Manitoba Committee Hansard — Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 13 (38th Legislature, 4th Session)

38-4-sed13

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Ms. Marilyn Brick Constituency of St. Norbert Vol. LVII No. 13 - 9 a.m., Monday, June 12, 2006 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose 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. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri 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. 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. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Scott, Hon.

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

481 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Monday, June 12, 2006 TIME – 9 a.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the committee present: Hon. Mr. Lathlin, Hon. Ms. McGifford, Hon. Messrs. Sale, Selinger Ms. Brick, Messrs. Cummings, Goertzen, Hawranik, Ms. Korzeniowski, Messrs. Martindale, Schuler Substitutions: Mr. Dewar for Ms. Korz eniowski at 12 p.m. Mr. Altemeyer for Hon. Mr. Selinger at 12:28 p.m. Mr. Aglugub for Hon. Ms.

McGifford at 12:28 p.m. Mr. Jennissen for Hon. Mr. Lathlin at 12:28 p.m. APPEARING: Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster Mrs. Leanne Rowat, MLA for Minnedosa Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights WITNESSES: Bill 32–The Real Property Amendment Act Mr. Carl Braun, Executive Director, Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc. Bill 34–The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act Mr. Martin Boroditsky, Private Citizen Bill 41–The Pharmaceutical Act Ms. Penny Murray, Vice-President, Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association Mr. Scott Ransome, Executive Director, Manitoba Society of Pharmacists Mr.

Troy Harwood-Jones, Manitoba International Pharmacists Association Ms. Sheryl Zelenitsky, Acting Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 34–The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act Mr. Paul Thomas, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 25–The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans) Bill 29–The Degree Granting Act Bill 32–The Real Property Amendment Act Bill 33–The Northern Affairs Act Bill 34–The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act Bill 41–The Pharmaceutical Act * * * Madam Chairperson: Good morning.

Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order. This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 25, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans); Bill 29, The Degree Granting Act; Bill 32, The Real Property Amendment Act; Bill 33, The Northern Affairs Act; Bill 34, The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act; Bill 41, The Pharmaceutical Act. We do have presenters registered to speak this morning. On Bill 34, The P ublic Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act, Martin Boroditsky, Private Citizen.

On Bill 41, The Pharmaceutical Act, Penny Murray, Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association; Scott Ransome, Manitoba Society of Pharmacists; Troy Harwood-Jones, Manitoba International Pharmacists Association; Dr. Sheryl Zelenitsky, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba. Since we concluded presentations on Bill 32 at last Thursday's meeting, the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc. has expressed some

482 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 interest in making a presentation on that bill. Representatives from this group are in attendance this morning. Is it the will of the committee to hear a presentation from this group? [Agreed] How long does the committee wish to sit this morning? Mr. Doug Marti ndale (Burrows): Madam Chairperson, I think we should follow the usual procedure of this committee and sit till twelve noon. Madam Chairperson: Is that agreed? [Agreed] 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 morning, please register with staff at the entrance of the room. Prior to proceeding with public presentations, at the meeting we had previously we were part way through Bill 25, the clause-by-clause consideration of The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans). What is the wish of the committee in regard to this? Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, I recommend that we finish clause by clause in that bill.

Madam Chairperson: Is that agreed by the committee? [Agreed] Bill 25–The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans) Madam Chairperson: For the information of the committee, on Bill 25, we had previously passed clause 1 and clause 2, and we are now at clause 3. Shall Clause 3 pass? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I have one amendment. I move THAT the proposed subsection 164(13), as set out in Clause 3 of the Bill, be replaced with the following: Application of Public Utilities Board Act 164(13)

Part 1 of The Public Utilities Board Act applies, with necessary changes, to the making of an order under this

section as if the powers and duties of the board under this

section were assigned to the board under that Part, ex cept for the following provisions: (

a) section 33 (power of board on complaints); (

b) section 34 (power to appoint counsel) as it relates to the fees and expenses of the person appointed; (c) subsection 51(2) (time for service of order); (

d) section 52 (enforcement of order); (

e) section 56 (order as to costs) as it relates to the costs of an intervener; (

f) section 57 (fees). Madam Chairperson: It has been moved by Minister Selinger THAT the proposed subsection– An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Chairperson: Dispense. The motion is in order. The floor is open for questions. Is the committee ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Madam Chairperson: The question before the committee is as follows–did people want an explanation prior to putting the question to the committee? Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Although I believe I know what the effect of that provision is, I wonder if I could have the minister, for the benefit of everyone at committee, explain, particularly as it relates to (a), (

b) and (f). Mr. Selinger: This

section clarifies that the intervener fees will come from the consolidated fund, as opposed to being levied against the payday lending industry by the Public Utilities Board because we plan to collect the costs of providing this regulation through license fees, so it does not allow them to be double hit, both at the PUB and through the license fee. Madam Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Madam Chairperson: The motion is as follows– An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Chairperson: Dispense. Amendment–pass; clause 3 as amended–pass; clause 4–pass; enacting clau se–pass; titl e–pass. Bill as amended be reported.

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 483 Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to now return to public presentations? [Agreed] Did you want to do Bill 32 next, or did you want to do Bill 34? An Honourable Member: How about presentations? Madam Chairperson: On public presentations? We have a presenter on Bill 32, which was agreed by the committee to hear the presenter. * (09:10) Bill 32–The Real Property Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: Can I have the minister responsible for Bill 32, Minister Lathlin?

On Bill 32, The Real Property Amendment Act, the committee calls Carl Braun from the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee. Mr. Braun, did you have a written presentation you wanted to circulate. Mr. Carl Braun (Executive Director, Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc.): No. At this time, I would like to simply read from correspondence that was previously sent. Madam Chairperson: Okay. I will just need to recognize you. Mr. Braun: Would you prefer I introduce myself? Okay. It is Carl Braun. I am the executive director for the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee representing soon-to-be 22 First Nations.

Continue? Okay. On June 8 of last week, we held our annual general meeting in the Op askwayak Cree Nation. I also found out on the morning of the 8th that the standing committee was sitting on the matter of The Real Property Act. Correspondence was sent in. First, if I can, I would like to question whether the committee received the correspondence. Madam Chairperson: As the Chairperson, I received the correspondence. It was not distributed to the rest of the committee as it was directed to myself. Mr.

Braun: What I would like to do is read the correspondence, and then add additional comments, if that is appropriate? The correspondence comes from D'Arcy & Deacon, which is our legal counsel. It is addressed to the Honourable Marilyn Brick of the standing committee: We are legal counsel to the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc., also known as TLEC. As you may be aware, TLEC is a party to the Manitoba Treaty Land Entitlement Framework Agreement. It was signed May 29, 1997, and deals with the transfer of 1.1 m illion acres of land to 20 different First Nations within the province of Manitoba.

TLEC only recently beca me aware that Bill 32 was being presented to the Legislative Assembly in order to allow for the creation of easements as part of the reserve creation process. To this date, our client, as well as its member First Nations, remain confused as to the intent and workings of the legislation. There has been absolutely no consultation with Treaty Land Entitlement Committee or any of the member First Nations. You should also be aware that the framework agreement is the implementation of the treaty right to reserve under the various number of treaties found in the province of Manitoba.

Anything which may have an impact on the existing treaty rights of First Nations requires consultation on the part of the government in compliance with its fiduciary obligations and the honour of the Crown. This includes not only the federal government, but provincial government as well.

On May 29, 2006, representatives from Treaty Lands on the committee, as well as the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and MKIO, which is Manitoba Keewatinowi Ininew Okimakanak, as well as representatives from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which is Canada, met with Ministers Lathlin and Struthers over Bill 32.

At that meeting, the minister promised that a committee would be struck including representatives from Treaty Land Entitlement Committee, AMC, MKIO, and the Southern Chiefs Organization, as well as from the government of Manitoba, and the government of Canada to discuss Bill 32 and its intent and implications on the framework agreement. That meeting has not yet occurred, and now our client, as of today's date, has found that Bill 32 has received second reading on June 6, and is, as of the date, or as of drafting this letter being presented to the standing committee.

We have had no opportunity to register as presenter. It is, in fact, in the middle of its Annual General Assembly, and will not be able to make any presentations on today's date. We must, therefore, respectfully ask that any presentations on Bill 32 be

484 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 tabled until an appropriate time as our client is able to register and prepare its presentation on Bill 32. As well, we call upon the Province of Manitoba to implement the framework agreement in good faith and to honour the commitments made on May 29, 2006, to our clients and other First Nations organizations involved. Should the Province of Manitoba fail to do this, it may be necessary for our clients to invoke the dispute resolution processes under the framework agreement, as well as seek the necessary legal remedies which are available to it.

In short, we have had no opportunity to discuss this. The agreement speaks to having meaningful participation on any amendments to legislation relevant to the agreement. I am with the understanding again that we met on May 29 and we were supposed to strike a committee to have these discussions with INAC on behalf of Canada and the three political organizations within the province and our organization. We have not met yet. My request for recommendation would be that the forward movement of this amendment be stopped until such time as we can responsibly sit down and have these proper discussions.

That ends my presentation. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Thank you. Madam Chairperson: I have to ask you, Mr. Hawranik, to bring your mike up closer. Hansard has told me they are having trouble hearing you. Mr. Hawranik: Yes, Mr. Braun. Thank you for your presentation, but I have no explanation as to why we do not have a copy of that letter. I am surprised, in fact, I think I heard the Chairperson of the committee say that she had a copy of the letter, the first we have heard of it as members of the opposition.

I am really quite concerned about that, particularly when you say that there has been no consultation in spite of the fact that there was a meeting on May 29 which promised a committee to look at Bill 32 before it was presented in the Legislature, and I am really quite concerned about that. Obviously, consultation is clearly part of this process. We should not be hurrying legislation through this Legislature if the proper parties had not been consulted. I take it that it is your recommendation, then, that the legislation not be passed at this point.

How long would you suggest that we wait considering the fact that, of course, the Legislature rises tomorrow? How long would you need to take to, in fact, prepare a proper presentation? Mr. Braun: First of all, that is my recommendation. As to the time line, I would say an initial meeting would be able to provide that time line. An initial meeting has yet to take place. I cannot give you a time line. I think once the parties sit down then we could speak to process and content and come up with some formal time lines. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I do– Madam Chairperson: Mr.

Lamoureux, you have to bring your mike a little closer, I am sorry. Mr. Lamoureux: I do appreciate your presentation. We have expressed a great deal of concern in regard to the way in which the government is trying to manipulate legislation through the Chamber. I think you are an excellent case in point in terms of process. The bill was given second reading on May 31, so even as members of the opposition we were not provided the opportunity to really do anything in regard to this bill. I would be interested in getting a copy of the letter.

Is that something you would be able to provide myself and other members of this committee at this time? Mr. Braun: Yes, certainly. Mr. Lamoureux: Just so that you are aware from our perspective, we believe that this bill should then remain in the committee and should not pass today or tomorrow so that members of your organization and so forth would be provided the opportunity to be able to speak to this bill. So, when we do go into the discussion on bills, it would be our suggestion that this bill stop at this point and there be another committee called in order to accommodate your request.

Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Braun: Yes, I would agree with that statement. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Madam Chair, with some concern I will ask the presenter to just stand for a moment. I would like to address the Chair on this issue. A letter was sent to this committee, and we have received other correspondence from individuals on other pieces of legislation who could not be here. I think the committee is quite concerned that a letter addressing the legislation and addressing this committee was not handed out to the committee. I do not think it is up to the presenter to hand out the

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 485 letter. I think it is up to you. Could we have that letter in the next 10 minutes? If we need to recess, that would be fine, too. But, really, if that letter was meant for this committee, then it should have been here this morning before the proceedings started, and I am sure you would have no problem. * (09:20) Madam Chairperson: No, I have no problem with that, but I would just like to respond and make the committee aware that, on receipt of the letter, we phoned the author–actually, I do not think, Mr.

Braun, you were the author; it was a lawyer–and informed them that the committee would then be sitting again on Monday and that we would be asking leave for them to come and present on Monday. So, if they wished to do so, they could do that. But we can also make their letter available to people. It is as he has read it, verbatim. Mr. Schuler: When would that take place? Madam Chairperson: We can do that right away. Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Well, we have one of the ministers here, who– Madam Chairperson: I am sorry. Mr. Cummings, you have to speak a little bit clearer, into your mike. Mr.

Cummings: Can you hear me now? Madam Chairperson: I sure can. Mr. Cummings: We have at least one of the ministers here who, according to presentation, had agreed to some consultative meetings. This committee, I do not think, constitutes the type of consultation that I expect was in mind. Perhaps Minister Lathlin could comment on that, or he could accept the offer that my colleague just made that perhaps we could delay dealing with this bill until the government can fulfil its wishes to have further meetings on this bill with the organization that the presenter represents.

Madam Chairperson: Are there any other questions for the presenter? Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): You indicated that you were looking at striking a committee with Minister Struthers and Minister Lathlin. Have you been given any time lines of when that is going to take place? Is that in the next week or two weeks? Have they given you any indication when you had a meeting on May 29 when you will be reconvening? Mr. Braun: My understanding is that we have set a tentative date of June 19 for an initial meeting. Mrs.

Rowat: At the June 19 meeting, have there been any terms of reference or, as you indicated, intent and implications of how it will unfold? Like, what would be the terms of reference for the meeting that you hope to have addressed? Mr. Braun: Technically, I will say there are no terms of reference, but it has been struck with two primary services: one would be to discuss the amendment to Bill 32 and the other is to discuss a joint action plan to move the Treaty Land Entitlement implementation process forward. Mr. Lamoureux: Could you indicate when you were first given indication of the content of Bill 32? Mr.

Braun: I recognize April 11, a provincial press release. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Lamoureux, I just have to ask: Is there leave from the committee for one last question from Mr. Lamoureux? [Agreed] Mr. Lamoureux: After the press release was actually issued out, was there any consultation between now and then in terms of the content of the bill with you or your organization? Mr. Braun: My response would be that technically there was short dialogue, raising question to the amendment. Our opinion is that no, not meaningful, modified consultation. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Braun.

The committee will now return to Bill 34, The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protec- tion) Act– Point of Order An Honourable Member: Point of order. Madam Chairperson: Is it a point of order, Mr. Cummings? Mr. Cummings: Well, you can call it what you like. I asked the minister a question which he did not take the opportunity to answer. Before he leaves the chair, I wonder if he might comment on whether or not he is prepared to hold this bill and have further discussions, as was promised according to the presentation of Mr. Braun.

486 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 Madam Chairperson: If the minister wants to respond he can, or we can wait until we get to clause-by-clause for his response. Bill 34–The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act Madam Chairperson: On Bill 34, The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act, the committee calls Martin Boroditsky, private citizen. Did you have copies of a written presentation? Mr. Martin Boroditsky (Private Citizen): Yes, they have been provided. Madam Chairperson: Mr.

Boroditsky, I have just been asked to remind everyone here in committee that we have 10 minutes to speak and then five minutes for questions. Whenever you are ready, you can proceed, and if you could just bring your mike down just a little bit. Mr. Boroditsky: Is that okay? Madam Chairperson: Yes. You are free to proceed whenever you are ready. Mr. Boroditsky: I will just wait until they are distributed. My name is Martin Boroditsky and I have taken a particular interest in Bill 34 because of my unique experience in this field. I myself have been a whistle-blower.

I operate the consulting company Broad Range Alternative Talent, and I have represented a client who acted as a whistle-blower. In fact, I suspect some of the wording in the act is the direct result of his case. I cannot emphasize strongly enough to this committee that my personal experience and Walter Trafton's documentation of the investigation into his complaint against the manager of the Residential Tenancies Branch is the best evidence you will get about why this bill is faulty.

For all the lawyers, academics and pointy- headed blowhards who will bend your ears about whistle-blower protection, they do not have the practical, real-life experien ce that I bring forward in this presentation. It is significant that not one group is registered to support this bill. If people who represent whistle- blowers are not stepping forward to voice support for this bill, what is the public to the think? If journalists and other watchdog groups have not stepped forward, it is because no one involved in whistle- blowing views this legislation as having any true merit.

Everyone knows the Ombudsman is already overwhelmed. Although some progress has been made, I still regularly get letters telling me that ongoing investigations into Freedom of Information and administrative matters are being postponed. This bill has no specific provisions for any increase in the funding for either the Ombudsman or the provincial auditor to conduct even more whistle-blowing inquiries. So telling the public that these are going to be handled expeditiously is a fallacy, unless the Legislature is willing to commit the necessary funding without question.

It is exactly because the Ombudsman and Auditor are well-known to be swamped that whistle- blowers in Manitoba have gone directly to the offices of the ministers responsible. But this law does nothing to help or protect citizens who recognize the backlog of the Ombudsman and Auditor and have good reason not to trust the bureaucrats. This bill is ministerial accountability going backward.

You might as well tell whistle-blowers to keep it to themselves because the people who carry ultimate responsibility, the ministers, can wash their hands of it, saying this flawed law was followed and they cannot influence the so-called process. This is not surprising as recent experience has shown the ministers are responsible for cover-ups: Workers Compensation Board, Seven Oaks School Division, Hydra House. Whistle-blowers went to ministers for remedy; instead, they got phoney investigations. Ministers are accountable to voters, theoreti- cally, at least, but bureaucrats are not.

Their accountability is to the politicians. If they screw up an investigation, as was the case of the Seven Oaks land development complaint brought forward by Bob Snyder, why, they do not have to run for office. The opposition has to run for office and get into government to correct the errors and get to the bottom of it. How much confidence does this give whistle-blowers?

My years on the front lines have been spent dealing with high-handed departmental bureaucrats or, worse yet, government appointees who focus not on a search for the truth, but rather on deflecting any responsibility when faced with a complaint that may lead to a scandal. * (09:30)

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 487 It is in the provisions for investigation that this bill falls flat on its face and betrays the public interest rather than protects it. (

a) The definition of "Wrongdoings to which this Act applies" is far too narrow. The

section defining

an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons must be amended to include a subsection where situations where the ec onomic impact upon a complainant or other, such as an industry, is recognized as a protected complaint. (

b) The

section "When investigation not required," clause (c): "s o much time has elapsed between the date when the subject matter of the disclosure arose and the date when the disclosure was made that investigating it would not serve a useful purpose;". Ferreting out government abuse, unfair mismanagement is always of useful purpose, and the only person who would say otherwise must be a government lawyer. (

c) I suggest that an amendment be moved enshrining the definition of natural justice, as submitted by Walter Trafton in his complaint against RTB. Under

Section 5(2)(b), the procedures established by department heads must include procedures "for investigating disclosures in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice;". Just by coincidence, this was the very ground that Walter Trafton fought bureaucrats on all last year. Is it coincidence that it makes its way into this legislation? I do not think so. The words "natural justice" seem so obvious. You have to ask yourselves, who will object? That is why they are in there.

What you do not know is that the bureaucrats are using the words to thwart complaint investigations, not support them. Let me tell you Walter Trafton's story. After uncovering documents that supported his case– documents he was told by the Tenancies Branch had been destroyed–he made a complaint to the Minister of Finance blowing the whistle on wrongdoing and financial chicanery within the department. They had continued to demand he pay $23,000 in rent overcharges, when the documents proved he owed far, far less, if an ything at all.

RTB had scuttled the sale when a lawyer acting for an interested buyer was informed of the inflated figure and was told Trafton or the purchaser was going to have to pay or be ordered to do so. Trafton was well aware of how this government dealt with other whistle-blowers, such as James Small with Hydra House, and he wanted to be sure, in advance, that his complaint did not get swept under the rug as the others initially were. That is all in writing and e-mail exchanges with the assistant deputy minister.

Before giving his permission to proceed with the investigation, something you have to do now is firstly waive your privacy rights or else the government will not do anything. Before he would do that, Trafton wanted assurance the investigation would be carried out under the rules and procedures of natural justice. He put his concerns in writing. He even outlined how the investigation would take place following the rules of natural justice as he understood them from researching in law books and on the Internet. He even asked the assistant deputy minister to correct him if he was wrong about his assumptions.

On behalf of the minister, Alex Morton accepted his qualified waiver of his privacy rights. Only later, as the investigation took some strange twists, did he learn that she had misled him completely. The bureaucrat assigned the investigation did whatever he wanted. He would not explain the process he was following and disregarded the careful explanation of natural justice that Trafton had provided Morton. When Trafton complained, he was told the department had its own definition of natural justice; one which conveniently cut out his right to review and offer rebuttal to the statements of the RTB manager.

When he asked to see the written definition the government had arbitrarily imposed, he was told there was none. So the government claimed it followed the rules and procedures of natural justice. It accepted Trafton's outline of the rules and procedures as he understood them, and did not challenge them in any way until he waived his privacy rights. Then they said they were not bound by any of it. They made up their own rules and told him, tough luck, sucker. The resulting investigation report was completely unbelievable, factually incorrect and, of course, entirely dismissed his complaint.

Before passing this legislation, you must have a written definition of the rules of natural justice and the procedures that flow from it. (

d) The bill also fails to expressly protect whistle-blowers from the private sector, like Trafton, Snyder and Small, from retribution by government employees. It does not protect non-employees. Yet all the recent whistle-blowers were not employees of the government: WCB's Pat Jacobsen; Small with

488 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 Hydra House; Snyder, a taxp ayer in the Seven Oaks School Division. How will the Labour Board protect these kinds of cases? It will not. This suggests the legislation is designed to draw out whistle-blowers, not protect them. (

e) Government lawyers regularly play both sides when it comes to whistle-blowers. They work to protect the rights of ci tizens when they work for the Ombudsman. Yet, when working for the government departments being scrutinized, double- talk and narrowing the scope of the investigation is almost always the order of the day. This is important: the law must say that investigation of a whistle-blower's complaint is paramount. It comes before letting lawyers think of ways to sidestep or undermine the investigation. One person has to look at what both sets of lawyers do and pick one or the other. That has to be done by a senior bureaucrat who has to give written reasons for his decisions. (

f) The time limit of two years for prosecutions is designed by government lawyers to ensure that Freedom of Information and FIPPA requests can be stalled, so that, by the time whistle-blowers put the evidence and paper trail together, the lawyers' clients and their bosses, that being the government bureaucrats and ministers, are immune from prosecution. I suggest an amendment be added that will exempt time spent in formal search for documents under FOI or FIPPA applications from the ticking clock. The time limits for prosecution must be amended or removed.

For that matter, why not define "bad faith" as well, since that is the test you are setting out in law for lawsuits. Look at the lessons of Justice Gomery. The federal Liberals managed to stall his investigation until the two-year time limit for prosecutions had passed. We have been waiting two years for the Securities Commission to conduct hearings into the Crocus Fund fiasco. Allow me to connect the two concerns about time limits and victimization of whistle-blowers by government employees with a very real example from my own career. I made a complaint in 1990 that was blown off by the minister and the Premier.

Only when The Winnipeg Sun saw the evidence that altered documents had been given to myself and others by a government licensing agency were my concerns investigated by the provincial auditor. It was supported, and, in fact, legislation was brought forward in 1993 and '96 to try to rectify the wrongdoing and poor practices I had uncovered. I thought that was the end of it. To my shock, 13 years later I was told about complaints about a production I was involved in that had been made to the same agency the Auditor had investigated.

It took me months to learn that there had been a complaint about me from the person I had complained about in 1990. When I was first confronted by the agency, I immediately asked if he was involved. In front of my witness, the agency denied it, but when my FIPPA application unearthed the e-mails that same person had sent to the government with the false allegations–the only source of any allegations against me–I was told he was, somehow, a private citizen, even though he was still employed by the same agency; 13 years later, but he still tried to get payback.

To make things worse, the agency stupidly sent the e-mails to other people without any indication I was innocent of the allegations. I am still fighting with the department for correction of my public record because of the lies in the e-mails sent to the agency. This legislation does nothing to protect someone like myself from a government employee seeking revenge, for having had the whistle blown on them.

Therefore, when I tell y ou there are serious flaws in this legislation, and that amendments are required to salvage any credibility that you as elected representatives hope to garner from supporting it, and that members from all parties must set aside their ideology and fix this bill. I have identified these areas of concern that must be rectified for the bill to offer genuine protection for whistle-blowers and a true avenue for the redress of concerns brought forward in the public interest. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Boroditsky, I am going to have to ask you to complete– Mr.

Boroditsky: Just the last paragraph, ma'am. Thank you. An Honourable Member: Leave. Madam Chairperson: Leave? Okay. Mr. Boroditsky: In conclusion, the whistle-blower and public are being played for fools. Unless the Legislature itself in this bill crafts

definitions for natural justice and procedural fairness, your lawyers and bureaucrats will continue to thwart the search for truth, and get paid by the taxpayers to do so. Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 489 Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Yes. Thank you very much for coming forward, Mr. Boroditsky. It was a very interesting presentation. Obviously, you speak from personal experience in terms of how you feel that this legislation will affect whistle-blowers coming forward to members of the Legislature or even the media or others. Thank you for pointing out what you believe to be the flaws in this legislation. You correctly point out that the Auditor General currently is backlogged and certainly needs more resources.

The last we have heard is that they have a 10-year backlog in terms of audits. So, obviously, there are a lot of things that need to be audited, and they do not currently have the resources to take care of that backlog. I point out, though, to

Section 3. You have obviously read the legislation. So–[interjection] Madam Chairperson: Mr. Boroditsky, I just have to recognize you. Mr. Boroditsky: I have read it, but scanned some parts, and read other parts more intensively. Mr. Hawranik: Well, thank you very much for that. I notice what is put in

Section 3 is a definition of "Wrongdoings to which this Act applies," and it is very specific in terms of the kinds of wrongdoings that you can report as a disclosure to certain people and then be protected. One of the provisions that caught my eye is

section (

c) where it says "gross mismanagement." Do you not think that the word "gross" should be dropped? You know, if it is a disclosure should you not be able to disclose simply mismanagement, never mind gross mismanagement. The other thing is, if you do include gross mismanagement, should you not have a definition

section in the legislation to define that? * (09:40) Mr. Boroditsky: I am glad you brought that up because I noticed that. We had some discussions within my consulting crew about how someone who does not know what has gone on, they get a complaint, prima facie documentation. How are they supposed to make a judgment call of what is gross mismanagement?

The notion of gross mismanage- ment, you know, it may mean one thing to a minister or a premier in office; it means quite a different thing to the opposition or to the public at large, or especially the people, individuals who come forward who feel that they may have been victimized. I think mismanagement, if that word alone had been used, I do not think anybody would have really noticed it. It is sort of like the argument with regard to what is natural justice and procedural fairness.

Unless these things are defi ned, you are leaving a lot of leeway for someone who is not elected by anybody to make a decision whether to proceed with something or not. I do not know whether gross mismanagement–I could tell you that sometimes it is mismanagement, as in the case I have cited that I brought forward 13 years ago. A person inside a government agency, a government appointee of the day, used whiteout to change regulations, but only for certain people, mind you. Now somebody could look at that and go, well, that is mismanagement. Is it gross mismanagement?

To me, when I was kept out of business and my business venture was scuttled because of it, that was pretty gross. So I share the concern that you voiced that there is some measure known only to someone clairvoyant as to what the definition is going to be or how it is going to be applied. I do believe, you know, look, somebody misplacing a paper clip or writing a sentence wrong, a misplaced period, creating a misunderstanding, clearly, that is something that, if a whistle-blower comes forward, a person looking at it could say, oh, we can fix this easily, expeditiously. I share your concern because, you know what?

I think that there are things that I brought forward and that other people I know brought forward in the past under that kind of provision. Some would have just said, well, yes, it is minor. It is not minor when you are the victim. One thing I want to mention is it takes a lot of intestinal fortitude, as they say, to put your name out there to come forward, to go to a government minister, to walk into a government office and drop a complaint, to try to talk with somebody. For some people, their knees are shaking.

They are not like these ho nourable members here and myself, where we get used to public speaking or are used to stepping forward in positions of leadership. I do not see that this bill does anything–I am not saying whistle-blowers need to be coddled, but sometimes they need to have their hand held a little bit. I think that this bill presumes that whistle- blowers are all like me, and everyone will have their opinion, but they are not. I do not think it is fair to expect that whistle-blowers are going to look at these provisions and feel secure with the idea that they can

490 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 step forward and do their public duty and report something they think is wrong. Madam Chairperson: I have to ask leave from the committee. Is there leave for Mr. Hawranik's last question? [Agreed] Mr. Hawranik: I think it is clear. I would like to go through a number of other sections with you, but, obviously, we have a limitation on time.

Section 3, in particular, the principle of whistle-blower legislation is a good one, there is absolutely no doubt. We have to protect whistle-blowers, in terms of their employment, from reprisals so that they do not lose their employment simply because they are disclosing some wrongdoing out there. When I look at the

definitions section,

Section 3, in terms of the kinds of wrongdoings that can be reported, it is not what is there but what is not there that is of concern to me. One of which is, for instance, if there was political interference in a process by a minister or a deputy minister, or someone else, for a political purpose, certainly, that type of wrongdoing should be able to be reported, should be able to be disclosed by a whistle-blower, and they should receive protection in their employment. Would you agree with that? Mr.

Boroditsky: That is an interesting point you raise, and one that I immediately recognize as being valid, although it had not sprung to mind when I prepared my review. I think you are absolutely right. I think there are situations that occur. Let us look at these botched investigations more recently where these representatives of different departments investigated something and, lo and behold, would find nothing wrong.

I am not saying in any particular case, whether it be WCB or Hydra House or the others, that there was any political interference, but when I go back again to this situation I had 13 years ago, where there had been an appeal put forward about th ese altered regulations. The minister of the day was Mr. Ernst, and he provided the response: Your appeal is dismissed; the law was changed, and completely ignored the fact that the material had had whiteout applied and something had been typed in over it.

Now, that told us, at the time, 13 years ago–this is longer than 13 years ago now when that happened, it is more like 16 years ago–that someone inside the department or inside the government ag ency had prepared the response, and it goes in front of Ernst and he signs it, and off it goes. That is not political interference per se, but, you know, when these investigations are gerrymandered so the boss does not get mad, that is something that in and of itself has to be whistle-blowed on. I mean, you cannot have this continue to go on.

The public confidence–and this is the case no matter who is in government, all politicians, all elected repre- sentatives are faced with an increasing scepticism from the public. The only way to overcome that is to do the things that I have suggested in this bill. Your suggestion, I think, is a very good one. You know, with regard to what kind of a problem people face, when Mr. Trafton got blown- off by RTB, we went to the Attorney General, and wrote a letter. The attachment is in the back, an adjunct to this paper and to the

definitions of natural justice, which I provided for considerations and amendment. We went to the Attorney General's office, and a woman named Mary Miles responded on behalf of the Attorney General, and it was the same thing. Can you please provide us with a written definition? Where can we find this where it is written down that this is the custom, that government uses this definition that will not allow you to, in effect, cross-examine the statements? I mean, who knows better than the whistle-blower, the victim?

When somebody crafts an excuse, whether it is true or not, or whether there is, you know, other information or documentation that systematically can pick apart these excuses, investigators, a lot of time, they do not have that kind of tolerance. They do not have that kind of intellect. They do not have that kind of bloodhound sense. Mary Miles wrote back that she could provide no definition either.

So now I have one lawyer from Finance who cannot provide a definition for natural justice; one lawyer from the Attorney General who cannot provide a definition for "natural justice." Yet I look at the bill last week and I am stunned to see that, somehow, it is going to be enshrined. Well, which definition is it going to be? The one that was invented in Walter Trafton's case, or the one he put forward that was very acceptable, until they realized that maybe it would not allow for the bureaucrat to hide?

That the explanation that was provided would be vetted and would analyzed and, maybe, the wrongdoing would be ferreted out. How far up the ladder does it go? So I think that, unlike the bill previous where it was recommended, maybe this committee has to step back. If you enshrine a definition of "natural justice"

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 491 as we have provided, and perhaps some other material, I think that then there may be some confidence on the part of the public. You know, I was stunned that I was the only person registered to present. Where is Murrow [phonetic] ? Where is the Canadian Association of Journalists, you know? Well, if they are not stepping forward, it is not because they do not know the bill is here; it is because it is so flawed. Madam Chairperson: I have to get leave before I can entertain your question. An Honourable Member: Leave for one question.

Madam Chairperson: Is there leave for Mr. Gerrard's– An Honourable Member: One question. Madam Chairperson: –one question? Mr. Hawranik, I have to have leave first. An Honourable Member: Shut it down. Madam Chairperson: Is there leave for Mr. Hawranik's question as a supplemental? [Agreed] Mr. Hawranik: Yes, thank you very much for that. One of the concerns I have as well is

Section 10. You have read the bill. I would like to be able to highlight the point that, when you do a disclosure to certain people you are protected, but if you do a disclosure to people outside the terms of the legislation, you are not. Th at is a real concern of mine. When I look at

Section 10, if you do not make a disclosure to the supervisor, a designated officer, or the Ombudsman, you are not protected. That, in my view, is a severe limitation to the bill–I think you mentioned Pat Jacobsen in your presentation– particularly, when you take the situation of Pat Jacobsen. When Pat Jacobsen did not go to her supervisors, she did not go to her designated officer, she did not go to the Ombudsman, she went to the minister, and, as a result of that, clearly, she would not be within the terms of the bill. She clearly would not be protected by the Labour Board.

Do you have any thoughts about that, Mr. Boroditsky? * (09:50) Mr. Boroditsky: Well, on the one hand, it could be the legislation has been designed for the notion to streamline this, but to expect whistle-blowers to automatically–I do not know. Are they going to put up a notice in every office: Your supervisor for whistle-blowing is so-and-so? I do not know. If they are absent, is so-and-so the substitute supervisor? I can see the point in not wanting somebody to be able to say, oh, I blew the whistle by telling someone who is a clerk over on the side there.

I can understand trying to define that there should be a chain of authority that has to be reported to. I understand that intention is, I think, very honest on the part of the people who drafted the bill, but I agree with you that the recipients of these kinds of actions, these whistle-blowing actions, I agree that list is very restricted. I thought about the case of Pat Jacobsen. That is a curious one. I am not sure, because she was so high up in the food chain at WCB, I am concerned about what happens when your supervisor is the person that you are complaining about.

What is she supposed to do, take this right to Wally? I do not think so. I have thought of that, and it is a problem. I am not quite sure, I think there are more educated minds than mine that maybe will have to determine if there should be almost like a neutral outlet, not necessarily the Ombudsman or the Auditor, who are swamped, but someone else in government. I am just going to throw some in the air, and a particular official, say, from the Attorney General's (Mr.

Mackintosh) department, with whom all whistle-blowers will know, well, we can go to this person or this office and we will know that we can put our complaint in there, and then it can be pipelined or whatever. I can see that the intention, as I said, was good, but I think it can be made better. Madam Chairperson: For the information of the committee, I have Mr. Hawranik who would like to ask a question, and Mr. Gerrard who would like to ask a question. What is the will of the committee? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Some Honourable Members: No. An Honourable Member: Ominous that whistle- blowers get shut down.

An Honourable Member: The clickety-clack of the jack boots. An Honourable Member: Somewhat ironic. Madam Chairperson: Since leave has not been granted, I would like to thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Boroditsky.

492 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 Point of Order An Honourable Member: Madam Chair, just on a point of order. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Lamoureux. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Chair, the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) has not even been afforded the opportunity to ask one question. I am wondering if there would be leave to provide him the opportunity to ask one short question. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I would support the comments from the Memb er for Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux), and I find it ominous that, when we are debating whistle-blower legislation, there would be members of this committee, members of the government, who would like to shut it down. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): We are prepared to let Dr. Gerrard ask a question. I would point out that we have been about five minutes over time on this witness, and there are four other people waiting to present, and possibly others. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Chairperson: Order. Just for the information of the committee, we do have four other presenters on another bill.

We are now eight and a half minutes over on this particular presenter, which is fine. * * * Madam Chairperson: Dr. Gerrard, would you like to ask one question? Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you. You have alluded to the fact that the time limits on this bill and on bringing forward and having the complaint dealt with are a concern, and I agree with you. The question is how to address this, because, clearly, we do not want a situation where people, bureaucrats, can stall and then the time limit expires.

You have suggested that the time searching for documents and freedom of information not be included, but, to be honest, it is going to be a judgment call sometimes about what should be included and what should not be included. So I wonder which time period should and should not be included. Would it be better to have a longer overall time period, or would it be better to just exclude the time period when there is a specific freedom of information request outstanding? Mr. Boroditsky: The problem with extending the time limit, Dr.

Gerrard, is that then all you are doing is playing cat and mouse with the government lawyers. When I ran into this problem with the attack on me by the person that I had complained about many years ago, I immediately set about, as many of the members here, I think, are familiar with, using FIPPA to get documentation that proved that the person I suspected had tried to get me was in fact the only person who had filed any complaint, et cetera.

Now there then was a bit of a rush on my part to try to get to the bottom of this, because the person within the government agency who handled the e-mails and had interrogated me, although later they claimed no investigation had been done and they did not believe these allegations, he was set to retire. So here I am trying to get the documents out from inside the department at the same time as the clock is ticking till this guy walks out the door, because I know that once he has walk ed out the door there can be no discipline.

He certainly will not have to answer any questions from some representative of the Minister of Culture when he does not work there anymore. So there is a situation where I was faced with a ticking clock for my own situation, and, sure enough, the lawyers stalled, the whiteout came out for documents; this was severed; that was severed. At one point, we were told that they needed an extension of 30 days to consult with third parties, and the third parties were the department's own lawyers. It was the Ombudsman saying, well, that is not a legitimate extension; give Mr.

Boroditsky the documents now, and the agency still refused. So I have learned first-hand the kinds of tricks that go on when there is a cover-up, and there is no two ways about it. I think that from the, you know, my suggestion works because you file the application; they have 30 days to respond. There are time limits in the act. So that time can be measured, and this is why I suggested it. Because you can see, just through the application process itself, it was filed here; they have 30 days; they take an extension; you get it back; you can appeal.

It is pretty easy to measure the time that is suspended from the clock ticking. By no means am I saying that my suggestion is perfect, but I think it is very practical because I am convinced that, if I were to come forward whistle- blowing tomorrow and this involved routing out documents that any government lawyer working to protect their client, which is what they do, would immediately stall, delay, do all these little tricks that I have seen first-hand they do, and at the same time the ability of me to come forward with the story to

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 493 Mr. Selinger, Mr. Robinson, or the Premier (Mr. Doer), whoever, the clock is ticking because I need the paper trail to be able to put together, you know, the wrongdoing or put toge ther where the excuses were, the cover-up was. So, Dr. Gerrard, any amendment that you come forward with or any suggestion to help rectify the ticking clock issue, I think would be very helpful to the cause of protecting the public interest in this act. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Boroditsky.

For the information of the committee, a written submission on Bill 34 has been received from Paul Thomas and distributed to committee members. Does the committee agree to have this document appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Bill 41–The Pharmaceutical Act Madam Chairperson: We will now proceed to Bill 41, The Pharmaceutical Act. The committee calls Penny Murray from the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association. You can proceed, Ms. Murray. But could I just have order at the committee please, committee members. Ms. Penny Murray (Vice-President, Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association): Good morning.

My name is Penny Murray. Madam Chairperson: Ms. Murray, if you could just bring that mike up just a little bit. Yes. Ms. Murray: Is that better? Madam Chairperson: That should be better. Thank you. Ms. Murray: Okay. I will just make sure that the papers do not get mixed up in there. On behalf of the Council of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association, I am very pleased to speak in support of Bill 41, The Pharmaceutical Act. My name is Penny Murray. I am the Vice-President of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association. The President, Mr.

Pat Trozzo, is presently out of the country and sends his regards to the committee members and his regrets for being unable to attend this meeting. Attending with me is the registrar of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association, Mr. Ronald Guse. We firmly believe that this amended act will enhance the college's ability to serve and protect the public interest, and facilitate the changes in practice of Manitoba's pharmacists.

It will enable pharmacists and government to be proactive to health care challenges in our province. * (10:00) The proposed changes to The Pharmaceutical Act are the result of collaboration with the pharmacists of Manitoba, the officers of the Ministry of Health and their legal advisors. We believe that this new act will further enhance the patient care provided by pharmacists, and will strengthen the regulatory authority for patient safety. We have consulted with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba and the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba in drafting the new legislation.

We have met with the Manitoba Society of Pharmacists; the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Manitoba Branch; and the Faculty of Pharmacy and pharmacy technicians. We have considered the directions of new pharmacy acts in Alberta and British Columbia, as well as the recently passed Physiotherapy Act in Manitoba. The quality of Bill 41 is testimony to the collaborative effects of in terprofessional liaison and co-operation. Drawing from the results of the consultation and review, we firmly believe that the new Pharmaceutical Act will enhance the practice of pharmacy by moving to patient-focussed care.

It will enable the collaborative role of the pharmacists, and it will enhance the regulatory body's ability to serve and protect the public. The Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association has a long and proud history of self-governance of the pharmacy profession in Manitoba in the best interests of all Manitobans. We are pleased that the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association will become the College of Pharmacists of Manitoba with the passing of the new legislation.

Changing the title of the organization to include the name "College" will clarify the role and the mandate of the organization both provincially and nationally. We also firmly believe that the new enabling legislation will establish the building blocks needed to assure safe, effective health care by better utilizing the knowledge and ability of pharmacists and by maximizing the respective talents and qualifications of our health professionals. Some of the specific benefits in the act will be to enhance the role of the pharmacist in patient care to better reflect the

494 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 knowledge, the training, and the competency of pharmacists and to effect improved patient care. It will increase public representation on council, on the complaints committee, and on the discipline committee to one third. It will enable all council members to make motions and to vote at general meetings of the college. It will enhance the responsibilities and opportunities for pharmacists to work collaboratively in health care settings.

It will enhance the patient care role of the pharmacist through the authority to prescribe and administer medications, to interpret patient- administered automated tests, and to order and receive screening and diagnostic tests. These roles will be further defined and clarified through regulation and standards of practice developed by the College of Pharmacists of Manitoba in collaboration with Manitoba Pharmacists, with Manitoba Health, and with other key health professions.

The act will also enable council to set standards and to license pharmacy pr actice in non-traditional settings that can enhance pharmacist service to northern and remote areas. It will increase the options available to the complaints committee to investigate and resolve matters brought to their attention, and it will recognize and register pharmacy technicians in practice sites.

Bill 41 supports the need to enhance collaboration among the health care professionals, and it is perfectly timed with the construction of the new Faculty of Pharmacy building that will be located at the Bannatyne Campus at the University of Manitoba. This relocation of the faculty will further support interdisciplinary practice through the anticipated shared undergraduate education and training programs among the students of medicine and pharmacy. Pharmacists of Manit oba are already working with and supporting the prescribing role of the registered nurses extended practice and the clinical assistance.

This professional collaboration through the sharing of patient-specific information supports patient care and safety, and is a first for Canada and, likely, North America. These are very dynamic times for health care in Manitoba, and Bill 41 will enable the pharmacists of Manitoba to apply their knowledge and training to address some of the ongoing challenges in the health care system. We believe that Bill 41 is truly a non-partisan legislation, which should find support from all members of the Legislature.

We are heartened by the leadership and the support of the Minister of Health, the Honourable Tim Sale; the opposition Health critic, Myrna Driedger; and the Leader of the Liberal Party, Dr. Jon Gerrard. We sincerely hope that the members of this committee and all members of the Legislature pass Bill 41 as quickly as possible so that all citizens of Manitoba can benefit from this very important and timely legislation. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Well, thank you for your presentation. Obviously, you are in support of this legislation.

In opposition, we were a little surprised to see it arrive as late on the agenda as it did, and the opportunity to consult has been limited. We understand that the people you represent support it and would like to see it passed forthwith. Are there any areas of weakness that you are aware of? I understand it was five years of consultation that occurred before we got to this stage, the concerns of the industry. Ms. Murray: There has been a long period of consultation. Certainly, I have sat on councils since probably the late nineties, and we started consulting on this bill probably 2001.

There has been a long period of consultation, as I mentioned, with all parties involved who might be affected by this act as well as with Manitoba Health and certainly their legal advisers. Our registrar, Mr. Guse, spent a considerable length of time dealing with Dr. Pope and with the nursing staff involved. It has been long. It has been lengthy. Mr. Cummings: Just one question, not as important as the principles of this bill, but can you give me any idea of the nature of consultation and prescriptive abilities that the pharmacies would be assuming where they could in fact prescribe to customers? Ms.

Murray: I can respond to the best of my knowledge on that situation in the sense that what the legislation is, is enabling. It provides the ability, but within defining the responsibilities and specifically who and what will be done that would be done within the regulations and that would be done within the standards of practice. It would be my feeling that there would be certainly a high requirement for certain competencies and certain abilities prior to the application of those rights and privileges. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Chair, I did want to express appreciation in terms of the presenter coming forward and adding comment. I would ask if she believes that there are any

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 495 shortcomings because I, too, like the Member for Ste. Rose, do have concerns. This bill more than any other piece of legislation the government has been negligent in terms of bringing to this Legislature. It should have been done in a much more timely fashion which would have afforded members the opportunity to actually be able to do more consultation. I asked a specific question in regard to are there any shortcomings to this pa rticular bill that you are aware of. Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair Ms. Murray: I need to qualify my remarks slightly, Mr.

Lamoureux, in that situation. I am not a legislative expert. I come to the executive of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association newly elected this year. My involvement with the general drafting of this legislation has been on the edges. I would suggest to you that, in a period of five to six years of the process, there has probably been some give-and- take in developing this legislation so that we all come out in a win-win situation. To speak more directly to that I would have to indicate that there are three other speakers who are coming behind me and also give the committee opportunity for Mr.

Ronald Guse to respond to that question more directly if that would be their wish. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you to the presenter. The next presenter is Scott Ransome, representing the Manitoba Society of Pharmacists. Mr. Scott Ransome (Executive Director, Manitoba Society of Pharmacists): Good morning. My name is Scott Ransome. I am the executive director of the Manitoba Society of Pharmacists. On behalf of the Manitoba Society of Pharmacists, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present our views.

Established in 1973, the Manitoba Society of Pharmacists, MSP, is a not-for-profit voluntary organization whose purpose is to promote and advocate the economic and professional interest of its members. The membership is made up mostly of practising pharmacists and pharmacy students and currently has in excess of 1,000 members. * (10:10) Let me begin with acknowledging the tremendous efforts of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association and the staff at Manitoba Health and Manitoba Justice in developing Bill 41.

Ron Guse, Registrar, in particular, has put forward tremendous efforts in developing Bill 41 and is to be commended. It has been some five years since Manitoba pharmacists last discussed and debated changes for new pharmaceutical legislation. Bill 41, as it has been presented to the Legislative Assembly, is progressive legislation which is consistent with laws in the province of Alberta in expanding the role of pharmacists. As recently as May 31, 2006, regulations in Alberta have been approved that will allow pharmacists to prescribe some drug treatments and administer injectable drug treatments such as vaccines.

Bill 41, as Penny Murray pointed out, is enabling legislation which brings with it the potential to develop and implement regulations which will allow pharmacists to prescribe and administer designated drugs. These are tremendous develop- ments and are embraced by Manitoba pharmacists. Pharmacists are prescription drug experts. Pharmacists have more training in drug therapy than any other health professional. Pharmacists are trained to understand the chemical make-up of prescription drugs, their effects and how medications interact with one another and with their patients.

Effective medication management must become a reality. By more fully involving pharmacists, improvements can be made to the efficiency and effectiveness of drug therapy. This will reduce costs and enhance patient care. Alberta and Manitoba are leading the country in adopting legislation which will expand the scope of practice for pharmacists. Bill 41 provides significant opportunity for pharmacists, and when it is enacted it will mark an historic moment in the practice of pharmacy in Manitoba. Bill 41 is a comprehensive overhaul of the current Pharmaceutical Act and brings with it some noteworthy changes.

For instance, Manitoba pharmacists voted three years ago to change the name of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association to the College of Pharmacists of Manitoba. This legislation allows for that name change to be realized. It is noted that Bill 41 is consistent with other Manitoba legislation such as The Medical Act. Both of these acts require the respective colleges to submit

496 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 an annual report to the Minister of Health, and both acts allow these licensing authorities to create profiles of their members. These developments provide for an environment of greater accountability. The act increases the ratio of public representatives on counci l to one third. These members of council are therefore not elected by Manitoba pharmacists. The act specifically dictates the public representatives cannot be pharmacists.

It is understood that this increase of public representation is consistent with the College of Pharmacists' mandate to serve and protect the public interest. However, any further increases of public representation would be a concern as council does need to be governed by elected pharmacists. As mentioned earlier, the new Pharmaceutical Act is enabling legislation and council will be given the ability to make regulations in a wide variety of areas.

MSP intends to direct our efforts to working with the College of Pharmacists to ensure that regulations expanding the scope of practice are implemented in a timely manner. Another area of particular interest to MSP is the expanded role of pharmacy technicians. In Manitoba, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians work closely together in providing the efficient delivery of thousands of health care services to Manitobans on a daily basis. Given this close collaborative relationship, pharmacists are directly impacted by any changes to the role of pharmacy technicians.

Any regulatory changes must be managed in a manner that does not create any increased health concerns for patients and amendments must ensure that pharmacists continue to practise in a safe, efficient and effective manner. As the supervision of pharmacy technicians remains with pharmacists, they are understandably concerned with the possibility that heightened risks of liability are created. MSP is committed to ensuring that regulations concerning pharmacy technicians are developed in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of pharmacists.

The act requires that the council circulate and consult with their members before regulations are adopted, and MSP is confident this will be done in a manner consistent with the fair and prudent manner that MPhA exercises all other legislative responsibilities. There is one matter I would ask the committee consider revisiting and amending. The committee needs to give full consideration to amending

Section 90(1), of Bill 41. This is the

section that outlines the maximum fines that can be imposed for contravening a provision of The Pharmaceutical Act or the regulations. Currently, a maximum fine of $5,000 for a first offence and $15,000 for a second offence exists in the current legisl ation.

Section 90(1)(

a) and (

b) increases these maximums to $10,000 and $25,000 respectively. When it comes to financial penalties for legislative and regulatory contraventions of health care law, the earning capacity of the offending individuals is obviously a significant factor. Monetary fines are meant to appropriately punish the individual based on the financial circumstances that exist. Some consideration must be given to the provincial benchmarks which currently exist. The Manitoba Medical Act includes a maximum fine of $10,000 for an individual.

It is difficult to debate that in Manitoba, as in every other Canadian jurisdiction the average wage for a pharmacist represents a fraction of the average wage of a physician. In Manitoba, physician compensation far exceeds that of the average staff pharmacist. It is difficult to reconcile that pharmacists, under their legislation, are liable to a maximum fine of $25,000. How can legislation provide for pharmacists to face maximum fines that are 150 percent higher than physicians? It is not appropriate. I suggest it is not defensible and it should not occur. MSP asks that

Section 90(1) be amended to be consistent with the wording of The Manitoba Medical Act,

Section 59.7(1)(

b) a maximum fine of $10,000. In closing, I would like to refer to a

section from the Canadian Pharmacists' Association document, Pharmacists and Primary Health Care , which reads: Because of their knowledge, skills and accessibility, pharmacists are positioned to ensure that patients, other health care providers and the health care system safely achieve optimal drug therapy outcomes. This position is consistent with the final report o f t h e C o m m is s i o n o n t h e F u t u r e o f H e a l t h C a r e i n Canada, which is commonly referred to as the Romanow Report.

I quote: Pharmacists can play an increasingly important role as part of the primary health care team working with patients to ensure they are using medications appropriately and providing information to both physicians and patients, monitor patients' use of drugs and provide better information and communication on prescription drugs.

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 497 Thank you again for the opportunity to present MSP's views to you today. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ransome. Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Briefly, Scott, I want to through you thank your members for the work that you are doing with us in regard to the 12- month deductible process. It is a tremendous public service that you are doing.

In regard to your ques tion about fine levels, I think that it is important to note that these are maxima and they are based on some of the kinds of offences that we saw, for example, in a recent Hamilton case in which drugs were misrepresented as being Canadian safety standard compliant drugs and they were not even some of the drugs that were talked about. * (10:20) They also apply to very serious offences. If someone representing themselves to be a pharmacist when they are not, for exampl e.

Thirdly, just so you know, they are consistent with fine levels in quite a number of other acts in which we, I think, have been sending a signal, not just in our government but in other governments as well, that breaches, serious breaches of professional duty will result in serious fines. But it is important to note they are maximum. But thank you again with the work you are doing with us on the 12-month deductible. Mr. Cummings: Thank you for your presentation, and just one point. You did clarify, to some extent, what additional responsibilities pharmacists may be able to take on.

Would you anticipate that you would like to see the regulations? That is, very often in the business of legislation, the devil is in the detail, when government tells us we will find out what is going to happen when we see the regulations. I wonder if you could give me any window of what occurs in Alberta, for example. Would that be what you would believe would be reasonable in regulation here? Mr. Ransome: I think, Mr. Cummings, we will look closely at what happens in Alberta. Madam Chairperson in the Chair They are currently a few months ahead of us.

They are, I guess, the most obvious example, and I think we will be monitoring that situation closely. I think that probably is a good working model to begin with, but there is hopefully going to be substantial debate prior to the regulations being adopted and approved. Mr. Cummings: I am not opposed to moving in that direction, by the way, but I would just wonder for the record if you are awar e of what additional responsibilities pharmacists can assume under the Alberta regulations. You mentioned that it could administer vaccines. Are there other obvious areas that would be possible? Mr.

Ransome: They are able to administer vaccines. They have some prescriptive authority. It is restricted prescriptive authority. It is not the same type of prescriptive authority that , for instance, physicians have. They would not be allowed to prescribe narcotics, for instance. That would be a condition, but there would be a list of drugs that they would be able to prescribe under certain protocols. Mr. Cummings: Well, one that I would wonder about–a circumstance where someone was on medication, for example for diabetes, and their prescription had run out.

Would that be a likely possibility of a role a pharmacist would be able to play there? Mr. Ransome: I think that is probably a very good example. You know, the chronic diseases where medication prescriptions run out, I think those are excellent opportunities where pharmacists can move in and fill a gap, provide good health care and, I guess, avoid, in some cases, an unnecessary physician visit. Mr. Cummings: Well, thank you, and just for the record, I think this side of the table is quite supportive of this legislation. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ransome. Mr. Ransome: Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: The committee calls Troy Harwood-Jones from the Manitoba International Pharmacists Association. Mr. Harwood-Jones, you can proceed whenever you are ready. Mr. Troy Harwood-Jon es (Manitoba Inter- national Pharmacists Association): I will just give a moment for the handouts to circulate around the table. You will receive two documents: one is entitled "Discussion Paper on Bill 41," and the other is a PowerPoint presentation. For this morning's discussion, you can follow along in the PowerPoint discussion. There is quite a

498 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 lot of information in the discussion paper. I will let you read that at your leisure, and I will just hit the highlights this morning. While I am waiting I will tell you who I am. The Manitoba International Pharmacists Association is a trade organization of pharmacists who practise in Manitoba in the International Prescription Service Pharmacy, or IPS Pharmacy industry. I will refer to the Manitoba International Pharmacists Association as MIPA. Before I begin, let me just tell you that I have three fundamental principles in presenting to you today.

One is that this is very significant, important legislation which deals with the safety of delivery of health care. The second is that IPS Pharmacy is a reality. The third is that everyone in this room and all the representative interests support and value the importance of the new reality of IPS Pharmacy. MIPA strongly supports and is committed to the supply of safe and affordable medications for the improvement of health and the well-being of individuals around the world, as well as assisting its members to enhance the profession of pharmacy in general.

MIPA is the oldest IPS Pharmacy trade organization in Canada. IPS Pharmacies are specifically licensed in Manitoba by the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association to provide pharmaceutical services to residents outside of Canada. Manitoba has recognized that the issues created by the new reality of the new reality of the Internet and e-commerce are complicated and as such has held discussions in order to seek viable solutions of these issues, the unique issues of IPS Pharmacy in Manitoba.

MIPA has been working with the Province of Manitoba and the MPhA throughout the process of its inception, growth and maturation over the last five years. These discussions have stemmed from a mutual desire to address the issu es unique to IPS Pharmacy, while at the same time taking advantage of the exciting technological advances that are available within the field of pharmaceutical care.

MIPA firmly believes that these discussions will ensure that professional ethics and patient safety continue to be protected and will ensure that the mechanisms required for all forms of in ter-jurisdictional medical and pharmaceutical delivery are in place. More importantly, MIPA remains committed to working with the Province of Manitoba and the MPhA to ensure the continued viabil ity of IPS Pharmacy in Manitoba while at the same time ensuring that Manitobans and Canadians continue to receive the best health care in the world. Bill 41 represents the first major change to The Pharmaceutical Act in a long time.

We understand that Bill 41 has been a work in progress that has been in consultation and discussion for some five years. Although MIPA has been working with the Province of Manitoba and the MPhA to address issues unique to IPS Pharmacy, it was not involved in any discussions relating to the drafting of Bill 41. This is my primary concern. The first time that my members and that I had a chance to see the text of Bill 41 was May 18 at first reading, of this year. We have had two weeks to consider this proposed legislation.

Bill 41 should be seen as an opportunity to embrace quality distance-based pharmaceutical care. * (10:30) On a reading of Bill 41, it appears that this opportunity has been missed. Bill 41 does not address any of the issues unique to IPS Pharmacy. Moreover, it could have a negative impact upon those currently providing IPS Pharmacy care within the Province of Manitoba. Particularly in these last five formative years, IPS Pharmacy should have been involved in the drafting of Bill 41. We will not get another opportunity.

I know I am constrained with time, and I do need to be brief, but I do need to tell you a little bit about IPS Pharmacy. A survey conducted by MIPA in 2005 concluded that there were 41 IPS pharmacies licensed by the MPhA. Thes e are the most available statistics. The survey also revealed that there were approximately 1,350 people directly employed by IPS pharmacies in Manitoba and that those IPS pharmacies had collective annual sales of approximately $415 million. IPS pharmacies provide pharmaceutical services on a distance-based care model.

Individuals contact Manitoba IPS and provide to the Manitoba IPS their prescription. Many of these individuals are in the United States. They are seniors and, almost universally, they are on maintenance medications which have no risk of abuse. The prescriptions are required by our members, but a Canadian's prescription is required in order to fill a script in Canada and so Manitoba IPS retains Canadian licensed prescribers, physicians, to issue Canadian prescriptions. It is legally required for us to operate in Canada, and this is what happens.

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 499 The process of filling prescriptions by IPS is safer than any other kind of pharmaceutical prescription filling. It is safer because it involves a face-to-face relationship by a primary physician in the United States who issu es a prescription. That original prescription is reviewed by a Canadian- licensed prescriber who can catch errors. In addition, there are usually one, two or three pharmacists who review the order before it is delivered in Manitoba for sale.

MIPA and the MPhA in the province of Manitoba have been meeting to discuss issues relevant to the practice of IPS Pharmacy in Manitoba and to ensure that the practice of IPS Pharmacy does not adversely impact the health care of Canadians. MIPA and its associated national organization CIPA maintains a Canada-first policy. This industry is good for Manitoba, and it is good for Canada. Here you have my information, and there are a lot of concerns that I have with the legislation. But let me just address the most important ones. First of all, in Bill 41, there is a new definition of a practitioner.

The practitioner is described in

Section 2 as a person licensed to practise medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, veterinary surgery, and veterinary dentistry in Manitoba or in any province or territory in Canada, and–and the "and" is vital–a person designated in the regulations. The problem with this definition is that it requires that the physician be licensed in Manitoba or Canada and in the regulations. Where Manitoba IPS needs to go is like 29 states which recognize Canadian prescriptions.

We need to recognize the United States prescriptions, and if this bill is passed as drafted, the mandatory conjunctive nature of "and" will create a circumstance where we can never, not without significant revision, conduct the practice of IPS Pharmacy in Manitoba the way that we should. The second matter that I want to bring to your attention is that in this new draft legislation, it broadly expands the scope of the registrar. There are a lot of ways in which it does this. However, in particular, at

Section 94, Bill 41 allows expanded sharing of information by the registrar to organizations in Manitoba and entities and government organizations across the country. Mr. Ron Guse, the current registrar, has said publicly that he is frustrated by his inability to communicate certain information with other colleges in Canada. I am not opposed to expanded scope of shared information. However, the reality is that, currently, one of our members is being prosecuted by the MPhA for filling a prescription by a Canadian co- signing physician.

An effective way to shut down this industry in Manitoba would be to share the information of the Canadian co-signing physicians with other colleges across the country. These individuals then may be subject to sanction because of the current regulatory climate and our members will not be able to conduct business in Canada any longer. This is a vital Manitoba industry and I would hate to see it lost. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Sale: First, thanks, Troy, for your presentation. I just want to ask a couple of questions.

Were you aware that there were five public meetings open to all shareholder-stakeholders in terms of pharmacists in regard to this legislation and that all members who are certified pharmacists in Manitoba were able to go to those meetings, including your members? Mr. Harwood-Jones: I was not aware of that. Furthermore, I have sent out numerous communiqués, and I have called a meeting of the members of my association. I have asked them repeatedly: Were you aware of this legislation? Does anyone have any information on this legislation? Were you ever consulted with the drafting of Bill 41?

The answer has been a resounding no. Mr. Sale: Secondly, in regard to your concern about both the two areas that you have told me that you were concerned about. I know that you are aware that our legislative drafters have indicated that "and" does not mean conjunctive "and"; it is simply listing. But we have also told you that, if you want to have "or" in there, we can have "or" in there. It does not make any difference to the

interpretation of the legislation. Would you be happier if it said "or"? Mr. Harwood-Jones: I can tell you I would be greatly relieved if you substituted the word "or" in the definition of practitioner. Mr. Sale: We have an amendment that says "or." It does not make any difference, but if you want to say "or," we will say "or." Thirdly, are you aware that your concern that you just ended your presentation with around other colleges in Canada is not, in fact, the meaning of

Section 94, that it only allows the sharing of information with other governments, government agencies, which is, in other words, bodies that are

500 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 governments across Canada. It has nothing to do with sharing information with colleges and physicians, nurses, pharmacists, whatever, it is purely

section (b), which is new, is in regard purely to government. Were you aware of that? Mr. Harwood-Jones: I was not, and that is a relief. Mr. Sale: We told you this morning. [interjection] Okay, good. I am glad. Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I represent the Minnedosa constituency, and RxNorth and Mediplan are part of my constituency, obviously. I was pleased to see that the minister was looking at the "and" component because my question to you would be in consultation with RxNorth or Mediplan, this would obviously be a concern for them. Can you speak to that comment? Mr.

Harwood-Jones: I can tell you that I have spoken directly with Andrew Strempler, the owner of Mediplan Health Consulting, and he is greatly concerned, as I am, regardin g the implications of the drafting of the definition of practitioner. If the legislation is passed the way that it is currently drafted with the "and' rather than the amended "or," it may well put Mediplan out of business in Minnedosa. Mrs. Rowat: Are you comfortable, based on the comments that the minister has made, that the amendment will address that? Are there any other issues or concerns that have been raised by Mr.

Strempler regarding this piece of legislation that we should be addressing before the minister today in providing amendment? * (10:40) Mr. Harwood-Jones: The best answer I can provide to that is that I have been in consultation, as president of MIPA, with the members of the association. We met a few weeks ago, and I have been sending out e-mail correspondence regarding this bill ever since I received it. I have met with Andrew on one occasion. We discussed the bill.

He asked for my comments on it, and I advised him that I had sent the draft copy of Bill 41 to our legal counsel for a review, which had not been completed. We discussed it in general terms, and we discussed some of the concerns that I had, such as the drafting of the definition of practitioner. It was only last Friday at 6:30 that I received a phone message, which I picked up the next day at work, advising me that this act was going to go to a committee this morning, and this was going to be our one opportunity to speak to this to affect the drafting of the bill. Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I would like to address

Section 92, which protects individuals from liability unless the person was acting in bad faith. There have been a number of such clauses introduced in a variety of bills to protect various people from ministers to a variety of other individuals. In this case, it applies to the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association. Our view is that the protection from liability should not be present where there is gross negligence or gross mismanagement and that there needs to be some liability when there are major mistakes made to let people know that there has to be some duty of care in actions taken. Would you comment on this?

Madam Chairperson: Just prior to your commenting, is there leave for Mr. Harwood-Jones to answer the question? [Agreed] Mr. Harwood-Jones: I would answer the question as follows: I believe that the MPhA and the regulators proceed with good faith in all of their actions. I think that every person who takes public office does so on the basis that they are concerned for the public good. My concern, however, is that the drafting of Bill 41 reverses the appropriate onus.

I can tell you that it is a standard principle of law and it is a fundamental principle of natural justice that the individual has less power than the state and needs to be protected from the power of the state. This is why appropriate legislation creates a circumstance where the individual does not need to show bad faith in order to defend themselves. It is very difficult for an individual, with their limited resources, to marshal the kind of evidence to persuade our naturally cynical society that someone was proceeding in their office under some kind of nefarious purpose.

The drafting of Bill 41 reverses the onus. In effect, it says that unless you can prove that there was bad faith, the people who are responsible for protecting the well-being of Manitobans and individuals who receive pharmaceutical care will not be subject to any sanctions for the things that they do. That is not appropriate. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Harwood-Jones: Thank you and good morning.

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 501 Madam Chairperson: The committee calls Dr. Sheryl Zelenitsky from the Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Manitoba. Ms. Sheryl Zelenitsky (A cting Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba): Good morning, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Sheryl Zelenitsky and I am the acting dean of the Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Manitoba. I thank your committee this morning for letting me address, on behalf of the faculty, Bill 41.

I would respectfully submit that in order to consider this bill, it is important to know the background and training of pharmacists and pharmacy students in the province of Manitoba. Our support for Bill 41 is evident in our mission to provide an educational environment that facilitates the integration of pharmacy scholarship in the areas of practice, research and service to effect optimal health outcomes for individuals and communities and to advance the profession of pharmacy.

An important point here I think is that contemporary pharmacy education, there has been a dramatic change in pharmacy education over the last decade. Pharmacy programs across North America have adopted very patient-focussed clinical programs which expand pharmacy practice, education, develop professional skills, incorporate interdisciplinary education and a lot of experiential learning. Our faculty and the profession of pharmacy at this point is very fortunate to be attracting talented students into our program who are eager to serve as health care providers in our community.

I provided a little bit of background on the pharmacy students that we take into Pharmacy. The program requires at least one year of science. Many of our students come in with previous degrees. We have limited enrolment of 50 per year and a large recruitment of 200 to 300 applicants for those 50 sp ots. Our mean GPA for our pharmacy students coming into first year is above a 4.0. After four years of education and training, our graduates, I feel, do demonstrate value and the desire to serve.

As health care providers in our current exit survey of our 2006 grads: 100 percent have jobs; more than 80 percent remain in Manitoba, 80 percent serve community pharmacy, about 20 percent institutional or hospital, and this year 40 percent of our graduates took positions outside of Winnipeg in rural communities or cities and towns outside of urban Winnipeg. I would like to provide an appreciation of pharmacy education which, as I mentioned, over the past decade has undergone dramatic and rapid evolution. We are in the midst of implementing a new program.

Our programs are maintained and mandated by a national accreditation process. As was mentioned previously, we are also in the plans for a new pharmacy building which will be built at the Bannatyne campus specifically so that our students can be trained with other health care professionals. Our students have four years of training in drug therapy. They have over 40 courses and 75 percent of those are directly on drug s and the use of drugs in patients. We focus a lot on developing skills in our students to meet patient drug-related needs.

There has been a dramatic increase in our training and clinical disease-state management, patient evaluation assessment, and health promotion. We have also doubled our experiential training in our current program. Beyond the traditional activities of drug distribution and patient counselling which are covered under our current act, contemporary pharmacy programs like the one in Manitoba has a tremendous emphasis on an educational outcome targeted to meeting patients' drug-related needs.

Our students are trained in selecting the most appropriate drug therapies based on indication, on clinical evidence, looking at the scientific literature, on patient demographics, other disease states patients may have, drug interactions, adverse effects, compliance and cost. Our students are highly trained on counselling on the effective and safe us e of drugs, but they are also trained on the monitoring and adjusting of drug therapy to optimize both the efficacy and minimize adverse effects that patients may experience.

With all the education and training, it has been our frustration and contention at some times that our graduates are overtrained and overeducated for current scopes of practice in pharmacy in Manitoba. It follows that pharmacists are underutilized in the health care system. Furthermore, the current act is limiting and does have a very narrow scope. I would add that Bill 41 will be one of the most progressive acts in the country and will enable pharmacists to take a more active and regulated role in the health care of patients in Manitoba.

I have outlined on my last slide some of the opportunities that I think opening the scope and broadening the scope of practice will offer us in this

502 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 province. Our vision under the new Pharmaceutical Act will increase the utilization of pharmacists' expertise, and their accessible services as pharmacists are very accessible to the population and also their accessibility to other health care professionals. * (10:50) Pharmacists can ensure appropriate therapy. They can look at cost-effective therapy, look at monitoring and ongoing monitoring of patients that have chronic disease states, and they can do it very efficiently and timely, ordering tests, adjusting therapies and selected prescribing.

I also see that this act and the better utilization of pharmacists in this province can reduce the burden on other areas of the health care system that pharmacists are well-trained and skilled to manage. With that I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present. Thank you. Mr. Sale: I would like to thank you for your presentation. Obviously, you have looked at the act carefully. Do you see any areas that cause you concern at this point or do you feel that we have basically covered off the issues that you think should be dealt with in the act? Ms.

Zelenitsky: I feel that the act does cover the areas as was mentioned previously. The development of standards of practice and regulations to come, I would have no concerns with the act. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, the committee thanks you very much for your presentation, and thank you for waiting. Prior to proceeding, are there any other individuals in the audience who would like to make a presentation? That concludes the list of presenters I have before me. Madam Chairperson: We will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bills.

In what order does the committee wish to consider the bills? Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): According to the list we got this morning. Madam Chairperson: Is that agreed by the committee? [Agreed] Bill 29–The Degree Granting Act Madam Chairperson: Does the minister responsible for Bill 29 have an opening statement? Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): Madam Chair, I do not have a statement, but I think there is a point of clarification that I would like to make because I understand that my opposition critic had a concern which I think I can alleviate.

So let me give a little bit of background under this Degree Granting Act. An institution can gain the authority to grant degrees in three ways: (1) the institution can be incorporated through legislation, for example, The University of Manitoba Act; (2) the institution's name could be added to the list of exempted institutions in The Degree Granting Act itself, for example, Steinbach Bible College or (3) an institution could be granted temporary permission to grant degrees through a regulation designed to allow current students to complete a program of study.

Now under this bill Cabinet has the authority to authorize an institution to grant degrees for a period of up to three years. This is a transitional provision. It is only temporary, and it is designed to ensure that students are not penalized for taking a degree- granting program from an institution that under The Degree Granting Act would not be authorized to grant degrees. Now we do not know if those institutions are out there and, in fact, existent, but we want to make provision for this possible eventuality.

I believe this was the concern of the opposition critic who felt that Cabinet would be enabled to grant institutions and not have to come to the Legislature. Indeed, that is not the case. With this exception, degree-granting authority is reviewed by the Legislature. The proposed Degree Granting Act would require that institutions that have degree granting authority on a permanent basis be either incorporated through public or private legislation or that the institution could be added to

Section 2 of The Degree Granting Act. That is th e

section where Steinbach Bible College is listed. So I do want to ensure the member that Cabinet cannot create new institutions. The institutions would need to be created by

an act of the Legislature or added to

Section 2. So that is my only comment at the beginning, Madam Chair. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Does the critic from the official opposition have an opening statement? Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): I think that [interjection]

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 503 An Honourable Member: Here, here. Madam Chairperson: Clause 1–pass. Shall clauses 2 and 3 pass? An Honourable Member: Pass. Mr.

Derkach: I would just simply like to ask the minister in the authorization of who can grant a degree or who is entitled to allow for degrees, I want to ask the minister whether or not she considered allowing for, for example: In an instance where a new institution perhaps is established in the province, whether it is the minister, the Cabinet, the Order-in-Council or whether it is an amendment to the act that would allow for that institution to be allowed to grant a degree. Ms. McGifford: Any new institution would have to be created by

an act of the Legislature offering, obviously, all members of the Legislature the opportunity to participate in the debate. Or it could be added to, under

Section 2(2)(b), where we see the Steinbach Bible College. Mr. Derkach: So, if an institution, for example, community colleges right now are not allowed to grant degrees, but if a co mmunity college wanted to grant a degree, if we were to sort of phase into a university college system in this province, would it simply be an amendment to this

section in the act that would allow for that community college to offer degrees, or does that become a new piece of legislation on its own? Ms. McGifford: Madam Chair, it would require an amendment to The Colleges Act, a modification to The Colleges Act. So, once again, it would be a matter that would be considered by the Legislature. Madam Chairperson: Clauses 2 and 3–pass; clauses 4 through 6–pass. Shall clauses 7 through 9–oh, I am sorry. Mr. Derkach: I actually had a question in regard to clause 6(2). Madam Chairperson: Clause 6(2)? Mr.

Derkach: Yes, it is passed, but I– Madam Chairperson: With leave of the committee, can we return to clause 6? [Agreed] Mr. Derkach: My question has to do with the regulation under subsection (1), which has a three- year expiry date after it is made, unless a shorter period is prescribed by regulation. What happens after the third year, if the regulation expires after year three, but there still seems to be a need for it? Does that regulation have to then be reinstituted or what is the process? Ms. McGifford: It is renewable if there is still a need for that. Mr.

Derkach: And is it the minister then that renews it, or is that a recommendation that comes from COPSE? Ms. McGifford: Well, I think it would be a recommendation that came from COPSE, but it is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who finally agrees. Madam Chairperson: Clauses 7 through 9–pass; table of contents–pass; enacting clause–pass; title– pass. Bill be reported. * (11:00) Bill 32–The Real Property Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: The next bill for consideration is Bill 32, The Real Property Amendment Act. Does the minister for Bill 32 have an opening statement? Hon.

Oscar Lathlin (Minis ter of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think most members are aware that under the 1997 federal-provincial agreement on treaty land entitlement, or TLE as we re fer to it, a total of 27 First Nations in Manitoba are entitled to select up to a little bit more than a million acres of Crown land and also to purchase up to approximately 170,000 acres of private land and that land to be transferred to the federal government, and the federal government will, by Order-in-Council, convert it to reserve land.

Also, as the members of th e Legislature know, this land has been owed for upwards to 100 years to these Manitoba First Nations, 27 of them. The provincial Treaty Land Entitlement, again as members would know, stems from the period of 1871 to 1910 when seven treaties were signed between First Nations and Canada.

Now, again, members will know that not all First Nations have received their full land allegations under the TLE process, but Manitoba is constitutionally obligated under the 1930 natural reso urces transfer agreement act to set aside unoccupied Crown lands so that Canada can fulfil its outstanding treaty land entitlements to First Nations. That is not just Manitoba; it is across Canada.

504 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 So far Manitoba has transferred approximately 200,000 acres to the federal government of which roughly 100,000 acres have been set apart as reserve by Canada. Some 200,000 acres are in the process of being surveyed and an additional 240,000 acres have been approved for surveying. So, essentially, members will know that what we have here are some very serious overdue accounts, accounts that are in arrears for many years.

Progress in addressing these overdue accounts has been painfully slow, as members of the official opposition will know because they had this file while they were in office. So, again, I think people around the table here will agree that it is in everyone's interest that the provincial government fulfil existing TLE entitle- ments, land entitlements as sufficiently and as effectively and as fast as possible as we can.

So as the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs and also being a First Nations person, I have always told groups that I have a vested interest that these lands, on OCN anyway, the First Nation I come from, be transferred to OCN's control and authority, ASAP. Now, over the years th at we have been in government, I have met with successive federal ministers responsible for the Department of Indian Affairs. I have met with the Grand Chiefs of AMC, SEO and MKO along with several chiefs and councils. Also, I have met many times with municipal officials regarding the TLE process.

In all of these meetings, I have always stressed our desire to get these files processed in a timely basis. Our department has made fast-tracking TLE a priority, and we are doing that right now, so the need for the current legislatio n was identified by the federal government through the Department of Justice, who said that they required this change to make it easier for them to accept many parcels of land. Bill 32, The Real Property Amendment Act, will address a perceived shortcoming in current legislation as it relates to the protection of easements through the land transfer and reserve creation process.

The easements I refer to are for such public purposes as water storage, access, rights of way for public utilities among others. This amendment is needed in order to accommodate a requirement of Canada that what they call true legal interest in land can be accepted under the federal Real Property Act. We are also told that, without this amendment, our ability to transfer land subject to easements created for public purposes may continue to be hindered and delayed.

We have seen many cases of land that has been approved by the Province but stalled for long periods of time at the federal level because of these perceived shortcomings. So, again, I suggest to members here that the completion of TLE is important for the future of the economic development of First Nations. I have always told people that the slow progress of this TLE in Manitoba has meant lost opportunities. In fact, it has cost this province probably millions of dollars because businesses need land tenure issues resolved before they can make investments. So I encourage all members to support this amendment.

Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement? Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Yes, just a very brief opening statement just to get a few matters on the record, Madam Chair. I notice that the minister, when he made his opening statement, indicated that he was in support of an efficient and a fast process under the Treaty Land Entitlement agreement process that is in place. While I would agree with that, that does not mean that you should not be consulting before you ensure that you present legislation to the House.

I am somewhat disappointed in the minister in that respect because I recall in second reading in Bill 32 where the minister indicated, in fact, that he consulted with all the groups and special interest groups that Bill 32 would certainly have an impact upon. Clearly, he, during second debate, indicated that this will speed the Treaty Land Entitlement process up, and in fact, we hear today from Mr. Braun, who represents the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee, coming forward and saying that he was not consulted. We heard as well that on June 19 he is going to have a meeting with the minister, an initial meeting.

Here we are in committee a week before June 19 trying to pass this bill into concurrence and third reading, so, while the minister talks about consultation, he does not follow through, obviously. * (11:10) Clearly, I think Mr. Braun was asking for Bill 32 to be tabled until proper representations were made. In fact, the Member for Ste. Rose (M r. Cummings) asked the minister the question, and the minister chose not to answer. So I would hope that the minister would have been listening to Mr. Braun's

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 505 presentation. It impacts upon his group in terms of the ability to receive, and I think what Mr. Braun was dealing with in his presentation was compensation.

Clearly, I have made that comment before in the House in second reading debate that in fact Bill 32 is somewhat deficient in the sense that it does not have a compensation mechanism available because clearly, when y ou put an easement on someone's property, whether it is a First Nations property or whether it is private property outside of a First Nations community, any easement that you put on property like that will diminish the value of the property somewhat, depending on the kind of easement that you are putting on it.

Perhaps, with Bill 32, there should have been some kind of a compensation mechanism or some kind of dispute resolution mechanism within Bill 32 to facilitate that process. Clearly what we do not want to do is slow up the process of treaty land entitlement. I think what we have to do is make sure that there is an efficient process available, and perhaps, when Mr. Braun made his presentation, that is likely what he was alluding to. But, we would never know, of course, unless they would have a meeting with the minister before the bill is passed. Madam Chairperson: We thank the member. Shall clause 1 pass? Mr.

Ron Schuler (Springfield): I have a question to the minister. I was wondering if all these good words also apply to those individuals who are out front trying to get the minister's attention. Mr. Lathlin: The individuals who are outside are trying to address their concerns as they relate to the Grand Rapids hydro installation. The issue that we are dealing with right now has to do with treaty land entitlement. So they may be similar, but in my belief, we are dealing with two different issues there. Mr.

Schuler: But the minister is dealing with the issue that the individuals outside are looking forward to have dealt with? Mr. Lathlin: I understand the group met with the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro last week, and I understand also that further meetings are being contemplated at this time. Mr. Schuler: My last question. I am sure they would appreciate that, when the minister walks out to his vehicle, if he would walk over and maybe just talk to them. Mr. Lathlin: I have talked to them. Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): Madam Chair, June 19 is the date that was shared by Mr.

Braun as a meeting date to have discussions on Bill 32. Is it the minister's intent at that point to provide a briefing on the intent and the implications of Bill 32 at that point? Also, will there be a committee struck, and what will that committee be doing? This bill will already have passed. What does the minister hope to achieve with the amendment already passing? Can he share what his intent is with this committee? Mr. Lathlin: I would like to clarify the comments that were made by Mr. Braun earlier this morning.

At the May 29 meeting, it was the purpose of the meeting on May 29 to discuss the fast tracking of TLE. We had been talking quite extensively, we have had several meetings and there have been several pieces of correspondence that have gone back and forth to AMC, MKO and some individual chiefs and councils, to Mr. Braun himself, talking about TLEs. So, at the May 29 meet ing, the idea was that we were going to talk about Bill 32. So, we, in fact our civil legal services, one of the lawyers, did quite an extensive presentation on Bill 32 to the group that we met on May 29.

Toward the end of the meeting, I made a commitment to the group that after that meeting, or shortly thereafter as soon as possible, that our same lawyer would meet with their lawyers and their officials, their technicians a nd chiefs, if they wish to be there, so that our lawyer could further explain the purpose of Bill 32. I did not in any way commit to forming a committee. My commitment was for our lawyer to sit down with their people and try to get a common understanding of the whole purpose of Bill 32.

I also have asked our staff to do a chronology of communication that we have conducted with the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee on Bill 32. If members wish, I have asked our people to package that communication together for your easy reference. I think you will come to understand that, contrary to what some people might believe, there has been communication with the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee regarding Bill 32. Madam Chairperson: Is that agreed by the committee to have that information distributed? [Agreed] Mrs. Rowat: I guess my question though is, there were some very serious concerns shared by

506 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2006 Mr. Braun about not being included in the process of the intent and the implications of Bill 32. I guess I would just share the concern of others at the table that when something of this magnitude is being presented and that will a ffect the livelihoods of individuals in Manitoba, that all residents of the province are given opportunity to consult and learn more about a bill prior to it being implemented.

So, I welcome the minister's information that he is going to share on the communication aspect and who has been consulted, but as the new critic for Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, I will be following this process and working with communities to ensure that their voices are heard. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): There was a letter that was tabled from D'Arcy & Deacon, once the committee and the presenter had expressed some concerns in regard to Bill 32.

I am wondering if the minister could indicate whether or not he was aware of the concerns and the request that this bill maybe not go through a second or a committee stage at this time? Was he aware of that? Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chair, I am not sure if I understand the member's question. I wonder if I could ask him to repeat it. Mr. Lamoureux: The content of the June 8 letter deals with concerns regarding Bill 32 and that it be tabled until an appropriate time as our client, and I am reading right from it, be tabled until an appropriate time as our client is able to register and prepare its presentation of Bill 32.

Was the minister, or is his office aware at all of that particular request? * (11:20) Mr. Lathlin: Well, let me begin by saying, Madam Chair, that our community in the Opaskwayak Cree Nation stands to, under the TLE process, stands to get an additional approximately 50,000 acres of land that has been owing for many, many years now. Being a First Nations person, there is no way that I would advise our government to come up with any piece of legislation that would in any way hinder OCN from getting land that is owed under the Treaty Land Entitlement process. Absolutely no way.

So, again, I often tell our people that blood is thicker than water, and I am going to do everything on my part while I am in this government to make sure that that one million acres of land that is owed to Indians in this province through treaty is fulfilled, because the file has been around too many years.

I made a commitment when I was made Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs that that would be one priority project that I would undertake, and that is what I have been doing for the last two and half, three years that I have been Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, because I see it as being very important for First Nations in this province to access land.

We talk about economic development, business development, business opportunities for First Nations, and yet we seem to sometimes forget that one very key component to business development and opportunities for First Nations people in this province is real estate. So I have made it my business that before I leave this building and my job here as Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, that I will try everything on my part to make sure that that happens.

As well, I can tell the member, Madam Chair, that, as I said earlier, I have a chronology of events that have happened between my department and First Nations organizations with respect to Bill 32. I am prepared to give a copy of that to the member if he wishes. I might add, too, that there are many First Nations who support this bill because they understand what it is trying to do. They have complained long and hard about how long it takes for a TLE to be processed.

They know how much land is owed to them, and they know that if that land is finally paid to those First Nations people that their chances for economic opportunities would be enhanced that much further. So, if the member wishes, I can give him a copy of the chronology that I have that clearly indicates our communications with First Nations organizations with respect to Bill 32. Mr. Lamoureux: Yes. Madam Chair, I think it is important that we just be clear on the point in terms of whether or not, because–and I respect what it is that the minister is saying.

But, in reading the legal counsel letter for the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba, it makes two assertions that cause a great deal of concern. That is why I just want to ask the minister: Was he aware of the content of this letter or the con cerns by the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee prior to this morning? I say that because it indicates very clearly in the letter: To this date, our client, as well as its member First Nations, remain confused as to the intent and workings of this legislation.

June 12, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 507 Then it goes further in the letter: W

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-4-sed13
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 4th hansardpdf sed13.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d6e0dff60392460f1e543ce762cf02c82e43402c

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