with many community groups on this issue. And, in fact, a meeting request has been submitted to the Minister of Families (Mrs. Stefanson), and no response has been received as of yet. Again, extremely concerning.

And this also seems to be a broader trend of a lack of consultation on the services that many vulnerable rely on, especially people w ith disabilities. And one of the most recent decisions by this government to eliminate the employability assistance program for people living with disabilities self-directed option is just one of them. Again, no consultation with the affected groups. In order to mitigate changes to this bill, funding needs to be provided to Legal Aid Manitoba to assist marginalized people who want to take Charter cases to court.

The other option would be to table this bill until further consultation can take place with marginalized groups, and that includes people with disabilities. If you decide –mean, if you do decide to go forward tonight with what is being proposed, this will definitely take the province in a downward direction when it comes to the rights of the most marginalized populations in our province. And, again, it will be a sad day that Manitoba does not give consideration to the well-being and the rights of the most vulnerable, again in our very province.

And may I say that this province has been the centre of many human rights movements. I mean, the birthplace of –I mean, obviously, issues of the Winnipeg General Strike, the birthplace of a national and international disability rights movement. And I think we can go in a better direction than that. I urge you to consider your actions tonight and the impacts that it will have on the most vulnerable populations in this province. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Sosa. Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Families): Thank you very much, Mr. Sosa, for being here tonight.

Appreciate you taking the time and coming down here. I just –I will make note of the fact that the committee was held not –it was held prior to this, and, unfortunately, it was delayed due to various wranglings from part of the –one of the opposition parties. And so I think it's important to note that, and I certainly have a tremendous amount of respect for the process that takes place, that this is –we're one of few provinces that actually has this ability to come forward and speak publicly at hearings.

And so I think it's an important part of our democratic process, and so I just want to thank you for being here tonight. Mr. Sosa: What I will say in response to your comment is that, yes, this is an important democratic process. But marginalized groups have not really been consulted in the development of this bill, and that is extremely concerning –when we are aff ected by these bills, that we were not even considered from day one. Mrs. Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): I want to thank you, Mr. Sosa, for coming once again. I saw you last time we were here for committee.

I do agree that, you know, tonight is not the greatest night to hold it, and this government did have control over when they could have held it, could have been another night. There probably would have been other people that wanted to present. But my question for you is, I 've heard time and time again from this government, from this minister that they 're trying to eliminate wait times. So, we hear all the time within the justice system that there's a backlog. So what the minister is suggesting is that this Social Services Appeal Board can 't hear the se, that–she's suggesting that they go the court route.

There's also a cost to that. Is that going to stop people from pursuing that, in your opinion?

156 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 Mr. Sosa: The court route will prevent people from going further. I mean, you 've got to talk about the cost of accessing that lawyer, and for many marginalized people who work in precarious situations or are on employment and income assistance, they just struggle day -to-day. And so, therefore, going to court is simply not an option.

And even just accessin g services or even paying for the Internet or paying for rent or having to pay for food are more of a consideration than going to court, and going to court is simply–simply would not be an option and would be a major barrier. Mrs. Smith: This minister als o seems to think that it's free to get a lawyer. I know from working in the community I work in that to access a lawyer is $25 just to get an appointment. That 's even if you 're on EIA. Do you think people who are marginalized, that are low income, that are underemployed will be able to pay that $25 to access a lawyer to fight their case?

Mr. Sosa: Speaking from experience, simply not; 25 bucks is–it would be a struggle for a lot of people. I'll say that I 'm also on the –involved in a housing co-operative, and I know that even some of the changes with social housing that a lot of people with disabilities just struggle to pay for their housing shares and 25 bucks is just –would be a cumbersome amount. It would be detrimental. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Sosa. We will now move on to our next presenter: Sylvie Sabourin Grindle. Sylvie, if you could correct me if I 'm pronouncing your name properly. Ms.

Sylvie Sabourin Grindle ( Private Citizen): Sylvie Sabourin Grindle. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Do you have any written submission material? Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Do I have to move this, or is it okay like that? Mr. Chairperson: You can start when you're ready. Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Good evening. I 'm here to express concern for Bill 24. My name is Sylvie Sabourin Grindle. I 'm from St. Jean Baptiste, where I grew up on a farm with my family. Currently, my husband and I live in Winnipeg. For a career, I had t he pleasure of being an early childhood educator for many years.

I worked at various day cares and nursery schools, mostly in Winnipeg. I haven 't worked in five years because I have mental illness. My husband also has mental illness. My husband and I rece ive financial assistance from the federal and provincial government. I receive CPP disability and we also receive welfare. I'm considered non- functional and I 'm not able to work. I'm not a professional in any way and I don't communicate like a professiona l. In fact, I have a great deal of difficulty with communicating, as do many people with mental illness.

My presentation will require your patience and I thank you in advance for your patience. Thank you. As part of my illness, I experience emotional dysregulation, agoraphobia and insomnia. Those all make it difficult for me to be here. It takes a lot for me to leave the safety of my home, but I feel it 's important that I be here and try to explain some things from my perspective. * (19:30) In November of 2014, it had been approximately one year since my last day of work and four months since my husband' s last day of work. We had used up our savings and needed to rely on credit cards to pay for living expenses.

This is when we applied for welfare. It was my first experience with the welfare system. The entire process felt and was dehumanizing. It is and feels dehumanizing, actually. After being on welfare for six months, we received a letter in the mail. My husband read it and he was so scared to tell me what was going on because he knew this would be difficult for me to handle, and I was already extremely sensitive. He finally told me that our welfare was being cut off. The letter didn't give a reason that our benefits were ending and we had no idea why.

It was the end of June when we found out that we would not be receiving any money for July. We also had our medical benefits taken away. We just finished a six -month waiting period to qualify for medical benefits and we were waiting for a decision on some medical devices, but we were being cut off, and that included our medical benefits. I was in complete disbelief. I thought it was a mistake and it would be fixed and everything would be okay, but my husband had inquired and confirmed

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 157 that it was true. I still didn't believe it because this is Canada. This was traumatic for the both of us. I found myself in an even worse psychological state; I cannot describe it. We needed to appeal the decision. At the time, I wasn 't even well enough to be involved in the appeal process, so it was my husband who took on the responsibility and the stress. He went one day to present our case to the appeal board. When he returned home, he told me what happened. He said he did not present our case. With the appeal board all facing him, he had a panic attack.

He has, actually, non-epileptic psychogenic seizures when he gets anxiety. He also said that no one helped him or showed any support. Those who were there for the meeting seemed annoyed that they went there for nothing. We needed to get back on welfare. We needed to meet with someone at one of the welfare offices. I was way too scared to go through it. The first time we went through the application process I had a panic attack in the office and I needed to leave.

I knew I wasn 't well enough to go through that again, so we couldn' t–just so we could get through it, my psychologist accompanied us and stayed the entire time. This was so I could be there and go through the process without having a major panic attack. My husband asked me not to present this evening because he was afraid that it could result in us losing our benefits. He said he lives in constant fear that our benefits could be taken away again. My mental illness isn't permanent. I believe I can heal; I know I can heal and I deserve to heal.

Many of us who require financial assistance are experiencing mental illness. We all need and deserve a chance to heal. While we stress about money, we cannot heal from whatever caused our mental illness. The current ap peal process is dehumanizing, traumatizing and ineffective. Therefore, by opposing Bill 24, I'm definitely not suggesting we keep things the way they are, but I 'm also asking that you don' t eliminate the appeal board without replacing it with something more effective.

In 2015, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association indicated the financial cost of providing services to mentally ill people in various places. I ask you, just to save a bit of time, because I don't want to go over time, on one of those pages, there is a chart with the prices involved with providing health care – or providing, like, having someone stay in a hospital or psychiatric bed or jail or staying in a shelter, and a hospital psychiatric service is $20,615 per month, a provincial jail is $4,333 a month, a shelter is $1,932 a month. Supportive social housing is about $775 to $961 a month.

Below there 's what my husband and I receive. My CPP disability comes to $840 a month, welfare is $720 a month, and then that totals to $1,560 a month. So, per person, that is $780 a month per person. I 'm worth more than that. As you can see, CPP disability isn 't enough to live off and there are no medical benefits with CPP. Even though I worked hard for as long as I could, CPP doesn 't give me enough to survive. Therefore, welfare, which is provincial, needs to supplement. The amount decided by welfare isn 't based on the actual cost of living. Those of us on welfare are people, too.

We have needs; we are biological beings with needs and wants just like those who are not on welfare. This bill is clearly not to save money because we now it will end up costing more money. We also know it will cause a huge amount of stress. Financial stress is a huge burden on our nervous system. It leads to mental illness, and there is just so much that we can handle. I ask that you please always consider the most vulnerable and the most marginalized people when you create laws. Experience is the best teacher, and there are some things that we can only learn and truly understand through experience.

Poverty can only be understood by those with personal experience. I, myself, do not know poverty. Even though my income is low, I don 't consider myself to be a poor person. This is because, for one, my freez er is full; I've never had to worry about having enough food or water. And the other reason I don't consider myself a poor person is because I have seen poverty. I witnessed enough poverty to know that I don' t actually know poverty. Poverty m eans helplessness. The reason I myself don't actually know poverty is because I have family and community.

I –there's still steps between where I am now and homelessness; however, it's a fear of mine. But, yes, anyway, I have seen poverty. And, anyways, getting a job i sn't a solution for those of us who aren' t able to work. Poor people don't need a poverty reduction strategy. Poverty –or, poor people need money. One moment. Manitobans are experiencing a serious mental illness crisis, and you can help by not adding even m ore financial

158 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 stress to people's lives. Some people are even healing from generations of trauma. That takes time, and in order to allow people to heal, we need to provide them with safety, and that takes –and take away their stress so they could focus on healing. There's no choice in being born in a family with little resources. There 's no choice in experiencing trauma. Trauma leads to mental illness and mental poverty. For those who are following, I kind of, like, went back a little bit because I know I h ave more than 10 minutes worth of stuff.

But how you vote on Bill 24 is your choice, and every single Manitoban deserves the safety of knowing that the government is protecting us. In my opinion, voting yes on Bill 24 means that you would be making the choice to add stress to people who are already suffering. The fact that poverty affects people of colour at higher rates and it affects –than it affects white people, this bill is an attack –and this bill is an attack on poor people, and Bill 24 is racist; a bill that will lead to more suffering, homelessness, more severe mental illness and even death.

Bill 24 would make things worse, and making things worse is the opposite of reconciliation. Those of us here this evening, we 're not responsible for the actions of our ancestors, but those who will be voting on this bill and on future bills are responsible for the choice that you make when you vote. How much time do I have left? Okay, I just want a break –sorry–I'm okay. I just want to bring your attention to–there 's–I have a couple of resources there with important statistics. One is that 28 per cent of Manitobans diagnosed –or diagnosed with mental illness, I imagine it 's like this last five-year period.

Twenty-eight per cent have had a mental illness diagnosi s, and I know with the lack of resources for us, they're not–people are not getting better; they're not actually getting better. So it 's just going to get worse. Mental illness causes more mental illness because mental illness violence, and it–yes, like, a nyways, and, like, the amount, like, Manitoba has the highest child apprehension rates in the world, and many people who are on the streets are, in fact –or–people who went through the CFS system. And then these people, like, even filling out forms, it's difficult to do with mental illness.

I know, because before I had mental illness, that was easy, even fun to do. With mental illness, I literally cannot fill out a form. I cannot. Mr. Chairperson: Sylvie, your 10 minutes has expired, but we'll give you a little– Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairperson: No, we 'll give you a little bit more time to finish off. Sylvie, go ahead. Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Manitoba has 19 psychologists per 100,000 people. That 's less than half the national average. That's 25 –255 psychologists for the entire province.

And there 's about 276,000 Manitobans that have been diagnosed just recently with needing help, not just counselling; trauma-informed therapy where we can actually heal from mental illness is just not av ailable. We 're–but then we're forced to be poor, and then how–there's no chance for us. There' s no chance for us, there 's no hope. * (19:40) So I'll just stick to my very, very last line. That' s just like a little bit of a thank -you for –well, thank you all for being here and taking the time to listen to my presentation and people back there also listening. Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you very much, Sylvie. Mrs. Stefanson: Sylvie, I just want to thank you so much for being here tonight. I know you have presented to committee before. You always do an amazing job. You' re straight from the heart, you know. I want –and I want to thank you for sharing your personal story, as well, with us. And I think you bring up a lot of points tonight in giving us some constructive criticism of how we can–of some potential changes to how this process takes place. And so we're always looking to make the process better for Manitobans.

And I think you bring forward some compelling arguments tonight. The one area I just wanted to say –because this change is specific to the area of Charter –Charter restrictions and the area of Charter jurisdiction. So, back in 2005, there was a similar change made by the previous NDP government with respect to the Workers Compensation Board, where the similar–the very same changes were made back then, as well, that there's perhaps a more appropriate place to deal with Charter issues specifically.

So this isn 't–this is –wouldn't prohibit your appeal from going– you know, you presenting your appeal before the appeal board. It's just–you know, it just pertains to–specifically to the Charter area. So I

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 159 do want to thank you, though– [interjection] Yes. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Sylvie–[interjection] Mrs. Stefanson : Thanks so much. And you know what, we 're happy to sit down with you and to explain this further. We really appreciate your time. I don 't want to take up too much more of your time. I know there 's questions from other members. But again, I want to thank you very much. Mrs. Smit h: I want to thank you for your presentation. I know you were here last time we were supposed to have committee. So I want to thank you for coming back.

I know how hard it is for you to get out of the house; you expressed that last time you were here. Can you speak a little bit about –you talked a little bit about your experience of going to EIA – welfare, as you put it? For those that are struggling such as yourself, if you had to go in front of the Social Services Appeal Board, how can we make it more accessible to people so that it 's not this? Because you 're presenting in front of a group like this and you're presenting your case. And, right now, like, the appeal board hears all cases.

So what this bill is suggesting is that if it 's a Charter right, that they can 't hear it at all. So they 're taking that right away from the Social Services Appeal Board. Right now, they come in front of the social services appeal, they make that decision, there are people who are very qualified individuals that have worked in many different fields, that know the system. Many of them have been in the system. But this is being taken away –this right for them to hear these. They're just saying no, you 're not qualified to hear those; you need to go to the court.

So you can spea k a little bit about what would make it easier for you to go in front of the social services board. And if they denied that and you had to go into–let's say court, what would that experience look like for you? Ms. Sabourin Grindle : Yes. Like, I –it would b e terrifying, absolutely terrifying. My husband actually has to go to court just from the –this–snow people. They broke our fence, like, two years ago and he 's, like, terrified for that. No, like, I –for me, personally, well, I would need to, like, I don 't know. I can 't even go through security without being scared.

If I see even a police officer, I'm scared. If people talk to me on my left side, I'm scared. If people say triggering words, I 'm scared. If –I get so many fears that I could not go through that process. I could not. I would need to have, like, access to my cannabis –like, as much as I need it. I would need to have full –like, at full understanding that my reaction is not a choice when I'm afraid. I, like, we don' t–like, I would need total trauma-informed, absolutely every total –like, it would not –it's kind of like –we could actually, like, it's a big, big, big question.

I would need, like, so much accommodation. Like, I can 't even –like, I couldn't even go to the welfare office to re -go back on welfa re without my psychologist, which my parents are–like, I'm not on–getting therapy anymore but, like, privately paid psychologist that my parents are paying, he came with us, stayed there the entire time just so we can get through the process of answering questions even just in the welfare office. It was–it's traumatic. It's traumatic. And I don' t use the word trauma lightly. It's traumatic.

And they ask you these questions, and they really make you feel, like, not good, and it 's not–and that person–actually, the –I–the–when I was –how I was reacting, the person –the social worker, I guess, she got upset because –she said, how –seeing people like this, how do you think it makes me feel? So this is not easy on any one of us. It 's people having to follow rules, and it's not easy on any–it's not easy on them; it's not easy on us. So I don' t know how –like, it 's kind of like – it would–we'd need so much–so much–accom - modation. Like, myself just being here, it took so much for me to be here.

And how many Manitobans that are on welfare that don 't even know, because they're not even on–like, I just found about this from Facebook, so I knew about this. Otherwise, I wouldn't even know about this. And people were going to discover this when they get kicked off of welfare for not filling out a form correctly or something, and then– Mr. Chairperson: Sylvie– Ms. Sabourin Grindle : –they'll be no appeal board for them, even. Mr. Chairperson: Our time for questions has long expired. We'd like to thank you for your presentation. We–you know, thank you for appearing here tonight. It's greatly appreciated.

Thank you. I would like to now call on our next presenter, Janet Forbes, Inclusion Winnipeg.

160 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 Do you have written materials for distribution to the committee? Ms. Janet Forbes (Inclusion Winnipeg): I do not. Mr. Chairperson: Then you may proceed with your presentation when you are ready. Ms. Forbes: As stated, my name is Janet Forbes, and I'm the executive director of Inclusion Winnipeg. Our organization is part of a national federation of associations for community living, and the purpose of our organization is to advance and protect the rights of people with intellectual disabilities.

I am here before you tonight also as a member of the Charter Rights for All coalition. And I'd also like to add that Inclusion Winnipeg, along with the Canadian Mental Health Society and the Winnipeg Harvest, was a member of the coalition represented by the Public Interest Law Centre in the court case that argued having the Social Services Appeal Board hear Charter cases would promote greater access to justice for marginalized people in our province. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 24 tonight.

I know that some of my colleagues did wish to be here but were unable to present due to the election and have submitted written submissions that will include a wide range of recommendations. I would like to speak to protecting the Charter rights for marginalized Manitobans. Canada was an early signer of the UN convention on t he rights of people with disabilities in 2007. Ratification in 2010 made it legally binding on Canada and provinces and territories. As equal citizens in Canada, people with disabilities have a right to experience and count on their rights being upheld.

In Manitoba, we also have The Accessibility for Manitobans Act, which we believe can decrease the number of human rights complaints based on discriminations because of a disability. In fact, Manitoba has often shown significant leadership in matters related to legislation and policy for people with disabilities. We are only the second province to have accessibility legislation. The vulnerable persons act was groundbreaking back in 1993 when it was passed. The Adult Abuse Registry Act was, and I believe still is, the only province to have such legislation.

We were heartened by the court 's ruling that the Social Services Appeal Board could hear Charter cases and believed that it was another step towards making access to justice–or making justice accessible for all Manitobans. Many Manitobans live in poverty. People with all types of disabilities experience poverty at a greater rate than other Manitobans.

From Inclusion Winnipeg's perspective, people wit h intellectual disabilities experience poverty at a very deep level and have few opportunities to rise above that abject level of poverty. * (19:50) Many live without the financial resources to pay for all of their basic needs, let alone have the financial ability to pay for legal representation if their Charter cases must go through the court system. That is a process that is lengthy and, for many people, overwhelming.

Few people would be able to access the judicial system for financial reasons, and for some it would be simply too overwhelming for them emotionally and physically. It would mean that they would not have their constitutional rights protected and upheld. The court's ruling brought access to justice a bit closer to people. We recognize and acknowledge that the Legislature has the authority to use legislative amendments to restrict the jurisdiction of the Social Services Appeal Board to hear Charter arguments, but our question is: why?

Why would the Legislature move that –move to do that without consultation to determine the impact their decision would have on people with disabilities? Bill 24 was introduced with no prior community consultation and little explanation to why it was introduced. Even people from within government did not seem to be able to answer the question the day that it was tabled. In Manitoba, there is a large network of organizations and individuals working on issues of poverty, accessibility, inclusion, disability and, broadly, on social justice issues.

We have member s who regularly interact with the Social Services Appeal Board. It did not appear that anyone from our networks, or individuals who would be most impacted, were consulted. A freedom of information request confirmed that there was no consideration of the impact Bill 24 would have on access to justice for the most vulnerable and marginalized citizens in Manitoba.

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 161 We ask the government to withdraw Bill 24, but if that is not a possibility, we encourage the government to delay passage of this bill and seek to meaningfully consult by collaborating and engaging with relevant stakeholders. Individuals who are most impacted require support and assistance to participate as equal citizens in the proposed consultations, and those supports and accommodations shoul d be considered. This move would be consistent with the UN 's most senior Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities, their new legal guidance points.

I will conclude by making the following three points: First, access to justice is a key princ iple of improving the legal system across Canada. We ask that the government take time to implement a principled-based–a principle -based consultation and reflect on the principle that the Charter belongs to all people. All parties deciding legal issues must conform to the Charter. All lawmakers charged with deciding legal issues must conform to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Second, all Manitobans have the right to be treated as equal citizens and, as such, should receive the support they re quire if they believe their Charter rights are being violated or withheld. Access to justice is a safeguard inherent in our democracy, and we believe that all people deserve access. This must be protected by our laws and the administration of our laws. Finally, we recognize the need for qualified tribunal members, and they should include the expertise of people who rely on the –Manitoba's social services.

Relevant training should be provided to all members to ensure the Charter competency necessary to make decisions. Recognition of additional supports for members who may require accommodations is critical. A jurisdictional review should be conducted to access information on promising practices in other provinces. Thank you for your attention. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Forbes. Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you very much, Ms. Forbes, for taking the time out of your

schedule and to be here tonight to represent those that you represent out in the community. I think you made some very valid points tonight, and I want to thank you for sharing that with the committee tonight. Ms. Forbes: Thank you. Mr. Dougald Lamont (Leader of the Second Opposition): Thank you very much. I appreciate everything you're saying. I was wondering, if people are unable to make these appeals or make Charter claims at the Social Services Appeal Board, what's the next step? What is the next step for them to be able to take a remedy? Ms. Forbes: The appeal court. Mr.

Lamont: I just wanted to ask, as far as I can tell, it seems to me–it's not clear to me that–why it is that the government is actually able to just say, well this particular is –doesn't–or that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply in this particular case or this –because, as you have menti oned, the court case that you brought has established that any court of competent jurisdiction can actually –can and should apply Charter principles. Is there any possibility that the only way this is actually unconstitutional legislation?

I don 't know if you've had any follow -up with your lawyer that it would require the notwithstanding clause to actually be invoked in order to pass? Ms. Forbes: I'm not sure I fully understand the question. But this would not specifically be just about people who have intellectual disabilities not accessing their Charter rights. What it would mean is that they would have easier access to hear–have their Charter cases heard. But because so many of them are among the most marginalized people in the province, it would impact more on them than some other people. Mrs. Smith: I want to thank you, Ms.

Forbes, for, once again, coming back to present. I also just want to ask you a question about –the minister has said that this is about red tape, about making, you know, the time that people go to present in front of this board more of an expedient experience for people and that this is tying up their time. Do you believe by passing this bill that that 's going to free up the Social Services Appeal Board? Ms. Forbes: Well, this is–the ruling of the court last year was to actually allow the Social Services Appeal Board to hear Charter cases, which they hadn't been for a number of years. Many years ago, a

162 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 case overturned that. So I don 't know that they know whether or not it 's going to free up the Social Services Appeal Board. What I do know is that cases get caught up in the court system and also could, you know, bog them down at that point as well too. Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Finance): Yes, maybe I'll just ask a few questions on it. You know, I know the court case that came down.

As I understand from the actual court case, what was –the options that were presented to government at the time was to either go back and change the legislation, similar to what happened in 2005 with the Workers Compensation Board that the previous government did, as well as what other jurisdictions–because I think the vast majority of jurisdictions have a similar process to this –or allow the social service appeal committee to hear the constitutional challenges on it. So I guess the question is: Are you aware that the courts actually provided two options to government–part of their ruling? Mr. Chairperson: Mrs.

Forbes–or, Ms. Forbes. Ms. Forbes: No, I was not aware of that. Mrs. Smith: So the Stadler case, I can tell you –in– and I 'm just going to give you some what 's still happening. So the Stadler case basically said that, you know, people cannot be forced to take their CPP. Well, I can tell you that in our office, we 're still hearing that that's happening. So people, for instance, that are living at Salvation Army or Siloam Mission– some that are homeless–are going to, you know, EIA to get some help, as many people do. They find themselves in a situation where they don 't have enough funds to live.

They are being forced to take CPP early, which means when they turn 65 they have less income to live on. In your opinion, do you think that that 's right, what this government is doing? Forcing people who are already, you know, low income, that ar e already relying on EIA for income, and they 're clawing back dollar for dollar. Do you think that's right? Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Forbes, time for questions has expired, but I will allow you some time quick–to quickly answer the question. Ms. Forbes: No, I don't think it 's right.

I think that people who have lived in poverty all their lives shouldn't be pushed further into poverty. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Forbes. We will now move on to the next presenter. I will call Karen Sharma. Karen Sharma, Manitoba Human Rights Commission. Do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Ms. Karen Sharma (Manitoba Human Rights Commission): I do not. Mr. Chairperson: Then you may proceed with your presentation. Ms.

Sharma: Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to speak here today on the ancestral lands of the Anishinabe, Innu and Dakota people, homeland of Metis nation and on territory governed by Treaty 1. My name is Karen Sharma, and I have the good fortune and honour of being the director of investigations and policy with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. * (20:00) The commission is an independent agency of the Government of Manitoba, responsible to the Minister of Justice, for the protection and promotion of human rights in our province.

As the agency mandated to administer our provincial Human Rights Code, we enforce the right of all Manitobans to be free from discrimination, prejudice and negative stereotypes. We also enforce the corresponding responsibility of employers, landlords and service providers, like restaurants, schools, hospitals, government agencies, to uphold the fundamental principles of equality and freedom from discrimination.

The commission joins other concerned groups and individuals who promote the principle of equality in standing before you here today because we believe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms belongs to all people in Canada. The bill before you here today, Bill 24, proposes that the Social Services Appeal Board will have no jurisdiction, and I quote from the bill, to inquire into or make a decision concerning the constitutional or applicability of any federal law or to grant a remedy under the Charter.

Bill 24 proposes to restrict t he Social Services Appeal Board, a quasi -judicial administrative tribunal, from considering and applying Charter principles when making decisions about the provision of social assistance to Manitoba's most socially disadvantaged citizens.

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 163

Section 15 of t he Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality for all Canadians, regardless of their nationality, race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Canada is celebrated for entrenching this principle in law and for ensur ing that it forms the basis of our interactions as citizens of this nation. The commission believes that Bill 24 undermines these fundamental principles and counters the direction from our Manitoba Court of Appeal in its November 27 decision that we 're discussing here today, Stadler versus Manitoba, the Social Services Appeal Board.

In this decision, the Court of Appeal clearly reasoned that it was in the interests of access to justice that the Social Services Appeal Board consider the Charter in its decis ions and that if it was limited by the knowledge by its appointed members, it ought to seek out that knowledge through legal advice when necessary. In Stadler, the court reviewed the evolution of law in Canada with respect to administrative tribunals applying the Charter. And it issued its decision in that case consistent with the reasoning from our Supreme Court in other decisions that the Charter belongs to the people of Canada.

The court considered Chief Justice McLachlin 's comments in earlier decisions, such as the Cooper case, where she said, and I quote: The Charter belongs to the people. All law and lawmakers that touch the people must conform to it. Tribunals and commissions charged with deciding legal issues are no exception. Many more citizens have their rights determined by these tribunals than by the courts. If the Charter is to be meaningful to ordinary people, then it must find its expression in the decisions of these tribunals.

The Social Services Appeal Board hears from some of our –province's most marginalized citizens, our single parents, our seniors, our people with disabilities, those that experience homelessness or have inadequate housing, those that do not have secure employment. We have delegated decision-making authority on an incredibly pressing issue, on the issue of the provision of social benefits to the members of the Social Services Appeal Board. They are a specialized decision-maker who, along with other administrative tribunals, constitute an integral part of ou r justice system.

We know that there is greater reliance on administrative tribunals and decision-makers to decide questions of fact in law, on issues that affect Manitobans in all aspects of their lives. These bodies are expected to apply the laws of our land in a way that we as citizens can understand and in a system that we can navigate.

Bill 24 undermines the role of the Social Services Appeal Board, but, more importantly, it undermines the rights of Manitobans agreed to with the proclamation of our 1982 Constitution that entrenches that the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ought to apply equally to all provinces, as it would in others. As the agency charged with promoting dignity and the rights of every member of our human family, we urge you to reconsider the proclamation of this bill. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Sharma. Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you very much, Ms.

Sharma, for being here tonight on behalf of the Manitoba Human Rights Commis sion. I think you presented very well, made some valid arguments tonight, and I appreciate you bringing your thoughts and ideas forward on behalf of your organization. Ms. Sharma: Thank you, Minister Stefanson. Mrs. Smith: I want to thank you for coming tonight. You have a lot of knowledge in this area. I want to thank you for the work that you do. Do you feel that the people who are on the Social Services Appeal Board have the qualifications to be hearing Charter arguments? Ms.

Sharma: My colleagues in that area, I certainly feel that it is within the capacity of administrative tribunals such as a Social Services Appeal Board, to consider Charter arguments. I think sometimes we get wrapped up in this idea of the Charter and Charter arguments being compl ex or difficult, but I think that, in practical terms, allowing a person to be heard, particularly when it pertains to an issue of the Charter and whether their rights have been infringed in that way, is not a complex issue and that, with capacity development, it 's certainly a thing that we can build within our administrative tribunals.

Mrs. Smith: So we know that there are about 700 people that presented in front of the Social Services Appeal Board last year, so that was about eight people a day. This min ister is suggesting that this is red tape and that this is going to eliminate and speed up the process when, in fact, we know that it 's going to tie up in the justice system. People aren 't going to pursue it because they don 't have the funds, as you talked about in your presentation.

164 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2018 So do you think having eight people a day is, you know, too many cases to hear? Ms. Sharma: What I can say from an efficiency perspective is that administrative tribunals play an incredibly important

part in our justice syste m and they're intended to be specialized decision -makers. So we 've invested this ' inthority' in boards, commissions, tribunals, because we believe that they have specialized expertise and to make the justice system more accessible to the public, to Manitobans. So I do think that, you know, having administrative tribunals hear matters, including matters that pertain to the Charter, ensures accessibility of our justice system to Manitobans.

And we've heard concerns from other witnesses that have presented b efore this committee that having these matters proceed before the court system might cause undue delay and challenges for applicants, certainly. Mr. Fielding: Yes, I've got just a couple of questions on it. You know, the member from Point Douglas raised t he amount of people that are going to the Social Service Appeal Board, like, eight a day, so this is more of a statement, but I will ask you a question on the latter part. That is a lot of people.

If you do hear a constitutional challenge on these things, I think that the, you know, the concern would be that that will delay things even further, if you do have more people that are there. But the question that will become true, because you're hearing Charter challenges which probably will take a little bit longer for the committee to adjudicate over, I guess the question that I really have is: Who do you think, on Charter challenges not on specific cases that the Social Services Appeal Board has, do you think–who'd have better an ability to adjudicate over Charter challenges?

The courts or the Social Services Appeal Board? Ms. Sharma: So administrative tribunals form a core element, part of our justice system, and, if you look back to decisions like the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Cooper or Conway, they talk about administrative tribunals being empowered to hear these decisions, because the Charter, the constitution, should not be relegated to a single court but should live throughout our justice system.

We, you know, similarly, are trying to sort of support that and advance that here today, that the Charter ought not, and there is no provision in our constitution that says that a single court ought to hear Charter challenges, but rather that it should live in all aspects of our justice system , including a core component of our justice system, our administrative tribunals. Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. Smith, Point Douglas. Time has pretty much expired, but I 'll allow you a quick question and a quick answer. Mrs. Smith: Do you know any groups that were consulted about this bill? Ms. Sharma: I do not. Mr.

Chairperson: We'd like to thank you for your presentation, Ms. Sharma, and I will now call on our next presenter, Megan Linton, representing Charter Rights for All. Do you have any written mater ial for the committee? * (20:10) Ms.

Megan Linton (Charter Rights for All): No, but I would like to say the same exact thing that I said the last time I was at committee, which is that I did not know this was literally a standing committee, and the fact t hat the AMA has now come into place, and yet we still do not have accommodations for those of us who cannot stand for 10 minutes, I think, is completely (1) disrespectful for both me and other people here, and also just such an easy fix. So I 'm going to sit, and I would like my time to start once I started sitting. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Linton, you may proceed. Ms.

Linton: Hi, my name is Megan Linton. I am the founder and chairperson of Charter Rights f or All. I am the national disability justice commissio ner for the Canadian Federation of Students, a member of the Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities, the deputy chair of the Canadian Federation of Students Manitoba, and a young disabled woman. I am a fourth year student and a constituent of Minister Stefanson. I want to begin by recognizing this process. I think this process is incredibly important. However, when we met with the deputy –not the deputy minister.

When we met with several civil servants about this, they encouraged us that this is the level of consultation. This is not a place for consultation; this is the final stage of the bill. The people who are not here tonight are plenty.

October 24, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 165 The people who are directly affected by this bill who are not here are vast, and we have to recognize that the y are not here for the reasons that I started this with: the fact that there 's (1) a limit of accommodations,

(2) Handi -Transit requires at least a week notice. We weren 't given barely a week notice, and Handi -Transit isn 't available for many folks after 6 p.m.

Third is that, as written in your Legislative Library now, there's a wonderful paper on the use of accessible language in policy, and that was not used in this bill that directly impacts people who might not have the ability to use inaccessible language or legislative language, because I 'm a fourth year university student, and I 'm constantly asked about what this bill means from my peers, from my professors, from so many people, because it doesn' t make sense to so many people when they 're not directly involved in it. And so, when we look at the lack of consultation, I think it 's incredibly confusing.

As both a constituent of Minister Stefanson, I was denied a meeting, and as the chairperson of this coalition, we received a response from both M inister Fielding with, no, he does not have time, which now your portfolio has shifted, and we congratulated Minister Stefanson, and then we were greeted with the response that she would be unable to attend the event. There was no event; it was a meeting, and so we didn't propose a time. It was just a request for a meeting.

And so I think this recurring theme of the lack of consultation on every single one of these bills is wrong and is a direct attack on the most marginalized citizens. And so, going forwa rd, while I recognize this bill will probably go through, I reque

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-3-sed6
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 3rd hansardpdf sed6.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	44694822eb67ad42de602cf8dcb216a873553e03

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