Manitoba Committee Hansard — Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 7 (43rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

43-2-sed7

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session – Forty-Third Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Carla Compton Constituency of Tuxedo Vol. LXXIX No. 7 - 6 p.m., Thursday, October 16, 2025 ISSN 1708-6698

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

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

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

WHARTON, Jeff Red River North PC WIEBE, Matt, Hon. Concordia NDP WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC

183 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Thursday, October 16, 2025 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – MLA Carla Compton (Tuxedo) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mrs. Rachelle Schott (Kildonan-River East) ATTENDANCE – 6 — QUORUM – 4 Members of the committee present: Hon. Min. Moyes, Hon. Min. Smith MLAs Bereza, Compton, Mrs. Schott, Mr.

Wharton APPEARING: Carrie Hiebert, MLA for Morden-Winkler PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Christine Ronceray, private citizen Walter Daudrich, private citizen Jill Wilson, private citizen Abram Janzen, private citizen Karin Streu, private citizen Christine Kirouac, private citizen Alexander Major, private citizen Joseph Fourre, private citizen Patrick Allard, private citizen Rena Kisfalvi on behalf of Amy Robinson, private citizens Margaret Bryans, private citizen Levi Foy, Sunshine House Kate Sjoberg, Resource Assistance for Youth Lorie English, West Central Women's Resource Centre Nick Kasper, United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg Mitch Bourbonniere, private citizen Catherine Flynn, private citizen Michael Dyck, Manitoba Bar Association James Simm, private citizen Darrell Warren, William Whyte Neighbourhood Association Pamela Warren, private citizen Sel Burrows, private citizen Cynthia Drebot, North End Women's Centre Karen Sharma, Manitoba Human Rights Commission WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Tanya Bashura, private citizen Katherine Bitney, private citizen Tammy Aime, private citizen Howard Warren, private citizen Hannah Cormie, private citizen Trista Mieszczakowski, private citizen Tanya Jackman, private citizen William Dentry, private citizen Shara Werestiuk, private citizen Scott Gillingham, City of Winnipeg Jitender Sareen, Shared Health Monica Ballantyne, private citizen Nina Vrsnik, private citizen Gene Bowers, Winnipeg Police Service Chris Scott, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1505 Noah Schulz, Manitoba Health Coalition Scot Halley, Manitoba Association of Chiefs of Police Alain Beaudry, private citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 48–The Pro tective Detention and Care of Intoxicated Persons Act * * * Clerk Assistant (Ms.

Katerina Tefft): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order. Before the committee can proceed with the busi- ness before it, it must elect a Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Mike Moyes (Minister of Environment and Climate Change): I'd like to nominate MLA Compton. Clerk Assistant: MLA Compton has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, MLA Compton, will you please take the Chair. The Chairperson: Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations?

MLA Moyes: I'd like to nominate Mrs. Schott.

184 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 The Chairperson: Mrs. Schott has been nominated for Vice-Chairperson. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mrs. Schott is elected Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 48, The Protective Detention and Care of Intoxicated Persons Act. 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 unanimous consent of the committee. I would also like to inform all members of the public in the gallery of the rules of decorum for stand- ing com mittees. Please note that any partici pation from the gallery is not allowed. Examples of specific actions that are not allowed include clapping, cheering or disrupting the presentations, taking video–or, taking photos or videos in this com mittee room is also not allowed.

Finally, the use of props, signs or shirts with slogans is also not allowed. I thank everyone in advance for their co-operation.

Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee mem- bers: So on Bill 48, Tanya Bashura, private citizen; Katherine Bitney, private citizen; Tammy Aime, private citizen; Howard Warren, private citizen; Hannah Cormie, private citizen; Trista–oh, I'm going to apologize if I mispronounce this name –Mieszczakowski, private citizen; Tanya Jackman, private citizen; William Dentor [phonetic], private citizen; Shara Worschuk [phonetic], private citizen; Scott Gillingham, City of Winnipeg; Jitender Sareen, Shared Health; Monica Ballantyne, private citizen.

I would just like to remind the public gallery, please be silent. Thank you. Nina Vrsnik, private citizen; Gene Bowers, Winnipeg Police Service; Chris Scott, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1505; Noah Schultz, Manitoba Health Coalition; Scot Halley, Manitoba Association of Chiefs of Police. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Public presentation guidelines: prior to proceed - ing with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in a committee.

In accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for pre - sentations with another five minutes allowed for questions from com mittee members. Questions shall not exceed 45 seconds in length with no time limit for answers. Questions may be addressed to the –to presenters in the following rotation: first, the minister sponsoring the bill or another member of their caucus; second, a member of the official opposition; and third, an independent member. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters list. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off.

Order of the presentations: on the topic of deter - mining the order of public pre sentations, I will also note that we have in-person, out-of-town presenters in attendance, and they are marked with an asterisk on the list. With these considerations in mind, then, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? Mrs. Rachelle Schott (Kildonan-River East): Out-of- town first. In-person first. The Chairperson: So the com mittee agrees to hear out-of-town, in-person presenters first? [Agreed] Thank you for your patience, and we will now proceed with public presentations.

Bill 48–The Protective Detention and Care of Intoxicated Persons Act The Chairperson: I will now call on –oh, sorry. Got my right list here. Christine Ronceray. So Christine Ronceray, please proceed with your presentation. Christine Ronceray (Private Citizen): Good evening, members of the committee. I cannot support Bill 48. There is no question that Manitoba needs better tools to respond to the crisis of drug and alcohol addiction. Our com munities are being devastated by meth, fentanyl and other sub- stances that cause psychosis, violence and tragedy.

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 185 The current law, written decades ago for alcohol intoxication, is no longer enough. * (18:10) But if this government is 'connitted' to–committed to evidence-based decision making, then please show the evidence that keeping intoxicated individuals involuntarily or without consent, against their will, potentially, for an extra two days, at taxpaye rs' expense, improves–that this would even improve out- comes for those individuals or their communities. So, yes, updating the laws makes sense, but changing the law without a plan is not progress –it's recklessness.

Bill 48 gives sweeping powers to detain individuals for up to 72 hours –three full days–in protective-care centres that have not yet been defined, staffed or funded. Where, exactly, will these facilities be located? Who will operate them? Hospitals? Health author - ities? Or private contractors? And what happens in rural and northern Manitoba, where the nearest hos - pital is already struggling to keep its doors open? Even the best intentioned legis lation fails when it collides with reality on the ground.

And that brings me to a deeper concern: Why does this govern ment keep passing laws that sound compassionate but come up with no budget, no work- force plan and no clear oversight? Because whether the number–the money comes from provincial or local coffers, it's–ultimately comes from Manitobans, the same taxpayers already facing higher costs, fewer ser- vices and growing frustration. Time and time again, new programs are launched with great fanfare, only for details and dollars to land on the shoulders of municipalities and local service providers.

And somehow, the lion's share of these resources still flow back to Winnipeg while rural and northern communities are left to make do with less. Compassion isn't about slogans; it's about priorities. And here's the practical reality: How will this govern- ment find the professional staff to operate these centres when our health-care system is already stretched to breaking point? In rural Manitoba, families wait weeks, sometimes months, sometimes half a year, if not more, to see a doctor or a mental health-care professional. Emergency rooms are closing or running on skeleton crews.

If we can't provide timely care for people who want help, how will we suddenly provide round-the-clock medical supervision for people being held under this bill? With 72-hour detentions, the potential for withdrawal and detox complications increases, and that requires specialized care with–that we simply don't have. So where will these pro fessionals come from? Will they be pulled from existing hospitals and treat - ment centres, leaving other services even thinner? Because if that's the plan, that's not a solution; that's a shell game.

And we don't need more promises; we need more workforce plans, and just legal framework doesn't cut it. I also find this a bit ironic, maybe even darkly humorous, that another bill headed to the same com - mittee is Bill 226, Debbie's law. That bill acknowledges that our health-care system is so back- logged that patients are not receiving life-saving care within medically recommended time frames, and it requires authorities to notify them if that happens. Think about that for a moment.

On one hand, we're debating a bill that would give govern ment power to detain people for up to 72 hours in protective-care centres that don't even exist yet, while on the other hand, we're passing another bill that admits that we can't deliver basic timely medication or medical care to those already waiting for treatment. If the system cannot meet its obligations to those seeking help voluntarily, how can we possibly handle an influx of people being detained involuntarily under Bill 48? These two bills overlap in the most troubling way. They both expose the health -care system stretched beyond its limits.

And now we also have Bill 224, a budget accountability act. The bill focuses on trans - parency and fiscal responsibility, which are important goals. But if we look at Bill 224, 226 and 48 together, there's a pattern that comes clear. This gov ernment needs legislative accountability, capacity and compassion. It's not just good on paper. Yet this also shows that they're not practising those things. We've seen this story before. Other provinces have tried similar approaches, and the results were disastrous.

Take Lethbridge, Alberta: they opened protective-holding facilities with good intentions, but without adequate follow -up, treatment or proper staffing, those centres quickly became overwhelmed. Police grew frustrated, health-care workers burned out and the facilities became revolving doors, holding people temporarily–against their will–then releasing

186 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 them back into the same con ditions, the same addic - tions, the same danger. In Alberta, with greater resources and a stronger health-care system, they couldn't make it work. How does Manitoba expect to succeed when our own system is already under strain? We don't need to copy failure; we need solutions that heal people and not just hold them. Another major gap in Bill 48 is oversight.

Expanding that detention period to 72 hours means that–sorry–expanding that detention period to 72 hours means allowing three times longer confinement than what's legally permitted for the criminal suspects, even though the detained person, under Bill 48, has not committed a crime. There is no esta blished evidence that extending involuntary detention for intoxication improves outcomes, and its risks–it risks Charter challenges for arbitrary detention or unlawful confinement. Who ensures that detentions are justified, that rights are respected and that people are released safely?

And if an individual becomes difficult to manage, what protections are there that won't be–that they won't be medicated or restrained without prope r consent? Why not? We've already scratched the Charter. There's no mention of inde pendent review, data reporting or a complaint process. Without oversight, we risk creating a system that can be abused, one where people are detained because it's convenient, not because it's necessary. True care should not contradict the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Manitobans are desperate for real action on addic- tion, crime and com munity safety.

But real action means building capacity first, not writing laws that we don't have the resources to carry out. If this govern - ment is serious about addressing addictions and com- munity safety, we need more properly sta ffed treat- ment beds, detox services and transitional housing. We need mobile crisis units and–[interjection] The Chairperson: Pardon me. Sorry, Mrs. Ronceray. I would like to remind the public gallery there is no participation to happen. That means what just hap- pened does not happen again. This is your warning. If this continues to happen, we will need to remove folks, okay? Thank you. Mrs.

Ronceray, please continue your presentation. C. Ronceray: We need mobile crisis units and sober- ing centres that connect people to care, not just hold them in there unwillingly until their clock runs out. We need col laboration between police, health care and com munity organizations, not another layer of confusion and government spending. Most of all, we need to restore hope because no law can replace the human will to recover when real support exists.

I'll end with this: I only wish the same compassion and loyalty this government shows when defending its own ministers could be matched by its commitment to everyday Manitobans, especially those waiting for care, for treatment and simply for hope; because the true measure of leadership isn't how strongly we defend each other in this building, it's how faithfully we serve those outside of it. Thank you for your time and for your service to Manitoba. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. * (18:20) Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter?

MLA Jeff Bereza (Portage la Prairie): Thank you so much for your presentation, Ms. Ronceray. We really appreciate it. [interjection] The Chairperson: I'm sorry, Mrs. Ronceray. I haven't recognized you. I recog nized MLA Bereza so I'll let you finish your question. That was done? Okay. Mrs. Ronceray. C. Ronceray: Sorry about that. Yes, thank you for having me here tonight. I just don't understand how this govern ment can expect to move 72 hours into place when we're paying for 24 hours as it is.

That's 300 per cent more already, let alone the detox implications that will happen after medical situations occur after holding people for 72 hours when they're addicted. It's like this hasn't been thought through. If we're having the itch to spend, there are other ways. In fact, we could even make things easier. We could get rid of porn 'beck' books out of libraries. We could–and schools. We could maybe not do the whole catch and release. That would save some money as well. Like, there is better ways–sorry, there are better ways. Mr. Jeff Wharton (Red River North): Mrs.

Ronceray, thank you so much for coming tonight. This is one advantage we have in Manitoba is in our democracy

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 187 as we want Manitobans to come, and we expect them to come and put on the record concerns that you're hearing from your constituents, your people, your folks, on the grassroots of where you live, and thank you for taking the time and travel today to come. We agree with a lot of what you said. We agree that some thing needs to be done. However, there needs to be no–more transparency with respect to how this is going to roll out to protect not only the individual in question, but families and people around them too, as well.

So again, on behalf of our caucus, thank you for coming. The Chairperson: Would you like to respond, Mrs. Ronceray? C. Ronceray: Yes, I would. Thank you very much for that kind words. I find that this government is very good at spending and not good at making any money. I wish that there was some evidence that whatever you're going to throw down actually has s ome outcomes. There's very little evidence; in fact, Alberta is some great evidence. Let's start using some common sense. Hon. Bernadette Smith (Minister of Housing, Addictions and Homelessness ): I want to thank Mrs.

Ronceray for coming and presenting, and I want to thank all of those doctors who have contributed to where we are at today and the evidence that they have brought forward that brings us to the work that we are doing and all of the folks that have lived ex perience that have, you know, contributed to where we are at. This bill expands the 24 hours, the 72 hours to respond to what we're seeing today in terms of, outside of alcohol, the substances that we are seeing, terms of safety in com munities that Manito bans have asked for.

People are at risk to themselves; they're at risk to others, and this is to provide supports and get people– The Chairperson: Excuse me, the member's time for question is over. Mrs. Ronceray, would you like to respond? C. Ronceray: Yes, for sure.

Just because there's a few doctors that say one thing, and evidence would show otherwise–Lethbridge is a perfect example; the US cannot extend because of their constitu tion, does not allow for overholding 24 hours–so I don't know where you're going to be finding this evidence that there – we're going to have enough doctors when we don't have enough doctors out in the country to take care of the people who want to go to the hospitals, who want help. It seems like Winnipeg wins again, and yet, is it a win?

If people are going to lead this into a safe injection site because I don't know how you're going to be able to detox somebody properly without it being–without consent, medicated people. Like, I don't know. Maybe people can show some logics in behind it. I'd love to see some evidence because there's definitely nothing so far. Thank you. The Chairperson: So just checking. No further questions? Okay. Thank you for your presentation. I will now call on Mr. Walter Daudrich. And Walter Daudrich –or, Mr. Walter Daudrich, please proceed with your presentation. Walter Daudrich (Private Citizen): All right.

Thank you very much. First, I'd like to thank the First Minister for the honourable mention in the Legislature this morning – or, this afternoon. A private citizen doing his duty of trying to inform our government. I also want to thank my good friend, Obby Khan, for supporting me in this as well, and I appreciate that very much. This is with regards to Bill 48. And I'm here for moms and dads. I'm here for my children–five of them. I'm here because gov ernment only grows and never shrinks in power. I'm here for the drug- and alcohol-addicted person.

I'm here for those people who have their bodily autonomy violated every day by this government, by virtue of the lost freedom due to the crime wave hitting every part of this province. Today, with this bill, this govern ment wishes to increase the power of gov ernment yet one more time. There are significant amounts of laws already on the books which would put anybody in jail for wrongdoing, including drug- and alcohol -induced violence, vagrancy, illegal passage on private prop- erty or public property.

There is also the Manitoba health act, which already contains mechanisms to help those with mental illness and drug addiction, used to be–used to force vul nerable people into rehab and safety. We have those in existence today. This legis lation, as worded, is not correct or appropriate, I believe. I'm not against the concept of helping drug- addicted people; let's make that very

188 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 clear. The problem is this government refuses to deal with the issue in a legal and just way. And that–and it is broke and has been wasting their time looking in the mirror and producing useless regulations. It is admirable to care about those who are less fortunate, and that's why I've supported organizations like Adult and Teen Challenge and organi zations around the world and more than one political party to fight against superfluous or redundant legislation.

But it seems like so many left- of-centre govern- ments that are adverse to actually upholding the law– I'll repeat that: upholding the law–they seem to refuse to hold individuals responsi ble for their actions. The recent defund-the-police movement exposed what far- left parties everywhere do when reaching government and the levers of power, and that is they wish to control or manipulate behaviour rather than uphold existing laws already on the books which protect people.

As I mentioned in one of my campaign speeches last year, running as a candidate for the PC Party, that I was very proud of the leaders in my hometown of Churchill where there is no homelessness, as we see here in Winnipeg. My commentary, after commending our political leaders in Churchill, was made fun of when I said– I jokingly said–releasing polar bears on the grounds of the Legislature to deal with corrupt politicians that do not do their job. And it is still as relevant today as I said it last year when the mainstream media purposely distorted my words.

Let's face it: this gov ernment has ignored the plight of drug- addicted souls living on the streets of Manitoba, where First Nations are calling out for help, trying to get drugs off the street, when this gov ern- ment is allowing crime and drug dealers f ree run to run rampant, ruining the lives of families and ruining the lives of individuals. We are all broken people to some extent, to some degree. When a gov ernment lacks moral author ity, being a do-gooder rather than upholding the law is an easy way out. But the purpose here is not to help people but for a good photo op.

This government, like so many, refused to enforce the laws that are on the books now: public vagrancy, disturbing the peace, trespassing, public drunkenness, drunk and disorderly and the list goes on. These are all laws on the books. In principle, they already exist. * (18:30) This government likes to give the impression that they are doing something when they're doing nothing. Adding another law on the books is not taking care and showing compassion for those taken over by drug addiction. What it might do is put the First Minister's smiling face on tomorrow's edition of the Winnipeg Free Press.

I can say not all the government members in the Legislature is about lawlessness on the govern- ment side; there are two or three caucus members – solidarity aside –like Mr. Adrien Sala, Hon ourable Adrien Sala–who I don't believe holds an anti -police position. But I do believe there are several on the front bench, including the First Minister, who believe that manipulating public opinion is the goal and it's a replacement for good governance. If somebody wants to drink or use illegal drugs, then so be it, as long as they are not breaking the laws of our land.

When they do break those laws, they should be held accountable and pay a sorry price, a price that will cause them to think twice before they commit crimes again. For instance, if I was to attack a cab driver–a taxicab driver–late at night because I was drunk and acting with impunity, I would expect the law to come down on me so hard that I would never do it again. For instance, if I was t o beat my wife, whom I love, or common law, I would expect the law to come down on me so hard that I would never do it again, and we've done that suc cessfully in this country, in this province.

We maintain freedom in this country because that's how we maintain fairness. Freedom and fairness go together: you lose freedom, you lose fairness. I'm so glad that we have a God that sheds His grace on sinners like me –and I'm not claiming to be perfect here either –common grace, like rain, like sunshine, like good food, like a sound mind. We all do wrong from time to time; we have laws that punish wrongdoers.

Why doesn't this govern ment budget for helping drug abuse through our legal system and our health- care system and grow the economy at the same time rather than trying to shut down small family busi- nesses, so that we have citizens in this province who can help those who've made bad decisions such as drug addiction? I, for one, support several organi - zations each year that work to get people off the streets and to keep young people away from drugs and alcohol. Let's not create just one more law so we can have another smiling face on tomorrow's paper. What kind of province are we trying to build?

Is the First Minister

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 189 more concerned managing his reputation or about doing the hard stuff like enforcing existing laws –and I'm going to say three times: enforce existing laws, and enforce existing laws and do it in fairness. Drug injection sites–bad idea. Trying to manipu- late behaviour which is what typical left-wing govern- ments do –bad idea. Enforcing the law that we've historically had–and that's common law, added to it legislative law–that's appropriate.

I think it would be wise to lift up people, like the late Char lie Kirk who gave his life reaching out to people he disagreed with rather than have caucus members celebrate murder and vilify those that they disagree with. Don't be a victim, be a victor. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the –oh, and before I move on, I just want to do a reminder to all folks in this space. When referring to MLAs, we only refer to them with their last name, not their first name. So just a– Floor Comment: My apologies for that. The Chairperson: –yes.

So do any members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Mike Moyes (Minister of Environment and Climate Change): Just want to thank you, Mr. Daudrich, for bringing your opinions to the Legislature today. The Chairperson: And, Mr. Daudrich, would you like to reply? W. Daudrich: Yes, I would just say thank you to everybody on both sides for your service to this province. I believe that you're doing the Lord's work, and Godspeed. Thank you. The Chairperson: Honourable Minister Schmidt–or, sorry, Smith. Ms. Smith: Thank you, honourable Chair.

And I'd just like to thank you for coming today, and say: may God bless you and open your heart and, you know, may you have forgiveness and open your heart to those who are–need support. This bill is about, you know, supporting, expand- ing those supports and provi ding those resources for those folks who need it. So thank you again for coming today. [interjection] The Chairperson: So just a reminder, Mr. Diedrich [phonetic], I need to acknowledge you before you speak just so our audio folk register it properly. MLA Bereza: Thank you so much, Mr. Daudrich, for your presentation tonight.

We appreciate you coming from a long ways to be here tonight, and we appreciate your words. Thank you. The Chairperson: Would you like to offer a reply to that, Mr. Daudrich? W. Daudrich: Yes, I have come from a long ways, and my flight isn't until Monday, so I've got a few extra days here to enjoy life in the balmy south. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. I have a leave request for the com mittee. Amy Robinson, who is presenter No. 7 on the list, is unable to attend tonight. Rena–and I–apologies if I'm mispronouncing, but Kisfalvi, who is No. 24 on the presenters' list has a copy of Ms.

Robinson's presentation and has asked for the committee's permission to read it on her behalf. Is there leave? [Agreed] I will now call on Ms. Jill Wilson. Is she present? So Ms. Wilson–[interjection] Yes, yes, we'll–we can call the next person, and we can come back to you if you just needed a few moments, okay? Floor Comment: Can we have water? Can we have water at the podium? The Chairperson: Yes, and perhaps we can maybe also get some water lined up for presenters as well. We'll get on it. Apologies. I need to get the committee to agree. Are we okay with coming back to Ms. Jill Wilson after the next presenter?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed. The Chairperson: Committee agrees. Mr. Wharton: To this point, could I put forward, not necessarily a motion but just a request that perhaps we could have the document that was going to be presented by Ms. Robinson tabled for the com mittee to go through at a later time.

190 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 The Chairperson: Okay, so as we already –as the committee has already granted leave for that presen - tation to be written, is the –or to be read aloud, is the committee agreeable to change that for it to be submitted as a written submission? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. An Honourable Member: No. The Chairperson: Oh, I hear a no. So that request has been denied. I will now call on Mr. Mike Thiessen, or Thiessen? Is he present? Ms. Jill Wilson, I see you're back in. Are you up to presenting next? Okay. Floor Comment: Yes. I'm sorry. I kept coughing.

The Chairperson: No, that's okay. And so, Ms. Jill Wilson, please proceed with your presentation. Jill Wilson (Private Citizen): Good evening, members of the com mittee. Can you hear me with this? Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill 48. * (18:40) My name is Jill Wilson, and I'm a helper in the community. I'm also part of OPK and Drag the Red. I'm here in support of some other helpers, families, parents and the young people that we walk alongside.

I want to acknowledge that these issues we're discussing today impact vul nerable people, families, emergency workers and com munities across Manitoba. I speak today with respect to that complexity, but also with urgency. Under the current law, protec- tive detention is limited to 24 hours, even when individuals remain dangerously intoxicated or in a drug-induced psychosis. This creates a public safety risk, not only to individuals but also to first respon- ders, hospital staff and the broader community.

We've heard countless stories, especially related to methamphetamine use, where individuals are released prematurely, still disoriented and at risk of harming themselves and others. Bill 48 doesn't criminalize addiction. It does not impose forced treatment. What it does is create time and space, up to 72 hours, to allow intoxicated persons to safely stabilize under medical supervision, to be obsess–to be assessed by trained professionals and to be connected to services that can help, including detox, mental health care and housing support.

Too often, families describe a loved one cycling in and out of ERs and holding cells without meaningful intervention. This bill gives us a chance to break that cycle and intervene when people are most vulnerable, not after it's too late. Police officers, paramedics–and paramedics aren't addictions specialists. Hospitals are overwhelmed. Designated protec tive-care centres would relieve some of that pressure by offering a safe and appro - priate setting. I understand concerns around individual rights and due process. Those concerns are valid and must be part of imple mentation.

And–but I would em pha- size medical assessments are built into the process at 24, 48 and 72 hours. Individuals may be released earlier if there's–no longer impaired or a responsi ble adult is available. Please–the bill emphasizes care and connection, not punishment. This legislation is not a silver bullet. It is not the end of the conversation, but is–it is a necessary tool in the broader public health and safety response. It reflects what front -line workers are asking for. It respects human dignity while recognizing the real risks that prolonged intoxication presents.

And most importantly, it offers people a better chance of sur - vival, recovery and stability. Bill 48 reflects compassion paired with action. It is not about warehousing people; it's about inter - vening when it matters most. Let's give families, first respon ders and vul ner- able Manitobans the tools and time they need to turn crisis into care. The Chairperson: So thank you for your pre senta- tion. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Ms. Smith: I want to thank you, Ms. Wilson, for coming and the work that you do.

I know that you work with a lot of vul nerable youth and you're doing a lot of front -line work and you understand the challenges because you're–you live them every day and you're worki ng on the front -line crisis with–you know, whether it's adults or youth, and I want to thank you for coming and presenting today. And it will be staffed by medical pro fessionals. Again, you know, it's up–the max is 72 hours, so if

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 191 someone is deemed not a risk or –to themselves or others, they will be released on their own recognizance– The Chairperson: Excuse me, Minister. Your time has expired. Would you like to respond, Ms. Wilson? J. Wilson: No, I'm okay. Thank you. Sorry for the coughing. MLA Bereza: Ms. Wilson, thank you so much for coming, and please take your time if you need water or anything like that. Floor Comment: I apologize, and thanks. MLA Bereza: No. My question is the government has set an opening day of only a few weeks away.

Do you believe the rollout is being 'rished' – rushed, and what are the risks if this is being rushed? [interjection] The Chairperson: Just a moment. I– Floor Comment: I'm so sorry. The Chairperson: No, that's okay. I know it can feel a little awkward. But I still need to re-recognize you. So Ms. Jill Wilson. J. Wilson: I trust that there's a plan in place, that it wouldn't be rushed. And if there was risks, then I would definitely think that Minister Smith would have a plan for those things that might possibly come up.

Risks that might come up are already in place, so I think that it would still be beneficial to the relatives and to the people that are struggling with it. Mrs. Carrie Hiebert (Morden-Winkler): First of all, thank you for being here. Thank you for working with youth, and thank you for what you do for our loved ones that need the support. This is such an im - portant bill, so we want to make sure that it gets done properly and– because we care about everybody that's–this will affect.

One of my questions for you would be: If you would want, like, extra supports for someone who's been in –you know, been incar cerated for the 72 hours–detained–what kind of supports would you hope that are in place so that when they leave after that 72 hours, what kind of supports would you suggest should be there ready to go? [interjection] The Chairperson: Sorry, just–it's all good. I ap pre- ciate you're ready to answer a question. But, again, Ms. Jill Wilson. You can respond now. J.

Wilson: When I think about your question, I worked at YASU for quite some time, and some of the young people that came in there during that time, they didn't even want to be there at that moment, and they had all kinds of things that were going on for them. And they really struggled, and there was no plan, but after a couple days of –with getting them stabilized to a point where they wanted to go to detox, they wanted to go to treatment, there was a plan for housing; there was a plan for after care; there was a plan for support and therapy. Those were all things that were able to happen in that short little time.

And so, when I think about this plan and this bill, that's the first thing that comes to my mind is what I experienced in that short little time of when they came in and when they left, and it was a completely different person most of the time –being stabilized enough to be able to make those decisions and accepting help–that support and help. Ms. Smith: Thanks, Ms. Wilson. And that's exactly the vision behind this protec tion care centre is to provide those supports and those pathways for folks to get the support, build those relationships and ensure that, you know, folks have the supports that they need.

Right now we're seeing people without any supports. Under the former government, there was no plan. In 2019, there was an illicit task force that was asking the former government for this type of protec- tive care centre, and they didn't act. We're acting. We're listening to Manitobans. And we want to ensure that they're getting the support– The Chairperson: The time for questions has expired. So, thank you very much for your presentation. I will now call on Mr. Clark Marcino. Is there a Mr. Clark Marcino present? Okay. I will now call on Mr. Abraham [phonetic] Janzen. So, Mr.

Abraham [phonetic] Janzen, please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Abram Janzen (Private Citizen): Good evening, and thank you so much, and I appre ciate everyone's time and effort in being here. First, I want to say, I second the first and second person's presentation. They did an amazing job, and I just wanted to thank them for that.

192 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 Also, I don't envy any of your positions here today. You have a great task in front of you. There is a crisis going on outside these walls, and we're kidding ourselves if it's not an absolute crisis. I myself was victim to someone on drugs, and this bill would not have prevented that. Still struggling with it all this time later. I had to take my mother to an ER hospital, and to actually reach care took seemingly forever, all hours of the night. Eight hours later, finally being able to see someone.

The health-care system is broken. * (18:50) What are we doing about it? I don't see of any more use of–or any other information that I can add, that can be of better use than what's already been said. The Chairperson: Is that your presentation, sir? Floor Comment: Yes. The Chairperson: Okay. And I want to apologize, I think I missaid your first name. I think I said Abraham [phonetic]; it's Abram, so I apologize for missaying your name. So thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wharton: Just a comment, if I may, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much for taking the time to come out, Mr. Janzen, and sharing what I could see, and I believe the com mittee would also agree, is a very tough moment for you to describe what happened during a very challenging time for you, and it sounds like your mother. I guess, just on behalf of the committee, thank you for taking the time, thank you for coming out tonight and you can bet full well that everybody in this Legislature is doing the best we can to ensure that your mother and everybody will get the health care that they need and they deserve. Thank you.

The Chairperson: Just a friendly reminder that, in this committee, we refer to the Chair as honourable Chair. But–Mr. Janzen, would you like to respond? A. Janzen: Thank you. MLA Bereza: Mr. Janzen, thank you very much for coming out tonight. I can tell this is a very difficult situation for you. Do you feel, as a private citizen, that you have been informed properly on Bill 48? The Chairperson: Pardon me. Mr. Janzen, would you like to respond? A. Janzen: No, I have not. MLA Moyes: Mr. Janzen, I just want to thank you for sharing your perspectives and I'm sorry that you had a negative interaction with someone.

And do know that our government is working diligently to reduce those interactions, which is, I think, what this bill is a ll about. So thank you very much for your opinions and your perspective. The Chairperson: Would you like to respond, Mr. Janzen? A. Janzen: Thank you. Ms. Smith: I want to thank you, Mr. Janzen, for coming out and sharing and–something so vulnerable and, you know, close to your heart and I'm sorry that happened to your mom and you're still going through that. Just know, as Mr.

Wharton said, that we are working as hard as we can in this building to improve services and com munity safety for all Manitobans. That's one tool that we're trying to do with this bill, is expand services so that folks can get the supports and help that they need. Currently, under this legislation, it's only alcohol, and I'll continue my answer in the next –I'm going to get cut off right away. The Chairperson: Mr. Janzen, would you like to reply? A. Janzen: Thank you. Ms.

Smith: Yes, this bill expands beyond alcohol so that when people are under the influence of anything other than alcohol, so if they are a risk to them selves or others, that they can be detained and taken somewhere where they can get the help and support that they need, and hopefully on to a path of recovery. And, you know, we're expanding. We just announced 800 new treatment spaces, and we're going to be announcing another 400.

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 193 We're going to continue to work towards getting more people the help and supports that they need. We put 36 new police officers into the system since we took office, and we're going to continue to work on making our community safer. The Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Janzen, would you like to respond? A. Janzen: I don't have a response to that. Ms.

Smith: I just also wanted to respond about the medical side of things, because often what happens with our policing services, they have to take people to either the emergency room or they're tied up with folks at the emergency room for like 10, 12, 14, 16 hours, and they're not able to be on the streets doing their job. So this bill is meant to help and support them so that it alleviates the pressure on the health -care system, but also on the policing side of things. So policing wrote in support right across the province, but also here in our city, as well as health-care profes- sionals as well.

The Chairperson: Would you like to respond to that, Mr. Janzen? A. Janzen: I have no response. The Chairperson: The time for questions has expired, so thank you very much, Mr. Janzen. And just a reminder to all the members that the purpose of the Q & A portion–five minutes after the presentation–is to ask questions of the presenter, as opposed to explaining the bill. So I will now call on Karin Streu. So Karin Streu, please proceed with your presen- tation. Karin Streu (Private Citizen): Good evening. I'd like to begin by asking you–show of hands–how many of you currently live in or plan to move to Point Douglas?

I'm a long-term resident of North Point Douglas and a direct neighbour of the River Point Centre on Magnus Avenue. When the Manitoba govern ment converted the former Sharon Home into a substance treatment facility in 2009 -2010, residents' concerns and worries were assuaged by govern ment represen- tatives stating that would provide strong security and act as a good neighbour. I can still recall one particular government official saying: if the re are any security concerns or issues that will arise out of this, they will be dealt with in short order. Fifteen years later, those assurances have not been kept.

Pritchard Point Park, located directly behind the facility, has become a centre of chronic disorder. Residents regularly witness public intoxi - cation, drug use, vandalism, theft, graffiti, bizarre behaviour, loud disturbances and ongoing homeless encampments. Despite repeated incidences, there have been no visible or effective on-site security presence, ever. We have witnessed, on multiple occasions, intoxicated individuals free of the worry of being hassled by any security, digging up and stealing the copper wire that services the very stadium lighting that was installed to ostensibly provide that security.

The government now proposes to expand River Point Centre by adding an addictions drunk tank to detain highly intoxicated individuals from across the province for up to 72 hours. While I support efforts to address the addictions crisis, I strongly oppose locating this facility anywhere in Point Douglas. Who will be running these sites? What are the criteria for release? Right back into the same toxic- drug-and-crime-soaked environment that perpetuates this human misery? What are the safety and security plans?

What are the government's plans to ensure that you are not adding yet more chaos, crime and dysfunction to a neighbourhood that has been stressed beyond what any other area would reasonably accept? And just like the proposed safe-consumption site, you provide little to no meaningful public consu ltations, safety plans or information of any kind–fool me once. As I've learned, the River Point Centre is already saturated with folks seeking and receiving addiction treatments. Any new clients wishing to receive help are told that they must go on a waiting list.

Where then are the people the state wishes to in carcerate for 72-hour periods of time meant to go? Will there have to be additional construction and renovations to facilitate this? What is the government doing?

Our neighbourhood already carries a dis propor- tionate share of Winnipeg's social burdens: we lack essential services such as grocery stores, laundromats, cafes–and yet we host multiple treatment and detox centres, drinking esta blishments, pawn shops a nd scrap-metal businesses that sustain a local criminal economy, way more than average for what our meagre neighbourhood population should warrant. * (19:00) As a result of this gov ernment's obsession with transforming Point Douglas into East Hastings,

194 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 property values and safety have steadily declined throughout the years. Adding yet more high- risk facilities without a credible, enforceable security plan will further erode community safety and stability. The government continually maintains that these services and agencies should be placed where the need is greatest. The fact of the matter is it is the gov ern- ment itself that creates these disproportionate areas of greatest need by continually bombarding marginalized, vulnerable neighbourhoods like ours with all these services.

If police are respon sible for transporting individuals to these types of facilities, they could be located anywhere inside or outside Winnipeg. But just like the supervised consump tion site plans, it's Point Douglas that is eternally at the top of the list. As I speak to you this evening, we are awaiting the impending construction of yet another drug treatment facility some 400 short metres from the River Point Centre on the riverbank, at the site of the old Molson brewery.

We have informed– we have been informed at an open house that the building will serve as an addiction treatment facility for rural Manitoba residents only. What will be the criteria for voluntary treatment, for instance, if an individual arrives there but does not wish to participate or wishes to quit treatment? When asked this question, the future director of the facility answered: if a client does not wis h to say –stay and retrieve–receive treatment, obviously, there's nothing we can do to prevent them from walking out the door. Out the door to where?

A short hop across Redwood Avenue to Point Douglas, the publicly overseen riverbanks, the continual criminal econo- mies that we are constantly being asked to forgive and ignore and the very easy procurement of the same poisons that were sent to our neighbourhood to be treated for. Can you not see or acknowledge the potential folly in oversaturating one region of our given city with these services? We, the taxpaying residents of Point Douglas, are not consulted or asked our thoughts about any of this, only that they are going to happen. Point Douglas residents do not oppose treatment or compassion.

However, we also oppose the dis - proportionate neglect and inequity shown to our neighbourhood via the constant oversaturation of drug-related services, at the same time losing feet-on-the-ground police patrols to the interests and safety of downtown and other city areas. It is unjust to continually place facilities that other communities would reject in a neighbourhood already under immense strain.

I urge the govern ment to reconsider these locations and to meaningfully consult with residents about fair, city -wide appr oaches to treatment and public safety before any 'imple mation' or further decisions are made. If you wish to be looked upon as fair and an equitable govern ment, one that holds justice, objectivity, honesty, good faith and integrity in high esteem, you might wish to start by actually consulting with and creating the condi tions for meaningful dia - logue with the very constituents you are elected to serve and maintain their best interests before ramming them down our throats.

Well, have I convinced any of you to consider moving you and your families to beautiful Point Douglas? We are definitely a community on the rise. Thank you. The Chairperson: So thank you for your pre senta- tion. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Ms. Smith: Thank you, Ms. Kirouac. I want to thank you for coming and presenting–[interjection] Oh, Ms. Streu–sorry. I want to thank you for coming and presenting.

I wanted to just ask if you knew that we were also investing in Anne Oake centre, as well, and if you're aware that we had announced that we were investing in this sobering centre at N'Dinawemak, which is 190 Disraeli. In July of 2024, it was announced. The Chairperson: Ms.–or Karin Streu, please respond. K. Streu: No, I wasn't aware. I'm concerned that they're again within the Point Douglas neighbourhood and not being spread around the city. We're already overburdened with these facilities. MLA Bereza: Ms. Streu, thank you so much for your presentation. I have spent some time in Point Douglas.

I helped with your community cleanup; it was very enlighten- ing. And it's a beautiful community. Your questions you asked tonight are the same questions that I asked during the bill briefing with the minister. Where are they going to be located? Who's going to staff them? Is there going to be more RCMP

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 195 officers in western–or in rural Manitoba? And, again, I didn't get any answers for those either. So the minister has said that the system will be ready to open soon. From what you've heard–and, again, if you could talk about has there been any consultation in the last couple of– The Chairperson: Sorry, the member's time for questions is expired. Karin Streu, would you like to respond to what has been–? K. Streu: So you're asking if the time frame was enough or it kind of–no, but the time frame is not the– what I'm asking is to not have it in Point Douglas.

That's what I'm here to represent. I've–that's it. Mr. Wharton: Thank you very much, Ms. Streu, for your presentation this evening. I–as you are very aware, I'm sure, Gimli has the Aurora Recovery Centre. Of course, the Bruce Oake Recovery Centre, which we were quite involved in, in our government, is very suc cessful. And, of course, the Anne Oake too, as well, will be opening up at the Victoria. Obviously, great centres. Unfor tunately, more are needed. I guess my question to you is: After 72 hours, regardless of where this proposed site goes, what do you envision after 72 hours?

Do you envision these folks going to a place like Bruce Oake or the soon-to-be– The Chairperson: The member's time for asking a question has expired. Karin Streu, would you like to respond? K. Streu: So your–I think your question was –is that what I envision these –after the 72 hours for them to go into treatment? I don't know because each person is individual. I would hope, of course, that that would be some- thing that they would choose; however, there aren't enough beds right now.

So, regardless, the 72 hours, that's–I looked it up, and I'm –the psychological–and I think someone else would probably talk about this– it's not enough time, and I don't know that you can make those decisions. But maybe you can. I don't know. I don't know. I just –there's not enough treat - ment; that's the bottom line. And not in Point Douglas, please. Mrs. Rachelle Schott (Kildonan-River East): Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy

schedule to be here. I can tell that you're very passionate about your community and you care deeply about your com munity. Our govern ment is trying to represent all Manitobans, and, you know, of course, folks would have hesitations about some thing that's new; change is hard for everyone. I want to know if you attended any of the multiple com munity consul- tations that the minister took

part in, in Point Douglas. The Chairperson: Karin Streu, proceed. K. Streu: Okay. So you're–the community consulta- tions for the supervised consumption site? The Chairperson: I'm sorry. The time for questions and answers has expired. An Honourable Member: Is there leave? The Chairperson: Oh, is there leave for Karin Streu to complete her answer? [Agreed] [interjection] Sorry, Karin. I just have to re-recognize you. K. Streu: Was it for the supervised consumption sites that you were addressing? If I attended? The Chairperson: I'll allow you to clarify, Mrs. Schott. Mrs. Schott: Just in general.

And all of the multiple attempts for our govern ment to consult with neighbours in Point Douglas, I'm just wondering if you attended any of those. [interjection] The Chairperson: Karin Streu. K. Streu: Sorry. After we pushed for that, yes. It wasn't initially. There wasn't a com munity consul tation. It was just contacting the residents' com mittee and just asking two people to talk for the entire community, which we felt was unfair. And so we held our own com munity meeting, and it was only after that that we got some other meetings. But it –we had to push for this.

It wasn't volunteered. * (19:10) The Chairperson: Thank you. So we have received an additional Bill 48 written submission from Alain Beaudry, which has been distributed to members of the –to members on the MLA portal. Does the com mittee agree to include this submission in Hansard? [Agreed]

196 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 I will now call on Ms. Christine Kirouac –or Kirouac. Apologies if I'm mispronouncing, and you can correct me. So Ms. Christine– Floor Comment: Kirouac. The Chairperson: Kirouac, please proceed with your presentation. Christine Kirouac (Private Citizen): I'd like to address something that's been churning in my gut as I've watched the disease of addiction and all its far - reaching con sequences become a politicized and polarizing narrative. Over the last six years, I've lived, worked and connected with pe ople and the river of North Point Douglas.

I've been privileged to interact and be witness to the darkest places people can go and be fully present in moments of human excellence. But the story I want to tell here is this: I had a friend with a troubled life and mind, but she taught me an invaluable lesson that I hope will sink in to you today. This friend is an addict and alcoholic that struggled back and forth with sobriety her entire adult life. She broke down a day in the life of for me in a way I will never forget. I'm standing in a doorway, she says, of the detox here in North Point Douglas, clean, with a government cheque in my hand.

I head to the nearest hotel to cash it because there's no banks in my neighbourhood. The ATM is in the local hotel bar, but I have no choice. So now I have a little money and I'm hungry, so I walk to the McDonald's on Regent or Main. There are no grocery stores to buy healthy food in my neighbourhood, so I do that a few days in a row until my money runs out. I have no choice, but I'm trying. I walk around my neighbourhood, and there's so- and-so at so -and-so's house. Hungry? –he calls out. I know him, but I don't answer. I know, but I'm trying. You know what will take the edge off that hunger.

It's not a question. I'm aware. I walk until I'm tired, and there are other friends hanging out in Michaëlle Jean Park at a picnic table beside the playground. I sit with them and look at all my vices spread out on the table. My friends are drunk and high and loud, and I tell myself I w ant to forget too. I don't want to feel hungry. So I use and spend the next weeks getting reacquainted with the familiar that I know is bad but feels normal.

I have no moments of clarity for a long time, and it happens almost by accident that I'm back in detox and then standing in the doorway after a few days with my government cheque in my hand. It's like I'm being set up to fail despite I'm trying. I'm going to begin with a caveat that should be obvious but I know from exper ience has become political ammunition. To help people survive is necessary. To give a hand without judgment is necessary. And myself and others in Point Douglas have been and a re an integral part of the –of harm reduction ourselves. But I'm going to speak in broad–in some broad strokes here.

I'm challenging the overall enabling approach adopted by this govern ment because it makes common sense. We have 78 separate harm reduction organi - zations in the North End and downtown combined, and yet homelessness, untreated mental health and addiction have increased beyond COVID as a reason. If harm reduction as a strategy is the only way to go, why has this been the result? So I started to connect dots that have become impossible to ignore. I started to follow the money.

I've held my hand at the small of the back of a 10-year-old wanting to jump off the Disraeli bridge and die; I've run into a house of screaming people and kids to find a child having their first seizure and her family scared to death; I've listened to mothers tell me the loss of their child from an overdose is punishment for having done bad things in their past; I've heard young fathers tell me they want to go be with their dead relatives from –lost from addiction, listened to people living in inhumane condi tions outside, convinced they are living their best lives.

None of these became social media posts and videos, because that's my daily life. I've experienced the delusion that has become a mantra of those at the top. And some constituents they serve, I now recognize, have bought it hook, line and sinker. This is what common sense tells me: the govern- ment–the Canadian gov ernment saw Indigenous people of Turtle Island as obstructions to be eliminated, but besides their best–but despite their best efforts, Indigenous, Métis and Inuit people remain–many broken, but here. So the govern ment said: let's veil this strategy of enabling as compassion.

But why has that help continuously come in the form of limited spurts that temporarily soothe and require little else from an addict or the organization? I'm going to call a spade a spade here. It appears that this harm reduction approach flat out tells people: you don't deserve anything more, and nothing is

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 197 expected of you, so you don't need to expect it of yourself. It's as though a system originally set up to lift people has morphed into a disguise for keeping people in their place. And people have been brainwashed to believe a kit with a tent, a sandwich, a plastic bottle of water and a clean needle with a rubber band wrapped around it in a bow is just what they need. This says bluntly: we're allowing you just enough to stay alive today so you can continue to try and kill yourself tomorrow. This is a harsh statement, I know, but might it be true?

The harm reduction approach our NDP keeps bragging about has become a state of limbo that benefits the few near the top, as salaries of politicians and organizations are a matter of public record. There's a lot of money being made here on the fragile backs of vul nerable popula tions, and that greed is being dressed up as temporary help that assists people–but only up to a designated point, seemingly by design.

The Province refuses to consider plans outside the compressed and stressed geography of the core, that would take people temporarily away from lifestyles and influences that keep them entrenched in addiction so true healing could actually occur, self -awareness that could emerge supported and undistracted over time.

Minister Smith loves to say you have to meet people where they are, but when someone manages in a haze of dysfunction and brain fog to pursue help just to be told there's no bed or long-term program for you, could you come back later, you have to admit the intention appears to be to leave people exactly where you meant them to. I've heard the rationale that you have to put harm reduction facilities in the core because that's where overdoses are occurring.

This is a simplistic view that refuses to address not only the residents, stress on EMTs, workers and busi nesses in the core, but the depth of a history, the current manifestations of self-loathing and how the government is perpetuating yet another colonialist system to keep people down by teaching them to exchange personal responsi bility– absolutely necessary for healing–fo r external anger and blame that is growing.

This seems controlling by design, and to be indoctrinating many to invest in learned helplessness instead of them selves, stand in line on cheque day like cattle for feed to get whatever they can and no more–and to be happy with it. We see in Point Douglas that help is often spent on drugs and alcohol, often at the expense of children, without accountability or oversight.

This learned helplessness breeds victimhood; this present system designed by gov ernments with a guilty conscience teaches people that remaining a victim and an addict is profitable, enough to maintain the lowest standard of living people have become accustomed to. This mentality has taken hold, convincing people they don't deserve the heights that true self-worth and purpose can bring through focus, consolidated long-term treatment, edu cation, maintaining healthy connections with family and the value of work.

I s ee glimpses of self -forgiveness, getting connected back to elements, self -sufficiency, compassion for others, accountability for decisions, honesty, humility. * (19:20) But the govern ment's spending so much money on the bare minimum –a bed for a few nights, a few days of detox, a meal, a tent –people have entrenched themselves in a belief that has told them that living in a filthy encampment is good enough for them.

The distorted fights that have become about the right to stay there when the rights they should be fighting for are for safe, clean accommodations and connections to help people find their way back to the power within themselves. We need to support people on the day they are in crisis. But we also need brave, bold ideas that rupture the complacency that has taken our people and com - munity hostage.

Based on this government's decisions and actions to date, the goal appears to be forcing the collapse of a community that is considered an incon - venience, to crush the very spirit that defines us, to stoke dangerous division and to keep people distracted with arguments and accusations stating the obvious as rebuttals to valid questio ns challenging the reality people are living in. The easy and cheap response is –to this is to be outraged at this criticism, which I've heard before: you don't understand addiction. You don't care about people. Why don't you want them to have help? You must want them to die.

Make no mistake. That deliberately characterizing people– The Chairperson: Excuse me. Presenter's time has expired. [interjection] Some Honourable Members: Leave. The Chairperson: Is there leave? Some Honourable Members: No.

198 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 The Chairperson: I hear a no. So thank you for your presentation. We'll now move on to the Q & A. Floor Comment: There was not a no there, but. The Chairperson: The way the process works, there was a no, so leave is not granted. So thank you for your presentation, and we'll now move on to the Q & A time. So do members of the com mittee have questions for the presenter? Mrs. Hiebert: I would just like to say thank you so much for everything that you said, and you're very passionate and you're very– you get your words out very well. So thank you for that.

Do you want to just–could you finish the rest of it for me so I could hear it? [interjection] The Chairperson: Ms. Kirouac, would you like to respond? C. Kirouac: I would like to finish, if that's all right. Thank you. Make no mistake, the deliberately characterizing people who are asking logical questions as villains in the story is a calculated distraction from the fact that when looked at more closely as a whole, this system has a familiar colonialist smell that makes no common sense unless you are profiting financially.

It's time to stop the piecemeal approach that's clearly not working and empower people with real treatment. Since voting for this NDP govern ment this last election, all I've seen is slick snake oil salesmen trying to best, dupe and distract the public, using social media, image optics and the most vulnerable people at their lowest point to bolster political careers. Ms. Smith: Ms. Kirouac, are you aware that my own sister died of an overdose and that this is very personal for me and that this is some thing that I have made a mission? Like, this is not something that I take lightly. I consult with people.

I consult with medical experts. I consult with people with lived ex perience. This is something that is coming from com munity. This is something from the 2019 Illicit Drug Task Force that was asked of the former gov ernment, who failed to respond. These are people who need help and support. And I get where you're coming from. But people are asking for this kind of support. And where you're coming from is like– The Chairperson: The minister's time to respond has–or to ask a question has expired. Ms. Kirouac, would you–[interjection] The Chairperson: Sorry, Ms. Kirouac, I'm going to call order right now.

No one speaks when I'm speaking, please, okay. I understand people are very passionate about this issue, and I'm really thankful, this whole committee is thankful, for everyone who's here to present. But we need to make sure that we're following proper protocol, and let's channel our energy into getting the answers out in a respectful and meaningful way, okay. So, Ms. Kirouac, would you like to respond to the question? Okay, proceed. C. Kirouac: Yes, I know that story. I've heard it many, many times, and you've brought it up many, many times, your personal story.

And I find that, to use that, kind of manipulative, to be quite honest. And going back to your personal story as a way to address some of the things that I'm saying, I don't see what the–you know, a lot of people have had personal stories; a lot of people have had death; a lot of people have had trauma –many, many, many, many that are not just yourself. So I am speaking not only not to offend anybody; what I'm saying is what I have noticed by personal experience. And I've had also personal experience that I could also tote out, but I don't want to do that here because I don't think this is the forum for it.

You know, this is not about a personal attack. I'm talking about the govern ment's response to –again, like my neighbour has said, a compressing of all of these harm reduction–78 of them in the core that is just stressing the structure of our community. That's my point. But to bring up your daughter I don't think is fair. The Chairperson: Just a reminder that the Q & A period is not for the furthering of debate; it is for asking and answering of questions about Bill 48 and the presentation. MLA Bereza: Thank you, Ms. Kirouac, for your pre- sentation tonight.

One of the questions I want to ask you is: Were you consulted on anything that's going on in Point Douglas right now? Were you consulted on what a protective-care centre may look like?

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 199 C. Kirouac: Which protec tive-care centre? I mean, there's–this has been spread so thin, I'm not sure which one you're speaking of. This particular Bill 48, is that? This particular–is that what you're–? The Chairperson: MLA Bereza, you can clarify. MLA Bereza: On this Bill 48, they talk about protec- tive-care units. Have you been consulted on what a protective-care unit is? C. Kirouac: Negative. The Chairperson: The time for question and answer has expired. Thank you for your presentation. I will now call on Mr. Alexander Major. Oh, he's on the Zoom.

So it will be a virtual presentation. So, Mr. Alexander Major, please proceed with your presentation. Alexander Major (Private Citizen): Thank you. The govern ment of Manitoba's intro duction of Bill 48 represents an acknowledgment of the profound public health and safety crisis driven by substance abuse in our province. This legislation seeks to extend the maximum involuntary protec tive-custody period for highly intoxicated individuals from 24 to 72 hours.

This policy direction is rooted in noble intent: to provide necessary stabilization for individuals who are at risk to themselves or others while unable to make sound decisions. The extension of the detention period is supported by compelling clinical evidence. Medical profes- sionals have affirmed that the neurophysiological effects of modern illicit drugs, particularly crystal meth, often involve persistent psychotic symptoms and paranoia that routinely lasts belong–beyond the existing 24-hour limit, typically requiring 48 to 72 hours for stabilization.

Furthermore, law enforce ment officials endorse the initiative, predicting that longer detention periods could significantly reduce the volume of high- resource check -the-wellbeing calls that currently strain police capabilities. The necessity of providing a safe place for destabilized persons is thus clearly justified by clinical need and public -safety require - ments.

While the com passionate intent and clinical rationale behind the 72- hour period are sound, a responsible assessment demands that new legis lation such as Bill 48 be effective, fiscally prudent and procedurally accountable to the communities it serves. The current plan, characterized by rushed imple men- tation timeline and the centralized location at Disraeli, raises serious concerns that the admin istrative expediency is being prioritized over long-term clinical efficacy and community stability.

The data suggests that proven clinical require - ments for longer stabilization is being exploited to justify a pre-determined, fiscally-convenient adminis- trative decision rather than driving the development of a strategically optimized patient-centric continuum of care. The selection of a government-owned previous– this is shown through the selection of a gov ernment- owned, previously contentious site.

And it minimizes the capital costs but sacrifices com prehensive planning and robust com munity ve tting, ultimately compromising the quality and sus tainability of the protective care offered. * (19:30) The decision to set the maximum involuntarily protective-custody period at 72 hours is logical because it mirrors the esta blished legal standards for involuntary civil confinement when an individual poses a risk due to acute symptoms such as psychosis. Bill 48 mandates a procedural safeguard.

If an individual remains intoxicated after 24 hours of detention, they must undergo an assessment by a health-care professional. This formal medical check is vital for due process and ensures continued clinical oversight during the extended detention period. A critical evaluation of the policy must look beyond the imme diate stabilization to long -term results.

Research studying the effect of short -term coercion for substance abuse –substance use disorder treatment suggests that forced treatment, whether formal or informal, does not conclusively guarantee superior long-term outcomes compared to voluntary treatment or no treatment at all. Substance use rates over extended periods were reported to be stable regardless of the method of treatment entry. The profound implication for Bill 48 is that 72 hours of mandatory stabilization, while crucial for immediate public safety and de -escalation, functions merely as a temporary inter vention.

Without an explicit mandated structure for subsequent en gage- ment with support services, the facility will not serve as an effective addiction treatment centre and/or lead to extended sustained sobriety, but rather as a short - term public holding measure.

200 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 The province's assumption of a 72- hour duty of care generates a significant legal and clinical respon- sibility, particularly con cerning patients with opioid use disorder who are on maintenance medications like methadone and, you know, failure to provide imme - diate adequate clinical oversight, including medi - cation continuity, transforms the protec tive-care centre into a place of healing into a potential source of harm.

And I'd be curious to know if any sort of additional resources are going to be provided that would somewhat mirror that of a safe con sumption site. Best practices in detention settings, such as the US DEA 72 -hour emergency rule, recognizes the imperative of continuing OUD medi cations without interruption to prevent medically dangerous with- drawal, relapse, overdose or death. Withdrawal symp- toms from methadone, for instance, typically begin 24 to 48 hours and can peak severely at seven days.

The current discussions surrounding Bill 48 and the Disraeli facility is conspicuously silent on proto - cols for OUD medi cation continuity. If the facility defaults to a zero -tolerance drug policy similar to those maintained in correctional environments, it risks actively inducing medically dangerous withdrawal in patients. This failure to maintain essential clinical care during involuntary detention violates the fundamental premise of pro tective care and exposes the gov ern- ment to sig nificant litigation liability, compromising the ethical integrity in the entire legislative goal.

The selection of the Disraeli Freeway site as–is a centralized location for the 72 -hour protective care. It's arguably the most significant administrative error undermining Bill 48. The decision to utilize the location –sorry–the decision to utilize the Disraeli Freeway building was reportedly based on the fact that the property is already owned by the Manitoba govern ment. This suggests that the primary determinant for the site selection was capital cost avoidance, not clinical suitability, strategic integration with commu nity supports or neighbourhood impact assessment.

The centralization approach driven by immediate fiscal convenience creates a profound admin istrative conflict of interest. The province is attempting to resolve a complex public health crisis by using a simple real estate solution, which directly conf licts with effective rehabilitation and commu nity safety principles. The site is already contentious. Having previously been proposed as a supervised consump tion site, it places a high-volume, high-acuity 72-hour facility in such an area, concentrates social problems and heightens community risk rather than mitigating it.

The process of imple menting Bill 48 and selecting the Disraeli Freeway site has been marked by a critical failure in community governments. Local residents, parti cularly in the Point Douglas area, have expressed significant concerns about the loca - tion, fearing that their welfare is being dismissed by centralized government planning. This suggests that public consul tation is merely procedural window dressing.

This hyper-accelerated timeline indicates that the decision was finalized via admin istrative fiat before the com munity input could genuinely influence the facility's location, design, security protocols or opera- tional model. The centralization of pro tective care at Disraeli heightens com munity deterioration risk. Residents and critics fear that concentrating a high volume of recently stabilized individuals in an area known for drug consump tion and criminal activity will attract dug–drug dealers to the imme diate vicinity, creating a drug-dealer magnet designed to target released patients.

This phenomenon instantly nullifies the 72 hours of stabilization paid for by the taxpayer. Furthermore, the concentration of released, potentially vulner able or unstable individuals com - promises the safety of neighbouring vulnerable popu- lations, including children walking home from school and seniors who have been historically targeted for random acts of violence in such neighbourhoods. A centralized approach, while potentially saving the initial capital costs, invariably increases long-term public expenditure on policing, com munity security, addressing chronic neighbourhood degradation.

The proposed model is just–it just exhibits signi- ficant weakness regarding clinical staffing and operational timelines, suggesting that the facility is functionally designed as a secure holding environ- ment rather than a full-service protective-care centre. The plan outlines significant coverage by qualified personnel, but clinical coverage is not specific. This staffing approach is wholly inadequate for managing high-acuity patients undergoing severe crystal meth withdrawal, which, as we've said before, involves intense paranoia, psychotic symptoms and potential aggression.

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 201 Manitoba faces a severe structural shortage of health-care providers. Sourcing the dedicated addictions specialists, psychiatrists, registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses, LPNs required for a high- acuity 72-hour detention facility, a model unpre cedented in Manitoba on such a rapid schedule, is practically unrealistic. The staffing crisis demonstrates that the facility risks becoming an expensive lock- up-and- observe unit, prioritizing the custody component over the care component.

The Disraeli plan fundamentally fails to factor in the time necessary for critical operational steps, hiring and retaining specialized medical staff in a severe shortage context, developing robust clinical protocols and imple menting necessary com munity security infrastructure. Furthermore, staffing any new high- acuity facility in a climate of severe physician and nursing shortages necessitates drawing existing specialized resources away from other crucial services such as emergency rooms, existing 24-hour detox programs and mental health wards.

This centralization initiative, therefore, does not add net capacity to the provincial health system. It merely shifts the burden of care, potentially destabilizing other critical service areas. The most significant operational failure is the lack of a mandated com prehensive post-release strategy. While the bill allows detention for up to 72 hours for stabilization, it mandates release once the person is no longer intoxicated or is transfer red to a reasonable adult.

If stabilization is achieved after 72 hours only for the individual to be released directly onto the Disraeli Freeway, it's adjacent to areas known for high drug consump tion. The entire invest ment of prov- incial resources–staffing, security and facility costs – is immediately compromised. This scenario guaran- tees the revolving door effect. Individuals will cycle rapidly back into public intoxication, requiring repeated and costly interventions.

The only pathway out of addiction is fundamental resocialization, which the Province will not mandate while being perfectly fine with holding people in the same non-negotiable context. The current plan lacks any explicit legis lative requirement for pro fessional case management. There is no provision mandating social workers or dedicated case managers to– The Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Major. Time for the presenter has expired. Is there leave for him to– Some Honourable Members: Leave. An Honourable Member: No. The Chairperson: I hear a no. So the time for the pre- sentation has expired.

So we will move on to the Q & A time. Mr. Wharton: Thank you, Mr. Fourre, for your pre- sentation. You know, the years that–[interjection] Oh, I have Fourre here. Sorry. Mr. Major, sorry for that. And thank you for taking the time to come out. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of talent and the amount of infor mation that Manitobans are able to provide, and that's why this night and the democracy that we are fortunate to live in here in Manitoba is so helpful.

Have you– and this may be a two-part question–have you been consulted by the government, with the amount of knowledge that you presented here in the quick 10 minutes tonight? [interjection] The Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Major. I just need to acknowledge you first to respond. So, Mr. Alexander Major, please respond. A. Major: I have spoken with various MLAs and MPs, both Conservative, Liberal, NDP. But there has been no formal consultation. Everything I've looked at has been through my own research. Ms. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Major, for coming and presenting.

I was just wondering –I hear you have spoken to MLAs and did your own research. Could you just provide where you got all that data from? You were talking about it's going to bring more crime and drug dealers are going to come to this site, and it's going to cycle people through the –so you can –can you just provide where you got this data from and? * (19:40) A. Major: Yes, I'd be happy to. I do have a list of all my sources here. It's various public health information sites, and also just–here–I'll need to find it here.

So some public health data from across the country–again, as I mentioned, the US –the 72- hour holding in American facilities that would have a comparable effect. There's a laundry list here, and I'd be happy to submit it to com mittee, if they'd like to review.

202 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 Mr. Wharton: I would agree that a copy of that would be very helpful for the com mittee as we move forward through this very difficult time, obviously. And thank you for the time you've put into acquiring this information. I'm sure the minister and the government will appreciate working with you a lot closer to ensure that this does get done right for the – not only for the community, but for Manitobans. Thank you very much. The Chairperson: Mr. Alexander Major, would you like to respond? A. Major: Sure. I ap preciate that this procedure exists.

I ap preciate the com mittee taking the time to hear all of our voices, regardless of differentiating opinions, and I hope that moving forward that gain of function will be the most seriously considered element of this and that there can be some sort of bipartisan effort reached to ensure that people suffering from addictions are not used as political fodder moving forward. It's quite a devastating situation we have going on in the province. I dri ve down Logan every day to get to work, and the degree of human suffering I'm seeing, and that we all have seen, is just inexcusable.

And although I do not believe that this solution is the right way forward, I would hope that we can unite over the fact that everyone knows someone who has struggled with addiction, and everyone knows someone who also likely made their way out of it. There's lots of good stories that come out of it too, and I think we should be modelling the policy off of that as opposed to what the politics of the day are. Ms. Smith: I want to thank you again, Mr. Major, for coming and presenting. And were you aware that we have been working with medical experts such as Dr.

Jitender Sareen, who is the provincial specialty lead for Mental Health and Addictions; Dr. Erin Knight, who's the addictions medicine specialist; Dr. Robert–Rob Grierson, who is the medical director for Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service; and then also Ben Fry, who is the chief operating officer for Mental Health and Addictions. They've been helping to guide our work as well as folks with lived ex perience and, again, like lots of family members. And as you alluded to, driving down Logan Avenue, driving down Main Street and many other areas in our–you know, our province, people are suffering.

They need supports, and they need to be led– The Chairperson: The h onourable minister's time has expired for a question. Mr. Alexander Major, would you like to respond? A. Major: Yes, thank you. Every govern ment that has ever existed, especially in the modern context, consults experts and physicians and– The Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Alexander Major, the time has expired for Q & A. Is there leave from the com mittee for him to complete his response? Some Honourable Members: Leave. An Honourable Member: No. The Chairperson: I hear a no. So unfortunately, Mr. Major, thank you for your presentation.

That's all the time you have for us. Thank you. Mrs. Schott–okay. I'd like to call order to the committee, please. Point of Order The Chairperson: Mrs. Schott, on a point of order. Mrs. Schott: Yes, so it hadn't quite es calated before I requested the point of order, but I'd like the commit- tee members, particularly MLA Bereza and Mr. Wharton, to pay the same respect to the Chair and the com mittee. When –we're asking them not to interact and have outbursts. We don't need any verbalizations or gesturing, whether it's encouraging or not. And just respect this process–so.

The Chairperson: Okay, so I would like to take this moment to just be a general caution to com mittee members that we're here to have respectful discourse, and let's keep moving forward together. Okay, folks? This is a table for us to work together. Thank you. * * * The Chairperson: I will now call on Mr. Joseph Fourre. So, Mr. Joseph Fourre, please proceed with your presentation. Joseph Fourre (Private Citizen): Just want to say thank you for this opportunity. There was a day in my life that I would never, ever think that I would be standing before a com mittee in the Manitoba Legislature.

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 203 I thought addiction had left my life six years ago when I made a decision that I had had enough. And when my daughter found me homeless, addicted to heroin, living my life around a consumption site, and wanted her dad to walk her down the aisle and bringing me home, and I got off the train and said, okay, I'm done. I don't know what that looks like. But I knew I was going to be terribly sick. So we searched out detox centres, and we couldn't find one. There was no room. There was a waiting list. So I told my kids, I said, okay, we can do this at home.

But now, here's what's going to happen, and here's what you should look for. And in the event of anything like this that happens, call 911 immediately. My children didn't have to do this, but they did this. And it was 14 days of hell, excuse my language. I looked at this bill, and I thought, is it going to help? Because at the end of the day–set aside partisan politics–this is a fight to save lives. And we need to understand that.

But when I looked at this bill, and understanding my addiction with crystal meth, under- standing my experience working in treatment centres as a support worker and watching clients come in, this bill falls short. This bill falls short in that it's not enough time. And I know under the detention act that the maximum time allotted is 72 hours. But in the overview that I've set out to the com mittee members to consider looking at, and some experts that I've already spoken to, but my exper ience, crystal meth psychosis lasts five to 10 days.

You know, even after the initial drug has left your body, you're still left in that state of psychosis. There is damage that's being done to the brain, there is rewiring being done to the brain. And I –my heart goes out to the fami lies that have to deal with loved ones and that want this to work. But unfortunately, the way it's written, it won't work. I've spoke to somebody that works in detox at Main Street Project, and they've –I've asked them about this, and they said, it's –in their opinion, it's going to be a disaster because they're not equipped, not equipped to deal with crystal meth psychosis.

And we're talking about acute. If we're taking people off the street and using the detention act, then they're in acute psychosis. Is a 72- hour protec tive-care unit going to be equipped to deal with, what I hear, 20 beds in one unit? Twenty people in acute psychosis who can't sleep because the crystal meth will keep you up for days. That's my experience. I'm not a–I'm not–I've got lived exper ience; I'm not a psychiatrist. But I know what I've experienced.

So when I say I thought addiction left and that this whole drug business left when I got off that train six years ago–and I was well on my way to being a suc - cessful actor, filmmaker. And then three years ago, my son died. My son died from a fentanyl poisoning. And I found myself thrust back into this world again of drugs and addiction and trying to find solutions. I'm all about saving lives. I'm all about trying to find those solutions. This bill can be better.

This bill– as you know, you–may be a start, but how many –as we're trying to find and find the ways to fix things along the way, how many lives are we going to lose? How many lives are we going to affect until we get it right? * (19:50) I'm asking com mittee to seriously consider postponing this bill until we get it right because these lives are worth some thing. Yes, I understand the devastation that's on the street. I understand the pain of losing loved ones. I want to get this right.

You know, I –since my son died I started a foundation called the Singing Red Bear Foundation, and I deal with talking to kids about drugs. I talk about recreational drugs. I talk about recreational drugs and fentanyl poisoning because I want them to not cross that line into addiction and have to fall into that category where we as a government and a society are saying, okay, what do we have to do, trying to stop that generation? You know, coming here today I was really, really nervous because I've never done this before. I've never stood above people.

I've never said anything in regards to anything that really mattered. Somebody told me, a very special woman, my wife, said, you found your purpose. This is my purpose, is to make change and to be part of change. You know, I thought I was going to be a success- ful actor and live the movie star life and –but the Creator had a different plan for me. I don't know where these words come from when I speak, but Creator gives them to me to speak them because somebody nee ds to hear them. And we're about to make a decision here on this bill that's going to affect a lot of lives.

Now, whether that's in a good way or in a bad way, and you're going to hear people say, yes, it's going to be good, and you're also going to hear people saying, yes, it's going to be bad.

204 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 I'm not worried about the com munity; I'm not worried about where it's at; I'm worried about the individual that's going to be affected by this bill and the one that's going to be taken off the street against their will and will they be helped in the end. After that 72 hours, will that psychosis pass and will they be ready for treatment and will there be treatment ready for them? We need the infrastructure. We need the backing of communities. You know, I've heard, well, we built this treatment centre; we're building Mary –Anne Oake, Bruce Oake, Aurora House.

You know, I had to negotiate a treatment for my other son at Aurora House at $20,000 a month and negotiate for him to be there for three months because we couldn't afford that. You know, Bruce Oake, there is a lot of number of beds for the people that can afford it. Anne Oake is probably going to be the same thing. We have no – there is one place that I know of –and I worked there for three years–that takes people from jail, off the street, at no charge other than what social services will give them for room and board. We need gov ernment-funded treatment centres.

We need to make that invest ment in those lives, because here's what happens when you make invest - ment in those lives: they get better. They become employable and they pay taxes and they contribute back into the coffers of society in which helped them in the first place. I am living proof of that. I suffered with addiction for 40 years in my life. I had suffered incredible trauma, but I had to deal with it in order to be able to stand here today and address you. You know, when we're dealing with crystal meth it's a different demon.

My mother was a victim last year, beaten very badly, spent six weeks in a hospital with multiple fractures to her pelvis because this individual had a demon to feed. It was crystal met h. And we've tried another experiment called Housing First project, built a house on –apartment building on Ross and Elgin right next to a seniors complex, 55+, where my mother lived. And I go there often and I see them smoking meth on the steps, you know, shooting up right next to–like they're putting lambs to the–like lions next to the lambs.

We need to get better as gov ernment, and it doesn't matter if you're NDP, PC or Liberal. This is not partisan. This is not he said, she said. This is coming together and this is about saving lives, fighting for lives, making the change that's necessary and making the invest ments that are necessary. I assure you if govern ment makes the proper investments into this kind of strategy, you will have community behind you. You will have busi nesses behind you willing to take the people on that are coming out of treatment centres and they becoming employable again.

But as long as we piecemeal the efforts, we're going to get piecemeal results. I feel sorry for the individual that gets picked up on the 72- hour detainment and then left out, sick, hungry, still in a state of psychosis. Now, have we made things worse or have we made things better? You know, you have some sections in here, involuntary assessments. Well, how about we go further and try compassionate intervention? We do it with people that suffer mental illnesses that can't– aren't–have the capacity to make decisions for them - selves.

I know from my addictions, there was a point in my life where I couldn't make a decision for myself, and I wish somebody would've intervened and said: hey, you've got to stop this. I'm going to make that decision for you. How many parents would love to have

an act like that where they can actually help their children and make that inter vention but have the spaces? That's why we need the infra structure. We don't need bill after bill after bill. We need commitment, and on both sides of the floor, not just on one side and not this he said, she said. And I thank you for your time. It's an honour to be here, privilege. The Chairperson: So thank you for your pre senta- tion. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wharton: Thank you very much, Mr. Fourre, for your presentation.

And con gratulations on 40 years, I'm sure which has been a hell of a journey for you and your family. And the utmost respect for what you've gone through and what you shared with us today. I do have a question for you. You–in your

preamble, you had mentioned about offering up some ideas. If you had the opportunity to sit in the minister's office, what would that one or two idea look like in order to make this bill better, with your lived ex perience? [interjection] The Chairperson: Oh, just a second–you're on it. Mr. Joseph Fourre.

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 205 J. Fourre: With my ex perience, this bill would be effective as a first step, the first step of commitment, followed up by making sure that the detox was avail- able. I mean, if we're going to just bring–and I don't like that word, detain, and then we kind of use that, protective care. And if we're going to make that decision to make them–take them into a pro tective-care situation, then we have to have that follow -up with that detox, because detox is going to take about two to three weeks to get the drugs and get them into safety.

And then follow up that–it's a progression. You know, we have to have a starting point and an end point. We have to start becoming a recovery strategy model in our province as opposed to harm reduction. Because this bill, this is just all about harm reduction with the hopes of recovery if they so choose to. Ms. Smith: I want to thank you, Mr. Fourre, for coming and presenting and sharing your story and the advocacy that you do in going and talking to youth. You know, I admire the work that you do and you and your wife do right across the province.

I would ask that, you know, in 2019, the Illicit Drug Task Force had asked the previous govern ment to start working on this bill or some thing like it. Do you think if they had started working on some thing like this that we would have been further ahea d and maybe into more of the treatment space that you're talking about? [interjection] The Chairperson: Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Fourre. Just wait one moment, please. Mr. Joseph Fourre. J. Fourre: I think we can even go further back than that in 2004, when the federal govern ment 'nashed' their–launched their national drug strategy on– based on four pillars.

It was enforcement, treatment, educa- tion and awareness and harm reduction. Those were the four pillars of their strategy in 2004. And that's when crystal meth was just first coming on the scene and where they were realizing that they were having a real issue with crystal meth and they had to come up with a strategy. Fast forward to 2019, I wasn't in quite of a state of mind to actually know what that government did at that time. But had we taken what was coming seriously, you know, and we had a proactive approach to the whole thing.

Now, you said something like this– not parti cularly this but some thing like this. Some - thing like this is good if it's got a means to an end. It's an entry point. And if we have that entry point without a proper exit point, then we're going to do more harm than good. Had the government of 2019 recognized that then and acted on it, you know, if people–we acted as gov- ernment federally, provincially over the last 20 years in regards to the drug crisis this country's facing, maybe my son would be alive today. You know, maybe there would be other people that'd be alive today.

Maybe your sister would be alive today. You know, there are so many things that we can do as government. There are so many things that we can do as a com munity. But if we're not going to be all in, then we should, you know –it seems like we're all out and we just want it piecemeal. * (20:00) MLA Bereza: Thank you, Mr. Fourre, for your pre - sentation. You've been through a lot. You've seen a lot. You've seen this bill in detail. Do we have the proper resources right now to implement this bill the way it currently sits? The Chairperson: Mr. Fourre, would you like to respond? J.

Fourre: Not effectively, in my opinion. I think what we'll be doing is, it'll just, like I said, 20 beds of people who can't sleep with three people looking after them at this point. You know, after 24 hours, are we going to have the psychiatric input to make those deter minations, whether longer–I know, when I was in a bad way and I wanted to kill myself, I'd go to the hospital and I'd be under 72-hour surveillance, and after that 72 hours, if I was still to harm myself, then I'd be committed for treatment, psychiatric treatment, until I was no longer a threat to kill myself. So how is this any different?

The Chairperson: The time for question and answer has expired. Thank you very much for presenting. I will now call on Mr. Patrick Allard. So Mr. Patrick Allard, please proceed with your presentation.

206 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 Patrick Allard (Private Citizen): Thanks for having me. I heard my name called on the floor of the Leg. today, so I figured I should show up. I seen the bill; it talks about pro tective care. Item 10, I think it is, remaining voluntarily at a protective-care centre. An operator may allow a person who is not longer intoxicated to voluntarily remain at the pro tective-care centre to achieve additional care or services. I remember watching on the floor, some members of the opposi tion were asking, what kind of care would that be?

Will it be –I think the question was would there be drugs administered at this site or whatever. And there was no answer. So it would be nice to know what this additional care and services will be. How long can the people stay? What are they going to get? I heard that this is going to be pushed into Point Douglas again. I live in St. Johns, where I ran as an independent candidate in '23, came second. I'll win in '27. This Point Douglas area has a lot of drugs, a lot of crime. There's no politicians that live around here. So it's easy to shove these centres into these neigh- bourhoods.

The people came out loud and clear of Point Douglas against this unsafe injection site. Rightfully so, and I think this is kind of like a backdoor Trojan Horse if you will, into getting this safe -injection site into Point Douglas. I can guarantee you no one would want this site near where they live. And that's a shame, because we need help. We need to help people. I don't think 72 hours helps anybody, and frankly I think you're facing a constitu- tional challenge on holding someone longer than 24 hours against their will. I know a thing or two about constitutional challenges and lawsuits.

I don't think it's com passionate, I don't think it's right, I don't think it's safe to just pick someone up off the street who's having some real -life severe prob - lems, and everybody has these people in their lives. I've–growing up in the St. Johns neighbour hood, hanging out in the Point Douglas neighbourhood, work- ing in the areas, I've had friends murdered. I've had friends go to jail. I went to St. John's High School, right in the middle. I've had friends overdose over the years of knowing many people.

So I know what this –I have a family member who's trying to get into care right now, a young 18-year-old man who aged out of care –of CFS care– and now has nowhere to go. There's no resources to actually help people get off drugs. We need messaging around not doing drugs. We all remember the war on drugs in the '80s and '90s, with the commercials of the frying egg in the pan: this is your brain on drugs. Why can't we have simple messaging like th at? I think it was effective. It was–I think it was very effective. We didn't have the problems as much as we do today. We can put up some billboards.

I think it would be easy. But the same gov ernment that says they want to help people wants to open up injection sites. You can't have both. You're either for drugs or you're against them. I'm against them. Most of the people here –I think everybody here, I think everybody in that Chamber, is against drugs. So let's help the people. Let's not just take them in and then release them back out to the wolves. And I can tell you, there was an earlier presenter who said– I think he said, at least this is what I understood–the drug dealers will line up right there. That's where the customers are.

And that's very predatory. And I think we're allowing that to happen. Let's get people in care for 30 days, 60 days, like an AFM type of deal. Thankfully, I've never had to go through anything like this personally, but hearing from the neighbourhood and the people that I grew up with going through it, we need beds, long- term care, messaging that talks about drugs being bad. I'm just referring to my notes, sorry. I don't have a–I'm not as prepared as some of these wonderful presenters before me. You know, I think a lot of people on the streets – homelessness, addictions, poverty, they're all tied together.

People need homes after they get out, some affordable housing. This is what I do in my private life. Since the election of '23, I've brought 12 afford- able suites to the market with private money, no public money. It's all my own. And I rent to people who have some issues in the past. And I've seen people flourish and grow and move on to be a better person. We have hundreds of boarded- up vacant homes waiting for people to live in. These could be cleaned up; 1,000 homes could be cleaned up in just a couple months and give people somewhere to go to perhaps after they leave treatment.

This is–there's just so many steps to getting someone help, and a clean home would do that. And truly affordable homes is these boarded-up homes, fixing them up. And I campaigned on that, and it was very positive. And we all don't want to see our neighbourhoods boarded up with whit e boards and buildings burning and–let's put people in

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 207 these homes. Let's give them something to look forward to when they get out. And just to–back–touch on the lawsuit, there. I think it's important not to waste taxpayer dollars on these constitutional challenges. Keeping someone against their will for 72 hours is–I think is illegal and it would fail at a con stitutional test. Get some treatment. Get some beds open. During COVID, we were keeping people for seven days in hotels. So we can get seven days. Still not enough, in my opinion. I think I'll wrap it up there.

The Chairperson: So thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mrs. Schott: Thank you so much for being here today. As mentioned, this is a unique part of our democracy that isn't common practice in all parts of our country, even. So we ap preciate you being here and sharing your views. Do you have any specific ideas how to improve the bill or any feedback that we could take back with us? P. Allard: Just a better plan. I mean, 72 hours is not enough to get people help.

I think it's important where the facility is, but, however, I think even if you put these facilities–and I don't know if the spot has been, like, nailed down yet, but I think even if put it in Tuxedo, you're going to get rising crime rates because that's where I believe the dealers will show up. This– we see that outside the unsafe injection sites in dif - ferent cities. So I just –it sounds funny saying longer time is needed, but it needs to be voluntary as well. So if there's the ability to have someone stay basically as long as they want for future care, that's great.

But that should be–I think we should be spending money on recovery beds and not just detox but actually giving people the chance; 72 hours is nothing. You just – they'll get a clean shower or something to eat, and then they're, you know, back out. It's very hard to kick an addiction. So let's put the resourc es, the money, on beds, I guess would be the word, you know. Maybe out beds –and 20 beds I heard someone say?

That's going to get filled up in, like, 15 minutes. * (20:10) So let's get a–let's put our resources and funds into helping people with publicly funded–and I don't speak about publicly funded things too much as a strong conservative–but with publicly funded funds in a facility that will house people for a long time until they're ready to be saved. MLA Bereza: Thank you, Mr. Allard, for your pre - sentation. My question to you is: Do you believe the gov- ernment has provided enough detail about things like staffing, levels of training, in order to make this pro- gram safe and sustainable? P.

Allard: Well, like most things government, no. You're going to need increased police presence around here, right? People on–people doing hard drugs are not–you can't just have a couple nurses and a doctor control them. I think we have a nurse on the panel here who's probably dealt with people like thi s and had to call the police in the hospital. So we're going to put a burden on that force, which is already overburdened because of so many issues. But no, there's not enough–they haven't–we don't even know what's going to happen, so I would–yes. Ms. Smith: So, Mr.

Allard, I just want to thank you for coming out tonight and presenting. And we have put 800 treatment beds into the system. Are you aware that we are putting another 400 into the system? And under the former government, they were selling off social housing; they slashed the repair and maintenance budget by 87 per cent. Do you believe that that put people further into addictions because it was–put them into survival mode? P. Allard: I'd like to know whether these 800 and 400, these 1,200 beds –what are you doing there? Are we giving them drugs or are we trying to get them clean? I don't know that those were added.

I'd have to know more as to what's happening in these–in this facility. And I'm a strong opponent against drugs of all kind; not enabling people. Just some strong messaging: crack an egg, this is your brain on drugs. The Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Wharton: Could I ask the committee if we could take a five-minute bio/stretch break? The Chairperson: Is there leave for the com mittee for a 10-minute stretch break? [Agreed] So we'll return in 10 minutes. The committee recessed at 8:13 p.m. ____________ The committee resumed at 8:26 p.m.

208 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 16, 2025 The Chairperson: Will the committee please come back to order. So next on the list is Amy Robinson, and as previously agreed, I will now ask Rena Kisfalvi–please correct me if I'm mispronouncing your last name –to come forward and read Ms. Robinson's presentation. So Ms. Kisfalvi, please proceed with the presenta- tion. Rena Kisfalvi, on behalf of Amy Robinson (Private Citizens): It is Ms. Kisfalvi. You got that correct, thank you very much.

In principle, I support legislation that allows time for an individual to be made safe from harm to them- selves or to others. Many Winnipeg residents live with the daily stress of witnessing people in distress or at risk of harming themselves or others in public spaces. We want a compassionate and effective response that protects both vul nerable individuals and the surrounding community in which we live. Unfortunately, a poorly implemented plan can be as harmful as having no plan at all and sometimes worse.

The major concern is that this bill is being advanced without clarity on how the protec tive-care centres will operate or what standards will govern their use. We are being asked to trust a process in which the most impor tant operational details will be decided after the legislation has passed. That approach under- mines trans parency and accountability and leaves communities like ours with no assurance about how these centres will function. A bill of this magnitude should not proceed without a clearly defined regula - tory framework and meaningful public consul tation beforehand.

Once it becomes law, the ability for the public to shape these details is greatly reduced. Beyond who will operate these facilities, we must ask where they will be located and why. Why would a holding or detox centre be placed in an area already crippled by open drug use, street-level trafficking and a high density of social services? When a pe rson leaves such a centre, they are immediately confronted by the very substances and environments they were just separated from. Where is the evidence showing that this is an effective or ethical model for recovery?

Research into what is sometimes called service concentration theory or service -dependent ghetto formation shows that clustering multiple social service agencies in one neighbourhood often com pounds the very challenges they are meant to solve. Oversaturation can erode com munity stability, increases crime and makes long -term recovery less likely; that is all evident in Point Douglas right now. True recovery models integrate detox, treatment and reintegration supports in balanced community-connected settings, not within the same small area already struggling under the tre mendous weight of addiction and poverty.

Point Douglas residents have exper ienced this pattern before. I'm a 55-year resident of Point Douglas; I just gave my age away. We raised strong concerns when a supervised consump tion site was proposed across from a school, near daycares and in a commu- nity already saturated with services. Those voices were clearly not adequately heard as now almost the exact same location is again being pushed for this new facility. * (20:30) As a resident, I have also been actively seeking transparency on this matter.

I have submitted FIPPA requests to the Province of Manitoba, asking whether any new applications have been made for additional urgent public health need sites, temporary supervised consumption locations for example, but have yet to receive a response despite the timeline set out under access to information legislation. Health Canada has likewise decline to provide answers. This lack of openness surrounding supervised consumption applications only deepens the public's mistrust.

When govern ments and agencies withhold information, it creates the perception that impor tant decisions are being made behind closed doors without accountability or genuine community input. Residents deserve to know the full intent of these initiatives, including whether supervised consump tion of any sort, be it alcohol or drug, will occur at any proposed facilities. The way this bill is unfolding, or has unfolded, leaves many wondering whether it serves as a back - door attempt to advance a previous agenda without proper consultation.

It is deeply discouraging to see a repeat of the same planning mistakes under a different title, because that's the way the Point Douglas resi - dents see this, as a different title. Placing yet another facility serving a similar demo- graphic without long- term recovery or rehabilitation beds attached feels like setting the system up for failure rather than success. It also reinforces the perception that government decisions are being made to our community, not with it.

October 16, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 209 Residents have also expressed concern about how the philosophy of certain service models aligns with community expectations of accountability, safety and public order. When policies or practices minimize the impact of recurring disorder, theft or vandalism, it's merely looked at as a survival behaviour. It erodes our trust and undermines confidence that the facility will be managed in a way that protects both clients and surrounding residents.

A facility designed to hold and stabilize intoxicated individuals for up to 72 hours should be operated under the leadership of health- care professionals and agencies accountable to medical regulatory bodies, not as an extension of unregulated or loosely super - vised social service delivery. The nature of care, medical oversight and patient safety requires a framework con sistent with health legislation, clinical standards and independent review.

With three of the proposed sites surrounding Point Douglas, the decisions made under Bill 48 will have real and lasting impacts on neighbourhood safety, recovery outcomes and the overall liveability of our community.

Here are our recom mendations: (1) delay final passage of Bill 48 under clear operational standards, oversight structures and citing criteria are publicly released and reviewed; (2) develop regula tions con- currently with the bill and subject them to the same level of public and legis lative scrutiny; (3) require genuine local con sultation for every proposed site, including impact assessments and clear mitigation plans; (4) ensure every facility links directly to long-term recovery supports including t reatment, housing and mental health care; (5) imple ment independent over- sight and public reporting of out comes, including safety incidents, com munity feedback and recovery matrix.

In conclusion, I support the intent of Bill 48 to protect people in crisis and provide alternatives to incarceration. But intent is not enough here. Without transparency, consultation and evidence-based imple- mentation, the bill will almost certain ly deepen the very crises it seeks to solve. We do thank you for

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	43-2-sed7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	43rd 2nd hansardpdf sed7.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	bcd3c0030f051a15ad0f0a37c830c3646d524f3d

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