Manitoba Committee Hansard — 13 May 2024 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 5, 43rd Legislature, 1st Session)

43-1-sed5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session – Forty-Third Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Mr. Diljeet Brar Constituency of Burrows Vol. LXXVIII No. 5 - 6 p.m., Monday, May 13, 2024 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-Third Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALTOMARE, Nello, Hon. Transcona NDP 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 COOK, Kathleen Roblin PC 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 JACKSON, Grant Spruce Woods PC JOHNSON, Derek Interlake-Gimli PC KENNEDY, Nellie 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 PC LAMOUREUX, Cindy Tyndall Park Lib. LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas-Kameesak NDP LINDSEY, Tom, Hon. Flin Flon NDP LOISELLE, Robert St. Boniface NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Malaya, Hon. Notre Dame NDP MOROZ, Mike River Heights NDP MOSES, Jamie, Hon. St.

Vital NDP MOYES, Mike 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 SALA, Adrien, Hon. St. James NDP SANDHU, Mintu 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 NDP WHARTON, Jeff Red River North PC WIEBE, Matt, Hon. Concordia NDP WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC Vacant Tuxedo

85 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Monday, May 13, 2024 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – MLA Jelynn Dela Cruz (Radisson) ATTENDANCE – 6 — QUORUM – 4 Members of the committee present: Mr. Brar, MLA Dela Cruz, Mr. Jackson, MLAs Loiselle, Moroz, Mr. Perchotte APPEARING: Hon. Renée Cable, Minister of Advanced Educa- tion and Training Hon. Malaya Marcelino, Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board Jodie Byram, MLA for Agassiz Cindy Lamoureux, MLA for Tyndall Park Hon.

Nello Altomare, Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 5 – The Adult Literacy Act Jim Silver, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives–Manitoba Bill 10 – The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act Allison McCulloch, M anitoba Organi zation of Faculty Associations David Grant, private citizen Michael Shaw, private citizen Erik Thomson, private citizen Orvie Dingwall, University of Manitoba Faculty Association Robert Chernomas, private citizen Peter Ives, Uni versity o f Winnipeg Faculty Association Katrin Nielsdottir, private citizen Mark Gabbert, private citizen Justin Lewis, private citizen Bill 17 – The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour David Grant, private citizen Sandra Oakley, Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees Bill 202 – The Community Foundation Day Act (Commemoration of Days, Weeks and Months Act Amended) Nathalie Kleinschmit, Francofonds WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 10 – The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act Trust Beta, private citizen Mohamad Hasan Kadhim, private citizen Alia Lagace, private citizen Christine Kelly, private citizen RJ Leland, private citizen Julie Guard, private citizen Chris Tillman, private citizen Robert Shaver, private citizen Ariane Hanemaayer, Brandon University Faculty Association Bill 202 – The Community Foundation Day Act (Commemoration of Days, Weeks and Months Act Amended) Donna Morken, Rivers and Area Com munity Foundation Reg Black, Brokenhead River Com munity Foundation MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 5 – The Adult Literacy Act Bill 10 – The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act Bill 17 – The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act Bill 18 – The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act Bill 202 – The Community Foundation Day Act (Commemoration of Days, Weeks and Months Act Amended) * * *

86 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 Clerk Assistant (Ms. Katerina Tefft): Good evening, everyone. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order. Before the committee can proceed with the busi - ness before it, it must elect a Chairperson. Are there any nominations? MLA Mike Moroz (River Heights): I'd like to nomi- nate MLA Brar. Clerk Assistant: Mr. Brar has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Brar, 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 Moroz: I'd like to nominate MLA Dela Cruz. The Chairperson: MLA Dela Cruz has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, MLA Dela Cruz is elected Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 5, The Adult Literacy Act; Bill 10, The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act; Bill 17, The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act; Bill 18, The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act; Bill 202, The Community Foundation Day Act (Commemoration of Days, Weeks and Months Act Amended).

I w ould like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjourn- ment. A standing committee meeting to consider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause by clause of a bill, except by unanimous consent of the committee.

Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee members: Trust B eta, private citizen, on Bill 10; Moham ad Hasan Kad him, private citizen, on Bill 10; Alia Lagace, private citizen, on Bill 10; Christine Kelly, private citizen, on Bill 10; RJ Leland, private citizen, on Bill 10; Julie G uard, private citizen, on Bill 10; Chris Tillman, private citizen, on Bill 10; Robert Shaver, private citizen, on Bill 10; Ariane H anemaayer, Brandon University Faculty Association, on Bill 10; Donna Morken, Rivers and Area Community Foundation, on Bill 202; Reg Black, Brokenhead River Com mu- nity Foundation, on Bill 202.

Does the committee agree to have these docu - ments appear i n the Hansard script of this meeting? [Agreed] Public presentation guidelines. Prior to proceed- ing with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in a committee. In accordance with our r ules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for pre sentations with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. Questions shall not exceed 30 seconds in length, with no time limit for answers.

Questions may be addressed to presenters in the fol - lowing rotation: first, the minister sponsoring the bill; second, a member of the official opposition; 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 a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript.

Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off. Order of presentations: On the topic of determining the order of public pre sentations, we have received a request from Jim Silver, who has registered to present first to Bill 5, that he be allowed to present first this evening as he has a prior engagement soon.

Is there agreement of the com mittee that he be allowed to present first? [Agreed] I will also note that we do have out -of-town presenters in attendance marked with an asterisk on the list. With these con siderations in mind then, in what order does the com mittee wish to hear the presen ta- tions following Jim Silver 's pre sentation? Are there any suggestions from the committee? MLA Moroz: May I suggest out -of-town presenters go first. The Chairperson: It has been suggested out-of-town presenters go first.

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 87 Is that agreed? [Agreed] Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations. Bill 5–The Adult Literacy Act The Chairperson: I will now call Jim Silver for the presentation. [interjection] Sorry, Mr. Silver, I have to recognize you first. Jim Silver (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives– Manitoba): I think when, in Manitoba, we think about education, we think about K to 12 and post-secondary, and we do not think about adult education. Adult edu- cation has, for decades, been the poor cousin of the education system.

I think this is a mistake. There are many, many people who do not complete high school on time for a wide variety of reasons. That is the case disproportion- ately amongst low -income people. It 's low -income people w ho are most likely not to complete high school on time. It is also the case, of course, for Indigenous people who, the last data that I've seen, graduate high school on time at a rate about 30 percentage points lower than average. So, given that, I 'm very delighted to see that we are reintroducing The Adult Literacy Act –very, very much needed.

I'm also happy to see that it includes an adult literacy strategy. I don't think there has been a strategy before, and there really should be if we're taking adult education, adult literacy, seriously. The last data that I 've seen, 2013-14, there were 192,600 adults–working-age adults–in Manitoba whose literacy levels were so low that they couldn 't fully function in society. So this is a massive lost opportun- ity. These are people who are not contributing to the well-being of the province in the way that would be possible if we had a fully funded adult basic education system.

So very, very happy that we have this literacy act coming back. * (18:10) A couple of im portant things that I 'd like to say about the literacy strategy. One is that it works very, very well when an adult literacy program is physically very, very close to an adult learning centre. So it's dif- ficult for adults often who complete the literacy program to move to an adult learning centre if the adult learning centre is some distance away. So this is the hub model that is included in the two papers that were circulated on Wednesday, which hopefully everybody has got.

The hub model brings together an adult literacy program, an adult learning centre offering the mature high school diploma and a child-care centre. So whenever possible, if we were to do that we would magnify the proportion of people who are suc cessfully completing their mature high school. A second thing is that we should stop treating adult literacy programs in the old- fashioned way of volunteers in the church basement.

And that's the way I think adult literacy has been thought of in the past, and in fact, 40 years ag o when I came back to the province I was involved in an adult literacy program as a tutor and it was literally in a church basement and I was a volunteer. And it 's just way more im portant than that. We need to take it out of the church basement and treat it as a fun damentally important part of education in this province. Salaries are another im portant issue for adult literacy programs. There are some people who are paid far, far less than what similarly qualified people in the K -to-12 system are being paid.

And in one of the papers that was circulated last Wednesday I quote a rural director of an adult literacy program who said: Most literacy instructors earn minimum wage or what an education assistant would earn in the public school system. So , again, we just simply don 't take adult literacy seriously, so much so that we don't adequately pay instructors. We had a decline in the number of adult literacy programs in the province between 2009-10 and 2019-20 of 40 per cent. The number of adults enrolled in adult literacy programs declined by 40 per cent.

About a decade ago, a senior economist at the Toronto-Dominion Bank, so, one of Canada's charter- ed banks, said this, and I 'm quoting: Hundreds of billions of dollars in lost op portunity in Canada each year because of high rates of illiteracy. So, not afford- ing the opportunity to people who have not completed high school, not affording them the oppor tunity to improve their literacy, is costing us billions of dollars. So for every reason, I think it's important that we have this Adult Literacy Act, with the attached strategy– I'm delighted about that–and thank you very much for hearing me.

88 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Silver, for your presentation. Do the members of the committee have questions for Mr. Silver? Hon. Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): Thank you so much for coming to present and for your tireless work to advocate for adult education. It's–we are looking forward to really digging in and making sure that we implement a number of the recommendations that you have met and also work towards funding the system properly. I know that that is a concern that we both have.

And I just want to really commend you for the work. I know that speaking up for folks who sometimes– often–don't have a voice at tables like this in particular is so critically important and it will allow this topic to stay on the agenda and to push us to push harder on this. I just really wanted to say thank you so much for all that you do. The Chairperson: Mr. Silver, do you want to respond? J. Silver: No. Just thank you. Mr. Richard Perchotte (Selkirk): Mr. Silver, in taking a look at the adult literacy program, we know that literacy takes people out of poverty. It cha nges worlds.

What would you like to see in an adult literacy strategy moving forward? J. Silver: Thank you. First of all, I think in the act it says that commu - nity people will be consulted in the pre paration of a strategy, and I think, in parti cular, the directors of adult literacy programs and adult learning centres ought to be part of that process. In a sense, it's not for me to say what the strategy ought to look like. The directors with whom I 've been working for the last three or four years on a regular basis–they're really quite remarkable.

What we have in Manitoba right now by way of adult basic education really works well; it 's just that we don't have enough of it. And there are some things that we could be doing that would make a good system work even better. The hub model, I think is one part of that. I think bringing the salaries of all teachers up to the same level as similarly qualified K-to-12 teachers would be an important part of that.

Another recom mendation that we made is tha t some of the smaller adult literacy programs over - burdened with administrative work: that could easily be solved by having school divisions do the adminis- trative work on behalf of the adult literacy programs with which they're affiliated. And I think that's a fairly easy fix so that the people in the adult literacy program are directing their time and their energy to teaching, not to doing sort of administrative work for two staff members that a school division does for 400 staff members, going to easily add another two. So I think those are some of the things.

We believe that if more money were to be put into the system–we called for a doubling of the budget to adult learning and literacy. If that were to be the case and if there were to be a provincially funded advertising program, the literacy and adult learning centre programs would be overwhelmed with applicants.

I know that the directors with whom I 've spoken about this have said that on occasion when they have advertised, they've quickly had to shut the advertising down because they were inundated with people who want to learn how to read and write and who want then to get their high school diploma and be able to enter the paid labour force. So, I mean, these are poor people who want to work. They're not sitting around. So I think we ought to be supporting them by funding this program and carrying out the adult literacy strategy. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Silver.

MLA Cable: So, earlier this week, we saw you when Minister Fontaine intr oduced her amend ment to the EIA bill, which, partnered with this framework, I think, will help–really support folks going forward. What do you think that the changes that Minister Fontaine has made on the EIA act will do to impact what's already happening in adult education? The Chairperson: Thank you, Minister Cable. J. Silver: Yes. The changes being made to EIA that will enable people to do adult education and adult literacy and still continue to get their benefits are huge. This is a big, big step forward.

I think we will have lots of people currently on EIA who want to get off EIA, and they cannot because they don 't have the edu cational quali fications for a whole host of reasons, like– The Chairperson: Order. Order. The time for questions has expired.

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 89 Is there leave to– for the presenter to continue? [Agreed] J. Silver: So very briefly in response, the–lots of people want to improve their edu cation and are capable of doing so, and the amendments to the EIA act are going to make that poss ible, so I 'm thrilled about that and about The Adult Literacy Act. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Silver. That concludes the list of presenters I have before me for Bill 5. Bill 10–The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act The Chairperson: So, moving on to Bill 10. And the first presenter we have on the list is Ms.

Lori Barber. Is Ms. Lori Barber here? * (18:20) So Ms. Barber would be dropped to the bottom of the list. And we would call the next presenter, Ms. Allison McCloch [phonetic]–[interjection] Sorry. So, by the agreement of the com mittee, we are doing the out-of-town presenters first. So I'm inviting Ms. Allison McCulloch. Thank you. Sorry. Yes, please go ahead. Allison McCulloch (Manitoba Organi zation of Faculty Associations): Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

Let me start by acknowledging that sexual violence is a serious and pressing matter, one that is not always handled well by university administrations. According to a 2020 Statistics Canada report, 71 per cent of students witnessed or ex perienced unwanted sexualized be- haviours in the previous year, yet very few reported to someone associated with the school, either because they do not know how or because they do not trust the school to handle it. And there are good reasons for this mistrust.

In 2016, it came to light that Brandon Uni versity was making student survivors sign so- called behavioural contracts when they did come forward. Students were compelled to sign away the ability to discuss the case with anyone but a counsellor or risk expulsion. In 2020, again at Brandon Uni versity, which is where I teach, the Winnipeg Free Press reported that several administrators all failed to imme diately con- nect the students who filed a complai nt against the head coach of the women 's soccer team with the co-ordinator, who supports survivors of sexual violence. But it's not just Brandon University.

There remains an urgent need for effector–effective survivor-centred policy on sexualized violence on all of our campuses and a critical need for uni versities to deliver full, robust and transparent compliance with such policies. I share a recognition of the scale of the problem with the minister, but we diverge funda mentally on the solution outlined in Bill 10. There are at least four issues with the bill in its current form. The process was non -consultative.

It was tabled without meaningfully consulting students or faculty, and yet faculty are often the front line for helping students navigate services and policies on campus. It is also through our faculty associations that we hold uni versity admin istration to account when policy compliance fails or falls short. So I would invite further dialogue with those who would be most affected by this bill. It represents, secondly, a serious encroachment on the institutional autonomy of uni versities and the concentration of extraordinary power in the minister's office.

This gov ernment has committed to repealing the unilateral powers of the minister to set differential tuition rates as per

section 22 of the previous bill 33, also the advanced edu cation amendment act. But rather than roll back those powers, Bill 10 would seek to expand them. And this goes against the promise to respect universities as self-governing institutions. Thirdly, the bill, in its current form, is simply too vague. It's silent on the criteria that would enable the minister to cut an operating grant and also potentially would entail a reduction of that grant to zero, thereby risking the closure of an institution. The legis lation makes no mention yet of what standards would have to be met to avoid this fate.

And while I appreciate that this may well be intended as a policy of last resort, in its current iteration it does not provide sufficient clarity or assurance that this would be the case. My final concern is that the bill risks incentivizing the very problems it seeks to address. I'm reminded of a quote from one of the students at Brandon Uni ver- sity regarding the complaints against the soccer coach and the university's failure, under precisely the kind of sexualized violence policies that this bill supports, to apprise students of their rights, quote: They actively tried to sweep this under the rug.

The y hid resources from us and they didn't tell us our options. So that was quoted from the Winnipeg Free Press at the time.

90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 Would the–this instance have resulted in a cut to the operating grant at Brandon University? Would Bill 10 have incentivized a different response, one that prior- itized student survivors and their well -being? My worry is that admin istrations will–and I 'm speaking generally here–prioritize operating grants and insti- tutional reputation over individual student or faculty complaints. So there's a risk that this will incentivize further silence and secrecy around sexual violence on campuses rather than move towards greater compliance that we so desperately need.

So cuts to the operating grant ultimately would harm faculty and students, including the very survivors who come forward when uni versities fail to comply with their own policies, and who now may be even less inclined to come forward, lest it result in the defunding of a uni versity and their own educational experience. So, to close, MOFA urges the government to engage in a consultative process with students, faculty, admin- istration and experts on sexual violence before pro- ceeding further, and urges the government to recommit to its election promise to protect, not intrude on, uni- versity autonomy.

Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do the com mittee members have any questions for the presenter? Hon. Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): I just wanted to thank you for coming and sharing your feedback. You know, we 've had some good conver sations already, and I look forward to taking what I hear this evening and going back to ensure that this meets the needs of the institution, and continuing to work together to protect students. That's the primary concern. The Chairperson: Ms. McCulloch, do you want to respond? A. McCulloch: Thank you. Mr.

Richard Perchotte (Selkirk): I really want to thank you for coming forward. The safety of our stu- dents and our popula tion against sexualized violence is something utmost in everybody 's mind that 's here today. We want to make sure people are protected. And, looking at the bill, one of the first things I said is many of the things that you said, that–seem to have been no consultation with this, and when I asked the office they said there was con sultation, but the consultation, as I heard from other institutions, was receiving a letter saying this was happening.

And very concerned on the overreach of some of the directives of the minister is to ensure the autonomy of the organi- zations that we hold so dearly, and yet this is some - thing that takes away that autonomy. And when I asked who had brought this forward and from what avail, there was really no answer other than to be proactive instead of reactive. Do you see that this bill would enhance anything at all over– The Chairperson: Order. The time for the question has expired. Ms. McCulloch, want to respond? A.

McCulloch: I think, again, I think there is a really important need to have good sexual violence –like, making sure that this doesn't happen and making sure that the policy is clear and accessible for students and everyone else on campus. So I think that where the bill needs to be clear is on how you assess when it does fall short, and I don't see that. The Chairperson: Thank you. Is there leave to–[interjection] Okay. MLA Dela Cruz, you need to ask for leave. MLA Jelynn Dela Cruz (Radisson): I'd like request leave to offer a comment.

The Chairperson: Is there leave to offer a comment by MLA Dela Cruz? [Agreed] MLA Dela Cruz: I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for the student-centric approach that you're taking to this, as well as to the remaining presenters as well, who are, I –you know, can already assume will be taking a very similar approach.

So, prior to being elected, I had the opportunity to serve as the president of the Uni versity of Manitoba Students' Union, and so it wasn' t too long ago that I was, you know, standing in your shoes and presenting to a committee like this, and as a survivor myself, and having recently helped many other survivors navigate university system of reporting, I think it is so in cred- ibly important– The Chairperson: Order. Your time for the question has expired.

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 91 A. McCulloch: Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. MLA Cable: Actually, I'll waive my question. I 'll give it to the opposition. * (18:30) Mr. Perchotte: Thank you, once again. Just taking a look at the bill it seems to be no standardization of what the fines are, how to appeal them. It looks like a judge -jury-and-executioner type of paperwork that's done here. What is your take on that? A.

McCulloch: I think the bill can be much clearer about what kinds of criteria, what kind of review mechanisms would be needed in order to recognize that a policy has fallen short and that the uni versity has not done its due diligence under that policy that would invoke there. So there is a real gap. The Chairperson: Thank you. MLA Cable: That–I don't know if I would use those terms exactly. And I just wanted to highlight that while there are some in stitutions that have great policies and are doing great work, the intent is to really fill the gaps.

So this would cover all degree - granting in stitutions, a number of which are not represented in here tonight. So, as we move forward and make these changes, I just–I hope that we can work together and ensure that it considers all of the folks, all of the students that need to be kept safe. A. McCulloch: Yes, I agree and I look forward to work- ing with the gov ernment to ensure that there is a accountability process in place. The Chairperson: The time for questions has expired. We would move to the next presenter, which on my list is Ms . Shirley Thompson. Do we have Ms. Thompson? Shirley Thompson?

If not, we would drop Ms. Thompson to the bottom of the list and we would move to –so the next presenter's Dr. Ariane Hanemaayer, but they have submitted a written submission. Bill 17–The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act The Chairperson: So we would go to the next presenter, which is for Bill 17. And the next presenter is Mr. Kevin Rebeck, who joins us virtually. Is Mr. Rebeck available? So we have Mr. Rebeck. Mr. Rebeck, are you ready? Kevin Rebeck (Manitoba Federation of Labour): I am. The Chairperson: Mr. Rebeck, please go ahead. K.

Rebeck: The Manitoba Federation of Labour is composed of more than 30 affiliated unions represen- ting more than 130,000 unionized workers from the public sector, private sector and building trades. Workplace health and safety 's a major concern and priority for all unions and the MFL has long been a leading voice for Manitoba workers in promoting safer and healthier workplaces. We fight for work - place health and safety because every worker has the right to go home –go to work and be safe, and every family has the right to expect that their loved one will return home safely at the end of each shift.

Laws and regulations that are based on input from labour, employers and technical experts are the foun- dation of our safety and health system, and are pre - vention efforts. That's why the MFL and its affiliated unions were dismayed by the previous gov ernment's decision in 2018 to eliminate the minister 's Advisory Council on Work place Safety and Health, which for decades had been providing valuable input and advice on safety and health laws. It 's also why I' m pleased to be here today to support Bill 17, which would re-establish this body.

The need has n ever been greater for the advice and assist ance the advisory council can provide. While we've made modest progress in reducing work- place injuries in many sectors, there are a number of areas that are of grave concern. This includes the extraordinarily high and ever -increasing number of injuries to workers in health care and the public sector more broadly. We've also seen a disturbing rise in workplace violence. In fact, the number of reported injuries caused by workplace violence has tripled over the past decade.

This is a strong indication that the existing laws and regulations for addressing this hazard are inadequate. Workplace psychological injuries are another sig- nificant concern. There is increasing awareness of the toll that multiple workplace stressors take on workers, including often-debilitating physical and psycholog - ical conditions. This is yet another area where our legis- lative and regulatory framework need improvement.

92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 Occupational disease continues to be a serious issue. Each year we see 10 or 12 worker fatalities from occupational diseases. The primary cause is asbestos, and while we know many of these fatalities result from exposure some years ago, we also know that many workers are still potentially exposed through work in asbestos abatement, remediation, construction. We need stronger protec tions from this deadly hazard, protections that are based on input from ex- perts and from those who work in these trades.

We're also aware of the proliferation of hazardous chemicals in manufacturing and other workplaces, as well as the hazards associated with the expansion into the mining of heavy metals and other materials. While these are a few examples of the many areas where our reconstituted advisory council can provide valuable advice, this bill also represents an important shift in government's attitude to stakeholders. We need a government that listens to stake holders and experts, and acts based on that input. That is how we can best meet the challenges of today and tomorrow in work- place safety and health, and elsewhere.

Bill 17 is therefore not only–be a re-establishment of an important channel for input and advice on work- place safety and health, but also a strong signal that we have entered a new era of listening and collaboration. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Rebeck. The floor is open for questions. Hon. Malaya Marcelino (Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board): I just wanted to thank Mr. Rebeck for taking the time to present to the committee tonight on this bill. Thanks. K. Rebeck: Thank you, Minister. We appre ciate the re-establishment with this body. The Chairperson: Further questions? Ms.

Jodie Byram (Agassiz): I, too, would also just like to thank Mr. Rebeck for taking the time out of his evening tonight to make his presentation. I think we, you know, as Manitobans we can all recognize and acknowledge that workplace safety and health is paramount for all Manitobans, and we do all want to work towards making every w orkplace a healthy and safe environment , both physic ally and mentally. So thank you. K. Rebeck: Thank you. I appreciate that. The Chairperson: Further questions? No more questions; thank you.

Bill 10–The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act (Continued) The Chairperson: We would move to the next presenter for Bill 10, David Grant. Mr. Grant, please go ahead. David Grant (Private Citizen): Bill 10 seems like a good idea. But I see it as a symptom of a problem that we expect our institutes of higher learning to do the right thing. This bill suggests that they aren't doing the right thing; they're consistently doing the wrong thing, and the embarrassment and kind words–quiet words– from legislators are not doing the job.

So that's the primary thing I had concern with, is that, think I spoke to Bill 8 last week, which is also a symptom of things not going well. And that's all I can offer on this. But the–in response to one of the other persons who spoke on the topic, being concerned that the bill does not have all the details and numbers in it, I would remind the com mittee and that presenter that bills generally don't have numbers.

They have words and principles and prohibitions and so on, but the numbers are supposed to come out in the regulations. * (18:40) And–but the other thing that came up in speaking by the earlier presenters on Bill 10, one of the other principles was that if you starve the in stitution of money in response to them doing the wrong thing as far as policy is concerned, tha t harms the in stitution.

And this brings in the basic principle that when some- body is making decisions for an organization, whether you're the owner of a grocery store or the head of the university, when you make a bad policy decision should the organization pay for it? And that's something that is a deep legal issue, but I would hope that this –if this bill is going to be effective, that if it turns out that there are one or two people in an institution that are behind a policy blunder, that the y should suffer some conse quence, not the bottom line of the school.

And it's just something to think about, and I know it may not be in your power to do that, but it would be–the bill would be much more effective if it turns out that it could deal with a miscreant boss at a school.

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 93 And that's just a principle, and otherwise, as I say, it's sort of a bad symptom when we have to have a bill like this, rather than just, come on, guys, smarten up. You know, that should be enough. And when the media says, come on, guys, that should do the job, and if they are that intransigent, or there's some other issue involved, it certainly hasn't come forward. So, I just offer those comments, and thank you for your time. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Grant. The floor is now open for questions. Hon.

Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): Thank you, Mr. Grant. Thank you so much for taking time out of your night to come and for your thoughtful comments. I just was wondering if you are aware of the bill in its entirety, not this amendment that I've brought in, but the entire act, because it does include a whole host of provisions that are necessary for the institution. I'm wondering if you had any other thoughts about what we could do here. D. Grant: I think I'm in agreement with that. I have no objections.

It was just those sort of three ideas that didn't seem to be there and the fact that it exists at all. And–but thank you for doing that, for bringing it forward, and hopefully, it results in a better system. Mr. Richard Perchotte (Selkirk): During the bill briefing and while we discussed this on the floor, the back and forth, we asked several times, is there any institutions that brought this forward? Was there anybody–any of the in stitutions identified who 's not doing this? Was there any student bodies who have come forward requesting this, you know?

And, again, was there anybody outside of that scope asking for this? The answer was no every single time. So, again, I 'm afraid of a little bit of overreach. We all have the understanding that we want to keep students safe. Would you agree that the school– The Chairperson: The time for questions has expired. D. Grant: Thank you very much for the comment. And that would –I was not aware of that. I probably should prepare by watching the record of the Legislature. But it did strike me that the–if the bill was needed and had been called for by student bodies across the province, then it was a very bad sign.

But, again, it may be like Bill 8 that seems like a good idea and goes ahead and we have new legis - lation, but the impetus or the need doesn't seem to be demonstrated. But thank you for pointing that out. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Do we have further questions? Mr. Perchotte: One of the things that gives me great concern about this bill is that although we may strive to reach; deadlines we know that we were faced recently with a pandemic that made deadlines almost impossible to get to.

Faced with those things, we might be in a situa - tion again where we cannot achieve deadlines and that would result in less funding to organizations. D.

Grant: That can be a problem and especially because if there is some higher power actor or some other factor that prevented compliance, then, in general, legislation and operating policies have provisions for exemptions and appeals and so on, and any bill that brings in a new mechanism, a new government mechan- ism, that has no appeal and that has no what -ifs and just-in-case kind of clauses, then it 's a flawed bill because we have to accom modate when things go badly. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Are there any further questions? Mr. Perchotte: Mr.

Grant, I want to thank you from our team for coming forward this evening and putting words on the record in regards to this bill. I understand your time could be enjoyed elsewhere other than standing up here on the podium and I really appreciate that. Thank you. D. Grant: Thank you, too. Thank you all. The Chairperson: Any further questions? Seeing none, we move to the next presenter on my list, which is Michael Shaw. And we have Michael Shaw. Mr. Shaw. Michael Shaw (Private Citizen): Thank you all very much. Thank you for taking time to listen to us this evening. My name's Michael Shaw.

I 'm from the Univer - sity of Manitoba and I've been involved at the Univer- sity of Manitoba for a number of years now, on the faculty for 31 years.

94 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 And I'm going to start off my comments tonight by saying that it is absolutely essential that all of our workplaces and learning places are free of sexual vio- lence. That's–that is a cornerstone and I think we need to do more as a province to ensure that. And I under - stand the impetus behind a bill like this would be to move us in that direction. But this isn 't the bill that 's going to do this, and it isn't the bill that we need at this time. As I mentioned, I 've been at the Uni versity of Manitoba for a number of years.

One of the first things I did at the Uni versity of Mani toba as a new faculty member in 1995 was go on strike when the gov ern- ment interfered with the process of tenure and tenure review at the University of Manitoba–my first incidence of government interference in the autonomy of univer- sities. In 2016, I had the opportunity to again picket back and forth at the university when the government of the day again interfered with free and fair collective bar - gaining and the governance of the university.

And the result of that free and fair–that interference was the recent payment from the gov ernment of Manitoba to the Uni versity of Manitoba Faculty Association of over $20 million for inter ference in our free and fair collective bargaining and university governance. Again, in 2021, I had the oppor tunity to again picket–getting good at it now–when again, our univer- sity administration, because of actions of the govern- ment of the day, was not able to freely and fairly collective bargain with us. The pattern of government interference in univer- sity autonomy is troubling in this province.

So our organizations, the faculty associations across Manitoba, pressured all three political parties to make sure that they wouldn't interfere in the governance of universities. And in front of me I just want to read the very first bullet on the minister 's mandate letter: Respect uni - versities as self-governing institutions, is the very first bullet point. And when we turn to the next page of the minister's mandate letter: Repeal B ill 33, The Advanced Edu cation Admin istration Act to protect institutional autonomy. This bill has noble goals, but there was no consul- tation. There was no process.

And it allows unfettered interference in the funding of the institutions by th e minister at the minister's discretion, from what we can tell. Now, there needs–I am not speaking against a pro- cess that will allow us to ensure that our workplaces are safe. But this isn 't the bill that 's going to achieve that. It is extremely problem atic in terms of a one- size-fits-all for every single in stitution. A one -size- fits-all in terms of being able to take a dollar away from your funding or all $400 million that goes to the University of Manitoba. There is no due process in this bill.

It is continual interference in the process of the uni versities and we hope–at the Uni versity of Manitoba and my col - leagues at the University of Manitoba that will also be speaking tonight as well as other institutions–that we can work with the government to have in place policies and procedures that are trans parent, that everyone under- stands what they are, and that ensure that our work - places for faculty and staff and students are free from sexual violence. But this is not the bill that is going to achieve that.

This is a bill that needs to go back, needs to be worked through, needs to be ensuring that it protects insti- tutional autonomy. * (18:50) The government has lots of tools at its disposal to put in place things at the University of Manitoba–I am speaking specifically of the Manitoba–this government gets to appoint more than half of the board of governors. This government gets to set our grant each and every year.

There are lots of opportunities for oversight that are missing in this bill, even though we share the collective thought that what we need to be working through is a workplace and a learning place; whether it's K to 12, whether it's universities, whether it's colleges, whether it's factory floors, all of our places should be free from sexual violence. But this is not the bill and this is not the structure that will achieve that.

This is further reaching in to the autonomy of the institutions, and we hope that we can work with the government to make the changes to the bill so that those things can be possible going forward. Thanks very much. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Shaw. The floor is now open for questions. MLA Cable: Thank you, Mr. Shaw. I appreciate you coming down here, and I ap preciate your comments, and, as I said before, that was certainly not the inten - tion, and, you know, if, in the full reading of the act as it stands, this really is intended to enhance trans par- ency.

The act already says that we have–that the board must adopt a policy and all of these other things, and I can ap preciate how a parti cular read of this would

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 95 come that way, and that's why I've committed to work- ing with you and the folks at MOFA to help enhance this and bring it about in a better way. Thank you for your time to come down. I certainly want to work with you folks. M. Shaw: Those are encouraging words, and we do hope that we can work with the gov ernment to both achieve the goal of workplaces and learning places that are free from sexual violence but also respecting institutional autonomy. Mr. Perchotte: Thank you, Mr. Shaw, for coming down.

And, again, when I look at the bill on first-hand, I understand, as a parent who had children in a secondary school, having the protection is paramount to us and as–all the institutions that I've met with, it's paramount with them. My concern was of the tremen- dous overreach and the stepping on of the autonomy of the institutions. Looking at this, it seems to be the start of something that we recogniz e that the schools are adamant about is– The Chairperson: Order. Mr. Shaw. M.

Shaw: Don't think I heard a question there, but it is im portant that the in stitutional autonomy, which hasn't been respected here in Manitoba–you know, I gave you those examples from '95 and 2016 and 2021, where our institutional autonomy was not protected. And as a result, you know, bad outcomes occurred. I think it's fundamental that as the minister 's mandate letter states, that the public post-secondary institutions in this province do their best work when they have their institutional autonomy. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Shaw. Any further questions? MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Thank you, Mr.

Shaw, for your presentation here this evening and just for the work you 've done within education and advocating and picketing over the many years for edu- cation here in our province. I'm curious if you feel that there are amendments that could be brought forward that would save the legislation or if it needs to be brought back to the drawing board altogether. M. Shaw: My short answer would be the very first thing that one of our presenters talked about earlier today was that this goal needs broader consul tation.

So rather than amendments on the fly that might fix this bill, I think broader consul tation with faculty associations, with uni versity gov ernance structures, with the people on the floor, people on the shop floor of a university that are doing the work, our counsellors in student services, and these are the people that will give you your best advice on what needs to be put in place to make sure our workplaces are safe. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Shaw. Any further questions? Before I recognize the next member, there's a gentle reminder that the time for a question is 30 seconds. Mr. Perchotte: Mr.

Shaw, is there any thought that this bill would enhance what's going on at the Univer- sity of Manitoba or any of the other colleagues who've spoken up, too; w ould enhance the programs or the policies that they have? M.

Shaw: So I 'll speak just from the Uni versity of Manitoba experience that we have in place, policies– they might not be the greatest –and we have experts that are telling us how we need to revise those sorts of policies, but what's in front of us right now is that if we were somehow not compliant, the only outcome is a reduction in the grant which, you know, one of the places that administrators like to cut is places like student services. So the tool that's in front of us right now, from the University of Manitoba's standpoint, is not a solution. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Shaw. MLA Cable: Mr.

Shaw, were you–I just wanted to know if you've been in contact with any of the private institutions or simply just–through your consultations with MOFA, if any of the private institutions had been part of this conversation. The Chairperson: Thank you, Minister Cable. The time for questions has expired. Is there leave for the presenter to respond to the question? [Agreed] M. Shaw: So my colleagues and I at MOFA speak and act with and consult with the four publicly funded unionized universities in Manitoba, which is St.

Boniface, Brandon, University of Winnipeg and Uni versity of Manitoba, and that's all I can speak to. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Shaw. We would proceed with our next presenter, which is Mr. Erik Thomson. Welcome, Mr. Thomson. Please go ahead. You have 10 minutes.

96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 Erik Thomson (Private Citizen): Thank you very much. I doubt I 'll take the 10 minutes because I feel we'll be repeating ourselves. I also fear–a communications expert once advised me that I should never raise the bicameral model of university governance in public because it's complicated politics and its values are sometimes difficult to convey. But this is just an area where the bicameral system of university governance is important.

While I appre- ciate the minister 's concern for students and the real threat of sexual violence on uni versity campuses and acknowledge like previous speakers that this has been a problem that universities haven't dealt with well, the bicameral system of university governance is framed that way to assure the appropriate necessary autonomy of uni versities for these in stitutions to fulfill their roles in a democratic society as centres of free inquiry, education and research.

I think this bill, even with admirable intent, worried us parti cularly because we' re in a moment where university autonomy is threatened, not only in Canada but more broadly around the world. And, of course, I think that many legislators who are interfering with uni versity autonomy are also motivated by concerns for student safety, well-being. Sometimes that safety is, you know, safety from thoughts that inequality may trouble the American political system, but still motivated by honest con - cerns for student well -being.

And I think it is dan - gerous in this context to grant a minister uniliteral – lateral power to judge and back away from that system on unspecified grounds. And it provides, if nothing else, a precedent for interfering with that system. As previous people have pointed out, it strides against your mandate letter, I think, and does not strengthen the self-governing nature of universities.

Now, I understand that this may be reacting to particular situations that need to be addressed, but I ask that we try to revise this bill in a way that is a little more transparent about perhaps what the problems are and reinforces, perhaps, good governance procedures in Manitoba's universities rather than seeking a quick way around them to kick some uni versities for their bad dealings.

So I hope that maybe in the future we can agree that the bicameral system of university governance is, in fact, a great word to use in public because it 's one of the things that is a bolster to our freedom essentially and a system that delivers us all the best way of reaching the public good through honest discussion. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Thomson, for your presentation. Floor is now open for questions. MLA Cable: Thank you so much for your comments, Mr. Thomson. I fear to ask who recommended that that was not– [interjection]–it's appropriate here. [interjection] The Chairperson: Sorry. Mr.

Thomson, I have to recognize you. E. Thomson: My pardons. * (19:00) MLA Cable: I want to thank you for your thoughtful comments and, again, for coming to share time and to talk about the shortcomings. As with your other col - leagues that were here to present, the points are well taken, and I will say that it 's clear that we need to be more clear with the progressive nature that the–that was intended in this. And I just want to reassure you that there was no intent– The Chairperson: Sorry, the time for the question has expired. [interjection] Mr. Thomson. E. Thomson: –and I think–[interjection]–oh, sorry.

The Chairperson: Mr. Thomson. E. Thomson: Sorry for–I jumped in. It 's a bad pro - fessorial habit. But– The Chairperson: Mr. Thomson, go ahead please. E. Thomson: –with respect, the intent shouldn 't justify the interference. The autonomy of universities is an in dependent goal that we should all cherish regardless of our ideology and what we 're trying to achieve. Mr. Perchotte: Thank you very much for presenting today, I really appreciate that. When we talked about this bill–and I don 't want to belabour it –is there anything in the current legislation that this bill covers that is not already covered? E.

Thomson: Again, I don 't know e nough about the governing documents of private uni versities to know whether there's an ap propriate way for –if there is a problem there, which I 'm sort of gaining the feeling that there is–I don't know what laws there are. And so

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 97 I wouldn't want to res pond off the cuff about some - thing that is beyond my ken. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Thomson. Again, a gentle reminder that the time for questions is 30 seconds. MLA Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Thomson, for your presentation. And this is absolutely the spot to be having these conversations. I was wondering if you could speak a little bit to any ideas you might have –and if you don' t, that 's okay–where we could be discussing improving terms of sexual violence within our post -secondary in sti- tutions without it being tied to grants. E.

Thomson: I think I'd want to consult more. I think within the system of the–of governance that's normal, there's actually ample scope for improvement. One of the things that we can celebrate is the way that universities have in fact changed over time in response to different problems and, you know, social opportunities. So I think that this model is one that is flexible and offers the opportunity. Now, I don't know, because it seems that maybe we 're speaking with a problem the details of which aren't known. So. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Thomson. Mr. Perchotte: Thank you again, Mr. Thomson.

Is there any point where you think that the gov - ernment should take away the autonomy of the public institutions for their own bequests? E. Thomson: I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which taking away the autonomy of universities to govern themselves wouldn't cause more damage than the problems that they're trying to solve. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Thomson. Any further questions? If not, thank you so much for your presentation. We will move to the next presenter.

A reminder to everyone joining us virtually to please make sure your display name is your first and last name so that we can recog nize you –for virtual presenters. Our next presenter on the list is Ms. Orvie Dingwall. Thank you. So for everybody here, if I do not pronounce a name properly, feel free to correct me. Please go ahead with your presentation. You have 10 minutes. Orvie Dingwall (University of Manitoba Faculty Association): Thank you so much. So, I'm Orvie Dingwall, I use the pronouns she/her and I'm the president of the Uni versity of Manitoba Faculty Association.

And I 'm speaking on behalf of that association today, and our faculty association represents 1,330 professors, instructors and librarians at the University of Manitoba. And like some of my colleagues before me have articulated, absolutely our places of work and learning and education should be free of violence of all kinds and, of course, and in parti cularly, free of sexual violence. So I share the honourable intentions that this bill is trying to make and protect and parti cularly as a woman who attended post-secondary education myself 25 years ago, and it wasn' t a place that was free of sexual violence.

And, like the minister articulated when speaking for this legislation, we want to protect– improve those condi tions for current students and certainly for our own children, my children included. But the amendments that are proposed in Bill 10, again, like my colleagues, I don't believe that these are the way to achieve the improvements that are needed. We certainly have a lot of work to do in all of Manitoba's publ ic and private post -secondary in sti- tutions. At the Univer sity of Manitoba, I think we have already the structures that are in place to make those improvements.

So we have a board of governors that is majority appointed by the gov ernment, and part of that board's role is to ensure that all policies, including the University of Manitoba 's sexual violence policy, that it is followed. And there are mechanisms there that are in place and that if even just following it isn't enough, they can direct to have it amended and improved. We also have the sexual violence centre on campus, which is still relatively new, but also offers tremendous oppor tunity for im provement.

And, of course, there's the health and safety act that also en - forces safe working and learning environments. And so we heard earlier tonight that some insti - tutions don't have that kind of oversight or maybe they don't already have that sexual violence policy that's so important for this discussion, and so, if we're looking to fill in the gaps at those in stitutions that don't have

98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 those appropriate structures, I would think that those are more appropriate places to start instead of starting to introduce this kind of act that 's going to inter fere with the autonomy of the institutions. And my job as president is to break down words like autonomy and to talk about really what we 're talking about when we say that the university–univer- sities, in particular, but post-secondary institutions have to be independent from the government.

And that's so that scholars and students are free to explore whatever kind of topic and wherever their scholar ship takes them without any kind of interference. And whenever there's an attempt, particularly from a government, to come in and start directing or saying we need to focus on this element or that element, and unless you do that then we 're going to withhold your funding or there 's going to be these kinds of im - plications, that takes away that in dependence.

And I think while honour able that we' re trying to improve the safe working and learning condi tions of students in particular, any time we 're opening that door for there to be interference on that independence is going to be–is really problematic.

And so I am urging the com mittee to take this back to the drawing board completely, to start with those processes that already exist at the public univer- sities and use those foundations to improve upon the institutions that need to have their bottoms raised up and to make those significant improvements and also to focus on–at our public in stitutions the respecting autonomy first and foremost and also repealing Bill 33. So with that, I thank you for your time. The Chairperson: Thank you so much for your pre- sentation and the floor is open for questions. Minister Cable for 30 seconds.

MLA Cable: I just wanted to thank you for coming to share your views today. And while I have you here, because you're a wealth of knowledge, do you ha ve any insight on how we might incent in stitutions who are not in compliance to do what they 're supposed to be doing? O. Dingwall: I can speak on behalf of the University of Manitoba. And so, if there was a problem with us, I would say start with the board of governors and use the powers that are already there to ensure that those policies are in existence and being enforced. The Chairperson: Thank you. Mr.

Perchotte: Again, I want to thank you for present- ing here today. I think it's amazing how so many people come down. * (19:10) We have seen time and time again there's been no consultation. Although the intent might have been for protection, we see that the lack of con sultation gives the–takes away the autonomy of the schools. What would you think is a appropriate time frame for the con sultation process to happen before a bill like this would be introduced? O.

Dingwall: I'm not an expert on time frames on con- sultations, but I definitely think consulting with the administrations, the students , the student unions and the faculty associations, however long that takes. We're all pretty willing to talk about ourselves all the time. And so I think that that's a pretty short window for a consultation. MLA Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and Ms. Dingwall for your presentation.

I was hoping that you could speak just a little bit to the structure that is already in place, like just elaborate for those of us who are on the com mittee here what that structure looks like, who are currently dealing with sexual violence policy, as well as just the importance of not having that political interference. O. Dingwall: Sure. So at the University of Manitoba the board of–well, like my colleague said, we have a bicameral system which again, I 'll break it down.

It means there's a senate to deal with the academic matters and the board of gov ernment–board of governors to deal with the more operational manners. And so part of their job is to ensure that all of the policies are being followed and to really put the stops in place to get them to being followed, if they 're not being followed. I forget the second part of your question. I'm sorry. Oh–about the interference. Yes–is just–I certainly see anything that's saying, if you don't do this to my liking, then we 're going to withhold funding–to me, that 's a really cut -and-dry level of inter ference.

And, again, we really want to protect the in dependence of the uni versities and the post-secondary education–or, institutions. MLA Cable: I have a two-parter for you.

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 99 The first one was, I was just wondering if you knew that the gov ernment only has a majority board seats on a quarter of the public institution. And the second question is a follow-up to my first one, which was: What do you think someone in the position of gov ernment should do if the board at a private institution is not willing to do its part and is in contravention of the law? O.

Dingwall: So again, I'm at the University of Manitoba where we do have a majority board and I think that that would be a good starting place to work on places that, if there isn't a majority board, to start there with those places. And, certainly, if any place is in violation of any laws, I would look to the en forcement of those laws that are already existing as the most expedient way to solve that problem. Mr.

Perchotte: With the lack of consultation that has happened right now and the sheer number of post - secondary education institutions, is there any oppor - tunity to have proper cons ultation before we rise on June 3? O. Dingwall: Our faculty association is always happy to meet, as is our larger faculty association. I don't think that the private in stitutions are as well co-ordinated or organized in the same kind of way that we are in our unionized environments. But, again, most of the time they are quite happy to meet. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? No further questions.

Time for questions has expired. Thank you so much for your presentation. We would move to the next presenter on the list, which is Robert Chernomas. Thank you, Mr. Chernomas. Go ahead, please. You have 10 minutes. Robert Chernomas (Private Citizen): Yes. My name is Robert Chernomas and I'm a professor of economics in the Uni versity o f Manitoba. And over the past 40 years or so I've been invited–adviser for the federal and provincial NDP any number of times. Tonight it 's some unsolicited advice this time. And my argument here is the NDP must do better than introduce Bill 10.

The subject is an im portant cause, but Bill 10 is not the answer. Bill 10 is a Pandora 's box. Reducing and elimi - nating the government grant by ministerial decree is a doomsday machine for universities with a correspond- ing effect on the social economy of the province. This legis lation will open up the possibility of future governments introducing their own decrees in order to promote some cause or another. One can imagine a future gov ernment censoring the criticism of the for -profit cor porations as a danger to the Manitoba economy and cutting funding for the offending university.

Bill 10 has the potential to be as dangerous as bill 33, which the NDP rightly denounced and com - mitted to rescind. Bill 10 is being viewed as bill 33. It has th e infor mation that isn 't out there yet, but it 's growing now that we know it's happening, where the state arbitrarily decides how universities will conduct themselves. Such power in the hands of a minister undermines the very purpose of the uni versity and its role of critical teaching and research, with which the univer- sity has a duty above all else to be concerned for those when no one else can be.

No other institution and no other office in our modern economy, our modern democracy, which is the custodian of this critical and apparently vulnerable right. This is an insult to and an assault on the province's universities' integrity and autonomy. How does Bill 10 fix what problem becomes the question. Bill 10 is a threat to the students of the province, whose future can be suddenly and significantly im - pacted based on provi ding arbitrary power to some government minister.

Now that the com munity has suddenly become aware of this threat, this message will spread far and wide to Manitobans sooner rather than later. The NDP needs to know that there 'll be a public fight over Bill 10, which will distract from the great work they have accom plished so far. The NDP must do better than pass Bill 10. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Chernomas. The floor is open for questions. MLA Cable: I just want to thank you for your time. Thank you for coming down. The Chairperson: Mr. Chernomas, you want to respond? R. Chernomas: Accept the thanks. The Chairperson: Thank you.

100 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 Mr. Perchot te: Mr. Chernomas, I ap preciate you being here, again. Like the rest of the presenters, we have an oppor- tunity here to do the right thing for the students, but yet Bill 10 goes forward and takes away the autonomy of the universities. We've heard from the minister questions on how to move forward, but yet in the bill briefings, we were told that there was no issues. But do you have any idea how we could protect the public without this bill? The Chairperson: Mr. Chernomas, please go ahead. R.

Chernomas: I'll keep doing that; you 're going to have to stop me. I think it 's clear that a public debate is what 's going to have to stop this. You intro duced bill 33, and we had a massive movement against bill 33. And so we 're concerned now that the N DP is going to follow in that tradition with Bill 10, and so the answer is, as much as we possibly can, as often as we can, we' re going to basically protect uni versity autonomy. The Chairperson: Thank you. MLA Lamoureux: Thank you for your pre sentation and just the transparency as well and coming forward and sharing what you have.

You started to talk about how this could really affect students. Could you expand on that just a little bit? R. Chernomas: Well, think about the idea that the government can either completely eliminate the public grant or reduce it. Think about students ' expectations for their uni versity careers. Think about families all over the province. And so, like bill 33, Bill 10 threatens the potential student experience.

And so the concern here is that Bill 10 has to remove that threat of, you know, remove–eliminating the public grant and/or reducing it without some real, clear understanding of what the problem and how to fix it. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing no further questions, thank you so much for your presentation and answers. We would move to the next presenter, Dr. Peter Ives. Welcome, Dr. Ives. You have 10 minutes to pre - sent. Please go ahead.

Peter Ives (University of Winnipeg Faculty Association): I don't think it will take nearly that time, since I'm here with many of the issues that have already been raised. You know, certainly, I think the questions of autonomy have clearly been expressed, and I think those are the big concerns. I should actually start off to say that I'm formally representing the Uni versity of Winnipeg Faculty Association tonight. * (19:20) I'm also a member of MOFA. And I don' t think the issues are too different at the Uni versity of Winnipeg from the–where–what they are at Uni ver- sity of Manitoba or Brandon.

I do think the private uni versities might be a different situation, and to some extent I just sort of wanted to, sort of, reiterate the notion that obviously we've all said here tonight that we have the same goal, right? Which is, you know, sexual violence is incred- ibly damaging when it happens, it has long- lasting effects, it affects the people who are the victims and it affects everybody and it affects the whole environ- ment, right?

The Vice-Chairperson in the Chair So it's obviously something that needs to be taken seriously, and I think, you know, we ap preciate where the bill–what the bill is trying to do, but I–and I won't belabour the point and repeat what people have said before me, that the problem is, is that it 's the mechanism of that. I do sort of want to also highlight that notion that sometimes the threat of such a potentially drastic reduction of the operating grant could have the nega- tive consequence of further brushing it under the rug, as Allison McCulloch has already said.

So, in a certain sense, I think it 's the mechanism that is the issue, right? And it's that, sort of, having the minister having the total power to decrease the grant seems to be the big problem. And there 's been several questions about the timing and the consultation; obviously, there needs to be more consultation, you know, and I'm certainly not an expert in the field, and I think there are, right? So I do think, and certainly, the –across the Canada–across Canada this is an issue; I know back

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 101 in 2019 in Quebec, bill 151, this came up and, you know, it was reported that the government of the time sort of publicly announced–or, by omission–that McGill and UQAM had not lived up to t he policies, and shortly thereafter they did, right? So that–I don't know if that's a good mechanism, but there are other mechanisms to try to get this done, and I think there are other experts who have been working on these issues who are the people to l isten to about that. So that's mostly what I just wanted us to consider tonight. Thanks.

The Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your pre sen- tation, Dr. Ives. The floor is now open for questions. MLA Cable: Again, I just want to thank you for the time th at you 've taken to come and speak to us, Dr. Ives. You've definitely given some good things to think about and, yes, I look forward to continuing to work with you. The Vice-Chairperson: Dr. Ives, pardon me; please feel welcome to respond. P. Ives: Thanks. Mr. Perchotte: Thank you, Dr. Ives. In my meetings that I've had with MOFA, it was very clear that the autonomy that the schools have is of utmost importance.

How do you feel about zero consultation done in a bill presented to move forward? P. Ives: As other people have brought up, yes, there needs to be more consultation. Yes. MLA Lamoureux: Thank you for your presentation. It's more just a comment more than anything, but I want to thank you for bringing forward just the point of view tha t, what does this legis lation actually do? Does it help protect more students, or could it be used as incentivizing, perhaps, to hide more things under the rug? And I think that's why we need consultation. P. Ives: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairperson: Are there any further ques - tions from the committee? Seeing no further questions, thank you, Dr. Ives, for your presentation. I'll now welcome up Ms. Katrin Nielsdottir, who joins us virtually. Ms. Nielsdottir? Katrin Nielsdottir (Private Citizen): Yes? The Vice-Chairperson: Please feel welcome to begin your presentation. K. Nielsdottir: Okay, yes. My name's Katrin Nielsdottir; I'm an Icelandic special collections and rare books librarian at the Univer sity of Manitoba. And I don' t have a lot, and–or anything–new to add to this conver- sation.

But I did want to express my concerns, with the core issue being the unilateral power being wielded by a single individual. This situation is ripe for conflict of interests and motives which may not align with the best interests of our educa tional com munity. And these –we can all come with the best intentions, but it isn't clear enough, and gov ernments change. The unchecked authority opens the door to budget cuts driven by political agendas, punishments for perceived non-compliance, in non- related matters perhaps, and the wielding of power as a political force rather than the guardian of academic integrity.

I am behind the spirit with Bill 10, and it is really well intended, but the absence of transparency and the clear expectations leaves room for misinterpretation, and without a multi -step review process for griev - ances and concerns regarding non -compliance, we risk undermining the autonomy and the trust we place in post-secondary institutions, a scenario where deci- sions would–these decisions would affect the quality of education being offered to our students without any steps to change it.

We just need transparency and accountability and a robust system of checks and balances to safeguard the autonomy and the integrity of our educational institution. Thank you. The Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Nielsdottir–sorry, I'm butchering that. I apologize. Are there any questions from the committee? MLA Cable: Once again, I wa nt to thank you for tuning in. I 'm sorry, I 'm looking between ministers, here, to try to see your face. I 'll look at the cameras here. Thank you so much for your concern and for your thoughtful comments. Appreciate it.

102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 The Vice-Chairperson: Would you like to respond? Are there any further questions from the committee? Mr. Perchotte: Ms. Nielsdottir, I again thank you for presenting, and again on a day you can–could be doing anything else, this is what we're doing. Is there any possible scenario wher e the govern- ment should have this type of overreach that we 're looking at here today, without consultation? K. Nielsdottir: Sorry.

I think consultation is the most important thing there, which is missing, and any bill that's being introduced should have consultation from people that are experts in this. I am not an expert in this, so I can't give an opin- ion on that. Sorry. The Vice-Chairperson: Further questions? MLA Lamoureux: Thank you for your presentation here this evening and for tuning in virtually. I was just wondering if you wanted to talk a little bit more about just how important grant funding is and how this legislation could ultimately really affect that. K. Nielsdottir: Yes, absolutely.

I noticed that the grant funding from the government, it could take it down to zero. So what happens, then, to all the students who suddenly will not get their education? The university is dependent on funding from the government as well, and we provide this service to students. And this threat of basically being shut down– sorry, I' m trying to find light –basically being shut down because we didn' t match some metrics that aren't–weren't even clear for us to match, is a concern.

And I would feel, like, concerned if I was a student and I chose the University of Manitoba, and I knew that there was this threat, that a change of government or some other unforeseeable situation could come up, and they 'd say, oh well, you weren 't following this policy well enough and we take all your funding, or 50 per cent of your funding. And then you'd lose all–you'd lose the university and, therefore, their education. It just has such big effects on everybody involved and it's just one person making a decision. And so how do we know that person is even going to make the right decision? I don't know.

The Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Nielsdottir. Are there any further questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none, thank you again for your presentation. We'll move along to the next presenter, Mark Gabbert, who joins us virtually as well. Do we have him on Zoom? Thank you for joining us, Mark. You may begin your presentation. Mark Gabbert (Private Citizen): Thank you very much.

Let me say, to begin with, that I 'm here as a private citizen, but I'm a member of the faculty of the history department at the University of Manitoba and a grievance officer for the faculty association. * (19:30) For some of us here tonight, this is sort of déjà vu all over again, and that's because this bill is yet another example of how provincial governments of whatever party have acted in ways that have eroded uni versity autonomy.

Recall that in the 1990s, the Filmon Tories abolished the Universities Grants Commission, which was designed fairly effectively to protect un iversity autonomy by provi ding arm's length buffer between the government and the universities. The Filmon regime replaced the UGC with the Council on Post -Secondary Edu cation. The COPSE act, as it was called, permitted considerable increased ministerial control over the uni versities, but at least the council itself was left as the remnant of a buffer between the government and the universities.

By 2014, however, even COPSE apparently was too much for the NDP, who replaced it–junked it–and replaced it with The Advanced Education Administra- tion Act. That act brought the universities importantly under the direct control of the ministry. Finally, there are those here who will remember that in its quest for more direct control over university programming, the Pallister gov ernment went further yet to impose gov ernment regula tion of the tuition fees of individual uni versity programs. That effort came in the form of bill 33.

It is of more than passing interest that the ND P has never repealed any of the Tory legis lation designed to increase gov ernment control of the uni - versities. On the contrary, they have only embraced that–not only embraced that legislation but, as I noted,

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 103 could not even put up with a weak intermediate body like the Council on Post-Secondary Education. After the election of 2023, those of us concerned with university autonomy could take some heart from the Premier's (Mr. Kinew) mandate letter to Minister Cable. That letter included an instruction to repeal bill 33, as we've heard here tonight. But here we are tonight, again, with another intrusive amendment to the advanced edu cation admin istration act. To say that this is disappointing is, to say the least, an under- statement.

To turn, though, to the specific issue addressed by Bill 10, the very important question of the prevention of sexual violence, the Uni versity of Manitoba has very well -developed set of policies and procedures covering sexual assault and harassment. Taken together with respectful workplace policies, this suite of policies is administered by the uni versity's Office of Human Rights and Conflict Manage ment.

The policy and related procedures outline in great detail the process for filing a complaint, the rights of the parties to such a complaint and what is entailed in subsequent investigations and resolutions in these cases. The rights of both complainants and respondents are fully considered, procedures for launching in de- pendent investigations outlined and possible alter na- tive resolutions for such cases discussed. The rights or protections for those governed by collective agree - ments are clearly affirmed.

In addition, the uni versity has provided a full array of advocacy and counselling suppor ts for those involved. In short, the uni versity has complied with the law–not perfectly, and there are many problems with the policies and procedures in place –as those of us who try to make them work discover day in and day out–but the uni versity has i nvested considerable re- sources, which is what it takes, into trying to deal with this problem. The Chairperson in the Chair But in any case, this should all have been fairly well known and should not have to be repeated here.

One wonders why the minister would apparently take so little account of these facts. One wonders, too, how the minister proposes to assess when an institution has fallen short of her expectations for adequate perform- ance. It's not easy to do. For example, does an impressively low level of disciplinary measures for sexual misconduct reflect poor enforcement or does it reflect effective efforts and educations. So there are many problems that arise from trying to do something about this even under the best of circum- stances, which obviously don't exist everywhere.

But we don't have–we have no answer to these kinds of ques- tions because we really don't know from the minister why she feels compelled to impose this change in the first place. On the other hand, the University of Manitoba has complied with the legislation. But what of cases where an institution has not complied with the requirements set out in

section 2.3 of the act? Since the minister appoints the boards of so many of the institutions governed by this act, she should, in fact, work to get the boards in question to obey the law, failing which, such boards should be removed. The alternative, which is what we have before us today, of passing a law spe cifically targeting a parti - cular institutional practice, is just not acceptable. Yes, even, you know, keeping in mind, of course, we 've had no chance to discuss this in any meaningful way in advance of its working its way through the system.

But such a move has the potential of inviting subsequent governments to use targeted legislation to suppress programs, courses or even research in parti- cular fields on grounds that they are politically or otherwise unacceptable. These are the kinds of things, threats to academic freedom and uni versity aut onomy, that this sort of measure invites. With all respect, the minister should withdraw the amendment, which is embodied in Bill 10.

She should, instead, proceed with the measures to repeal The Advanced Education Admin istration Amend ment Act, which is itself a standing affront to uni versity autonomy, opens the way for government interference in the relative cost of various programs, never mind what the academic conclusions about their importance might be. So, as the Premier makes clear in h is mandate letter, that act has to be replaced with legis lation that fully respects the university's autonomy.

In drafting the new legislation there should be full consultation with the post-secondary education sector about ap propriate measures to achieve gov ernment objectives while protecting the autonomy of in sti- tutions. It is in the course of such discussions that a satisfactory solution to any reasonable concerns with how to prevent sexual misconduct or any other prob- lem should be devised.

104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 Such concerns should not be addressed by granting to the minister a draconian right to impose financial penalties which, as has been pointed out re peatedly this evening, have the potential to cause great in sti- tutional damage. Thank you very much. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Gabbert, for your presentation. Floor is now open for questions. MLA Cable: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Gabbert. I always ap preciate your insight. I know that you have a lengthy history and are a wealth of knowledge. I appreciate you being here tonight. The Chairperson: Mr.

Gabbert, do you want to respond to Minister Cable? M. Gabbert: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Perchotte: Mr. Gabbert, thank you once again. Is there any iteration of this bill or any other bill that imposes –that takes away the autonomy of the institutions that you would agree would be acceptable? M. Gabbert: It seems to me that the current language in the bill– I mean, I think that the minister is right. The current language needs to be followed by the institutions that it covers.

And there should be, you know, within the framework of the current language, a way to determine whether, in fact, there are in place the kinds of things that I've described as existing at the University of Manitoba. And if there's a situation where there's resistance, then again, I think that, in many of these cases, the minister should exercise her right to get compliance by boards that, in fact, the gov ernment has typically appointed and who hold a majority of the seats on these boards, just as they do at the Uni versity of Manitoba. MLA Lamoureux: Thank you for your presentation.

I was wondering just if you had any further thoughts about how, if this amendment were to pass, what that could ultimately do for the current working relationship between post-secondary facilities and the provincial government? * (19:40) M. Gabbert: Well, I don't think that introducing it has had a very good impact on what we were hoping was going to be a much more congenial an d com muni- cative relationship between at least the faculty and – faculties of the universities and the minister.

I mean, I don 't think any uni versity wants to be told that they have to do this or that parti cular thing, and we–failing which some big chunk of the grant will be removed, parti cularly when the right that author - izes this action, the language that authorizes it in this proposed bill, is so vague, so unclear in its im plica- tions or in the range of its applications, and doesn' t give us any kind of an idea what kind of behaviour is really envisaged as the kind of violation that would trigger such a penalty.

So I think there 's a big problem here with trying to solve this problem with what really amounts to a couple of sentences that impose a threat. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you so much. We would move to the next presenter on my list, Dr. Justin Lewis, who has joined us virtually. Dr. Lewis, are you ready? Thank you, Dr. Lewis. Are you ready for the presentation? Justin Lewis (Private Citizen): Good evening. Can you hear me? The Chairperson: Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead please. You have 10 minutes for the presentation. J.

Lewis: So, first of all, I want to thank the minister and this gov ernment and this com mittee for taking seriously the issue of sexual abuse and violence. The issue is very real. It 's very heartbreaking. I 've heard from students at the Uni versity of Manitoba, where I teach, very disturbing stories of their own exper i- ences. I'm glad that you here and this government are taking this seriously. I also want to thank the minister for what I 'm hearing as an outlook of openness and a desire to work together and consult further with universities, faculties, students, everyone involved in this.

With that said, I want to join most of my col - leagues who have spoken tonight in urging that this bill should be dropped–it should not go through– and that it's an important priority to address the points on the minister's mandate letter that we were told about. My main concern personally with this bill as it 's been presented is with the individual power that it

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 105 seems to give the minister or perhaps [inaudible] or all of a university's funding. Universities are very depend ent on this public funding, and to allow any individual to have the power to make that kind of decision seems funda mentally wrong to me in our society. I keep thinking of some - thing I was taught in high school, that in a free society we are governed by l aws, not by people.

Of course, that's an idealized view, and there are issues with laws as well, but the point is that there are rules in place in society and that we 're not subject to any individual 's choices unless they can justify them in terms of those rules. And that applies on the large scale to society as a whole. So we live in Canada, a constitutional monarchy, not in an absolute monarchy, not in a dictatorship, and it applies to much smaller situations as well. As a professor at the Uni versity of Manitoba, I have to give grades to my students, and a student 's grade on a course can make a huge difference to them.

The days are gone when I could simply give an A to one student and an F to another because my gut reaction to their work is that it's very good or very bad. I have to be clear to my students about what I'm doing. I give them a rubric, a checklist for each assignment. I give them feedback about the work they 've handed in. If I see that the class as a whole isn't understanding something that I'm expecting from them, I try to ex - plain it to them so the expectations are clear. I give the mark based on those guidelines. If the student disagrees with me, they 're en - couraged to talk to me about it.

If we can 't come to a resolution, they can go to my department head. If that doesn't work and the student still feels the mark is unfair, there is a grades appeal process at the uni ver- sity. Now, that's on a small scale, but there 's a lot of rules and com munication and checks and bala nces that go into it. So how much more so on the scale of potentially the whole future of a uni versity and the entire careers of the students who go there? How much more so do there need to be clear rules, pro- cedures, a process for appeal?

There needs to be a lot more than just, again, the minister or designate going by how they feel about how an institution is doing. This, to me, is essential. My colleague, Dr. Gabbert, mentioned that there are other instances where in - dividual ministers have considerable power. That may be the case, but we don' t want more of that. I have great respect for Minister Cable from what I'm hearing, but I do not want, in a free society, any individual to have the arbitrary power to make decisions of such mag- nitude. That is not democracy; that is tyranny.

And so, on those grounds as well as the others that have been mentioned, I agree with my colleagues here and I urge the committee to stop, to drop this bill and to take a different approach to these very, very impor- tant issues that we're speaking about. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Dr. Lewis, for your presentation. Do the com mittee members have any questions for Dr. Lewis? MLA Cable: Once again, I just wanted to thank you for your comments, Dr. L ewis. Very insightful. Appreciate them. J. Lewis: Thank you. Mr. Perchotte: Thank you, Dr. Lewis.

I ap preciate your direct, open and honest remarks that you've given here. You spoke about those powers being that of a – in tyranny, dictatorship. Is there any type of iteration of this bill that you would support these type of extreme, arbitrary powers being given to the minister? J.

Lewis: Yes, I think it 's quite clear, from what I 've said already, that I would not support, really, under any circumstances, an individual, be it the minister or a delegate, having these kinds of powers. * (19:50) As I said, they 're really, you know, if anything along these lines were to go through, there would have to be clear guidelines about what constitutes com - pliance or non- compliance on the part of the insti- tutions, how the decisions are to be made, there would preferably be the involvement of more than one per - son in making any such decision. There would have to be a clear process for appeals.

So I can't support individual wielding of power on this issue, or really any that I can think of. The Chairperson: Thank you, Dr. Lewis. MLA Lamoureux: It's more of just a comment. I want to thank you for your presentation. I very much appreciate the comparison to grading as an instructor or a professor, and just the process in place from rubrics to feedback to encouraging students to speak up and make their argument strong; and of course, there always being an appeal process.

106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 And just how this amend ment gives so much discretion to one person. It 's very telling and kind of ironic that it is an education amendment being brought forward. The Chairperson: Thank you, MLA Lamoureux. Dr. Lewis, do you want to respond to MLA Lamoureux? J. Lewis: Well, I do want to say thank you for picking up so clearly on what I was trying to say. I feel very heard and I hope in general that this com mittee will hear and really think over what all of us this evening have been saying. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Dr. Lewis. Any further questions?

Seeing none, thank you so much for your presen- tation, Dr. Lewis. So the presentations on Bill 10 are finished. Bill 17–The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act (Continued) The Chairperson: And we move on to Bill 17. And next presenter on the list is David Grant. Welcome, Mr. Grant. Please go ahead. David Grant (Private Citizen): The introduction of this bill and the creation of this commit tee, this ad - visory body, again, seems like a great idea at the outset. The details may not support the lofty goal, and I'm concerned with that.

And I 'm reminded that I 've been involved in industrial operations, big companies in Ontario, where there were advisory groups to advise company management and the union on health and safety matters. And I acknowledge Mr. Rebeck and his presenta- tion before. Obviously his folks want to have a say in how the law is administered and how the laws are changed. But in this case, I would suggest that it's essential when this group–I don't see it in the legislation–but it's essential that when the minister puts this together, that this advisory group not all be of the same mind.

That having a dissenter in the group is essential and having people who are aware of the technical issues is also essential. We saw a similar –this problem that I foresee if the group's put together and it only has groups like Mr. Rebeck on the group, then it's too likely that what one of those people puts forward or what the minister's helpers put forward will not be challenged. And I think that 's a big problem. I think that the –having dissent is essential when you're trying to advise.

And I'm reminded of the situation that the previous government was in when the world was shutting down because there was a virus that was going to harm us all or do great damage. In that case, they had advisers. It turns out that the advisers were not advising, and that it's one thing to criticize a group that's not in power any more, but I think the message is the same– that if the grou p, if the minister and the minister 's adviser team are all of the same–with the same goal, and don't realize there 's a problem with what they 're putting forward, we have a problem.

Specifically some of the microbiological things that were envisioned and carried out during the pandemic with the advisers that the gov ernment had, missed the boat on many technical issues. And in that case, he may have had–he didn't have what we are proposing here, but–he may have had ad- vice, but the advice did not include the technical people that were available, that –the doctor who was his obvious chief advisor invited comments. And I'm still president of the local AOAC, which is a group that represents analytic chemists and micro- biologists. And so our group was, of course, never consulted.

And I don't think any local–from what I've found in announce ments and FIPPA requests since, that the gov ernment made no reference to any tech - nical basis for their decisions. And I think there's a problem there and that's what I want to make sure that–if this legislation can be ad- justed to make sure that dissenting opinion is included in this group and that technical experts are also included. Because things like masks–I had–I was involved with a number of employers in Ontario where the air in the workplace could kill you and we had very vigorous ways of protecting our workers.

And I was on the committees–technical committees–that were doing that work. And instead, we find that the Manitoba Health at the time had no advanced breathing protection for any of the employees. So not only did we not have a standard for the equipment we should supply to our respiratory ward nurses to protect them, we didn' t

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 107 have any of the toys that we should have had: the equipment that I had decades ago in Ontario to protect our workers from lead in the air and uranium particles in the air. That equipment wasn't available in Manitoba. And, ironically, the safety meetings that were re- quired by Manitoba law were not held during that time period, which is also disappointing. So the–if this law would allow that situation to be repeated in a decade, it's not good–not doing the job we all expect it to do.

So I just want to make that clear, that I think a committee like this is essential; it h as to not all be yes-men. It has to have dissenters and well -informed people serving on it. And I think that in the case of the gov ernment's decisions during the pandemic, if they had had this group in place, if this bill had passed and the commit- tee, the body, had been properly constituted and had the power, I think we would have done a lot less damage.

So I just wanted to make those points, because having seen it go badly and having seen this happen, it's one thing for Manitoba labour to do it; it's another when, without that require ment, organizations like Eldorado Nuclear has its own–had, in those days, its own health-safety committees made up of both sides, and I think they were very, very effective and–because dissent was invited and there we re technical experts there, not just yes -people–we shouldn't use yes -men anymore. But anyway, I wanted to make those –I think they're very im portant points and I 'm in support but want it to go further. Thank you.

The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Grant, f or your presentation. Floor is now open for questions. Hon. Malaya Marcelino (Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board ): Thank you, Mr. Grant, for you partici pation and for your comments thus far. I want to assure you that I 'm not interested in an advisory council of yes -men. I think if anybody is interested in really trying to make im provements in safety and health for all workers across Manitoba, you can't do that with a group of yes -men, no matter how well intended. So, certainly, we 're not interested in a group of yes-men.

This advisory counci l is going to be some thing similar, what we 're proposing, to be what other pro- vinces have. I assure you that it's going to be made up of technical experts, a third of them; leaders from the labour community, a third of them; and leaders from– The Chairperson: Order, please. The time for question has expired. D. Grant: Thank you, Minister.

It's very reassuring to hear that–your strong words on that topic, and I'm glad it's going in that direction. * (20:00) And I think internally, in your department, in forma- tion of this group and the way you select people and the way you run the thing, if you keep in mind the uni- lateral basis of some of the worst decisions made by the previous government during the pandemic and how they were completely insulated from technical experts. Someone who was a technical expert and said this is working and this is completely –this is cost and no benefit, they were completely isolated from that.

So whether it 's yourself or a future minister, we have to make sure that the m inisters do not take uni - lateral action. And thank you. Ms. Jodie Byram (Agassiz): And thank you to yourself, Mr. Grant, for making a pre sentation again here tonight. It makes it a bit of a long evening for you, but I just want to put on the record that I appre - ciate your pre sentation, your comments and your input. So thank you. D. Grant: Thanks for the nice words, and this is in retirement. I'm retired from active working.

The pro- viding my knowledge and exper ience is one of the things I take pleasure in in retirement, and that 's why I'm still serving 10 years after I should have retired from this–serving this organi zation and a couple of others–volunteer boards, and so on. But it is just for evenings like this that makes it all worthwhile. And thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Grant. MLA Marcelino: I just was cut off because of time, but I do want to assure you that we will be led by science and by evidence. One third of the composition of this advisory council we are proposing to be, again, te chnical and

108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 professional experts in the field, one third of the coun- cil to be part of labour and one third to be coming from employers to try to assure there is balance there and that this group would be led by evidence and science and experiences of wo rkers to ensure that we 're all working towards the same goal, which is to be improving the exper ience of safety and health for workers across Manitoba, because we want to make sure that workers can come home at the end of the day, safe. Thank you for your presence here tonight and for your suggestions. D.

Grant: I'm reminded of just over a decade ago, I was here speaking to a bill that was brought forward by Labour minister Braun, and I had some ideas. The bill brought in some things to protect workers on the side of highways, and I brought up three ideas that had been very successful in other jurisdictions. She came over with her assist ant afterwards and said she was going to incorporate those; it was very important to her. And somehow, not hing happened. And so that's a bit disappointing that when a minister is excited about an idea and wants to bring it in, and I'm not sure whatever happened to it.

I would certainly love the opportunity to speak to your assistant about that, minister, because that 's an old bill that's long gone. That was 2013, but I would still like to see us have the best laws. And I'm very pleased with your reaction to this, that it looks like you 're working hard on having this, the best possible law. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Grant. The time for questions has expired. We would move to the next presenter. Next presenter on the list is Ms. Sandra Oakley, who joins us virtually. Welcome, Ms. Oakley. Are you ready for the pre- sentation?

Sandra Oakley (Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees): Yes, I am. The Chairperson: Sure. Please go ahead. You have 10 minutes to present. S. Oakley: My name is Sandra Oakley. I 'm the vice-president of the Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees. We are the Manitoba affiliate of the 500,000-member Congress of Union Retirees of Canada. We are retired union members, supportive of the aims and objectives of Canada' s trade union movement. We are proud affiliates of the Canadian Labour Congress and its 3.5 million members, and the Manitoba Federation of Labour, and its 130,000 members.

I'm appearing tonight on–to speak in favour of Bill 17, the bill that will re -establish the advisory council on workplace health –safety and health. We opposed the decision of the previous gov ernment to eliminate this important body in 2018. We fully sup - port the Minister of Labour's comments in introducing Bill 17, where she said, reinstating the advisory council ensures that worker and employer groups in Manitoba have a direct connection to the department on impor- tant workplace safety and health issues.

As retirees, many of our members started working prior to the 1970s, when legislation was first established to improve workplace safety and health measures for all workers in Manitoba. Many of us remember the days when worker safety was often ignored. Through the Manitoba Federation of Labour, workplace health and safety has been a priority for the last 50 years, a prior- ity in our internal union education programs , at our bargaining tables and through our direct calls for legislative protections for all workers.

The foundation of our workplace health and safety work is found in our four core health and safety prin- ciples. These are the right to know, the right to partici- pate, the right to refuse unsafe work, the right to pro- tection from discrimination. Just last month we observed the April 28 day of mourning. Sadly, we also remember 22 Manitoba workers who died on the job or from an occupational illness. We know that here in Manitoba, our Workers Compensation Board processes some 25,000 work- place injury claims each year.

These statistics point to the obvious fact that the job of protecting the work- place health and safety interests of all workers will never end. In short, there remains much to do. Restoring the advisory council on workplace safety and health is an im portant measure, one that ensures that as workers we can communicate directly with the office of the Minister of Labour and the gov ernment departments responsible for worker safety. In closing, this is an important piece of legis lation, one we urge all members of the Legislature to support. Thank you.

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 109 The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Oakley. Thanks for your presentation. The floor is open for questions. MLA Marcelino: Ms. Oakley, I just wanted to thank you for your presentation, for your words tonight, and as well for your advocacy all these years on this very important topic. I don't have any questions for you at this time, but just to really, from the bottom of my heart, to thank you for your advocacy all these years. S. Oakley: [inaudible] much. Ms. Byram: I'll–I, too, want to say thank you to Ms.

Oakley for your pre sentation and partici pating virtually tonight, and putting your comments and words on the record here. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. Do we have further questions? Seeing none, thank you so much everybody. Bill 202–The Community Foundation Day Act (Commemoration of Days, Weeks and Months Act Amended) The Chairperson: We would move to the next presenter, which is for Bill 202, Ms. Nathalie Kleinschmit. Welcome, Ms. Kleinschmit. Please go ahead. Nathalie Kleinschmit (Francofonds): Bonjour.

It 's an honour to speak to Bill 202 as the executive director of Francofonds, Manitoba 's francophone com munity foundation. We all know The Winnipeg Foundation, but Manitoba's home to 57 foundations all across the pro- vince who each have a story. * (20:10) And I'd like to share with you today ours, how we began and what we do, the challenges that we' re facing and how recognizing community day–commu- nity foundation day is an impactful and im portant opportunity for us all. So let's begin.

As an invisible minority group in Manitoba, the francophones, our struggle to resist forced assimilation and survive is often overlooked. It was illegal for my grandmother to learn French. I grew up hearing about stories of hiding books when the inspector came along. My mother was shamed. Speak white is what she heard. And so, in the '70s, after a community building in St. Boniface was set on fire, a group of francophones realized that they had to take their destiny in hand.

They created Francofonds, inciting, inviting the com- munity to donate generously, create endowment funds whose interest would then provide grants and bursaries back into the com munity to support projects by and for us. So today, we hold $15 million and, just this past year, granted out almost $1 million of bursaries and grants. In–so our francophone fight is less fiery, but our community focus is still at the heart of what we do, especially as our community has expanded and grown and changed, as all Manitoba has. We work to complement the gov ernment. We're your partners. We complement you.

So when you fund an operation, the operations for Chez Rachel, a second-stage shelter, we fund the birthday cakes that the children remember years later. We fund student bursaries, artist projects, museums, schools, health facilities, heritage activities through microgrants that go a very long way. I have a happy job. But we are, as many foundations are, facing chal- lenges. And I'd like to speak to those. So the community foundations are different from private foundations, which come from great for tunes or families or businesses who've put it in.

And today, we have to find our positioning, because the biggest competition that we have for donor dollars come from banks, who have suddenly popped up –not suddenly; they've been around for a while, but are more aggressive today, attracting and offering private endowment funds. They hold 70 per cent of endowment funds in Canada. And so this hoarding of wealth that we are seeing has forced some changes in the way the Canada Revenue Agency is moving forward, and we've just been faced with a new rule that I think is good in principle.

It's a disbursement that forces us to grant out 5 per cent of our funds, which is great until the interest rates drop, because many small com munity founda- tions do not invest i n multinational stock market and overseas. They invest with their local credit unions. And so there is that struggle of how do we cover our expenses, our fees, grant out 5 per cent and still survive? Unlike banks, we offer services. We are close to the ground, we're in our small com munities. And we are the champions. We guide. We can help a not -for- profit build a finance plan to get other funding.

There's very little funding that comes to Manitoba from the

110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 federal institutions and the rest, because pe ople don't have time in the small not -for-profits, or they don 't know or they lack confidence or the connections. So the foundations locally only grant out, but we help through our microgrants, help organizations find more. And then, finally, the forever is exhilarating. You know, they said, we're going to be there forever, toujours [always], by us, for us. I mean, the French are–they're fun. It's exhilarating, but today, and you know this better than anyone, the needs on the ground are great.

It is v ery hard to talk about forever, 50 years, when people today don't have homes, don't have food. I can't go–I can 't–I don' t–I have no social life anymore, because when I go out, people ask me for money. I go to a concert, an artist wants money. Like, you mus t have the same thing. So we have to find a way–yes–and also yes, we're all here on a Monday night at 8:15, but anyway, it 's Monday, not Friday, so I 'll give you that. The needs are all great. We need to acknowledge that we need to help today so that there's actually a tomorrow that we can exist for.

So it' s a tough time, but as challenging as it is, it's an exciting one, because we've been forced to step up and bring clarity. And that's where you come in. This bill is incred- ibly helpful. Not only is i t an encouragement for us, it's really lovely for us to be seen. And I'd like to thank both Grant Jackson and Robert Loiselle who were the ones who came directly to some of our foundations and said, we see you. You know, we see you, we hear you, and we acknowl edge the work you 're doing. So that's lovely. It's very, you know, the idealism of that, it's right there.

You shine a spotlight on our positioning and our purpose, but what you also do is you give us a very good business opportunity to have a se cond moment in the calendar. The end of the year is traditionally when foundations do their call-out for donors, and last year, I stopped because I was getting letters every single day to donate to this, donate to that, and I had quite a few donators–donors who came, and they were feeling the fatigue, of donor fatigue. And I think that when that happens, we all lose.

So by having a com munity foundation day at a different time of the year, we can leave that end of the year to the charities who truly do need those dollars today, but we can take our time anchoring generosity in the community, working together, working on things like the Will Week, inviting people to do planned giving, speaking about our opportunities. And that, for us, is really im portant in our calendar, to be able to balance that and celebrate and come back to what community means.

So as we anchor generosity and em power com- munity, I'd like to reiterate my thanks to you for this non-partisan decision to move forward with com mu- nity foundations because they affect, especially–I can speak about the francophones, but my colleagues who are in Killarney, Kenora, Thompson, Brandon are doing really great work, and this is going to be a very significant moment for us all. Yes, thank you.

So I'd like to thank you for having proclaimed the day this year, and I truly hope that you will vote into enshrining that into law, so that every year, we can start, forever, start today for tomorrow and forever celebrate the com munities and the work that we do in partnership with you. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Kleinschmit. For the infor mation of com mittee members, the question rotation for this private member's bill would be the member sponsoring the bill, a government mem- ber and an independent member. The floor is now open for questions. Mr.

Grant Jackson (Spruce Woods): Thank you so much being here. This isn't a question, it 's just a statement. Thank you so much. It has been an absolute treat to meet you through this process. Thank you for being here on a Monday evening, representing community foundations. I know we have a number of written submissions as well. Thank you for spending the evening with us. It was a great event on April 25 in advance of April 26. That was the exact idea of the bill, to make it a day to celebrate you and all the work you do but also the fundraising opportunity.

And as for the CRA issues, we worked together quite well across the aisle on the event and this bill, and I sincerely hope that government members and I could work together to raise your issues to the federal government with respect to the CRA challenges that you raised and hope to make some traction and pro- gress as well there. So just thank you very, very much for being here.

May 13, 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 111 N. Kleinschmit: Thank you. That's even more than I expected, so I really appreciate you all. MLA Robert Loiselle (St. Boniface): Merci, Nathalie. Thank you for all those kind words, and thank you for all the great work that you do. And you alluded to the fact that there's 57 founda- tions, they give out 5 per cent every year. You 've alluded to the fact that, you know, the foundations, they've helped you and other foundations, you know, fundraise more money.

Do you see other ways gov ernments and foundations could work together to enhance the work that you do, that we do, together? [interjection] The Chairperson: Ms. Kleinschmit. N. Kleinschmit: Sorry. Thank you. Yes, there is another way because that disburse - ment, the 5 per cent, is for foundations who hold more than $1 million in assets.

It sounds like a lot, but we do get there quite quickly because people are incred - ibly generous. * (20:20) So because we have the competition right now, one of the most useful ways you can help dist inguish a community foundation from a private one would be to help with the tax credits.

Today, the tax credits are approximately 50 per cent, but if we had one that was close to, for example, the political giving, or I 'd say even, I don't know, 100 per cent for the first thousand, so we can start getting younger people giving that – those first dollars and then staggering the next 5,000; 75; then after that it 's a benefit they can get like everybody else. But those sort of tax credits would certainly go a long way, because what we find is getting that first donation is the hardest. Everybody 's suffering. They want to help their children, and I get that. They want to help each other.

There' s a lot with GoFundMe, of people giving directly. So having the tax credit would be an added incentive. I would also like to say that tomorrow I'm taking a plane at 6 in the morning to go to the Com munity Foundations of Canada gathering with leaders of dif- ferent foundations, and they always tell me that they look to Ma nitoba as an example. The Winnipeg Foundation was the first foundation–it' s the largest foundation. It's a really important one in Canada. We are the province with the most foundations. They think we're crazy. We–even, like, per capita even more than Quebec.

But they always say, wow; you are very lucky to be in a province where people understand what it means, because we are a barn -raising province. We– you know, most people come from the rural areas. The francophones do, too. There are more francophones in the rural than in St. Boniface, for sure–where a com- munity comes together. So I do think that they're very excited about this, and I would like you to know that the rest of the country is looking at you for sure, with a smile. The Chairperson: Thank you. Do we have further questions?

Seeing none, thank you so much for your presen- tation and your answers. [interjection] Thank you. Bill 10–The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act (Continued) The Chairperson: Now we would move to the presenters for Bill 10. So these presenters were called once. We are calling again Ms. Lori Barber for Bill 10. So, Ms. Lori Barber? If not, then we can go to the next presenter and drop them to the bottom of the list. Next presenter for Bill 10 is Ms. Shirley Thompson. Do we have Ms. Shirley Thompson? So both of these presenters that I just announced will be dropped from the list.

That concludes the list of presenters I have before me. * * * The Chairperson: In what order does the committee wish to proceed with clause -by-clause consideration of these bills? Any suggestions? MLA Mike Moroz (River Heights): Just numeric order. The Chairperson: Numerical order has been suggested. Agreed? [Agreed] Bill 5–The Adult Literacy Act (Continued) The Chairperson: We will proceed with clause by clause of Bill 5 now. Does the minister responsi ble for Bill 5 have an opening statement? An Honourable Member: I do. The Chairperson: Minister Cable.

112 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2024 Hon. Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): My apologies. Oh. I do not. Oh, I do. It's been a long day, Mr.–thank you. I want to thank the committee and everybody who has contributed presentations. The purpose of Bill 5 is to help adult learners to improve their lives, build their foundational skills and increase participation in their communities and economy. Challenges Manitobans face pursuing education and getting the skills in regular K-to-12 programming: we need to destigmatize interruptions in learning and hon

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	43-1-sed5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	43rd 1st hansardpdf sed5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6953d2424d0c5e36535f7bfe8f2b02719791fba3

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