Manitoba Committee Hansard — 12 May 2026 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 8, 43rd Legislature, 3rd Session)

43-3-la8

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session – Forty-Third Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Chairperson Shannon Corbett Constituency of Transcona Vol. LXXX No. 8 - 6 p.m., Tuesday, May 12, 2026 ISSN 1708-668X

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

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

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

WHARTON, Jeff Red River North PC WIEBE, Matt, Hon. Concordia NDP WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC Vacant The Pas-Kameesak

109 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Tuesday, May 12, 2026 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – MLA Shannon Corbett (Transcona) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – MLA Jennifer Chen (Fort Richmond) ATTENDANCE – 6 — QUORUM – 4 Members of the committee present: Hon. Min. Cable, Hon. Min. Marcelino MLAs Chen, Corbett, Messrs. Guenter, Narth APPEARING: Hon.

Ron Kostyshyn, Minister of Agriculture PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 11 – The Em ployment Standards Code Amendment Act (Sick Notes for Employee Absences) Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Kyle Ross, Manitoba Gov ernment and General Employees' Union Nichelle Desilets, Doctors Manitoba Bill 29 – The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act Michelle Pereira, University of Winnipeg David Grant, private citizen Michael Shaw, private citizen Peter Miller, Univer sity of Winnipeg Faculty Association Cannan Daree, University of Winnipeg Students' Association Alan Koshy, private citizen Jino Distasio, private citizen Erik Thomson, Uni versity of Manitoba Faculty Association Bill 19 – The Animal Care Amendment Act Kaitlyn Mitchell, Animal Justice Krista Boryskavich, Winnipeg Humane Society Jill Verwey, Keystone Agricultural Producers Debra Vandekerkhove, Manitoba Animal Alliance Bill 45 – The Yellowquill University College Act and Amendments to The Advanced Edu cation Administration Act Bobbi Pompana, private citizen Bruce Unfried, private citizen Doreen Stranger, Yellowquill University College WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 11 – The Em ployment Standards Code Amendment Act (Sick Notes for Employee Absences) Cheryl Smukowich, Manitoba School Boards Association Bill 19 – The Animal Care Amendment Act Michelle Costantini, private citizen Nicole Jutras-Scott, private citizen Zoe Gourdie, private citizen Danae Tonge, private citizen Carson Callum, Manitoba Beef Producers Tamara Bodi, private citizen Christie Ratcliffe, Manitoba Animal Save Bill 29 – The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act Tanis Ostermann, private citizen Chantal Fiola, private citizen Mark Ruml, private citizen Dawnis Kennedy, private citizen Julie Chamberlain, private citizen Cathy Mattes, private citizen Bill 45 – The Yellowquill University College Act and Amendments to The Advanced Edu cation Administration Act Sharon Desmarais, Sandy Bay Child and Family Services Annabelle Cameron, private citizen Courtney Penner, private citizen Jeffrey Edwards, private citizen Adam Hopkins, First Nations Technical Institute Rebecca Jamieson, Six Nations Polytechnic Shirlene Asham, Southern First Nations Network of Care

110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 11 – The Em ployment Standards Code Amendment Act (Sick Notes for Employee Absences) Bill 19 – The Animal Care Amendment Act Bill 29 – The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act Bill 35 – The Adult Learning Centres Amendment Act Bill 45 – The Yellowquill University College Act and Amendments to The Advanced Edu cation Administration Act * * * Clerk Assistant (Ms. Melanie Ching): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Legis lative Affairs please come to order.

Before the committee can proceed with the busi- ness before it, it must elect a Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): I nominate MLA Corbett as Chair. Clerk Assistant: MLA Corbett has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, MLA Corbett, will you please take the Chair. The Chairperson: Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? MLA Cable: I nominate MLA Chen. The Chairperson: MLA Chen has been nominated. Are there any other nominations?

Hearing no other nominations, MLA Chen is elected Vice-Chair. This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 11, The Employment Standards Code Amendment Act (Sick Notes for Employee Absences); Bill 19, The Animal Care Amend ment Act; Bill 29, The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act; Bill 35, The Adult Learning Centres Amendment Act; Bill 45, the Yellowquill university act and amendments to the advanced education administration act. I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment.

A standing com mittee meeting to con - sider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause by clause of a bill, except by unanimous consent of the committee. I would also like to inform all members of the public in the gallery of the rules of decorum for standing com mittees. Please note that any partici - pation from the gallery is not allowed. Examples of specific actions that are not allowed include clapping, cheering or interrupting presentations. Taking photos or video of the meeting is also not allowed. And please set your phones to mute.

I thank everyone in advance for their co-operation. Prior to proceeding with public pre sentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in a committee. In accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for pre sentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from com mittee members. Questions shall not exceed 45 seconds in length, with no time limit for answers.

Questions may be addressed to presenters in the following rotation: first, the minister sponsoring the bill or another member of their caucus; second, a member of the official oppos- ition; and third, an independent member. 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 the second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript.

Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I have to say the person's name first. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off.

Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee members: Cheryl Smukowich, Manitoba School Boards Association, on Bill 11; Michelle Constantini [phonetic], private citizen, on Bill 19; Nicole Jutras-Scott, private citizen, on Bill 19; Zoe Gourdie, private citizen, on Bill 19; Danae Tonge, private citizen, on Bill 19; Carson Callum, Manitoba Beef Producers, on Bill 19; Tamara Bodi, private citizen, on Bill 19; Christie Ratcliffe, Manitoba Animal Save, on Bill 19.

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 111 Tanist [phonetic] Ostermann, private citizen, on Bill 29; Chantal Fiola, private citizen, on Bill 29; Mark Ruml, private citizen, on Bill 29; Dawnis Kennedy, private citizen, on Bill 29; Julie Chamberman [phonetic]– Chamberlain, private citizen, on Bill 29.

Sharon Desmarais, Sandy Bay Child and Family Services, on Bill 45; Annabelle Cameron, private citizen, on Bill 45; Courtney Penner, private citizen, on bill 20–45; Jeffrey Edwards, private citizen, on Bill 45; Adam Hopkins, First Nations Technical Insti- tute, on Bill 45; Rebecca Jamieson, Six Nations Polytechnic, on Bill 45; Shirlene Asham, Southern First Nations Network of Care, on Bill 45.

Does the committee agree to have these docu - ments appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we have out -of-town presenters registered, marked with an asterisk on the list. With this in –this consideration in mind then, in what order does the committee the committee wish to hear the presentations? An Honourable Member: Out-of-town presenters first. The Chairperson: Recognize out-of-town first? Oh, sorry. Hon. Ron Kostyshyn (Minister of Agriculture): Out-of-town guests be recognized first, please.

The Chairperson: Okay, out -of-town guests – [interjection]–out-of-town in person or out -of-town virtual? An Honourable Member: In person, for sure. The Chairperson: Out-of-town in person. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations. I–this one first? I will now call on Nichelle – Dr. Nichelle Desilets– Clerk Assistant: I believe they are going to be presenting virtually. The Chairperson: –from Doctors Manitoba. Clerk Assistant: So they are virtual. The Chairperson: Oh, okay.

Bill 11–The Employment Standards Code Amendment Act (Sick Notes for Employee Absences) The Chairperson: Okay, we have Kevin Rebeck from the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Okay, Mr. Rebeck, please proceed with your presentation. Kevin Rebeck (Manitoba Federation of Labour ): I'm Kevin Rebeck, president for the Manitoba Federation of Labour. The MFL is Manitoba's central labour body, made up of more than 30 affiliated unions representing the interests of more than 130,000 unionized workers from every sector and every region in our province: in the public, private sectors and the building trades.

The MFL works to promote good jobs, fairness in the workplace and social and economic justice for all. I'm glad to be here today to support this bill, which follows the advice given to the minister from the Labour Management Review Committee, or LMRC. The LMRC is made up of business and labour representatives and strives to provide consensus advice to government on employment standards and The Labour Relations Act changes. This bill follows the advice of Doctors Manitoba, who calculated that over 600,000 sick notes are requested annually in Manitoba, with each note taking three to four minutes to write.

This adds up to over 36,000 hours of phys - ician time in just writing sick notes. Sick notes are not an effective way to manage sick leaves in a workplace and are of little practical value. Requiring a worker to see a doctor when they' re infectious can increase the worker's exposure to other illnesses and is bad for public health. Many short -term illnesses such as migraines, headaches or stomach issues do not have objective verification methods. By the time an employee visits a doctor, they are often recovering or symptom -free, making the requirement largely administrative rather than medical.

Almost every other province has taken steps to put restrictions on when employers can request an employee to get a sick note, and we 're glad that Manitoba is implementing restrictions to curb this wasteful practice. Changing the rules to limit when a sick note for short -term illness can be asked for is good for everyone. * (18:10)

112 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 From a worker perspective, this means workers can rest and recover rather than drag themselves into a doctor's office when they 're infectious–pardon–and weak. It means they don' t have to go through the hassles of finding time to go to a doctor's office for an illness that doesn't warrant a visit. Workers are better able to see a doctor when necessary if the doctors aren't busy wasting time writing sick notes. It's good for employers to shift to a better attendance management system that doesn't rely on a verification system that doesn 't verify anything medical.

It means workers can be trusted to stay home when they're ill and be more productive by not coming in to avoid the hassle of getting a sick note and infecting others. For doctors, it means less time wasted on writing non-medical-informed notes, that are really just repeating what a patient tells them, and more time to help Manitobans who need medical attention. I want to commend Doctors Manitoba for working with employers and labour on these recom - mendations and for their work on a tool kit for employers to review as they modify their attendance management systems, ideally in collaboration with labour.

And thank you to government, once more, for listening to the consensus advice of the Labour Management Review Committee. We take our role seriously to provide good advice, and unlike the previous Conservative government who asked for advice and then ignored it, we appreciate this government listening to the LMRC advice and acting on it. Employers and workers have to live with the impact of legislation–that it has in the workplace and we're best positioned to give advice that can be respected and followed by future gov ernments. That serves us all well. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Malaya Marcelino (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Rebeck. I just wanted to thank you for coming to committee tonight and for even bringing some of the other provincial labour leaders here with you tonight to witness our com - mittee proceedings. Also wanted to thank you for years of advocacy on this very topic of sick notes and limitations to them, as well as for the hard work that you' re putting in at the LMRC to come up with consensus items for us to consider in putting into legislation regulations.

Thank you for all this hard work that you guys do on behalf of workers across– The Chairperson: Minister Marcelino, that's time. K. Rebeck: Thank you, Minister. We really appre - ciate you acting on this advice and entrusting us to build consensus and work together. When busi ness and labour can come eye to eye and give advice to government, it's wonderful to have a government that acts on it, and you show true leadership by doing so, so thank you. The Chairperson: Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Rebeck. I will now call on Kyle Ross from the Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union. Mr.

Ross, please proceed with your presentation. Kyle Ross (Manitoba Gov ernment and General Employees' Union): Good evening. My name is Kyle Ross. I'm the president of the Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union. The Manitoba Government and General Employees Union, the MGEU, represents 34,000 Manitobans who live and work throughout the province in a wide variety of workplaces, including members employed directly by the Province of Manitoba, Crown corporations, universities and colleges, health- care facilities, social service agencies, arts and cul - tural organizations.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of MGEU members on this welcome change to the Employment Standards Code, legislating the use of sick notes for employee absences. I 'd specifically like to thank the minister and the members of the Labour Management Review Committee for the work on this issue and for bringing forward these amendments. These changes will benefit members, employees, and alleviate the burden on doctors whose valuable time is better spent caring for patients than completing unnecessary administrative docu- ments.

The reality is that sick notes are not often an effective way to manage absenteeism. In practice, requiring a worker with a minor illness to produce a sick note will often push employees to attend work

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 113 while ill rather than spend time and money on getting a note. This increases the risk that the illness will spread to co-workers, reducing overall workplace efficiency. This is why the MGEU supports the measures in Bill 11 that eliminate the ability for an employer to request a sick note in the first week of illness. Sick time is there to ensure members can rest and recover. Instead, the current process can prolong illness and stress and lengthy –and lengthen recovery time.

The burden of arranging an appointment, travelling to a clinic or ER, paying for parking, sitting in a full waiting room while contagious and then paying out of pocket for a sick note is wasteful and ineffective. These burdens are especially unfair to lower income workers, rural workers and those without timely access to a family doctor. Workers with minor, short-term illness should be able to stay home, rest and recover, not sit in a waiting room and pay out of pocket. This is why the MGEU supports the legislated requirement in Bill 11 for employers to foot the bill for a sick note.

Beyond the work place, whenever an employer asks an employee for a note to prove they' re sick, it takes doctors away from patient care, it adds unnecessary clinic and emergency room visits and costs employees time and money. According to Doctors Manitoba, over 600,000 sick notes are written per year in Manitoba, taking up over 36,000 hours of physician time that could be redirected to providing patient care. We support the amendments in Bill 11, will free up doctors and health-care workers to focus on patient care.

MGEU members and all workers deserve fair, practical and respectful rules when they are sick or injured. They should not be forced to seek unnecessary medical appointments simply to prove their short-term illness to an employer. Bill 11 is an important and welcome step towards modernizing Manitoba 's employment standards, reducing barriers for workers and freeing up health- care capacity for patients who need them. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ross. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? MLA Marcelino: Thank you, Mr.

Ross, for coming in today to give your observations and for your support for this–passage of this bill. Thank you very much. The Chairperson: Any further questions –oh, sorry. Mr. Ross. K. Ross: Thank you, Minister, and thank you for the work that was done on this. We –our workers are really, really happy that this is coming. I 'm sure all Manitoba workers will benefit this. It' s a good step forward. We really appreciate this effort. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you for your presentation. I will now call upon Joan Stimson for Bill 19, The Animal Care Amendment Act.

Joan Stinson [phonetic]? Joan Stimson will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Now we have Jill [phonetic]–Jennifer Thomas, sorry. Jennifer Thomas? Jennifer Thomas will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Bill 29–The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act The Chairperson: For Bill 29, The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act, Michelle Pereira. Michelle Pereira, please proceed with your pres - entation. Michelle Pereira (Uni versity of Winnipeg): Good evening Madam Chair, Minister Cable and com - mittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

In my capacity as the chair of the University of Winnipeg Board of Regents, I have observed con- siderable support for the proposed amendments in Bill 29, The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act, currently before the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. We respectfully urge all members of the Legislative Assembly to vote in favour of this legis - lation and call upon the Lieutenant Governor to grant royal assent, at which point this important reform will become the law of the Province, coming into force July 1, 2026. The Board of Regents welcomes the amendment reducing board membership from 36 to 21 members.

A smaller, focused board is a more agile and effective governing body providing the ability to better be positioned to deliberate efficiently, reach decisions with clarity and exercise the strategic oversight that a modern university requires. This change aligns the

114 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 University of Winnipeg with best practices in post - secondary governance across Canada. The board strongly supports the new requirement that two of the 10 Lieutenant Governor -in-Council appointees identify as Indigenous. The University of Winnipeg is situated on Treaty 1 territory and the traditional Homeland of the Métis Nation, and we are committed to meaningful Indigenous representation at the highest levels of university governance.

The accompanying provision directing the appointees reflect the diversity of the student population and the communities from which they come further ensures the board remains connected to those that we serve. The nine-year consecutive service limit followed by a mandatory three-year pause before the reappoint- ment strikes the right balance between continuity and renewal. This reform brings fresh perspectives to the board on a regular basis while honouring the valuable institutional knowledge of–that experienced members contribute during their tenure.

The requirement that the board adopt a formal conflict of interest bylaw which speaks to the man- datory disclosure, withdrawal from deliberations and public record keepening, reflects the university' s commitment to the highest ethical standards. * (18:20) While the board currently maintains a conflict of interest bylaw, the proposed amendments will help inform, strengthen and–existing practices. Trans - parency and governance builds confidence among students, faculty, donors and the broader community that decisions are made in a university's best interest.

The provision-making board meetings open to the public by default, while providing greater clarity around the use and documentation of in camera sessions, is a welcome step toward greater trans- parency. Although the board already holds public sessions and utilizes regular in camera proceedings, where appropriate, the proposed amendments will strengthen and further formalize those processes. The University of Winnipeg is a public institution, and the public has a legitimate interest in how it's governed.

The new requirement for annual performance reviews of the president and vice -chancellor, including periodic external reviews, as well as the explicit exclusion of the president from deliberations concerning their own review, remuneration and terms of employment, reflects sound governance practices and ensures appropriate checks and balances at the executive level.

While the university already maintains established processes and practices for the presidential review and evaluation, the proposed amendments will assist in informing and strengthening the ongoing develop- ment of a more formalized and clearly documented framework for those reviews. In conclusion, these amendments have the potential to position the University of Winnipeg for continued excellence in teaching, research and com - munity engagement. The proposed changes are widely viewed as a constructive step towards strengthening the university's governance framework.

We commend Minister Cable, Deputy Minister Forster and Assistant Deputy Minister Kachulak for bringing this forward to the legislative and respectfully urge the Legislative Assembly to pass Bill 29 without delay. Upon receiving royal assent from the Lieutenant Governor, this act will represent a meaningful and lasting improvement to the governance of our insti - tution. And thank you so much for this opportunity. The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Pereira. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): I don't have any questions.

I just want to sincerely thank you for your service on the board and for your constructive interactions during this process of looking at governance. And thank you for seeing the broader picture and helping to ensure that post-secondary is sustainable from now into the future. I really thank you for your service. M.

Periera: Yes, it's my pleasure, and thank you to you and your department for listening to us, hearing us, making some adjustments that we felt were impor- tant, one of them being the amount of seats that the government should hold and that the board chair isn't a government–doesn't necessarily have to be a gov - ernment appointee. So we appreciate that autonomy. The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Pereira. Any further questions? Thank you for your presentation.

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 115 Bill 11–The Employment Standards Code Amendment Act (Sick Notes for Employee Absences) (Continued) The Chairperson: We will now go back to Bill 11, The Employment Standards Code Amendment Act (Sick Notes for Employee Absences). And I would like to call on Dr. Nichelle Desilets, I believe who's joining us virtually. Nichelle Desilets (Doctors Manitoba): Thank you, honourable Chairperson, and good evening, everyone. My name is Dr. Nichelle Desilets. I'm board chair and past president of Doctors Manitoba. I'm also a family physician practicing in Neepawa.

Thank you for the opportunity to present today on Bill 11. My feedback that I bring to you today is submitted on behalf of physicians and medical learners of Manitoba. I am pleased to say very clearly and directly that doctors strongly support this legislation. In fact, Doctors Manitoba requested it. Let's back up for a moment and remember why: paperwork and administrative burdens that take physicians away from patient care. In fact, doctors spend about 10 hours a week on desk time –basically one full workday a week–and almost half of that is unnecessary.

Administrative burden is a leading cause of burnout, and it 's also a leading contributor to physicians considering retirement, moving away or reducing their practice. Sick notes are a major contributor to that desk time burden. As we heard from previous presenters, every year in Manitoba, we estimate more than 600,000 sick notes are requested, primarily by employers. That translates into tens of thousands of hours of physician time spent on paperwork and unnecessary appointments that often provide little real medical value.

At a time when Manitoba continues to ' fache' physician shortages and challenges acting–accessing care, this does matter. Every unnecessary sick note appointment is time that could have been spent caring for a patient with a medical need. After all, eliminating sick notes would free up physician time equivalent to 300,000 patient visits. That's the same as adding over 50 doctors to Manitoba's health-care system. It 's no surprise, then, that we recommended eliminating sick notes.

Manitoba was one of only two provinces that hadn't taken any action to limit sick notes, and that is something that new physicians are noticing when they consider where to set up their practice. Rather than letting sick notes keep clogging up our clinics and our ERs, Doctors Manitoba brought together leaders from business, labour and government to fix this problem. Our research helped prove that sick notes do not work the way that many people think they do.

For most short -term illnesses or injuries related –sorry– illness- and injury- related absences from work, patients do not need medical care, and yet we drag contagious or recovering workers out of bed, out of their homes, into clinics and urgent -care centres or emergency departments, simply to satisfy a human resources process. In fact, many workers say they would rather go to work sick than go through the hassle and cost of getting a sick note. Now, this was even more surprising. Over a third of the time, patients no longer have symptoms left by the time they get in to see the doctor.

That means that there is nothing for the physician to objectively verify. The patient did not need medical care; they came only because of an employer-required documentation. All of this does not help employers, it does not help workers and it certainly doesn' t help the health - care system. Physicians became increasingly vocal that this practice needs to end, but when we first recommended eliminating sick notes, there was understandable apprehension. How would employers manage absenteeism? How would HR departments adapt to this? Would there still be accountability?

After all, many workplaces have operated in this way for decades. So rather than simply criticizing the problem, Doctors Manitoba went on to work on solutions. We brought together leaders from business, labour, gov- ernment, human resources, occupational medicine and employment law. We held workshops. We created an advisory group. We reviewed research from across Canada and internationally. We examined how other provinces approach sick note limits, what 's worked well and where gaps remain. Eventually, the government referred our recom - mendation to eliminate sick notes to the Labour Management Review Committee.

The labour and employer representatives reached a consensus on a joint recommendation to Minister Marcelino. And now, after two years of engagement and collaboration, bringing in HR and legal experts, occupational medicine specialists, along with public- and private -sector employers and unions, we have

116 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 legislation. Bill 11 is practical, evidence -informed and urgently needed. It will reduce unnecessary administrative burden on physicians, improve access to care for Manitoba 's patients, support healthier workplaces and modernize an outdated practice that no longer serves employers, workers or the health- care system well. The rules can be clear: sick notes are prohibited unless a worker's absence extends longer than a week or if they have more than 10 cumulative days of absence over a calendar year.

With this legislation, Manitoba will move from no limits on sick notes to the clearest and strongest rules in Canada. To put it more plainly, Manitoba is moving from worst to first. And that is something that this legislator should be proud of. Now, I do want to speak briefly about one friendly amendment that we are requesting. The only concern we have with the legislation is the proposed six-month delay before the limits come into force. We respectfully request that the legislation instead come into effect upon royal assent. There are several important reasons for this.

First and foremost is the impact on physicians and patients. Every single day that we delay means another 1,500 sick notes requested in Manitoba. Over six months, that means 300,000 more sick notes. That's the equivalent of roughly 150,000 patient visits that we aren 't freeing up over the next half year for patients with genuine medical needs. This is a sig- nificant capacity in a strained health-care system. * (18:30) Now, we understand why the six- month implementation period was originally proposed.

The six-month delay emerged through the Labour Management Review Committee process, and the intent was to ensure that all employers had sufficient notice and time to adapt. That was reasonable when the recommendation was made last October, without knowing how quickly the government would announce plans and introduce legislation and what type of education and support employers would receive. We would respectfully suggest that the situation has changed a lot since then. Manitoba employers have already received substantial notice.

In fact, the government first announced its intention to limit sick notes in the Throne Speech on November 18; 175 days ago. On December 12, Doctors Manitoba joined the Minister of Labour and CPHR Manitoba at a joint press conference, and the news coverage highlighted the recommended limits. That was 151 days ago. That same day, we released an HR tool kit designed specifically to help employers transition away from sick note requirements. That tool kit has already been downloaded more than 4,400 times.

In January, we ran a large ad in the Winnipeg Free Press advising Manitobans and employers that changes are coming. In January and February, we partnered with CPHR Manitoba to host educational webinars for HR professionals. More than 600 people attended. And in June, we will hold another employer webinar in partnership with Manitoba Chambers of Commerce. How did other provinces approach this? In BC, the government announced the details of their sick note limits on November 12, and they came into effect that day. In Ontario, sick note limits came into effect immediately upon royal assent.

Nova Scotia provided 75 days notice. Quebec provided 84 days notice. The only province we found with a similar six-month delay was Saskatchewan. And as we head into football season, I think we can all agree that we don't want to have the same record as Saskatchewan. We want to beat them. In all seriousness, we believe employers and unions would support a shorter implementation time- line. Manitoba has already provided more notice, more education and more implementation support than any other province in Canada. We hope the government will consider that amendment.

On the whole, however, physicians are deeply appreciative of the collaboration that led to this bill. We appreciate this government's leadership, and we appreciate the support shown by opposition members. We appreciate the willingness of employers and unions to work together with us on a practical solution. And, most importantly, we appreciate that this legislation recognizes physician time as valuable, patient access as precious and outdated administrative practices as something that we can improve together.

We hope this Legislature will pass Bill 11 quickly and with a needed minor amendment that will allow us to –not next winter but this spring–say that sick notes have finally been eliminated in Manitoba. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Are there any questions for Dr. Desilets? Hon. Malaya Marcelino (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Yes, thank you, Dr. Desilets, for your

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 117 time today. I don't think we've ever–I've ever been to a committee hearing where I could see an exam room like that, so my first time. Thanks for your advocacy on this and your leadership on this; for the research, all the recommendations that were put together by Doctors Manitoba and even all the work that you guys did to put –help put together the tool kit along with the Manitoba Chambers and the Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Manitoba. I really appreciate all this work.

And I am open to your friendly a mendment, and we 'll see what we can do about it today. The Chairperson: Thank you. N. Desilets: Thank you, Minister Marcelino, for acknowledging our request, and we 'd be happy to work together again on that. Yes, this is the inside of a clinic. I didn't write sick notes today, but I am filling out a lot of insurance forms, and that 's why I 'm still here. Thank you very much for the opportunity. The Chairperson: Thank you. Are there any further questions? Thank you for your presentation. I would now like to call upon Mrs. Fernanda Vallejo. Ms. Vallejo? Mrs.

Vallejo will now be dropped to the bottom of the list. Bill 19–The Animal Care Amendment Act The Chairperson: We will now move on to Bill 19, The Animal Care Amendment Act, and I would like to call upon David Grant. David Grant? We will now drop David Grant to the bottom of the list. Fernanda–Mrs. Veranda [phonetic] Vallejo? Mrs. Fernanda Vallejo? We will now drop Mrs. Vallejo to the bottom of the list. Ms. Kaitlyn Mitchell? Ms. Mitchell, please proceed with your pres - entation. Kaitlyn Mitchell (Animal Justice): Good evening, everyone.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here tonight to speak to you about Bill 19. And I would like to thank Minister Kostyshyn and his staff, in particular, for their dedication to improving the welfare of companion animals in our province. My name is Kaitlyn Mitchell, and I 'm a lawyer and the director of legal advocacy with Animal Justice, which is Canada 's leading national animal- law organization. Animal Justice has worked with rescue groups in Manitoba to urge the Province to enforce the companion animal breeder licensing regime set out in

part 5 of The Animal Care Act. Bill 19 would repeal that in its entirety. Nonetheless, because those requirements have not been enforced in over a decade, and because our understanding is that the intent of this new bill is to fill this very dangerous legal gap, we are very supportive of Bill 19. Because those who breed companion animals do so for the purpose of selling them, we hope that the new licensing requirements set out in Bill 19 can be developed in a way that addresses the serious animal-welfare risks posed by the breeding and selling of dogs as well as other companion animals.

Irresponsible breeding operations pose significant risks of animal suffering. Animals are often confined in crowded and filthy conditions. For instance, in 2024, Manitobans were shocked to see dogs from a large-scale breeder just north of this city surrendered. These animals were in desperate need of medical attention and were brought into shelters here in Winnipeg. Last year, Animal Justice shared heartbreaking footage of Canada's largest ferret-breeding operation, which is actually located right here in Manitoba. The footage was difficult to watch. It shows hundreds of ferrets confined in barren metal cages.

The ammonia stench in the barns and the sheds, I 'm told, was absolutely overwhelming. The operator of the facility admitted to gassing unwanted ferrets in a makeshift box and also discussed problems associated with wildlife entering these sheds that are not encl osed from the elements and killing the ferrets enclosed, including ripping the legs off of babies. A link to this footage is included in the presentation brief that I have provided to members of this committee, and photographs of the facility are enclosed as appendix 2 to that brief.

Now, we have photographs of this facility, but I want to be clear that it' s very rare for Manitobans to see the conditions inside of breeding operations. Most breeding operations operate on private property, behind closed doors. There are no licensing require - ments for these facilities, so law enforcement officials don't even know, quite often, where they' re located, never mind have the ability to go and proactively inspect them. Inspections occur only in rare instances where a member of the public learns about abuse or neglect and alerts the Chief Veterinary Officer.

118 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 It's far easier to stop cruel, large -scale breeding operations from starting up in the first place than it is for officials to respond to complaints and deal with dozens–or even hundreds–of animals in need of care and rehoming, and that 's why licensing is so important. But it's not only the animals that are confined at breeding operations that suffer as a result of the lack of oversight at these facilities.

These operations also contribute to the province 's overpopulation of animals, including dogs in particular, leaving rescue groups and shelters to take in unwanted animals or those seized from situations of abuse at breeding operations. * (18:40) As you will undoubtedly hear this evening from other presenters and probably in some of the written briefs that you received, our province is experiencing a very serious dog overpopulation crisis that not only causes suffering to dogs and puppies but also puts communities at risk, and children in particular.

We have seen, time and time again, really devastating attacks on people in these communities, and it is truly a public health and safety crisis as well. I've provided a detailed presentation brief that outlines our key suggestions to strengthen Bill 19, and in the interests of time, I'll just focus on three of those tonight. And I do want to be clear that while we've set out some key recommendations there, many of our recommendations can also be incorporated in regula- tions, and I look forward to discussing that approach as well.

So the first recommendation that we have is to ensure that when a person' s selling animals –because that's the focus of the bill: sellers of animals and folks who transfer ownership. So when the seller of an animal is a commercial breeder or retail operation, we would like to see additional licensing requirements apply to those persons beyond the more genera l requirements that apply to, say, an individual's merely rehoming their personal animal, or to rescue groups.

So, for instance, the seller 's address may be different from the address or addresses at which they keep animals or use animals for breeding purposes. So we'd like to make sure that the act requires that the licence application includes all addresses of breeding premises and places where animals are kept. Because inspection powers set out in the act at

section 8 only let animal protection officers proactively enter some areas for proactive inspections, we want to ensure that the requirements to license sellers of animals allow our animal protection officers to attend and inspect not only the licensee 's business address but also the actual locations where animals are kept. We've also set out recommendations for licensing requirements for sellers of animals –again, the ones who are breeders or commercial retailers –to have to require with prescribed standards of care.

And those, of course, would be set out by regula tion, and examples of some of those standards or –care are set out in our presentation brief. But in addition to, you know, standards related to husbandry and housing, we'd really like to see limits on the number of animals that a given facility can keep and limits on the number of litters that a female animal can be forced to have over her lifetime and each year. They should also include prohibitions on cosmetic mutilations of animals, like tail docking.

By establishing these separate requirements for sellers who are commercial stores or breeders, the Province could also ensure that the licensing fees for those operators are more substantial, because it really is those individuals who profit off of the sale of companion animals who should be bearing the cost of this system, and not rescue groups or Manitobans more generally.

The second key point that I 'd like to emphasize is that although the government 's focus is under- standably, as I understand, on the sale of dogs, the term pet animal should include all companion animals or at least the larger breeders of other types of companion animals. I appreciate that that definition is going to be set out in regulation in the fut ure, but because it is just such an important point, I did want to make sure to mention it to you tonight.

Shelters and rescue groups that take in small and exotic animals are inundated with requests to take in unwanted rabbits, guinea pigs and hamsters, most of whom were purchased from pet stores. Now, I mentioned earlier the truly horrific conditions at the ferret breeding facility here in the province, but I've also enclosed some Kijiji ads from a large python breeding operation that I recently learned about near my home in River Heights. As is common with many snake breeding operations, this individual appears to be keeping snakes in snake racks, which are basically small drawers.

They do not allow snakes to engage in their natural behaviors. They truly are inadequate. So, at the

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 119 very least, what we' d like is for the definition of pet animal to include not only dogs but also the larger sellers of other types of companion animals. The third and final recommendation that I wanted to touch upon tonight is that

section 10.2 of the act should allow for orders prohibiting animal ownership for more than three years.

Section 10.2 allows the director to apply to a justice for an order rest ricting ownership where, because of the number of animals that a person has or the type of animals, they can' t provide proper care. And we fully support the amendments to

section 10.2(1) that are contained in there. But the bill would still restrict those orders to prohibiting ownership for a maximum of three years. Three years may be enough in many circumstances, but unfortunately folks who acquire large numbers of animals and can 't properly care for them do have a tendency to repeat that behaviour. So we 'd like to have discretion to allow orders that are longer than three years, and that can mirror some of the language that's already in the act, actually, in

section 35. So, in conclusion, I do want to just thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before you tonight; and, again, thank you to Minister Kostyshyn and his staff. I look forward to answering any questions and continuing to work with the government to improve the welfare of companion animals. The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Mitchell. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Ron Kostyshyn (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you so much for the insightful infor mation.

And I don't think I have to educate the general public that's here today of the challenges we see on a daily basis with the dog population and the lack of care and consequences of packs of dog that are, you know, in challenging times, and the human element of challenges that we see, unfor tunately, by a pack of dogs, basically due to starvation. So I thank you for your pre sentation. We're very conscientious of the importance of this bill getting some authority and opportunity that we want to minimize the, I guess, the marketplace of dogs that are not looked after, not properly trained.

And I want to assure you, we are determined to deal with the situation– The Chairperson: Minister Kostyshyn, your time is up. Thank you. K. Mitchell: Well, thank you very much, Minister Kostyshyn, and I do ap preciate how genuine your concern is not only for the dogs but also for com mu- nity members who are at risk. Perhaps I'll just take this op portunity to mention another recommendation that we set out in our presen- tation brief which I know I 've discussed with you in the past, but The Animal Care Act allows for the creation of an advisory committee.

And one opportun- ity that we see would be to create an advisory com - mittee to establish a com munity-led approach to our roaming and stray dog crisis in the province. And that would allow rescue groups, community members, Indigenous leadership, veterinarians to all come together and really think about a sus tainable plan that would help communities in the province and, again, help not only animals but also childre n and other community members who are at risk. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any–Mr. Narth. Mr. Konrad Narth (La Vérendrye): Thank you, Ms.

Mitchell, for attending tonight 's com mittee and sharing your experience and your knowledge around this bill. My question for you, since you' re quite ex per- ienced in animal care and animal justice: Since the bill sets out to repeal all licensing that currently exists and you've identified that that creates a gap, are you concerned that much of this bill is going to be set out in regulation with no clear inspection and monitoring system outlined, no clear identification of the per - mitting and how– The Chairperson: Mr. Narth, your time is up. K. Mitchell: Thank you for the question.

Certainly, if there is a lack of guidance in the regulations, I would be extremely concerned. We already have a system where we have a law on the books that hasn' t been enforced in over a decade. I don't blame the current gov ernment for that, but what we do need is clarity. And so whether that clarity comes in the act itself or in regula tions, it is needed because inspection powers, as you mentioned, are so vital to making sure that the system works.

So, certainly, you know –and I guess right now, unfortunately, we're limited to talking about the bill, and I know that there will be that future regula tory amendment process which we can be consulted on,

120 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 and we look forward to that. But it is so im portant. And, certainly, any risk that this law will sit and be unenforced or will lack the teeth to really protect animals is a serious one that we all need to make sure does not happen. The Chairperson: Any further questions? Thank you for your time, Ms. Mitchell. I would now like to call upon Krista Boryskavich to come to the podium. Krista Boryskavich (Winnipeg Humane Society): Good evening, Minister Kostyshyn, com mittee members.

My name is Krista Boryskavich, and I'm the director of animal advocacy and legal and government affairs at the Winnipeg Humane Society, and I 'm pleased to be here tonight to speak in support of Bill 19, The Animal Care Amendment Act. * (18:50) The bill does touch upon various issues. I'm going to focus my remarks tonight primarily on the licensing regime for breeders and for sellers because I think that's the bulk of the new provisions in the act, and so I think it's important to focus my time there.

On principle, the Winnipeg Humane Society opposes the breeding of pets solely for profit and without proper regard for the health and safety of the animal. We have long been an advocate for addressing the chronic issues related to the proliferation of back- yard breeders within Manitoba. It is critical that, if the breeding industry is to continue to exist in Manitoba, appropriate oversight through a robust regulatory system must be in place. And we believe that is what Bill 19 seeks to put in place.

So this oversight must ensure that all breeders adhere to best practices and welfare stan - dards so that animals in breeding facilities are not the victims of needless suffering or abuse. And, of course, the chronic overpopulation that results from backyard breeding is also contributing to the shelter overpopulation crisis. At the Winnipeg Humane Society, 6,284 animals came into our care in the last year alone.

And that number –it sounds like a large number, and it is–but it doesn't even account for the animals that we are unable to take into our care because shelter capacity and resources simply don 't allow it. We find ourselves declining requests for animal intake on a nearly daily basis. The Winnipeg Humane Society has also been a strong advocate for the regulation of online sales and giveaways of pets. This what I'm going call wild west of homing and rehoming sentient beings often doesn't come with background checks or due diligence on the parts of the sellers.

This has many consequences, one of the most dire being that animals may end up in the hands of unfit owners, where they may be abused or treated inhumanely. And, for instance, you know, we know of two recent and high -profile animal cruelty cases: one where the courts just handed down one of the most significant sentences in Canada for animal cruelty, Project Artemis; and the other a situation where deceased cats were– and I 'm sorry, I should probably say trigger warning here–but allegedly tortured and dumped under a Winnipeg bridge.

Both involved circumstances where animals were obtained through online sales or giveaways. So those are the worst case scenarios, but unwanted animals may also end up in animal-hoarding situations or other instances of neglect, just because a backyard bre eder wants to make a quick dollar or an overwhelmed owner may give their animal away to the first response that they get to an online ad. As a society, we must do better in protecting the vulnerable among us.

So, to that end, the Winnipeg Humane Society had put forward a proposal to address both backyard breeders and online sales or giveaways of companion animals, which included three pri mary components: strengthened regula tions governing breeders, new regula tions for the online sale and giveaway of companion animals and increased resources for the en forcement of both of those provisions.

We were pleased to see the introduction of Bill 19 in the Legislature, which is a positive step toward addressing these key animal issues and creating a regulatory system which holds backyard breeders and online sellers accountable. And, you know, in part to address the honourable member's question to the previous speaker, we recog- nize that this legislation is enabling legislation and the details of the regula tory system will follow through the adoption of regulation.

We also recognize that the devil is in the details, so I'd like to take this opportunity to put on the record some items that, from the Winnipeg Humane Society's point of view, must be addressed during the develop- ment of the regulations. And, to be clear, we 're not asking for them to be included in the legislation. We understand that it's enabling; but, when the regulations

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 121 are developed, we think these are important pieces to have addressed. So first, licensing requirements must be robust and include checks on an applicant 's history for past animal cruelty issues such as convictions. Second, the regulatory system must set out mandatory animal - welfare standards that include proactive and routine inspections of licence-holder facilities.

Third, similar to the requirements of the City of Winnipeg's Respon- sible Pet Owner ship By- law, breeders should be limited in both the number of litters permitted per year and over the lifetime of the animal. And I'm going to mention something that, while not necessarily the subject matter of The Animal Care Act, it does tie into this issue, in that sellers should also be required to pay taxes on the sale of these animals because, at the moment, this is free income for people looking to make a quick buck in an unregulated industry.

Fourth, an offence should be added for dumping unwanted animals, because we don' t want to simply solve one problem by creating another. Fifth, the regulatory system must be proactively and adequately enforced, with significant penalties for non-compliance. And sixth, a public education campaign should be developed not only to educate on the new regulatory system but to provide information to sellers on how to properly conduct due diligence to ensure their animal is going to a safe place.

That's something that the Humane Society does do at the moment through our social media channels and our website, but I think a high- profile education of sellers in this regard–because sellers do bear some responsibility–would be prudent. And to assist in tracking and enforcing these require ments, breeders and sellers should be required to have permanent ID for their animals, such as a microchip.

Now, this next one might be a little controversial, but ideally, a requirement for all animals sold or given away into this regulatory system to be spayed or neutered would go a long way in combating the pet overpopulation and shelter capacity crises that I mentioned previously. So as I close, I 'd like to commend Minister Kostyshyn, Deputy Minister Sinclair and their staff for moving forward with a plan to address these critical animal welfare issues through the introduction and hopefully the adoption of Bill 19.

The Winnipeg Humane Society looks forward to contributing our knowledge and expertise as the regulatory system is further developed and regulations are prepared. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Boryskavich. Are there any–does the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Kostyshyn: Let me just acknowledge, first and foremost, the Winnipeg Humane Society and what you contribute to the unfortunate treatment of animals and pets, and so I just want to compliment the organization for what you do.

Definitely to put your mind at ease in the, you know, audience, is that this is start of consul ta- tion, and we will continue to work for the betterment of pet animals to be treated equally and fairly and appropriately, and the regulations will dictate that to a certain extent. So I just value the operation–or the Winnipeg Humane Society, of your involvement–just–and other organizations, that we want to do this right, first and foremost, and have animals treated the way they should be, not treated to be –rather than being abused by the general public. So thank you for being here today.

The Chairperson: Thank you. K. Boryskavich: Yes, and thank you very much. And we really look forward to participating in the process on a go forward. Mr. Narth: Yes, thank you, and thank you for your presentation. I was hoping to have the op portunity to ask a repre sentative from the Humane Society this question that I did have. We talked about potentially–the minister and I in the briefing–that there would be exceptions.

And it 's something that, when I look at from me being the critic of Agricul ture, from a rural lens, that the restriction around the licensing could cause a situation where if there was an unforeseen litter in dogs and if someone didn't obtain a licence that–like, let's says it's a farm dog that was bred by a neighbour's dog–if there wasn't an exception for that case, that, you know, the litter may be dumped, r ight? And that would cause additional burden to– The Chairperson: Mr. Narth, your time is up.

122 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 K. Boryskavich: Yes, and as I mentioned in my pre- sentation, the dumping of animals is some thing that we're concerned about as well because we don't want to create one problem as we' re solving another. So that's certainly something that needs to be looked at. I know that there are at least one or two munici- palities who've included–and I hate to call it this –but anti-dumping provisions in their animal control bylaws. So I think it is some thing significant to look at in this context.

And then I will also say, with respect to exceptions, we recog nize that there are certainly different situations. There is a difference between a commercial breeder, somebody who has, you know, an unexpected litter of animals. I think that that 's something that will need to be examined more closely in the dev elopment of that regula tory stage, because I think you' ve got to be careful with that exception process. * (19:00) An unwanted litter might happen once; if you have the same seller or the same person with multiple unwanted litters throughout the course of years, then that develops into a different issue.

So I think, you know, that 's got to be looked at very closely to determine what those exceptions would look like and how to make sure that people aren't taking advantage of those exceptions as a loophole. The Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Kostyshyn: Yes, maybe in somewhat of a reply to members opposite on the question. Let 's be realistic. You know, certain things happen. It's not in- tentional, and those kind of individuals, I think there will be some understanding of uncertain circum - stances, but–being a farmer for 40 years of my life and having numerous dogs –occasionally certain things happen.

But I think in the long run, we're not pursuing those kind of situations. We're trying to minimize the overpopulation of puppy mills and the market that seems to be very attractive of marketing them somewhere else. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. K. Boryskavich: Yes, and I think that 's perfectly reasonable and a perfectly reasonable approach because, you know, the one-off litter of puppies is not what is causing the overpopulation crisis. So. The Chairperson: Any further questions from the opposition? Hon.

Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): I just wanted to thank you on behalf of people all across the city for the work that you do at the Humane Society. My daughter would be really angry at me if I didn't take a moment to say thank you for saving all of the beautiful animals that you have. We have rescues in our home and I just want to–from the bottom of my heart –thank you for the work that you do. K. Boryskavich: Well, thank you very much for your comments, Minister, and thank you as well because we cannot do our work without people who are willing to adopt or foster those rescues.

So it really does take a team. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. I would now like to call Mrs. Debra Vandekerkhove. She's online. Mrs. Vandekerkhove? Mrs. Vandekerkhove, you need to be promoted to panelist in order to present. Mrs. Vandekerkhove will be dropped to the bottom of the list. I would now like to call upon Mrs.–Ms. Julie Braga. Ms. Julie Braga? Ms. Braga will be dropped to the bottom of the list. I would now like to call upon Jill Verhey [phonetic]–Verwey. She's on virtual; she 's from the Keystone agriculture producers. Ms. Verwey? Hi, Ms. Verwey. Please proceed with your presentation.

Jill Verwey (Keystone Agri cultural Producers): Good evening, Chairman and members of the com - mittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Jill Verwey, and I'm president of Keystone Agricultural Producers. KAP is Manitoba's general farm policy organization and we represent all Manitoba farmers and 18 commodity associations. I am here this evening to speak to Bill 19, The Animal Care Amendment Act. The Animal Care Act is important legislation that helps guide and support animal welfare here in Manitoba.

The expectations on how livestock producers care for and handle their animals are clearly set out in the act and the regula - tion through accepted codes of practices and other standards. Every farm adopts acceptable husbandry, handling and management practices that are essential

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 123 to the health and well- being of their animals. Manitoba producers work every day to ensure that their animals are cared for appropriately and with a goal of preventing unnecessary discomfort and distress. The Canadian Agri -Food Research Council publishes relevant codes of practice for Manitoba producers to follow. The codes of practice are science- based, involving extensive research and consulta- tion with stakeholders. The rigorous process occurs for code dev elopment, and consensus is key when developing these codes of practice.

When developing codes through the Canadian Agri-Food Research Council, consulting members include commodity groups, provincial ministries of agriculture, animal welfare groups. This collaborative approach is important because it ensures that animal- care standards are practical, credible, evidence-based and reflective of continuous improvement within the livestock sector. Reviews occur every five years, and updates generally occur every 10. Importantly, farm animals in Manitoba have a code of practice that producers follow.

We want to ensure that any future code, standard and guideline that is updated in the animal-care regulation continues to be science- based and supported by industry stakeholders. We support Bill 19 in that it enables the Department of Agriculture to reference the most recent version of the animal -care code standard and guidelines in the animal- care regulation without having to amend each time an animal code–a practice or standard is updated to keep it current.

This change will also reduce red tape, which we've been advocating for and helping to reduce the regulatory burden on producers and operations in Manitoba. To government, this change is a good example of streamlining processes and improving regulatory efficiency that we have been advocating for. Thank you again for the opportunity to present this evening, and I'm pleased to answer any questions from the committee. The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Verwey. Any questions from the committee? Mr.

Kostyshyn: Thank you so much, Jill, for your support and the opportunity to work together with the Keystone Agricultural Producers, Jill. You know, one of many organizations, Jill –and you' ve been very helpful; the organization has been very helpful. And it's going to be a team approach, as we see the people in attendance today and through organ- izations such as the Keystone Agricultural Producers. We really feel this is–we want to do it right, we want to do it once.

And everybody's going to have a chance to voice their thoughts, what is the right way of doing it appropriately so we minimize the unwanted dogs that, unfor tunately, we see way too often, and the problems that the Winnipeg Humane Society or other organizations need to find oppor tunities to help out these stray animals. So thank you so much, Jill, and appreciate your comments. The Chairperson: Thank you. J.

Verwey: No, I just want to identify–you know, thank you very much, Minister Kostyshyn and the department, and working together with that collaborative approach to ensure that we 're advocating for that regulatory burden but to ensure the continued safe husbandry and practices of producers here in Manitoba. So thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. Are there any further questions? Okay. Thank you, Ms. Verwey. I would now like to call upon Joan Stimson. Sorry, Lori Zahara. My apologies. Lori Zahara? Lori Zahara will be moved to the bottom of the list.

Bill 29–The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act (Continued) The Chairperson: We will now move forward to the next bill, Bill 29, The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act. I would like to call Mr. David Grant. Mr. Grant, please proceed with your presentation. David Grant (Private Citizen): My apologize – apologies for not being here beginning of the last bill. I was in the other room. I agree with a number of elements of Bill 29. A board with 36 members on it can doom it to inaction. So it's–does seem like far too many people to be–to all be heard and to be directing, aiming the board. * (19:10)

124 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 So the bigger problem is the conflict of interest reference in this bill. That there should be a conflict of interest bylaw adopted by this board seems like a good idea. Unfortunately, this leaves a little bit to chance, and it would have been better, I think, to–or maybe the minister could bring forward a regulation–look at the– scan the environment and see what similar university boards have for codes of ethics and the merits of them and suggest one, rather than just leave it up to the board to adopt something.

I think, too often, if you leave it up to an organization or a body like a small board, what limitations should we put on ourselves? And if nobody' s watching, the re won 't be much limitation. So that was–the main thing I had to say was that the–we–enabling the board to write its own code of ethics, it does put them in a perceived conflict of interest because you can 't ask somebody who might be tempted to do bad things once in a while, or might see that in the future, to make their own rules.

Generally, that's why the Legislature is here , to give good thought to everything and to make sure the rules imposed are meaningful and not what we would pick. So that was–the main comment I had to make was the spelling out what the code of office should be. I noticed nowhere in this does it say the–because it's dealing with the board of the university–does it say that the terms of office should be overlapping.

And I think, on a board, that's very important because if the board–if their terms all expire at the same time, then you get–may get a bunch of newbies in and there are a bunch of other operational problems. So that's something that should be in a bill like this describing a board. That–one of the boards I'm on, we just brought that in a year and a bit ago. So at that point, we decided to draw lots, and all the people on the board either got a two year or a one year. And that meant half of us would go for re-election at the end of that time period.

So it' s a simple process, and I think it ensures continuity for the board. And I 'm not sure if it' s in there now, but I would hope that it would be in the future. And, again, that 's something that could be in the bill, it could be in a regula tion. But I would just push those two ideas. And thank you very much for your time. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Any questions from–Minister Cable? Hon. Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training) : Mr. Grant, it 's always lovely to see you here.

I 've said it before and I 'll say it again: I appreciate how much time you commit to staying abreast of the changing legal framework in our province, and I sincerely wish that more people were engaged in the way that you are. These are very astute observations, and I thank you for your feedback. D. Grant: Yes, I –thank you, Minister. And in the early days of the Winnipeg Police Board, I had board experience and was talking to their first secretary about how people get put on a board that had never been there before. There was a very learned person who wrote a book about being newly appointed to a board.

So I suggested it to Jane [phonetic] , the secretary of that board, and she was so impressed she bought a copy for her board. So having–and again, that's because it was a new board; U of W isn't. But how things work and how they're supposed to work is very important. I commend this organization. The standing committees are always run flawlessly, and so I commend you on doing that. There are small boards and there are boards in little towns that can' t boast that, and anything we can do to help. So thank you very much, Minister. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Any further questions? Okay.

Thank you for your time. I would now like to call upon Michael Shaw. Mr. Shaw, please proceed with your presentation. Michael Shaw (Private Citizen): Thanks very much, and thanks for your time this evening. I apologize for my attire, but I spent the day at the CLC, and I didn' t get a chance to take off my anti-scab T-shirt. First up, I'd like to talk a little bit about how I look forward–I check the website all the time and I look for bills from the minister. I remain puzzled, two and a half years into the mandate, that we haven 't done bill 33, which is in your mandate letter.

And then I expected maybe this one was going to be the health care for the international students. And again, also in the mandate letter, and yet, hasn 't been acted on. So then I opened the document and had a read, and I do have some comments on this bill. I work at the University of Manitoba. I 'm deeply involved in the governance of the University of Manitoba. I serve on the senate there, as well as the

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 125 senate executive; been active in the UMFA, which is the union there, for many, many years. But I want to just comment on a few things in this bill that I think are a little bit problematic. They 're– step in the right direction. We 're down to three religious appointments to a public secular uni versity, funded by public money. That is in the right direction– three short of the actual goal in my mind, but you' re getting there.

And I've talked to some of my colleagues at the University of Winnipeg about this and they say, well, it's historic, it's where we came from, it's what we used to be, the United College and so on. And then I would counter that argument with what now is Louis Riel School Division and used to be, many, many years ago, St. Boniface school division; and going back–and it had dedicated positions for the Catholic Church. But we're now in a time where it would be wholly unacceptable if Louis Riel School Division' s board had designated positions for the Catholic Church. We've moved beyond that as a society.

We 've moved beyond that. Religion–freedom is very, very important; having an opinion about religion is very important. But if you are in a position of authority over the public purse deciding on the future and direction of a public institution, you shouldn' t be placed there because of your affiliation with a particular religion. And so while I commend the work that's occurred here to reduce the number of appointed members from the United Church, I think it's still three short.

And the other thing that 's in the bill and I think can be strengthened, and hopefully we 're thinking about a similar bill for the University of Manitoba at some point in the future, I think it's absolutely key that all four of our public universities–board of governors or regents, whatever the term happens to be–meetings must, by default, be open. There has to be a compelling personnel reason or some other–are your–well, they probably won' t have the negotiating ones open to the public. I can see their thoughts there.

But the default for public universities in Manitoba must be that the board of whatever the governor and call is–governors, regents–must be open and there must be compelling reasons to go in camera. I know my own institution, University of Manitoba, every standard agenda has got in camera. And I have served for three years as an assessor on that body, and I've participated in those in camera. I'm not allowed to tell you what happened, but there is much in there. Discussing the strategic plan of an institution shouldn't be private. Discussing, you know, all of these sorts of things shouldn't be public.

So when we 're making these university amend- ment acts, the default of in camera –pardon me, the default of in camera–the in camera sessions and the sessions where people are excluded, members of the public, members of the institution in terms of the staff and students, that should be in a rare instance where there's a compelling reason to have those people excluded from the conversation. So I look forward to a future where I am here discussing your amendments to bill 33 that were put in place by the previous government and to remove those from that act.

And I look forward to seeing a day when, once again, international students in the province of Manitoba have access to health care, the same way that all of us do. I look forward to those two days, as in your mandate letter, and I look forward to a U of M implementation act for some sort of governance in the future. And if you ever want to talk about what I think should be in that, I 'm always available, but those are my comments on the U of W act. The Chairperson: Just moving forward, Mr.

Shaw, political slogans or props are not allowed, so in the future, please just ensure that you' re wearing some - thing appro priate or maybe even turn it inside out. I don't know. Any questions? MLA Cable: Thank you Mr. Shaw, for your thought- ful comments. University of Manitoba is coming. University of Winnipeg is the first out of the gate on much overdue legislation reform. I very much take your points on the meetings by default being open. I agree.

And finding real justifiable reasons to have in camera sessions are– I mean, that is the intent now. * (19:20) I will speak to bill 33 and international student health care. I can assure you that international student health care is moving along. I unfortunately do not have the ability in my department to deliver that particular piece, but it is–I'm looking at the people at the back of the room here, part of my team. I can assure you that we are working on it and bill 33 as well, looking at what parts of that that we

126 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 can move on without putting students in undue risk of having– The Chairperson: Thank you, Minister Cable, your time is up. M. Shaw: I understand that the international health care is not a solely Advanced Ed issue. I will remind you–I'm sure you know–it's also in the mandate letter of the Minister of Health. So I think that that solution needs to be coming, and I look forward to the U of M amendments–and I can 't remember what you said about bill 33. MLA Cable: Bill 33: We're looking at what we can act on for fear that–[interjection] The Chairperson: Oh, sorry.

Any further questions from opposition? No. Sorry, Minister Cable. MLA Cable: My turn? Sorry. We just want to make sure that the students are not unduly harmed by not having a provision around tuition. That is the big fear, especially in times right now. As you know, it' s very unstable in the sector with the loss of inter - national students and increasing instability in the post- secondary sector, so we want to make sure that stability is top of mind. M. Shaw: Thank you very much for that. I appreciate that it is a unstable time.

It was one of the discussions today at the CLC in terms of what' s facing the post - secondary across Canada. And Manitoba has been less affected than places like Ontario and British Columbia, but I appreciate the efforts that your depart- ment is making to that. And I apologize to the whole committee for my inappropriate shirt. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions from the opposi tion? Or any questions? No? Okay, thank you, Mr. Shaw. I would now like to call upon Dr. Peter Miller from the University of Winnipeg Faculty Association, and he is online. Dr. Miller? Hi, Dr. Miller.

Please proceed with your pres - entation. Peter Miller (University of Winnipeg Faculty Association): Certainly. So my name is Peter Miller. I'm president of the University of Winnipeg Faculty Association. UWFA is the union that represents all instruc - tional, research and library staff at the U of W, and that is over 600 members on any given day. As I know members of the public and others here know, UWFA members are the core of the university. We represent decades of service to the university and its community of students, alumni, staff and the general public.

So when I come here as UWFA president, I hope you acknowledge we' re speaking with the voice of generations of university service and people to whom the university is part of their life and their life's work. I'd like to begin by thanking the minister, the deputy minister and their staff for their work on this bill. It's been a pleasure to work with a government to listen to faculty, who consulted with us as experts, who respected us as professionals and took our suggestions seriously.

Many of the things we suggested are present here, and we agree with them: oversight of the president and the president 's recusal from reviews of their performance, for example; maintaining the restriction of government appointees to less than 51 per cent of the board; the reduction of United Church repre sen- tatives–though here I will agree with the previous speaker. We advocated for zero; we don 't believe United Church representatives are appropriate on a modern public education board–but I take the point of them having an historical role, and I 'm glad to see it reduced.

In any case, we agree with much needed modernization of this board. We support the size reduction of the board, which we believe will make the board more responsive to the university com - munity, better to manage the university and especially, perhaps foremost, performing its impor - tant role of oversight of the president. We do, however, have one criticism that I would respectfully ask the government to address, and that's support staff. So there used to be two support staff members on the university Board of Regents. Support staff have lost all representation on the board.

They're the only group that has lost all representation. And this is something with which the UWFA strongly disagrees. We held to this position in all consultation and discussions with the department informally and formally. It was a unique element of UW board to have support staff, but I believe it represented the culture of the U of W. Staff, as we all know, are decades -long employees. They bring university service and

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 127 employment expertise to the board, something that's– which the board always needs and can always benefit from. Staff are integral to univer sity culture and its governance. They are stakeholders, in our opinion, on the same level as faculty, students, alumni, and certainly on the same level as the United Church. So we would suggest, respectfully, an amendment to this act to add a single support staff member to keep that representation and to maintain the unique culture of the U of W Board of Regents. This could be done by adding a member to the total.

It could be done by reducing the church appointees. It could be done by reducing the government appointees. In any case, this would, I think, maintain this unique element and ensure that the U of W Board continues as it has in the past to represent all constitu- encies and all stakeholders at the University of Winnipeg. But I'll stop here and thank, again, the minister and her staff for their work and for their consultation with us on this bill. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Dr. Miller. Are there any questions? MLA Cable: I'm not sure where the camera is here. There. There it is.

I appreciate you taking the time to provide your feedback, Dr. Miller. I can appreciate life is very busy so, thank you, again, for your help during the consultations and look forward to continued conversations. P. Miller: Yes, thanks so much. Future NDP voter and University of Winnipeg student is behind me. But no, thanks so much for your work and for your support of the university. And I 'll just close by also echoing what Mike just said. International student health care is foremost in importance to our members as well, and so I'm glad to hear that it's coming.

And maybe–I'll have to probably say that's the end of what I 've got to say now before I'm pulled off. So thanks so much. The Chairperson: Any questions from the opposition? Thank you, Dr. Miller. I would now like to call upon Ms. Cannan Daree. I apologize if I said your name incorrectly. Cannan–please proceed with your pre sentation, Cannan. Cannan Daree (University of Winnipeg Students ' Association): Good evening. My name is Cannan Daree, and I am the vice- president, External Affairs, for the University of Winnipeg's Student Association.

As a UWSA representative speaking on behalf of students, I'm here today to speak about Bill 29 and the importance of meaningful student representation in university governance. The Board of Regents makes major decisions that directly impact students. These decisions shape tuition, importance –tuition accessibility, student services and overall direction for–of the university. Students are not passive observers of these deci - sions. We live them every single day. The positive aspects of Bill 29 are continuously being highlighted to students.

We are told that students will still have representation because two seats remain on the Board of Regents, but what is not being highlight ed is what students are losing. We are being told that we are going from four student seats to two seats. In reality, we are going from eight student seats to two. Historically, students could hold up to eight seats on the Board of Regents. There were four solid student seats connected to the UWSA, as well as two student seats with the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council and two student seats connected to the United Church appointments.

If all student positions had been properly protected and enforced, students should have repre - sented 20 per cent of the board instead of 9.5 per cent. Due to Bill 29, the board is going from 36 members to 21. The overall board is shrinking by 40 per cent and student representation is being reduced to 75 per cent. That is not proportional representation. Students are the largest stakeholder group in post- secondary education, yet our representation continues to shrink. We are also asking for meaningful consul - tation.

Presenting students with a nearly finalized proposal and asking them to accept it is not consulta- tion, but notification. Student representation should not be optional; it should be guaranteed within legis lation. And I ask this respectfully: Why should certain external stake - holders hold more guaranteed representation than the primary stakeholder of the institution? We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking for equal and proportional representation, which is four solidified seats on the board.

A reduc - tion of eight student representatives to two would effectively disenfranchise students and weaken the

128 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 student voices within university governance. As a UWSA representative speaking on behalf of students, we believe students should not merely witness governance, we should actively help shape it. * (19:30) What is often highlighted to us is that many university boards across the country do not include students. But I ask: Is that truly the standard we would like to aspire to?

All we are asking is for meaningful representation, proportional represen- tation and guaranteed seats at the table because universities should strengthen student voices in governance and not reduce them. Thank you so much for listening to me and thank you for your time. The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Daree. Any questions? Oh, sorry. Minister Cable? MLA Cable: I just want to thank you for your time, for coming here and for the engagement with the de - partment and appreciate it very much. C. Daree: Thank you so much for listening. Like I said, I appreciate having a seat on the board, like we said.

And, yes, we just hope to hear from you. Thank you. The Chairperson: Any questions from the opposi - tion? Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Daree. I would now like to call upon Mr. Alan Koshy. Mr. Koshy, please proceed with your pres - entation. Alan Koshy (Private Citizen): Sounds good. Honourable Chair, members of the committee, I appear today as a private resident, a student of philosophy at the University of Winnipeg and a former student leader. I've seen the mechanics of university governance from the inside, and I know that its strength lies in the ability to balance diverse institutional perspectives.

When we looked at Bill 29 from a student 's per- spective, it's brought forward as a move towards gov- ernment–or governance efficiency. But we must look at it–but we must look at what is being sacrificed on the altar of efficiency. Math here is not just unbalanced, it is egregious. The government is reducing the total board size by roughly 40 percentage. However, student representation is being slashed from eight seats down to just two, a 75 per cent reduction in student voice. When you cut the largest stakeholder nearly twice as deep as the rust of –rest of the board, you aren' t just slimming down a group.

It comes forward as a value judgment: the student expertise is the most expendable part of the university mission. While the two remaining seats will be elected by the student association, we must address the vacuum that 's left behind. Previously, there were eight student spots on the board. Four were student elected and the other four ensured a student presence within the wider appointment pools. Under Bill 29, there is no longer a requirement that the general council or the LGIC appointments include students.

By removing these mandates, you are effectively building a barrier around the student voice, containing it to a tiny corner of the board rather than integrating into the core of the university's decision-making process. So the ask is meaningful amendments. Because of this change in seats, I 'm asking for specific amendments to the Bill 29 to ensure that student representation is not a courtesy, but a structural requirement. My ask is based on three pillars. Protected selection and expansion: We need a legislative guarantee that the student appointments are written into the general council and LGIC categories.

We cannot leave student presence in these pools to chance or the goodwill of any active group in those pools. Proportionality: If the board must shrink, the student voice must maintain its current proportional share. A 75 percentage cut to students while the rest of the board is cut by 40 percentage is not propor - tionality; it is a tragic –it is a targeted reduction of oversight. And proactive part nership: I would like to point out that accessibility has been brought forward by the current government, and I would like to thank that.

And governance is most effective when it is a program–proactive partnership rather than a reactive one. I'm asking this committee to view students not as a group to be managed, but as partners in the university's mission, who provide the lived experience necessary for the board to make informed and equitable decisions. The 2020 report called for better oversight and accountability. You do not achieve that by removing the people that constitute the biggest stake holder of

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 129 the university. Students are the core of the university's mission. Our lived experience on everything ranging from tuition, campus life, campus safety, all the way to even student services, is the most vital expertise available to any board. We are not merely customers of an institution; we are its primary stakeholders and its first line of accountability. Reducing the size of the board is a logistical choice, but deciding that the student voice is too much to handle is a choice about value.

And I urge this committee to amend Bill 29 to ensure that student representation is protected, proportional and woven into every level of board appointments. I wish that student voice is not silenced, and – student voice is not silenced, as it is the very people the university has been built to serve. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Koshy. Any questions? MLA Cable: Thank you for joining us, private citizen Alan. Thank you for your service on–your previous service on the UWSA board. You did a fantastic job advocating for students.

And I want to assure you that the changes here–there is actually a larger share of student voice in this new arrangement. But I absolutely appre ciate all of the sentiments around what you had to say. And thank you for being here tonight, even when it's no longer your job and you are a private citizen. I really appreciate that. The Chairperson: Thank you. A. Koshy: Thank you so much, and I think the part of the reason we came is we understand the reason of going towards a smaller board. We understand the purpose. And we want to be part of that process in an effective manner.

And we want regulations put in place so that student voice doesn't drown out. And although I'm not in my former role as well, student voice and representation is always going to be a priority for me in every role that I take. Yes. So thank you. Thank you so much for giving me the oppor tunity to speak here and thank you for listening to me, and I hope to continue the con versa- tion going forward. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you for your time. I would now like to call upon Jino Distasio. Mr. Distasio, please proceed with your pre senta- tion.

Jino Distasio (Private Citizen): Good evening, everyone. I'll try to keep my comments brief. I would like to start, if the committee will indulge me, in thanking Jan Forster –she took time out to present the changes to the bill to both our senate and last night to our Board of Regents –and to Minister Cable and setting that team up to come out and answer some tough questions and present these im portant changes. I'll keep my pre sentation short. I 'd like to echo the comments of our board chair, Michelle Pereira, and really focus on supporting the changes to the bill.

I think it's timely that we support change in the gov- ernance model of the University of Winnipeg. And I 'll take you back –just, you know, as a faculty member and the interim president, I do like to tell stories. Last week, I was in Calgary and Edmonton at some alumni events. I met alumni from 1965, and we spoke about the role of the United College at the time. And to me, this change is similar to that in that it is a transformative change –not necessarily going from a college to a university, but for modernizing the governance structure that is fun damental to how we operate as a university.

And as some of you know, in one way or one shape or another, the uni versity has stood on those grounds for over 150 years. And we 've seen a lot of change. And I think this is an important change. And while that change comes with some challenges to, perhaps, representation, to change in the composition of whether staff are represented, whether our wonderful students are represented by eight–but they still are represented, and the voice of two can be as strong as eight, and if not stronger and more powerful on a smaller board that becomes more nimble.

So, as we, as a uni versity, have moved to a staff and a cohort of over 10,000 in the downtown, I do really think that this is the time that as a public in sti- tution, to have the oversight that is possible through this transformative shift in our board. This gives us the ability to have the right set of skills, the right types of committees and to empower a smaller board to do more things. And I think that 's the fun damental change from a board of 36 that is not dysfunctional, but it 's oversized for t he operations that need to be

130 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 done. I think at 21, it modernizes us, it brings us in greater alignment with not just the university but I suspect the other post -secondaries as these acts continue to be changed. * (19:40) So, in

summary, thank you for the opportunity to present briefly. I support the amendments as presented and thank you very much. The Chairperson: Thank you. MLA Cable: I want to take a moment to thank you for coming tonight and specifically for thanking you for stepping into the interim president role. I know that that is a role that comes with a lot of uncertainty on top of uncertainty, and thank you very much for your service there and for supporting this important legislation. The Chairperson: Mr. Distasio? Any further ques- tions? No? Thank you. I would now like to call upon Mr.

Erik Thomson from the University of Manitoba Faculty Association. Erik Thomson (Uni versity of Manitoba Faculty Association): Thank you for allowing me to talk. I did go to the CLC today, but I knew the rule, so I took off my shirt beforehand. My 1,300 members are not directly implicated in these changes, but I think and hear that these sorts of changes will be coming forward, and I would like to applaud lots of things in these bills. I parti cularly– sorry, in this bill. I particularly applaud the speci - fication of two Indigenous board members.

I applaud making some things that have been internal matters necessary: the conflict of interest, the specification of open meetings by default, more measures for transparency and the exclusion of the pre sident from annual performance reviews. I also applaud the courage of restricting the Lieutenant Governor -in-Council's appointments.

There's of course a necessity for the university to be accountable to the government, but there 's also dangers in governments being too involved in the day- to-day running and policy setting of an institution that, among their responsi bilities, can be supporting scholars that could criticize or differ from the gov - ernment in supporting their research.

I might ask you to go a little further and also increase the disinterested expertise available to the board and the capability of the board to–and, you know, maybe go beyond and be a leader in university governance, at least in Canada, and not merely follow current best practice. I might add a new (g) –so suggest an amendment to (g)–to appoint a member of the board named by both the Canadian Association of University Teachers and university Canada, who possesses expert know - ledge of Canadian university governance. CAUT and Universities Canada have, in the past, helped shape Manitoba's universities.

The University of Manitoba Act was introduced by George Johnson, Walter Weir's minister of Education, invoking the Duff Berdahl Report, a joint report from both of those commit– organizations, one which normally represents the administrators of universities and one which represents the faculties. The University of Winnipeg Act was also formed originally, as it departed from its status of United College, with input from both CAUT and Universities Canada. Why do I think it might be now necessary to have an expert on the board?

Better board governance now is more urgently needed than ever because universities are facing challenges that are faster, and knowing what the best practices is and examples from oth er places allow the best practice of board governance to take place. It would be ludicrous for an important corporate body–like a bank–to exist without corporate knowledge on that board. And universities are no less important than banks and no less peculia r in the expertise that's required to govern them well.

I'll note perhaps it 's also an influence of my –an institution from my natal state, one of the uni versities–New Jersey's universities–which has a very old charter, but on it –on its board uni versities, it regularly includes members of other universities, administrations and faculties to give that disinterested knowledge about what is best for university policy.

I would think that the Canadian Association of University Teachers and Universities Canada would also be a very Manitoba solution to this problem of disinterested expertise because we very often approach problems by looking for, sort of, employer side and the labour side organi zations to come together as a source to recommend expertise that solve problems and look to go ahead. I don't know whether the government would be willing to give up less power, but I 'd argue it is a beautiful thing for governments to govern more effectively by governing less.

And so, by reducing, maybe, the Lieutenant Governor 's appointments to nine, it would not create additional representational concerns of the sort that we 've heard eloquently expressed by students and ex-students here before.

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 131 And I hope the government will continue this amendment and applaud its attention to good university governance in the wake of the Auditor General 's report of some years ago. So thank you very much for letting me come and speak. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Thomson. MLA Cable: Thank you so much for coming, and I always love when there's a historian in the room, and I forget how much I like to learn about times gone by, so thank you for walking us through some different things. I really appreciate your solution–or your suggestion about a disinterested party.

I think it's very, very interesting. I know that it's making my staff team kind of look a little frantic right now, but I really appreciate the suggestion. And thank you, as always, for providing really good useful feedback. [interjection] The Chairperson: Mr. Thomson? E. Thomson: Oh, sorry. The Chairperson: No, it 's all good. Mr. Thomson, please proceed. E. Thomson: I apologize to the Speaker; it 's something thing I always do when I am here, sorry. The Chairperson: It's all good. E. Thomson: And thank you for your consid eration, Minister Cable. The Chairperson: Any further questions? Thank you for your time.

Bill 45–The Yellowquill University College Act and Amendments to The Advanced Education Administration Act The Chairperson: We will now proceed to Bill 45, The Yellowquill University College Act and Amendments to the Advanced Education Administration Act. And I would like to call upon Ms. Bobbi Pompana. We've got a shift change going on. Did I say your name correctly? [interjection] Ms. Popana [phonetic], please proceed. Bobbi Pompana (Private Citizen): Okay, well, good evening everyone that 's here. Thank you very much for listening to what Yellowquill needs to say.

I was hoping that Doreen, who is the director of the – Yellowquill, would come up first, but she told me to go ahead–since you called my name, to go ahead. I just want to introduce myself, first off: My name is Bobbi. I 'm from the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. I've–I come from a strong line of really strong Dakota women, who really fought for women' s rights and all of those kinds of things over the years, so, I mean, I sort of continued to do that. And I'm really proud of my heritage and proud of where I come from. My grandparents and my parents both went to residential school.

We were fortunate in that we did not have to go, but we did suffer the consequences of two generations ahead of us going through that route. You know, I think, as being the third generation t hat I can remember, you know, I worked really hard at becoming a better –a parent–a better parent than my parents were to us because they didn't know how to be parents. And I think that we learned a lot from our – my grandparents ' and my parents ' mistakes, yo u know. And people don' t normally say we learn lots from other people's mistakes. But, you know, I think I became a better parent because of that.

And I think that the whole–you know, that whole generation–or our whole generations right now still suffer greatly from those experiences that we had back over the years. And, you know–and I think that there's lots that we can still do to fix that. And, you know, I spent almost my whole education life going through school that did not ever make me proud of being First Nations and didn't ever teach me anything about First Nations people. I mean it was just, I guess, because of my age, when I was going to elementary school, it was just not something that was ever brought up. You know, things are getting better.

Things are improving now. It's still not as good as it should be, but it is improving, and things are getting better. So, I mean, like, I know through elementary, high school, you know, a stint at the college, going to university, that none of those places ever really did what they needed to do, to teach First Nations people to work with First Nations people.

And I think that t hat's one thing that 's so im portant and I think that that 's one thing that Yellowquill does really well, right now, is that we understand our people. * (19:50) We know what kinds of knowledge people should have to go work in our organizations or our com mu- nities and they learn things that make sense to them, you know, so if we 're going to go to–in out into the

132 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 workforce, then they–at least they learn how to do that. And I think that that's something that is, I guess, is kind of lacking in some areas right now. You know, my entire workforce, like my entire work career has always been with First Nations people ever since I graduated from uni versity. It was like every organization or every place I worked was spe - cifically for First Nations people. And I spent lots of years working in Child and Family Services and lots of years working in education.

And, I mean, I can safely say that what I learned going to uni versity did not prepare me to go to a First Nations community and work. It just didn' t. You know, the expectations, the language, the–it was all kinds of things that sort of get in the way of being able to really work with the people that you're there to work for. You know, I think that we –like the whole –like with my ex perience and the whole edu cation, the whole work experiences has always still been kind of a colonial kind of environ ment.

There was govern - ment policies–I worked for Child and Family Services for a very long time and there was always a Child and Family Services act that really did not–was not made for First Nations people. You know, 90 per cent of the kids in care were First Nations but the act did not go with that, and it's basically the same with education as well. I think when we were going through discussions around how do we develop the act, and we talked a lot about reconciliation, we talked a lot about the reality of where our students were going to go work when they graduated.

We talked about the reality of how students who were not First Nations, who were going to work with First Nations people, really should learn a whole lot more about that environment: the cultural pieces, the traditional pieces, like those are all really important if you're going to work with that group of people. And, you know, Yellowquill is open to anybody, and I've done lots of hiring over the years. I mean, I was the director of an agency for over 20 years, I was the CEO of the Southern Network for a few years, I did a stint with Yellowquill as a director of Yellowquill.

So I'm like–I know when we 're looking to hire people to come and work for us, it 's really difficult to find people who have a really good base and a really good understanding of what kinds of things do they need to know to work with First Nations people. Yes, I don' t really want to –no, I won' t say. But I just think that one of the things that I think that 's really important for us, too–and we maybe sometimes compare ourselves to other institutions –is that we don't want to create unnecessary barriers for students who want to come to a university college.

You know, we have to understand the cultural pieces, the traditional pieces, the way of life, I guess, for First Nations people. You know, like I know sometimes people or students get–are absent for a week, and it 's because someone in their com munity passed away. And traditionally and culturally, it' s really impor tant that you're with your family during that time. So, within our institution, we understand that.

We find ways to make sure that students can catch up, they can do the work that they missed while they were gone, because we're not going to expect them to change their cultural values because they want to get an education. Nobody should have to do that. So, I mean, I think that that's one of the things that we find really important. And I think we all realize as well that, you know, First Nations people generally have gone through a tre mendous amount of trauma over the years because of all of the things that have happened to us. You know, our students who come to our school experience those same things as well.

You know, so we have to do–and we're prepared to do extra things for our students rather than say, okay, we 're going to withdraw you now bec ause you missed too much time, or we 're going to withdraw you now because you didn't hand in an assignment. You know, so I mean, like, we'll work with them, we'll encourage them to continue to stay and to be suc- cessful. You know, like sometimes all it takes is for one successful step for them to keep on going in that direction.

You know, we've–most of my involvement, I think, with Yellowquill–right now, I 'm doing the contract with Yellowquill, working on this process of getting Yellowquill recognized. But most of my involvement has been around education and around our bachelor of relational studies, which is w hat we call our bachelor of social work program. And–now we've worked really hard at getting all of our programs accredited. They' re all accredited through some accreditation process.

And that 's all really impor tant, but we also want –like, we were teaching only diploma programs up until 2021 when we started our bachelor of education program. And it was at that point that we decided that maybe it was necessary to sort of work with the Province, get that recog nition so that our teachers would be certified through the certification branch.

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 133 And I just –I do want to thank, you know, the Department of Education for their support and all of that because we did get degree-granting status for our education program. But it' s the same with our social work –or our bachelor of relational studies. You know, we attempted to work with other institutions to get some of our courses transferred into their programs, but because our programs are specific to First Nations people, the other institutions don 't offer the same programs that we do.

You know –and I guess we could, in turn, say the same thing to them if they wanted to transfer to us because they don' t teach the same things that we do either. You know, I think that there's some compromise that we could probably make on how we would work towards that, but our students who would– who came through our child and family service program, which is a two -year diploma, our addictions and mental health program and our Jordan' s Principle program, they're all two -year diplomas and there really wasn' t any place else for them to go once they finished that, right?

If they went to the university, they would have to start all over again from year one, go forward. So we designed our own program where the –our program was a post-diploma program. If you had one of the diplomas, then you came back for an additional two years and you got a degree in bachelor of relational studies. Our program will be– The Chairperson: Ms. Pompana, your time is up. Floor Comment: Pardon me? The Chairperson: Your time is up. Floor Comment: Oh, okay. The Chairperson: Yes. [interjection] You can finish your comments during the question period if you'd like.

So I will ask Minister Cable –or–if there 's any questions. Hon. Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): I would like to waive my time to allow Ms. Pompana to finish, but before I do that, I just want to say –give a sincere thank you for the work that you've engaged in with folks in our department, with legal counsel. It has been a transformational activity for everybody who has been involved, so thank you for pushing for 40 years to get it done. And I cede my time to have you finish what you're saying. [interjection] The Chairperson: Ms. Pompana. B. Pompana: Thank the Premier (Mr.

Kinew) because he' s had a –he's always had a significant interest in Yellowquill and did spend time coming to our institution quite regularly. I thank Ren ée Cable and her staff. You know – and I mean they were excellent. They –we worked really well. We had fun as well as working very, very hard–yes. The legal writers, I mean that was the very first time I think that legal writers ever sat in on how something was developed and it worked really well. And I wanted to thank them for the work that they've done as well. The secretariat –the recon - ciliation secretariat was involved as well.

And, of course, our own board of directors and the people who work with DOTC with–and with Yellowquill. So thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. Are there any questions from the opposition? No? Thank you, Ms. Pompano [phonetic]–Pompana. Sorry. I would now like to call upon Mr. Bruce Unfried. Did I say your name properly? Floor Comment: Yes. The Chairperson: Okay, Mr. Unfried. Please proceed with your presentation.

Bruce Unfried (Private Citizen): Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation to the legislative committee. * (20:00) For the purpose of my presentation tonight, I 'd like to speak on my own and active involvement with Yellowquill University College, commencing in 2005, when I was invited to be part of a planning com- mittee to develop a diploma program in First Nations Child and Family Services. After 23 years of working in northern Manitoba and 10 years working in Winnipeg and four years at the University of Manitoba, I decided to join the team, which was led by Dakota Ojibway Child and Family

134 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12, 2026 Services, whose director was Bobbi Pompana–was the push behind the development of the program. The agency was finding it was difficult to hire staff. It was hard to hire staff from programs at the University of Manitoba and other work–and, often difficult to really send folks into the com munity, out of school, with, really, a lack of knowledge. And I can speak from ex perience because that was my own experience coming out of university.

Some of the key issues were identified were the lake–lack of trained staff, difficulty in recruiting staff and the reality that newly hired workers from the current post-secondary educations often lacked a basic under standing of cultural relevant practices. It was a learning issue. We began the–after a series of agency com mu- nity consultations, the program was launched in September 2007 by Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services in Yellowquill College.

The initial site for the program was in Brandon, Manitoba; the program subsequently moved to rented space on Border Street in Winnipeg and into the present site at Yellowquill University College. The two -year program–diploma program prepares students for a career as a child and family services worker with a specific focus on services to children and families in First Nations com- munities. I was subsequently hired as the sessional instructor in the diploma program in 2007. I also worked as part of the team with the college in cur - riculum dev elopment for the child and family pro - gram.

I also was involved in working with the board, management and staff in preparing Yellowquill University College for the external accreditation review. In 2007, seeing Yellowquill Uni versity College was approved for a 10- year accreditation by the National Indigenous Accreditation in the World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium. Particular attention in the work at Yellowquill College also was spurred on by the provincial govern- ment. And the–this government was the first govern- ment in my tenure in Manitoba to take a lead role with the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry child-welfare initiative.

The report of the eight –Aboriginal Justice Inquiry came out in 1991; the real action started about 1999. And the change brought about some major changes in the recommendations and work of agencies. We also work with students in helping students understand the history of the residential schools, also a history of the various types of institutions where students were–children and families were placed. So we had major working issues to go with. Cur rently, now, the dif ficulty has always been –is that the work has always been governed by the provincial Child and Family Services Act.

And, really, what that does –we know historically –it has had major problems for families. The major change occurred in 2003 when The Child and Family Services A uthorities Act came in, and the duties and powers of the author ities were changed. But, again, it made major changes in terms of juris diction, expanded juris diction. It created the four authorities. It set up regional agencies, designated intake agencies, et cetera. But, again, the problem was in one part of the act as agencies –First Nations agencies in Manitoba tried to struggle with developing their own standards.

They were handcuffed by t he authorities act.

Section 19 of the authorities act says it ensures that culturally ap propriate standards for services, practices, procedures are developed. The next

section says they must conform to provincial standards. And that has always been a drawback. So, again, it does have a potential to make changes. What has changed everything, in my view, is in 2020, the federal legislation,

an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, Métis children, youth and families. This came into force. The Peguis First Nations child and family services is the sole agency in Manitoba that has their own jurisdictional agency with the new legislation. The act is more important that it allows communities to decide what' s the best care for their families and children. The–in 2024, again, this government introduced bill 38,

an Act respecting Child and Family Services Indigenous Jurisdiction. The bill affirms the right of Indigenous people to exercise jurisdiction. So they moved the legislation into a federal one to ensure that it met the legislation part. So right now where we are today with the key passages of the new legis - lation, it does now allay –allow for the jurisdictional development of culturally appropriate standards.

I speak in support of the legislation before you tonight, which recognizes Yellowquill University College as a formally approved university college and ensures recognition as a legitimate post- secondary education provider within the Manitoba system. In my view, Yellowquill University College is strategically positioned to take on a key role in partnering with students and com munities, incor - porating a new learning environment for children and families. And, again, you'll be making decisions over the next little while for the passage of the legislation.

May 12, 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 135 And the other part that is important too is the 'purst'–the post-secondary education system is often described as a two -pillar system: universities and colleges. The current bill will enable Yellowquill University College to become the third pillar as a learning institution focused on cultural values and tradition in their learning structure. In closing, I 'd like to refer to an

article entitled: Study probes experiences of Indigenous grads, in Winnipeg Free Press, May 4, 2026. The Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives conducted a series of research and made series of recommendations to better support students from under -represented populations to complete post -secondary programs. Researchers found that intergenerational trauma, mental health challenges, caregiving responsibilities and institutional racism are often barriers to enrolment and completion of higher education.

Yellowquill university 's mission confirms the need to embrace all learners and provide a holistic education and training. Bill 45, in my view, will ensure the continuance of human and financial resources to continue on Yellowquill University College's journey with a renewed focus on accessibility and inclusiveness aligned with respect for Indigenous learning. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Unfried. MLA Cable: I sincerely thank you for your years of service to community, for teaching learners along the way and for being here tonight to speak in support of this. Thank you very, very much.

The Chairperson: Mr. Unfried, any questions? Okay. No? It's all good. Thank you for your time. I would now like to call upon Doreen Stranger. Sorry, and how do I say your name? Doreen Stranger (Yellowquill University College): Oh, sorry. I 'm Doreen Stranger, interim director of Yellowquill University College. The Chairperson: It is. Thank you, Ms. Stranger. Please go a

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	43-3-la8
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	43rd 3rd hansardpdf la8.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	55ca5385fe5702880502fb1a8f30c239bcaa5adf

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