Manitoba Committee Hansard — 13 April 2021 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 6, 42nd Legislature, 3rd Session)

42-3-sed6

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session – Forty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Mr. Jon Reyes Constituency of Waverley Vol. LXXV No. 6 - 6 p.m., Tuesday, April 13, 2021 ISSN 1708-6698

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

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

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

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

171 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Tuesday, April 13, 2021 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Jon Reyes (Waverley) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Turtle Mountain) ATTENDANCE – 6 QUORUM – 4 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Ewasko, Pedersen Messrs. Altomare, Moses, Piwniuk, Reyes APPEARING: Mr. Wab Kinew, MLA for Fort Rouge Ms. Cindy Lamoureux, MLA for Tyndall Park PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 33 – The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act Mr. Patrick Noël, private citizen Ms.

Jacqueline Pelland, private citizen Ms. Marianne Hladun, Public Service Alliance of Canada Ms. Sophia Adeleye, Brandon University Students' Union Ms. Tanjit Nagra, private citizen Ms. Brianne Goertzen, private citizen Mr. Adam Pawlak, private citizen Ms. Savannah Szocs, University of Manitoba Students' Union Mr. Brendan Scott, private citizen Ms. Kristin Smith, Manitoba Alliance of Post - Secondary Students Mr. Jonathan Henderson, University of Winnipeg Students' Association Mr. Michael Shaw, private citizen Ms. Orvie Dingwall, private citizen Mr. Peter Miller, private citizen Mr.

Julius Chester, private citizen Mr. Riley Shannon, private citizen Mr. Kiratveer Hayer, private citizen Mr. Joshua Basman Monterrubio, University of Winnipeg Students' Association Mr. Robert Chernomas, private citizen Ms. Jennifer Adair, private citizen Mr. Scott Forbes, Manitoba Organization of Faculty Associations Mr. Peter Ives, private citizen Mr. Scott Grills, private citizen Mr. Brenden Gali, Canadian Federation of Students, Manitoba Mr. Jonathan Northam, private citizen Ms. Alannah McKay, Canadian Federation of Students Mr.

Matt McLean, Canadian Union of Public Employees WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 33 – The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act R.J. Leland, University of Manitoba Joanne Parsons, private citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 33 – The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act Bill 34 – The University College of the North Amendment Act * * * Clerk Assistant (Mr. Tim Abbott): Good afternoon. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order. Our first item of business is the election of a Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon.

Blaine Pedersen (Minister of Agriculture and Resource Development): I'll nominate Jon Reyes. Clerk Assistant: Mr. Reyes has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing none, Mr. Reyes, please take the Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Sta nding Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order.

172 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Pedersen: 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 committee has been called to order to consider the following bills: Bill 33, The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act; Bill 34, The University College of the North Amendment Act.

I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjourn- ment. The standing committee meeting to consider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public presen - tations or to consider clause by clause of a bill except by unanimous consent of the committee. Written submissions from the following people have been received and distributed to committee members: R.J. Leland, University of Manitoba, on Bill 33; Joanne Parsons, private citizen, on Bill 33. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting?

Agreed? [Agreed] Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process of speaking in a committee. In accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they'll be removed from the presenters' list.

The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off. Also, if any presenter has any written materials for distribution to the committee, please send the file by email to the moderator, who will distribute it all to committee members. We have a presenter this evening who wishes to speak in French, Mr. Patrick Noël, who is No. 21 on the list before us.

O ur usual practice is to allow presenters speaking in French to go first. Is it the will of the committee to allow Patrick Noël to present first? Agreed? [Agreed] Thank you for your patience. Bill 33–The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed with public presentations. I will now call on Patrick Noël and ask the mode- rator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Floor Comment: Est-ce que vous m'entendez? Translation Can you hear me? Mr. Chairperson: Oui, M. Noël. Tu peux continuer avec votre présentation.

Et pour moi –[interjection]– M. Noël– Translation Yes, you can proceed with your presentation. And on my behalf–Mr. Noël Mr. Patrick Noël (Private Citizen): Merci, M. Reyes– Mr. Chairperson: Monsieur Noël– Mr. Noël: –et merci au comité de me donner cette opportunité– Translation And thank you to the Committee for giving me this opportunity– Mr. Chairperson: M. Noël– Translation Mr. Noël– Mr. Noël: –de prendre parole sur le Projet de loi 33. Je remercie aussi cet honneur de donner la parole aux francophones en premier. Mon intervention d'aujourd'hui a pour but de dénoncer le Projet de loi 33.

Ma présentation va s'articuler autour de la lettre A, deux arguments autour de la lettre A qui concernent l'accessibilité et l'autonomie. Faut pas non plus–ne croyez surtout pas

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 173 que je donne la lettre A au Projet de loi 33. Le Projet de loi 33 mérite la lettre F sans aucun doute; je suis professeur, donc j'aime bien donner des lettres à ce qui est présenté devant moi. Je reviens à mon propos: ce projet de loi doit être abandonné pour deux raisons. D'abord, pour la raison de l'accessibilité. Je me réjouis que le gouvernement conservateur, dans son plan stratégique, fait de l'accessibilité une priorité. Ça, j'ai pu le constater dans divers documents produits par le ministère de l'éducation supérieure.

Cependant, avec ce Projet de loi 33, on est en train d'éliminer les barrières qui permettent de limiter l'augmentation des frais de scolarité, des droits de scolarité. D'ailleurs, cette année, les droits de scolarité ont augmenté à deux reprises; chose assez anormale. Alors en quoi augmenter les frais de scolarité est compatible avec l'accessibilité?

Ça, c'est une première question que j'aimerais poser au comité; donc en quoi augmenter les frais de scolarité ou, à tout le moins, éliminer les mesures pour limiter l'augmentation des frais de scolarité va favoriser une quelconque accessibilité aux études supérieures? Les études scientifiques ont montré, depuis des années, que chaque augmentation de frais de scolarité –de droits de scolarité –diminue l'accessibilité aux études supérieures. Alors ça, c'est mon premier argument. * (18:10) Mon deuxième argument, qui débute toujours par la lettr e A, concerne l'autonomie.

La première condition d'existence de l'université, c'est son autonomie. Elle doit être autonome dans son fonctionnement. Pour avoir cette autonomie, elle a besoin d'être bien financée. Elle doit avoir un bon financement qui provient de l'État. J'ai pas à vous dire qu'est-ce qui se passe en Ontario du Nord présentement–une université qui est en train de se démolir parce qu'elle a été sous-financée pendant des années. Avec le gouvernement Pallister, on observe une pente au niveau d u financement public des universités. D'année en année, on coupe le financement des universités.

En faisant ça, on est en train de miner l'autonomie des universités. Je reviens au Projet de loi 33. Le Projet de loi 33 discute la possibilité d'instaurer des droits de scolarité variables en fonction des programmes. Ça, ça représente une interférence du politique dans la chose universitaire. Ce n'est pas au gouvernement de décider quel programme est plus important qu'un autre. La

loi sur les universités recon naît que c'est uniquement le sénat de chacune des universités qui peut déterminer la programmation des universités. Donc, concevoir qu'on peut demander aux étudiants de payer plus pour un programme moins utile ou moins rentable pour le marché du travail –par exemple les sciences humaines, la philosophie – qu'un programme plus utile ou rentable –comme l'administration ou l'ingénierie–c'est porter atteinte à l'autonomie de l'université. Comprenez-moi bien: on a besoin de comptables; on a besoin d'ingénieurs; on a besoin d'infirmières.

Mais on a aussi besoin de gens qui étudient les disciplines fondamentales que sont les mathéma - tiques, l'histoire, la philosophie, les sciences humaines. Si on instaure un régime de frais de scolarité variable, on est en train de limiter le choix des étudiants de demain. Est -ce qu'on veut vraiment limiter le choix des étudiants? Je reviens encore à cette idée d'autonomie. Ce n'est pas à l'État–ce n'est pas au gouvernement–de se mêler de la programmation des universités.

Si vous augmentez les frais pour un programme, ça va avoir un effet direct sur la –le nombre de personnes qui vont vouloir étudier dans ce programme -là. Il faut maintenir des frais de scolarité égals pour tous les programmes, et le Projet de loi 33 ouvre la porte à un mécanisme de frais de scolarité différentiel, ce qu'il faut absolument rejeter.

Donc, pour les raisons d'accessibilité; pour des raisons d'autonomie; il faut absolument que ce projet de loi soit éliminé car il mine l'enseignement postsecondaire, il mine les universités et croyez-moi, on n'est pas à l'abri de ce qui est arrivé à l'Université Laurentienne. Je vous remercie pour le temps accordé. Translation –to talk about Bill 33. I also wish express my thanks to the Committee for letting Francophones speak first. The goal of my comments today is to denounce Bill 33. The theme of my presentation here will be the letter A, with my two arguments starting with an A: Accessibility and Autonomy.

Please do not think that I am giving an A to Bill 33. Bill 33 undoubtedly deserves an F. As a teacher, I like to assign letter grades to what is presented to me. Coming back to my argument: this bill should be abandoned for two reasons. First, for accessibility

174 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 reasons. I am pleased that the Conservative govern- ment is making accessibility a priority in its strategic plan. I read this in various documents published by the department of post -secondary education. However, Bill 33 is eliminating checks that limit tuition fees hikes. In fact, tuitions this year have increased twice, which is rather unusual. So, how is increasing tuition fees compatible with accessibility? That is the first question I would like to ask this committee.

How does increasing tuition fees, or eliminating measures designed to limit the increase of tuition fees, foster accessibility to post- secondary education? Studies have shown for years that each tuition fee hike decreases accessibility to post- secondary education. This is my first argument. My second argument also starts with the letter A and deals with autonomy. The founding principle of a university is institutional autonomy. A university must be operationally autonomous, and to be autonomous, it must be well- funded. It must benefit from stable state-provided funding.

I do not have to tell you what is happening in Northern Ontario right now –a university is being destroyed because of years of underfunding. With the Pallister government, we are seeing a downward spiral in regards to public funding of universities. Year after year, funding is be ing cut, and this is undermining universities' institutional autonomy. I would like to come back to Bill 33. This bill proposes the possibility of setting variable tuition fees based on programs. This is clearly political interference in the academic worl d. It is not up to the government to decide which programs may be more valuable.

University legislation recognizes that it is solely up to the senate of each university to establish its own courses of instruction. Thus, an outside authority being able to demand that a university's students pay more for a program that is less useful or profitable for labour market (like humanities programs, philosophy) than for a program considered more useful of more profitable (like business administration or engineering) undermines the authority of this university. Please understand what I am saying: we need accountants, we need engineers, we need nurses.

But we also need people who study such fundamental subjects as mathematics, history, philosophy and humanities. If a variable tuition fee system is put in place, it will limit choices for tomorrow's students. Is that what we really want? Circling back to the autonomy –the state, that is the government, has no business meddling with academic programming. Increasing a program's fees will have a direct impact on the number of people who will want to undertake that program.

It is imperative that equal tuition fees be maintained for all programs, but Bill 33 opens the door to a differentiated tuition fee scheme, which we must reject. Therefore, due to the accessibility issues and in- stitutional autonomy issues it creates, this bill should be eliminated, because it severely undermines post-secondary education. And trust me, we are not immune to what happened at the Laurenti an University. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Merci, M. Noël. Translation Thank you, Mr. Noël English Are there any questions? Est-ce qu'il y a des questions? Translation Are there any questions?

English The honourable minister–le ministre honorable. Monsieur Noël, vous pouvez nous entendre? Merci. Translation The honourable minister. Mr. Noël, can you hear us? Thank you. Mr. Noël: Très bien. Translation Very well. Hon. Wayne Ewasko (Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Immigration): Merci [thank you], Mr. Noël, for your presentation. I'd like to first start off by –just, for you, acknowledging–I know that you're signed up as a private citizen, but in fact,

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 175 I do know that you're a professor at Université de Saint-Boniface and is–that's correct? Mr. Noël: Yes. Oui? Vous m'entendez, oui? Translation Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Oui. Je dois vous adresser avant que tu parles. Translation I have to address you before you speak. English Okay? Mr. Noël: Oh. Okay. Mr. Chairperson: Monsieur Noël, pour une réponse. Translation Mr. Noël, for the response. Mr.

Noël: Oui, alors j'a pprécie la réponse de l'honorable ministre, sauf que lorsque vous coupez dans le financement provincial des universités, vous ne laissez pas d'autre choix –ou presque –aux administrations d'augmenter les frais de scolarité. Donc le problème, peut -être, il ne réside pas là. Il réside dans votre effort –pas dans votre effort –dans votre volonté qu'on observe depuis les dernières années de systématiquement diminuer la subvention provinciale aux universités. Ça, ça n'aide pas les universités. Regardez ce qui est arrivé à la Laurentienne.

Sa raison du sous-financement chronique des universités; les administrateurs n'ont pas le choix d'augmenter les frais de scolarité puisqu'il y a un manque à gagner. Translation Yes, I can appreciate the minister's response, exc ept that you are cutting provincial funding for universities. You are not giving universities any other choice–practically speaking–but to raise tuition fees. This is not the issue, in effect. The issue is with your action–not your action, but with your drive of the last few years to systematically reduce provincial funding for universities. This does not help universities.

Look at what happened to Laurentian University. The reason is the chronic underfunding of universities. Administrators have no choice but to increase tuition fees in order to make up the funding shortfall. Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): Merci beaucoup. Et puis M . Noël, merci à toi pour votre discours. J'apprécie beaucoup ce que vous avez dit au sujet de l'accessibilité et puis aussi sur l'autonomie. Et puis en venant de l'Université de Saint - Boniface, moi je voudrais vous demander au sujet des effets de ce projet de

loi sur les langues minoritaires. Est-ce que c'est peut -être même plus –est-ce que ça crée même plus de défis emmêlés avec l'autonomie d'une institution comme l'Université de Saint - Boniface? Est-ce que c'est peut-être même–est-ce que ça met au défi la communauté franco-manitobaine, la Francophonie ici au Manitoba, quand on nuit à l'accessibilité d'une institution comme la vôtre? Translation Thank you very much, Mr. Noël. Thank you for your presentation. I really appreciate what you said about accessibility and institutional autonomy.

I myself am a product of the Université de Saint-Boniface, and I would like to ask you about the impact this bill will have on minority languages. Might it create even more challenges intertwined with the institutional autonomy of an institution such as the Université de Saint -Boniface? Does it create even more obstacles for the Franco- Manitoban community, which is Manitoba's Francophonie, when the accessibility to an institution like yours is undermined? Mr. Noël: Merci pour la question. Les universités en situation minoritaire ont un rôle très important, différent des universités en milie u majoritaire.

Sans l'Université, la communauté franco -manitobaine aura de la difficulté à survivre. Donc, si on compromet le fonctionnement de l'Université, c'est toute la communauté qui en sera perdante. Et le Projet de loi 33 va nous affecter, je dirais , de façon plus importante que les grandes universités.

D'abord, parce que nos programmes, nous, sont centrés sur les arts et les humanités qui, aux yeux du gouvernement, ont pas une grande valeur marchande –c'est-à-dire on n'est pas lié directement au marché du travail, bien que dans les faits, les diplômés dans les programmes en arts et en humanités finissent toujours par avoir de bons emplois, mais ça se fait sur un plus long processus. Alors si on adopte le tarif par programme, on est–le tarif différentiel par programme –on risque d'être perdant.

Et surtout, si on se dirige vers un modèle à la Tennessee, je pense que le bill –le Projet de loi 33–s'inscrit dans cette logique-là.

176 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 Si on demande aux universités d'être financées par leur outcome, par leur perf ormance, l'Université de Saint -Boniface, selon moi, est menacée dans sa survie même. Translation Thank you for the question. Indeed, minority - language universities have a very important role, which is different from majority -language univer - sities. Without the Université, the Franco-Manitoban community will have difficulties surviving. Compro - mising the operations of the Université will result in loss for the whole community.

I would say Bill 33 is going to impact us even more significantly than it will impact big universities. First because our programs are centered around arts and humanities, which are not deemed very valuable market -wise in the eyes of the government–meaning they are not linked directly to the labour market. In reality however, our arts and humanities graduates always find work on the labour market, although it is a longer process. If the variable tuition fees scheme is adopted, meaning there will be different fees for different programs, we will lose out.

Particularly if we are angling f or a Tennessee -style model. I believe that Bill 33 is attempting that. If universities' funding is based on outcome require - ments–on performance –the very survival of the Université de Saint -Boniface is at stake, in my opinion. Mr. Chairperson: Monsieur Noël, merci beaucoup pour votre présentation. Les cinq minutes sont passées et je voudrais juste dire merci aux traducteurs et le personnel technique, qui peuvent faire cette traduction possible. Maintenant– Translation Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Noël.

Your five minutes are up, and I would like to thank the interpreters as well as the technical staff who made it possible for us to hear the

interpretation. Now– English –we will now move on to the next presenter. I will now call on Jacqueline Pelland, private citizen, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Ms. Pelland, please proceed with your presen- tation. * (18:20) Ms. Jacqueline Pelland (Private Citizen): Hello, bonjour, tansi. Jacqueline Pelland. [Indigenous language spoken. Translation unavailable.] Hello everyone, my name is Jacqueline Pelland, I'm from the Bear Clan, and I was born and raised in Winnipeg, Treaty 1 territory.

I have tried to repeatedly to think of what I wished to say regarding this bill. And, ultimately, maybe I should start with the fact that as soon as I heard about it, I felt an overwhelming sense of concern and fear regarding what potential there is in terms of the funding that is directed to universities and how that will directly impact post - secondary students like myself. What I'm about to say next is my story. I'm not here to represent any other students, but my biggest concern lies with the fact that I look around and I see all of the ways in which the cu rrent government has failed this entire province.

I have very little faith in any bill that's proposed in which there is additional oversight granted to the government because there has been such an abhorrent precedent set in terms of other policies on t op of the post-secondary defunding that Mr. Patrick succinctly outlined for all of you. Ultimately, I am someone who was taught that a good government is one that takes into account the needs of everyone. They listen to the people, they work with humility and kindness and love.

And when I hear about laws that, frankly, undercut the efforts of young people such as myself to improve our lives, to bring a better future into existence, it's very difficult to want to, firstly, continue to pursue my education, and secondly, to want to remain in this province and work under a government that clearly has indicated repeatedly that it does not work for me. I think that's all that I have to say. Merci. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Ewasko: Thank you, Ms.

Pelland, for your presentation, and thank you for attending tonight and voicing your concerns. I can't tell you how to feel, so, again, I appreciate you for sharing how you feel. Our government –the

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 177 reason why we're bringing in Bill 33 is to make sure our education here in this great province of ours remains affordable. And with that, you know, multiple meetings with students and–basically, they had asked for meetings and we had chatted in regards to Bill 33.

They had wanted to see within Bill 33 some more clarity and later on –well, probably not later on tonight, on another committee evening, we'll be bringing forward an amendment to make sure that their hopes and dreams, in regards to the union fees not being affected, will be stated more clearly in the bill. But in addition to that, I do want to say that our government has actually increased the level of accessibility here in Manitoba by creating $30 million in scholarships and bursaries to the previous govern- ment was 5 or 6 million dollars.

And in regards to Manitoba student loans, we're north of $63 million to students. So we're actually making sure that the accessibility to our post -secondary students in the province is even easier for those members that want to carry on with their education after high school. So, again, thank you, Ms. Pelland, for your pre - sentation, and I want to assure you that by having Bill 33 pass and then, you know, go forward, it will just give more assurance to make sure that post - secondary institutions in the province have to shoulder check when they are looking at increasing their tuitions or–and/or fees.

So, thank you again. Ms. Pelland: Thank you for your response. I just have such a hard time acknowledging this alleged increase in funding, especially given the fact that it seems like there has been continuous callbacks to other social policies that actually directly impact students, such as rent and everything that comes from that: so mak ing sure that we have a roof over our heads while we're studying, making sure that we have reliable employment so that we can continue to pay for our education, which is only becoming more and more expensive every single year.

And also, within a pandemic, of all things, I think that was one of the–I understand that that's under the university's purview, but it's deeply concerning to me that there was just sort of this understanding that, well, you know, this is reality. This is what we can expect is just climbing rates of tuition no matter what happens. There is no kind of acknowledgment that there is a life beyond school and that there is a whole host of holistic issues that further exacerbate accessibility to university.

And I think and I know, not jus t feel, that there remains a huge concern and an informational gap when it comes to what this bill means, what it will look like, not just for the Conservative government, but for every government –Liberal, NDP, Green – because, as we all know, I don't think it's really been a point of contention that every single government has had a role to play in just not respecting Indigenous people like myself and our attempts at participating in society. And this is one of the ways that we are finally legally allowed to do after centuries of– Mr. Chairperson: Ms.

Pelland, your time for questioning actually is almost ending, but I'm going to give the opposition a chance. So, Mr. Moses–[interjection] Go ahead. Ms. Pelland, go ahead. Ms. Pelland: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Very briefly, please. Ms. Pelland: Yes. What I am just trying to convey is that this is not just about educational fees. This is about every single element of a student's life that needs to be accounted for. This is not just one policy. It is part of a constellation of laws that affect us. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Pelland. Go ahead, Mr. Moses, just for the purpose of time. Thank you. Mr.

Jamie Moses (St. Vital): Thank you, Ms. Pelland, so much for your being here and the question that you've asked. And thank you for clearly articulating your thoughts and feelings on this bill and some of the impacts it has on the broader scope of your experience as a student. I wonder and I hope maybe you can tell us just briefly about what it would mean for your program to have an increase in tuition–as this bill would allow the minister to freely increase tuition–what would it mean for you if your program that you're taking in school had a tuition increase? * (18:30) Ms.

Pelland: It would be, I think f or many students, it would be quite devastating because of the fact that, like I said before, we do not have the luxury of stable employment in order to pay for tuition. We have issues with accessing affordable housing. We have children that we need to take care of and who require a daycare that is affordable and accessible. We have language–minority language rights that need

178 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 attention. We have international students paying exorbitant amounts of educational fees, far and above what domestic students pay here. And– Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Pelland, thank you for your presentation. We will now move on to the next presenter. The next presenter will be Marianne Hladun of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I'd ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Ms. Hladun, am I saying it correctly? Ms. Marianne Hladun (Public Service Alliance of Canada): No, but it's okay. Very few people do.

Mr. Chairperson: How do you say it, respectfully? Ms. Hladun: Hladun. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Ms. Hladun, please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Hladun: So, my name is Marianne Hladun. I'm the regional executive vice -president for the Public Service Alliance of Canada Prairies. We represent about 180,000 members acros s Canada in every province and territory and nearly 8,000 members in Manitoba.

We take our responsibility to represent our members very seriously and strongly oppose Bill 33, as we believe it gives the government powers to override democratically established student fees and provides no ceiling for yearly tuition fee increases. For what purpose would the minister give himself these powers? A student union or an association is a democratically structured and governed organization. All fees that apply to the organization have been decided through referendum with their membership.

As many are aware, a referendum is a democratic tool that gives all members the opportunity to have a direct say on whatever will affect them. This is the gold standard of democratic governance. Therefore, why the minister thinks that he has any right to interfere with or even override this democratic process is perplexing.

The power allocated to the minister in Bill 33 would be akin to the federal government being able to overrule our democratic provincial elections in Manitoba, or the Manitoba government interfering with democratically established and governed labour unions. lf the minister has no right to interfere in the gold standard of democratic governance, it begs the question, why is this legislation being put forward that would enable him to do just that? What does he plan to do with this power? What would be achieved by giving the minister this power?

The answer is quite obvious when Bill 33 is examined with those questions in mind. The experience of students' unions under the Ford PC government in Ontario gives us a look at what can be accomplished through Bill 33: an authoritarian and unconstitutional move to defund student unions through the establishment of voluntary student unionism. This is what the Ford PC government attempted to do with the Student Choice Initiative, a policy put forward in 2019, a policy deemed unlawful by the courts in Ontario this past year.

So, I ask, why would the Pallister PC govern- ment put forward legislation in lockstep with what was already deemed unlawful by the Ford PC government? Unfortunately, Manitoba labour unions can answer this question all too easily based on the uncon- stitutional piece of legislation that the government tried to force upon Manitoba public sector unions – bill 28, the so- called Public Services Sustainability Act. This piece of legislation was also deemed unconstitutional just this past summer.

I hate to think how much public money was wasted fighting against the constitutionally protected right to collective bargaining. Manitoba Labour unions know all too well the contempt of this government for democratically organized and governed labour unions, organizations that enable workers to use their collective strength to fight for better wages, benefits and safer working conditions. Unfortunately, this contempt clearly exists for student unions as well.

Why else would the minister give himself the power to override the amount or determine whether or not democratically est ablished student fees are compulsory or not? These fees include things like student services, health plans, food banks, community spaces, student clubs, daycares, student unions and student service organizations. According to the Canadian Federation of Stu dents that represents over 45,000 members – students across the province, they've been told in

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 179 meetings verbally by both the minister currently responsible for post -secondary education, Minister Ewasko, and his predecessor, Minister Eichler, that the intent for Bill 33 is not to target student union fees and that these student fees will not be touched. I ask again, why would the minister give himself the power to tamper with student fees if he does not intend to do so? Any reasonable person knows the answer to that question. Just ask students in Ontario who were promised the same thing by the Ford PC government.

So another aspect of Bill 33 that concerns PSAC Prairies as representatives of student workers is the unlimited tuition fee increases that can be forced upon universities by the minister. Currently, the PC government limits university and colleges' ability to increase tuition fees by 5 per cent plus inflation, so about 6.6 per cent per year. This is a dangerous and unsustainable yearly tuition fee in- crease where the affordability of Manitoba post - secondary institutions is concerned, but at least the decision to increase or decrease tuition remains with the administrations.

Just as an aside, as a union representing student workers, we make careful no tes of yearly tuition fee increases and we bring that to the bargaining table. The idea that tuition fees can increase three to four times the rate of inflation every year without compa - rable wage increases shows a gross misunderstanding of the reality for students and workers, and I want to thank the previous speaker for having the courage to tell her personal story. Tuition fee increases are squeezing student workers' abilities to finish their degree and is threatening things like their food security and housing security.

And I should also note, again, as the previous speaker mentioned, that this is a major hardship for international students whose fees are dispro- portionately higher than in -province students, espe - cially since international students are, No. 1, primarily racialized workers who are limited to working on- campus. They do not have options available like other students. So what is concerning where tuition fees are concerned with Bill 33 is that this allows the minister to unilaterally set guidelines to increase or decrease tuition fees at his discretion.

Based on the tuition fee increases inflicted on Manitoba students by this government, the idea that this government would use Bill 33 to decrease tuition fees is, frankly, laughable. In fact, the minister has told us outright what he plans to do. He stated in the second reading of the bill that the PC government plans to bring tuition fees in line with other western provinces. So, for the record, average tuition fees in Manitoba are $4,740 a year; in Alberta, $5,744; in BC, $5,898; and in Saskatchewan, a whopping $7,770 a year. If Bill 33 is passed, tuition fees are only going up.

This, coupled with the operational and funding cuts that Manitoba post -secondary institutions have seen over t he last five provincial budgets, including the most recent provincial budget, it is clear that Bill 33 will further weaken the capacity of our already underfunded post -secondary institutions to deliver high-quality education that Manitobans and all students deserve.

In a letter from Minister Fielding to post- secondary institutions, dated March 8th, 2021: Despite having lost a constitutional challenge on legislating government bargaining mandates to post - secondary institutions, this government, once again, is mandating two years of zeroes. That paired with Bill 33's mandate to legislate the minister's interference is a gross overreach to underfund public service–post-secondary institutions on the backs of our members and all students across this province.

As a union that currently represents over 700 student workers in this province and, pre-COVID, represented twice that amount, I have a duty to challenge this bill and stand up for what's in the best interest of our membership. * (18:40) Bill 33 provides no benefit for student workers, or Manitoba's post -secondary institutions for that matter, and PSAC Prairies echoes the call from the Canadian Federation of Students and labour unions across this province to scrap Bill 33 altogether. And I will provide a copy of my written presentation to the Clerk later. Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Ewasko: Thank you, Ms. Hladun, for coming and giving your presentation to us tonight. I did want to say to you, in regards to the legisla- tion in the Ontario –in the province of Ontario, that

180 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 is a piece of legislation that is allowing students to opt out of previously mandated student fees, which Bill 33 is actually not doing. Bill 33's going to make sure that our students here in Manitoba, and also a lot of students, are going to choose Manitoba as their post-secondary institution destination and then, hope- fully, choose to grow roots and live here. We're going to maintain that our education–post- secondary education here in Manitoba is, at the very most, third lowest in Canada, lowest in –west of Quebec.

And in regards to your international students comment, actually, here in Manitoba our international students benefit from the –actually, the cheapest –the lowest tuition fees in all of Canada. So I'm glad that you're providing us with your presentation because I will look it over again. Hopefully your email is in there as well, so that I can get you some factual information on Bill 33. Thanks again. Ms. Hladun: Thank you for your comments. You know, to me, it's all about the words, and I heard previously that there's going to be some amendments coming.

I'll tell you this: as an elected union leader who's often at a bargaining table, it's one thing for the employer to tell us and for us to come to an agreement on something, but when we see it in writing and your 'spidey' senses start tingling, that means that there's something else. So I don't know what amendments ar e being considered and, quite frankly, until we see it in writing and have the time to evaluate it, it's still very concerning.

You know, overall, what we saw earlier this year when the provincial government tried to get post-secondary to cut their budgets by 10, 20 and 30 per cent–that was a clear signal to me as someone who represents –[interjection] Yes, every institution was told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to come forward with plans to cut 10, 20 and 30 per cent. And that was a clear indication that, you know, it was said that it was because we have to save money for health care for COVID. This was early last year. We fight this at the bargaining table every time.

These are the lowest paid workers that are there trying to do their studies, trying to pay their rent. And all they want to do is get a decent wage. And tuition is going up and the government is mandating zero. How are they supposed to be able to put anything more than noodles on their table, if they can even do that? And heaven forbid they have a family to support. So, you know, I really do believe that I'm open to more discussion, but there's got to be a closer look at the welfare of the students. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Hladun. Mr. Moses: Ms.

Hladun, thank you so much for your presentation and breaking down some of the important issues that arise from Bill 33, specifically on student unions, specifically around tuition fees and the poten- tial increase of tuition fees and the worry about them being in line with our higher western Canadian provinces. Now, I want to ask you specifically about, you know, some of your members who are students, or even some of the members of PSAC who might become members who are students now, or pros - pective members of PSAC. What would higher tuition fees mean on them?

Maybe the fact that it's making university a little bit less accessible. What would that mean for PSAC members and maybe even future members of PSAC? Ms. Hladun: Yes, so, it's interesting question because today in discussion with some of our staff reps who've been in communication, you know, one of our members has said that she's basically doubling up on her classes to be able to get in and get out because she cannot afford another year of tuition, especially with the significant increase.

And, you know, the other piece that we're seeing as representatives of student workers on campus is the abuse of student workers. Their hours are being cut. You know, some of them are being told, you can have three hours a week, but yet they're expected to work 10 with no pay. So we already fight against that. We– Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hladun. Your time for questioning has gone to five minutes. And now we'll call on the next presenter, the next presenter being Sophia Adeleye of Brandon University Students' Union, if the moderator can invite them into the meeting.

Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Ms. Adeleye, please proceed with your presen - tation. Ms. Sophia Adeleye (Brandon University Students' Union): Thank you. Can you hear me? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, we can hear you. Please proceed.

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 181 Ms. Adeleye: Okay. Good evening, my name is Olufunke Sophia Adeleye, I'm the president of Brandon University Students' Union, and today I'll be presenting my union's concerns regarding Bill 33. And the concerns I wish to address are in threefold: (1) the risk to the existence and self - governance of our union, as well as the protections we ensure for our members.

The second threat is threat to university funding that w ould impact not just the quality of academic opportunities and education available to students but also the very relationship we have built with our institution. The third one will be the autonomy of academic learning and student organizations and the politicization of post-secondary education in Manitoba. I would like to use my time tonight to explain these concerns in greater detail, the first being self - governance of our student unions.

The proposals of the amendment of the advanced education and–sorry– The Advanced Education Administration Act that are included in Bill 33 have been justified as a means to, in quote: enable the minister to issue guidelines concerning tuition fees and student fees charged by universities. The guidelines or regulations may limit a fee increase or require a fee to be decreased and may also prohibit compulsory student fees. That's from the explanatory notes. While not problematic at first, we consider the term student fees to lack adequate definition.

Such a broad use of student fees risks exposing our own student union fees to unprotected regulations, meaning it can be increased, decreased or completely removed by government ministers at their own discretion. This threatens the very existence of student unions, as these fees are regulated based on individual and union needs and the constituent student community. If regulations of these fees become subject to government intervention, these powers could poten- tially be used to defund student unions at the whim of political entity.

Without secure funding, we would be incapable of providing students with significant services. If this were to happen to the Brandon University Students' Union, our student members would lose access to services such as advocacy or health and dental coverage or the food bank, but also the campus community groups that are sustained through the funding by the university. Even if impacts to student unions are not an intention of this government, there must be protections set in place to protect our existence in the future.

If Bill 33 were to receive assent in its current state, there's nothing in place to prevent abuses by future administrations. The considerable powers afforded to the minister by this bill leaves our existence to the whim of an individua l that may not always respect our rights of student communities to govern, organize and represent their own interests. This is not a hyperbole. One may only look at Ontario to see the risks a similar body of legislation can pose to the health of student unions.

There's a real example where student unions were institutionally devastated by the actions of an unfriendly admin - istration and are required to fight just to secure their right to exist; all the while students are left with diminished representation and vital services and, secondly, a threat to university funding. Yet this is not the only fundamental problem we have with this bill. There may be consequences to the follow to–for the following–to allow the following to proceed, sorry.

In quote: if t he minister is satisfied that a uni - versity has charged a student an amount that exceeds the amount provided for in the guidelines, the minister must direct the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to deduct an amount equivalent to the excess from any grant 'quisitioned' for the university. That's from

section 2.2, I think; 3 as well. * (18:50) It is unfortunate–it is an unfortunate truth that the current administration has demonstrated a yearly pattern of reducing funding to universities across Manitoba. I n 2017, we had minus 1.8 per cent; in 2018, we had minus 4.8 per cent; in 2019, it was minus 7.3 per cent; in 2020, minus 10.7 per cent; and in 2021, minus 13.1 per cent. This

section of the bill essentially means that should an institution wish to raise fees to address underfunding or cuts to funding, Bill 33 will allow the minister to direct the Minister of Finance to deduct the difference of the fees from their operating grant. This deduction in grants will be detrimental, not just to the student unions, but to the universities themselves. These funds usually goes towards research or operations from which students also benefit. At Brandon University, one of our major accomplishments is in research, where the university's

182 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 increasingly been recognized nationally for its value and importance. In fact, in 2017, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada awarded discovery and discovery development grants totaling $360,000 of support to three projects led by Brandon University faculty members. Any threat to funding would negatively affect the quality and sustainability of future research, leading to the diminishment of Manitoba's presence and standing in national academia. If our universities cannot succeed, then student s also cannot succeed.

This is but one example of how this bill wreaks long- term damage to students and universities alike. The potential to deprive the university of vital funding could lead to a reluctance to support student endeavours, where in France, it's seen as a scarce resource to be protected and students are viewed as competition. This will do nothing but negatively impact the relationship between student unions and university administrations.

We at BUSU –the Brandon University Students' Union–enjoy a good working relationship with the administration at Brandon University and have concerns about anything that could change that. The last I will be speaking on is the autonomy of academic learning. This bill also threatens your autonomy of higher institutions. While universities are partially funded by the government, they are not to be beholden to the government. They are auto - nomous institutions and their founding legislation defines this autonomy.

The previous points can also help illustrate how a government minister should not be empowered with the ability to directly impact an institution's operations. Yet, the following passage raises further concerns. This is from

section 2.2(7)(c), in quotes: A guideline or regulation may exempt a tuition fee or student fee or a class of them and may impose terms and conditions on such an exemption. This 'techmang' could be interpreted as dis - criminatory in nature. This is because it could potentially highlight or tag different universities, students, unions, or even courses, categorize them into classes, and determine who is exempt from the minister's guidelines, while highlighting those who would be governed by those guidelines.

The criteria for choosing classes is not known at this time, but from the original legislature, the bill would allow the minister to set fees on a per program basis. For example, the government could declare that they wanted fewer students in the arts and the humanities and more in agriculture. The minister could then triple the fees for arts and halve the fees for agriculture to influence and redirect students into programs that have the support of the current government. This is a very drastic example, yet one that would be entirely within the powers granted by the bill in its current draft.

This represents a real risk for political interference in university programming. Legislation mandates that academic programming at a university is governed slowly by the university senate, not the minister of advanced education. Yet, the effects of Bill 33 is the politicization of academic programming at universities. It would allow a minister to influence and impact programs and/or institutions as are set to go to the governing agenda.

This intrusion of govern- ment into the internal affai rs of universities under- mines the very concept of a university, as the courts have ruled, and the essential principle of academic freedom. Moving forward, we call on the government to address our concerns and draft a legislation in a way that protects students and academic freedoms. To this end, we specifically recommend the following changes: (1) withdraw

section 2.2(1) of the bill –the minister may issue guidelines in respect to a tuition fee or a student fee set by a university board, and (2) to amend the definition of student fee as provided to us by legal counsel. In quotes: student fee means a fee set by a board and is payable by a student to a university or college but does not include any fee set by a student union 'preshent' or to any student union legislation, including University of Manitoba Students' Union Act.

We would also appreciate and request that the minister's office relay any and all 'obdects' through the draft legislation to the Brandon University Students' Union via pres@bucu.ca. We wish to be aware of proposed amendments that your office has drafted and how Bill 33 will read. We are aware of and we appreciate the public support given by the minister to implementing amendments to the legislation that will protect our student unions. I know he mentioned it earlier that the amend- ment will come, but 'til today we still haven't seen those. And because we haven't, it's also a growing cause for concern.

Having the proposed amendment in advance of the committee hearing would have been helpful. But, again, we will wait for any updates.

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 183 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak at this committee hearing. My name, again, is Olufunke Sophia Adeleye, president of Brandon University Students' Union. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Ewasko: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Ms. Adeleye. I appreciate you coming forward today and bringing forward your presentation.

And much like–it has been reported and you've repeated it, which is great, is the fact that multiple different mediums here in the province of Manitoba–I have said, and, you know, after having a few meetings with various student groups as well, that we're going to make sure that there brings–there's more clarity in the bill. And so, sometime this evening or in another evening of committee, because we have quite a few passionate presenters coming forward today, we are going to actually make sure that the amendment reads something like this, a nd it's going to be brought forward in the upcoming couple days.

But, basically, we are doing exactly what you just said: fees set by student unions and associations are not included in this bill, as they are approved by students in a democratic process. I stand by my word. I, as well as many of my colleagues, are all about listening, partnering and collaborating, and that means working with post-secondary institution partners, that means students, student groups, faculties, absolutely all the above, Mr s. Adeleye. So I appreciate you coming for committee today. One last tidbit. You mentioned the Ontario legislation, and Bill 33 is nothing like the Ontario legislation.

So, once again, I'll put that on the record. And I think–thank you for taking the time tonight. And I look forward to meeting you. Ms. Adeleye: Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it. Again, I would wait for the amendment. As you said, it will be coming and it would show some of these concerns. So I will wait for that. Hopefully, we have enough time to get legal counsel on to see actually what it could potentially be as well. But I appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Moses: Thanks so much for your presentation.

I think it was very thoughtful and broke down some of the important concerns around this bill, specifically for Brandon students and the student unions, the effects that it would have on the student services. And I really appreciate you talking about the autonomy and how, you know, you're not beholden to the government because of funding. I'm really hoping that you could talk a little bit about what the funding for different programs would mean and having differential tuitions for different programs would mean to students in Brandon.

I know that many young people in the 'wesbran mes'– Westman area attend Brandon University, and so I want to know what impacts having a different – differential class of tuition and different programs might mean for students who attend Brandon University. Ms. Adeleye: I appreciate that question. Yes, h aving differential classes of how much tuition you're going to pay –personally, it's already affecting me. I'm an international student. When I came in 2018–beginning 2019, I think, I went from paying $8,000 in tuition to right now I'm paying to– $18,000. So that's a wide difference in just two years.

So, right now, I'm already feeling like, okay, I feel like I'm just being–this tuition is just going to increase. Next year, it's going to be $21,000. And I'm studying nursing. It just–it's just going to keep on increasing, so it's–right now, I'm already feeling the pain from it, because I know the first year I had to find ways to basically cover up the expenses because I didn't plan– my parents didn't plan to have, okay, now you're paying $18,000 in tuition. Where's the rest supposed to come from? Like, it really affected my GPA. It really affected my school, affected my mental health.

So these different classes of, oh, yes, you get a tuition decrease or you get an increase, it's already affecting me now. I can deal with it now, but I know a lot of students who can't. And I know how difficult it was when it initially started. So this, it will not work well for Brandon University at all. * (19:00) Mr. Nello Altomare (Transcona): Well, thank you, Ms. Adeleye. I just want to get right to the point here. How much listening, partnering and collaboration took place between Brandon student union and this government in coming up with this bill?

184 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 Ms. Adeleye: Zero. None. Zero. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, and thank you for your presentation. The questioning for your time limit has gone over–or has surpassed. I will now call on Tanjit Nagra, private citizen, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Ms. Na gra, please proceed with your presen- tation. Ms.

Tanjit Nagra (Private Citizen): Well, though we're meeting virtually, I would like to start off by acknowledging that we're located on Treaty 1 land, the original lands of the Anishinabe, Cree, Oji -Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples and, of course, the homeland of the Métis nation. And, Mr. Chair, committee members, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today.

I know the public hearings is not necessarily a part of the process in every province and territory, and I appreciate that it is in Manitoba, and I hope it's something that's upheld and appreciate everyone coming together and co- ordinating these committees to be online and virtual. And I would argue it's probably more accessible. I know countless of times I've sat in a committee room waiting for my turn to speak, so I like the fact that I'm in the privacy of my own home and can do other things as waiting for my turn as well as listening to the other presenters in front of you today.

So, a bit about me: I'm an alumni –or, alumnus from the University of Manitoba. I have a bachelor of arts degree. As well, I'm a recent graduate from the master of business administration program through the Asper School of Business. And I'm also a former University of Manitoba Students' Union president; I served from 2016 to '18. My original intention today was to speak on the importance of excluding student union and association fees and making that clear separation in the bill because, when I first read it, my first thought went towards the fees that are set by the student organizations.

And I appreciate the sentiments that have been shared publicly and also the intention more recently to actually formalize it within an amendment. I think that's r eally important. I also –myself and former colleagues wrote to the minister; appreciate the timely response and the importance of that. I think clarifying the two will be really, really important. So I figured I'd use my time today to kind of speak about some of the other concerns I had with the bill in front of us today.

And first concern is over the removing of the sentiment that ensures that we still have the lowest tuition in western Canada and–or, the most affordable tuition in western Canada. I know when this bill was originally introduced in 2017, at the time, MLA Wishart was in–overseeing this portfolio, and I know several times I heard the intention, though they were removing the cap that was set by the former government at the time, the intention was to still ensure that that sentiment of making it–make sure it's still the most affordable and lowest fee in western Canada was upheld.

I'm just wondering what the removal there–if that's still the intention to uphold that or if there's other plans. And also, my next concern is over the –just the overall autonomy of what this bill might entail and the importance of ensuring that though public –though they're publicly funded, institutions such as post - secondary institutions have that autonomy to make decisions and do best for students, for faculty, for the wider community. I think that's really important, and I think that–I just worry about the ability to long-term plan with these stipulations.

And also, I worry about just the history of what we've seen in terms of government interference with public institutions like the University of Manitoba, for example, and others. You know, thinking back to 2016, there was involve- ment in the –illegal involvement, actually, in the labour negotiations with the faculty. There was the cut in 2018 to international student health care, which has created many other barriers to education.

And also, overall, there's been many cuts to incentives and rebates that students, domestic students included, has– had offered to them if they were to stay in Manitoba post graduation. So I worry about that as well, as a young person and for my –for fellow, you know, soon- to-be graduates as well and what that might look like in our workforce and whether or not people will choose to stay in Manitoba. So some of those concerns, you know, come to mind. Ultimately, I would hope that the intention behind these changes is to ensure that tuition and education is affordable and equitable.

If that is the intention, great; but if not, I do have some c oncerns about the bill and what it entails, and I'm open to hearing that. I do think the amendments coming forward are going to be important, and I am in full support, and I appreciate, you know, that the intention was not there from the get-go, but I think that further

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 185 clarifying it will be important as, of course, many laws and things like that are up to

interpretation of those in power, and I think it's important to make that clear line to ensure that, you know, folks don't get it confused with what happened in Ontario with student organi - zation fees and things like that. So I'm in full support of an amendment, and, overall, I would, yes, I would–I once again just urge the committee members, I would urge the government to ensure that tuition remains affo rdable and access - ible to students, to young people. And, personally, I believe that investing in education is one of the best investments we can make into our future.

And, you know, further to that, investing in young people, I think, is along the same lines. I'll leave it at that. I'm open to further questions, comments and things like that. Thank you so much for the opportunity. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Ewas ko: Thanks, Ms. Nagra, for sharing your presentation and time with us tonight.

Yes, absolutely, the intent of the bill is to continue with the strong programming, affordability and accessibility and making sure that our tuition here in Manitoba is the lowest in western Canada, so, definitely, west of Quebec, making sure that those fees are low.

I think you know this because you've been involved at the university for quite some time, and since I've been elected in 2011, I've prided myself with meeting with various student groups, whether I was in opposition or in government now, and making sure that their voices are being heard, and that you're going to see with the amendments coming forward. It was definitely loud and clear that some of the– even though the intent, even as you mentioned, is not– wasn't there to affect union fees whatsoever, the students said it could be clearer in the bill.

And so that's why, you know, in many, many medians in the province, I have said–and in regard to letters, as well, sent to the student groups, that we're going to be bringing forward an amendment that clearly spells out the fact that this bill is –it's not my intention nor the bill's capability to be able to mess around with any student fees set by unions or associations because–you know this, coming from your background–that those fees and various different things set by student unions and associations and are voted on and either accepted or denied through a democratic process.

So, again, I want to thank you for coming and presenting tonight, and I wish you all the best in your future endeavours. Ms. Nagra: Thank you for the comments. Yes, I would just say that, well, it–further in line with that, you know, when I was at the students' union, we also amended the Uni versity of Manitoba Students' Union act which, actually, I would argue, made it more democratic for student –or, fees set by the student organizations, you know, to actually be in line with what students want. So there's that.

And also, yes, I think the i mportance of the amendment–I mean, when I first read the bill, I will say, my concern was over the fact that, though it does stipulate its in relation to fees that are approved by the board of governors currently, at least at the University of Manitoba, the student union fees are consented by the board of governors. So my concern was over the

interpretation and whether or not that would stand with governments to come. * (19:10) So I think the importance of having that clear line between the two will be really important. Thank you. Mr. Moses: Thank you very much for your presen- tation and your words. And thank you for all your work with the student union. You mentioned you are a recent grad, so congratulations on that. I think you said, very appropriately, the importance of investing in education and the impact that it has on young people. So, thank you for that.

I want to ask a little bit about your perspective on the tuition side, having been someone who's graduated from university. You know, with the goal of keeping tuition low, what would have meant –what would higher tuition have meant for your career through university? What would that have meant if tuition was higher or –and how did you appreciate having the lower tuition here in Manitoba? Ms. Nagra: Thank you for the question. I definitely think it added to my decision to stay in Manitoba for education. I mean, mind you, that was thinking more of the undergraduate level.

The MBA program at the U of M is probably on par with other MBA programs across Canada. It is probably one of the most expen- sive graduate programs. But, that being said, the

186 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 affordability of especially the undergraduate level was so vital. I think if you look at the workforce now, looking at what the requirements are of jobs, more and more require some sort of post -secondary degree or accreditation of some sort. And I think it's important to, you know, keep that affordable. I mean, you can look at other countries that have free education. I think that's something to aspire to do. That'd be fantastic. I also think there's other things that come along with free education, and I think it becomes more competitive.

And there's that –and so there's a caveat to it, as well. But, that being said, I think that it's really important to ensur e that it is equitable and it is accessible for vulnerable com - munities and underrepresented communities. And education is a powerful tool, so let's ensure that we, you know, maintain the affordability of education. And that being said, I'm speaking as a privileged domestic student. My international student colleagues would probably disagree with what I'm saying because their tuition is triple what I pay and they're also paying tax members, right?

So I think looking at, not only do we want to make sure students stay in Manitoba after graduation, but we want to make Manitoba a destination for new immigrants, for young people to come to study, to prosper within our community, to add to our economy. So, I would leave it at that. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The time for questioning is over for this speaker. I will now call on Ms. Brianne Goertzen, private citizen, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Ms. Goertzen, please proceed with your presenta- tion. Ms.

Brianne Goertzen (Private Citizen): Good evening. I would like to acknowledge I am on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional territory of the Anishinabe, Cree, Oji -Cree, Dakota and Dene people and the homeland of the Métis nation. Thank you to the members of the standing committee for having me and providing this opportunity to speak on this bill. As you said, my name is Brianne Goertzen and I am presenting as a private citizen tonight. I hold both an honours BA and a master's degree. I would like to take my time today to highlight some concerns regarding the proposed legislation.

I had the privilege to work as the former Manitoba organizer for the Canadian Federation of Students for many years, up to 2018. Throughout my time with the federation, I had the opportunity to work with some incredible people throughout the post -secondary educational community. I also had a front -row seat to the impact that student unions and the work of the federation had on current students in the next generation.

The impact of programs and services offered through student unions directly impact the well -being of students and have actually saved lives, whether we are talking about mental health supports or providing child- care services or ensuring students have access to food.

It is with this I concur with the recommendations put forth by the Canadian Federation of Students, Manitoba to amend the definition of student fee to read: student fee means a fee set by a board that is payable by a student to a university or college but does not include any fee set by a student union, pursuant to any student union legislation, including the University of Manitoba Students' Union act. However, with that said, this bill really just needs to go.

What I find interesting about the introduction of this bill is it is clearly part of a plan that started when the Progressive Conservatives first took office in 2016. I worked for the federation during the changeover of government from an NDP government to the current Progressive Conservative one. From the moment they tabled their first budget 'til I left the federation, the attacks on post -secondary education were relentless.

Their regressive and detrimental decisions made over my time with the federation adversely impacted students and pros - pective students from lower socioeconomic back - grounds from pursuing post-secondary education.

Here are just a few examples of what post - secondary endured during my time: successive operational budget cuts to post-secondary institutions; elimination of the tuition fee income tax rebate and rebate advance; stagnant Manitoba bursary funding; elimination of health care for international students; opening the door wider for private funding through the MSBI; and the introduction and passage of Bill 31, which allowed tuition to increase to 5 per cent plus inflation year over year and deregulated course- related fees. And now, here we are today dealing with a piece of legislation that strips students of their

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 187 democratic decision s, centralizes power and shreds universities' autonomy. It wasn't so long ago in Manitoba that it was the Progressive Conservatives who feared the centrali - zation of power here on Broadway, but this proposed bill ensures all roads lead to Broadway, right up to the minister's desk. This is wrong and disregards the importance of autonomy in post-secondary education. Universities are a public good.

They prepare people for employment, but this is not the sole purpose of universities; they foster knowledge, curiosity, critical thinking and community. When all roads lead to the minister's office, it clearly disregards what universities are intended to do and ensures little resistance in their quest to lessen their funding obligations and shape universities i nto an assembly line factory that will crank out workers according to employability determined by private industry while, at the same time, making it harder and harder for students to access education through skyrocketing tuition.

When you grow up with nothing, when you experience the pains of poverty, when you have no safety net, when you have no one, education is a lifeline. And trust me, from experience, it is a whole lot harder to pursue post-secondary from this vantage point. I'm not ashamed to say I grew up poor. My mother struggled, working multiple jobs to ensure we had food on the table and a roof over our heads. There were no trust funds, education savings plan or inheritances to rely on. I grew up faster than most and knew the value of a dollar just as fast.

It was the value of education that was instilled upon me as a way out, a way to do better to support myself and potentially my family one day. In fact, I was able to pursue my graduate studies here in Manitoba because of the affordable tuition, and it was the amazing professors and staff from the department of sociology at the University of Manitoba who gave me a chance to thrive in a new province and really gave my husband and I confidence to build our life and start our family together here.

I am here before you, gainfully employed, married, a homeowner, taxpayer and a duly elected school board trustee and–my most important role – mother. All of these titles, including being a mom, is because I was able to pursue post -secondary education. It is the foundation in which I have built my life. And I fear that these changes will only intensify until post-secondary institutions are publicly assisted, as we see in Ontario, or fully privatized. Education is a public good and it must remain as such. Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Do members of the committee have questions for this presenter? Mr. Ewasko: Thanks, Ms. Goertzen, for coming tonight and giving us your presentation. It's nice to see you again. * (19:20) You talked about affordability and various tuitions. And I know that you know this, because you and I have met in the past, that Manitoba is the lowest tuition rate –has the lowest tuition west of Quebec. And I have said on many, man y occasions, as my predecessors, that we are going to remain the lowest tuition rates west of Quebec.

And in regards to accessibility, which I'm glad you actually brought that up, because it was actually the voice of students that had us make the change in regards to making sure that our post -secondary institutions remain–not remain – actually become more accessible to those people that want to carry on with their post -secondary education here in this great province of ours. And it's great to hear, and congra tulations on your family circum - stances in that, as well. But–so what have we done? We've increased the scholarships and bursaries to $30 million from the previous NDP's state of about $6 million.

And you would know this, that Manitoba student loans, you know, we're north of $60 million. And so as far as accessibility goes, you know, besides the fact that we've got an absolutely beautiful province to live, work and play, you know, including tonight as the snow is falling like crazy–we've got the added benefit of having it to be very, very affordable.

And for those that, as you said, have a–had a–you know, grew up poor, you know, maybe didn't have some trust funds, various different things –parents didn't–maybe didn't put aside some money for savings for po st-secondary education, that's where we're– we've come up with the, you know, scholarships and bursaries, you know, record amounts of scholarships and bursaries. And then, of course, this–the Manitoba student loans which, as you know, is interest free. So with that, I again thank you very much for your presentation tonight and I wish you all the best in the–

188 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 maybe the upcoming federal election as the NDP candidate for the south. Ms. Goertzen: Respectfully, I would point the minister to the actual research that bears out that debt aversion is one of the No. 1 reasons why students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds do not pursue post-secondary education. Additionally, the funding that this government has said they promised to post - secondary education has actually not beared fruit.

So, quite frankly, I would also appreciate if the minister would treat me as the private citizen I am, as I've appeared before you at this committee. Thank you. Mr. Altomare: Thank you, Ms. Goertzen. The question I have for you is: What advice would you give the minister to make this bill more favourable for students of post -secondary here in Manitoba? Ms. Goertzen: Get rid of the bill; actually ensure that there's a cap on tuition. Year in and year over increases in tuitio n make it less accessible.

We've heard from a number of speakers, both personal experiences and otherwise, that demonstrate why this piece of legislation will lead to further inaccessibility of education. We look–need to look no further than the other neighbouring provinces that they seem to be touting as things –as points of reference.

Quite frankly, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are the ones we should be capturing right now to stay here and work here in Manitoba and really ensure that they have a foothold here, not to propose legislation that centralizes power and makes it easier for this govern- ment to take control and reduce their responsibility to fund post-secondary education. Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Thank you, Ms. Goertzen, for your presentation. I just wanted to put on the record that, judging from his last comments, I think that the minister has you confused with Elizabeth Shearer.

So I just wanted to clarify the record there, and, again, all in the purposes of making sure that we've properly appreciate the importance of your presentation. I also wanted to give you the opportunity to maybe–to correct the record, because some of what the minister is saying, I think does a disservice, because initiatives that they've taken –there's no guarantee that those will actually go to help needy students and, actually, when you look at moves that the PCs have done, like cutting the ACCESS Programs, it's moving in precisely the opposite direction.

So, given the fact that you are engaged with this, I wonde red if maybe you could talk about how, in spite of the rhetoric, a lot of the assistance for those in greatest need are being damaged by the current government. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Goertzen, for the purpose of time, very briefly, with all due respect. Thank you. Ms. Goertzen: Yes, for sure. So, actually, we saw a freeze to the Manitoba Bursary Program, which targets actually low - to middle-income students who don't have the funds to be able to cover their tuition.

Additionally, the elimination of the A CCESS program, the fact that they've jacked tuition and also eliminated the tuition fee rebate, which actually ensured that students didn't out-migrate from Manitoba and ensured they stayed within the province. Additionally, I would also say that this govern - ment has pretty much presented a smoke-and-mirrors, in regards to the supports of providing students and, in fact, aren't providing supports to students. And the biggest percentage of loan recipients in Manitoba are actually women.

So, I would also say t his is a gendered attack on women, and this continues to be the trend with this particular government. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The time for questioning is over. I will now call on Mr. Kevin Rebeck of the Manitoba Federation of L abour, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Mr. Rebeck is not present, so we will drop him to the bottom of the list. I will now call on Mr. Adam Pawlak, private citizen, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on.

Floor Comment: Hello. I'm not sure if everyone can hear me or not. I cannot hear you, Mr. Reyes. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Pawlak, please proceed with your presentation.

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 189 Mr. Adam Pawlak (Private Citizen): Good evening to members of this committee. So, my name is Adam Pawlak. I'm a graduate from the University of Manitoba. I'm the former vice-president, internal –which is now called the vice-president, finance and operations –of the students–University of Manitoba Students' Union, and I'm currently the chairperson of the University of Manitoba Students' Union board of trustees, which is the governing body for the union's endowment fund. So I'm here today to– Mr. Chairperson: Okay, Mr.

Pawlak, please proceed with your presentation–or, you can start over again. We can't hear you, Mr. Pawlak. It appears you are on mute. It's show– Mr. Pawlak: Sorry about that. Sorry. Did you guys hear anything or should I restart? Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave for him to restart? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been granted. Please proceed with your presentation from from the start. Thank you. Mr. Pawlak: Okay, thank you very much, members of the committee. So, my name is Adam Pawlak. I'm a graduate from the University of Manitoba.

I'm the former vice-president the students' union at the University of Manitoba. I was vice- present, internal –now called vice-president, finance and operations –and I'm also currently the chairperson of the University of Manitoba Students' Union Board of Trustees – endowment fund. And I'm here this evening to speak in favour of the legislation, Bill 33.

I want to add some context to discussion on this piece of legislation; related topics like tuition, et cetera, that I felt is necessary, given the public interest in this, to offer my perspective based on my first-hand experience being at the front line of students for my year that I was there. During my time as executive in the stude nts' union at the University of Manitoba, a focus of mine and our executive team was the affordability of tuition and other fees students incur.

And I must say, as my experience as the vice-president of the union–or, one of the vice -presidents, affordabili ty was one of the No. 1 themes that I dealt with in the organization. You know, I dealt with the revenues and expenditures of the organization and worked a lot the university on setting those fees. And I heard countless, countless number of times from st udents–their major concerns over the number of fees they're paying, and there's tons of scrutiny, tons of misunderstanding.

My emails were flooded every day over the outrage of number of fees, largely due to unawareness of why these fees are even there. The year I was there, for example, was the year the U-Pass was introduced, and you can imagine the outpour of the thousands of students which had no idea of this fee because they didn't vote on it. I think the dote turnout was, oh, 30, 40 per cent. So they were completely shocked by having this major fee in there and I had to deal with it there, right and try to find the balance.

And, you know, I'm not saying these fees aren't worthy causes, but more so that students deeply care about their affordability and they look at the fees they pay for–many again, which are not –unaware of it. * (19:30) At the high level, I see this legislation as a means of protecting students from the various additional student fees charged by universities and colleges, which is, to be clear, and rightly so, different from the student union fees or student fees charged by the union that every undergraduate member – undergraduate student is a member of.

So, rather, this–I see this legislation as protecting students from the variety of ancillary fees that the University of Manitoba can find loopholes in. You know, even when the tuition was capped, at the University of Manitoba, and I'm sure other institutions, found ways around the cap–lab fees, program fees, library fees, technology fees, studio fees, clinical fees –all approved by the board of governors, that existed as loopholes even though tuition was capped.

So I'm excited to see the minister's office have listened to students, have addressed these concerns to close the loopholes and make sure there's no incentive to universities to try to operate outside existing rules. Students were concerned about specific language, which, you know, the wording around student fees, and I feel that initial criticism [inaudible]. So the amendm ent that was –I was able to understand that Bill 33 would never have impacted UMSU fees, whether it could be health and dental or their other organizational fees, because student fees –

190 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 the bill defines student fees as ones defined–set by the university board of governors. And I know when we amended the UMSU act, that the board of governors approves the fees but doesn't set the fees. The students set the fees, right. So the board of governors approves the fees set by the union, and this bill never talked abo ut the fees set by the union, more so the fees set by the board of governors.

However, I knew this because of my previous position and, you know, a lot of different people, they may not know that, but I feel like a lot of several groups jump to conclusions and began spreading things that are more negative about this piece of legislation. But clarity is always a good thing, so I think the amendment is great; credit to UMSU and MAPS and all the organizations for their advocacy and congratulate them for that. I'm impressed by their work and kudos to them. And it's refreshing to see a minister put in writing that these fees are exempt–the student union fees, I should say.

Furthermore, I honestly think that this is an opportunity for the ministry and the government to collaborate with the union closer. You know, my experience is that the more direct the parties can be in knowing what's actually happening at the ground then the better it is for everyone. That's for all students, right, so I really recommend that the minister and his office work closer and closer with student unions and really know what the challenges are that students are facing on a daily basis.

Yes, so just to wrap up, again, students care about affordability, and if this legislation can he lp halt the university's workarounds and loopholes, and I think most students would agree to this common sense approach. And one last thing. You know, again, I appreciate the time from this committee. I know there's great work being done, and, yes, so tha t's all I really got. I didn't really write anything. I have a few notes here, but, again, I do think that there's a lot of students that, you know, care about affordability, care about certain issues.

And if this legislation can help affordability, then why not support it. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Ewasko: Thank you, Mr. Pawlak, for taking some time out of your evening and coming forward and doing a bit of a presentation and giving some other perspective to the bill.

As you know, and as I've said multiple times, we– myself, my ministry and my colleagues –are working very hard to make sure that we have the open door policy and we're collaborating and li stening with various different stakeholders in regards to post - secondary education here in the province, because the main goal is to make sure that we have strong programs here in the province backed with affordability and accessibility to our students. You know, I've said on multiple occasions we want to, you know, train and retain our Manitoba students.

But at the same time what we want to do is make sure that the rest of Canada and the rest of the world knows how great, great, great of a province this is.

And, unfortunately, as you've mentioned and I've– as I've seen multiple times, whether it's the opposition critic or other members or other associations within the province, are putting misinformation out there and absolutely fear mongering not only students but future students, which is sad, because, coming from the background that I've had working in the education field for many, many years, it is sad to see that, because education is the key, and we want to make sure that, again, the education in this province remains affordable. So I'd like to thank you, Mr.

Pawlak, but I would like to correct the record, that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Kinew) is actually incorrect when he puts on the record–I've actually met with Ms. Shearer. She's part of the Canadian federation for students, and so I absolutely know who she is. And the–Ms. Goertzen, who did a presentation just prior, she actually ran for the NDP. But why would I expect the Leader of the NDP party to actually know that of anybody in the province. So, with that, thank you, Mr. Pawlak. Sorry to take a bit of a sidestep there, but I needed to set the record straight. So thanks again for your time. Mr.

Pawlak: Yes. No. Thank you, minister. I really appreciate your comments, and [inaudible] been talked about [inaudible] that assuring it will remain the lowest. We are still the lowest west of Quebec, and I appreciate your promise to remain the lowest. It's also important to note that the educational outcomes weren't the greatest. So the re's many reasons, you know, and it's–as–I came here tonight to

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 191 add context and speak on behalf of, I think, a lot of people that just want affordability and want things done correctly and just care about, you know, getting by. So, thank you. Mr. Moses : Thank you, Mr. Pawlak, for your presentation and your words and your perspective on the bill. And thank you for what you've worked during your time at UMSU, as you described.

You know, knowing the past few years under this government, you know, and the drastic increases that they've seen in tuition, specifically at U of M, you know, nearing, you know, 18, 19 per cent increase over the last four years, and seeing in Bill 33 around the ability the minister has to increase tuition as he sees fit, regardless of what U of M sees, I'm concerned about tuition and the increased affordability for folks. He's mentioned that's something that is important. I'm wondering whether you think that that's something you're concerned with or what your thoughts are on that aspect of Bill 33. Mr.

Pawlak: Yes. I mean, again, like, obviously, I mean, no one wants to see tuition increased. I think that's a fair point for every single person. But again, we've got to be a little bit realistic of the situation at hand. We were capped for a long time, and–but then, that being said, the University of Manitoba weren't funded properly, so they had to find other means of revenue and workarounds and government at the time overpromising and couldn't deliver.

So, you know, there's many reas ons why those universities were in that financial situation, and, you know, this government wants to take a different approach and allow more –some flexibility, even staying within the lowest threshold of tuition in this country. But, yes. I mean, it is concerning it's going up, but I also like the fact that, you know, scholarship and bursaries for students are going up according to the minister, increases in student loans, you know. So there is counterbalancing things, initiatives happening with tuition increases and –but, yes.

I know –I hope– I'm not sure if I answered your question, but I just added some perspective to your questions, I guess. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The time for questioning is over. I will now call on our next s peaker, Savannah Szocs, of the University of Manitoba Students' Union. If the moderator can just invite them into the meeting, and please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Savannah Szocs (University of Mani toba Students' Union): So, hello, everyone. Thank you for having me today.

My name is Savannah Szocs and I am the current and re -elect vice -president, student life, with the University of Manitoba Students' Union. While I feel I have vulnerable experien ce and knowledge to offer from my experience within this position, I would also like to voice my opinion on Bill 33 as a concerned student. So, firstly, some background on my role within the students' union that pertains directly to the topics being discussed within Bill 33.

As the vice-president, student life, I am quite immersed in the services and resources provided to students by the union, and even external to the union within the university.

A large part of my portfolio is to oversee the over 206 student clubs and 30-plus student associations at the University of Manitoba, so I am very grateful for the amendment that is being made to Bill 33 to exempt student clubs and associations from the impact this bill will have. * (19:40) However, to touch on the issues still being considered, I speak from experience when I say that I truly believe the fees students are currently paying are all very valuable and necessary in order to provide all students with accessible and critical aspects of their education.

If this were not the case, you would be seeing advocates from UMSU arguing against these fees, but instead you're witnessing us arguing for them. As representatives elected by the student body and entrusted by students to uplift their voices and advocate for affordable services in education on their behalf, we are emphasizing the importance of these fees for students. To disagree with Mr.

Pawlak, who spoke before me, I think if students were presented with a clear-cut image of what this bill would be truly impacting, they would completely oppose the implementation of this bill and students and alumni of the U of M, who have already spoken before me and will speak after me, have already voiced their opinion and their opposition to this as it absolutely is not a common -sense approach.

192 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 As a student, I also understand the importance of these fees to my educational experience and the quality of education I am able to receive. Firstly, by paying library fees, I am able to access textbooks and resources through libraries that wouldn't otherwise – that I wouldn't otherwise be able to use.

Something that I know many science students use is the sample exam booklets that the library has, as well as tutoring materials and textbooks; they are extremely valuable, not to mention that some students are unable to afford textbooks to begin with, but by paying these lesser fees to the libraries, they're able to access and borrow textbooks as study materials from the library at a much more affordable cost. We are actively working towards the increase of open educational resources, and libraries will become increasingly valuable and play a key role in this new resource for students.

I'm also a science student at the University of Manitoba, so the lab fees I pay as part of my account

summary are extremely important to the quality of education I receive, and I believe this to be true for all science students and any students from outside the faculty of science who might be taking science courses. These lab fees are remarkably low considering the high- end equipment and resources that are made available to us in a lab setting.

I have seen what a science course without–with less of a lab component looks like this year through the online environment, and I strongly believe the tactile learning environment accompanied by the extremely expensive equipment we normally have access to, plays an immense role in the quality of learning that we receive. The argument can be made that re- evaluating these fees could save students money, but wil l not save them enough money in order to replace the resources these fees provide to them.

Two primary examples of this would be textbooks available through libraries and other written materials as well as the technology fees that allow students to access computers and other vital technologies that they might not have access to at home or otherwise be able to afford. I am always on board for saving students money, especially being a student myself. However, reducing fees in an effort to save students money but at the cost of valuable resources and education will not amount to an overall positive impact on student education and will likely be detrimental.

We should exist to increase and expand student resources and services, not limit them. I acknowledge my position of privilege in the University of Manitoba environment, and I am fortunate and grateful to have resources I need to succeed academically at my fingertips. However, I have been humbled through my work as vice - president, Student Life, to be made aware of just how many students on our campuses are in far different situations and are far less fortunate.

I administer the UMSU Hardship Fund, a small but significant budget allocated by UMSU to support the needs of post - secondary students who might be str uggling with regard to basic living necessities such as rent, groceries, child care, textbooks and other costs. I have been overwhelmed with requests for access to the UMSU Hardship Fund this year and have been heartbroken by the stories I've heard from s tudents who are struggling to pay their costs of living let alone provide themselves with all the tools they need to receive a proper education.

If we decrease essential fees, such as technology and library fees, we are not putting money back into their pockets, as what is being presented to students through this bill. We are instead forcing them to pay more money than what these fees originally demanded to replace the resources that paying these fees ultimately provided. We should be aiming to decrease the struggles for less fortunate students with regard to accessing their education, not increasing their hardship.

And what I find to be most disturbing with regard to this bill, is that it's being presented as though it will be helping students and saving them money, when, in reality, it will be doing the exact opposite. I want to say I appreciate the open dialogue that is being created through the discussion surrounding this bill, but I believe that these crucial decisions with regard to student fees wi ll inevitably alter the quality of student education and should be made by informed committees of individuals at the University of Manitoba.

Administration and consultation with faculty and students know what is best with regard to these fees, not the minister. At the university level of decision making that has been followed for many years, this practice involves an extremely informed approach that involves students in the decision - making process as it is absolutely necessary and it absolutely should and since students are the ones who will be directly affected by these decisions. The minister ultimately does not have stakes in this decision making; therefore, will not be influenced

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 193 into making decisions that take into account the needs of students. As a student leader and repre - sentative who was elected twice to represent over 24,000 students at Manitoba but, more importantly, as a student myself, I stand in strong opposition of Bill 33 and strongly urge the provincial government to reconsider the implementation of this bill. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Ewasko: Thanks, Ms.

Szocs, for attending tonight and your presentation and also thank you for what you do on campus. I know that your role in regards to the portfolio as far as student life, it's not an easy one at times, and I couldn't imagine that this past year, dealing through the pandemic, has made it any easier for you. It has been a tough go. You know, much like you've said in regards to accessibility in that, you know, over the last few years since we've formed government, we have actually increased that ability for people–for students to access post -secondary education here in the province.

And you know this, I mean, because you've mentioned a little bit in regards to the fact that we are the lowest tuition west of Quebec. But we have taken our scholarships and bursaries and increased it all the way to $30 million, and the student loans–Manitoba student loans is, you know, over $60 million. You mentioned lab fees and you mentioned various different fees that are brought down from the post-secondary institutions themselves. I mean, under the former NDP government we saw the deterioration of those exact labs that you're talking about and the libraries.

And so what we're doing now is we're making sure–even though it's not all that sexy, I mean, it's not the whole ribbon cuttings that the NDP would go and do over, you know, a stop sign they would take the opportunity to take a picture over. But for us, Ms. Szocs, what we feel is that some of that deferred maintenance costs to the post - secondary institutions has to be covered by the provincial government, and that's what we're doing.

We're putting actually more money into that deferred maintenance, which is going to make sure that those labs and those library–the library that you speak of is there for not only you today, but for the students into the future. So, again, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your presentation, and I look forward to having more conversations as we move forward with you over the–throughout the next year. Ms. Szocs: Well, thank you for your remarks, but I would like to point out that the reason that the costs are so low is because of years and years of tuition freeze.

And since this government took office, operating grants have not kept up with inflation, including this most recent budget with an almost $9-million cut to post -secondary education, and it's resulted in an 18 per cent increase to tuition for students at the U of M. And this has made higher education far less accessible which, in turn, has put a greater burden on students who are struggling. So I would just urge you to definitely consider that as well. But thank you so much. Mr. Moses: Thank you so much, Ms. Szocs, for your presentation. I am so happy about the work that you're doing.

Thanks for sharing that and thank you for participating in this process tonight and being active in our democracy here in Manitoba. I'm very, you know, very happy to hear about the different aspects of this bill that you were looking into, namely library fees and lab fees, and those are the types of student fees that won't be affected if this minister does bring in any sort of amendment because they don't fit under the student union type of student fee. So I want to know from you, your perspective, why should the minister have control over library fees and lab fees? Ms. Szocs: I actually–I disagree.

I don't think that the minister should have control over lab fees and library fees. I was actually arguing in the opposite direction. I think that those types of fees should be decided and determined by bodies within the University of Manitoba because they consult students directly on these issues and the students are ultimately the ones who are being directly affected by this and the ones who are paying those fees. So I think that that's incredibly important. * (19:50) Mr. Ewasko: Ms. Szocs, thank you for your com - ments.

And again, I just want to assure you that it's actually the post -secondary institutions that will be

194 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 talking about those tuition–the various tuitions and the fees attached to them and basically the position of the bill is so that–to keep tuition affordable for students and making sure that our programs are second to none in the country, that it is just a little bit of a shoulder check with the post-secondary institutions because I'm sure that you've read, Ms.

Szocs, the fact that the Auditor General is making, you know–because we're all taxpayers in this great province of ours, the Auditor General is saying that, our post-secondary institutions in this province, there needs to be a little bit more oversight. So, it's actually collaborating and working with those post-secondary institutions, and that's to you as well. So, working with students. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The time for questioning's actually over. I will now call on Mr. Brendan Scott and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting.

Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Mr. Scott, please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Brendan Scott (Private Citizen): Awesome. Good evening. While I am here today speaking–while I'm registered as a private citizen, I do have to acknowledge that I am the vice -president of finance operations, UMSU, as well as the president-elect. And I'll be brief about this because I know there'll be my fellow co-workers speaking later, but I'd like to say I appreciate the a mendment that is being proposed.

It's essential to have our student unions and associations operate to the fullest potential, and this can only occur if they are able to operate autonomously, and I hope to see that amendment adopted. While I personally oppose Bill 33, I have to acknowledge that it most likely will pass, and I'm just here to state that I hope consultation and extensive research is done before any decisions on student fees are made. While putting money back into students' pockets, on the sur face, seems like a great thing, there can be many unforeseen consequences.

Cutting services that are essential to students' education, like lab fees, like library fees, leads to the quality of those services being diminished and to diminish of the potential of that student's education. I think that those service fees should remain in the hands of the universities, as they are best able to gauge the amount of funding each service needs. Again, this bill will most likely pass, and I have to acknowledge that w ill affect students such as myself and all the students I will be representing in three weeks' time.

I just hope that I don't have to explain to a U of M student that their student accessibility centre or Active Living Centre is being understaffed because the minister thought it made sense to cut their fees. Once again, I am just here asking that extensive research and consultation is done before any decisions are made with the power that this bill gives, and that's really all I have to say, you know. I'm open to any remarks but, again, I just want to be brief and let my voice be heard. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr.

Ewasko: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Sc ott, for taking the time tonight. And I look forward to working with you in the upcoming months. As you've mentioned, you're letting your name stand, and I wish you all the best in that. So, again, I look forward to working with you, much like what has happened in the last, I guess, just over three months since I've been appointed Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Immigration.

So I've already shown that the department and myself are more than willing to have those conversations, and working with you and–but not only just working with superficially, much like the previous government would do with student groups, but actually working with, listening and taking their concerns forward and actually making some changes and amendments. So I appreciate y our comments. We're going to definitely take those to heart, and, again, I look forward to working with you in the upcoming–within the upcoming year. Thanks, Mr. Scott. Mr.

Scott: I'd just say the feeling's mutual, and I understood, as you mentioned to m y co -worker, Ms. Szocs, you know, this is a shoulder check for universities. I, again, yes, I hope it's more of a collaborative effort rather than, you know, you making the decision. But I appreciate your time and hope you all have a great evening. Mr. Altomare: I would like to ask you, Mr. Scott, you talked about consultation, extensive research, but then

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 195 you also mentioned that you're concerned about some unforeseen circumstances. Can you describe what some of those unforeseen circumstances that you're concerned about? Mr. Scott: Yes, appreciate it. I would say those consequences come from not consulted–not consulting, you know, thinking that the gym fee should be lowered and having then the service not being up to par, or, like, an accessibility centre, same thing.

If there's not consultation to find out what is needed, then –and it's just being determined by one person without consultation, then we're going to see a drop in that service and it directly affects students, even at–even though at the ser vice level, it appears, oh, it was a good thing to do, we saved students money, when in fact, it's detrimental to individuals and their education. Mr. Moses: Thank you so much for your pre - sentation, Scott, and putting the few words on the record about Bill 33.

And I just wanted to know that, you know, if you had been consulted on this bill beforehand, what sort of things would you have wanted to tell the minister and share with him before drafting of Bill 33? Mr. Scott: I would– yes, I would honestly –I would like to see this bill not even have existed. I guess I can't really speak about amendments, I–except for the one amendment that, you know, student unions will not be affected by this.

But I do have to realize, you know, the reality of it is that this bill most likely will pass, and I'm here to just give my comments to make sure that, okay, if it's passing, at least it's going to not be –you know, mitigate the effects and make sure that it's not detrimental to students. So I guess to–in that sense, I would just like to see this bill have not been proposed. Mr. Altomare: So, Mr. Scott, just to further, you know, ask about what you just said there: so you're saying the status quo is better than what this bill is proposing? Mr. Scott: I would go on the record and say yes, that is correct. Mr.

Chairperson: Are there any other questions from the floor? Seeing none, we will now move on to the next presenter. I will now call on Ms. Kristin Smith of the Manitoba Alliance of Post -Secondary Students and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Ms. Smith, please proceed with your presen- tation. Ms. Kristin Smith (Manitoba Alliance of Post - Secondary Students): Good evening, committee members, fellow speakers and members of the community.

My name is Kristin Smith, and I'm the current vice-president advocacy at the University of Manitoba Student's Union as well as a founding member of the Manitoba Alliance of Post -Secondary Students, who I am honoured to be delivering remarks on behalf of today. I would like to begin my address by fully acknowledging that on April 9th, we experienced an incredibly important day in the province of Manitoba for student advocacy and government relations.

Minister Ewasko ha s committed in an official capacity through a Manitoba government news release to bring forward an amendment to better protect student organizations from having their fees made non-compulsory or otherwise reduced as part of the bill's future use.

I'd ju st like to comment that we are incredibly relieved that we will not be faced with student choice initiative like my colleagues in Ontario are sort of continuing to face uncertainty surrounding to this day, and that student associations will be able to cont inue to provide our members with everything from representation in academic disciplinary cases to government advocacy, which was instrumental in bringing this sort of amendment forward, to tutoring, hardship funding, travel grants, work- integrated learning and so much more.

And more than anything, that amendment recognizes the special autonomy that student unions have in an otherwise really complicated post - secondary ecosystem and for that, we are incredibly thankful. But I'd sort of like to continue my comments on by pointing out that, sort of, make no mistake, we do remain really hesitant about some aspects of Bill 33. And while the amendment is welcomed and necessary and celebrated, the bill would still be able to regulate certain student services fees charged by our institutions as opposed to charged by student unions, who would be protected under the amendment.

196 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2021 And that is a situation which does continue to leave many students feeling uneasy, and I think that we've heard those comments from Savannah , from Brendan and from a couple of others who've spoken before me. But you might be wondering, you know, why is that? Isn't a government shoulder-check a good thing? And I mean, I'm not certain if I'm allowed to, sort of, name people by name, but I know that previous speakers, I think, Adam would say yes, a government shoulder-check is a fantastic thing.

And by and large, he correctly outlines a couple student frustrations with fees.

But what I would say is it needs to be a shoulder-check with a healthy dose of consultation, and I believe, Minister Ewasko, you've committed to that practice after multiple addresses tonight but, sort of, to make the point more salient, I will proceed in highlighting the concerns of students I've heard as we've continued to develop our strategy around Bill 33 and have understood some of those unintended consequences. * (20:00) So look: savings are great; they're needed now more than ever, but not at the cost of measures that facilitate student success, retention and compl etion– which I know this government values incredibly highly–and I value it incredibly highly for that matter.

And, if these sort of savings are created but there are unintended consequences, we may inadvertently create difficulties for students through a poorly applied Bill 33. So know, Minister Ewasko, you've noted that Bill 33 would seek to protect students from overly large increases and ensure that education remains accessible and affordable, and I do sincerely hope that is how the bill is going to be used.

But in order for that to happen, we would like to point out that the minister needs to have plentiful consultation and consistent dialogue with our administrations to fully understand the impacts, sort of, of each order to decrease a particular fee. And I really appreciate the opportunity, maybe, to illustrate a little more clearly what it is that I mean. So, let's maybe take the library fee as one example. I believe the minister has named this as one fee that would fall under the legislation, would require further examination, so I'm sort of just picking on it for that reason.

And it may look like a fee that would be attractive to reduce or otherwise make non - compulsory. So, what might that mean? Well, the library fee is used in part to improve access to open -source material for students, parti - cularly open educational resources. So, sort of the more open- source material available to students. Fewer and fewer students need to purchase textbooks for, you know, $300 at piece. And that provides universal and instant savings to thousands of students.

But without a library fee–or with significantly reduced library fee –the university couldn't necessarily continue to pursue this project in a manner that is needed to create meaningful savings for students. And sort of another ancillary sort of consequence of this is that the university may need to implement new processes to monitor that only those paying the full fee are accessing library spaces and services, in an event that the fee is made, like, enti rely non- com- pulsory. But, importantly, these sort of impacts are not only isolated to something like a library fee.

This year, the Student Accessibility Services centre added two additional co -ordinators to assist students with disabilities, and without an adequate student services fee, I'm not certain that would be possible. So, what we see is that we also limit our ability to improve existing services when the impacts of Bill 33 are not fully explored before implementation.

So, I think it's clear, when using correctly and at the sole discretion of the minister, though the–sort of, the intentions are really well- placed, we sort of see two risks that arise, and the first is that cuts to fees that are used to implement services which foster student success may lead those services to disappear altogether or remain stagnant in their operations, not improving service quality, remaining sub-par. Or, sort of, the second risk we see is increased internal inefficiency or administrative burdens placed on our university if they seek to monitor these imple - mentations.

So, the takeaway is really that good intentions can have unintended consequences. I urge the 'miniter's' team to consult thoroughly with the university before making determinations on which fees would be compulsory, non-compulsory or otherwise reduced. And I think–I'll sort of end my address today by noting that a wise man once said that the most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. So Minis ter Ewasko, please do consult our institutions, listen to senior leadership and faculty voice.

April 13, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 197 We at MAPSS currently operate in incredibly high regard for your office and we are thankful for the amendment that will be brought forward, and we ask that you demonstrate a certain degree of good faith in how this legislation is applied moving forward to ensure that these good intentions materialize in the way that someone like Adam might have concep- tualized and that we don't see those negative, unintended consequences. Thank you very much for the time, and I'm open to any ques

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	42-3-sed6
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	42nd 3rd hansardpdf sed6.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5014bdab14e03040fe6de2d80469e95ea8e81320

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