Manitoba Committee Hansard — 2 November 2022 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 4, 42nd Legislature, 4th Session)

42-4-la4

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session – Forty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Chairperson Mr. Andrew Micklefield Constituency of Rossmere Vol. LXXVI No. 4 - 6 p.m., Wednesday, November 2, 2022 ISSN 1708-668X

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

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

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

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

17 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Wednesday, November 2, 2022 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Rossmere) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Rick Wowchuk (Swan River) ATTENDANCE – 6 QUORUM – 4 Members of the committee present: Hon. Ms. Gordon, Hon. Mr. Wharton Mr. Micklefield, Ms. Naylor, Messrs. Redhead,Wowchuk Substitutions: Hon. Mr. Goertzen for Hon. Mr. Wharton at 7:35 p.m. APPEARING: Mr. Dougald Lamont, MLA for St.

Boniface PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Shannon Hancock, private citizen Julie Roginsky, Lift Our Voices Marcel Williamson, private citizen Karen Koslowsky-Jones, private citizen Julie Macfarlane, Can't Buy My Silence Sherri Thomson, private citizen Jan Wong, private citizen Pam Gordon, private citizen Susan MacRae, private citizen Kelly Donovan, private citizen Jennifer Schulz, private citizen Laura Fougere, private citizen Aalya Ahmad, private citizen Bridget Lontok, private citizen Barbara Captijn, private citizen Candide Allen, private citizen Douglas Kuny, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Grant Driedger, Manitoba Law Reform Commission MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 225–The Non-Disclosure Agreements Act * * * Clerk Assistant (Mr.

Tim Abbott): Good evening, everybody. Will the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs please come to order. Before the committee can begin with proceed - ings, we need to elect a Chairperson. Are they–any nominations? Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Environment, Climate and Parks): I nominate MLA Micklefield for Chair. Clerk Assistant: Mr. Micklefield has been nomin - ated as Chairperson. Are there any other nominations? Hearing none, Mr. Micklefield, please take the Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standi ng Committee on Legis lative Affairs please come to order–we already read that part.

Great, well, we're al- ready in order. That's great. Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Wharton: I nomina te MLA Wowchuk as Vice-Chair. Mr. Chairperson: MLA Wowchuk has been nomin- ated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing none, MLA Wowchuk is elected Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider Bill 225, The Non-Disclosure Agreements Act. I'd just like to say before we get started that, due to the nature of this evening's proceedings, we have provided some Victim Services people, who I believe should be with us now.

Could they identify them - selves? Thank you so much for being here. If, for whatever reason, anyone in the room would like to talk with somebody confidentially or take ad- vantage of the services that are available, please do so. Catch their eye, you know, tap them on the arm,

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 whatever–however you'd like to do that. This is not just laws and legislation; we are human beings and we want to make sure that we're sensitive to that, too, this evening. So, thank you for coming, and we take this seriously. I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjourn- ment. A standing committee meeting to consider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause-by-clause of a bill except by un- animous consent of the committee.

We have a number of presenters on the list before us indicating that they are from out of town. Also, the committee clerk has received a request from Julie Roginsky –I hope I say the last name correctly–presenter No. 20 on the list before you–to be moved to earlier in the presentation queue, as she is in a different time zone. With that in mind, what is the will of the committee? Mr.

Wharton: I would suggest that we allow out-of- town presenters who are in person in the room to pre- sent first, then invite Julie Rogin sky to present to accommodate that, and then progress through the re - maining presenters in the order listed before us. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. So it's been suggested we allow out-of-town presenters who are in the–who are in person in the room to present fir st, and then to in - vite Julie Roginsky to present, and then to progress through the remaining presenters in the order listed before us.

Is that agreed? [Agreed] I would now ask that anyone present in the com - mittee room who registered as out of town, please make themselves known to the Chamber branch at - tendant at the back of the room; that's the back of the room. These names will then be provided for the clerk. We'll make sure we get the order right and don't have you sitting here 'til quarter to twelve, if we can do that. Written submissions to Bill 225 have been re- ceived from the following people, and copies have been distributed to com mittee members: Grant Driedger, president of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission.

Does the com mittee agree to have these docu - ments appear in the Hansard transcript of this meet - ing? [Agreed] Okay. Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I'd like to advise members of the public regarding the process, which, if you don't know it, will seem really weird. In accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for pre sentations, with another five minutes for questions from com mittee members.

Questions shall not exceed 30 seconds in length, with no time limit for answers–at five minutes; that's a time limit, but–questions may be addressed to presenters in the following rotation: first the sponsor of the bill, and then a member from each recog nized party. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they're removed from the pre- senters list.

I would also like to remind the members of the public who are observing the com mittee meeting to please not disturb the com mittee proceedings by ap - plauding or commenting from the audience. Taking of photographs, as well as any audio or video recordings are not permitted from the public gallery. Please en - sure your phones are in silent mode, and I' ll just take that advice myself and just check here.

The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript, so here's the weird rule: each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say your name. That is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off. And then when they're typing it out, they know who's talking. Thank you for your patience. We will now pro- ceed with public presentations. Bill 225–The Non-Disclosure Agreements Act Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Shannon Hancock has indicated that she's from out of town, so we're going to call Shannon up first. I will now call on Ms.

Shannon Hancock. Welcome. Ms. Shannon Hancock, please go ahead. Shannon Hancock (Private Citizen): Go ahead? My name is Shannon Hancock, and I was born and raised in Manitoba. I began training to become a registered nurse in 1990, and was a member of the last graduating class of the Health Sciences Centre school

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 of nursing in 1993. I went on to complete a BN with distinction in 2006. * (18:10) I began my nursing career at Health Sciences Centre, and my experiences with workplace violence ran the gamut. Over the years, I was sexually, physic- ally and psychologically harassed and assaulted. I per- sonally knew two RNs employed at HSC who died by suicide not long after they graduated. One was a class- mate; the other was a beloved family member.

I left HSC in 1999 following another critical in - cident, this time involv ing my father, a vul nerable in-patient released on a pass without notice to family. I was a nursing supervisor at HSC at the time, but was working my second job at Riverview Health Centre when I was noticed by the Winnipeg Police Service that he, too, had died by suicide and a critical incident. Overwhelmed after years of professional and per- sonal trauma and tragedy associated with my work - place, I left the province and worked for a time in BC.

In 2002, I was recruited back to Health Sciences Centre as a clinical resource nurse in neurosurgery. The environment was triggering and unhealthy and I eventually left permanently, working as a sexual as- sault nurse examiner, an HIV nurse at Nine Circles Com- munity Health Centre and, in 2008, as a co-ordinator of a large tuberculosis program in Nunavut. In April 2009, I was recruited back, by the WRHA this time, to work in public health tuberculosis services, a toxic work place that, by July 2011, had been featured in Canadian Nurse magazine in an

article entitled: Targeted, The impact of bullying and what needs to be done to eliminate it. In 2012, 10 years ago, I made the first formal workplace health and safety complaint of my working life. I was 50 years old. Mine was not the first com - plaint in the work place; it wouldn't be the last. That complaint triggered the end of my career. WRHA's internal investigation process was negli- gent and discriminatory. The internal consultants, both of whom were much younger than I was, were neither impartial, qualified or experienced conducting complex investi gations involving regulated health professionals.

In April 2013, after these investi gation reports were released, I was walked into a meeting with HR. I had been assured by the Manitoba Nurses Union, my LRO and the labour relations director, Leona Barrett, Kirsten Andersson, I wouldn't be fired. They couldn't fire me for being a pain in the ass. I was fired. As we left the board room, while I was still in shock, Ms. Barrett noted that they wouldn't accept a settlement, even if they offered $30,000. It was clear to me then that the parties were negotiating the terms of my termination without my knowledge or consent.

The union filed eight grievances, first grievances of my working life. The referral to arbitration was accepted by the honourable Martin Freedman in May 2013. By the time the hearing began in August, there were seven lawyers involved. For a nursing arbitration hearing. Karen Clearwater, Vivian Rachlis, Denny Kells, Martin Freedman, David Shrom, Richard Deeley and David Bruni. I had nobody. There wasn't a registered nurse in the place. My panel of peers was three white men and lawyers.

Arbitration hearings went on for more than 10 days between August 2013 to 2014, and in that en- tire time, two witnesses testif ied. The employer filed two vexatious complaints to the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba against me during arbitration. Lawyers didn't object, instead telling me that they would help me defend the complaints. I got $3,000 from the union; the lawyers charged me double that to defend myself.

By the end of arbitration–actually, in January 2014, I received a letter from the Manitoba Ombudsman advising me that, while they would not disclose–investi- gate my disclosure under The Public Interest Disclosure Act–I told my employer, I told the union, I told the Ombudsman, I told everybody –while they wouldn't investigate, they assured me I was protected against reprisal retroactive to my disclosure in February 2013. And the assurances always came a little too late, because two months after my disclosure, I was fired.

While I was in arbitration, I was notified that my youngest brother, Trevor, was killed in a devastating motorcycle collision in Hamilton. By July 2014, I was traumatized, grieving, black- listed by the WRHA–the employer for my profession in the Winnipeg health region. I had been dumped by counsel; they cited a conflict they hadn't mentioned before, threatened with abandonment by the union and withdrawal of the grievances by the bargaining agent and their counsel.

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 And after two complaints to my regulator during arbitration, I was coerced into signing an agreement , an NDA and one-sided release under duress. In January 2015, I filed an application with the Manitoba Labour Board–again, the first in my life. I made it very clear that the reason I filed that complaint was to ensure what happened to me didn't ever happen again. It was dismissed. Vivian Rachlis from Thompson Dorfman Sweatman repeatedly sent me threatening communic- ation. Karen Clearwater was the senior lawyer in labour at the WRHA.

By March 2015, I had been ambushed at my next employer, falsely accused, ter - minated, reported to the college. This all happened in two years. In the previous 20, I had no disciplinary history. And twice I asked my lawyers, Tracey Epp from Pitblado and Gange Collins to please challenge the unconscionable agreement I was coerced into. I was a regulated nursing professional. You cannot silence, you cannot gag a regulated nursing professional work- ing in a public health system. When I asked these two firms for their legal opinion, they both withdrew legal services, leaving me on my own again.

On September 23rd, approximately –sorry, 2016, roughly six weeks after I reported health and safety issues in the WRHA home -care program to director Vikas Sethi, the WRHA filed a statement of claim against me, alleging I breached the 2014 NDA. Mr. Sethi had consulted with several other regu- lated pro fessionals, including two lawyers, Allister Gunson and Da n Ryall, and Kathleen Klassen, a CRNM registrant.

In the six years since I was served with that lawsuit, the only names associated with the litigation are Law Society of Manitoba registrants Tim Lach, Karlee Blatz, Dan Ryall, and since 2019, Lynda Troup fr om Thompson Dorfman Sweatman. They refuse to identify an instructing client, just saying I am being sued by the WRHA.

Beginning in 2014 until my registration expired on December 31st, 2019, when I couldn't take any more, Shared Health–I was forced by fi rms advising the regulator, CRNM, WRHA, Shared Health, gov - ernment, the Minister Gordon–because it's Thompson Dorfman Sweatman–I was forced to practice while muzzled. None of my legal advisors, to whom I paid tens of thousands of dollars, would challenge that NDA. Nurses are the largest group of regulated profes- sionals in the world. We are –well, they are; I'm not one anymore–are in critically short supply.

According to statistics from the Canadian Nurses Association, 91 per cent of nurses are female. Manitoba nurses are being discriminated against based on the fact that we live in Manitoba, based on protected characteristics: age, gender, sex, socioeconomic status. We are vulnerable to professional and financial exploit- ation based on geography. We're just the tip of the iceberg. Much of this information's in the public domain. We've been filing it for years.

Regulators in the Court of King's Bench, the Court of Appeal, the Manitoba Labour Board, the Ombudsman, the Auditor General, everybody says they don't have jurisdiction over pro- fessional regulators. It's up to the media to start reporting, and to gov- ernment to acknowl edge and to resolve the abusive dominance and regula tory capture and collusion in health care. Threatening and sil encing regulated nursing professionals and women threatens public health and safety, and they can't buy our silence.

With the brief time I have left, if I might, I received an email from Arthur –Professor Schafer from the University of Manitoba today that he would like me to read. Do I have a minute? I'll make it fast. Mr. Chairperson: You have 36 seconds. S. Hancock: Okay. I'm not free to present this evening, but I'm agree- able to having you present to the com mittee on my behalf. The fundamental commitment of every health- care professional is to put the interest, health, safety of his or her patient first.

Obligations to one's em - ployers, one's colleagues, one's professional body all come after one's obligation to protect the best interests of one's patients. It follows from this that when a nurse or other health-care pro fessional encounters a situation that threatens the life and health of patients, he or she is morally obligated to take every step and an obligation to report the danger to appropriate authorities and, if necessary, to go public with his or her concerns.

For this reason the imposition of non- disclosure agreements on health- care pro fessionals is incon - sistent with and contrary to the fundamental commit- ment of hea lth-care pro fessionals described above. This point equally applies to SLAPP suits and other forms of reprisal taken or threatened against

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 health-care pro fessionals who blow the whistle on wrongdoing in order to protect patient well-being. * (18:20) I urge the Manitoba Legislature to act in defence of patient safety by taking whatever steps are neces - sary to assure nurses and other health -care pro fes- sionals, that when they act conscientiously to protect the life and health of their patients, they wil l not be subject to workplace harassment, discipline, dismissal or intimidating lawsuits.

Sincerely, Arthur Schafer, founding director, Centre for Pro fessional and Applied Ethics, Uni ver- sity of Manitoba. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your comments. Did allow a few seconds at the end there. Wanted you to be– Floor Comment: I appreciate that. I've been waiting for this for a long time. Mr. Chairperson: Do members of the com mittee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): Yes, I just want to say thank you very much for your courage in speaking up. I know it's been a long and hard road.

The one thing I wanted to ask you to expand on was, you talked about blacklisting by the WRHA. Can you just expand on what that means and w hat that meant for you? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Hancock, just for the recording, I need to acknowledge you. Ms. Hancock. S. Hancock: My apologies. There's a blacklist. And it's well known within all health regions: prairie health, Northern H ealth. It's a well-known–it's a poorly kept secret in human resources. And I knew it for a fact because after I was fired by the WRHA, it's a double-edge sword. You have to mitigate your losses. Can't get a job.

I applied to, I think, 40 different places in Winnipeg. I couldn't get a call back. And arbitration went on for a year, a year and a half. I can't find a job, which is part of the coercion, and so, you're finally so beaten down, you sign the NDA because you can't afford not to. You can't pay your mortgage. So it is –plenty of people will come forward and attest to the blacklisting in the WRHA. Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): Thank you, Ms. Hancock. I don't actually have a question. I just want to thank you for your courage, for the things that you sai d tonight.

I mean, it's incred ibly courageous that you're here to share your story in this way, but I know how hard it must have been to be the first person to stand up in this room. So, I just want to acknowl edge that. Thank you for paving the way for other folks who are here to- night. And thank you for your resilience because you could have given up a long time ago. I mean, I can't believe you haven't and I'm glad you're here speaking about this. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Hancock, you're welcome to respond, but not obligated in– S. Hancock: In 2020, I almost didn't survive. I almost wasn't here.

In 2020, the–I wasn't registered anymore because I couldn't tolerate any more abuse from the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba and their lawyers. It's ridiculous. Nurses are not regulated by nurses. They're regulated by lawyers. But I–my brother, the last member of my family of origin died; I was informed on July 30th, 2020, that he died. Initially, it was an overdose in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver and then it was –he had been assaulted prior so they don't know.

I had to go there alone and clean out his room, came back and within three weeks, the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba and their lawyers, Fillmore Riley, referred me to discipline. I wasn't even a registrant. It was just part of the pattern of scorched- earth litigation. And in September 2020, I couldn't take it any - more and I attempted suicide. Nothing you say matters to that regulator and un- til both regulators –unless and until there is some accountability, people aren't just to leave the pro - fession. Nurses are going to die. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other questions? Hon.

Jeff Wharton (Minister of Environment, Climate and Parks ): Thank you, Ms. Hancock , for your extreme bravery. You're just an incredible person and listening to that story coming from a family with a sister that has been in the profession–nursing profes- sion for over 34 years and struggles daily with some of those challenges that you just touched on really hits home.

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 And I thank you, thank you, thank you from the bottom of my heart for sharing this incredible, incred- ible story that needs action and will get action. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Hancock, if you'd like to say anything, you're welcome to, but don't have to. S. Hancock: Thank you. Thank you, Dougald Lamont. Thank you, Julie Macfarlane. Thank you Can't Buy My Silence and Zelda Perkins and every - body–thank everybody here who came here to speak because they're terrified. I was terrified. But I am not going to be silent anymore.

Thank you very much for considering this critic- ally important bill. It is saving lives. Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your pre senta- tion, and we will move to Julie Roginsky. Julie is virtual, so we'll let the tech folks sort that out, and when I see you, Julie, I will recognize you and you will have 10 minutes to speak. Julie, I do–I see you. Can you just say something? I want to make sure your mic is working. I don't believe that it is right now. Julie Roginsky (Lift Our Voices): Yes, can you hear me? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, I can hear you, Julie ; please go ahead. J.

Roginsky: To members of the com mittee, hello from the United States. I very much ap preciate the opportunity to speak to you today about the non- disclosure agreements bill. My name is Julie Roginsky, and I'm the co- founder of Lift Our Voices, a US -based organization dedicated to eradicating silencing mechanisms in the workplace. Like so many people who are–will be speaking about this bill tonight and, similarly to the courageous testimony that I just heard, my testimony's grounded in personal experience.

In 2017, I was working as a television host at Fox News when I became one of the first women to s ue the network and its former chairman Roger Ailes for sexual harassment and retaliation. A year later, Fox News and I settled my lawsuit. Part of the settlement included a non-disclosure agree- ment, which prevented me from ever discussing what happened between me, Mr. Ailes or the other execu - tives whom I had named in my suit. I did not know and could not have known then what this would mean.

In time, a Hollywood movie would be made about my story and the stories of the other courageous women who had come forward about Mr. Ailes, but I cannot tell you what I think of this movie or whether its portrayal of me is accurate because my non -disclosure agreement prevents me from sharing that with you. Countless news stories have been written about my case, b ut I cannot speak to reporters about their accuracy because my non -disclosure agreement pre- vents me from discussing it with anyone.

Anyone who watches this movie or reads these stories can voice their opinion about what they think happened to me, but the only person who does not have the right to voice an opinion about what hap- pened to me is me because my non -disclosure agree- ment prevents me from voicing it. Sadly, this is not atypical. About a year after I filed my lawsuit, I received a phone call from a young woman who had volunteered on the campaign of Phil Murphy, who is now the governor of the state of New Jersey.

I had worked on that campaign and had, ear - lier, signed an expansive non-disclosure agreement on the first day of my employment. The young woman on the other end of the phone was in tre mendous distress and calling me for help. She told me that she had been sexually assaulted by a senior campaign aide and she wanted advice on what she should do.

I tried to help her as best I could, but I could not tell her everything: that I had warned the governor a year earlier that he was presiding over a campaign where women felt unsafe; that the men in his inner circle were acting in ways that encouraged workplace toxicity; that the governor had ignored my entreaties for help; that I did not think and was not confident that she would receive any help from him in her case. I could not tell her any of this because my NDA prevented me from disclosing any infor mation what- soever about the campaign, of any kind, at any time. I could not speak to her about her concerns.

I could not even speak to my family or to clergy or to a therapist about what I knew. No one at any time what soever, was what my agreement said. In fact, Governor Murphy was so concerned that I would help this young woman that his attorney sent

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 me repeated reminders about this NDA, warning me to keep my mouth shut. I cannot describe to you the pain of having to decide whether you should risk helping a sexual assault survivor and therefore risk being sued into oblivion for helping her. I cannot tell you the pain of being silenced and unable to share your trauma with anyone, especially with other survivors. * (18:30) This is what NDAs do; they isolate. They prevent survivors from sharing their experiences or warning others about an abuser in their midst.

They protect predators by covering up toxic behaviour. This is not the kind of society any of us wants to live in, either on my side of the border or on yours. On behalf of survivors everywhere, I respectfully ask you to support the non- disclosure agreement and I thank you so much for your time today. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Lamont: Yes, thank you very much, Ms. Roginsky.

The one thing–I happened to look at your Twitter feed, and you mentioned–one of the things in the most recent tweets was to say that there are a bunch of places that have been, you know, they make nice noises, they say nice things, but now they're back- sliding. If you're allowed to, can you talk a little bit about that? That basically, I mean, there was a moment where people are con gratulatory but then now it's – they're sort of–as–reverting to the mean. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, Ms. Roginsky. I have to re- cognize you. It's a quirk of the rules here. So, Ms. Roginsky, please go ahead. J.

Roginsky: Yes, I think in the United States and all over the world, we had a big explosion of #MeToo cases coming forward about five years ago, as a result of the Harvey Weinstein allegations and some of the allegations, including my own, about other prominent men in the public sphere. And a lot of organizations, as a result, put a lot of diversity, equity and inclusion programs into place in order to support the #MeToo movement, which I think is a–is fantastic.

But, unfortunately, it is my belief that if you con- tinue to silence survivors through the use of non- disclosure agreements, you will never be able to have real diversity and real inclusion in the workplace be- cause, unfor tunately, if you cannot come forward about toxicity that happens to you, if you are not able to share your experiences with your co- workers, you will eventually be forced to leave your job, either voluntarily or because, as the woman who testified earlier said, because eventually you're pushed out.

And that is why we have a dearth of women, peo- ple of colour and others–at least in this country–rising through the ranks in the wor kplace, because com - panies that truly care and organizations that truly care about enfranchising them, truly care about promoting them, don't prevent them from coming forward to dis- cuss workplace toxicity and don't prevent them from being able to hel p others who've exper ienced work- place toxicity. They certainly don't protect predators at the ex - pense of survivors, which is what NDAs do.

Because if you can't complain or discuss with any body what happened to you, because you are bound by a sil - encing mechanism, you will be forced to leave, be - cause you may not be able to take it any more or you'll just be pushed out, because you're not acquiescing to the harassment or the retaliation or the discrimination. That person will get to stay and keep his job. And that's not how it should be. And I thank you for that question. It's an im por- tant one, so, thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other questions? Ms. Naylor: Thank you, Ms. Roginsky. I just–I don't have a question.

I want to thank you for sharing what you could of your story tonight. It's really horrifying when women and others aren't able to even tell a therapist or a family member about important and serious events in their life or help that they may need. So, it was really important for us to hear that experience from you, and I thank you for being here tonight. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Roginsky, if you wish to respond, you may do so. Ms. Roginsky? J. Roginsky: Yes, the only thing I'd like to respond to is it's very nice sitting on this side of the border to see how–to see committee in a legislature.

We don't get to see much of that on our side of the border. So, I thank you for having the op portunity to not only to hear my testimony, but also for the way you're presenting your work today. So, thank you very much.

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 Mr. Chairperson: We have about a minute left. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, Ms. Roginsky, we thank you for your presentation, and we will now move. I'm just go- ing to consult about the next presenter. We're going to start at the top of our list and work our way down. Just to reiterate, if somebody's not available when I call your name, not to worry. We'll just put that name to the bottom of the list and call the person again when we reach the end. So, there's a second chance if some- body does miss or steps out or whatever the case may be.

So, first then –or, I suppose third, we're calling Marcel Williamson. Is Marcel Williamson here? Welcome, Marcel. Do you have any materials for the committee? Marcel Williamson (Private Citizen): Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, we're going to get those cir- culated. [interjection] Okay, we can work with that. Marcel, you have the floor for 10 minutes, please go ahead. Floor Comment: Just hang on. Mr. Chairperson: No, I'll start the clock when you start talking, so. For the sake of Hansard, Marcel Williamson. M.

Williamson: First off, I would like to thank the committee for being here tonight, and to hear my support for Bill 225. My name is Marcel Williamson. I am 46 years of age. I am of Cree and Ojibwe descent. I was raised in Winnipeg, Manitoba, by both my parents, who are residential school survivors. But they've provided me with great care and love throughout my life. I love them both dearly. I have 23 ex perience in IT. I held many IT jobs with Industry Canada, EDS Canada, '99 Pan- American Games organizing society and IT manager for the 2002 Indigenous games held in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

I have a college back ground in IT opera - tions and support, and I'm currently working on my second diploma in IT cloud and cybersecurity. My last position was with the Digital Health, for- merly Manitoba eHealth, that started on January 17th, 2006, until March the 2nd, 2021, when I was ter - minated in retaliatio n for reporting workplace abuse at Digital Health. My last years at Digital Health ended up being a terrible and traumatizing workplace experience. I started to experience racism as far back as 2008, during the resi dential school apology.

As Cana dians were beginning to learn about the horrors from these residential schools, my supervisor at the time made the comment, I wish I could receive money for being spanked. I reported several racist incidents in the work - place between 2014 and 2016 to my new supervisor. Some of the incidents included evening staff mocking and mimicking Indigenous peoples' accents and how they talk, during their AA meetings on Thursday nights from the N -R-H-A, staff were using the term Indians in a derogatory manner. I followed the WRHA reporting process. Spring 2016, I reported these experiences to my ICT director.

Digital Health acknowledged the racism and initiated a cultural class. I truly thought at this point I had the support of management. Instead, the following abuse continued from 2017 to 2020, and are formalized in my formal complaint in 2020 with a police report incident number. In January of 2017, about 4:30 p.m. I was sucker punched hard to the back of my head. I fell off my chair and fell to the ground from the blow.

That person is still employed with Digital Health. * (18:40) In 2018, staff members video recorded two Indigenous persons initiated in sex in a high-rise stair- well that was adjacent to our work place view. This was shared among staff, with hateful comments about Indigenous people. In 2019, I was kicked by the supervisor in his of- fice before discussing my vacation. In 2019, I was in the supervisor's office when he began to threaten me by swearing in my face. His words were, you don't tell us what the –it's a swear word–eff to do, we tell you what the eff to do.

Twenty-nineteen, 2020, the supervisor's favourite comment was asking me if I was on the warpath, or he would walk around the office and say out loud that he was on the warpath . He eventually said in –it and I – into staff meetings, as well. Overall, the supervisor and staff humiliated, de - humanized and embarrassed me.

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 I was reaching out to Shared Health executive in the summer of 2017 to 2020. No action taken. Digital Health workplace abuse triggered a con - flict investigation, followed by a formal complaint in 2020. In the conflict investigation on September 14th, 2020, I requested an apology and essay on Indigenous culture to be written by the supervisor. However, I did not receive any of these items from management at all. The reason was HR had inadequate notes and did not remember the essay on Indigenous culture.

So, I escalated the conflict investigation to a for- mal complaint on October 5th, 2020, which outlined the years of abuse by Digital Health. I submitted a police report number for the assaults, historical data for the years of abuse, audio evidence to show how I was being suppressed by my management. In the conflict in vestigation, Shared Health HR confirmed she knew that the supervisor had a pattern of racist behaviour towards me and Indigenous peo- ple. She decided not to share this infor mation to the formal investigators. In the end, all these items were ignored by the formal investigators.

The supervisor was found in breach of Digital Health's IT–ICT's Respectful Workplace policy 300, 100, 102 on one occurrence. The supervisor is still working with Digital Health.

Overall, 13 Manitoba government personnel were contacted during my employment and were negligent in providing me duty of care, and I believe this is the entire health-care system, which includes: four human resources from Shared Health; four Shared Health executives, which consisted of the CIO of Digital Health, the CEO of Shared Health, COO of HSC and the prov incial lead of Indigenous Health; one ICT director; two ICT supervisors; the deputy minister of Health, who was also the interim Shared Health board of director at the time; and one workplace safety health officer.

In 2019, the gov ernment updated its Respectful Workplace policy. This new policy was supposed to be a new step towards a no -wrong-door approach. However, I went through 13 doors, and none were the right door. Other policy points that I would like to make note of: The new policy notes those found guilty of harass- ment could be suspended without pay, demoted or terminated; requires a supervisor who receives an allegation to immediately report it to human resource officials; stress that no employee could fa ce reprisal for making a good faith complaint.

Obviously, these abuses were not reported imme- diately, as the supervisor was found in breach and both respondents are still employed at Digital Health, and I was terminated three months after substantiating a good faith complaint. I was terminated on March the 2nd, 2021. I was offered $40,000, then $60,000, and then $80,000, with 5 K in manner-of-dismissal damages. I have not sign- ed any release papers which include a non-disclosure agreement and have yet to receive proper compensa- tion in recognition of these horrible experiences. So, today, I ask your govern ment to support Bill 225.

NDAs have been used to prevent people from publicly discussing toxic workplace conditions. In my case, this is espe cially contradictory to the WRHA – TRC Calls to Action found on the WRHA website; the 18 to 24 commitments on the Shared Health website– valuing all voices, be inclusive, be accountable; and the recent declaration, eliminate all forms of Indigenous-specific racism signing between MKO and the NRHA. NDAs isolate victims, who are prohibited from sharing information about their situations and can hin- der the healing process after an assault or other forms of abuse.

Because the allegations are not made public, the agreements protect the perpetrators of these abuses, leaving them free to continue their behaviour. One problematic trend is this idea of using NDAs in almost all incidents. For example, using NDAs to prevent women or men from speaking out about al - leged history of inappropriate or abusive behaviour. Limiting NDAs is a good first step, but much more needs to be done. NDAs are not the main enabler of persistent, unethical behaviour in workplaces, they are merely a symptom of a much larger problem.

NDAs that silence victims of persistent, unethical behaviour need to be banned, but uncovering and halt- ing persistent, unethical behaviour in workplaces re - quires much more. Our Province should be a–paying attention around when we minimize–when we normalize and when we do not act on violence. This is a public safety issue. I think former premier Pallister said it best in 2019 re - garding the updated Manitoba respectful workplace policies: Employees need to feel respected and heard and not fear reprisal or an impact on their careers, he said.

There's been a culture where there's–was at least a perception that people in senior positions were un- touchable, said Pallister. There was a culture of con - cealment, and it is over.

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 Thank you. Miigwech. Merci. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The floor is open for questions. Are there any questions? Mr. Lamont: Thank you so much, Mr. Williamson. Thank you for your courage and for your incred ibly thorough description. I just want to ask, you talked about an escalation. There's a point when there was simply a question of somebody writing a letter. Can you just tell–expand a little bit about that, that somebody has to write a letter of apology, and how that went sideways? M. Williamson: Okay.

Yes, there was another racist incident with the supervisor at that time. And there was a conflict investigation initiated by the ICT director–not me, for that fact. And so, the–we did have a meeting on September 14th, 2020, and at that meeting was a discussion of resolution. And two items were to be given to me: an apology and the essay on Indigenous culture by the supervisor. Unfortunately for–you'll see in some of that docu- mentation I gave you–on the last pages, it'll show you the HR forgetting to take notes, she mentions in her email there. And that she simply forgot.

And so, to me, that kind of mishandled the conflict investigation, and therefore I escalated that. Ms. Naylor: I want to thank you, Mr. Williamson, for your courage and your ability to tell your story here tonight. I also just wanted to ask you to clarify one point to make sure I understood it properly. Did I hear you say that you refused to sign the NDA that you were asked to sign, and that you also have not bee n paid out any of the money that was promised to you? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Williamson, I just have to acknowledge you for the Hansard afterwards. Mr. Williamson, go ahead. M.

Williamson: Certainly. So, part of the –to be properly compensated, the NDA is part of that agreement . And so, when I was negotiating with Shared Health, they simply denied anything was wrong in the workplace in their letter to me. And so, they proceeded to offer me a little bit more money at that time, but not really what I was asking for. So, I received another offer, which I didn't ask for, from Shared Health, for $80,000 and to sign that agreement, but I have not because they are denying that anything was wrong in the workplace. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other questions? Seeing none, Mr.

Williamson, thank you for your presentation. We are sincerely grateful. I will now call Karen Koslowsky-Jones. Karen, do you have any printed materials you wish to distribute? Karen Koslowsky-Jones (Private Citizen): Yes, and I passed it to the individual at the back of the room– Mr. Chairperson: Great, we'll make sure that those get to the members here. So, you have 10 minutes, and then there'll be a five-minute question period afterwards. So, Ms. Koslowsky-Jones, go ahead. K. Koslowsky-Jones: Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Karen Koslowsky -Jones, and I'm speaking on the NDA act, Bill 225.

I will provide a brief

summary of what occurred to me over an extended period of time. My story en - tails many issues and complexities which arose largely due to my silence obtained by my employer, both formally and informally. My silence damaged me both personally and professionally, even though I was able to maintain decades of very good- to- excellent performance evaluations. * (18:50) My story entails one of sexual harassment, repris- als, and bullying. In the years 1992 and 1993, my sup- ervisor sexually harassed me. Although the executive management team were aware of what was hap - pening, they took no action.

In mid-1993, given continuing incidents of har - assment, my employer had no option but to bring in an external investigator. Over a course of three and a half months, a full investi gation was conducted and many employ ees were interviewed. The evidence found in the investigation led my employer to fire the harasser, and given the volume of evidence found, the union did not pursue a grievance on his behalf.

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 In 1994, I was promoted to a supervisory position and reported to a director, a good friend of the haras - ser. This director, having a strong alliance with the harasser and other males in what was referred to as the boys' club, made my employment situation difficult to the point a mediator was brought in. During mediation, the director expressed that he and others did not want to work with me, given my complaint of harassment.

The fact that this department had numerous individuals who were sympathetic to the harasser compelled me to take a transfer to an al - ternate department in an alternate role as a rehabilita- tion counsellor; there were no alliances against me in this department. I continued in the capacity of counsellor for five years, out of range of the boys' club. Work again be - came enjoyable.

Six years later, in 2000, there was a reorganization which allowed for the promotion of numerous individuals affiliated or in the boys' club– I dislike using this term as it sounds cliché, but it ac - curately describes the makeup of many who were promoted to leadership roles. Given this reorganization, I was once again in a position where I was under the thumb of numerous in- dividuals who were either in, or aligned with, my dis- senters. In my new role as an analyst, I was again marginalized, with this marginalization growing into blatant acts of bullying.

The number of individuals who actively harassed me also increased, as they want- ed favour with various members of the manage ment team. I felt like I was a receiver in a football game where I was tackled and the opposing team piled on. I endured years of disrespect and bullying. Through actions taken by various organi zational leaders, the marginalization and bullying became blatant to the point the union president intervened and reported to senior manag ement that he had never seen a staff member as bullied as I had been. Individuals on the leadership team who were aware of my situation did not respond.

Being a union member, I could not be fired without just cause. Consequently, various individuals spent an inordinate amount of time trying to set me up in attempts to have me fired. The following is a small sampling of accusations made against me: I was falsely accused by a manager and director of being biased in my reviews of the case- worker; I was falsely accused by two directors and one manager of spying on their work after I developed and received permission to implement a tool to track industry sector trends, a function of our department; I was falsely accused of insubordination.

Even though these accusations were proven to be baseless, they flew around the organization. The whisper campaign against me continued unabated. In 2012, I learned that a director wrote a case study while taking a class at the Univer sity of Winnipeg. This director was the same individual who, in mediation, stated that he did not want to work with me due to my sexual harassment complaint. His case study contravened FIPPA legislation as well as inter- nal confidentiality agreements. I could be identified in the case study.

The director assigned malicious intent for me bringing a sexual harassment case against his friend, even though the investigation that numer ous other staff members could also pursue harassment com - plaints against this individual. This director k nowingly lied about various as - pects of my em ployment situation and personhood. He went on to state that because of my complaint, his friend was fired and that he found his firing to be unjust. The director chose not to consider that his friend's actions were why he was fired.

What was most damaging was that this case study was printed in an academic journal and posted onto the Internet years before it was brought to my atten- tion. The discovery of this case study only confirmed what I knew was being sa id behind the scenes throughout the years. This director characterized me as a troublemaker. His actions not only embarrassed and intimidated me, but his actions served to derail my career due to him being in a position of power. Through all of this, I remained silent due to the inevitable backlash, which I had and would continue to ex perience.

I did not get a viable response from senior management when this issue was brought to their attention. As such, in 2013, I filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. I cited the toxic work environment perpetuated by this director and others. Several organized–organizational leaders went into damage control mode and sought to once again silence me by undermining my credibility. In December 2013, the commission forwarded me a copy of a letter my employer sent to them four months earlier. The author's name wad redacted. The letter painted me as a problematic employee.

How - ever, my performance evaluations would not support this assertion. I had no choice but to respond, given

28 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 the blatant disinformation by supplied by the legal team to the commission. I will highlight a few of their most offensive claims. The legal team stated that the director who wrote the case study personally apologized to me. This is not true; I never received an apology from him. The legal team stated that the timing of my com- plaint, at a time when this director was soon to be pro- moted to executive director, was for the purpose of causing embarrassment to the company, to the execu- tive director or to both. This assertion is utter non- sense.

At the time I filed my complaint, I had no idea this director was in the process of being promoted. If he or my employer were embarrassed, it was solely due to the director's actions, not by me trying to stand up for myself when I was publicly lied about. The legal team stated that I had long -standing animosity towards this individual. This is patently false and, in fact, the opposite is true.

This director orchestrated numerous s ituations over the years for the purpose of damaging my reputation and negatively affecting my career, in addition to publicly writing falsehoods about me years after the harassment case. The animosity referred to by the legal team was orchestrated and driven by the director. In January 2014, I received a phone call from the investigator at the commission, who advised me not to write any more letters. When I asked if I did some - thing wrong, he said, don't write any more letters. The call was terminated.

Given the investigator's demeanour, I did not feel my complaint would be dealt with seriously. I was correct in this belief. The investigator did not fairly review the documentation I had supplied. He focused on the harassment case, which occurred in the early 1990s, and was briefly referenced in my complaint for context but had little to do with my complaint of working in a poisoned environment since that time.

The investigator did not seek any meaningful details or information about the more serious events that were in my complaint, nor did he interview any witnesses that would've confirmed the pattern of untoward be - haviours directed at me, some serious, some not, but all disheartening. The issue of the poisoned work environment in which I worked for years was not considered. In fact, the investigator personally amended The Human Rights Code to reflect that I could only be afforded protection under the code if the acts of reprisal came from the original offender and not other staff or organizational leaders.

This personal amendment was made even though The Human Rights Code addresses a poisoned environment to 'prodect'–protect individ- uals from working under such con ditions, regardless of who the offender is. I remained with my employer until I retired in 2018. On my last day of employment, the union presi- dent hugged me and stated that what management had done was almost criminal. On manage ment's side, there were no well wishes, which was not surprising.

I had been silenced by them t hrough the many years, both formally and informally, through various means, ranging from a signing of confi dentiality agreements to marginalization to bullying. Non-disclosure agree ments, unless used for the purpose of protecting intellectual property, often hurt the party who needs the most protec tion. In my case, the forced silence put upon me only served to em - power those who chose to malign me, damaging me both personally and professionally. For that I have no recourse. However, it is my hope that my story and other stories may shed light on the need to reform Bill 225.

Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your comments, Ms. Koslowky-Jones. We are very appreciative. We'll now have some questions, and I see that Mr. Lamont has a question. Mr. Lamont: Thank you very much for sharing your story.

The question I wanted to ask about–or, if you can expand on it, when you said that you only had a complaint, essentially that you only had a case, is it – with the Human Rights Commission–if the person–if somebody else is retaliating on someone else's behalf, it doesn't matter, that that's what's–that–so that there– you have no case if someone else is retaliating against–on someone else's behalf. If you could just– * (19:00) Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Koslowsky-Jones, go ahead. K.

Koslowsky-Jones: Yes, the investigator wrote in his decision that the retaliation, reprisal, bullying could only happen from the original harasser. Which is quite ridiculous, because the original harasser was fired in 1993. Since he was fired, with brief periods of being in different de partments where I had no

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 29 dissenters of me, the bullying was–it was constant. It was almost every day. It became so blatant and so obvious, my job al - lowed me the ability to do my job over the computer, so I put forward a work- at-home agreement. So, I came in for two days a week, into the office for meetings and such things, and then three days at home. So technolo gy was very good to me for that. And that was my way to try and cope with everything that was going on. But, yes, lots of people did lots of things, and the human rights investigator ruled that it doesn't apply. Ms.

Naylor: Thank you, Ms. Koskowsky -Jones [phonetic]. I wanted to –well first of all I want to thank you for sharing your story with us and–it sounds like it's been a pretty painful number of years and you've endured a lot. I'm just–I wasn't clear on one piece, which was, were–did you ever sign, or were you ever asked to sign an NDA? And if not –I didn't get the impression you were, so I'm just wondering if you can link that a little bit to the situation. K.

Koslowsky-Jones: Every year, employees are ask- ed to sign agree ments where we're not to discuss anything outside of the walls of the workers comp– outside the walls of my employer. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other questions? Mr. Wharton: Just a comment. Again, thank you Ms. Koslowsky-Jones for shar- ing your story with us; 26 years of courage and strength, it's just unbelievable. And thank you so much for being able to share it with us today, it's great- ly appreciated, I know. Thank you. Ms. Naylor: Sorry, I do have another question, be - cause I'm just processing your answer to me.

So, your workplace situation requires every em - ployee to sign basi cally a non -disclosure agreement about everything that happens related to your work- place on an annual basis? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Koslowsky-Jones, sorry, it's– sorry. This is on me; we'll –I'll give you an extra few seconds here. We have to do this for the guys who type this all out. Ms. Naylor, continuing your question, please go ahead. Ms. Naylor: I'll just finish what I'm saying so you have the chance to answer.

So, what I'm hearing is that this is an expectation in the workplace, so would be quite broad and cover all kinds of issues. So, really, no one in the workplace, whether they consented to an NDA or not, if they made any kind of complaint in the workplace, would not be able to talk about that anywhere. K. Koslowsky-Jones: I don't recall the exact wording of the agreement everyone has to sign, but my exper- ience is if I ever raised–even started to raise–bullying or poisoned work environment, I was shut down very fast. So, I was silenced, like I say, formally and informally.

Back in 1993, I may have signed a non-disclosure agreement specific to the original harassment case. For a while I thought I didn't, but I think I did, and I honestly no longer recall. Mr. Chairperson: We have 30 seconds, are there any further questions? Ms. Koslowsky-Jones, thank you for presenting. We're very grateful. We appreciate your time. Thank you for coming tonight. I will now call Julie Macfarlane. Is Julie Macfarlane here? I'm told Julie is online. So I'll ask the tech people to get that ready. Hi, Julie, can we just test your mic, please. Julie Macfarlane (Can't Buy My Silence): Can you hear me okay?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes, I can. Julie, you have 10 minutes, and after that there will be five minutes of questions. So, you have the floor, Julie, please go ahead. Julie Macfarlane. J. Macfarlane: My name's Julie Macfarlane. I was formerly, for 40 years, a professor of law, most re - cently at the University of Windsor and before that, in the UK and also in Hong Kong. I am the co -founder with Zelda Perkins of the campaign that you've heard about, Can't Buy My Silence, which is campaigning for an end to the use of NDAs in anything other than intellectual property circumstances.

So, let me first of all say that what you've enabled here, by having people come and speak about their experiences in a way that they are protected legally by privilege, is really, really important and meaningful.

30 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 And I, like you, I'm sure, really amazed at the courage of the people that you're hearing from. I think you do appreciate just how much courage it takes to speak up and I hope you realize that for every one of these brave people who is speaking to you today, there are hundreds and hundreds who are not able to be that brave. So, my own experience with NDAs is as follows: I am a survivor of clerical sexual abuse.

As a young person, I was sexually abused by an Anglican Church minister, and I knew when I went into settlement dis- cussions, because I sued the Anglican Church 40 years later, that I w ould be asked to sign a non- disclosure agreement. And I said imme diately, before the dis - cussions even began, that I wasn't going to sign one. And, in fact, part of my settlement agreement, and this is documented elsewhere, describes how I negotiated with the Anglican Church, as part of my own settle - ment, not to force NDAs on other people.

A couple of years after that, at my university, the University of Windsor, I heard from a number of stu- dents who came to me very afraid about an extremely predatory faculty member in my own faculty, who had, obviously, for many years been harassing stu- dents. And I was part of bringing that complaint for - ward with those students to the president of the uni - versity, who did all the right things. He suspended the faculty member, assigned an investigator and almost a year later, at the end of the investigation, terminated that faculty member for harassment of students.

About six months after that, I started to get phone calls from other uni versity law schools i n other countries asking me about this individual with whom I'd worked. I was not his reference but I had worked with him, and because I was known internationally, they came to me to ask me what had happened. And that was when the penny dropped for me and I realized that having apparently done the right thing, my uni - versity had then done the very wrong thing of giving him a non-disclosure agreement.

I now have a copy of that non- disclosure agree- ment, as well as the three -page letter of termination that outlines his absolutely appalling behaviour. And I also have a copy of the letter of recom mendation they gave him because, of course, they didn't tell him– any of these schools –that he was terminated for harassment because they gave him a non -disclosure agreement. So, I told the individuals who contacted me the truth about what had happened, and because the uni - versity hid behind the NDA, he was able to suc cess- fully sue me for defamation in Trinidad.

That's a whole other story but it was a very clear way of showing the harm and the impact that NDAs have. I want to make it clear to you that, you know, having left the University of Windsor in disgust, when I realized what they were doing and working on this campaign now with my partner, Zelda Perkins, I have seen hundreds of NDAs. I'm a law professor, I'm a researcher and it is my natural approach to this to col- lect the empirical data. And I have seen hundreds of NDAs and I have talked and corresponded with hun- dreds of individuals who have been subject to NDAs.

They have three im portant characteristics that I hope everybody on the committee understands. One is that they are mutual. In other words, instead of simply being assured confidentiality for themselves, victims of harassment and abuse and other issues are told that in order for their matter to be kept confidential and not told to the world, they have to promise not to tell the world about the other side; about what the organi - zation did to hide this or what the perpetrator did to them. * (19:10) And those NDAs are permanent; they are forever.

This was why NDAs were created in the first place back in the tech boom of the 1980s: they were created to protect intellectual property. Now they're being used to protect people who have committ ed miscon- duct. And you've heard already from some of the people who've testified about the extent to which NDAs gag victims from speaking. It is entirely typical, I can tell you from the hundreds of examples I have, for people to be told they cannot speak to their family, their friends, their colleagues, their priest or even a therapist. So, this is a typical approach to NDAs and they are now used across all sectors.

We see them in all sectors of employment. We see them being used in cases from sexual harassment through to consumer rights. We see them being used in cases very frequently. And I was very, very encouraged to hear Marcel bravely tell his story, because we know that they are used very regularly to suppress complaints about racism and raci al discrimination. I have many such examples, and I am very pleased that Marcel came and spoke about his experience today.

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 31 We also see them in consumer disputes. We see them in complaints that are made at care homes about negligent treatment of residents. We see them in con- struction disputes. We see them everywhere. And many lawyers will now tell you they are a default in the settlement of any kind of civil matter, so what began very small has crept into something very, very big. And this is time to do something about it. We also know that these NDAs have a 'dispropor- tionative' impact on vulnerable people.

They are used most frequently in areas of most precarious em ploy- ment, where people feel like they have to accept what- ever money they're being offered, as you heard from some of the people tonight, in order to make a settlement, and that includes an NDA. We have data now that we have been gathering in the campaign that shows there is a dis proportionate effect on women, but also on people of colour. So, for example, our data now shows that Black women are three times as likely as white women, their counter - parts, to be asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

The other thing that they do–and this, I think, came through very strongly in some of the testimony you've already heard –is they chill the climate from making any kind of a complaint, because people in- creasingly anticipate that if they do complain, they will be asked to sign an NDA. And at the moment, in our survey, we have almost 30 per cent of people saying that rather than make a formal complaint about abuse or harassment in their workplace, they chose not to because they knew they'd be asked to sign an NDA.

So, what's happening here –and Julie Roginsky referred to this–is that all of the stepping forward, all of the disclosure that the #MeToo movement en- couraged, that the Black Lives Matter movement encouraged, where people have been told you should stand up, you should report this kind of wrongdoing, is now being conceale d again by the use of non- disclosure agreements. I entirely agree with some of your earlier speakers who pointed out there are many other things that need to be fixed about workplace complaints processes, and having worked as an em ployment mediator fo r 25 years, I am very much aware of that.

But the core problem here, as we saw with Hockey Canada, is that if somebody comes forward and makes a complaint and that complaint is made up, it's simply pushed right back under the rug again. And we're never going to make any progress in really im - proving the health and the safety of our workplaces and protecting people who are vulnerable unless we're willing to stop silencing them. We have been working, as I imagine many of you know, on trying to bring forw ard legislation in dif - ferent provinces of Canada.

The Manitoba bill, which is being brought forward by the Liberals, adopts a conditions approach, which says, only if these condi- tions are met can an NDA be enforceable. And they are exactly the conditions that I think any decent per- son would want. Somebody has to know what they're signing and to understand it. And I hear all the time, as you did tonight, that people do not fully understand. They do not always have access to in dependent legal adv ice. They often feel coerced and duressed into this when all they really want is confidentiality to protect them- selves, not to give that to the other side.

And I think that we have to recognize that this is as bad, if not worse, in unionized environm ents. We know that in unionized environments, from a recent study by the Canadian Labour Congress– Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Macfarlane. I'm –my apol - ogies. I'm obligated to interrupt you as the time has expired. An Honourable Member: Leave. Mr. Chairperson: There is request for leave that you complete, could you just indicate how long it would take for you to do so? J. Macfarlane: I would say one minute more would be all I need. Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Is there leave for another minute? [Agreed] I'm seeing nods around the table. Ms. Macfarlane, go ahead, you have another minute. J. Macfarlane: In the course of speaking with people in Manitoba, we have, of course, been talking to some of your major insti tutions about how they feel about the use of NDAs. I have been speaking with the University of Manitoba, both with the adminis tration there and with the student union.

There have actually been some very im portant steps taken at the Uni versity of Manitoba, which has historically used NDAs, to stop doing this, and there is a very clear commitment that I'm hearing that they do not want to go on using them in the future.

32 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 Similarly, I have spoken–and have permission to tell you–with the chair of the Human Rights Commis- sion in Manitoba, who is very clearly of the view that any kind of public organization looking at human rights violations should not be using NDAs. And so, there is support from the com mission, as well, for stopping doing this. And I just hope that the Legislature will follow suit a nd make this some thing that will apply to all workplaces of Manitoba. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Macfarlane, thank you for your presentation. We're going to proceed with a few questions, we have five minutes for this

section of the evening. Mr. Lamont, please go ahead. Mr. Lamont: Yes, thank you so much, Professor Macfarlane. It's much appreciated. I'm mean, I–look, I've say–I couldn't have done any of this without you, so I'll thank you for that. The one thing I will ask, can you tell –just talk a little bit about Zelda Perkins and how you ended up– and the role she played in this and the role –because she–this is a –this is more than Canada; this is inter - national. J. Macfarlane: Sorry–so, I met Zelda Perkins a year and a half ago.

Zelda was the first woman to break her NDA with Harvey Weinstein –the notorious Harvey Weinstein–and she has been working on trying to stop this happening to other people since 2017. So when we met–and obviously, this was during lockdown. We were in different countries. She's in the UK, I'm here in Canada. And we spent about six months talking and working out how we could launch a global campaign and bringing together all the people we knew who would support us.

We set up a safe space for people to submit their testimonies, which could be anonymized so they would be able to talk about what had happened to them, and we began to work with sexual violence organizations who readily came in to work with us and to co-operate.

And in the last year –it's just been one year s ince the campaign Can't Buy My Silence formally launched–Zelda is bringing forward efforts to change legislation in the UK and, actually, most particularly– because as you are probably all aware, there isn't that much functioning gov ernment in the UK in the last couple of months –most particularly, she has been working with the uni versity sector, where we now have–backed by the minister of higher education –we now have almost 80 uni versities signed up to pledge to no longer use non-disclosure agreements.

So, Zelda and I operate this campaign together, but we also work with allies like Judy [phonetic] Roginsky and others in the United States. We've also worked–we're working with people in Victoria, where there's a task force on this issue, and we r eally are seeing–oh, and originally in Ireland, which was where the very first bill that we worked on was brought forward and is now proceeding with full gov ernment support. So, I really hope that we will see the same thing in Manitoba, because this is an issue whose time has come. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other questions? Mr. Wharton: Thank you again, Ms.

Macfarlane, for sharing your story and, secondly, really giving, I'm sure, the table and the com mittee a real clear under - standing of the effects of an NDA and how they can be extremely negative in situations that you've pre - sented on this evening. And I don't usually do this, but I –certainly, I'll thank my colleague from St. Boniface for introducing you to us, because you definitely –you've definitely educated us. * (19:20) So, we appreciate your time tonight. And, again, appreciate your story. Thank you. Ms. Naylor: Hello, thank you.

I also want to give my thanks for you speaking tonight, and to give us some of the history of the organization that you started and how that came to be. I'm looking forward to learning more about the work that you've done, and I really appreciate you taking the time to speak on the committee tonight. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Macfarlane, you have a min- ute and 20 to respond, if you would like to. J. Macfarlane: I think I would like to say –I would just like to say this: you all know, obviously, that the first province in Canada to bring this to law is Prince Edward Island.

And that happene d in a remark ably

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 33 fast period, because, of course, Prince Edward Island has a very small legislature. But I think that what happened in PEI is a really good example for everywhere else in Canada. There was a lot of conversation, there was a lot of consulta- tion. And in the end, that legis lation was passed un- animously. Because Prince Edward Island, tiny as it is, wanted to stand up and say, we won't be on the side of people who want to hide harassment, who want to hide predatory sexual conduct.

And in so many ways, members of the committee, this has all kinds of legal issues, which I'd be happy to explain some other time. But it really is as simple as that. If you want to ensure that people can come for - ward and report with confi dence and feel protected and then not get told that they have to shut up and go away and be intimidated about that for the rest of their career, you need to pass this legis lation. And I really do hope that you will do so. And please reach out, if you have any other ques- tions you would like to ask me. Mr. Chairperson: Professor Macfarlane, thank you for your time.

We are very appreciative. We will now move on to Sherri Thomson. Is Sherri Thomson here? I'm told Sherri is virtual. I'll ask the tech people to bring Sherri onto the screen. And I'm told we're just going to have a quick tech break here. You know, we're going to take a quick bio break. That'll allow the tech people to do what they need to, and any of us to stretch our legs. If we can be back promptly, that'd be great. The committee recessed at 7:22 p.m. ____________ The committee resumed at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Will the committee please come to order. Committee Substitution Mr.

Chairperson: And, just before we proceed with the presentation from Sherri Thomson, I would like to inform the com mittee that under our rule 85(2), the following membership substitution has been made for this committee, effective immediately: Honourable Mr. Goertzen for Honourable Mr. Wharton. Thank you. * * * Mr. Chairperson: We now proceed with the presen- tation from Sherri Thomson. Sherri, could you just test your mic, please, before I recognize you to speak? [interjection] Great, we can hear you. Sherri, you have 10 minutes, after which there'll be five minutes of questions. Sherri, you have the floor.

Please go ahead. Sherri Thomson (Private Citizen): I would like to begin by acknowledging that I'm speaking to you from the treaty lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, known as the hamlet of Glen Williams in Ontario. I'd like to thank the honourable members for their time on this bill, and a special thank you to those lis - tening or watching online. Your attention and actions matter right now. Tell your friends to pay attention, too. The world is ready for great things, and I feel this act will help lead the way. When I heard the sponsoring member, Mr.

Lamont, use the term justice before family, based on his personal experience, I knew there was hope. I was 14 years old when I ran away the first time. That makes it 43 years that my abusers have been attached to me through the law. For this reason, I am honoured to give testimony today in full support of Bill 225, The Non-Disclosure Agreements Act. My name is Sherri Thomson, and I am being sued by my childhood abusers for telling. I hope to be hu- man evidence to prove the damage a gag order causes is to everyone but the abuser.

I'm a first -generation Canadian woman with white skin and mostly controlla ble curls. There is no doubt these two simple traits made the difference for me in this pinball machine we call Canada's legal system. People need to understand the difference that my genetic traits made. They are why I got to make choices instead of only having options. If you don't know the difference, you're fortunate. My childhood was difficult, but somehow I learn- ed that I mattered; that I had a human, civil and legal right. I didn't know what right I had, but I had rights. I still believe it. That is why I am here today.

My story is of a middle child born in the L ower 'manland'–Mainland of British Columbia to an 18-year-old runaway from Ontario in the 1960s. From what I hear, it was a pretty happening place to be at that time. My earliest memories are all positive and

34 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 safe and fun, although they do not include my parents very often. I remember so much com munity, love and fun and laughter, games and fishing, cooking an open fire; so many fabulous skills. My formative years were spent on the shores of British Columbia, and I am the strong, independent person I am because of it. It was 1971; I was six years old. My parents an- nounced they were splitting and I was shipped to Ontario, with my mother to follow, and siblings.

We lived with my maternal grandparents for about a year while my mother worked couple of jobs to eventually acquire subsidized apartments. While your statistics and survey gatherers can al- ready sense where this is headed, in '71-73, I remem- ber being super happy living with my grandparents. Lots of music with my aunts and uncles, board games, eating healthy food, local school, making new friends. I even started going to church voluntarily. I liked all the singing and glass windows. I'm not even Catholic; I just loved going. My mother was working nights and I barely saw her. But I did hear she had a boyfriend.

Turns out he was 11 years her junior. He had a fabulous car that looked really cool and was in the apprentice stage of a career plumbing. This 18 -year-old boy seeme d rather keen to be caring for three children that my mother handed to him. He quickly became primary caregiver; making meals, setting rules, bedtime routines, et cetera. My mother abdicated her role as a parent of three children to an 18 year old she barely knew. He turned out to be an abusive alcoholic, a drug- smoking fool, a condescending, misogynistic pig and a child molester to top it all off.

We moved from sub- sidized apartments to a new house because of him, so that was all he had to do to earn his spot in our house. Then, in '79 or '80, life as a typical teen: trying to get out of our single -working-parent-with-a-boy- friend's house. I call it typical because it is. My mother married this guy who we all pretended to be fabulous family unit. I babysat my brother, we had keys around our neck to get in after school. The story of a million others. Then I watched a movie called Something About Amelia, and that changed my life.

It was very bold show for its time, and I thank Ted Danson and Glenn Close for being strong enough to play such breakout characters for us abused kids. * (19:40) I was finally aware of what happened; it had a name. It was incest. Now I can deal with it. I immediately disclosed it to my aunt, and she had my stepfather removed from the house the next morn- ing. He was gone for about two weeks. During this time I felt safe and thought life was going to be great from thereon in. Then my mom would start reminding me that we could not afford to stay in the house we just moved into if he did not come back.

We would have to move back to the apartment, but it would be okay. At the two-week mark, I was taken to a kangaroo court at my grandparents, where my stepfather had been staying for the last two weeks. He cried his apology and stated it would never happen again. I was taken to the basement where my mother came down shortly after and she wanted to know if it was okay if he came back. I thought about it for a minute and I said it would be fine. I would be gone shortly anyway, and he would be there for the rest of her life.

We agreed for locks on my bedroom and bathroom door, and he was not al - lowed to touch me sexually. Needless to say, the abuse turns more physical instead of sexual and he would mock me. I started to run away, and he would find me and punch me out or kick me up the stairs of our house. I couldn't see my mom–I could see my mom reading her book, eating licorice, doing nothing. What I did not realize is this is how he started the narrative of selfish, uncaring, promiscuous, problem child for all my relatives and friends wondering what has happening to me. I had enough at home but kept going to school.

I loved school. I knew it was my ticket to better things. One day, my grandfather was trying to find me so I told my student councillor of my abuse and that I was going to be returned to my home. He told me to return to class and he'll let me know what to do. As I was leaving his office, I heard the page for my sister to come down to the office and I knew my sister would say I was lying and tell on me at home. I was in big trouble now. I knew my days at school were finished, so I left in the middle of grade 10 with honour level marks.

I was lucky enough to be able to enter–rent a room and work in a doughnut shop to make ends meet until,

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 35 within six months, I found a job in a dental office that led to a successful 30-year career in dentistry. I meet the man of my dreams in 1984 and the next 38 years are the perfect tale of a solid family unit – well-adjusted children, not a lot of money, but enough to have an annual vacation and takeout on Saturdays. I was managing, but when I was 25 years old the trig- gers began. I continued to play the game of 'subservent' family member now that the rebel child had returned.

I agr eed in order so that I could attend family events and keep peace with over 50 people. My daughter was now the age that my abuse had begun. How was I going to keep her safe? We still played pretend with my family, so change would require me to tell the abus e to my husband's family to stop the charade. Everyone in my family knew about the abuse. They just all believed that it was over and I would be fine. Soon after this, I told my in-laws, and they imme- diately stated that I was never to take their grand - children to that house again. And so it ended for me. All the show and lies were over, for now.

It's now the early '90s, and I gathered the strength to sue for the funds to pay for therapy. I eventually won $30,000, and my abusers were ordered to attend a therapy session for me to say whatever I wished. My grandfather, sister and aunt wrote to the judge that they would not attend. This is a monumental time for me, and it's all over again. For now. I returned to my suburban bubble to raise my beautiful ch ildren and my fabulous man I chose to share my life with. And that's it. I was finally free of them all. For now.

After 30 years of no contact, in October of 2016 a social media post alerted me that one of my child - hood abusers had reinvented herself. She was running for municipal office in an affluent coastal community in British Columbia. The silence aimed through the gag order placed on me permitted them to attain posi- tions of trust in a community thousands of miles from the truth. I panicked about having the secret and felt personally responsible to notify someone. She could not be making decisions for public matters. This wo - man sacrificed her daughter for her abusive husband and personal career gains.

There were two weeks until the election, so I had very little time. I packed up the documents that I knew would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my claims were true and sent it. The chief electoral officer said there were no grounds to remove her name from the ballot, even with the documents in hand. She went on to win the election. Within weeks, she was forced to announce her resignation based on an online petition by thousands of people that supported my decision to warn the com- munity.

Within a week of sending my documents as proof, I was served with a lawsuit from my claiming– lawsuit from my abusers claiming defamation and breach of an NDA. I just about fell over. How was this possible? I'm being sued for telling. I arranged a lawyer in BC to file my defence and that's the last I heard until recently. The media atten - tion was a lot in 2017, and I knew that my position was strong enough to stand on its merits.

I was afraid that the focus would be lost to my childhood abuse instead of the role the legal system now played through the NDA process in my situation, so I stepped back and let the social justice campaigns that were coming out of the woodwork to do their stuff. I knew at this point there was no path for me, only a fight, because the only thing they want is my silence, and the only thing I'm not giving up is my voice. As for damages, I do expect those eventually. It will be restitution and it will be ordered by a judge. I have yet to see a judge at any stage of this 47 -year journey.

My case has been inten tionally kept on the sidelines. No one wants NDAs to see the light of day, but it is my hope today is a very bright light shining on it. Finally, last October 2021st, I was contacted by a– Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Thomson. An Honourable Member: Leave. Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been–leave is granted. S. Thomson: Last–I–sorry, I just have a [inaudible]. Finally, I–last October, I was contacted by a super - human named Susan MacRae. She asked me about my case and if I had settled it. This began a relationship with a global campai gn to end the misuse of non - disclosure agreements in assault.

Thank you so much to the honourable Lamont for bringing this bill forward and for reminding us all that democracy requires justice before family. Thank you. Sherri Thomson. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Thomson, thank you for your presentation this evening. We are very grateful.

36 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 We do want to give opportunity for questions. Mr. Lamont, please go ahead. Mr. Lamont: Yes, thank you so much, Ms. Thomson. It's very–it takes enormous courage for you to do what you've done, and I really appreciate it. The one thing–can I just ask when about–when did– when were you required to sign an NDA? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Thomson. S. Thomson: Oh, yes, sorry. When I accepted the $33,000 for therapy in 1995. Ms. Naylor: Thank you so much for sharing your story.

It's another incred ible story of courage and resilience in the face of some very traumatic experiences. I just, for further clari fication on the NDA, how old were you when you signed the NDA? And did you– you indicated you didn't have any recollection, or you were surprised. Is it some thing that wasn't thoroughly explained to you? Was it some- thing that–it just–in the trauma of it all, was forgotten or that –you know, just in the interest of time, was forgotten? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Thomson. S. Thomson: Yes, I apologize. It was my only option. There was no justice in the '90s.

There still is no justice. I had the choice of going for the money–I mean, I was 25 years old, three children, we had a mortgage up to the eyeballs. I needed this $30,000 to cover the therapy or we were going to sink as a family. So, we originally asked for 60 or some thing ridiculous. We were nickelled and dimed back to $30,000 paid t wo–every two weeks in post -dated cheques. It was a joke, but–anyway. So, at that point, I had to sign that NDA, but the judge left a lot of latitude for me in that judgment. Mr. Chairperson: Minister Goertzen. And, as a reminder, you have 30 seconds to ask the question. Hon.

Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I'll be quick. Thank you, Mrs. Thomson, for your comments and presentation here today. I want to thank the other presenters who I wasn't able to hear prior to arriving. I'll certainly read the Hansard. This was an im portant part to have this sort of testimony come before this committee today. As dif- ficult as it is, it's very im portant, as deliberations are made on this matter. So, I also do want to quickly say thank you to the Victim Services folks who are here tonight, as well, from my department. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Ms.

Thomson, any closing remarks or response to any of the questions? S. Thomson: Just, I guess, to say that I'm speaking for so many people when I say that this is not going away. I'm bound by a gag order, but I break it every day as I walk down the street. Let them come for me. So, this is really a growing movement that must be dealt with because there is no pass. A path must be created. It's going to clog up really soon. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Thomson, we thank you–are there any further questions, I should ask. * (19:50) Seeing none, Ms.

Thomson, we thank you for your presentation and for taking the time to be with us this evening. S. Thomson: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: We will now move to Lisa Mizan. Is Lisa here? Lisa Mizan? It does not appear that Lisa is with us at the mom- ent. We'll put her name to the bottom of the list and move to Jan Wong. Is Jan Wong here? I'm told that Ms. Wong is online. I'll ask the tech people–Jan, please could you turn on your video and unmute your microphone. Jan, could you just test your mic for us, please. Jan Wong (Private Citizen): Yes. I think I've unmuted it. Mr. Chairperson: Yes, we can hear you.

Jan, you have 10 minutes, after which there will be five minutes for questions. The floor is yours. Please go ahead. J. Wong: Good evening. My name is Jan Wong. I'm a journalist, a retired journalism professor and an author of six non -fiction bestsellers, including one about the impact of an NDA.

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 37 I live in Toronto, so why am I speaking to a com- mittee of the Manitoba Legislature? Well, because NDAs affect all of us. And, in my case, NDAs have harmed me both professionally and personally. As a journalist, I've worked for five newspapers, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Globe and Mail. My work took me around the world and across Canada, including to Manitoba. I was also the Globe's China correspondent during the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. NDAs affect public discourse–freedom of the press and freedom of information.

In short, they affect the health of our democracy, and I have a Manitoba ex - ample for you. I wrote a column at the Globe and Mail which people really liked, called Lunch With. I had a lot of fun with it, and my first lunch date was Peter Nygård. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that he was the Manitoba businessman who manufactured women's clothing. But why would I start the lunch column with Peter Nygård? W ell, because I'd heard about three sexual harassment complaints about Nygård, filed one year earlier in 1996 at the Manitoba Human Rights Commis- sion.

When I asked Nygård during our lunch about the sexual harassment settlemen ts and other unpleasant topics, he terminated the interview and he threatened to sue me. My nervous editors made me re -interview my sources and extract written promises from them that they would testify on the Globe's behalf if we got sued. It took me six months to satisfy the Globe's law - yers. Everyone co -operated except, of course, the three women who had filed the harassment com - plaints. That incident shrank to a very few sentences in the column, and I could only report on Nygård's version of events. Why?

Because the three women had settled. The Human Rights Commission then did not proceed with a case, and the women all signed non-disclosure agreements. That was in 1997. Nygård was then 56, and today he's 80. In the ensuing quarter century, he a ssaulted multiple women and girls in the US, Canada and the Bahamas. Canadian and US authorities have accused him of sex trafficking and racketeering. Nygård denies all these accusations. He's now in a jail cell in Toronto, where a judge recently denied him bail. He's subject to a detention order in Manitoba.

He's facing six counts of sexual assault and three of forcible con- finement in Toronto; more charges in Quebec. He faces extradition to the US once his court case finishes in Toronto. And, again, I say: he denies all these accusations. Now, imagine a world without NDAs, where the victims are not gagged. Imagine a quarter century ago if those three brave women who went to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission could have spoken freely to me. This is the damage of NDAs. It gives free rein to predators. It creates more victims and more ruined lives.

And now, in the few minutes I have left, I'd like to unpack the personal impact of an NDA on myself. In 2006, I fell sick with severe clinical depression after I reported a story and suffered death threats and racist attacks. My employer, The Globe and Mail, didn't believe I was sick despite detailed medical notes and reports from my family doctor, my psychiatrist and the psychiatrist hired by the insurer, Manulife. By the way, I have never been able to say Manulife's name in public after settling with them –after–six months after I settled with them.

They said that they would pay me the benefits that they had withheld, with the encouragement of my em- ployer, but I could never again mention their name. So, I really ap preciate the parlia mentary privilege afforded by this committee. From the very start, back in 2006, when I fell sick, The Globe and Mail wanted to get rid of me. It offered me two ye ars' salary as a settlement, but I wouldn't take it because they wanted an NDA. As a journalist, and like any human being, I wanted to speak. I had to speak. I knew I would never recover from my clinical depression if I was gagged.

I had to write about my experience with mental illness. So, after months and months of mediation and arbitration–like Shannon Hancock, the first person to speak tonight, the nurse who spoke first –I con tem- plated suicide. But then, The Globe seemed to cave. I was free to tell my story. The memorandum of agree- ment I signed gave me the explicit right to tell my story, but at the bottom of the memorandum of agree- ment, the lawyers added an NDA. Now, I was very sick and I was not allowed to have a lawyer in the room, so I didn' t really get it. I thought, well, they said I could tell my story.

So I'm going to sign it. It was a Kafkaesque document that

38 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 gave me the right to tell my story while simultaneous- ly imposing an NDA on me forever. It was also a one-sided NDA. It muzzled me, the little guy, with severe penalties if I broke it, but there were no penal ties for the big guy. The Globe could violate the deal at will. The NDA was one -sided, de- signed only to muzzle the employee. So, without any penalty for The Globe and Ma il in this document, it reneged on its promise to let me tell my story.

I had a contract with my long -time publisher, Doubleday Canada, which had previously published my first four books. The Globe and Mail intervened, inter fered and Doubleday dropped my book. It was essentially finished. It was on its way to copy-edit. It was so sudden that Doubleday still owed me two author payments. And get this: before Doubleday would send me the cheques, it wanted me to sign an NDA. But by then I was begin ning to figure things out, and I told Doubleday I would not sign an NDA, and the longer they took to send me my money, the better my epi - logue. So, they sent me the money.

Of course, that was the end of my relationship with Doubleday, which is part of Random House and Penguin. It's the biggest publishing conglomerate in Canada. And I have since published a book with a much smaller publisher in Atlantic Canada. So, there's a direct financial impact of NDAs, but there was an even bigger financial penalty to come for me. I wrote this book. I'll just hold it up. I don't consider it a prop. This is the book, Out of the Blue: A Memoir of Work place Depression, Recovery, Redemption and, Yes, Happiness. I was very careful not to disclose the fact that I had received two years' severance.

Of course, I men - tioned the fact that we had settled –it's part of the story–and I wrote that I had received, quote, a big fat cheque. Now, as a former busi ness reporter, I know I disclosed nothing about the amount. If I asked five of you on the committee, write down on a piece of paper how much the big fat cheque was, I guarantee you, all five numbers would be different. But after this book made The Globe and Mail's own bestseller list, its lawyers dragged me back into arbitration and then into court. I lost. I also made case law.

No employee in Canadian history has ever had to pay back such a large sum to a former employer who had–please note–had already fired me. How much did I have to pay? Two hundred and ten thousand dollars. The upside was I was finally free to tell the world all the details of the memorandum of agreement. But guess what? I haven't been able to write about it. * (20:00) With the help of my doctors, I recovered my clinical depression. I went on to a productive 10-year career as a journalism professor in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

For 10 years, I've tried to write about this, and at the beginning of the pandemic I retired and I had nothing to do, and I still couldn't write about this. And I tell you this to show you the immense psychological damage that an NDA causes. Even after I was free to talk, after I repaid The Globe every penny, I still didn't feel free. I had never before in my career faced writer's block, and it recently dawned on me I must be suffering some kind of PTSD. In closing, I have to say that as a former China correspondent, there is some thing eerily, creepily familiar about this feeling of suffocation.

In Beijing, I was under surveillance; every word I wrote, every - thing I said was monitored. And as I was preparing my remarks for you tonight, I realized that an NDA is like having the Chinese Communist Party controlling your speech for the rest of your life. It isn't just predators like Peter Nygård or em- ployers like The Globe and Mail or my insurer or the Manitoba nurses association or Fox News, even my small liberal arts univer sity in Atlantic Canada re - quired me to sign as a con dition of em ployment a blanket non-disclosure. I have just two more sentences. I know my time has run out.

Is that all right? Can I just finish? An Honourable Member: Leave. Mr. Chairperson: Yes, leave has been granted. Go ahead, Ms. Wong. J. Wong: Thank you. As Professor Macfarlane has noted, NDAs have invaded every sector of our life in Can ada. They are spreading like COVID. This blight on our democracy can end with your help. I urge you to pass Bill 225, and thank you for listening. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Wong, thank you for your presentation. We do sincerely appreciate it.

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 39 Time–we'll just have five minutes of questions now. No question is more than 30 seconds. Are there any questions? Mr. Lamont, please go ahead. Mr. Lamont: Yes, thank you very much, Ms. Wong. I appreciate your testimony. I do find it –like, I'm speechless in some ways about your treatment by–I mean, The Globe and Mail is Canada's paper of record. Did they ever justify, could they ever explain their behaviour or why they wanted an NDA from you? J. Wong: No, they didn't. I dealt with their lawyers, and there was management from the newsroom.

I think they said –well, I know the arbitrator mediator said, well, why would they pay you if you're just going to talk about it. And so, this is an important point I want to make to the committee. When people are fired or they are abused or they are sexually assaulted or they are harassed, the pay - ment is for the bad behaviour. As legis lators, I hope that you will not allow any more to have payment for silence. They make these two elements sort of be the same thing and it's so important that they have to pay because they treated you badly. I mean, I was clinically depressed and they fired me.

So, there is a severance that they have to pay. I mean, maybe they were tired of me but I was a star reporter, but fine, as the employer, she said modestly, no. But they have the right to fire you. They have to pay severance if there's no cause. There was no cause. But don't elide this with a gag order –a permanent, lifetime gag order. And I think it's very im portant to understand this is what we're trying to get across; that an NDA cannot be used, you know, cannot be tied up with a deal. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Naylor: I just want to thank you wholeheartedly, Ms.

Wong, for sharing your story with us tonight. And I –there's some thing very im portant that I heard from you tonight that I'm just going to ask you to kind of reiterate again –or, share your thoughts on this again . But in hearing about that story that you tried to write–the Peter Nygård story–what I realized is that if that story could have been told, there's per - haps hundreds of women that may not have been sexually assaulted or trafficked in the years since that– since you weren't able to tell that story. Sorry, do you feel that that's true? Is there more– do you want to say about that? J. Wong: Absolutely.

You put your finger on it. I felt very upset every time I saw what was happening with Peter Nygård because, you know, in the year that I wrote my lunch column about him–and I tried my best to get everything in. I tried. You know, Air Canada inflight magazine, enRoute, was saying, you know, he's one of Canada's top most eligible bachelors. That was what the media was doing before. And then after I wrote my column, I was con- tacted by several journalists in the ensuing years who said, you know, we understand that you had this stuff on Peter Nygård. Can you share it? I was very happy to share it.

But the problem was the NDAs. We couldn't get past the NDAs. And so, I'd like the com mittee to consider how many predators there are out there in your neighbour- hood, in–you know, where your children work, where your spouses work, who are not being held to account. Basically, we want to be able to hold people to account. We don' t want the rich and powerful to be able to muzzle their victims and continue as Harvey Weinstein did and as Peter Nygård has done, you know, blithely going on and doing it. I mean, Harvey Weinstein's really old now, too, and he's finally held to account, and Peter Nygård is 80.

I mean, really, we need to have a new law. Mr. Chairperson: Minister Goertzen, you'd signalled a question. Mr. Goertzen: Well, just to–again, thank you. So, I have look at the–I have to, sort of, look at the camera this–in this direction even you're behind me, so it's a little bit awkward. But thank you for the comments and joining us from Toronto. It's a great part of what I think we've set up, virtually, as we can get perspectives from those who might not otherwise be able to be here without the virtual technology.

But your perspective was unique and probably not something that I'd considered from a journalist's per - spective. So, I appreciate you sharing it here tonight. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Wong, if you wish to respond, I'll give you 30 seconds to do so.

40 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 J. Wong: Oh, that's so kind of you. I just want to thank you so much. You know, it's the first time I've ever done anything like this, really partici pated in democracy, and I have to say, I'm deeply moved by the presentations of the people that preceded me. And I'm also very impressed that the com mittee is sitting at night, you know, in–to hear us. Thank you so much for your time and your con- cern and attention. I really appreciate it. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Wong, thank you for your presentation. We sincerely appreciate it. And the night is but young.

We will now call on Pam Gordon. Pam, welcome. Is there anything printed that you wish to–no, circulate? Okay. Pam, you have the floor. You have 10 minutes, after which there'll be five minutes of questions. So, welcome, and please go ahead. Pam Gordon (Private Citizen): Good evening, standing committee. My name is Pam. I was a teacher until 2019 when I went off working, diagnosed with several health i ssues, including PTSD. This was the result of bullying by my principal, enduring isolation, having my human rights denied and my personal safety at risk.

I stand in front of you today in support of Bill 225 and agree that NDAs need to cease to exist in Manitoba, retroactive for all the people that were forced to sign them solely to protect the abuser. I began work at a new school in September 2018 and, shortly after, the job demands and tasks began to grow. The administrator and other staff were aware that I suffer from severe allergies, including airborne traces of some of the products prior to school starting.

Despite this knowledge, nuts were put on the staff room table and leftover shellfish dinners were heated in the microwaves in the classrooms and staff room, even by the principal. It is im portant to note that I'd worked safely in schools in the Winnipeg area for many years prior to the division without incident. The school had an allergy -aware policy, which stated that students are not supposed to bring in foods that have been listed as allergens to students or staff in the school. However, signage did not arrive until after my incident.

Also, in spite of knowing of my severe allergies, the principal assigned me to class - rooms used daily by students as lunchrooms. I expressed concerns for my health and safety, but these were ignored. I asked if students could eat in one of the other rooms that were empty at lunch time, but my request was denied. I completely understand that no work place can 100 per cent guarantee that no allergen -containing products would be brought in.

There was virtually no effort by the admin istration to protect me and, on November 9th, 2018, I went into anaphylactic shock at school and was taken away by ambulance. * (20:10) The administration even originally charged me a sick day for this incident. I was eventually reimbursed for the day after fighting for it. And it's im portant to know that I was actually there on a day off, it wasn't even my day to work. On N ovember 13th, 2018th, I submitted a note from my doctor confirming my reaction was caused by coming into contact with allergens in my class - room and requesting my room not be used as a lunch room.

My adminis tration denied this request, saying that she w as not taking orders from a doctor as the doctor was not her boss. On November 14th, 2018, I was told that I would have to submit a medical plan in the same format as it kept for students with allergies. My plan was to be put in the student URIS binder in a public place in the school where student records are kept. This goes against The Personal Health Infor mation Act and therefore violated No. 4 of the MTS code of personal professional practice.

I was given a deadline to have my plan in, as I was being sent on a field trip where students and staff would be eating all together from three other schools. This was terrifying to me, as I now had no control over that, whatever anyone else was eating or packed for lunch. My first medical plan by my doctor was rejected by my principal and my emergency contacts were scrutinized. It was humiliating to be treated like a child and have my personal health information avail- able to anyone who wanted to look at it. It was easily accessible to student secretaries, too.

Worst off all, I was told that I was not to be in any lunchrooms, including, at times, the staff lunchroom– where the washrooms were–over the lunch hour. I felt like a complete pariah and continued to speak–seek out places to be at noon, but usually ended up in my

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 41 car, arranging to meet with a teacher to go over intake assessments or eating alone on a kindergarten chair. On November 22nd, I was so stressed I contacted MTS and spoke with a union rep. She assured me my room change was a simple medical accommodation. The union rep coached me on what to say in a letter to the principal that was respectful. On November 28th, I had leftovers that I needed to heat up to eat in my car, so I snuck into the staff room right at the start of the lunch to try to heat them before anyone else came in.

I felt like a criminal just for being in our staff room. Some other staff started to come in, so I was feel- ing very frazzled. When my food was ready, I put it in my cart and accidentally knocked over my basket and materials and everything fell to the floor. I just broke into tears and started sobbing. My nerves were just shot. Someone told the principal, because she found me later to have a discussion. I told her I felt completely isolated and lost. The principal again said the doctor was not her boss and she was not changing rooms.

She indicated that the assistant superintendent had been in the building the previous week to discuss the matter and that there was nothing that could be done this year–maybe next year they could make adjustments, but for now, it was up to me to keep myself safe. At this point, the principal indicated to me if I didn't like it, I could go tattletale on her to the union. I then waited 'til after the staff meeting and put the letter in the principal's mailbox requesting a room change under the grounds of a medical accom moda- tion with a link to the Manitoba human rights.

The principal was furious at me for running to the union. I had the right to seek advice from MTS and should not have to fear retribution from my principal for doing so. This exchange with the principal was very disrespectful, inconsiderate and damaging to my dignity. The principal requested that I meet with her at 9 o'clock the next day. That night, I googled how to tell if your boss is a bully, and that was an eye-opening moment for me. I found a 2015

article by Ronald E. Riggio, which outlined eight scenarios that your boss was a bully. All eight scenarios applied to the way the principal was treating me. It was at that moment I knew my health was suffering at the cost of my job. On November 30th, I met the principal again and she requested–and it was–she–sorry, requested it was awful. I have never felt so bullied in my life. She loudly expressed indignation that I put my request in writing and denied saying that she refused to move the lunchroom, in spite of that being witnessed by another teacher.

She said that she would now move me into another teacher's room. The principal then went on to indicate that she would be placing me on a form of supervision and ex- pected to meet with me every two weeks at 9 o'clock. I believe that the principal's not acting with integrity in the comments she made to me in this meet ing. I believe she was angry with me for trying to assert my rights and was now using her position of author ity to punish and make me feel horrible. In addition to my personal suffering, I carry the burden of the principal's inappropriate treatment of and behaviour towards my former colleagues.

The principal directed me to spy on a colleague during guided reading. The principal indicated that her former spies were not successful in staying in the room, so she instructed me to stay in the room at all costs. Knowing that this teacher and I had formed a friendship, the principal felt that she would not push me out of the room. However, this put me in a very awkward position, as we were indeed friends at the time. The principal indicated that this teacher had in the past not used this guide d reading time wisely, and furthermore felt she was the weakest teacher in the building.

To use her authority over me to engage me to act in this way violated my personal integrity. It would have been more appropriate for the principal to do her duty as the administrator, to put in place the supports she felt this teacher needed to improve. Our comments and conversations by my principal that were unprofessional weighted on me heavily. I was told–told–what is said in these four walls stays in these four walls, do I make myself clear?

I was also watched and told not to have any more parking lot conversations, when in reality I was merely talking with a colleague about our private lives in the parking lot. This has had a profound effect on me profession- ally, emotionally, socially and financially. People became scared to associate with me, knowing that the principal was upset with me, and I became very iso - lated socially. That was my last day at this school, and I had to go on a medical leave due t o anxiety caused

42 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 2, 2022 by her treatment of me. I was diagnosed with PTSD shortly after. This continued when I was transferred to a new school in this division four months later, as they were forced to take me. They even introduced me as a help- er, not a teacher, on some occasions, which was quite demeaning after working so hard to get my teaching degree.

Although the second principal did make an effort to address my allergies when I started by suggesting a place for me to eat –once at the new school, I was offered to eat with a student with allergies at lunch time–but I still felt isolated by this. So, I ate in my car every day, partly because I was on steroids from another anaphylaxis I'd suffered at this new school, which made me so tired I could not function without a nap at lunch. I felt like a pariah again. This principal did note eating my car was not okay, though.

The room I was in still had allergens in it and, as I was expected to travel from room to room, often ran into nuts and lots of shellfish. The outside of this school did not have signage, my home base did not get signage, and I was con- stantly yelled at the lunch bell to go, go, go. The stress was awful. At one interview for the following year, the principal ended up asking me about why I moved from my first school to the second school in one year. She continued to further question me about my allergies, and aggressively asking me about my URIS plan.

My medical information is illegal to ask me, unless you are planning on offering me a contract. It is against my human rights. She later indicated that she would not be able to accommodate me in their building, as they eat their lunches in their classrooms. I eventually went on leave due to fear of another anaphylaxis shock, isolation and stress. I filed a grie- vance for the violation of my human rights, and the union suggested that I file a code complaint against the principal for the bullying and abuse that I endured.

For those that don't know, the teachers and the principals are in the same union, so when trying to settle this matter I was forced to drop the code com - plaint and end the human rights grievance by accept - ing a small settlement. I then had to sign an NDA to ensure that I never exposed the principal or division. I ended up with PTSD, and the principal is still working. I was also forced to sign this NDA under duress. I had no inde pendent counsel protect my rights. I wondered how many educators like myself have been forced to sign NDAs. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Gordon, I'm sorry to interrupt.

I'm obligated by the rules– An Honourable Member: Leave. Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been granted. Ms. Gordon, please continue. P. Gordon: Being told we could talk freely today was both freeing and frightening. Since agreeing to speak tonight, I have had my vivid nightmares return and have had daily migraines. Those of us living with PTSD understand how just talking about or reliving those events can be a trigger. That is why tonight I can only share some of my events and feelings I had.

The NDA has isolated me as a victim, and I will avoid social gatherings and I cannot explain to–what I went through in that division because of the NDA. Thus, ties were cut with all teachers and friends in that division. I suffer sleep issues. The quiet, dark nights are the worst for me as I relive those dreadful events. I hear and see every thing as if I were back in that exact moment in time. Being silenced by the NDA and not being able to share what I am ex periencing is like being trapped in a bottle without air.

For me and all those silenced under NDAs, please support Bill 225 and end NDAs in Manitoba retro- active, and allow the victims to begin their healing journey and allow more people to speak freely about what is happening in our schools. Because we all have the right to work, right to air we can breathe, the right to feel respected and right not to feel isolated, and the right to earn a pension, the right to support our fam - ilies, the right to stand up to injustice in the workplace and the right to enjoy our human rights. Are children with allergies safe in our schools?

How many educators suffer anxiety, panic attacks or, worse yet, PTSD? * (20:20) I leave you with this one thing: a student asked me, what would have happened to my sibling i f they had been at school today in your lunchroom? They knew that we shared the same allergy. And I only replaced the one word, I replaced sibling, because I didn't want to identify the family.

November 2, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 43 Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Gordon, thank you for your presentation. We will proceed with five minutes of questions. No question is longer than 30 seconds but the answers, you can take your time up to that five minutes. Mr. Lamont: I just want to thank you. I want to thank you so much for showing the courage you've ha d today to speak up and let you know that we support you. Thank you so much.

You shouldn't have gone through this, and I cer - tainly hope that now that you've spoken, told your story, that you'll be able to connect with some of those people you're isolated from and get the support you need, and we'll be here to provide it, too. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Gordon if you wish to respond you may, you don't have to. P. Gordon: I think, for me, the one thing that was a real eye-opener was looking at the things when it said eight ways to tell if your boss is a bully, and looking at that sheet and seeing on there that all eight things were there.

She was such a bully and it wasn't just to me, and it had been a repeated pattern, and the targets were women and women who needed the money. So, for those of you who don't know me, I support my family. My husband is sick, so they knew that I needed the money. Ms. Naylor: Thank you very much, Ms. Gordon, for sharing your story tonight. I know, like the speakers before you, it's taken a lot of courage and I–you're one of the several speakers tonight that's really illuminated, you know, how much NDAs are being used in some of our most cherished public institutions.

It's not just the big, bad corporate kind of image that many of us carry. So, thank you for that. And I just–I really want to encourage you to care for yourself today. I know that –you know, I can tell that a lot of those feelings are really fresh and present for you right now and that's a big cost to you to be here tonight, so please do get the support you need when you go tonight. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Gordon if you wish to respond you may, there's no obligation. P. Gordon: I th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	42-4-la4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	42nd 4th hansardpdf la4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7ccf83bc64dde51664bf66314af05448a6421a3f

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