Manitoba Committee Hansard — 28 May 2008 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 4, 39th Legislature, 2nd Session)

39-2-sed4

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Ms. Erna Braun Constituency of Rossmere Vol. LX No. 4 - 6 p.m., Wednesday, May 28, 2008 ISSN 1708-6698

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

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

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

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

185 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Wednesday, May 28, 2008 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Erna Braun (Rossmere) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Lemieux, Hon. Mses. Melnick, Oswald, Hon. Messrs. Robinson, Rondeau Mr. Altemeyer, Ms. Braun, Messrs. Cullen, Derkach, Mrs. Stefanson, Mrs. Taillieu APPEARING: Hon. Andrew Swan, MLA for Minto Hon. Steve Ashton, MLA for Thompson Mr. Blaine Pedersen, MLA for Carman Hon. Gord Mackinto sh, MLA for St.

Johns Mr. Ron Schuler, MLA for Springfield Hon. Nancy Allan, MLA for St. Vital WITNESSES Bill 32–The Personal Health Information Amendment Act Mr. George Fraser, Massage Therapy Association of Manitoba Ms. Gloria Desorcy, Manitoba Branch, Consumers' Association of Canada Ms. Pam Brown, Private Citizen Bill 15–The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act Ms. Kristal Bayes, Private Citizen Mr. Trevor Gates, Private Citizen Mr. Ken Waddell, Private Citizen Mr. Howard Rubuck, Private Citizen Mr. Andrew Basham, Green Party of Manitoba Mr. David Enns, Private Citizen Mr.

Rick Negrych, Private Citizen Bill 36–The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act Mr. David Sanders, Deloitte & Touche LLP Property Tax Services Bill 31–The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act Mr. Trevor Gates, Private Citizen Mr. Ken Waddell, Private Citizen Mrs. Christine Waddell, Private Citizen Ms. Kelly deGroot, Private Citizen Mr. Rick Negrych, Private Citizen Bill 34–The Child and Family Services Amendment and Child and Family Services Authorities Amendment Act (Safety of Children) Mr. Ken Waddell, Private Citizen Bill 10–The Legislative Library Act Mr.

Ken Waddell, Private Citizen Bill 22–The Worker Recruitment and Protection Act Mr. Darrell Rankin, Communist Party–Manitoba WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 32–The Personal Health Information Amendment Act Mr. Stuart Murray, St. Boniface Hospital and Research Foundation Bill 36–The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act Mr. Antoine Hacault, Private Citizen Bill 31–The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act Ms. Ruth Pryzner, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 10–The Legislative Library Act

186 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 Bill 13–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Damage to Infrastructure) Bill 15–The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act Bill 16–The Child Care Safety Charter (Community Child Care Standards Act Amended) Bill 19–The Liquor Control Amendment Act Bill 21–The Advisory Council on Workforce Development Act Bill 22–The Worker Recruitment and Protection Act Bill 23–The International Labour Cooperation Agreements Implementation Act Bill 27–The Shellmouth Dam and Other Water Control Works Management and Compensation Act (Water Resources Administration Act Amended) Bill 31–The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act Bill 32–The Personal Health Information Amendment Act Bill 33–The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act Bill 34–The Child and Family Services Amendment and Child and Family Services Authorities Amendment Act (Safety of Children) Bill 36–The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act * * * Madam Chairperson: Good evening.

Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order.

This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 10, The Legislative Library Act; Bill 13, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Damage to Infrastructure); Bill 15, The Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act; Bill 16, The Child Care Safety Charter (Community Child Care Standards Act Amended); Bill 19, The Liquor Control Amendment Act; Bill 21, The Advisory Council on Workforce Development Act; Bill 22, The Worker Recruitment and Protection Act; Bill 23, The International Labour Cooperation Agreements Implementation Act; Bill 27, The Shellmouth Dam and Other Water Control Works Management and Compensation Act (Water Resources Administration Act Amended); Bill 31, The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act; Bill 32, The Personal Health Information Amendment Act; Bill 33, The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act; Bill 34, The Child and Family Services Amendment and Child and Family Services Authorities Amendment Act (Safety of Children); Bill 36, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act.

We have a number of presenters registered to speak this evening. Please refer to your presenters list. Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with staff at the entrance of the room. Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompa ny your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies.

If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff. As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes al lowed for questions from committee members. Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.

Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee members: Stuart Murray, St. Boniface Hospital and Research Foundation, on Bill 32; Antoine Hacault, private citizen, on Bill 36; Ruth Pryzner, private citizen, on Bill 31. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note the committee agreed to hear public presentations of the bills in numerical

May 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 187 order. We left off hearing presentations on Bill 32 last night; however, since last night, a presenter has been registered to speak to Bill 22. How does the committee wish to proceed with hearing the order of public presentations tonight? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I would suggest that we continue at the point we're at in terms of bills, complete the bills and then return to the additional presenter, because I do note that there have been some people here 12 hours.

So we should give them the courtesy of hearing them first, and then we can return to any remaining presenters on Bill 22 or other bills. Madam Chairperson: Okay. Is the committee agreed to continue with the speakers for Bill 32? Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Well, just to get clarification. In other words, we are going to hear the presenters as they registered, keeping in mind out-of- town presenters first, and then in the order in which they registered and in order of the bills as they appear on the Order Paper. Madam Chairperson: Agreed. Mr.

Derkach: Madam Chair, is the Hansard for last evening's meeting available? Madam Chairperson: No, it is not. Point of Order Mr. Derkach: Well, then, Madam Chair, on a point of order. There was a discussion in yesterday's committee at the outset regarding the availability of the Clerk's office to take registrations until midnight tonight. It is my understanding that the committee agreed that the Clerk's office should be open for registrations to take registrations until midnight tonight.

There could very well be presenters who would want to register through the Clerk's office to make presentation tonight if they knew that, indeed, there were not many presenters on any individual bill. A notice posted on the Clerk's door indicates that the registrations will be taken by answering service and then will be dealt with in the morning.

There are bills on the Order Paper that have one or two presenters and, given the number of presenters we have tonight that, indeed, those presenters should be given the opportunity to present tonight if, in fact, there is a conclusion of presenters for this evening on some of these bills. * (18:10) It would seem to me that this discussion also took place in the other committee room, and I'm not sure that there was a consistent message. Now, my understanding also is that we were supposed to get information and clarification before the conclusion of last night's meeting.

That did not happen, and all we see is the posting of the notice on the Clerk's door. This is a very strange set of circumstances because it would seem to me that when Manitobans want to register, through an office of the Legislative Assembly, to come before a committee, it is up to the Legislative Assembly to ensure that there are personnel available to take those calls.

I know that this committee has limited jurisdiction in that, Madam Chair, but on the other hand, in a democratic process, if we are holding meetings after office hours, then it's incumbent upon us to ensure that we have personnel available to meet the needs of people through an office which is supposed to take those registrations rather than simply having those registrations being taken by an answering service. Therefore, Madam Chair, I feel that this is a legitimate point of order and one that we need an answer to and a clarification of.

I think, for those Manitobans who are attempting to register to make presentation tonight, if they can through the Clerk's office because there is no way that is going to happen tonight if it's just an answering service, and that answering service won't be dealt with till tomorrow. So, if we could have, first of all, a clarification of what the pr ocess is, then perhaps we could take the next step in dealing with this issue. Madam Chairperson: On the point of order, this is not a point of order.

For clarification of the committee, it was noted yesterday, at the meeting, that the Clerk's office would accept voice mails after 5 p.m. in order to register, and the presenters, every effort would be made to co ntact them in the morning to clarify their registration. And another viable option for them is for presenters to come this evening and register with the Chamber branch, as was previously stated last night. Mr.

Cullen: I specifically raised the issue last night at the start of committee here, and it certainly was not my understanding that anyone phoning the Clerk's office after 5 o'clock would have voice mail. My understanding of the discussion last night was that clerk staff would be available to talk directly

188 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 with individuals that wanted to register for speaking to any of these particular bills. I specifically raised that question because I know of an individual from one of my communities who did want to speak to one of these bills who, unfortunately, has been out of town all week and is going to have a hard time in terms of making committee this week. The intent was hopefully to get him registered this evening so that he could speak to the bill next week if that was the case.

I guess the expectation that we'd left him with was that there would be someone on the other end of the phone this evening to address his inquiries and to get him registered. I know he's not on the presentation list tonight so I'm assuming he was going to leave his call to this evening. My concern is if he–I don't know what the process is here in terms of the voice mail, but he may not be willing to leave, not be wanting to leave his message on voice mail because we kind of instructed him that there would someone to give him direction in terms of when he would be able to speak to the committee.

So it was certainly not my understanding last night in our discussion that there would be a voice mail and that there would actually be someone answering the phone at the Clerk's office to provide direction. Mr. Ashton: I would suggest we try tonight on the third night of the committee to limit these kinds of discussions so as not to further inconvenience presenters. But what surprises me here, by the way, is this committee was announced last week.

Under the current rules, unlike the previous rules where committees are often announced on very short notice, we announced the committee hearings on Tuesday, Wednesday and T hursday, if necessary. I think the designation of Thursday, if necessary, was a clear indication that we may or may not have finished presenters, may or may not have gone into clause by clause. That was not presumed; that was the case. The procedures the Clerk's office have been using have not changed and, by the way, the Clerk's office, I'm very surprised by this line of discussion here, has, I believe, done a very good job.

You have to consider they're operating two committees, and at one time. Madam Chair, we're operating two committees simultaneously with the House, which is stretching resources to the limit. I'd also point out that, when committee hearings do take place, obviously, sometimes people will be in attendance in person. We often have other presentations that are made in writing. It has always been the practice that, if people do wish to present, the best way is, if they're able to attend in person, to come down and register.

I think the fact that we have a presenter tonight who has been added to the list, even though we finished dealing with Bill 22 yesterday on public presentation, is indicative of the fact that we're following the same processes that have been in place in this Legislature in terms of committees for many years. The bottom line is, if there are people here and, perhaps, there may be people in the audience who have not registered currently, we will hear them. It doesn't mean that everyone will be able to attend every committee meeting in any given week.

You know, that's always been the case, but the rules haven't changed. The procedures haven't changed, other than, in this case, we probably have had more notice, close to a week now in terms of the fact that these committees were going. Most of these bills have been passed under the rules before the set deadline. That is something, by the way, that was not standard practice before. Often bills were passed through very late in the session. So we have a much more orderly session schedule.

I think the fact that there have been presenters, many of them waiting patiently for yesterday and today, shows that, indeed, the system has worked. They've been able to present. We have one additional presenter tonight who's been able to make that contact, and I think anyone here could do it. So I would suggest that we–you know, if members opposite have a concern about the way committees operate, our rules and procedures, we do have discussions among the House leaders.

There are opportunities in terms of the rules itself, but I want to say that I think the Clerk's office has done a tremendous job in runn ing these committees. The fact that we do have people presenting and waiting patiently the last several days indicates that, perhaps, it's not the perfect system, but it is a system where people do want to present and have had the dedication of sticking around long enough, we will enable them. So my suggestion is, if there is any concern about the ongoing procedures, let's not further delay the public presentations.

We can deal with that as MLAs at a later point in time, perhaps even after the remaining presentations. I would suggest that, quite

May 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 189 frankly, the Clerk's office is doing a very good job and is probably gone above and beyond the call of duty in this particular case. I speak, I think, for all of us on the government side where we feel there's been a very good effort on their part. I'm very surprised at the concern and criticism about procedures that have been in place for many years, in fact, procedures that are more open now, have more notice, have more days in which people can present than was the case even a few years. * (18:20) Mrs.

Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Madam Chair, we recognize that the Clerk's office has a job to do and is doing a very good job. Certainly, that's not the issue. The issue is access to the public to be able to register for presentation. My colleague has just mentioned that, when he raised this yesterday, his understanding was that the Clerk's office would be open for registration until midnight, and certainly that was the understanding that he had. And when we came down to committee tonight and we walked past the Clerk's office there is a sign on the door.

Now, if there was no intent to have the office open, then why would there be a need to have a sign on the door saying it's closed? To me that says, well, we were supposed to be open, but we're not now. Because otherwise, if there was no intent for the office to be open, there would be no need to put a sign on the door that they're not. So, just the fact that there is a sign there saying we're not open suggests to me that there was an intent that they were going to be open and now they're not.

So I think there is some confusion here as to the Clerk's office not being open, and when there's confusion there I think that spills over into the public, and perhaps the public, as my colleague has said, there may be members of the public that wanted to register and thought that the office was open and that they could call in, and when they found out that it wasn't, if they didn't come down here, they wouldn't know then how to register and perhaps would then not come down.

So I think that if that has been the case, we have done a disservice to the public in that they would perhaps have been denied the opportunity to register and come down. But, again, I just really wanted to make the point with the sign on the door that when there's a sign saying we're not open, there must have been an intent they were going to be. Madam Chairperson: Yesterday, the question, just for a point of clarification, I advised the committee that I would find out the protocol for accepting registrations.

I later inform ed the committee of the means provided in order for presenters to register until midnight. I rule tonight that this is not a point of order and members have two options: to accept my ruling, or to challenge it. * * * Mr. Derkach: Well, Madam Chair. It's obvious what's going on here, and I guess we'll just have to deal with it as the situation unfolds. Indeed, perhaps, this is a matter for the House.

But I observe tonight that we are also beginning this meeting without a Vice-Chair, and I'm going to question whether or not there should be a new nomination for a Vice-Chair since this committee does not have a Vice-Chair present. Madam Chairperson: The Vice-Chair will be here. He was delayed, and my understanding is he will be here shortly. Back onto our topic here. On the topic of determining the order of presentations, we had a request to continue with where we left off last evening. Is that agreed? [Agreed] As previously agreed to by the House, the committee will sit to 12 midnight, if necessary.

Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mikes on and off. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations.

Bill 32–The Personal Health Information Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: I would like to call on George Fraser, Massage Therapy Association. Do you have materials to distribute? Thank you. You may begin your presentation. Mr. George Fraser (Massage Therapy Association of Manitoba): On the lead page of the presentation, we give you a very brief background on the association. The association has 650-plus members that are located throughout the province, and our association, which is volunteer based, represents

190 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 about 85 percent of the professional massage therapists in the province. Of course, we're incorporated and responsible as other associations are under The Corporations Act, and we are governed by a board of directors of volunteers. We've outlined some of the entry to practice requirements for our profession for your information. The education in this province is provided by three private vocational schools located here in the province and registered with Advanced Education.

Our association also maintains compulsory continuing education, the competency program which is equivalent to others found across this country, and it provides a formal complaints and discipline process to protect the public. It is a supporter of the principles found within privacy legislation, and particularly those of PHIA from a Manitoba perspective. It regularly advises its members on issues related to PHIA.

One important background detail to this presentation is that the profession of massage therapy is not formally recognized by the Province of Manitoba as a regulated health profession although it has been seeking that status for a lengthy period of time. But the profession has in part been required, by way of regulation, to adhere to the requirements of this act, and we've attached a document to our presentation for your reference. The association apprecia tes the opportunity to make some comments with respect to the amendment act, and our comments in this time frame will be specifically directed to three areas.

The first is the information and privacy adjudicator. First, we want to make it clear the MTAM is ultimately a supporter of the privacy commissioner model for this legislation even though it is not recommended in this amendment process. The model is more consistent with other jurisdictions in Canada and, therefore, is a model of the current and future privacy environment in our country.

Given the introduction of an adjudicator proposed in this amendmen t, the MTAM recognizes that this new resource to the complaints process, managed by the Ombudsman's office, will provide some and perhaps much benefit to the current process. This statement does not replace our desire to eventually see a privacy commissioner in our province. The MTAM foresees the new adjudicator quickly playing an important role in future complaints, and it will likely add flexibility to the Ombudsman's office with respect to more complex issues.

Naturally, it will depend on the abilities of the person assigned to this task to define their own presence within the Office of the Ombudsman and the actual role they will play. Obviously, legal training will be an asset in such a position. Madam Chair, the MTAM recommends that duties for the new position be broadened to specifically include adjudication with respect to complaints between private sector trustees who are in direct dispute with each other on the basis of the act and their role within the act.

Our direct observation in this regard is from within the massage therapy community which operates exclusively outside of institutional medical services and the disputes that arise from time to time between private sector trustees. In the main, these trustees are independent contractors by definition.

They're chiropractors, physiotherapists, massage therapists and some business owners who, by the way, think they are trustees, who have business arrangements with each other and become in dispute as to who is the rightful trustee under the act and in particular in our profession, about who should control massage therapy files within the requirements of the act.

If the adjudicator was to begin to play a role in these disputes, the office would create a body of knowledge within the Ombudsman's office in this respect, and this would be helpful in reducing this marketplace tension and impact the drafting of future agreements between profe ssionals in this regard. Manitoba needs a final authority that can make such rulings.

The end result would be a less onerous task than to seek court action on a case-by-case basis based on contract law. * (18:30) At present, the Ombudsman's office is hard pressed to, or simply won't intervene in what is usually interpreted as a contractual dispute when, in fact, it is one of status under the act. That status needs to be more clearly defined, either in the act or within the regulations, and supported by decision- making abilities from within the Ombudsman's

May 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 191 office. The present role of trustee in this respect is not clarified anywhere than in the words of the legislation. A place for more formalized dispute resolution process, in this regard, is required and should be encouraged. Secondary is on the retention and destruction of files. These comments are directed to two very basic daily functions regarding the management of files and patient health information.

Neither the act nor the regulations give adequate guidance to trustees with respect to the length of time patient files should be retained, nor when they should be destroyed. There's no mention of this important day-to-day decision required of trustees. The act simply indicates that each trustee sh ould create a policy in this regard and follow it. But our research within our own membership, Madam Chair, and observation of contractual agreements between private-sector health professionals indicate that these policies often don't exist and that they vary from profession to profession.

The MTAM maintains that either the act or the regulation should be utilized to give clear parameters for this important aspect of record keeping. At present, this latitude does not provide the public with consistency, a common benchmark or protection, nor does it provide professionals with a common reference upon which to create their policy, one that should represent the acceptable standard of the Province of Manitoba. Guidance by government in this important area should be similar to that, for example, established by chartered accountants for the retention of financial records, which is set at seven years.

By allowing each trustee to write its own policy encourages this ongoing variance and confusion. Many professions have selected six or seven years for retention, and 10 years for those under the age of majority, bu t such a standard is not required and it's not enforced. The MTAM is certain that consensus on this basic requirement could be established by the government in consultation with regulated health professions, of which we are not one, and others such as ourselves. Third area of comment is on the designation of health professionals.

The MTAM considers the companion regulations to this act equally important to any amendment process and, therefore, makes reference to a sensitivity the profession has had in that regard. The act permits the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council to designate health professions who are to be trustees, particularly if they not named in this act. In 1997 with the introduction of this legislation, this occurred for the profession of massage therapy under

section 1.2(

c) where it was added, persons licensed to operate a business as a massage therapist under the City of Winnipeg Licence By-law 6551/95 or any municipal by-law of similar intent. Since that time, the only other municipality to establish such a by-law was the City of Thompson. This has ensured by regulation an uneven application of the act throughout the province.

Fortunately for the public , the registered schools of massage therapy and the MTAM have continued to educate its students and members to follow known privacy practices required by the act, regardless of where the individual practises and regardless of whether their municipality established a by-law. The public has remained reasonably protected by those decisions. This 1997 clause was introduced with the intention of it being a short-term solution to a longer- term goal of province-wide regulation of the profession of massage therapy. Unfortunately, after 11 years, that still has not occurred.

Recently, the City of Winnipeg, as it completed a review of By-law 6551 of '95, decided it will no longer license massage therapists. The City has concluded that massage therapy is more appropriately regulated within a provincial health-care responsibility. Therefore, Madam Chair, effective June 1, approximately 65 percent of the professional massage therapists in this province will no longer be licensed by the City of Winnipeg. One then has to assume that, based PHIA regulations, they will no longer be required to adhere to the PHIA legislation unless they are updated to reflect the recent change.

The MTAM is concerned about this change in status from a public-protection perspective. The MTAM optimistically assumes the government will quickly complete an amendment to the regulations to clarify the ongoing role of massage therapists after the amendment act is proclaimed. This would be important to protect the privacy of Manitobans who use massive therapy services and maintain the important trustee roles in place that are performed by massage therapists.

The new wording will have to be carefully crafted to require all massage therapists in the province to be required to play the role of trustee no matter where they practise. Of course, as the minister knows, the membership of the MTAM would prefer seeing a massage therapy act to clarify and establish the profession within the legislation, but it knows that

192 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 this will not occur until the government completes the introduction of the health professions act for consideration by members of this Legislature and, by the way, the MTAM supports this new initiative. This anticipated act will bring more uniformity to the regulated health profession community and provide broader protection for the public.

The protection will be especially found at the time of the public complaints and any resulting hearings or disciplinary action in which, inevitably, PHIA records and the trustees who maintain those records will play a significant part. We wish to emphasize again that professional massage therapists work side by side with other health professionals on a day-to-day basis. This includes professional and business relationships and consultation with medical doctors, chiropractors, physiotherapists, athletic therapists and nurses, et cetera.

Medical records are often shared during those consultations, especially records that pertain to musculoskeletal and soft tissue ailments and injuries. This sharing occurs more frequently and easily in multidisciplinary clinics which are becoming more popular in all regions of our province. Electronic recordkeeping also makes this exchange even more easy and beneficial to patients and the professions. Massage therapists are the only ones within this group who are not formally recognized as health professionals by the province of Manitoba, which creates a weak link in privacy protection.

Due to the way the regulations are currently written will, except for the city of Thompson, now exclude massage therapy from PHIA trustee responsibilities. This is why it is critical in the short term to provide an amendment to the regulations that accompany this act so that massage therapists can continue their professional service to their shared client-patients, including privacy of recordkeeping. It is also why it is important to look ahead to the new health professions act that will enable the profession to gain some similar status to others providing health care in this province.

It will also stop the reliance on patchwork amendments to maintain important priv acy requirements for the patient-client of the local massage therapists. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I want to say thank you very much for coming, Mr. Fraser, and for going the distance as you have in waiting to make your presentation.

As always, the time that you spend with members of the Legislature is very instructive, not only for some sage advice that you have given to us about this bill, but the omnibus health bill that we're working on as a community. I've found our discussions, particularly, in that area of the protection of the public where, as I have been advised in the past, has been a more difficult conversation concerning massage therapy, at least to articulate how that might look in legislation.

Our most recent meeting, in particular, I think we've come a great distance and we're going to be ready, I believe, when the omnibus bill comes forward for consideration. So, for that and for the advice you've provided for this bill, I thank you. Mrs. Mavis Taillieu ( Morris): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Fraser.

I think that what you're describing here is a loophole here which really just emphasizes the fact that we do need to have a body such as a privacy commissioner here in the province to address these kinds of issues that fall outside of the public domain but in the private sector such as you're describing. Actually, it's quite concerning because, as you say, if you're dropped from licensure from the City of Winnipeg very shortly, and the fact that if you're not listed as trustees under PHIA, then, certainly, there is risk of personal information being used in a way it should not have been used.

Certainly, we understand your concerns there. Is there opportunity then for us to provide an amendment into the PHIA legislation right now that would make it more meaningful for you? * (18:40) Mr. Fraser: Well, the minister knows that, as I mentioned,

an act would be very helpful but there's a ways to go from that perspective. The helpful nature of this, of course, rests with the government's side in that the regulations have to be adjusted. The government can probably accomplish that quickly, as I indicated. I think it would be in the best interest of everyone for that to occur. Again, I say, it's an interim measure and it would return the status of massage therapists. I recognize that there would have to be some careful wording because the other wording was very specific to only those people who worked in the municipality of the city of Winnipeg and any other municipality who

May 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 193 adopted a bylaw. There is some expertise at the table with respect to bylaws of municipalities and they're made on an individual choice basis. I don't personally expect to see any other municipality in Manitoba adopt a massage therapy licence. In fact, municipalities are moving away from that type of licence and have for several years. Therefore, I think the responsibility comes back to the government's side to look at the provisions that they have at present.

Then in the future, if massage therapy is recognized as a health profession, it will not be a factor with respect to how massage therapists interact regarding the maintenance of their own files and the co-operative maintenance of files with other professionals. Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you very much. I think I'm understanding though, that if massage therapists were classified as health trustees under the act, that would be a step forward in the right direction, at least for now until you get the legislation you're requiring. That could be done now without waiting for the omnibus act. Mr.

Fraser: It could and it would. I don't want to step into the business of legislation but either way, it would be a short interim step, in my opinion. It would be helpful, the two options would be there. Certainly, Madam Chair, an amendment at present would accomplish the same thing as a change in the regulation. There's a choice. The committee could certainly recommend that. I would understand there would be debate and discussion. Government could certainly resolve it by way of amendment to the regulation, absolutely. Either would work. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Our time for questions has expired.

I will now call on–sorry, Mr. Derkach? Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Again, I'm going to request leave of the committee once more. I just went to the committee in the next room–I think it's 255 if I'm not mistaken. The procedures in the other committee should be very much similar to what they are in this committee in terms of hearing presenters and allowing for questions. In the committee there that's dealing with Bill 37, latitude has been given to members of the committee to go beyond the five minutes of questions and also to go beyond the 10 minutes of presentation.

There are has been leave given by the committee to do that. I think citizens of Manitoba should be treated equally, whether they appear before Bill 37 or appear before any of these bills. It would also allow us more time to be able to pose questions and allow people to complete their presentations. I'm wondering whether there's leave of the committe e tonight, as there was last evening at the end of the committee, to allow for some latitude with regard to questions that need to be posed to presenters.

I noted that the present presenter has been waiting for a significant amount of time to make his presentation and probably should be given the opportunity to answer questions that members of the committee may have. Therefore, in the spirit of co-operation that we saw at the end of last evening where there was latitude given, I'm asking for leave of this committee to give some latitude to extending that five-minute time limit for questions and also some flexibility on the 10-minute time limit for presentations. Hon.

Jim Rondeau (Minister of Science, Technology, Energy and Mines): What I was going to say, Madam Chairperson, is that we have actually given leave where presenters yesterday hadn't finished their presentation. We had given leave, when they were making their presentations and needed more time. There was actual leave given yesterday on a couple of occasions where people were allowed to finish their presentations and then questions were given. I think that was very appropriate. People would like to have consistent approaches. We're giving a consistent approach where people are given 10 minutes.

They have been given the protocol of this committee from the Chair at the beginning. They get 10 minutes; we have five minutes that we can make sure that committee can do its business in due time. We also want to be fair, and part of the fairness is that you understand the processes and protocols of the committee and you move through them as appropriate. As you mentioned yesterday, when there was the occasion where someone n eeded another minute or two to finish up, we actually did grant leave, as was appropriate. I think we should proceed as we have been.

I think we have been listening to lots of people and moving it forward. I'd rather listen to people than argue over points, so let's just move on and continue the good work of this committee and hear the public.

194 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 Hon. Andrew Swan (Minis ter of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): I was just watching the proceedings next door, and I can assure the Chair and all members that, indeed, the Chairperson in that committee is enforcing the rules: 10 minutes for presentations, five minutes for questions– An Honourable Member: That's wrong. Mr. Swan: I understand the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) has a different view. I've just been over there and watching what Mr. Reid, who is the Chair, is doing.

Things seem to be working quite well tonight next door, which is a positive thing, so that every Manitoban who showed up to present has the opportunity to speak. Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I think it should be noted that a precedent was set last night next door. I happened to be there when Mr. Sid Green was delivering his presentation at the committee next door. The Premier (Mr. Doer) was at the table at the time. Mr. Reid did allow some extra time after for Mr. Green to continue through, and the question-and- answer period went on.

I think if you recall, you will go back into Hansard once it comes out, and you will see that Mr. Reid said specifically at the end, when there were still some questions left, he said, I've allowed for 22 minutes, and I believe that I've allowed enough latitude here. That is an example that has been set at the committee next door. I agree with my colleague from Russell, where we start to get into dangerous territory when we've got some people who are being treated differently, who are presenting in some committees and are being treated differently from others.

There is a set of rules and, certainly, when precedent is being set in one committee that is not being allowed in another, we start to get into dangerous territory when it comes to the rights of the individuals who are coming here and spending time out of their busy schedules to come and deliver their presentations to the committees. I would hope, Madam Chairperson, in considering your ruling on this, that you will also take into consideration things that are happening in the other committee as well as what has transpired here.

When you do look back in Hansard and see that that precedent has been set, it should be also allowed in this committee as well. * (18:50) Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Just briefly, the member knows that we have our rules and the rules are very clear. The member also knows that committees do order their own business. We have two committees; we have two very different circumstances in terms of the bills. I just point out, and maybe I'm a little bit sensitive here, being the minister of the last bill here, but I do have one presenter, Mr.

Sanders, who has been here for 12 hours and 50 minutes and, you know, quite frankly, these points of order, we probably could have heard him yesterday if we had stuck to the normal rules and the normal way in which we interpret the rules. The rules haven't changed for these committee hearings. The rules have been in place for a number of years now, and my suggestion is this is not a point of order and this committee has, I think, been making some progress, perhaps a bit slower than some of us would have liked to have seen, but that's, again, the committee's prerogative.

The members here opposite have chosen to move numerous points of order, probably spent three, four hours in the last two days on that. That's their prerogative. That doesn't prevent members on the other side from spending no time or spending twice as much on it, that each committee will determine its own business within the rules and whatever the other committee does doesn't set a precedent. The rules are the rules. Committees have some leeway, but the rules are pretty clear and, in fact, all parties have agreed to the rules.

My suggestion, again, is if members have difficulty with the rules, we should discuss it amongst ourselves as MLAs. We have House leaders that do that. We have Rules Committee as well. You know, and I thought we were in the middle of public presentations. My suggestion is let's save this discussion for the appropriate time and let's move on so that people that have been sitting here for 12 hours-plus don't have to hear us talking about points of order that aren't points of order, or rules that we would like to see changed. So my suggestion is let's deal with this point of order and then get back to the public.

That's what we're here for. Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Certainly, with all due respect to the minister opposite, I think there has been some precedent set over in the other committee, and we certainly would like to have open dialogue with Manitobans when they do come and speak to committee. This whole process, I think,

May 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 195 maybe the minister did hit the nail on the head. We do have to do some looking at how we handle committee and how we put people through the process. You know, in this committee alone, we've got, how many bills? 15 different bills here. Again, it's because the rules have evolved in the House to the position they have, and all of a sudden we have, in this committee, 15 bills we have to try to deal with in committee.

I don't think it's a good way for us to bring legislation forward as legislators, and it certainly impacts Manitobans' ability to come and talk to legislation. I certainly think it's time that we have a look at our rules and how we handle this in committee in particular and these sort of things that have to be addressed. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. As Chair, I can only entertain what this committee agrees to, so is there a will of this committee to grant leave for more latitude in the five-minute question period? Some Honourable Members: No. Madam Chairperson: No. Leave has not been granted.

I would like to call on Gloria Desorcy, Manitoba Branch of the Consumers' Association of Canada. Do you have materials to distribute? Ms. Gloria Desorcy (Manitoba Branch, Consumers' Association of Canada): Yes. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Desorcy: On behalf of the Manitoba Branch of the Consumers' Association of Canada, CAC Manitoba, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to make some very brief comments today on Bill 32. I will confine my comments to one aspect only of this bill, and that is the information and privacy adjudicator.

CAC Manitoba has long been in favour of an information and privacy commissioner or adjudicator for Manitoba that would address concerns and complaints under The Personal Health Information Act. We believe that this commissioner or adjudicator should be the first line of complaint for consumers and should have the power to make orders. So, Madam Chair, while we see the introduction of an adjudicator with the power to make orders as a very positive improvement, the process outlined in the bill still requires consumers to approach the Ombudsman first.

Then, after the Ombudsman's office has made recommendations to the public body and, if the Ombudsman believes it is warranted, a recommendation would be made to the adjudicator. At this point, the process of review by the adjudicator would begin. We feel that this series of events and reviews is far too cumbersome for consumers. We believe that consumers should be able to go directly to the decision-maker who would have the authority, when their complaint is warranted, to make orders and to provide consumers with the response and the redress that they deserve in a timely fashion.

I did speak in a bit of detail yesterday about our reasons for this and why we felt that some consumers experienced either difficulty or barriers in accessing this type of redress process. So I'm not going to go over those again; they are in the printed outline that I've handed you. Just let me say that, when you're looking to either protect or access your personal health information, you're very often in a position where you're under a lot of stress. Perhaps you're ill yourself or a loved one is ill. Timeliness is, as you can see, very important.

So timeliness of receiving some kind of access or protection is very important. Let me cut to the chase. While we recognize that the onus to create the information and privacy adjudicator is included in Bill 31, not in this bill, we feel it is important to state clearly the need for a much more efficient, streamlined, redress mechanism for complaints regarding access to and protection of personal health information.

Therefore, CAC Manitoba respectfully urges the government of Manitoba to further amend Bill 32 to include an information and privacy commissioner or adjudicator with the authority to make orders that are independent of the Ombudsman–as I said yesterday, a first responder with teeth–and the removal of the responsibility for PHIA complaints from the already very busy Ombudsman's office. Once again, on behalf of CAC Manitoba, I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to make those comments.

196 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions? Ms. Oswald: Thank you very much, Ms. Desorcy, in particular for the time that you've invested in waiting to make this presentation. To be the last one at the gate, before things closed last night, can be disheartening and, to see you here again tonight to make this important presentation, we owe you a debt of gratitude. We've had a lot of discussion on this particular bill concerning timeliness and the form that it takes.

So I take to heart your words about that as well. We're going to do our best going forward to make sure that we do our best for Manitobans in that regard too. Thank you again for your presentation. Mrs. Taillieu: I think the fact that you have come back again tonight to make this presentation–we thank you for that. It shows your dedication to this issue. I think it shows how important it is to Manitobans.

Thank you for coming with the issue because you raise the point that many have raised previously in that we do need to see an independent privacy commissioner, one that the public has access to and can go to first-line. That's the first point of entry. What we see with the legislation is that this legislation actually blocks that from happening and makes it an extended process. Certainly, when you're talking about timely access, this is going in entirely the wrong direction.

So I want to commend you for recognizing the problems with the bill and for coming forward and staying right through yesterday and hearing the presentati ons and, again, coming today. Did you–I can't remember if you proposed amendments to the legislation, Bill 31, last night–you did? Okay, so we are looking at those and we'll be bringing those forward. In terms of this Bill 32 then, are there specific amendments that would need to be made that would satisfy, or would this all still just be related in Bill 31 in the privacy adjudicator, or is there anything in Bill 32? * (19:00) Ms. Desorcy: Of course, there are.

I know this is only one aspect of the bill, and that's what I said. This is the only one I'm going to comment on. But the amendments we'd like to see are, you know, what my two points here at the end, under CAC Manitoba's recommendations, which is the creation of the information and privacy commissioner or adjudicator, that is independent of the Ombudsman and that is the first line of complaint, and removal for responsibility for PHIA complaints from the Ombudsman. It's a one-stop shopping thing. Mrs.

Taillieu: Would you outline to us–I know that you're Consumers' Association of Canada , so I'm thinking that you must have interactions with other provinces in terms of their privacy commissioners. Could you explain to us how that process works and if you see it as a better process? Ms. Desorcy : I have to say that we work pretty exclusively within Manitoba. I am a little bit familiar with the privacy commissioners in other provinces for regular privacy and freedom of information. I'm not very familiar with personal health information specifically, and what kinds of legislation there is in other provinces.

But my understanding is that privacy commissioners are usually the first line of complaint and that they may also offer education to consumers for what kinds of services they can provide and how to access them. Mrs. Taillieu: In your experience, have you found that there's been any confusion with the oversight of information in PHIA, whether that be provincial or federal depending on the body that holds the information? Have you found that there's any confusion there? Ms. Desorcy: Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. Mrs.

Taillieu: Trustees of public health information, whether that's in the pub lic sector and therefore designated under the PHIA act , or if it's trustees in the private sector would be under federal legislation, so perhaps, I don't know if you've had any experience in difficulties in that area with different jurisdictions having different authority? Ms. Desorcy: Are you asking if we hear more people trying to go under the act with regards to public bodies than private sector bodies? Is that what you're asking–like provincial versus federal? Mrs.

Taillieu: Madam Chair, I'm really just wondering if you've had any confusion with people coming to you and saying, well, I'm trying to access information but I can't get it; I don't know whether it's under the Manitoba government or under the federal government.

May 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 197 Ms. Desorcy : I see what you're saying. Sorry, I'm sort of dense today, apparently. Mrs. Taillieu: Sorry. Ms. Desorcy : No, no, it's probably me. Yes, I understand what you're saying. Yes, we certainly have had consumers with some confusion there. Many consumers are very familiar with this legislation, not line by line, but they know, sort of, what their rights are in Manitoba.

Then there are some consumers who do find that confusion because they hear about the federal bill and the federal protections, and they're not sure which bill it's under, which level of government administers it, who they call, where they call; that's a large part of what we do at our info centre, is help people sort that stuff out. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Our time for questions has expired. I would now like to call on Pam Brown, private citizen. Do you have materials for us to distribute? Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Pam Brown (Private Citizen) : Okay, thank you. Good evening.

I want to thank you all for giving me the opportunity to speak to you tonight about an experience I had with my fa mily last year regarding my father, Raymond Brown. He was a retired farmer from Interlake area, and he had–when he had retired he moved into Carman. In 1999, he was diagnosed with rectal cancer and was treated by his physician in Carman, Dr. Clayden. Since that time, he'd experienced blood clots and things of that nature. Actually, in August of 2006, he was no longer happy with the care he was receiving from Dr. Clayden in Carman, so he sought to get a new family doctor, Dr.

Van Niekerk in Winkler, Manitoba. At that time, Boundary Trails medical clinic that Dr. Van Niekerk had worked for had requested Carman for the medical files. My dad was sent a letter saying that they were requesting $250, approximately $1 for each page of administration fees. My father didn't pay it; he was kind of–out of principal, he was angry. He actually kind of wanted answers from the regional health authority to find out if they could actually do that. Then, fast forward to May last year, my father was rushed by ambulance to Boundary Trails in Winkler and hospitalized.

We didn't know what was wrong with him. He was weak and disoriented. A few days later, they diagnosed that he had a brain tumour. When speaking to the hospital, I guess within the two days he was there and they didn't have a diagnosis, I spoke with the nurse and said, I believe that they still have the files in Carman, but my dad never paid this $250 administration fee, and she said, don't worry about it. We'll get them. My dad had a very good doctor in Winkler. They contacted a neurosurgeon here in Winnipeg and he was transferred to Health Sciences Centre.

They actually removed the tumour on May 16, and the surgery was a success. The following day I had gone to see him. Everything was fine. We were kind of talking about the future, Madam Chair, even with the physiotherapist that was in the room, about how his life would change and shopping and being close to a doctor's office and me having to move to an area that could accommodate those needs. Later that evening, he'd gone up to go to the washroom and had collapsed and couldn't breathe because two blood clots had gone from his leg into his lungs.

The other thing about that, though, is that that was kind of a common thing that would happen to him, ever since the chemotherapy of his previous cancer. However, the doctors, I didn't even know it, but, at the time when he died, speaking to the intensive care doctors, they said they were not even aware they had cancer prio r. They had no medical files. They were given absolutely no information. So that's what kind of saddens and angers me. That letter I just presented to you. That was sent to my home the day before my fath er's funeral service from the Carman medical clinic.

There has to be a need for a person's medical files, for doctors to be able to share that information. I know the doctors in Winnipeg and his doctor in Winkler did everything they could, and they had to start from square one to try and diagnose what was going on with him. He was a 71-year-old man, but, had they known any of that prior information, it could have been a completely different outcome. I don’t know and I never will know, but it's something that needs to be addresse d. The idea that another doctor can't get vital information on a patient, to me, just makes absolutely no sense at all. Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Ms. Oswald: Well, thank you very much, Ms. Brown, for coming to tell this story. It's a sad story and my condolences go to you on the loss of your dad. * (19:10)

198 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 We've heard a number of presenters on personal health information legislation speaking about the importance of family members being part of the team, being full partners in health care, and that's been articulated beautifully. I think you bring a new perspective to the debate this evening about what we assume happens just logically and that is that health professionals have simple and easy access to information that's critical at the most critical times.

I've been in this chair of Minister of Health for a year and a half or so now and have learned that I should never utter the words, that would never happen. I can say to you today I have never heard of a $250 photocopying bill before. It's completely unacceptable. I can assure you that we'll be going forward with some really serious questions about this, but, in the main, the importance of people having timely access to health information, whether it's a health professional, a loved one, an advocate, I think that you've made a very important point.

I lost my mom about this time last year and I think we've been on a parallel universe in some ways. A year isn't long enough for it to stop hurting. I'm sure you would agree. So I thank you very much for having the courage to come here tonight to tell us this story. Mrs. Taillieu: Madam Chairperson, I certainly echo those sentiments and I think what the minister has said is correct. I think perhaps she should maybe have offered an apology to you. We certainly would do that because this is just not acceptable for the information to not flow from one doctor to another; they're both within the system.

There certainly should be no problem with that and certainly there should be no–I wouldn't believe that there should be a charge to transfer files of a medical nature from one doctor to another. Certainly, the issue of photocopying raises some concerns. If you're concerned about the information going to the right place, there have been problems with that before. So we certainly notice that as a red flag too. Perhaps they were photocopied and perhaps they were sent somewhere wrongly. We don't know that but that, of course, doesn't help the situation. We certainly apologize for the systems going wrong in your case.

Is there any way that we can–do you have any recommendations for the committee in terms of what needs to be done? Ms. Brown: The onus shouldn't be on the patient to have to pay money to have that information transferred to another docto r. Just have information available in a timely manner because, sometimes when it comes to someone's health, time is of the essence. It can really mean everything in terms of the type of treatment that can be provided. So just more–kind of a streamlined policy.

Just the idea that a medical centre can even have a policy like that and what are the pa tients and the people of that community supposed–they're probably not even aware of it, the idea that it can happen. That's what angers me so much. Mrs. Stefanson: Certainly I can sympathize with you myself. I, less than two months ago, lost my own father as well, so I know what it's like to go through what you've been through, the hardships and everything that goes with it, that in combination with these types of things and receiving these things the day before the funeral and things like that are very, very difficult.

As my colleague said, I'm certainly sorry that you had to face those very difficult times. Is it your understanding that the information maybe wasn't shared because of this bill not being paid? Ms. Brown: The first letter was when he had transferred to Dr. Van Niekerk , his new family doctor. That was in the spring, and the first letter he received in August of 2006. Once he was ill in May, early May of last year, that's when Carman medical clinic was sent a second request for the file, and then they just turned around and sent the letter to my father. So that's the thing that makes absolutely no sense at all.

I had no idea of what information my father actually disclosed to the doctor, but the idea of how little, how really they knew nothing in terms of what his medical history was. Mrs. Stefanson: I'm actually in a state of shock that this type of thing would happen. I mean, it's, you know, first of all, there are two issues at hand here: No. 1 there is a fee for this type of service, which, I think, the minister has already talked about.

But, secondly, withholding information, vital information to someone's health and well-being and is dependent on their life, like a life and death scenario being withheld because of a bill that should never have had to have been paid in the first place is absolutely unacceptable. The way I see it, disgusting. It needs to be looked into much further than this.

May 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 199 I am so sorry that you had to go through what you had to go through personally, but if this is what's happening out there, just thank you so much for bringing this forward today because this is a very, very serious issue that need s to be looked into much further than it has. An apology is one thing, but this is much more serious than an apology, so I just want to thank you for bringing this to our attention here today. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Our time for questions has expired.

Bill 15–The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act Madam Chairperson: For the information of the committee, we received an out-of-town registration for Bill 15, The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act. As has been previously agreed to by the committee, out-of-town presenters are heard first, so I would like to call upon Kristal Bayes, private citizen. I would like to call on Kristal Bayes, private citizen. Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I think we got word that she may have just stepped out to the washroom. I'm not sure.

She probably wasn't expecting that you were going to go back to out-of- town at this period of time, so I'm not sure what the– Madam Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee to–[interjection]– thank you very much. An Honourable Member: If we could just wait a second, that would be great. Madam Chairperson: Do you have materials to distribute? Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Kristal Bayes (Private Citizen): Hello ladies and gentlemen, members of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly. My name is Kristal Bayes.

I am a full-time student at Brandon University, and I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to this committee. This is democracy at its finest, and it's wonderful to see so many presenters. First off, let me start off by saying that the environment and environmental sustainability are very concerning issues to me, as they are for most young people today.

We're beginning to see the impact of years of abuse of our earth and, for this reason, I must commend the government for bringing a bill of such type forward in the first place. * (19:20) There are parts of Bill 15 that are highly beneficial to Manitobans as we work together to make our province more sustainable. For example, I believe that standards do ne ed to be established and that government and government-funded buildings should set a precedence for the rest of the province to follow.

However, while I commend the government for making issues of environmental sustainability a priority, I do view Bill 15 as a slap in the face to Manitobans who take the word of their governments when they're fed sound bites about how this bill is going to champion environmental reform. I've an issue with the accountability of the proposed system introduced in this bill. The person in charge of determining the grading of the government's action on climate change should not be a sitting minister. This would be like my parents grading the papers that I write for my university courses.

Mind you, ther e would be an occasional failing mark when I didn't do my homework or clean my room, but I can almost guarantee myself a nice fat A. I don't believe that accountability can take hold in a system when the minister of science and energy will be grading the government's actions with regard to emission targets. In a perfect world, we would all hold ourselves accountable, but this is not a perfect world. I know I would sleep easier at night knowing that an independent body was to be grading the government's progress or lack of.

Another concern I must raise is the painfully slow start-up to this process for the emissions reduction under this bill. Members of the Legislature, the state of our environment is a problem of today, just like health care and post-secondary ed ucation are problems of today as well. Under Bill 15, reporting of reductions is to begin in 2010, a year and a half from today at the earliest. By 2011, only one-tenth of a megatonne of emissions is to be reduced. At this pace we might as well do nothing at all. It is my understanding that, subsequent to 2011, the rate of reduction is to increase radically.

Why is this so late? If it was possibly because 2011 is an election year and that this small amount is easily attainable, if not effective, then I say shame on the government for traveling the easy route instead of that which is most effective. Political agenda should never come before

200 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 the issues whether it be health or education or the state of the environment. Please bear in mind that it is not an intention but the outcome that really matters in matters of public policy. Madam Chair, modest objectives and malpractices of accountability make this bill just another piece of big-talk-no-action, political attention-seeking legislation.

It is a slap in the face for those who really want to see change, and I would appreciate it if, in the future, governments strove for substance, instead of increasing their votes, for Manitobans who care about the environment and trust that their government will act in their best interest without scrutinizing their intentions. With that, I would just, again, like to thank all of you for letting me speak. I am speaking as a student and as a Manitoban. So thank you. This is my first presentation. Please be easy on me with the questions. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. You did very well.

We have some questions. Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Science, Technology, Energy and Mines): Thank you very much, Kristal, and I'd like to thank you very, very much for coming here, for making a presentation. We don't see a lot of younger people. I am very pleased that you took the time and the effort to make a presentation. Hopefully, it's not your–although it's your first, hopefully it's not your last, and I'd be pleased to send you our plan of the 60 different projects and programs that are going on. I don't know if you had a chance to look at it on the Web.

I'd be pleased to give you the 60 different initiatives that are going on now or undertaken shortly. If you have any questions or concerns about those, I'd be pleased to have a staff member contact you. Thank you very much. As members of the western climate change initiative, the other different organizations, I can assure you that we will be accountable to those groups, to the public and to the younger people, so I'll give you this, if you want it, okay? We'll just take the page. Mr.

Leonard Derkach (Russell): Excuse me for chuckling, Madam Chairperson, but it was just yesterday that the minister was chastising me about not using the hard copy but using the Web. We have a young individual before us who is very conversant with the Web, and I'm sure that she can access that information. Your gesture, by the way, Mr. Minister, was incredible, so thank you for that. An Honourable Member: He's following the Speaker's ruling. Mr. Derkach: I'm glad the minister's following the Speaker's ruling. On a question, though. Ms.

Bayes, thank you very much for your excellent presentation, and it's good to see a young person like you make a presentation on this very important legislation. This legislation probably impacts a lot of young people who are at university, a nd you indicated you are from Brandon University. We haven't seen a lot of university students present. You're probably one of few.

I would like to know your opinion as to whether or not a bill of this nature that has such a significant impact perhaps shouldn't be given the opportunity to have hearings established in Brandon where university students and young people like yourself would be able to make themselves available to present on the contents of the bill and to give government and us as legislators some serious views as they are the youth in our province with regard to our environment and to the protection of our environment. Ms. Bayes: I would agree with that fully, and not just Brandon.

I think that one thing that large governments such as those of provinces and countries need to bear in mind is that you're not only representing the individuals in the particular area where the government buildings are. Brandon students, Brandon seniors, Brandon population in general would love to have their input before bills go through, before they're even introduced. But it's not just Brandon; it's the northern communities. We have a very diverse province, and I think it's important that all populations are considered before the bills are even put forward. Mrs.

Stefanson: Thank you very much for your presentation today. You did a great job. I know it's your first one, but, and as always, you always get a little nervous, but you didn't seem nervous at all. You did really well, so thanks for being here today. I think you brought up some really, really good, valid points with respect to this bill, and one of them was sort of leaving until after the next election–the progress that they're looking to make between now and the next election is very little towards the overall Kyoto target. I think you've touched on that a little bit. I'm just wondering, what would you prefer to

May 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 201 see: Would you prefer to see that the government sort of move more quickly in a shorter period of time towards showing that they're serious about maybe reaching those Kyoto targets? Is that sort of what you were getting at in your presentation? Ms. Bayes : That is actually exactly what I was getting at.

Well, we all understand that progress is, of course–takes longer at the beginning than it will once programs are instituted and are up and running, but this is–just looking at the numbers, it's too long and this first until 2011 is a very, very, small reduction in emissions. I think that, if this government is serious about reducing emissions, now is just as good a time as any. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Our time for questions has expired. Thank you very much for your presentation. * (19:30) For the information of the committee, we have received a few more out-of-town registrations.

I would like to call on Trevor Gates, private citizen, who will be presenting on Bill 15, The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act, and Bill 31, The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. Do you have materials to distribute? Thank you. Mr. Derkach: Just a clarification, Madam Chair, is Mr. Gates presenting on Bill 15 first and then consecutively presenting on Bill 31, which will give him a total of 20 minutes of presentation and 10 minutes of questions? Madam Chairperson: Technically, yes. An Honourable Member: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Gates, you may proceed. Mr.

Trevor Gates (Private Citizen): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Sorry, I'm a bit nervous like I was yesterday. I come into speak yesterday to Bill 37, and I'm to speak tomorrow to Bill 38. I spent an extra night in town here. I started looking at what was going on, and, like most people, I have an opinion. I think a lot of things can be done better and I spent a lot of my days trying to do the things that I do better and I think that this legislation could definitely be better, as I'm sure that's why we're all here.

I really think that the governing party, the NDP, has a chance to hold future governments accountable with stronger legislation, and I don't think that they need to be afraid of coming out with stronger legislation now. I really think that–and I've spent a lot of time in the Northwest Territories working with Native people, and there are so many projects up there that are partnered with Native people. I don't understand how this Hydro development goes forward without Aboriginal partnership. These hydro lines should be going up with their partnership and their ownership.

Really, I really think that the–every time I listen to people speak on the government's behalf, they sound so defensive. It just seems like the wrong decision was made and the wrong route was picked, and they really need to just stop and take a look at that. The

section on off-grid communities, when I originally read through this, I kept thinking unconstructively: like, how come this isn't done already? There's been a government in place for this long with a majority; how come they haven't got a plan for this already? If the NDP try to present themselves as the greener than the Green Party and they just don't seem to be taking action on this–I don't mean to say that unconstructively–I really would like to see more action on this. I think that the federal Conservatives have been dragging their feet too, and I think that you should not follow their lead.

I think that they need to do more, you need to do more, I need to do more; it's a climate crisis. If I'd have read this act in 2000 or 2002, or if I'd read this

section and this type of planning in 2000 or 2002, I'd be really impressed. I wish it had come sooner. That being said, it does need an independent reviewer. I don't see how a direct employee of the Premier (Mr. Doer), I can't see how a Cabinet minister can be expected to grade the performance of their own government. Everybody knows that this is way too important to be partisan or for propaganda. It is a crisis and everybody believes it. No single party would be against anything that was towards a greener approach to government and to life in Manitoba.

I also spend a lot of time contracting in Northwest Territories and contracting with Indian Affairs and with the government of Northwest Territories. There are so many jobs that we build based on the cost of things and we wasted so much energy looking backwards at projected expenses. The

section in regard to the public transit system, in regard to funding for public transit reads: The grants under subsection (1) must include for each municipality that operates a regular or rapid transit system, a transit operating grant in the amount that is

202 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 not less than 50 percent of the annual operating cost of the transit system in excess of its annual operating revenue. So, basically, whatever its loss, the government will cover half, which seems fair to me. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea. I think transit is the only solution to reducing the commuter emissions. But, if you fund it like that, if you leave it at 50 percent of what they've spent in the past, they're going to spend all their time looking backwards at receipts trying to figure out which ones they can pass on to you.

You know, was his truck municipal or was it really a transit truck? They're going to bill you for the transit truck. It's natural for governments to do that. They're not going to do that in a bad way. That's how we got the $20 Aspirin in the hospital. This is the way governments have funded things, and it's not smart. It creates inefficiency. I don't want to just stand here and say that this is bad. There are better solutions.

You could offer to fund 50 percent of projected losses and ask people to look forward rather than backward so they can try and focus on next year, rather than on the stuff that they can't do anything about. This is the type of way of funding and planning that, I think, creates the types of inefficiencies that private citizens that come to speak here are very frustrated with. But, just like in my business, I can do better. I know you can do better, and I really think that that type of funding is not a smart way to fund something. This is not my most passionate issue, but it's something that I believe a lot.

The environment portion of the issue I find very interesting, but the legislation I don't find, to be honest. When I came to speak on it, I was really looking at those sections that I found frustrating, that I seem to see all through government. Every Department of Health bill is based on percentaging up to the federal government, and you just see so many governments wasting their time looking back at receipts trying to decide who they can pass expense on to, rather than looking forward to see how can we do this better, how can we be smarter stewards with this money, how can we do a better job next year.

That's an ongoing process. So I don't understand why the date, the 2011, 2010 dates–as I read through this, it says that the minister's supposed to bring a report forward unless there's reason that he doesn't want to and unless it says directly that the minister doesn't have to bring this report forward. This would be an easy thing to delay in the Leg with an election coming up. It seems like it's based on an election, not based on the goal of approaching the climate in a more sensible and fair way, in a way that it knows that we're not going to be the last people to use this planet.

I don't think that environmental policy should lean in any way towards any party, and I think every party would agree on that. I can't think of any other reason for some of those dates. There has to be more reporting than every four years. That's one government cycle. No government would ever care about an every-four-year report because they'd never have to face it till the next election.

So I think if you're not reporting annually and creating targets–there are very few targets in there–specific targets that are there for everybody to work on, and try to get the opposition involved in it so everybody's working on this together, 'cause it's too important for people to work against each other on it. I really think that they have to look at partnerships with the native people in the North on the hydro lines, and I'm probably the only person that said that.

What I'd read was Manitoba Hydro thought that they had to own the grid themselves for stability and that the native people up North own a lot of companies that run just fine. I'm sure that they could be a partner on that grid. You'd see a much more sensible plan going together based on the people that live there and the people that are going to be living there for a long time. So that's all I had to say on Bill 15. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions? Mr.

Rondeau: I'd like to thank you very much for your presentation and taki ng the time, and especially staying overnight to make it. I apologize for any delays that you might have experienced because of procedural wrangling. * (19:40) But I'd also like to let you know that, if you ever require any information on how we've connected past communities, the grid, or our projects, I'd be very, very pleased to receive information, and, if you have any information and like to see it now, I can make sure that we can provide it to you through the staff.

May 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 203 Is there any information you need? Mr. Gates: Not today. I'm very focussed on looking forward. Past performances is one way, but I really think that, unless you're happy with what went into those communities and you think you can help with these communities–maybe some places are going to have to have diesel power. It doesn't really leave even an option open for that. I don't understand–the way it's written, you're going to bring us a plan or nothing; there's no or else. It says you're going to bring us a plan on bringing non-petroleum power to these communities.

There might be a lot of challenges to putting that together, and that's not really in there either. There is no information that– I'm obviously not a professional that could provide advice in a way that was helpful. Mr. Derkach: Thank you for your presentation, sir, and thank you for staying overnight. I know that you and your private life have other things probably much more important than staying overnight, but your passion for what you see before as legislation is to be admired. I want to ask a question specific to Bill 15.

You mentioned the hydro line and the involvement of Aboriginal people in the hydro line. There's a

section in the act which talks about green buildings and green construction. I'm wondering what your view is with respect to the hydro line as it is proposed to go on the west side of the province, and whether or not you think, from your perspective, whether it is a green approach to structuring that line as is proposed by Manitoba Hydro and the government. Mr. Gates: My son had to come home from school and he had to use the word "contrast." It just shocked me how he could use contrast in a sentence. The contrast from the greenhouses to the west side of the lake, they are such opposites.

If the goal is to reduce emissions, the west side of the lake is the bad idea. People have to admit that it's a bad idea. However, they can save face with that, but admit that it's a bad idea and go with the idea that it seems like everybody–the only proponents of the west side that I've ever heard are the governing party. I haven't got a lot of e-mails from the NDP party to be honest. I'm sure that there are proponents out there for the west side, but I have never heard an argument that made the west side sound like it was a green idea. It's the opposite of a green idea.

I understand the goal with building, I was looking at that thinking, could I put up a building, an office building and lease it to the government? Well, if I ever want to do that now, I'm going to have to make sure it's a green building. I think that's smart; you're putting your money where your mouth is. Then, you're throwing it all away on the west side because a mistake was made. Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Thank you very much for your presentation. Certainly, thank you for taking the real interest in politics and legislation.

I think that's very commendable and wish we had more Manitobans who had the opportunity to partake an interest such as yours. I think you really encapsulated quite a few of the issues that we see with this particular bill in a couple of points you made. One was in terms of the reporting period. I think that's very important, and I would certainly concur that an annual report woul d be beneficial for all Manitobans. The other thing you talked about was having the minister actually set criteria, set some of the regulations and set the standards.

Have you given any other further thought to who might play or what area might play a better role in setting some of those criteria, some of those standards, some of the emission standards? Mr. Gates: I own two grocery stores. I've worked at Denny's; I've worked at every type of place you could imagine. The smartest accountants that I've worked with have said, if it gets measured, it gets checked. If you measure it, people are watching it and they will do things about it. The more things that you can do that to, the better. The more measures you can put in, the more things you're going to be looking at.

It's a problem. Everybody's afraid it's going to be bad. Who cares if it's bad? It's going to be what it is and we need to do something about it when it's there, but it definitely–more targets are better, if that answers your question, Madam Chair. I don't know if I misunderstood it or not. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, our time for questions has expired. You are also prepared to speak on Bill 31. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I just note we were almost finished with–I think the remaining two or three people have been here since Monday night, and

204 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 I'm wondering, perhaps, after–I think we have a couple of out-of-town presenters, if we could hear them. I know there are some new registrants tonight. We'll certainly hear them as well, but I just think out of courtesy, people have been sitting here 13, 14 hours. If we could, perhaps, accommodate some of the out-of-town presenters and then make sure that we do hear them. Madam Chairperson: Would you prefer a break? Floor Comment: I would, yes. Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to allow another speaker after Mr. Gates? [Agreed] Thank you.

An Honourable Member: Give him a break. Mr. Ashton: There are what, two or three people who've been here since Monday night. I was just going to suggest that we accommodate them after 13, 14 hours, then continue on with the new presenters. Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to give leave to continue on with the list prior to the out-of-town presenters? [Agreed] We are now on Bill 33, The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act. I would like to call upon Paul Barsy, private citizen. Mr. Barsy has been called once and dropped to the bottom.

His name will now be deleted from the list. We will now go to Bill 34, The CFS Amendment and CFS Authorities Amendment Act. I now call upon Harvey Diamond, private citizen. I will now call on Harvey Diamond, private citizen. Harvey Diamond will now be dropped to the bottom of the list. Bill 36–The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: If we turn to Bill 36, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act, I will now call on David Sanders, Deloitte & Touche LLP Property Tax Services. Mr. Sanders, you may begin your presentation. Mr.

David Sanders (Deloitte & Touche LLP Property Tax Services): Thank you, Madam Chair. Honourable ministers and members of the committee, some members of the committee may be aware of the fact that I have been engaged in representing property and business taxpayers in the appeal of their assessments during the past 13 years, previously, as director of real estate advisory services for Colliers Pratt McGarry and now as a senior manager for property tax services for Deloitte & Touche.

Most members may not be aware of my earlier transgressions, and, if I may stray from my presentation for a moment, I would like to say that sitting through the last three evenings here has been a bit of a stroll down memo ry lane for me. It has actually been 40 year since I began working in this wonderful building helping the Honourable George Johnson bring in medicare in Manitoba, and 32 years since the Honourable Ed Schreyer appointed me to be deputy minister of urban affairs for the first time. I've enjoyed walking the halls and seeing good friends hanging there, their pictures, that is.

I've also seen many good friends here in person continuing to contribute to the making of better laws in Manitoba. I saw the Honourable Sid Green, whom I worked for here 38 years ago. My goodness, we are a persistent lot, aren't we? * (19:50) If I can turn to Bill 36. I have provided a brief for you and I don't propose to read it all. There are some attachments. It's not as bad as it looks. But, with respect to my understanding of the legislation, I have enclosed copies of the government's official news release describing the purpose of the bill. There's a copy of the bill itself.

There is a Free Press story, "Assessment frequency is creaking ahead." I have provided a copy of Hansard for the debate on second reading of Bill 36 and I have also provided copies of the relevant existing sections of The Municipal Assessment Act. I'd ask you to note that the amendment that is before you is stated to pave the way for reassessments every two years instead of every four years, but it doesn't actually do it.

In fact, while the news release indicates the government's intention to move to a two-year assessment cycle after 2010, which is our next regular assessment, in fact, what Bill 36 does do is simply authorize the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council to prescribe the referenced year and the reassessment date by regulation. In fact, the only indication we have th at the reference date for value, which is rather critical, is to be April 1, 2008, comes from a news clipping quoting the city assessor who's not in charge of this matter.

So the idea of setting a reference date, a particular date, is a good idea, but everybody needs

May 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 205 to know what that date is long in advance for the purpose of gathering and analyzing relevant market data. This does affect literally everybody who occupies space in this province. Rather than simply confer on the Cabinet the power to describe assessment years and reference dates, I would suggest that the year of general assessment and the reference dates should continue to be enshrined in the statute. I'm on page 4.

If necessary and in the public interest, those matters can continue to be changed by the Legislative Assembly within a reasonable time–our experience this week, maybe, notwithstanding–with plenty of notice to all concerned, which is the effect of having a statutory change through the process of amending the statute, as now.

If these matters may be prescribed and changed by simple regulation in the future, virtually without notice, because we all know that Cabinet can meet at least once a week, if not every day, and make changes by regulation, then a great deal of additional and unnecessary uncertainty will be introduced in the assessment and taxation of property.

Nobody wants additional uncertainty of that nature, and not that I would suggest it would happen, but it certainly could be very tempting for a government to defer a general assessment for a year or more for polit ical reasons or, indeed, to advance the date of a general assessment in order to capture major shifts in market value more quickly. I would suggest better to avoid either temptation now and retain at least some certainty as to the

schedule for reassessment cycles. In a somewhat analogous situation, I would suggest to you, the City of Winnipeg, with due authority, has been placing an annual 15 percent cap on business assessment increases over the previous assessment cycle. The City has been legislating this cap by by-law in the spring of each year, rather than for the whole four-year cycle, leaving all of businesses affected by this in doubt as to their next year's business assessment in taxes every year. So I would suggest that the dates for the reassessments and the reference date be enshrined in the legislation.

I do suggest, on page 5, that the date contrary to the quotation from the City assessor would be better December 31, the calendar year, for reporting purposes, but there are, I understand, differences of opinion there. If you turn to page 6, there are sections dealing with providing for assessm ent changes by agreement without the necessity of going to the Board of Revision. I don't know that that's really necessary, but I am concerned about the legislation as worded. Proposed

section 15.1(3)(

b) could be interpreted to prevent subsequent owners or, indeed, present owners from appealing a property in the future within a cycle, even though they entered into agreement first. Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair I have the understanding that that is not the intention of the government, and, therefore, I have suggested an amendment on page 7 that, if this

section is to go ahead, that

section 15.1(3)(

b) be amended to read: No application may be made to the Board of Revision in respect of the realty assessment, not business, of the property for the year of assessment changed by an agreement under subsection (1). I believe that would limit the effect of that clause to the intent of the government which would be reasonable. In that

section 15, there's also provision to the guarantee that taxpayer's right to appeal certain things in spite of such an agreement. It mentions certain clauses under which the taxpayer would have that right, but I believe it misses a few which are listed on the bottom of page 7:

Section 340, the City of Winnipeg Charter; and

section 13(6) or

section 14(3) of The Municipal Assessment Act, I believe, should be added to that clause. Turning to the next page, page 8, pointing out, as I'm sure members are aware, that one of the provisions of this bill is to permit the hearing of residential appeals by a single panel member. I won't comment on that other than to just point that out. My concern is commercial and institutional property owners, but certainly that is a significant change and [inaudible] you may want to consider that.

There is a provision for appeals by authorized agents, not exactly clear, although the intent, I think, is fine, and I would suggest that, if not at committee today but in clause-by-clause consideration, the minister at least put on the record for Hansard his understanding of the intention on the record for the benefit of the parties and the avoidance of doubt and unnecessary litigation. We do have a lot of litigation to do with assessment, and it's unfortunate. Anything that can be done by committee and the government to be very clear as to what is intended would minimize that.

206 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 Turn to page 9. There are provisions with regard to the deferral of reduction penalty. Many of you may not be aware of it, but it is a provision which I would certainly prefer that the government and the Legislature delete entirely. It provides for a penalty for commercial property owners who fail to provide income and expense information to the assessor prior to the establishment of assessment, with a penalty which is virtually without limit.

That is, whatever assessment may be placed on the roll in the first year, however exorbitant it might be, will be sustained, and a reduction which may be granted by boards determining a fair assessment, their decisions will be effective only for the following year. The intent of this particular clause here which I would support is to at least limit that to one year. The previous wording had the result that, because of the idiosyncrasies of the appeal process, it was possible for a penalty to be applied for multiple years or, indeed, to apply it more than once.

So I would suggest that, should you support this particular amendment, although I think the whole

section should come out, and I would say–refer you on the bottom of page 9. There is a

section in the act,

section 64, which has been there, and I checked, since 1870, which provides for the assessor to fine someone who failed to supply this information on a daily basis. If the assessors would simply use that legislation which has been there, I think they would have the desired result, gaining the information that they need and which we would all like them to have in order to produce fair assessments and not leave open these potentially outrageous penalties which have been and would be suffered by people to the working of this particular clause.

There are a couple of other things in the bill, page 10, the Municipal Board pre-hearing conferences–I'm not sure that this adds anything, although I gather the board would like to have clarity as to its authority. So long as it is not the intention that the board have the ability to force a settlement without a full hearing, then I don't think there's any harm done. Again, it would be helpful to have the minister place on the record his intentions here so that there'll be no doubt later on. The last point on page 11 I am concerned about is the coming into force of this bill.

It comes into force on January 1 of 2009, and if the next general assessment and the reference date for value which was suggested to have been a month ago are to be done by regulation and regulations cannot be passed until January 1, 2009, then I suggest that it provides a considerable amount of difficulty for those who would attempt to administer the process and, indeed, to work within it as, indeed, one way or another every Manitoban does. * (20:00) So I would suggest that perhaps if the dates aren't established now, they could be.

Indeed, large sections of the bill, if not all of it, could, in fact, come into effect on royal assent and not wait until January 1 of 2009. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Please excuse the interruption. Your 10 minutes has expired, and a little bit more. So we'll have to move to the question and answer session. Mr. Sanders: Well, I had finished so that's great. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Vice-Chair, I know the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Ashton) is in his place. I'm going to seek, once again, the unanimous consent of this committee to allow Mr.

Sanders to continue, because of the importance of this legislation and the impact it has on residents of our province, both homeowners and also people who own businesses and other properties. So, with the unanimous consent of this committee, I know that Mr. Sanders could probably more fully explain the important elements of this bill, and give us some more time for questions as well. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Before officially recognizing that, Mr. Sanders, could you clarify, has your presentation concluded, or did you have more left? Mr.

Sanders: I believe I had managed to make it to the last paragraph of my presentation. So I thank Mr. Derkach, but I think I've finished my presentation, other than to say that I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee might have for as long as the committee wishes to ask me questions. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for that. We are now officially in the question stage, and I will recognize the honourable minister. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the presenter.

I think your background in this building showed, because, by my accounts, you started waiting to present 14 hours ago. I don't know if that's

May 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 207 a record, but, you know, ce rtainly, I appreciate your patience. I do want to indicate that I also appreciate the copy you gave me of the presentation earlier. I have asked my staff to look through the presentation. I think you raise some interesting points. We are looking at a couple of amendments. I particularly want to thank you for your very detailed presentation and your extreme patience. I really appreciate the input today, and particularly the input from the information that you provided on Monday. Mr. Sanders: I would like to thank the minister.

I would say that, upon agreeing to appear, the staff of the minister did contact me, asked for my suggestions, which, of course, I should have provided long ago. I think they knew my feelings on the matter. But we met and we went through them in detail. I have provided copies to the minister. I am pleased to hear the minister say there may be some consideration to amendments, and, to me, that suggests that the process is working. I would say that it has never been the case that a department– certainly, the minister's department–has not been open to listening to suggestions for changes. Mr.

Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for that. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Sanders, thank you for your presentation. I know we've travelled this ground, or covered this ground before previous times. Certainly, your views are respected with regard to assessment and some of the key elements of assessment. I wanted to ask another question as it relates to the assessment authorities. Right now we have two, the provincial and the city . Even back as long as 1990-some when I was minister, we talked about a single authority for assessment purposes.

I would like to know your views as they relate to consolidating the two authorities into one, perhaps, rather than having two separate assessment authorities in the province. Mr. Sanders: Could be done. I don't know that it would make much of a difference. The legislation is written in such a way that the provincial municipal assessor can provide direction to the city assessor as to how they do their work. I think, in practical terms, assessment is a hot potato that no government is anxious to pick up, which may explain why there hasn't been a change. More co-ordination would be good.

The authority is there in the legislation. I'm not so sure it has always been used, but it's there to be done right now. I don't think that spending a lot of time in melding the two organizations would produce much benefit at the end result. At the same time, if there's a desire to do it, certainly it is possible and has happened in other provincial jurisdictions, and would produce a degree of consistency perhaps, which would be desirable, although the power to make big decisions also allows you to make big mistakes. Mr.

Derkach: With regard to the single person appeal on residential properties, I notice that you had a view on that. I wonder whether you could elaborate as to what the danger is in your mind might be with just having a one-person appeal body rather than a three-person appeal panel or a panel of some nature. Mr. Sanders: Well, I would say that, by and large, members of the board's revision, whether they're appointed or they are municipal councillors, all take the job seriously and then do their best to be fair.

I guess the concern I might have from the policy point of view is the perception by the general public that, perhaps, they're subject to arbitrary decision of an individual in a way that it'll be more accepting of a decision of a majority of a panel, and that's just in terms of the public policy of having a system which the public has confidence in. I would say that there are other jurisdictions across the country, for example, Ontario, where a single-panel member will hear a very complicated commercial property decision, so it's not as if a single member isn't used elsewhere.

But I would give some thought to that because I think that coul d be a consequence of a sense on the part of the public that, perhaps, they've been dealt with arbitrarily. Most members of the public may be told they have a right, a second right of appeal to the Municipal Board, but there's an expense involved and it can be years before you get there. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Sanders. Your time for questions and answers has expired. We appreciate your input. Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): One short question.

As critic of the portfolio, could I be allowed–could I ask leave of the committee to ask one short question of the presenter? Mr. Vice-Chairperson: It's not technically a point of order, but I will ask the committee if there's leave to allow it. Is there leave?

208 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Leave with strong encouragement that the question and answer be short. Mr. Ashton: Yes, and I think the Member for Russell is a little bit carried away with his enthusiasm for what was an area of his former responsibility. We certainly weren't trying to prevent the critic, the current critic, from asking questions. So I'm sorry. You have time for one brief question. Mr. Pedersen: Thank you. Mr. Derkach and I will take that up later in caucus. You've given a very detailed brief.

You've been in this business for a long time. You have a great deal of expertise in this. You've pointed a number of what you feel are flaws or misses or things that should've been added or taken out in this. Were you at all consulted about–also, the City of Winnipeg, my understanding is the City of Winnipeg's been asking for two-year assessment pe riods for the last while. Did the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs consult with you before drafting this legislation? Mr. Sanders: Let me say this.

City Hall, where this matter has been under discussion for some time, not only what's in this bill, but other matters–I appeared regularly at City Hall in various committees and offered my points of view. There are some things that I thought were not good. I don't see them in the bill and so that works. Was I consulted? I wasn't called to say, we have a bill; what do you think of it, before it was made public, but the door has always been open and the department has been aware of many of my ideas and concerns because I talk to them regularly in the course of my business. I think this might answer your question.

I just wanted to say one further thing for those here who stay to watch you go through clause by clause that I have not forgotten the time when Mr. Derkach recommended that a bill be changed on third reading in the House, which was a good thing. Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Once again, we thank you for your presentation. * * * Mr. Vice-Chairperson: As for the earlier discussion, we'll now move back to Bill 16 and call Karen Starr, private citizen, to speak to The Child Care Safety Charter. Is Karen Starr present? Once again, calling Karen Starr, private citizen, on Bill 16.

It appears she's not here and, seeing as she was called once previously and dropped to the bottom of the list, she will now be removed from the list. * (20:10) Next we will call Mr. Darrell Rankin to speak on Bill 22, The Worker Recruitment and Protection Act. Second notice for Mr. Darrell Rankin from the Communist Party to speak on Bill 22. Seeing that he is not here he will be considered called once and dropped to the bottom of the list. Bill 31, The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, we call Mr. Martin Boroditsky. Is Martin Boroditsky, private citizen, here to speak on Bill 31? Mr.

Boroditsky was also called once previously and will now be removed from the list. We now call Mr. Harvey Diamond to come speak on Bill 34. That's Mr. Harvey Diamond, private citizen, to speak on Bill 34, The CFS Amendment and CFS Authorities Amendment Act. Not seeing Mr. Diamond, he will also now be dropped from the list as he was called once previously. Bill 31–The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act Mr. Vice-Chairperson: We've had some new registrations. Mr. Trevor Gates was here previously to speak on Bill 31. [interjection] I believe he's here. Excellent.

Thank you very much for appearing before us once again, Mr. Gates. You may proceed when you are ready. Mr. Trevor Gates (Private Citizen): Okay. When I mentioned earlier in my earlier speaking–you want to call it testimony, I don't know why; it sounds creepy–I said I had a couple of grocery stores. Yesterday, when I spoke, I started off with this, just so you can know a bit about me and a bit about my experience, and so I don't try to touch on it in stories throughout what I'm speaking, because we'll be here all day. I am a father of two small children. I own two businesses.

I employ 35 Manitobans in my businesses from six different communities. I moved here from the Northwest Territories in 2003. We used to drive to Manitoba every summer to see my grandma, and there was a store for sale, and I bought it. Before that I was a town administrator,

May 28, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 209 worked with municipal governments. I worked with Aboriginal governments as an administrator, as a manager, have been an economic development officer. I've managed seven companies from construction to marine services, property management. I've always had to learn quickly. As I looked through these acts, the things that stuck out to me were just, how can they be better? Does this make any sense? What's the incentive for this? Who benefits from this? How could we make this so it benefits everybody instead of, how can we make it so it benefits more people?

I don't understand the position of the PA. I don't understand the–sorry. I keep on thinking about my experience in other jurisdictions, and there are, from what I've read, nine other privacy commissioners, and they don't really have a lot of power. I don't understand why we need a less powerful, somebody that has less teeth than a commissioner. We already have an Ombudsman. I can't see any benefit of adding another layer in ther e. The only people that it could benefit would be the government if they wanted to delay.

It wouldn't even benefit the government unless they wanted to delay something, but it's the only reason I can think of to add an extra layer of bureaucracy. When you're creating a system–if you create another system and lay it over top of that, and you create another system and lay it over top of that, you're not making a better system, you're just making more work for everybody, including yourselves. It seemed like the–I d on't understand–it seems like all governments universally are afraid of access to information. Conservative, Liberal, NDP, all parties seem to be afraid of access to information.

I don't understand why anybody would be working on something that they weren't proud of. When people warned me that somebody could read my e-mails, I say fine, because I'm proud of what I've put in them. I'm proud of the work I do. I'm proud of what I write, what I speak about, and everybody should be. That's all access to information is there for, is so people can get the information that they want if they're wondering things. Nobody on the government's side has to say–has to make anything up at all.

They say, well, if you want the information, it's right there, and there's no reason to hide behind vexatious and systemic requests, and those are the best ones. Let them waste their time and money reading through the stuff that you're proud of. Every government should be proud of what they're doing. Every opposition should be proud of what they're doing. Every business person, every employer, every employee, you should be proud of what you're doing and that's the only reason to be afraid of access to information or to want to create more layers and rules and avoidance to access to information.

It's not the first government to approach it in that way but, to me, I really think that the idea of less access to information, more time between requests and the information being passed on, I can't imagine who that could benefit in Manitoba, you know. In 1999, the NDP promised to install a privacy commissioner. I don't think that–and they never did, breaking an election promise, which all people do and, normally, probably good-heartedly without wanting to break a promise, but they did. They said that they were going to put in a privacy commissioner in 1999 and they didn't.

I really think when I look at the incentive and the benefits of this, it's like this privacy, PA–I can't even remember the name, it's so pitiful sounding–it doesn't fill that promise. It makes it worse. Like, we promise, we think this is important and then you throw a little pebble at it and it doesn't seem to go with what you're trying to show with the act.

If you want to show that you're serious about it, then you make a serious position, independent, separate from the government, like an auditor general or like those types of positions that governments feel accountable to, and there's nothing wrong with being accountable. There's nothing wrong with people saying you should have done a better job. There's nothing wrong with that at all. That's how we get better. That's how the world's going to become a better place and that's how we're all going to do better with climate change and with the other challenges that are facing us. Any job doing is worth doing right.

I've already said that. The government' s formed three majority governments now. You have the experience to know that without some sort of independence, reports come back biased and cleaned of anything provocative. If you've got somebody that works for the government that's bringing you back reports about your performance, it's not going to say that you're doing a bad job very often. I think that the other young lady that spoke before me spoke about this position. It's not an independent position.

It doesn't have that sort of power control that I think it would need to actually mean what the promise in 1999 was supposed to mean, and if this is fulfilling the promise of 1999, it's

210 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 28, 2008 not. If the next election is going to start off with look how we provided a privacy something-I-can't- remember, it's not going to stick with people. * (20:20) I think even the privacy commissioners that are out there now aren't being listened to by the governments that they're reporting to, and I think that's pitiful. To be afraid of ignoring a tougher position, I just think that you could do better, have a stronger position if it's what you believe in, and if it's not, get rid of the position, because it's just creating two spots.

You've got–in a business, we take a look at an asset that's working well and we try to make it work better. You've got an Ombudsman that's working very well. You've got a system in place that you could expand on and give more strength to. But instead of working with the assets that you have, you've just ignored that and just added a new one on and that's a waste of money and time. It wouldn't work in my business. You know, I couldn't hire two people to ring your groceries through, you know, one person to scan it and then another person behind them to scan it. I'd lose my store.

It just doesn't make any sense to have two people doing the same job or a second person to, you know, just in case the first person was incompetent. Like, what is the position adding to the government? What is the position bringing to the government's goals? I read the act. I really didn't see it. You either believe in something or you don't. Do the right thing. Don't waste time and money on effective inefficiency, because that's all it is. It's just making it even more–its inefficiency is–the effectiveness of it is off the charts.

It's not even measurable how inefficient that sort of system sounds to somebody looking at it from the outside. That's all I have to say on Bill 31. I'd be happy to take any questions. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Hon. Eric Robinson (Minister of Culture, Heritage, Tourism and Sport): Yes, thank you, very much, Mr. Gates. I truly appreciate you giving your advice on this and being so frank with your comments. I believe that your experience and mine are comparable in a lot of ar eas. You worked with a lot of First Nations governments.

I believe that the–what band councils in the Northwest Territories–it's a beautiful part of the world. I think that you and I, the experience that would tell us from working with Aboriginal people would be simply haul us into a talking circle and then we get the truth and reconciliation that we need on some of these issues that we're talking about in this. It's very simple, in my opinion. But that's another world; I have to live within this reality.

Now, let me say that our government held extensive consultations with Manitobans and it was chaired by our Minister of Healthy Living now, the Honourable Kerri Irvin-Ro ss. Presentations were taken into consideration in developing some of these amendments that we are putting into the bill. The most common request that we came across was for additional order-making power regarding a

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-2-sed4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 2nd hansardpdf sed4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	bd10f7e9adad7958cfbde3e9078f11eccdec2a93

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