Manitoba Committee Hansard — 28 April 2008 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 1, 39th Legislature, 2nd Session)

39-2-sed1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Ms. Erna Braun Constituency of Rossmere Vol. LX No. 1 - 7 p.m., Monday, April 28, 2008 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Ninth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park N.D.P. BOROTSIK, Rick Brandon West P.C. BRAUN, Erna Rossmere N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. BRIESE, Stuart Ste. Rose P.C. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P.

DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C. FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. HOWARD, Jennifer Fort Rouge N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St.

Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARCELINO, Flor Wellington N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McFADYEN, Hugh Fort Whyte P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PEDERSEN, Blaine Carman P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SARAN, Mohinder The Maples N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELBY, Erin Southdale N.D.P.

SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Monday, April 28, 2008 TIME – 7 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Erna Braun (Rossmere) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mses. Melnick, Oswald, Hon. Mr. Selinger Ms. Braun, Mr. Cullen, Mrs. Driedger, Messrs. Faurschou, Goertzen, Ms. Korzeniowski, Mr. Nevakshonoff, Ms. Selby APPEARING: Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster WITNESSES: Bill 8–The Phosphorus Reduction Act (Water Protection Act Amended) Mr.

Darren Praznik, Canadian Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association Mr. James Beddome, Private Citizen Mr. Paul Walsh, Private Citizen Bill 11–The Optometry Amendment Act Mr. David Cochrane, O.D., Manitoba Association of Optometrists Bill 18–The Testing of Bodily Fluids and Disclosure Act Mr. Keith Atkinson, Manitoba Association of Chiefs of Police Ms. Jodi Possia, Paramedic Association of Manitoba Mr. Alex Forrest, Unit ed Fire Fighters of Winnipeg Mr. Mike Sutherland, Winnipeg Police Association Mr.

Ken Mandzuik, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 18–The Testing of Bodily Fluids and Disclosure Act Mr. Richard Elliott, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 8–The Phosphorus Reduction Act (Water Protection Act Amended) Bill 9–The Protection for Persons in Care Amendment Act Bill 11–The Optometry Amendment Act Bill 12–The Securities Transfer Act Bill 18–The Testing of Bodily Fluids and Disclosure Act * * * Madam Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order.

For the information of everyone in attendance this evening, we may have some lights and cameras set up in the room tonight. This is because the Legislative Assembly Media Services will be filming part of tonight's proceedings for inclusion in the video Standing Committees of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 8, The Phosphorus Reduction Act (Water Protection Act Amended); Bill 9, The Protection for Persons in Care Amendment Act; Bill 11, The Optometry Amendment Act; Bill 12, The Securities Transfer Act; Bill 18, The Testing of Bodily Fluids and Disclosure Act. We have a number of presenters registered to speak this evening as follows: For Bill 8, we have: Darren Praznik representing the Canadian Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association; James Beddome, private citizen; Paul Walsh, Dollar Wise Quality Cleaners.

2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 For Bill 11, we have: David Cochrane, Manitoba Association of Optometrists. For Bill 18, The Testing of Bodily Fluids and Disclosure Act, we have: Jodi Possia, Paramedic Association of Manitoba; Alex Forrest, United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg; Mike Sutherland, President of the Winnipeg Police Association; Keith Atkinson, Manitoba Association of Chiefs of Police; Ken Mandzuik, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties. Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider.

First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with staff at the entrance of the room. Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompa ny your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please ask our staff.

As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes al lowed for questions from committee members. Also, in accordance with our rules, 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.

A written submission on Bill 18 from Richard Elliott from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has been received and distributed to committee members. Does the committee agree to have this document appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Order of presentations: on the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we do have out-of-town presenters in attendance marked with an asterisk on the list. With this consideration in mind, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? Mr.

Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Madam Chairperson, given that the outside presenters have been identified on the list, I would suggest that we would hear from them first for their convenience. Madam Chairperson: Is that agreed? [Agreed] I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment. Except by unanimous consent, a standing committee meeting to consider a bill in the evening must not sit past midnight to hear presentations, unless fewer than 20 presenters are registered to speak to all bills being considered when the committee commences.

As of 7 o'clock this evening, there were nine persons registered to speak to these bills, therefore, according to our rules, this committee may sit past midnight to hear presentations. How late does the committee wish to sit tonight? Mr. Nevakshonoff: Well, Madam Chair, I suggest we sit until midnight if necessary and if we're still here at that point in time, then maybe we can revisit this issue. Madam Chairperson: Okay, the will of the committee? [Agreed] Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee.

The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is a signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mikes on and off. Thank you for your patience and we will now proceed with the public presentations. Bill 8–The Phosphorus Reduction Act (Water Protection Act Amended) Madam Chairperson: Darren Praznik, Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. Mr.

Darren Praznik (Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association): Thank you, and I have copies, Madam Chair. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Please proceed. Mr. Praznik: Thank you much, Madam Chair. I must admit it's somewhat different being on this end of the table, but certainly a pleasurable one. Madam Chairperson, Madam Minister, ministers, former colleagues and members of the Legislature, thank you very much for the opportunity to make this presentation to you this evening on behalf of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, which I have the honour of

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 representing. The CCTFA was founded in 1928 and is really the voice of the personal care products industry in Canada. We represent some 160 companies which represents the bulk of the industry in terms of product and it counts for some $5.4 billion a year in annual sales. I also have another, I guess, personal interest. Being a Manitoban always at heart, I still have a home on Lake Winnipeg, so I appreciate this particular bill and what it's trying to do. * (19:10) First of all, let me say that our association believes very strongly in environmental stewardship.

I'm not going to read from the presentation directly. It's there, so it captures the essence of our message. I would just like to speak to it tonight. But our industry is very firmly committed to strong environmental stewardship. We work very closely with the federal government now in the chemicals' management plan, which I think if you look at that particular plan, we've had batch one of chemicals come out earlier in the year. We have batch two coming out in mid-May. It really leads the world. Canada, at this particular point on this issue at this point in time, has been the leader in the world.

We work regularly with other associations and regulators in Europe and the United States. Although Europe is close, the actions that Canada's now undertaking have placed us really in the forefront of the world. We work very closely with the federal government who is leading the world in many of these particular areas on environmental regulation with respect to chemicals that our industry uses. Why we are in fact here today is not to take issue with the specific bill. I want to thank the minister and her staff who were very generous in giving us some time late last year to discuss the bill.

We understand very fully the intent of why the minister's trying to bring forward this legislation. I must admit, if I were still in a ministerial office today, I don't think I would have taken necessarily a different approach. I understand that, and I understand what Manitoba was attempting to do. Our problem is one more of general principle. We across the country are becoming more concerned along with other associations in the consumer product industries about provincial legislation with respect to ingredient content and labelling of consumer products. The problem with that is a very simple one.

These particular products rely on economies of scale for production. When we have different regulatory regimes in provinces, it makes it very, very difficult to serve those markets. If provincial governments start regulating with respect to the content of individual consumer products, start regulating with respect to the labelling, and we've seen some private members' bills in Ontario and British Columbia in the last year or so that would suggest provincial labelling schemes on various consumer packaged goods.

What it creates are 13 potential different jurisdictions within an already small market of Canada with 30 million people. The difficulty with being able to meet those di fferent regulatory regimes on consumer products becomes just an endless nightmare for anyone trying to bring product to the marketplace in Canada. We have seen more and more incursions into this area with each passing year and it is becoming a growing concern. Industries like ours are truly international industries.

A plant that may produce a particular make-up, an eye colour, for example, I think of the MAC factory in Toronto that produces certain MAC make-ups. They produce on a world mandate. So we look for kind of regulatory oversight that allows us to meet the highest standard but in a uniform way. If we have various provincial governments in an already small market called Canada, attempting to introduce various regulatory regimes on our ingredients or labelling, it makes it just that much more difficult.

I can tell you often what would happen, particularly if you are looking at a small market like Manitoba with less than a million people, it just becomes uneconomical to be in the marketplace. So the main point that we wanted to make tonight at this committee hearing is that as a matter of principle we oppose provincial intrusion into the regulation at the provincial level on these particular matters.

Now, having said that and having had the opportunity to meet with the minister, I have to be very complimentary because I think that was fully recognized, the circumstances in which the minister was forced to bring this legislation were very clear and very compelling. I also want to put on the record tonight the commitment of the minister that she made to work with our industry in any regulations that may or may not happen. But if they do, to work with us to make sure that Manitoba is not out of line with what is happening in the rest of the country.

So in those circumstances, I must say, we're very pleased with that commitment. We certainly will take the minister up on it if and when that time arises. But the general principle is one that we

4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 wanted to ensure was part of this debate, part of this discussion, at least so that it's not forgotten and it's on the record. I will say this as well. We've seen other intrusions or legislative initiatives in a couple of other provinces that were not thoughtful at all, hadn't taken into account national regulatory schemes and did not show the foresight that I think this minister has shown in bringing forth this bill in the way it's been done.

Quite frankly, should this bill pass the Legislature, we would be using this as an example of at least the thoughtfulness that should go into those occasions when a province does feel compelled to put pressure on the federal government.

But the bottom line is, the principle, which I think the minister has recognized in her comments to us, that Canadians are best served, both as consumers, as industry, both from a safety and environmental point of view, when these types of products that are mass market products that require large volumes for the economy of production, we are best served when the national government fulfils its mandate to properly regulate those products for health and safety and environmental reasons. That's what we support as an association, and that's what we continue to work with the federal government on.

To take it one step further in terms of personal care products, we are cu rrently working with regulators and trade associ ations in the European union, the United States, and Japan on what's called the international cosmetic co-ordination of regulation process; what a mouthful. But it is a process that is designed to share the best of science on an international basis as we address nanotechnology and other new things that are facing us, and to try to align our regulatory regimes at least to process, so that we are able to have the–science is the same wherever you are.

Getting it right and getting it in a manner that is easy to fulfill in products that traverse borders very easily is, I think, very key to accommodate trade. I would just tell you, not only do our members import product for sale in Canada, but we do have members who produce product in Canada for export, and it's with international mandates in those facilities. The ability of those companies to be able to deal internationally with the same requirements and labelling is also important.

So, again, science-based regulation, which I think the minister's been fully supportive of, effective and efficient regulation, is a principle which should come from the national government is where we think we should be. I would like to thank the minister for her efforts. I would also like to thank the two opposition critics who also met with us late last year for their interest in this particular matter. Thank you for your time and your attention. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Thank you, Mr.

Praznik, for your presentation. I certainly appreciate your concerns about having the potential of 13 different levels of legislation moving forward across the province. I think we may have issue with similar legislation coming forward from the government in terms of greenhouse gases as well. You're probably aware of, and my understanding is, the federal government is moving forward with legislation as well in this regard.

I'm wondering if you have a sense of the timing in terms of when the federal legislation might move forward, and, second of all, if you think the parameters or the levels within the federal legislation will be reflective of what's in this legislation here in Manitoba. Mr. Praznik: First of all, I can't speak for Minister Baird or the federal government. We all watched the announcement that was made with respect to phosphates, and I think the kind of pressure building helped that to happen.

You know, at the end of the day, Canadians elect all governments, provincially and federally, and they expect their elected members to be able to work together to resolve issues. Now, living in Ontario, I can tell you, that isn't always the case, the battles that rage there.

But one also has to appreciate that the federal government has it's agenda and it's attention span, and I certainly appreciate when a province like Manitoba, on an issue like phosphates in Lake Winnipeg–two years ago, I was home when the water was green like paint, so I understand the imperative–has to kind of shake the tree to get some attention. That was the case when I served in ministerial office, and it is still there. So my recommendation to any provincial government in Manitoba is to keep at it and, I think, to work co- operatively.

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 What impressed me about this legislation was it created, in essence, the stick, but it was one that didn't have to be used if the feds acted. I think the same should be true any time the provincial government is using its legislative power to poke the federal government along. If they do the right thing and you get a national consensus, it's always better to be part of that national consensus if you can get it, when you're regulating things on a national scale. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you, Mr. Praznik. Mr.

Praznik: Thank you, and nice to be home. * (19:20) Bill 11–The Optometry Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: I will now call on David Cochrane, Manitoba Association of Optometrists. Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. David Cochrane (Manitoba Association of Optometrists): Madam Chairperson, ministers, members of the committee, it is truly my pleasure and my privilege this evening to present to the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development as president of the Manitoba Association of Optometrists. To introduce myself, my name is David Cochrane. I am an optometrist.

I live and practice in Virden, Manitoba. I would just like to spend a few minutes this evening speaking in support of Bill 11, The Optometry Amendment Act. I can speak on behalf of our entire membership in saying that the Manitoba Association of Optometrists is very pleased to be in support of this amendment to the current optometry act. As a measure of that support, I might add that, when I stood up, I believe, there are 18 optometrists in the room for me, standing in support of this legislation.

I would like to take this opportunity to demonstrate that Bill 11 will allow optometrists in Manitoba to practice to the full potential of their training and education as has been demonstrated by the regulatory and statutory amendments that have occurred elsewhere in Canada as well as in the United States. Manitoba's optometrists have known for years that we are an under-utilized resource of the health- care system in this province.

The ability for optometrists to treat certa in eye conditions would alleviate some of the pre ssures that are unnecessarily placed on busy medical family practitioners, emergency room physicians, walk-in clinics, ophthalmologists, in addition to our mutual patients due to the unnecessary travel costs, delays in treatments, potential for lost work and general inconvenience. There are currently 107 optometrists practising in the province of Manitoba. Manitoba's optometrists are located geographically throughout the province, and not only in our major cities.

We have members who live and work in nearly all major communities in the southern part of the province as well as the major northern communities. Optometrists also provide itinerate services to many northern communities that are only accessible by air. Our rural and northern optometrists, especially, experience the difficulties involved in arranging for the treatment and management of eye conditions when access to ophthalmology services is only available on a regular basis in Winnipeg and Brandon. Manitoba's doctors of optometry provide over two-thirds of the primary vision-care services to Manitobans.

The current optometry act mandates that optometrists are required to diagnose all forms of eye disease and injury. However, optometrists are restricted from administering or prescribing any therapeutic drugs to treat these problems. Instead, patients must be referred to a physician or an ophthalmologist for treatment. This is, truly, no longer the case elsewhere in Canada and the United States. Optometrists have proven that they are capable of competently treating certain eye conditions by their long history of doing so in other jurisdictions.

At this time, if I can draw your attention to appendix 1 in my handout, TPA legislation in Canada. I probably used the word "TPA" a few times, and that just really stands for therapeutic pharmaceutical agents. Opto metrists are somewhat unique in that abbreviation, because we've had to make the designation between diagnostic pharma- ceuticals and therapeutic pharmaceuticals. We often talk with that abbreviation where most medical practitioners don't, but my handouts will have that, and I will use that terminology.

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 If you look at this, you'll see that, for TPA legislation in Canada, this graphically demonstrates that at the current time only Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island currently lack the enabling legislation to allow for the TPA privileges for optometrists in Canada. I would also present for information appendix 2. I'm not going to read through it, but it's just a

summary of the TPA legislation in Canada, the timelines. It shows the time line of other provinces when they have enacted the legislations. Even on the first page, you can see or you will notice that Alberta, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have all had prescribing authority for optometrists for a minimum of 10 years. As further background, I have included appendix 3, which is the optometric prescriptive authority time line in the United States. I have included this time line for American colleagues. It demonstrates the first U.S.

TPA bill was passed in 1976, with the vast majority of states granting TPA privileges through the 1980s and '90s. I've also included appendix 4, which is the scope of practice enactments – time line, which illustrates to you the number of times that TPA legislation for optometrists have been amplified in the United States. What I found of note in this document, which was provided to us by the American Optometric Association in St.

Louis, Missouri, is the statement at the very last page that says: "Laws establishing or expanding prescriptive or treatment authority for optometrists have been enacted 171 times in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico." Moreover, "Laws repealing or diminishing prescriptive or treatment authority for optometrists have never been enacted." I would now like to take the opportunity as well to outline the level of prescriptive authority that is currently legislated in Canada and the United States.

I understand that there was some question, even in the House last week, as to what is currently allowed or provided for in other jurisdictions. So for that purpose I provided Appendix 5, which is a

summary of the legend drug prescriptive authority for optometrists in Canada, which breaks down, essentially, topical pharmaceuticals that would be used in eye care amongst the different provinces, as you can see. Appendix 5A is a more descriptive breakdown of that and for your information. Finally, appendix 6, you'll see that it is a subjective ranking provided by the American association for you, which is a

summary of the legend drug prescriptive authority for optometrists. It is provided for you as an outline of the TPA prescriptive authority in the U.S. jurisdictions for your comparison. There's quite a bit of information there, but you will see that every jurisdiction in North America, except for Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, has this authority to some degree.

As evidenced by the information I provided to you in appendixes 5 and 6, optometrists of Manitoba are not currently able to provide the same level of eye-care services to Manitobans that Canadians in other jurisdictions have come to expect, that optometrists in other jurisdictions have proven they are capable of providing. The optometrists of Manitoba, however, are very pleased that the current Health minister is taking the opportunity to correct the situation.

We are of the opinion that Bill 11 is well written, and it will provide a framer for regulations that will serve Manitobans and our profession for a long time to come. We are, therefore, hopeful for the speedy passage of Bill 11 to allow for the development of the appropriate regulations, which will ultimately define the specifics of TP A practice of prescriptive authority for Manitoba optometrists. We are confident that the proposed expanded scope of practice will allow Manitoba optometrists the ability to better serve the eye-car e needs of all Manitobans throughout the entire province.

We are also confident the act amendment will provide for a new level of efficiency and quality in the delivery of eye-care services in Manitoba. At this time, we look forward to the next steps in the process, the passage of Bill 11, the establishment of the regulatory advisory committee, and the ultimate de finitions of what will ultimately be the details of the prescriptive authority for Manitoba's optometrists. We look forward to, and we are committed to, working with medicine, pharmacy and government to attain that goal. I thank you for your attention this evening.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to your committee, and we would like to thank again the minister for bringing this bill forward. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have any questions?

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Madam Chairperson, more a comment than a question. I want to thank you, Mr. Cochrane, for your presentation, for your colleagues who have joined you here this evening. You certainly implored us to move quickly on this legislation. I know it's been some time in coming as we catch up across Canada.

My colleague for Charleswood, also my colleague for Arthur-Virden, your members of the Legislature have been strong advocates over the last couple of years in trying to get this legislation to move forward, and I appreciate the work that they have done. Government and the Legislature, more generally, doesn't always work as quickly as we would like it to. I am glad that we are catching up with other jurisdictions in Canada.

You can certainly rest assured that you have our support in moving this legislation quickly because we believe not only in your organization but in the skills that you have, and that you deserve to have the prescribing authority and the benefit it will have for the health care system overall. Mr. Cochrane: Thank you. Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Thank you very much. Just a comment, Madam Chairperson. I wanted to thank you for being an out-of-town presenter and being in town for it.

I want to say thank-you to your colleagues that are present this evening, not only for their presence but for the good counsel that you have offered us in the construction of this bill, and for the willingness and openness and collegial tone that you've taken in approaching this bill, and the days ahead, when we have an advisory committee, and we also have the regulatory development. I have every confidence that this is going to be a very smooth process and a very, very good thing for the people of Manitoba who need to see their optometrists and get more help.

So thank you very much for your efforts this evening, and ongoing. * (19:30) Mr. Cochrane: Thank you. Again, I'd just like to say that the number of optometrists in presence is just really a show of how strongly we all feel about this legislation. We've been working for this for a long time. The original optometry act will be celebrating a hundred years this next year. We think it's fitting if the legislation were passed for our 100th anniversary. We're very committed to the process. We understand the process, and we look forward to fulfilling the process. Mr.

David Faurschou (P ortage la Prairie): I just wanted to ask, in regard to this bill coming into force, based upon a fixed date for a proclamation, in your deliberations with the minister, were there particular deliberations that would delay this bill's coming into effect? Mr. Cochrane: Really, the passage of Bill 11, you know, I don't see there's any reason that it would have to be delayed. I've said this before to the minister at a meeting, but it's really the details of the regulations that are important to us.

We can't really move on to that step and work with medicine and government to develop the regulations until the act is passed, and the regulations, of course, as you know, can't come into effect until the act is passed. So our goal and our hope is just to have the bill passed as quickly as possible. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you, Dr. Cochrane. Bill 18–The Testing of Bodily Fluids and Disclosure Act Madam Chairperson: I will now call on Keith Atkinson, Manitoba Association of Chiefs of Police. Do you have a written presentation? Mr.

Keith Atkinson (Manitoba Association of Chiefs of Police): I do. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Atkinson: Madam Chair, ministers, committee members, my name is Keith Atkinson. I'm the Chief of Police for the Brandon Police Service, and also the president of the Manito ba Association of Chiefs of Police, and I'd like to thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak here tonight. The Manitoba Association of Chiefs of Police is comprised of chiefs of police and senior officers of most Manitoba police services and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The objective of the association is to encour age and develop the co- operation of its members as a management association for the purpose of leading the development of policing in Manitoba and

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 representing police leadership to the people, the Minister of Justice, and the government of Manitoba. On behalf of the Manitoba Association of Chiefs of Police, I'd like to thank the government of Manitoba for introducing The Testing of Bodily Fluids and Disclosure Act. We believe this act will provide peace of mind to police officers who are exposed to blood and other bodily fluids.

It is very common for police officers to be exposed to blood or other bodily fluids at scenes of violent crime or injury, traffic collisions, or being the victim of assaultive behaviour, where the perpetrator flings blood or spits at a police officer.

While police officers are well-informed of the risks of exposure to bodily fluids and are provided with equipment such as Kevlar gloves and latex gloves to protect them, as well as receiving vaccinations for hepatitis A and B, often they are forced to respond to emer gency situations without having the opportunity to properly don their protective equipment, or the bodily fluid lands in the police officer's eyes or mouth.

Although we recognize that the tests obtained at any time may not be 100 percent conclusive, it is at times like these that the police officer can take some comfort in knowing whether the source individual has a communicable disease. At the same time, we recognize the need for treatment must continue, as some diseases may not be detectable at the time of the sample. In order to provide you with an insight of a police officer who has been exposed to bodily fluids, I'd like to read you a testimonial from a young constable who recently went through a relevant experience.

In the early morning hours of the night shift of December 2007, while effecting an arrest, I was spit in the face by an accused. There was a mixture of blood and saliva that hit my face as well as the inside of my mouth. After taking the accused to jail, I immediately attended to the emergency room at a hospital where a social worker was contacted and conducted an interview with me.

Later that night I was contacted by the social worker who advised me the accused has declined to consent to providing a sample of his blood and for me to re-attend the emergency room to begin treatment as the accused was a high risk for HIV or hepatitis C. Emergency room staff pe rformed an initial blood test on me, and I began treatment with the prescription Combiver–and I apologize for not pronouncing that properly, probably.

This was to be a 30-day prescription; however, after a week, I consulted with the public health nurse, and, due to constantly being sick, unable to eat, as well as difficulty drinking water or juice and other potential side effects, I made the determination to stop taking the medication. I was advised to re-attend for follow-up tests in about three to six months. The follow-up tests were perfo rmed in April 2008 and came back normal. During this time frame it was very stressful for me as well as my family. All precautions had to be taken affecting marital relations as well as our lifestyle.

Most personal items had to be kept separate from the rest of my family. Any lacerations I received had to be dealt with very carefully. My five- year-old daughter who normally helped with Band- Aids, however, instead had to be told to stay away, not understanding why. From the date of the incident until the date of the follow-up results, this incident was on my mind, keeping me awake many nights. This incident could have been far less stressful if a sample of the accused's blood could have been obtained. That was from a constable that provided that information.

As I'm sure you're aware, the police officer's job is a stressful one, in this particular case, causing stress on the officer's fam ily as well. By enacting The Testing of Bodily Fluids and Disclosures Act, you can help alleviate some of the stresses that affect police officers in the province and add peace of mind to those officers that are exposed to blood or bodily fluids. Thank you for taking time to hear me this evening. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Are there any members of the committee who have questions for the presenter? Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): A comment, Chief Atkinson.

Thank you very much for coming in. I know you are very busy. All the police officers of Manitoba at their various levels have a lot of work to do, and so we appreciate the fact that you've come to the Legislature to advocate on behalf of this legislation.

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 Certainly, I know over the last couple of years when we've debated private members' legislation, similar legislation with the same goal in mind here in the Legislature, I've had the opportunity to hear from some of your members in your detachment, but really members across Manitoba who've expressed to me often less for their own concern and more for their family. That's probably not an uncommon sentiment for the kind of people who are police officers in this province, th at they're more concerned about others than themselves.

So I'm glad that we've reached this point. It's taken a little time, but I'm glad we've reached this point. We'll be supporting the legislation to ensure that peace of mind for their officers and their families is in place as quickly as possible. Mr. Atkinson: Thank you. Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Thank you very much for being here this evening. I'll be brief. I know we've had an opportunity to speak in the past, and I appreciate the many efforts that you've brought forward on behalf of all those that you represent.

I also know that you share with government the importance of us being able to achieve that balance of providing that peace of mind for the individuals that go out there every day and do things that many of us wouldn't dream of doing, taking care of their peace of mind, at the same time ensuring that we all work together on that education piece about what really acti ve and aggressive things we can be doing in the area of protection and prevention and, in those cases, of severe exposure, encouraging our members to take that medication, uncomfortable as it's going to be.

I know that we'll all be able to work together to get that message out so that, just as you rightly say, family members need not be harmed. So thanks again for being here. Mr. Atkinson: Thank you for those comments. Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Thank you very much, Chief Atkinson, for coming in from Brandon to give your report. It certainly hits home, the personal issues that front-line people are facing in Manitoba.

I do want to commend the Member for Steinbach, very modest tonight, but he has brought forward this concept on a couple of occasions to the Legislature, and nice to see the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) has picked up on that novel idea. The one issue that may be a little contentious is in terms of looking after the rights of individuals. I know that that is addressed in this bill, and I'm wondering if you've looked at that and if you're comfortable with the level of protection that is afforded individual persons and their rights. * (19:40) Mr.

Atkinson: Well, there are always going to be people that are detracting for this bill, but, you know, I put it this way: If a reas onable person, for instance, when you give blood, at Canadian Blood Services, you know there's a series of questions that you're asked and you go through them and make sure that you may not be a high-risk person. I mean, even if people would co-operate that way, but we know it's not a perfect world and we know that there are people out there that do not want to co-operate and will not disclose any type of information. I think this bill helps in that regard.

You know, there are times, obviously, when people at emergency services are exposed to blood, and people co-operate and they tell them whether or not they have any communicable diseases. But this protects the officer in those cases where a person refuses to do that. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you for your presentation. Bill 8–The Phosphorus Reduction Act (Water Protection Act Amended) Madam Chairperson: I will now call on James Beddome, private citizen. Do you have written comments? Mr. James Beddome (Private Citizen) : I have handouts here to distribute. Thank you very much.

Ladies, gentlemen. Madam Chairperson: One moment. Mr. Beddome: My apologies. Madam Chairperson: You may proceed. Mr. Beddome: Ladies, gentlemen, members of the Legislature, and distinguished guests, I just firstly would like to thank you for allowing me to present here today as an individual citizen. I am speaking here today on Bill 8, also known as The Phosphorus Reduction Act. Now this act is good in principle in that it does address a small portion of the problem leading to the eutrophication of our waterways, but the reason I'm here today is that I believe a more

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 comprehensive strategy is needed to seriously reduce the nutrient loads that are flowing into our waterways. Now I think first we need to recognize that the vast majority of phosphorus is not coming from household waste water. If you look at the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board estimates, more than half of the phosphorus, 53 percent to be exact, that ends up in Lake Winnipeg flows into the province from other jurisdictions.

Th e remainder represents Manitoba's share, of which 32 percent is caused by run-off from agricultural lands and 19 percent is from waste-water sources. Clearly, then, a comprehensive strategy would examine the other causes of phosphorus loading. But, for brevity's sake, and because Bill 8 only focusses on the household waste-water issue, regulating the phosphorus content in cleaning and personal care products, I will keep my focus refined. Now, when looking at reducing the flow of phosphorus from households, I think it's first important that we identify where the phosphorus is coming from.

The chart below that I've attached right here, and you can see, is coming from a publication called Water, Science and Technology and it's a study that was conducted at the Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg in Germany. So what we can see from this study is we can see that the vast majority of the volume is grey water, also known as wash water. But, when we actually look at the nutrient concentrations inside of that, we can see that about 10 percent of the phosphorus is coming from wash water.

In contrast, if we look at human urine that's about 50 percent of the phosphorus and feces is about 40 percent of the phosphorus. So, basically, what that means is that this bill is dealing with one-tenth of the problem. Obviously, I'm here today hoping that maybe this committee would consider addressing the other nine-tenths of the problem.

You know, there's even a certain amount of futility in regulating the phosphorus in grey water so long as we're going to continue to mix it with our black water or our feces and urine, the reason being is that it's ultimately mixed and it has to be dealt with when it reaches the waste-water treatment plant. I think the answer here that we need to be recognizing is that we need to be segregating urine, feces, and wash water at source.

Now, it should be acknowledged that all three levels of government have committed considerable sums of money to upgrading waste-water infrastructure in this province to remove nutrients and to cease the flow of untreated effluent into our waterways. Additionally, there have also been new licences issued that require that nutrient removal is obtained at large waste-water treatment facilities, and the government's presently undertaking investi- gations with numerous different groups as to how we might deal with smaller treatment plants such as constructed wetlands.

However, I would argue that we're asking the wrong questions. The question we're asking is, how do we remove nutrients from waste water, but what we need to be asking is: How do we stop creating waste water in the first pl ace? Or, how do we stop putting these nutrients into our water? To this end, I would direct the government to look at the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board's recommendations 20.1 and 11.2. Now, recommendation 20.1 speaks about the importance of supporting innovative and emerging technologies.

The latter half of 11.2 identifies source control pollution prevention plans as measures to reduce nutrient input. Keeping grey water, urine and feces segregated from each other and sanitizing them at source, as close to source as possible, is the best way that we can deal with treatment. Basically, what that does is it keeps the bulk of the nutrients from entering the sewage system in the first place. Grey water, when not mixed with black water, has a relatively low nutrient and pathogen content.

It therefore can be treated and reused even for drinking water through relatively simple procedures such as sand filtering or constructed wetlands. Feces contain the bulk of the majority of pathogens and also the highest concentration of nutrients, but, if we compost our feces and if we obtain thermophilic decomposition, which is above 55 degrees Celsius, the pathogens will be sanitized and the nutrients containing the feces will be returned to the soil. These have been proven to meet both the EPA and the German state regulations.

Now, urine is generally sterile, except for a few exceptions and, given its high ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content, it has the potential to serve as a alternative to conventional synthetic fertilizers. It is worth noting that the skyrocketing price of fertilizers here, and, if there are any farmers out here, I'm sure they are well aware of that.

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 Also, using the aforementioned chart that I provided here, we can sort of take a look at, and we can see, that 50 percent of the phosphorus is coming from urine. Therefore, if we diverted the urine alone, we would obtain five times the reduction of phosphorus coming from households that this bill is going to obtain.

Just to sort of crunch th e numbers a little bit, if every Manitoban was diverting their urine, that would be over 400,000 kilograms of phosphorus, over 4.6 million kilograms of nitrogen, and 1.14 million kilograms of potassium that would not be entering into our waterways. So why, then, do we use water to dispose of our excreta? Is mixing one litre of urine with 13.2 litres of water a good use of our precious water resources? I would obviously argue that I don't think it is. The fundamental flaw with ou r current approach to dealing with human urine and feces is that we mix it with water in the first place.

The truth of the matter is that we really only use water as a means of transporting our excreta. Roughly 80 percent of the cost of conventional sewer systems is on the collection of the sewage or the transportation or the sewage,

whereas only 20 percent is spent on the treatment. By segregating our excreta and treating it at source, we can achieve simultaneous reductions in cost and nutrient inflows into our waterways. As already mentioned, most jurisdictions in the province are in the process of upgrading our sewage facilities. The Manitoba government has promised $206 million for the city of Winnipeg and $150 million for rural municipalities. Now, when undertaking investments of this kind, I think it is vital that we ask ourselves, is this the most judicious use of our expenditures?

The $206 million for Winnipeg is part of a $1.8-billion, 10-year plan that will see the city upgrade its sewage infrastructure and waste-water treatment plant. That works out to just under $2,800 on a per capita basis. So, once again, we need to be asking ourselves, are there not alternative ways of saniti zing bodily excrements? The answer I would say is yes. When it comes down to it, the most efficient method for dealing with or treating excreta from all living systems is humus-laden, aerated, biologically active soil. An example of this type of environment would be the leafy floor of a forest.

Now, of course, most of us live in urban centres. For us, access to this type of natural ecosystem does not exist. However, technology does exist that mimics the natural processes that aerobically break down organic matter into extremely valuable resources: humus, nutrient- rich topsoil or soil conditioner. This is referred to as the process of ecological sanitation. I would ask this committee and the members of the public to check out www.ecosanres.org for more information.

Now, the idea of ecological sanitation is that human excreta is treated, segregated at or near source with minimal use of water, if any is used at all. A composting toilet is the most typical method for breaking down excreta into nutrient-rich topsoil. As the name suggests, these toilets collect excreta and compost it, rendering the end product not only safe to handle but also a valuable agricultural resource. Composting toilets are practical and efficient and affordable. They have proven themselves at Queen's University Botanical Garden, the Bronx Zoo.

We have two located here in Winnipeg at Mountain Equipment Co-op and the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Research in the Kay Building. * (19:50) Now, on the lower end of the price spectrum, we can sort of see that there are different models. One of them is the Canadian-made Sun-Mar composting toilet. It retails for around $1,400. Of course, all these ones have different features. Some segregate urine, some treat urine and feces together. Some used a couple of ounces of water per flush. Regardless, they deal with it. Another example would be the Clivis Multrum variety. That's what we have here in Winnipeg.

It's one of the oldest and most highly- regarded composting toilet companies in the world. Their base-line model starts just under $3,000 U.S., just more than we are spending on a per capita basis here in Winnipeg. In a conversation with one of their sales staff, I was informed that a comprehensive two toilet and a grey-water system could be installed in a house for $7,000 to $10,000. So, if we look at new developments, there really is no reason why this shouldn't be mandated in, given that the costs would already be included in the household.

It may seem costly to install composting toilets in all residences and businesses across Manitoba, but implementing such a system would result in significant long-term cost savings. Consumers would see dramatic reductions in their water bill, as 30 percent to 60 percent of household water use resonates from the toilet. A useful agricultural by- product would also be created. It would be useful for

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 farmers or people who are growing gardens here in the city. By containing the nutrients at source, less money would be required to maintain our sewage infrastructure, and less money would be required to remove the nutrients at the waste-water treatment facility, if we even n eed waste-water treatment facilities at all. Now the need to upgrade our aging sewage infrastructure is really a great opportunity for this province. Fixing our current system is going to be costly, inefficient and onerous. This government does deserve some applause.

It took action on regulating phosphorus in cleaning products, and shortly afterward, Québec and the federal govern- ment followed suit. Hopefully, this government can be convinced of the benefits of mandating the segregation of urine and feces from wash water. As already noted, more than half of the nutrient loading comes from other jurisdictions. There's not much that we can do about this. However, I think it's pivotal that we clean up our own front yard before we ask our neighbours to do the same. I just would like to close by acknowledging that the health of our waterways depends on this.

Once again, I would like to thank you for your time and consideration, and I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee or even the general public, when time is available, would have. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Thank you very much for your presentation. You certainly put a lot of different issues on the table. I, too, am a proponent that there is some technology available to us now that can look after some of the issues that we are dealing with, and that dilution is not the solution to pollution.

The other point you did raise, too, I think it's very important that people understand, when we look at manure and waste products, if they are managed in a proper way, they can be a good resource for agricultural producers. That's a very valid point. You talked about the $1.8-billion project in terms of the waste-water treatment within the city of Winnipeg. The jury is still out in terms of whether we should be removing more than just phosphorus during that treatment. Obviously, the nitrogen removal is a very expensive component to that $1.8 billion.

In fact, it may be upward of a billion dollars of that particular cost of that infrastructure. So you may have answered the question through your presentation, but I guess what I am hearing you say is, at least that $1 billion that's used in nitrogen removal, if that money could be taken and put somewhere else in terms of redirecting it into some of the programs, or the segregation you talked about, or some of the other initiatives, that that might be money more well-spent. Mr. Beddome: Thank you very much for your question. Yes, you are right.

If you look once again at the chart, I kept focused on phosphorus because of the bill and tried to keep it refined, but urine has 87 percent of the nitrogen, and 10 percent is in the fecal matter. So our grey water has about 3 percent of the nitrogen, a very relatively insignificant source. So 87 percent could be obtained with technology that really isn't much more complex than a big holding tank.

It is necessary that often you store it for six months and you pH adjust it, meaning you lower the pH and then heighten the pH which kills any pathogens that might be existent in there, and, also, you don't spread it directly on vegetative crops, but rather you put it on the ground, or at the time of seeding.

But, as you said, that billion dollars–I don't have numbers; I am not an engineer here, but that billion dollars, if we were using it just segregating our urine, which I don't think would be a costly system, we would get, as I said, a 50 percent reduction in phosphorus, a 54 percent reduction in potassium, an 87 percent reduction in nitrogen, just with that simple act alone. As you said, if we deal with them at source, there are ways of dealing with them, rather than simply diluting them. Hon. Christine Melnic k (Minister of Water Stewardship): Thank you for presenting this evening.

I'm glad that you pointed out the recommen- dation around emerging technologies and different technologies in the Lake Winnipeg final report. We do have a number of pilots going on, and I would encourage you to think of putting together a proposal and submitting it to the department. We can have a look at that. Certainly, across western Canada, we see that the technology in waste-water treatment, which removes phosphorus and nitrogen, has been followed by most of the larger municipal and urban areas around western Canada. In fact, I think we might be

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 following the pack on this one. I know Regina announced, I think, 120 million probably a couple weeks ago for the dual rem oval. So that is an area that we are moving in, but this government is always interested in innovative ideas. So, again, I would encourage you to think about submitting a proposal to the Department of Water Stewardship, and we'll certainly have a look at it. Mr. Beddome: Certainly, and thank you very much. I will try to contact your office in regard to putting a proposal together.

I just would like to add that, yes, I mean, sometimes in urban centres it may make some sense to do centralized waste-water facilities, but, as I'm trying to address that, you know, we still need to ask the question. Here in Winnipeg we're going to have to rip up our streets to have a diverted sewer system, as I'm sure you're well aware. That's a substantial cost so that we can segregate them, when we could just segregate them at source. That's where I think we could be innovative.

We could be a leader, and we won't be following the pack at Saskatoon, but, rather, Saskatoon will be looking at us, saying, we should be following them. That's what I hope we can do. Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. I will now call on Paul Walsh, Dollar Wise Quality Cleaners. Do you have written copies for distribution? Mr. Paul Walsh (Private Citizen): I do. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Walsh: Madam Chairperson, Madam Minister, and ladies and gentlemen, I'm here today as a private-corporate citizen, pe rhaps a hybrid.

I'm here to speak only–not on behalf of any group, and, indeed, not even on behalf of the corporation of which I'm president and general counsel, which is the Dollar Wise Quality Cleaners, and that's the last time I'll mention that entity. I'm here because there's a piece of legislation in front of the Legislature that gives us a great deal of interest, because it's a timid piece of legislation.

It focusses on a very unique and special problem that must be solved and must be addressed–and no one quarrels with that–but it's an opportunity for the government and for the members of the Legislature to step back and be much less timid, because we're concerned that the government of Manitoba in this piece of legislation is far too timid. As an industry leader, you shouldn't be specifying only dishwashing detergent.

There are every other kind of detergents, and I would ask you to go back to your Legislative Counsel and consider rewording your legislation so that any detergent that contains phosphates and–don't run the risk of a court or an individual who breaches this legislation doing damage to it. There is laundry detergent. I know a little bit about that, and, by and large, when you go to the supermarket, you can buy laundry detergent that contains phosphates. It shouldn't happen. It shouldn't be.

There are so lutions that contain no phosphates whatsoever and, more to the point, no carcinogens and no material that anybody would be unhappy having their clothes touched after which their clothes would touch the bodies of themselves and children and infants, et cetera. Don't be timid with this legislation. Toughen it up. Toughen it up so that it touches on every product that contains phosphates, and use this as an opportunity to consider legislation that is broader. * (20:00) What you have done is you've apprehended a problem and you're solving the problem with a shotgun approach,

whereas a much broader approach is warranted. Focus on other cleaning products. As you can see from the literature which I've distributed, it's quite possible, and indeed probably likely, that without legislation, over a long period of time, industries will go green. It's a good thing to do. The only thing we don't want to go green is our lakes. We want them to stay reflecting the sky and stay blue. Going green is a good idea, and there ought to be more than a wink and nudge but a shove and a push from government to do that.

And you know, and everyone knows, that California as a jurisdiction has given its dry-cleaning industry 15 years to stop using a solvent called PERC. In the material that I've distributed, there's a lot of information about this toxic product, PERC. I won't give you the whole name because if I pronounce it, I'll have done it once and for the only time and you'll never be able to pronounce it again, but it's known in that way and it's caused irritation and the people who work in dry-cleaning plants, at the end of their work life, have a higher incidence of

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 cancer than those who work in other industries. You can connect those two dots quite easily. What I'm here to say to you today as a private corporate citizen is that this is a baby step. This is a baby step that deals in a very narrow way with a very particular problem that all Manitobans should be grateful. You've perceived the problem. Everybody knows about it. I mean, as you get into a circle to pat each other on the back ahead of you, it's the kind of legislation that nobody quarrels with.

Why I'm here today is to ask you to use this as the first step in bringing forward major environmental legislation. Darren Praznik, who spoke earlier, warned you about how bad it would be if small jurisdictions did things when they could co-operate in the big picture. Well, okay, but if products are carcinogens or may cause cancer, if products are toxic, if products are ruining our water systems, then we can't wait for other jurisdictions. We can be a leader here. My industry needs le adership, and we think we've given it.

Leadership can come from government that says, over time, here are target dates, we're going to ban certain products, and I would ask you to look very carefully at the dry- cleaning industry, which is using toxic products, phosphates being one of them, and to see that we've taken a leadership role. We don't use any product containing phosphates in our operation and no cleaner need do that, either commercial or at home, and no dry cleaner need use products that are injurious to the health of workers in any of its plants.

The reason I'm here as a private citizen, when I found that this bill was being considered, is not to speak in favour of the bill, certainly not to oppose it, because no one is against it, but to ask you to use this opportunity to have an environmental minister–not a minister responsible for the environment–to bring forward much more legislation because much more is needed. Industry, private citizens won't do it on their own, and that's why I'm here. So thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Ms. Melnick: Thanks very much for your presentation as well.

You'll notice, as you peruse the bill, that there certainly is a lot of opportunity for a lot more inclusion. This is the start and certainly, when we're ready to move forward in the areas that you're suggesting, I'll make sure to get back in touch with you. I think it's also important to recognize that Manitobans–certainly Manitobans that I've spoken to as Minister of Water Stewardship–are very happy with this bill and are very much in favour of what it is that we are doing as their government and, in fact, the question that I get asked more often is, How do I make sure that those products are in my local store?

I know the work that you've done will also help in the area that you work in to help with cleaning up Lake Winnipeg, but also the other health threats of a human nature. Thank you very much for coming out this evening. Mr. Walsh: Thank you for having me, and all I'm here to say is to toughen up and broaden it out, so thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Bill 18–The Testing of Bodily Fluids and Disclosure Act Madam Chairperson: I will now call on Jodi Possia, Paramedic Association of Manitoba, on Bill 18. Do you have written copies for distribution? Ms.

Jodi Possia (Paramedic Association of Manitoba): Yes, Madam Chair, my written documentation was delivered this afternoon and should have been circulated. Madam Chairperson: Okay. Thank you. Please proceed. Ms. Possia: Thank you, Madam Chair, and ministers and legislative members. Thank you for the opportunity for the Paramedic Association to speak on Bill 18. By means of introduction, the Paramedic Association of Manitoba is a voluntary-membership professional association for emergency medical services personnel licensed to practise in this province.

Representative of both rural and urban practitioners, we strive to promote excellence in pre- hospital emergency health care and within our profession. The Paramedic Association of Manitoba is a

chapter of the Paramedic Association of Canada, the professional organization representing over 14,000 para-medicine practitioners across Canada.

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 Our association is not a union or a labour organization. The mission statement for the Paramedic Association of Manitoba defines our organization as a professional association comprised of licensed pre-hospital practitioners across Manitoba with a strong voice in EMS issues that promotes the well-being, safety, and appropriate medical treatment for our patients. It is my pleasure as vice-chair of the Paramedic Association of Manitoba to address the social and economic development committee on the subject of Bill 18.

We were present in the legislative gallery just two weeks ago, when the honourable Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) introduced this very important piece of legislation. Today, as we meet to discuss Bill 18, we congratulate the government for recognizing the need to take measures to protect the many paramedics, police o fficers, firefighters, and Good Samaritans who give selflessly of themselves each and every day to help others in their time of need and, as well, we thank all of the members of the Legislative Assembly for supporting this initiative.

The Paramedic Association of Manitoba has long been a proponent of legislation that would permit mandatory blood testing if emergency providers were faced w ith a possible high-risk, significant personal exposure to body fluids. Provinces in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia have all adopted blood-testing legis- lation to ensure their first respon ders, paramedics, police and corrections officers, firefighters and good Samaritans have access to the information necessary to make educated, appropriate and timely decisions regarding treatment and follow-up in these unfortunate instances.

A significant exposure occurs when body fluids capable of transmitting hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV come into contact with open or broken skin, mucus membranes in the eyes, nose or mouth, or underlying tissue as a result of a puncture or a cut. The bodily fluids considered capable of transmitting these infectious diseases include blood, saliva, secreted fluids contaminated by blood and other cavity fluids, including amniotic fluid in childbirth, and cerebral spinal fluid.

Despite the best efforts of paramedics to take appropriate precautions, to limit the possibilities of significant exposures and even with other legislated safety measures already in place, the very environment in which we work results in a potential for these exposures to occur that cannot be completely eliminated. * (20:10) It is the unfortunate event that emergency services personnel or helpful bystanders suffer a significant exposure while providing care to others.

It is imperative that they are able to obtain in a timely manner information about the source individual that allows them to make more informed personal and professional decisions. The concept of mandatory blood testing is often challenged by the argument that it is a violation of privacy and contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On the contrary, in the context of illness that may result from a significant exposure to bodily fluids, it should be argued that the denial of blood sampling is a clear imbalance of rights in favour of the source individual.

In these cases information relating to blood- testing results and risk fa ctors can assist exposed persons in decision making related to both their private and professional lives. When you consider the dangers faced by emergency workers on a day- to-day basis, mandatory blood testing is not a lot to ask. Statistics within the city of Winnipeg show there were approximately 20 significant blood exposures reported by paramedics in 2005. Data obtained from just three of the 10 regional health authorities outside of the Winnipeg indicated there were 10 significant exposures in these areas in 2006.

In November of 2006, another regional health authority experienced an incident in which two paramedics assisting hospital staff aiding to an elderly, very agitated and confused patient were exposed to bloody urine when medical tubing became dislodged. One paramedic received a significant exposure to their eyes; the other to broken skin on his face. In December 2006, a Winnipeg police officer was struck by a bullet that passed through the hand of a suspect during an arrest attempt.

Just weeks ago, both paramedics and firefigh ters reported significant body-fluid exposure while attending to a shooting in downtown Winnipeg. Bill 18 provides a measure of comfort and security for those front-line paramedics and emergency services personnel, as well as for their families and their loved ones. While the risk of infection as a result of an exposure to bodily fluids is

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 estimated to be very small, it is not insignificant. There is no cure for hepatiti s B, no cure for HIV, or AIDS and these diseases can be fatal. Documentation prepared for the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network concludes information about the serological status, risk factors and medical history of the source person can relieve uncertainty as to whether there was, in fact, an exposure to hepatitis B, C or HIV and can contribute for decisions about preventing further transmission, decisions around post-exposure prophylaxis and the follow-up for exposed workers.

The Canadian Medical Association has determined that a patient's refusal to be tested following a high-risk exposure will impair fully- informed decision making concerning post-exposure protocol, increase health-care workers' anxiety and possibly result in unnecessary post-exposure protocol side effects. Studies have shown that the consequences of occupational exposure to blood-borne pathogens, whether infectious or not, cause psychological trauma to countless numbers of health-care workers each year during the months of waiting for notification or for their serological results.

Blood- testing legislation, while not a cure for this stress, will address the issue and allow emergency personnel and Good Samaritans to make more informed decisions regarding personal and profes- sional practices following such exposures. Concern regarding mandatory blood testing must also be weighed against the relative infrequency of the source individual refusing to be tested. Surveys conducted in both Canada and the U.S. conclude that 83 percent and 94 percent of individuals do, in fact, agree to be tested when the importance of the information is explained to them.

Bill 18 provides a measure of security in those few instances when agreement cannot be obtained. As we understand the intent of the bill, the ability to apply for an expedited testing order when appropriate will make this the most responsive legislation of its kind in the country. Clause 23 subsection 1 providing for this legislation to have prevalence over other acts shows a strong commitment to balancing the rights of the applicant with those of the source individual. We will look forward to the possibility of further consultation regarding the development of regulations pursuant to this legislation.

It will be our recommendation that stakeholders be encouraged to work collaboratively to educate those affected by this legislation, not only in areas related to access and process but also to enhance personal protection. As an example, we'll suggest looking to the use of electronic media, as has been done in Ontario, clearly outlining potential risks, steps to follow in the events of suspected significant exposure, and other frequently asked questions.

Paramedics, first responders, police and correc- tions officers, firefighters, Good Samaritans must cope with the consequences of possible exposure to infectious disease each and every day–consequences including anxiety, the increased stress associated with uncertainty, side effects resulting from prolonged post-exposure prophylaxis, the impact that exposure has on certain measures within their private and professional lives. These are all very significant. This legislation sends a very good message to those individuals and provides an additional avenue of hope in a very difficult circumstance.

Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do the members of the committee have any questions? Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Jodi, thank you for your presentation, very thoughtful and articulate. I also want to thank you for the long-standing advocacy your association has had on this legislation.

Not to correct my colleague from Turtle Mountain, but I do want to put on the record, a couple of years ago when we brought forward private member's legislation to bring this concept forward to the Legislature, while I had the opportunity to sponsor that legislation, the idea actually came from a gentleman by the name of Ray Rempel, who is a paramedic with the Winnipeg paramedic association. I would have liked to have seen him here tonight, but he is expecting his second child. I think his wife was a week overdue, so he might have more pressing needs than a legislative committee tonight.

But I do want to recognize Mr. Rempel as the person who brought this forward to me and was a strong advocate. I hope that your association takes a special recognition of his advocacy work, and I hope you have a special connection to the legislation because you're a big part of it. So thank you very much. Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Madam Chair, I'd like to go on the record of

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 acknowledging Mr. Rempel's good decision making this evening, not ever having met his expectant wife, but call it a hunch. Second of all, I do, of course, want to extend my gratitude on behalf of all members of the Legislature, if I may be so bold, fo r the efforts that the paramedics association has made in seeing this legislation come to the floor. I know that your members have had a very important voice in this dialogue and a dialogue that as you have acknowledged quite rightly in your submission is not a smooth one, not an easy one.

Certainly, the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) has brought this issue forward as he's just acknowledged. I know that it's an issue that the former Minister of Health and current Attorney General (Mr. Chomiak) ha s worked its way through for some time now. The Member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) as well has taken a very active interest in this and knowing that we needed to come forward with something that would address these issues of timely information gathering, as you so rightly pointed out, while at the same time balancing those very important voices that come from, dare I say, the other side of this issue.

That is the maintaining of one's basic human rights, something that we always have to take into consideration in all that we do in the Legislature. I think that you've made a very important point in your submission about the fact that no legislation in the world is going to protect, and I believe I've been guilty of that myself, in using that language about protecting paramedics and firefighters. When a significant exposure occurs, it has occurred, and no piece of paper in the Manitoba Legislature or elsewhere can change that.

It 's what we do with the information that we gather afterwards that will be so critical, and your words about education and us working together with members of your profession, the public. There are so many Good Samaritans in Manitoba; they need to know about this, about what they can do to gather information and to be taking the post-exposure prophylaxis as appropriate as a result of the significant exposure. So thank you for your words.

I'm going to thank you in advance for the work we're going to do in the days ahead so that people really know about what this legislation is, what it is not, and what we can do to keep ourselves safe as you go out there every day to protect us and help us. So, thank you. * (20:20) Ms. Possia: Thank you very much, Minister Oswald, and we do hope that bringing this bill forward does encourage the development of education around protecting yourself as a practitioner in the field. If I could address Mr. Goertzen, thank you for your advocacy on blood samples legislation, and I do know Mr.

Ray Rempel very well, and I encouraged him to be here today. So, yes, thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. I will now call on Alex Forrest, United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg. Do you have written copies for distribution? Mr. Alex Forrest (United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg): Yes, I do. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed. Mr. Forrest: Thank you, Madam Chair, Honourable Minister, MLAs. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for giving me the opportunity of discussing this important piece of legislation this evening.

IAFF firefighters in Manitoba and across Canada have been lobbying for this legislation both federally and provincially since 2001, not only in Canada but also in the United States. The International Association of Fire Fighters represent Manitoba professional firefighters in Winnipeg, Brandon, Thompson, Portage la Prairie and Pinawa, approximately 1,600 members. Winnipeg firefighters provide emergency care from the first responder le vel to that of licensed paramedic. Brandon and Thompson firefighters provide exclusive emergency medical services from transport to advanced paramedic levels.

Portage la Prairie and Pinawa provide first responder medical care. The IAFF is the largest labour organization in the world that represents professional firefighters and paramedics, approximately 300,000 members. Now that we have had a chance to look at the legislation and also had our experts in Washington and Ottawa examine it, we can make the following statements. Legislation of this type is always flawed in some way due to the time constraints of preventative treatments when there is a blood exposure. Preventative treatments must be started within hours

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 of a blood exposure and this legislation will not change that. This legislation will minimize the time needed to be on the preventative drugs and above all, it will alleviate the anxiety of not knowing what is in that blood much sooner than it is the case today. But most importantly, because of the court-assisted aspects of this legislation, it will not only be one of the strongest pieces of legislation of this type in Canada, but throughout North America.

Also, due to the strength of the legislation it will serve as a tremendous tool to educate the citizens and first responders of Manitoba. I congratulate the Minister of Health, Theresa Oswald, and the government of Manitoba for putting forward this legislation that is so very important to the first responders of this province. I would now like to read into record a statement by a fire captain. One of his crew recently had to deal with a severe blood exposure. His statement is the best way that I can think of to describe why we need this legislation. "My name is Jim Hemphill.

I am an Acting Captain and have 27 years experience with the Winnipeg Fire Department. I was the captain at the scene of the recent triple murders on Alexander Avenue. One of my fire fighters sustained a significant exposure of blood in the mouth and eyes as he was doing CPR on one of the victims. The victim was pronounced dead at the hospital. The firefighter went to emergency and had his blood taken. He was then told to take strong anti-viral preventative medication for the next three days while his blood was being tested.

The firefighter's test came back negative, but because the victim's blood could not be tested, the firefighter was on medication for the next four weeks. All this as a preventative measure because they could not get a blood sample from the victim. "In fact, the firefighter had a negative reaction to the potent drugs. The reaction was serious enough that he has been taken off duty and has been on WCB for the last two weeks. He will also have to have his blood checked every three months for the next half-year to see if anything arises.

He carries with him the burden that he may have contracted something and is unknowingly carrying it and possibly passing it on to his loved ones. "Imagine being scared to hug your kids or kiss your wife! "We know that in situations such as this, we will always need to begin preventative treatments, but this legislation will greatly reduce the amount of time needed to be on these drugs. It will relieve the anxiety related to not knowing what was in that blood.

"Sadly, this is part of our job and is what we get paid to do, but, in performing our duty, we should have all the protection available to allow us to live our lives, both on and off the job, with the security of knowing that everything that can be done, is being done to protect us and our families. "Thank you for allowing me to make this statement, and I commend you on this important initiative." Thanks. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions? Mr. Goertzen: Just quickly, Mr . Forrest, thank you very much for your presentation.

You're witnessing one of, I don't want to say the rare moments of unanimity in the Legislature, but certainly one of the more overwhelming moments of unanimity here. So, just on behalf of our party and I think all members of the Legislature, thank you for the work that you and your members do. We also look forward to speedy passage of the legislation. So, thank you very much. Mr. Forrest: Yes, above all, we want to thank everybody in the Legislature. I think it's very important at times like this we come together, we understand what's important, and you should all be proud of this legislation.

It's a very good piece of legislation. Ms. Oswald: Thank you, Mr. Forrest, for the presentation. You certainly have articulated, through your statements and the statement of the individual you spoke of, how complex these issues can be and emotional indeed. I just want to commend you today, and every day really, for the work that you do going into buildings that we're going out of, but also the work that you've done so passionately ensuring that legislation in our province has been in the lead in so many respects when it comes to protecting our front- line workers.

It's really an important kind of advocacy that you do, and we thank you for that.

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 Mr. Forrest: Yes, again, I would like to not only thank the NDP, but every party. We have been so fortunate as being firefigh ters, first responders, to getting the support that we have from the Legislature, and it's not only on this issue but many issues. Again, from the bottom of our hearts, thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. I will now call on Mike Sutherland, President of the Winnipeg Police Association. I understand yours is a verbal presentation. So, please proceed. Mr.

Mike Sutherland (Winnipeg Police Association): That is correct, Madam Chair. First, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to make a brief presentation today on this very, very important issue. I will apologize initially for my shortcomings, as I'm a very newly-minted president of the Winnipeg Police Association, as this is my first day and this is the first opportunity that I've had to make such an address. So, if I make any mistakes, I beg for your forgiveness in advance.

In lieu of reiterating many of the comments made by my brother and sister organizations in the emergency response field, I'd like to perhaps add a unique perspective with respect to my submission. But first, I'll just qualify wh o I represent. I represent roughly 1,670 members of the Winnipeg Police Association, approximately 1,300 of those are sworn peace officers, as well as a staff component.

Almost on a daily basis, we face a number of risks, and I'll talk to you specifically from a personal perspective, one that I feel is particularly relevant given the nature of the legislation that we're discussing now. * (20:30) I personally faced a significant exposure a number of years ago during the course of my duties as a police officer in uniform in Winnipeg. By way of circumstance, I can tell you that there was a situation where we had a suicidal male, who had jumped from a moving vehicle directly in front of our cruiser car, and tried to throw himself into the path of oncoming traffic.

As a result of jumping from the moving vehicle, he sustained a significant head wound and, as a result, in order to bring him under control, I had to physically intervene in a very rapid fashion and suffered significant blood exposure both to my eyes, nose, mouth, as well over my entire uniform. I can tell you that the course of the prophylaxis can only be described as severely uncomfortable. The headaches and fatigue that I experienced over the course of my treatment were extremely debilitating with respect to the conducting of my subsequent duties.

The doubt and the inability to know about the exposure or risk I faced was very significant and very stressful. When we talked a little earlier, we all realize that this legislation doesn't protect emergency service personnel from exposure; however, I think it does offer a small element of protection to the families of those individuals because, with knowledge and certain knowledge, comes the ability to act accordingly. It's very difficult for police officers not to be able to lean upon those who provide emotional support and that's our families.

Close contact with our spouses and close contact with our children is definitely one way in which we cope on a daily basis with the many stressors associated with our duties. So, on behalf of the men and women of the Winnipeg Police Association, I would first like to sincerely thank you, from both a professional and personal level with respect to having the courage to bring this legislation forward. I cannot understate the importance to the people that we represent, the overriding desire to have this legislation brought forward in a very rapid fashion.

On behalf of the men and women of the WPA, I want to sincerely thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions? Mr. Goertzen: Comment to Mr. Sutherland, first of all, congratulations on assuming your new role as president of the Winnipeg Police Association. I had the opportunity to work w ith your predecessor for a number of years, Mr. Schinkel.

You know that you have big shoes to fill, but I'll certainly pass on to him–I know he advocated for this legislation for a number of years, and I'll be able to tell him proudly you got it through the committee on the first day of the job. I know he'll take that in the spirit that it was given. But I do want to thank you for your presentation to the committee. You brought forward a very meaningful personal experience which I think helped each of us understand more personally the difficulties that you go through as a police officer because it is a challenge for us who don't do the job

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 to always understand th e dangers that you face on a day-to-day basis and that we sometimes take, I think, your work for granted. We never should because you're out there each and every day in difficult situations that most of us will never have to face or can't possibly understand given the nature of the work that we do. So, on behalf of our party and all members of the Legislature, we just want to thank you for the daily service that you give, and we want to wish you well in your new position as the president of the Police Association. Thank you. Mr.

Sutherland: Well, I'd like to thank you very much for your kind words. First of all, yes, I do recognize the shoes are rather large, and I'll take this opportunity to relish this small achievement or this major achievement, actually. I do appreciate, first of all, the actions of both the government and members of the opposition in coming together for this very, very important legislation on behalf of those that serve to protect the citizens of Winnipeg in all capacities, whether it be the fire service, the paramedics, or the police. Ms.

Oswald: I think you can chalk this up to a very good first day from my perspective. I want to thank you also for your very personal and passionate story that really is so much more than that. There are a lot of voices that have come to bear on this debate. You know, another coming up this evening, the submission that was referenced earlier from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, which is a fine body of work and, again, such an important perspective as we go forward and try to balance the most precious of human rights.

I don't mind saying it's not necessarily a slam dunk as we have these discussions, but I think that the story that you have told goes a long way to help us all understand how important it is that we really do the work and try to find that balance that some people may not believe actually exists. I believe it does. I believe it's entrenched in this legislation, and I think that your voice is an important one to bear in that pursuit of a balance. So I thank you very, very kindly for your time here this evening. Mr. Sutherland: Thank you, Madam Minister.

I'd just like to add with respect to your comments that police officers, their basic function is to protect the rights of the individual. We don't enter into a situation lightly where there is a potential perspective where people might feel that their rights are being infringed upon. However, in many cases, and I know in my own personal case, it didn't boil down to choice for me; it boiled down to duty and to act quickly. Unfortunately, there is a balance that needs to be struck, because we all have rights.

Our families and we as police officers, we as fire fighters, we as paramedics, have rights and require some level, I believe, of protection ourselves when we seek to protect the rights of others. This is not a request made lightly and not without due consideration, but we feel that the legislation addresses those situations. We hope that it will move forward quickly. We thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. I will now call on Ken Mandzuik, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties. Do you have written copies? Mr. Ken Mandzuik (Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties): I do.

Madam Chairperson: Please proceed. Mr. Mandzuik: Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam Minister, honourable members. I feel more outnumbered tonight than I usually do when I come down here. I'm Ken Mandzuik. I am the past president of the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties. MARL is a provincial non-profit, non-government volunteer organization that's been around since 1978. We're here to advocate for human rights and civil liberties.

Our objectives are to promote respect for, observance of, fundamental human rights and liberties, and to defend, extend, and foster the recognition of these rights and liberties in the province. We appreciate the opportunity to address the committee on Bill 18. I'll start by saying that I have had the chance, or we have had the chance to review the submission that the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network circulated a couple weeks ago, I think, to all parties of the House. We do support the position that they have outlined.

We also recognize the intention behind the proposed legislation and that it comes before this committee on the Day of Mourning, recognizing workers that are hurt or killed, injured, or fall ill on the job, is a coincidental reminder of the good intentions of the House and certainly of the

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 jobs that are done by the people this bill looks to look after. Our general concerns are essentially that of privacy rights, as you may have guessed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, of course, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all protect all of our rights to privacy. Former Justice La Forest of the Supreme Court of Canada has said that privacy is at the hear t of liberty in a modern state.

Without that right to privacy, all of our other liberties would mean nothing, the right of freedom of association, the right of freedom of speech, would mean nothing if we couldn't exercise those rights in private. * (20:40) Privacy regarding one's medical information, their bodily integrity, are vitally important components to the right of privacy and deserving of vigilant protection. The Supreme Court has talked about privacy protection as found in

section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees th e rights and security of the person. In the Morgentaler case, the court said

section 7 guarantees to ev ery individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions affecting their lives. In the Sue Rodriguez case, the court said

section 7 protects the dignity and privacy of individuals with respect to the decisions concerning their own bodies and, obviously, more clearly,

section 8, which protects us all against unreasonable search and seizure. All of these things protect the rights of privacy and, on the face of the bill, those rights are infringed, and we don't submit for a second that these rights are absolute. There is, in

section 1, a balancing test that you're aware of that subjects these rights and the other rights in the Charter to reasonable limits. The court would go through a four-step analysis and what's called the Oakes test that you might be familiar with. The first thing that would have to be satisfied is that there is a pressing and substantial need that the legislation is addressing, and, based on the information that we have seen, there has been one case of occupational HIV contamination in Canada. The pressing and substantial need simply isn't present. The second arm of the Oakes test is the rational connection.

The court has to be satisfied whether there is a connection between the legislation and the objective of the act. That is, simply, is it effective. Nothing in the legislation as it's drafted shows this. Testing someone cannot change the fact that there has been exposure. Testing a source individual cannot prevent exposure and can only rarely confirm the need for treatments, treatments that to be effective are likely going to be started before any test results are back.

There's been some comment about alleviating stress and concern, and, obviously, my remarks don't take away the very real stress and concern that someone facing exposure is going to feel, but the testing legislation could actually increase that stress. If the figures in the Cana dian HIV-AIDS materials that I've reviewed are accurate, if someone is infected with HIV and there's been a significant exposure, there's a 0.3 percent chance of being infected.

So, even though someone might come back with a positive test, you're going to feel stress and worry, even though the chances of your being infected are still remote. The stress and anxiety that one might feel is not going to be eliminated if there is a negative result because you could still be in that window of exposure, where you've heard other presenters talk about having to get tests up to six months after their exposure. That does not change with this legislation. The third requirement under the Oakes test is that the infringements on an individual's rights are as minimal as possible.

In the expedited testing procedures, there doesn't need, on my reading of the bill, to be any evidence that the source individual was even asked to provide a sample. There's no requirement that the source individual has to refuse to provide a sample. The infringements that we're talking about are so considerable, bodily integrity, confidentiality, dignity. All of these things are lost or infringed by the legislation. With the invasion of privacy of such a magnitude, the invasiveness has to be something less, and how could it have been–it could have been more intrusive.

There could have been an order compelling physically someone to undergo a test, but there are other alternatives available that are going to more happily address some of the concerns without such an invasion. Education is one thing. Hugging and kissing kids is not going to give anyone HIV. Public education obviously needs work. There's education that could be done about minimizing risks to exposure, things to be done after exposure, alternative equipment, whether it by the Kevlar gloves we heard about, alternatives to needles, money going into safer-sex

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 education, needle exchange programs, that sort of thing. The test for minimal impairment of rights is not met. The final test under the

section 1 analysis is proportionality. This is the ultimate weighing. How bad is the infringement of rights compared to the good that the bill is trying to address, and the benefits that the bill may provide are more apparent than real and are significa ntly outweighed by the infringement to an individual's personal liberties. We know that this bill has all-party support and support of, obviously, a whole bunch of people, but if it's such a great idea, why does the bill not go both ways? Why, if I am being treated by a paramedic, and I have been exposed, what if the source individual is a paramedic?

Why do I not have the right to go and have similar tests forced? We wouldn't support legislation to that end, obviously, but one wonders why it would not go both ways, so to speak. A couple of specific concerns just on more technical points. In

section 3, I've already commented on the lack of requirement for a source individual to refuse or deny blood testing. In overwhelming circumstances or overwhelming number of cases, that is going to happen. Someone is just going to consent and none of this is an issue. That should be a prerequisite. That is clearly set out in the act, not in regulations. The expedited testing order, as a concept, is problematic. In

section 6(1), talking about what has to go before a JP, over the phone is very, very limited, given the affront to the personal liberty that we're talking about. One would expect, at minimum, medical evidence suggesting that such a test, such an invasive procedure is warranted, especially when no notice is offered to the person, the source individual. We do note that in the more expanded standard testing order, one has to provide that kind of evidence to a Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench. Ideally, if there's going to be an expedited procedure, those minimum requirements should be duplicated. In

section 7, the 24-hour notice period to register an objection. I'm happy to see in the legislation, registering an objection; it does seem easy to do, easy enough as picking up a telephone, but one wonders in the circumstances where there might be an exposure, how able is someone going to be to have the wherewithal to consult with medical professionals or a lawyer or whoever he or she needs to, to make that telephone call within 24 hours. Finally,

section 19. There are confidentiality provisions in the bill. We're not necessarily keen that the bill trumps PHIA or the other privacy legislation in force, but the confidentiality provisions, as they are, could be strengthened. The very fact an application has been made ought to be confidential. There ought to be the provision in the act explicitly to allow for in-camera hearings or for publication bans. In closing, I would like to thank you for your attention and urge that you reconsider not passing this legislation. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Do members of the committee have questions? Mr. Goertzen: Thank you very much, Mr. Mandzuik. Thank you for your presentation. I know it wasn't easy to come and present because there certainly were many other compelling arguments before you, but I think you bring an important voice to the discussion. I want to assure you that, when I was looking at and bringing forward my own private member's legislation, it wasn't without thought to the issues that you raise. I did some of my own analysis on the Oakes test in this

section 1 saving provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Certainly nobody wants to pass legislation that, while all legislation can be tested, we still want it to pass the scrutiny of the courts. I'm not entirely sure that it would require a

section 1 saving provision. There certainly are many competing interests in the Charter. We have the right to freedom of speech but it's not unfettered. We can't have hate speech because of other regulations. We have the right to freedom of religion, but that often comes into conflict with equality rights protected under the Charter. One can look at the different

definitions of security of person. The question specifically that I have for you is in the cases that deal with the ability or the consent that a person has to give for medical treatments. Most of the cases that I read didn't have a counterbalance to it, in that it was just one individual saying, I'm not going to give my consent to medical treatment. But there wasn't a competing interest. In this case, the competing interest would obviously be the paramedics, firefighters, po lice officers on the other side.

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 Do you think that that's compelling enough? Certainly, the drinking and driving legislation where we're allowed to take blood to test blood there was a given, as a competing interest, a societal interest. Do you think that this is enough of a competing interest to ensure the legislation withstands any challenge that it might receive in the courts? * (20:50) Mr. Mandzuik: No, I don't. I'll just point out, when you're looking at blood testing on something like drinking and driving, there's got to be some threshold met that there's a wrong committed.

There's no threshold like that in this legislation. Mr. Goertzen: I don't want to get into a debate of law about reasonable cause on drinking and driving and that sort of thing. I just do want to appreciate your comments. I don't want you to think that they have gone unheard, even though I am, obviously, an advocate in support of the legislation. I do want you to know that I did think through many of the considerations you brought forward. Mr. Mandzuik: Thank you. Ms. Oswald: I wanted to go on the record that I might have enjoyed that debate, but the evening is wearing on.

An Honourable Member: You can still have it. Ms. Oswald: Yes, indeed. I want to thank you very much for your voice in this conversation. While you may have felt somewhat alone in the room this evening, certainly, you know very well, as I do, that you are not, and that there have been a number of people who have raised concerns about the basic principles in this. It really is at the very essence of why we needed to take our time, and have taken some criticism for that.

When we're endeavouring to balance the very important issues that you have raised with the equally as important issues, as many of the people in our audience tonight have raised, we wanted to work hard to do the best that we could to get it as right as we could. On the issue of insisting that there's voluntary, an asked-for voluntary compliance entrenched in legislation, we looked at that very carefully and found it to be simply contra-indicated in the case of victims of crime. The notion of a little old lady being required, in law, to ask her batterer for a blood sample voluntarily was, indeed, problematic.

While we know in neighbouring jurisdictions, Saskatchewan, I believe, has a 99 percent success rate in seeking voluntary samples, and we, too, hope to beat Saskatchewan in that regard, we felt putting it into legislation itself, in those rare cases for victims of crime, would be a problem.

Secondly, I would say th at our efforts to have the expedited order makes this legislation legislation you don't like, but the best of legislation you don't like in Canada, in that it, on the one hand, will afford our front-line workers an opportunity to have that as quick as possible response, but, at the same time, it does entrench the ability for a source person to say no, which we find does not exist in legislation elsewhere on the continent, quite frankly. We believe that the balancing of that very fundamental human right is what is going to allow us to have the best legislation of this kind.

We would hope that in all cases, with education, as you and others have so rightly pointed out, which needs to be a big package, as this bill goes forward, that we'll be able to assist people in understanding how important that sample being provided can be to the peace of mind of these individuals, that it will happen 100 percent of the time voluntarily, but, in those very rare cases where it does not, we believe that, on balance, having this kind of legislation for information to come forwar d will go a long way to assist those who work so hard to assist us every day.

I respect fully your points of view on this issue, and I'm glad that you're here tonight. Madam Chairperson: Time for questions has expired. Thank you very much. Mr. Mandzuik: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: That concludes the list of presenters I have before me. Are there any other persons in attendance who wish to make a presentation? Seeing none, that concludes public presentations. In what order does the committee wish to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of these bills? Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Bill 18, and then numerical.

Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to do Bill 18 first, and then the remainder numerically? [Agreed]

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 Bill 18–The Testing of Bodily Fluids and Disclosure Act Madam Chairperson: Does the minister responsible for Bill 18 have an opening statement? Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I think I've just had six opening statements in a row, so thank you, Madam Chair, we can proceed. Madam Chairperson: Does the critic from the official opposition have an opening statement? Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I only want to clearly say and there's been some discussion about who's bill was it and when did things come forward first and those sort of things.

I think the minister and I would agree that this is not our bill. It's the bill that belongs to the paramedics, the firefighters, the police officers, the victims of crime and others who might use it. So, just clearly for the record that's whose bill this is. That's who it's for, and we look forward to its quick passage and proclamation. Madam Chairperson: We thank the member. During the consideration of a bill the table of contents, the

preamble, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order. Also, if there is agreement from the committee for the longer bills I will call clauses in blocks that conform to pages, with the understanding we will stop at any particular clause or clauses where members may have comments, questions or amendments to propose. Is that agreed? [Agreed] Clause 1–pass. Shall clauses 2 and 3 pass? Mr. Goertzen: Just a question on clarification, Madam Chairperson. Under

section 2(1) where it outlines who has access to the bill and, of course, we've heard from many of those who would. I just want to ensure that the definition of peace officer, and I'm sorry I don't have my police act with me tonight, I left it at home. But is there an assurance that a peace officer would include correction officers in Manitoba prisons? Ms. Oswald: Yes. Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Just along that line of questioning would that also be inclusive of those that serve the Legislature and other government facilities in security positions? Ms.

Oswald: I'd want to make absolutely sure so I'll need to consult on that issue, and I'll get back to you. Mr. Faurschou: Is the minister expecting a response as we wait now? Ms. Oswald: It's not explicit in the way the wording is laid out. Certainly, in the case of these individuals being the victim of a crime they would be captured in that regard. There is a provision under (

d) for, and others, for us to make sp ecific reference to those kinds of individuals and others that we may come up with as we go forward in the discussion of regulations. So they will not be explicitly excluded forever more.

There's an opportunity for us to capture that later as needed. * (21:00) Madam Chairperson: Clauses 2 and 3–pass; clauses 4 and 5–pass; clause 6–pass; clause 7–pass; clauses 8 through 11–pass; clause 12–pass; clause 13–pass; clause 14–pass; clauses 15 and 16–pass; clauses 17 through 19–pass; clause 20–pass; clauses 21 through 25–pass; clauses 26 and 27–pass; table of contents–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass; Bill be reported. Bill 8–The Phosphorus Reduction Act (Water Protection Act Amended) Madam Chairperson: We will now do Bill 8, The Phosphorus Reduction Act (Water Protection Act Amended).

Does the minister responsible for Bill 8 have an opening statement? Hon. Christine Melnic k (Minister of Water Stewardship): Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. To speak to this bill, I think it's very important to recognize that the bill amends The Water Protection Act. It deals with the reduction of phosphorus released into Manitoba's waters from cleaning products such as dishwashing detergents. We can expand to include personal care products and chemical water conditioners.

I was very proud as the minister to be the first to bring forward such legislation in Canada, very pleased that Québec followed, and I'm looking forward to having national legislation brought through by regulation by the federal government. So I think it's very important that we recognize that this is the start.

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 Thank you. Madam Chairperson: We thank the minister. Does the critic from the official opposition have an opening statement? There is no opening statement, thank you. Clauses 1 and 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clauses 4 and 5–pass. Shall the

preamble pass? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I j u s t w a n t e d t o make a brief comment and pose a question to the minister. I know this has been a very important bill as the Leader of the Liberal Party did attempt to deal with phosphorus in dishwasher soap. He had included in the bill both commercial and residential, from what I understand, and in Bill 8, I don't believe it was the intent of Bill 8 to deal with–or what's the government proposing to do with regard to commercial dishwasher soap? Ms.

Melnick: What we're looking at are locations where there might be heightened need for sanitation such as in restaurants, hospitals, and so that's what this bill is designed to accommodate. That's the exception that we would look at here. There may also be exceptions in households where there's a particular health need. Perhaps a need whether it might be perhaps an allergy situation. A need for, again, heightened sanitation. So we will be looking at those as we go along. I think it's important to recognize that this is the first bill of its kind in Canada.

It is accompanied by about seven or eight that have either been passed or in the process of being passed in the United States and that we are looking at the legislation that has been passed and that has been put forward, and we are making sure that we ar e keeping to the standard that other pieces of legislation are as well. We continue to work with the Canadian Consumer Speciality Products Association to make sure that they are recognizing the needs that may be covered under this bill as well as needs that may be beyond this bill, and, again, that's where we look at exceptions. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Chair, prior to its passage–because the minister's right in the sense that this will be the first bill that will ultimately be passed–I do want to express concern, as I know the Leader of the Liberal Party has done, in regard to that the bill could have done more in terms of dishwasher soap in particular, and just to express some disappointment that the government didn't see the merits of what the Liberal Party had proposed last year. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Melnick: Again, as one peruses the bill, they can see that there is opportunity for inclusion.

We heard a very positive response by Darren Praznik this evening. We heard a very positive response from a member of the dry cleaning community as well, so we've made sure that this bill can, in fact, be inclusive. We intend to continue to work with communities, to continue to work with industry, and continue to ensure that we are limiting the phosphorus load on Lake Winnipeg as well as other waterways in Manitoba. Madam Chairperson: Further? No.

Preamble–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported. Thank you. Bill 9–The Protection for Persons in Care Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: Would the Minister of Health care to join us? Okay, this is Bill 9, The Protection for Persons in Care Amendment Act. Does the minister responsible for Bill 9 have an opening statement? Hon.

Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Very briefly, in light of the fact we did not have any presenters on this bill, I just remind the members that The Protection for Persons in Care Amendment Act, of course, serves to further protect the identity of a person who reports an abuse or who provides information in respect of a reported abuse. It will ensure that investigators and others engaged in the administration of the act cannot be required to disclose information that could reveal such a person's identity.

It also clarifies the minister's authority to designate employees as investigators and to appoint other investigators as needed. Madam Chairperson: We thank the minister. Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement? No statement. We thank you and move on to the clauses.

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 2008 Shall clauses 1 through 3 pass? An Honourable Member: On a point of order, Madam Chair. Point of Order Madam Chairperson: Mr. Goertzen. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): As a point of order, I wonder if the minister–I understand that some of my colleagues have some questions that are maybe more ranging on the bill than what would fit nicely into a section-by-section discussion. I wonder if the minister would entertain some global questions on the bill.

I don't think it's our intention to push the midnight deadline by any stretch of imagination and then, I think, we can proceed more quickly through the clause by clause. Ms. Oswald: Sure. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Please proceed with your questions. * * * Mr. Goertzen: I thank the minister for that indulgence. I've asked the minister previously in briefings and otherwise just about the appointment of investigators. Certainly, the principle of the bill in allowing for the protection of privacy for an individual who reports abuse, I think we are in general agreement with.

The question relates, though, in terms of how these investigators are appointed, who they might be, sort of the skills and qualifications they might have. I would like this– have the minister put that on the record. The reason I ask that is it's not a principle of law per se, but generally when an indivi dual has a discretion built into some sort of a judicial or quasi-judicial function that they're performing, the degree of skill they're expected to have is increased. * (21:10) For example, we have police officers here tonight who have tremendous discretion in their job.

Even though they work under a number of provincial and federal laws, they have discretion where to apply them and whether or not to apply them. Here we're giving discretion to a investigator to determine whether or not they will or will not release information regarding the identity of an individual. So I'm mostly concerned about who these investigators will be. Does the minister have some sort of notion in terms of the nature of these individuals and the skills they might bring to apply in their position? Ms. Oswald: I think I'd like to address the second concept of what the member is raising first.

He has raised this with me before, and I have gone back to seek clarification on this. While in a moment I'll address the nature of qualifications for those individuals, I can provide, I hope, some comfort to the member in that those individuals will not be solely relied upon to make a decision concerning disclosure or non-disclosure. The role of the investigator is just that; it's investigative in nature. But any decisions that come to bear on what will happen about identities of individuals or witnesses actually get made as part of a team.

It's a managerial decision as far as the Prot ection for Persons in Care Office goes. So I know that the member has been concerned about one individual person exercising that discretion singularly. It would be a group conversation and a group decision that would come forward. So I hope that offers comfort. Secondly, we know the Protection for Persons in Care Office, professional staff, abuse prevention consultants, certainly, are sought on the basis of what I would call rigorous criteria.

We know that listings for these kinds of appointments ask for such things as a university degree in health care or social sciences.

There's a request for those that have experience working with violence and abuse issues, particularly as they pertain to the abuse of the elderly: direct experience managing or investigating abuse cases is considered an asset in these cases; experience working in health-care settings is a preferred issue in seeking these individuals; knowledge of related legislation, like PHIA, The Freedom of Information Protection of Privacy Act and, of course, this act; demonstrated assessment, analytical conceptual identification and resolution skills required; training in conflict management and mediation considered an asset; and demonstrated excellent skills in communication and inter- personally.

So I would concur with what the member says about other professions, that have been in our discussion this evening, having requirements of them, and that would be no different for these individuals who would be doing investigating. Mr. Goertzen: Now would those requirements, the minister elaborated on, be found in regulation as part

April 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 of this or this simply a directive that comes from the department? Ms. Oswald: These w

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-2-sed1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 2nd hansardpdf sed1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	74fa9d0860d3cddec2bed59060e4d57fa871450e

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