Manitoba Committee Hansard — 7 August 2013 (Justice Committee, Sitting 1, 40th Legislature, 2nd Session)

40-2-ju1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Fortieth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Justice Chairperson Mr. James Allum Constituency of Fort Garry-Riverview Vol. LXV No. 1 - 6 p.m., Wednesday, August 7, 2013 ISSN 1708-6671

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Fortieth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital NDP ALLUM, James Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson NDP BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli NDP BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park NDP BRAUN, Erna Rossmere NDP BRIESE, Stuart Agassiz PC CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East NDP CHIEF, Kevin, Hon. Point Douglas NDP CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan NDP CROTHERS, Deanne St.

James NDP CULLEN, Cliff Spruce Woods PC DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk NDP DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FRIESEN, Cameron Morden-Winkler PC GAUDREAU, Dave St. Norbert NDP GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Liberal GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC HOWARD, Jennifer, Hon. Fort Rouge NDP IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Richmond NDP JHA, Bidhu Radisson NDP KOSTYSHYN, Ron, Hon. Swan River NDP LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. Dawson Trail NDP MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St.

Johns NDP MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden PC MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor, Hon. Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel NDP MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East PC NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake NDP OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River NDP PALLISTER, Brian Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine Midland PC PETTERSEN, Clarence Flin Flon NDP REID, Daryl, Hon. Transcona NDP ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Kewatinook NDP RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia NDP ROWAT, Leanne Riding Mountain PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron St. Paul PC SELBY, Erin, Hon. Southdale NDP SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo PC STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin NDP SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto NDP WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas NDP WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WIGHT, Melanie Burrows NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC Vacant Morris

1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE Wednesday, August 7, 2013 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. James Allum ( Fort Garry- Riverview) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Deanne Crothers (St. James) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Bjornson, Swan Messrs. Allum, Altemeyer, Caldwell, Ms. Crothers, Messrs. Dewar, Eichler, Helwer, Maguire, Wishart Substitutions: Mr. Briese for Mr. Maguire APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 36–The Public Guardian and Trustee Act Mr.

Kerry Anderson, private citizen Ms. Margaret Anderson, private citizen Ms. Bertha Travers, private citizen Mr. Jeff Sinclair, private citizen Mr. Daryl Wallman, private citizen Mr. Errol Pinnock, private citizen Bill 38 –The Provincial Offences Act and Municipal By-law Enforcement Act Mr. Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Mr. Steve Strang, RM of St. Clements Mr. Harold Dick, City of Winnipeg WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 36–The Public Guardian and Trustee Act A.

Leonard Anderson, private citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 8–The Provincial Court Amendment Act Bill 10 –The Correctional Services Amendment Act Bill 16 –The Department of Justice Amendment Act Bill 21 –The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Impoundment of Vehicles – Ignition-Interlock Program) Bill 23 –The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Increased Sanctions for Street Racing) Bill 25 – The Statutory Publications Modernization Act Bill 36–The Public Guardian and Trustee Act Bill 38 –The Provincial Offences Act and Municipal By-law Enforcement Act * * * Clerk Assistant (Mr. Andrea Signorelli): Good evening.

Will the Standing Committee on Justice please come to order. Before the committee can proceed with the business before it, it must elect a new Chairperson. Are there any nominations for this position? Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I n ominate Mr. Allum. Clerk Assistant: Mr. Allum has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Allum, will you please take the Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Our next item of business is the election of a Vice- Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Dewar: I nominate Ms. Crothers. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Crothers has been nominated.

Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Ms. Crothe rs is the Vice-Chairperson.

2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 8, The Provincial Court Amendment Act; Bill 10, The Correctional Services Amendment Act; Bill 16, The Department of Justice Amendment Act; Bill 21, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Impoundment of Vehicles – Ignition-Interlock Program); Bill 23, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Increased Sanctions for Street Racing); Bill 25, The Statutory Publications Modernization Act; Bill 36, The Public Guardian and Trustee Act; Bill 38, The Provincial Offences Act and Municipal By-law Enforcement Act.

How long does the committee wish to sit this evening? Mr. Dewar: I suggest we sit until the work of the committee is complete. Mr. Chairperson: It's the suggestion to work until the work of the committee is complete. [Agreed] We have a number of presenters registered to speak tonight as noted on the list of presenters before you. On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we will have out-of-town presenters in attendance marks –marked with an asterisk on the list. With this consideration in mind, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? Mr.

Dewar: I suggest we listen to out -of-town presenters on Bill 36 and out -of-town presenters on Bill 38, then the other bills as listed. Mr. Chairperson: Are we agreed to the suggestion made by Mr. Dewar? [Agreed] Committee Substitutions Mr. Chairperson: I also n ote that there's a substitution, Mr. Briese for Mr. Maguire. * * * Mr. Chairperson: Before we proceed with the 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 w ho would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with staff at the entrance of the room. Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentati on with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff.

As well, I would like to inform presenters that in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is no t in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. A written s ubmission from Leonard Anderson, private citizen, on Bill 36, has been received and distributed to committee members.

Does the committee ag ree to have this submission appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off. So please wait for me before you begin to speak. Thank you for your patience.

We will now proceed with the public presentations. Bill 36–The Public Guardian and Trustee Act Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Point of clarification, if you would, please. On the committee listing on Bill 36, you have a Kerry Anderson and the presentation was from a Leonard Anderson. Are these one and the same or are they two separate presenters? Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. The se are two different individuals. So I would like to call on–[interjection] There's a suggestion–if I could have the committee's attention.

There's a suggestion that the person named Kerry Anderson, No. 2 on your schedule, would precede Margaret Anderso n, listed as No. 1. Is that in agreement with the committee? [Agreed] So with that, I will now call on Kerry Anderson to come to the podium, please.

August 7, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 Do you have any written materials for distribution, Mr. Anderson? Mr. Kerry Anderson (Private Citizen): We do. I gave it to the front because we required help making copies. * (18:10) Mr. Chairperson: So you just bear with us a minute and we'll have those distributed. While copies are being made, you're welcome to proceed, and then members, of course, will all have a chance to see the written submission once the copies are ready. Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Anderson? Mr. Anderson: Yes, because I'm just summarizing from it anyways. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Mr.

Anderson, the floor is yours. You have 10 minutes. Mr. Anderson: I've been dealing with the Public Trustee and the fallout from their actions and those of the director of psychiatric services for almost 19 months, and with the Winnipe g regional health for 22 months, both of these entities under the umbrella of the Minister of Justice. It's ironic that these agencies fall under the Minister of Justice since there certainly has been no justice in what these departments have done to our family since 2011. My aunt Dorothy Loewen suffered a heart –a massive stroke in December of '05.

That stroke left her paralyzed on her left side. Since that date she's been confined to a wheelchair, requires assistance for her daily activities. She needs help getting in and out of bed, in and out of her chair, on and off the toilet. Other than that, she is totally self -sufficient in that she feeds herself, cleans herself, is capable of doing any activities that can be done with one hand. She's a bright, intelligent and astute individual with a quick wit and a sharp tongue, and who fully understands what's going on and what these people have done to her.

My uncle Les Loewen, her husband, was diagnosed with lung cancer in February of '11. At that time, we went over there to speak with my uncle about his situation and offer our assistance. He was going to be requiring chemotherapy, and given that they were already in a situation where they had a self-managed home-care program, he would ne ed a lot of help. What we didn't know at that time was that the flood, 300- year flood of 2011, was going to take place simultaneous to his treatment. He started his treatment in April. I live in Cartier on the Assiniboine River and I was involved in a ma ssive flood.

My property was under water from April until September of that year. At the time he started his treatment, I was manning pumps in my basement, using a boat to get in and out of my house. We could not offer him the assistance he needed. At that point, a friend of his stepped forward to help him. This friend took him to doctor's appointments, helped him out, helped with the home-care part of it, helped with managing the home-care workers. And during that time, that was – we were all grateful to ha ve him there to help as much as he could.

What we didn't know at that time was that –and that we found out upon my uncle's death–is this fellow somehow managed to convince my uncle to give him a power of enduring attorney for himself, give him a power of a ttorney for my aunt, make him the health -care manager over my aunt and change both wills, making him the primary beneficiary of their estates. When I found this out I went to my aunt. She was angry. She was upset. She wanted it stopped. She wanted us to get legal assistance for her, which we did. We took her to a lawyer. We had the power of attorney revoked.

We went back to the house because one of the care workers that was in place was put in place by this fellow. She wanted her out of there as well. We s erved the revocation on that person; that person left the house. I contacted Brad and told him, you know, come back to the house, my aunt wanted to see him, and bring any keys that he had. He hung up on me because he already knew what we had done. During the following week we had meetings with lawyers because she wanted to change her will. She wanted to get a new power of attorney. She wanted to totally rectify that situation.

During this time, this fellow along with another member of my family and Winnipeg health authority case coordinator started to campaign to get rid of us, hence the Public Trustee. That's how they became involved. We had no idea this was going on until January of 2012, mind you. During that time the case coordinator had gone to my aunt's family doctor, convinced the doctor to write a letter to the trustee, a letter giving –stating that she was incapable of looking after herself and that she was in danger from us. This letter was filed with a trustee and the trustee

4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 immediately filed an emergency order seeking guardianship of my aunt. Now my wife will speak on some of the other things in a moment. But I wanted to talk about the trustee, in particular, because as soon as that happened the trustee walked into my aunt's house, early January 2012, told her she was mentally incapacitated and was now a ward of the trustee. This woman is not mentally incapacitated, by the way.

They seized all her assets, took all the money out of her account, some $150,000 that was in there, set up an account at Cantor’s for her groceries, for $75 a week, and a carton of cigarettes because she smokes, and proceeded to ignore everybody's complaints and questions to them. We went back to the lawyers that were involved with my aunt to see if, on her behalf, they could do anything. They suggested that we take this on and file on her behalf, which we did. So we had 30 days to file an appeal. We filed that appeal and then everything stalled. So that appeal was filed by February of 2012.

This is now August of 2013 and we haven't been to court. There's been no solution to this problem. Since that time the trustee has taken my aunt's money, doled it out as they see fit not as my aunt would wish. They reduced her to–they've accused us of isolating her. They've isolated her financially. They've made it impossible for her to do anything, to go anywhere, to be with her friends, to go out for lunch, to go for pedicures, to do the normal things that she always did.

We also had a situation with the Public Trustee where they set up this account at Cantor’s –so Cantor’s would deliver once a week, and I went over there one day because the care worker phoned me and said, you've got to see this. I went over there. There was fruit, there was cheese, those kinds of things, some meat. The fruit was too ripe; I mean, it was almost rotting. And the cheese, which was what really astounded me, was a packaged package of a locally manufactured cheese in Manitoba that was green. The package had not been opened, but it was green. So I took a picture of it with my camera phone.

We phoned the trustee. We told him what was going on. They wouldn't return our calls. They would do nothing about it. I finally threatened to go to the media with the pictures. At that point, the trustee called us back and said, hold on, we'll do something about this, we'll–how about if we just put the money into her account, and she can do her own grocery shopping. That was fine. That's what they did. That still left her with $75 a week to live on. My wife, at this point in time, was also contacting the trustee on a regular basis. My aunt has a car.

The care worker has to drive it, but she's a social person, she goes out. You know, she wants to go grocery shopping; she can't do it in just a wheelchair. Seventy-five dollars a week doesn't put gas in the car, so we were trying to get some money put into the bank for her. They agreed finally, in April, to put $100 into her bank account. That money was for any other expenditures that she was to make over and above the groceries, so they did that. What would happen is they would phone us and tell us the money's there. We would phone the care worker and say, okay, you can go to the bank and take out the $100.

They would go to the bank, the money wasn't there. The bank informed us that there were NSF charges on the account. We'd phone the trustee. The following week, it was the same situation: We sent her to the bank, the money wasn't there. This happened three weeks in a row. You got this 80-year-old woman in a wheelchair trying to get a hundred dollars out of her $150,000. She's sitting in a bank full of people, crying, and asking for a hundred dollars of her money, and she can't get it because the trustee can't get their head out of their butt and deal with the bank that they seized all the money from.

But what they didn't do was deal with any of the expenditures going through those accounts that my uncle had set up on auto- pay. So all the auto- pays that were going through were being bounced NSF, and all those charges were in the account and they were eating up all the money that they were trying to put in for. * (18:20) This left us, now, with going into the spring of that year. She was still isolated; she was still unable to do anything. We constantly asked the trustee: How much m oney does she have? Can her lawyers probate the will? She's the total beneficiary of my uncle's estate. They would not allow it.

They would not allow her lawyers to do it. They said they would do it. We just found out two months ago they haven't touched it. They haven't done a thing. They've gone through all of her money. We don't know what she has. They won't tell us. [interjection] Oh, sorry. Well, if I have one minute, then the only thing I can say–and I hope you guys read the brief that I've given you– Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, we're –you're losing your minute here, so I've added about 15 seconds.

August 7, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 Mr. Anderson: Okay, it's almost two years since dealing with these departments. After numerous letters and pleas to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan), both directly and through Dr. Jon Gerrard, we've been totally disregarded and ignored. I am now expected to sit back and let this bill pass without a fight. We are supposed to sit back and let situations like this happen and totally remove any accountability from the office of the Public Trustee. I think not.

This department has maligned our reputations, destroyed my aunt's life, eaten up all of her funds, and have offered no means to mediate and resolve the situation. They've ignored us, been rude to us and threatened us. They've deliberately stalled the legal process in the hope of making us give up or financially breaking us. I am forced, at the age of 60 years, to start cashing in my pension, as well as selling my assets, in order to fund this gross indecency to my own family. If this bill is allowed to pass, it will be a complete travesty of justice. This is not what the Public Trustee should be about.

I know that there is a place for the trustee in our society, but the amount of power they've exhibited should give pause to any right-thinking individual. The Public Trustee should be under more scrutiny, not less. They should be more accountable, not less. They should be more answerable to the government, not less. And the fact that you want to provide them with more protection against the very people that they're charged to protect is even more disgusting, not less– Mr. Chairperson: I'm sorry to interrupt at this stage. The 10 minutes is –more than 10 minutes –is up.

We do have five minutes for questions, and hopefully you'll get a chance to elaborate. Thank you for your presentation. Are there questions from the committee? Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, thank you, Mr. Anderson. Let me just thank you for coming out and presenting tonight. I understand from your presentation that you do have a matter that's still in before the courts, so I hope that whatever that result will be, in front of an independent judge, will give some closure to your family.

You should know that the amendments that ar e being included that we're discussing tonight will involve some additional protections to individuals who've signed valid enduring powers of attorney prior to the Public Guardian and Trustee being appointed as the committee.

I am aware, not talking about your specific case, but in other situations where people have made a power of attorney and either the Public Trustee wasn't aware of it or there was a problem with one other relative coming forward, we're–through this act, we're going to make it easier, wh ere somebody has clearly stated their intentions, to put it bluntly, to get the Public Trustee out of the way, as long as there aren't other family members who have challenges or difficulties with that. So, I'm not speaking about your specific fact situation. I hope you'll get closure when you proceed to court.

I just want you to know that, though, that we are making some changes that I think could help to diffuse some situations. And again, I thank you for coming out and speaking to the various MLAs who are here tonight. Mr. Anderson: Okay, that's fine, but in my reading of the act it is, from what I can read in it, you're also trying to provide the 'pruss' –the trustee with protection against being sued and being held accountable for anything that they do in good faith. Anybody can make that claim, that they did it in good faith.

And most people do, in the court of law, say that they did it in good faith, whether they did it or not. That's why I'm here today because I don't think you should be doing that. Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Anderson. Must be a very emotional, trying time to deal with this. Prior to the trustee becoming involved–which was January 2012, if I –my notes are correct –I know you had a lot of things going on at that time, but do you feel there was anything that you could've done to prevent that from happening if you'd done it ahead of time, ahead of him becoming involved? Mr.

Anderson: We didn't know. But I doubt it. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Height s): It's really distressing what you and your family have been through. I think it's really terrible. I notice that Len Anderson has talked about, you know, some other oversight process for the Public Trustee, whether it be a mediation process –that wouldn't necessarily –could go quickly instead of a long court process –to look at the situation, or an appeal process or a –something that wouldn't require it to get tied up in the courts. Do you think that that sort of approach might be helpful?

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 Mr. Anderson: I think that what he suggested, whether it was a tribunal that looks at these things if mediation doesn't work, would work. I think there has to be a mediation process. There has to be somebody that you can go to if you're not getting the answers that you need from the trustee. I don't understand why, when you're dealing with a family, the Public Trustee isn' t keeping them fully informed as to what's going on. You know, this department seems to say, you don't count anymore.

We're not telling you anything, we don't have to tell you anything, and don't bother us. And that's wrong. And that seems to me to be the only department in the government that is entitled to do that. And allowing them to do that is wrong. And that's the kind of thing that you guys should be looking at and trying to change in your legislation, whether making them accountable to somebody else , you know, making them explain their actions. When you have to explain your actions to somebody, you do things differently. It's human nature. I know I do. Mr.

Chairperson: Seeing no other questions at this time, I thank you so much for your presentation and coming here tonight. You can be sure that your written brief will be distributed to all members of the committee. Floor Comment: Yes, thank you. Mr. Chairperson: You're welcome. Next to come to the podium is Ms. Margaret Anderson. Do you have some written materials for us tonight? Ms. Margaret Anderson (Private Citizen): I gave them to the lovely gentleman there. Mr. Chairperson: Understood. Ms. Anderson, you have 10 minutes. Welcome. The floor is yours. Ms. Anderson: I'm talking fast.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill 36 and to relay the nightmare that my family has been going through as a result of the actions undertaken by Winnipeg regional health, the office of the Chief Provincial Psychiatrist and the office of the Public Trustee. It is interesting to note that all these agencies operate separately. They are all represented by the same lawyer. Where is the impartial body that should be investigating complaints against government agencies?

As we have learned over the past two years, there is absolutely nowhere to go within the government to mediate or appeal decisions made by those departments. Any member of the public that disagrees with the decision made has no alternative other than to take legal action through the court system. My husband and I have been accused of financially abusing his aunt and of socially isolating her. These accusations have been made by Karen Lake, a case co -ordinator employed by Winnipeg regional health. We have been battling these departments since November 2011.

We have been treated like pariahs by all three departments and have never been given the chance to present our position. The other family members supporting us have never been contacted, have had no means to present their own views or position on what has happened to our aunt. Our Aunt Dorothy has ceased to be considered as a valued member of society. Her rights and wishes have been ignored. Her funds have been confiscated and rapidly depleted for no good reason. Her right to make any decisions as to how she wants to live out the remainder of her life have been taken away.

In the eyes of the Public Trustee, she has become a nonentity, not worthy of consideration, just the means to further enrich their own coffers. To date, we have racked up over $20,000 in legal fees, fighting against agencies that have unlimited resources to stretch this case out for years.

I have watched my husband, a former Winnipeg police department constable, an employee of the Department of Justice for the past 25 years, the most honourable and honest man I've ever met, be brought to his knees by strangers accusing him of horrible allegations of abuse against his aunt; abuse against an aunt that has been like a second mother to him for 60 years; an aunt that has always–refers to him as her son. I have watched him react to all of these accusations, and, quite frankly, it's been heartbreaking.

I have watched him grieve for the fate that has befallen his aunt, and, further, I have watched his frustration over his inability to protect his aunt. It is now my mission in life to make sure that no other Manitoban should ever have to go through what our family's gone through. * (18:30) Taking total control over anyone's life should be an absolute last resort, not the first course of action as demonstrate d over and over again by this department. The power that we have already given

August 7, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 the Public Trustee is obscene. The way that they can destroy people's lives is unconscionable. The fact that this bill is trying to remove yet another layer of accountability to protect the Public Trustee from being held financially liable regardless of their actions is ludicrous and, quite frankly, beyond comprehension in any civilized country. This department is funded by the fees charged for services provided every time the Public Trustee steps in and takes control.

Given that fact, one would assume that any and all measures would be taken to ensure that the Public Trustee would only step in when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, it should be considered an outright conflict of interest when they step in when it's not required and then charge fees to take control of someone's life in order to fund their own existence. To summarize our experience: October 24th, my husband's uncle, Les Loewen, passed away from lung cancer. October 31st, Dorothy had an appointment with Mr. Tomas Masi and Mr. Travis Webber, lawyers at D'Arcy & Deacon.

Dorothy signed an 'irrevocation' – a revocation of power of attorney. November the 9th, Dorothy met with lawyers again with no one else present to sign a new power of attorney and a health -care directive, listing her nephew, Kerry Anderson. November 1st through the 30th, I made numerous calls and emails to Ms. Karen Lake related to the self -managed care program and they were all unanswered. December the 1st, Karen Lake sent a letter to Dorothy's general practitioner, Dr. Hayward, asking him to give his opinion on whether Dorothy had the competency to choose her own power of attorney. December 16th, Dr.

Hayward does a 10- minute assessment on Doro thy, states that since Dorothy's husband became ill, he did not believe that she had the competency to choose a power of attorney at that particular time. However, in the same letter, he states that he has made an appointment with a psychiatrist to get a second opinion. December 22nd, Karen Lake sends a letter to Dr. Hayward asking him to conduct a competency assessment and to complete a certificate of incapacity. This requested assessment was never done. Dr.

Hayward completed the certificate of incapacity based on the 10- minute assessment previously conducted on December 16th. Dr. Hayward booked an appointment for Dorothy in the third week of January to see a geriatric psychiatrist for that second opinion. That appointment never took place because a Publi c Trustee chose not to wait for the outcome and issued their order. January 4th, Karen Lake sent her submission to the director of psychiatric services. She asked the director of psychiatric services to investigate the allegation of financial abuse and social isolation visited upon Ms.

Dorothy Loewen by her nephew and his wife, and further suggested that the director of psychiatric services issue an emergency order with no notification to Dorothy or to the family because of the imminent danger to her. Ms. Lake's submission includes the name of two people she considers to be Dorothy's next of kin, one of them being Les's friend, Brad, and the other one alienated family member. She does not list any of the remaining seven nieces and nephews, nor does she ment ion that all seven support my husband.

She deliberately misleads the director of psychiatric services to believe that this is one family member battling another, which was completely untrue. January 5th, one day later, the director of psychiatric services issued the emergency Order of Committeeship. It is clearly evident that no investigation was ever done. No effort was made by this agency to confirm or negate the allegations or even to speak with the rest of Dorothy's family. The Public Trustee immediately took control. February 2012, Dr.

Barry Campbell, geriatric psychiatrist, does a one -hour assessment to determine Dorothy's capacity to choose her own power of attorney and states that Dorothy has the requisite capacity to choose her own power of attorney and also has the capacity to make any changes she desires to her will. October 2012, our lawyers from D'Arcy & Deacon are forced to transfer our case to Mr. Michael Weinstein of Hill Sokalski so that they can now prepare their own affidavits on our behalf. February 2013, Dr.

Hayward, the original doctor that signed the certificate of incapacity, signs an affidavit stating that he believes Dorothy now has the capacity to choose her own power of attorney. April 2013, a letter from the Public Trustee lawyer is delivered to our lawyer. The letter states that if we don't drop our court application within one week, he will take immediate steps to place

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 Dorothy in a nursing home and sell her house. Immediately, upon receiving this obvious threat, I contacted Mr. Tom Brodbeck, reporter for the Sun and a long- time advocate for people negatively impacted by the office of the Public Trustee. Once the Public Trustee was aware that the press was involved, they backed off on their threat of placing Dorothy in a nursing home. It is now August 2013.

No one from the Public Trustee's office or from the director of psychiatric services or from Winnipeg Regional have ever bothered to call Dorothy or visit her home since they took control in 2012. This emergency order was put in place to protect Dorothy against the financial abuse and social isolation being visited upon her by my husband and I, and yet they have chosen to leave her in our care for almost two years without even bothering to see if she is all right. So they considered her to be in imminent danger and yet they have left her with the very people that they have accused of putting her in that danger.

They have never come to a solution regarding Dorothy's home-care costs, rather they agreed to let us act as her –rather than agree to let us act as her family-care manager through the self -managed program, thereby being eligible to receive the funding for 50 hours per week of care that she was entitled to, they have chosen to pay all home -care costs out of Dorothy's finances. This has resulted in a loss of $104,000 in Dorothy's account. Without the Public Trustee's interference, Dorothy would be a $104,000 richer; $104,000 would go a long way towards keeping Dorothy in the community, as is her wish.

The faster they go through her funds, the faster she'll end up in a nursing home. How can any sane person believe that it is in the best interests of any citizen to have to pay out over $104,000, simply because the Public Trustee feels it is their right to do whatever they want to do? So what's the final outcome? Our aunt lost her husband. She was not allowed to grieve the loss of her husband, even though her own doctor requested a second opinion by a qualified geriatric psychiatrist. All agencies decided to ignore this re quest.

Both the original doctor and the qualified geriatric psychiatrist have signed affidavits stating that Dorothy has the capacity to choose her own power of attorney. Dorothy has lost $104,000 because the Public Trustee took control without any invest igations into false accusations. My husband and I have been slandered and accused of unbelievable atrocities against a person that we both love and admire. My husband and I have accumulated over $20,000 of debt trying to defend ourselves against false accusations and further to protect our aunt.

Again, this bill would prevent any action taken by us to recoup our losses. This bill will remove all accountability from the Public Trustee. So we want to give them the power to destroy lives, ignore facts presented, refuse to do proper investigations and walk away unscathed, free of any liability? There is no opportunity for Dorothy to recover her losses or for us to recover our losses. No opportunity for us to be compensated for the damage to our reputations as a result of the slander and false accusations. Please explain to me how this can happen in today's world?

How is this protecting the rights of any Manitoban? And further, what gives the office of the Public Trustee the right to destroy lives, ignore evidence and then just walk away without any accountability? Please do not pass this bill. I know I'm upset, but this department has already exhibited their abuse of power over and over again. Do not give them more ammunition to destroy more lives. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: And thank you, you made that under 10 minutes. Bravo. Thank you for that presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Swan : Well, Ms.

Anderson, thank you for coming down and sharing your story with us. And as I told your husband, I'm aware that there is a case that is in the courts. I hope that having that matter considered by a judge will give your family closure, whatever the result of that should be. I guess we're following up on one of the questions and answers asked of your husband. You should know that within the court system, there is the ability to try to mediate things, to deal with things short of a contested hearing.

Obviously, you'll be discussing that with your lawyers, but I encourage you and your husband to consider using those resources that are in our court system because I do

August 7, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 understand very clearly that having closure on this would be of great assistance to your family. So I just want to thank you for coming down and speaking to us tonight. Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Ms. Anderson, for your heartfelt and rapid presentation. The minister has indicated that there is a mediation process. Now, as you have journeyed through your experience with the Public Trustee, can you see somewhere that there needs to be somewhere where you can go to discuss this with someone? Ms. Anderson: I'm not aware of any current mediation process.

Quite frankly, I don't know what else we could have done differently. I mean, I agree with what Mr. Len Anderson ha s said that there should be a tribunal or somebody that's not involved in these agencies making–or meeting with the families involved. It should not be the same people that are taking the rights away. It just shouldn't be. There should be a totally unbiase d person that looks at all the evidence, and they should look at that before they assume the rights and take over somebody's life.

Even to the point where why didn't they at least even let the second psychiatrist–or let the second doctor assess her before they came in and grabbed everything? * (18:40) And like I say, because they've taken over, she's lost a substantial portion of her retirement funds. So without the Public Trustee, she'd be $104,000 richer. How is that a benefit to her or any other citizen ? I mean, there's no justification for that. Mr.

Gerrard: You know, I –it's terrible what you have gone through and the –to think that you've got the two psychiatrists, including the original one, saying that Dorothy has capacity but there has been total de adlock in terms of being able to move this forward to allow her to make her own decisions again, which two competent psychiatrists have ruled that she should be able to do. I–it seems to me that there could be several steps here.

One is a requirement that the Public Trustee actually talk to all the family members before making this sort of decision so that they have a better understanding of what's going on, that if there were a mediation process of some sort just like we do for other types of mediation in some circumstances there should be, you know, a finite deadline for decisions so that this doesn't drag on for 19 months without a decision. I mean–give you a chance to comment and tell me your thoughts. Ms. Anderson: I agree a hundred per cent.

There has to be some way of dealing with this other than the way it's set up right now today. But I guess right from the very beginning before decisions are made like this, they should at least know how many relatives the person has before they slam through an order. I mean, they weren't even aware that there was eight nieces and nephews. They had no idea. Those facts were not presented. They didn't try to establish whether or not that was the case, they just made a ruling based on the wrong information, the incomplete information, and it just didn't seem to matter.

Like it–they should–at least say –when they say please investigate the allegations, why don't they investigate the allegations? Not just– you know, obviously there was no investigation, just within 24 hours slam an order through. If they were actually doing what they said they were going to do then maybe we wouldn't be in the position we're in today. If they'd actually taken the time to do an investigation or to even talk to the rest of the family that was involved to realize that the entire family was supporting us, we might not have ever gotten to this point.

There might not have had to been the order in the first place. Dorothy wouldn't be out the money, she wouldn't have had her life thrown upside down for two years, and neither would we have, so. Mr. Chairperson: There is 10 seconds left in the question-and-answer period. Really our period has come to an end. I thank you so much for joining us tonight and coming. I want to advise the committee th at since we started our hearings tonight we have had an out-of-town guest register to speak. I would ask the committee if they would be willing to hear –add Ms. Bertha Travers to the list to speak next.

Is that agreed? [Agreed] Thank you. Ms. Bertha Tra vers. Welcome. Do you have anything to distribute to the committee, any written material? Ms. Bertha Travers (Private Citizen): No, I don't. I actually had very short notice about this meeting tonight.

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 Mr. Chairperson: Okay, thank you. Well, you have 10 m inutes to make an oral presentation to the committee and then five minutes for question and after–answer after that. Please wait for me to recognize you before you answer any question so that Hansard can know which of us is speaking. So with that, the floor is yours. Ms. Travers: I'm here on behalf of one of the people that I've been advocating for, and he was previously incarcerated, and the Public Trustee has been involved in the care of his son.

Prior to that, his son went into care about approximately when his son was about 5 or 6 years old. His son is now 22 years old. He will be 23 next month. However, he has –one of the concerns that we have is that the Public Trustee is not doing a very good job in keeping this family–trying to keep a family together. As well, this young man is being looked after in a home that's not culturally appropriate, therefore he's losing out on his language and also losing his identity. He is already an adult. He was diagnosed –mildly diagnosed with autism, and he is now–his father now believes that he is heavily medicated.

He has therefore put on a lot of weight because of the medication. And another thing that has happened is that there are no family members that are allowed to visit with him or to have any contact, communi cation with him. One of the things that –one of the things for that person that I'm advocating for is the discrimination that he feels and the–and being labelled. He did see his son for a few minutes at one point, and his son had indicated strongly to him that he wanted to go back home with his dad. So, you know, if his–and his son remembers him.

Now, if his son remembers him, I don't see why, you know, this young man should be under the care of the Public Trustee. Yes, this gentleman that I'm advocati ng for has been incarcerated. However, he has paid his dues to society and therefore he shouldn't continuously be punished, and again, you know, by the Province using his son, you know, for punishment. And another thing, too, is that, like I mentioned, that his son has put on a lot of weight due to the medication that he has been given. And his son was athletic, very fit, prior to being given this medication.

Another thing, too, is that this father has been asked to have a psychiatric assessment done, an d yet it costs thousands of dollars to have it –these assessments done. As First Nations people, as you all know, we live in extreme poverty. We cannot afford that kind of money to get assessments done. And when this youngster –before he went into care, he was very lively. He used to sing songs, play the guitar with his father. If he heard a song once, then that was it; he knew it and he sang it and he played it. And him and his dad–he and his dad would play the guitar together.

And prior to his apprehens ion, he thrived–he thrived very well. And then, it's as soon as he was–he has been under care, he has –his abilities appeared to go down. So, anyway, I guess one of the things is that, you know, that is something that I am concerned about, is that the Pub lic Trustee needs to do a better job in keeping our families together. And this starts way back into the times when the child came under care, and the keeping our people under culturally appropriate homes, keeping with their identities and our language.

And this young man is an adult already and he should, you know, be able to make a decision, along with a worker who–or who is advocating for him on the provincial side, should be able to see his family. And the family members –all family members are not allowed to see him, as I've said. The family was supposed to have started visits in July. That has never occurred. That never started and this was supposed to be last–this last month. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: I thank you for your presentation. Are there questions for–is it Mrs. or Ms. Travers? Ms. Travers: Ms. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Thank you. Mr. Swan: Yes, Ms.

Travers, thank you for coming down to speak to us today. Obviously, you're advocating for someone and I'm not going to ask the name of the individual. But I will ask my assistant who's in the room, maybe if you want to speak to him after some other members are finished asking questions. We can let you provide more information on behalf of the family, i f that's what they would like you to do, and I will make sure that that information and any requests you have are passed along to the Public Trustee's office.

August 7, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 Ms. Travers: Thank you. And yes, and I do have the gentleman with me this evening, so he –you know, the questions can be answered. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. * (18:50) Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Ms. Travers , for your presentation. I think I followed the train going through there that –your train of thought. The challenges to the family, is it an extended family that is all resident in Winnipeg, or are there challenges of distance as well in this family? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Anderson, sorry. I need to recognize you –[interjection] Travers. Ms. Travers.

Forgive me. Please continue. Ms. Travers: Okay. Most of the extended family is in the city with my –with a gentleman that I'm advocating for, and I think there are a few family members out of town, but the sisters and the father that are in the city would definitely like to have the visits, you know, with him. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for coming forward and being an advocate in this instance and, of course, in many others.

I think one of the things that you're trying to say is that in the bill there should be some clear languages of –in terms of the responsibility of the trustee with regard to families and in terms of, you know, maintaining the optimum health of individuals who become the guardian of the –or who–for whom the trustee takes over the guardianship or the control, and that's one of the thi ngs that perhaps could improve a bill like this. Let me ask you to comment on that. Ms.

Travers: Yes, I think there needs to be improvement, and I do–the –I did read up on the Public Trustee's duties, and they are very skimpy, and I think they –needs to–you know, there needs to be additions to it in terms of making it a little bit more responsibility, added responsibilities, on how they–you know, they look after the people that need to be under their care. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation and for coming down tonight. We much appreciate it. Call next, Mr. Jeff Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair, do you have any items, any material, to be distributed to the committee? Mr.

Jeff Sinclair (Private Citizen): I'd like to stand this matter down for a few moments while they're photocopying the material. Mr. Chairperson: Sorry. Your material's being photocopied. Mr. Dewar: Sorry, Mr. Chair, but I believe the committee agreed to listen to out -of-town presenters on both bills before we continue on with Bill 36. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for that correction. My mistake. Mr. Sinclair –yes–you'll forgive me for this. I called your name when I should have been calling out-of-town guests first for any of the bills that we're considering tonight, not just the Public Trustee.

So you'll forgive me for calling you, and then asking if you could defer momentarily while I have the other two out-of-town guests come first. Thank you. Bill 38–The Provincial Offences Act and Municipal By-law Enforcement Act Mr. Chairperson: Okay, call next to the podium, Mr. Steve Trang from the rural mu nicipality of St. Clements. Mr. Strang. [interjection] Is there any other curve ball that could be thrown my way in the next–if you have one, toss 'er up now, this would be a good time. An Honourable Member: Well, go to Mr. Dobrowolski. Mr. Chairperson : Fair enough. We'll call Mr.

Dobrowolski from the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. Welcome. You have materials that's going to be distributed, I see. Mr. Doug Dobrowolski (Association of Manitoba Municipalities): Yes. Mr. Chairperson: With that, the floor is yours. Mr. Dobrowolski: Good evening, everyone. On behalf of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, I would like to provide comments on Bill 38, The Provincial Offences Act and Municipal By-law Enforcement Act.

As the organization tha t represents all Manitoba municipalities, the AMM identifies and addresses the needs and concerns of its members in order to achieve strong and effective municipal government. The AMM has lobbied for several years to resolve a number of issues with munic ipal bylaw

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 enforcement. As a result, we would like to make comments specifically about The Municipal By -law Enforcement Act. We were part of a working group consisting of representatives from the Province of Manitoba, departments of Justice and Local Government and the Manitoba Municipal Administrators' Association. The most important issue the group identified was the ability to effectively enforce bylaws to ensure that compliance was available and resources – municipal bylaws needed to have teeth with li mited resources for enforcement.

And this has been a challenge in the past. The AMM supports the proposed change to the bylaw enforcement process for municipalities through an administrative scheme. The new scheme is significantly different from the existing process, and it is based on a successful model implemented in British Columbia. Initially, the new scheme was required for municipalities who wished to enforce parking bylaws. We are pleased that municipalities will now have the option to include other bylaws under the new enforcement process, as long as the penalty is under a certain amount.

The AMM believes a faster and simpler bylaw enforcement process will save municipalities and the public both time and money. Most importantly, we hope municipalities will now be able to effectively enforce their bylaws. This is one of the core municipal responsibilities and is one of the main reasons why AMM has lobbied on this issue for so long. However, I also want to say that AMM and the City of Winnipeg share similar concerns about Bill 38.

The AMM does appreciate the amendment to The Drivers and Vehicles Act, requiring information to be shared with municipalities or local government districts, for the purpose of enforcing bylaws and collecting fines. We're als o pleased with the additional powers of municipalities will have to collect fines, such as seizing property or placing liens. However, the AMM is concerned about a few of the differences between the BC legislation and the Manitoba proposed legislation.

First, Bill 38 allows the adjudicator to reduce the penalty for a bylaw violation if grounds do not exist under the municipal bylaw or if the adjudicator is satisfied with exceptional circumstances exist. The AMM feels this enables the adjudicator to allow the personal–to allow for their personal bias to influence their decisions. It also creates uncertainty about outcomes, even if the adjudicator agrees that the bylaw violation was committed. In BC, the adjudicator can only confirm the penalty or compliance agreement or cancel the bylaw notice.

The adjudicator does not have the power to reduce the penalty for a bylaw violation. These powers may be more appropriate for Manitoba as well. Secondly, we are uncertain with –there is uncertainty regarding the traini ng to be provided to the adjudicators. The AMM feels the adjudicator training cost should be covered by the Province of Manitoba. Municipalities should also have input into the content of this training and should be on the selection panel for the adjudicat or rosters.

It is especially important that these adjudicators be trained to make impartial decisions, particularly with their ability to reduce the penalties. Also, there is no appeal process. The municipalities cannot appeal the decision of an adjudicator to reduce or cancel a penalty. Granting adjudicators powers they do not have elsewhere will act as a poor deterrent for violating bylaws. It also –it may also undermine the purpose of the bylaw and its enforcement, which is to achieve compliance.

The existing process is already cost -prohibitive for many municipalities and allowing adjudicators these powers could potentially make the costs of the new enforcement process even higher. Finally, the AMM –or the request of any –many AMM members, we strongly sugg est to include the role of planning districts in the bylaw forcement under Bill 38. The AMM made this request early to the Honourable Minister Swan, the Minister of Justice, when we met with him on June 5th, 2013. Planning districts are bodies responsible for the administration enforcement of the development plan and entire planning process.

They're also responsible for secondary plan, zoning, building and maintenance, occupancy and standard bylaws. Their responsibilities extend to member municipalities and for their entire district under

section 14 of The Planning Act. It is for this reason the AMM believes, planning board should also have the ability to enforce bylaws under this new administrative scheme. One option would be to allow building inspectors em ployed by planning districts to act as municipal screening officers in certain cases. Since bylaws dealing with the building and maintenance standards are meant to ensure safety, it is extremely important that these bylaws are in –'fectively' enforced.

August 7, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 In closing, the AMM does feel overall Bill 38 is a big step forward on solving an issue that has been stalled for some time. The AMM appreciates the opportunity for these comments and we thank you for your consideration. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you so much. Are there questions for Mr. Dobrowolski? Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, Doug, I want to thank you and your executive and your staff and AMM members for your guidance in bringing this bill forward. We think it is a long time coming and it's a good step.

Very quickly, I can tell you that the request with respect to having a role for planning districts is a very good one. No surprises, I'll be moving an amendment when we proceed to line -by-line consideration to do just tha t, to make it clear that planning districts will have that ability. * (19:00) And I want to thank the members we consulted with, but a little more consultation helped us, I think, even move things further along.

With respect to the adjudication process, the advice I've been given by my officials is that we are replacing a court process with a very different process, and in balancing fairness with effectiveness, the suggestion was made that we should still give adjudicators some ability to look at the par ticular facts of the case, and we may discuss that a bit more in line by line. With respect to the choosing and the training of adjudicators, I think AMM should continue to play a role as we develop this. The deputy minister will be the one tasked with c hoosing adjudicators.

Our intention is they would be people who are qualified to practice law in Manitoba. These hearings should be quite informal. But I think the idea of, first of all, the Province being responsible for training, I can confirm that will be the case. And, as well, giving AMM members some role in deciding exactly how they should perform their duties seems like a very reasonable discussion that we can have in the time between passing this bill and proclaiming it into force. So, again, tha nk you to you and your folks at AMM for your input in this bill. Mr.

Dobrowolski: Mr.–Minister Swan, I would like to thank you again and especially your staff for the hard work that they've done. We've –as I said in my presentation, we've been after this f or several years to try and get it right for municipalities. This is going to be a great thing for municipalities, and I want to thank your staff again. This is going to go a long way to enforce our laws, because in a lot of cases provincial courts or the city of Winnipeg courts do not recognize municipal bylaws as laws, so this goes to a long way to putting teeth to those bylaws.

And we certainly appreciate the good working relationship and consultation we've had with you. Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): Thanks for the presentation, Mr. Dobrowolski. It's –the minister pretty well answered the question that I wanted to ask, wondering why the planning districts hadn't been included in this. But the one question I would have, I think, would be with the requi rement to have screening officers and so on, and I understand they could be shared by several municipalities.

Do you think the collection of fines under the bylaw enforcement would offset the costs of extra personnel that you would have to have if the muni cipalities were the screening officers and compliance officers? Mr. Dobrowolski: In a lot of cases, the way –when we worked through this process, an employee of the municipality can be the screening officer, so that cost is already there. We don't feel –or hoping that this is going to be an effective enough process that we will not have to use that screening officer very often.

But those costs are there, and we feel that the fines –and again, those individual municipalities have to assign a fine to those individual bylaws, so I think they will take that into consideration when doing that

schedule of fines. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Just a couple of items, one in light of the minister's comments about the planning districts. Do you still see a role for planning districts or could they play a role? And secondly, in terms of the role of the deputy minister, I think, to appoint the adjudicators, do you think that that's going to be workable or should the municipalities have some role in that? Mr. Dobrowols ki: On your first question, Mr. Gerrard, I think planning districts are essential part of this whole process because there are a lot of building infractions that go on every day

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 in municipalities. And so I think because of the building inspectors, a s I mentioned in my presentation, could be appointed as one of the screening officers, because they have the knowledge of the building codes and everything else, so they could properly, you know, adjust the fine or do the fine so that it's correct, because they have the knowledge of the building and of the structures. On the second part, I think with AMM involved, hopefully that we are on–part of the selection committee to appoint some of these adjudicators.

And again, we're –we want to make sure that they 're properly trained to the–to do this process. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. The time for questions and answers has come to a conclusion. You'll forgive me, Mr. Eichler. I thank you for taking the time to join us tonight. Next is Mr. Steve Strang from th e RM of St. Clements. Welcome. Do you have written material to distribute to the committee? Mr. Steve Strang (RM of St. Clements): I do not, Mr. Chairman. I will give a verbal presentation. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir. The floor is yours. You have 10 minutes. Mr. Strang: I think Mr.

Dobrowolski spoke very well to Bill 38, so I would just make some further comments. First of all, I want to say thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak to this bill and a special thanks to those who have take n the time to hear our concerns. Three years ago, we had a meeting with the Premier (Mr. Selinger) to talk about our concerns regarding the ability to enforce as municipalities and the ability to enforce a –planning acts. The two go side by side. These tw o issues are the biggest things that municipalities face.

There is an expectation by our citizens to be able to enforce the bylaws that we present, and I want to speak to the bill, that this bill will do that. This will–bill will allow municipalities to no longer be the little barking chihuahua at the door, but actually sit there and have some bite. So when we have to address issues, our residents can see that we are standing and do the jobs that we're elected to do.

I want to tell the committee that thin gs such as people moving in mobile homes without permits, living in barns, building huge borrow pits which they use to build their homes and leaving them and they're unprotected for the children who 'lef' –live next door who could go in and fall into these things–all the issues that we face as municipalities and the challenges, they end up in court. And those costs to the municipalities represent charges of 35, 45, 50 thousand dollars. Those monies are monies that should be put toward roads and doing ditche s and making better lives for the communities that we all represent.

I think Bill 38 will go a long, long way. I want to say thank you to all the MLAs who took the time to speak to me, and a special thanks to you, Minister Swan. I appreciate the opportunity. I really believe, as a municipal leader, as a region, as a capital region, that we have been heard. I encourage you to pass this bill. If there was one–in–refinement that I would like to eventually see, and that would be the system change, so that when the municipality is dealing with these charges, that these charges are able to be put onto the property taxes.

Because the system that's still in place, will allow us to create administrative penalty, and that penalty will have to go through a system where the adjudicator will make a decision if it's right or wrong, and if it's right, we'll be able to apply for a judgment. But it still ama zes me that we sit here in a province where we have the weed board, who can come in and say you have too many dandelions, we're going to cut them and put it onto your taxes. At the end of the day, municipalities are grown up. The province is the creator of us as municipalities. But I want to say that your children have grown.

We're adults. And it's time for you to give us the ability to enforce ourselves. We are good financial stewards of what we do. I think you need to allow us to be –to go further, and I 'm hoping you all will support this bill when it comes to the floor. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Questions for you–honourable minister. Mr. Swan : Well, Mayor Strang, thank you for coming out and speaking to us tonight. As you probably heard me tell Mr. Dobrowolski, we will be moving amendments to include planning districts as bodies which can issue notices of this type.

And I thank you for your comm ents as we keep moving forward and giving municipalities the opportunity to maintain law and order in a –at the neighbourhood sense, if you will. So, that's great.

August 7, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 There will be a fairly easy process when a certificate is obtained, to then turn that into a judgment in court which will have a number of remedies. And they will continue to work with the AMM and with individual municipalities to see what additional steps we can take in the future to keep making the system more effective while still allowing individuals who want to raise their defence, if you will, to give them an opportunity.

But I think there's more we can do to continue to help out municipalities who are at the front lines in keeping order in the neighbourhood. And I really want to thank you for your advocacy on this. Mr. Strang: What I would like to say, Mr. Minister, I appreciate all your hard work. But as municipalities, we shouldn't be looked upon as bill collectors, as somebody who is going to garnishee bank accounts, who will take repossession of vehicles or put liens on homes. I really think the most important way or the best way to deal with this is to give consideration to how the weed board was handled in the past.

If there was a will then, there should be a will now. And that consideration, I think, should be happening. I think it would be –make it easier for all of us. But I do, I truly do, appreciate the effort. Bill 38 will go a long way in helping municipalities to move forward for the future. * (19:10) Mr. Reg Helwer (Brando n West): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Strang.

With respect to the adjudicators and the training, do you think that the municipalities will be able to put consistent training together so that their judgements will be consistent across the various municipalities, so that if you have an offence in one that you would get a similar result in another one? Mr. Strang: My district is very close. We've worked very close together. We may be individuals but we all are tied together with the Selkirk and district planning board, or what we call now the Red River planning district.

I think because of the closeness that we have, we will all look for the same type of system. I think it's important to make it easy, it's important to make it simple and it's important that so those residents who have to respect this enforcement will understand it's the same thing time and time and time again. Regarding having somebody there as appeal board, you know, my thinking is, is a council, we sit over many appeals. I think the responsibility should lie with the council. I think the council could be the one who gives consideration to any type of appeal, and then it moves forward. Those are my thoughts. Mr.

Gerrard: Yes, I–interested in exploring a little bit more the concept of putting the fine onto the property tax, as you suggested. And I'm interested in what the situation is in British Columbia, because some of this was modelled after them. And also, in my sort of understanding of what you're saying, is that with an adjudic ator there –and you've got a situation where this is been looked at a second time, as it were–that there shouldn't be need to look at it beyond that, that the simplest way then is just to put it on the property tax and then you don't have any other hassles after it. Is that right? Mr.

Strang: I'm sorry. I really feel there should be an appeal process, everybody deserves their day. But at the end of it, I think the process needs to be refined. Again I will repeat, I don't believe that should be the role of the 'micipality' to do that. Like, I am truly grateful for this bill. I want you to understand that. And I'm asking you to support it. And if we are to look for refinements, let's look for them for the future. I just want to say again, I have people who have huge holes beside them where their children play. I have mobile homes that have no building permits. I have people living in barns.

I have squatters. I have unsightly yards. My residents are looking forward to this bill so that we will be able to, as a 'micipality', enforce the bylaws. I'm all for refining it, but we need this passed as soon as possible. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you so much. The time for Q and A is over. I appreciate you coming tonight and speaking with us. That ends or conc ludes our out -of-town presenters, so we return now to the list and to speak on The Public Guardian and Trustee Act. Bill 36–The Public Guardian and Trustee Act (Continued) Mr. Chairperson: Call Mr. Jeff Sinclair back. Mr.

Sinclair, a gain, I apologize for the earlier miscommunication. I appreciate you stepping back, and now appreciate you having your 10 minutes. So the floor is yours.

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 Mr. Jeff Sinclair (Private Citizen): I was going to read from this, but I think I'm not going to do that now because I heard a lot in this room. I knew two Public Trustees in this province. I knew J.D. Raichura and I knew Irene Hamilton. And right after, Irene Hamilton was promoted to Ombudsman of Manitoba. I would like to say that my friend, he fell down some stairs in 200 8. I was listed as emergency contact at Grace Hospital. He spent seven days there.

The Public Trustee's office attended with the WRHA and social workers from the Grace Hospital to his room when his glasses were broken. My friend was illiterate, he had no glasses to read forms. They intimidated him. They made him sign forms because he couldn't read them. He was illiterate. They placed him in Central Park Lodge on Edmonton Street. I didn't find out this until after he was moved It took the Public Trustee's office five months to replace his glasses and nine months to replace his false teeth. This is very sickening to me. He was not entitled to legal counsel.

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he should have had counsel in the room when these people were there, in which he wasn't even offered. It just sickens me; this whole thing sickens me. And I feel that this Bill 36, the public guardian trustee act, there should be an appeal process set and forth that people can at least go to Legal Aid and get assistance. And they're being denied, because the Public Trustee is handling their affairs and money. And, furthermore, I think I'm just going to end that there. I think you've heard enough from people tonight.

But I think without the Legal Aid stepping in and representing them, you are denying their rights as Canadian citizens to legal representation. You're giving legal aid to murderers, rapists, people for domestic violence, drunk driving. But you're not giving representation to people that you're ripping off? And I'd like to leave it at that if I may. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Questions? Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): You know, Mr. Sinclair, thank you for coming down here. And you didn't have to end early.

I mean, people around here are listening to what you had to say and I want to appreciate you for coming dow n and presenting to us tonight. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair: Okay? Mr. Chairperson: No, there's more questions for you. Sorry, I need to recognize you, so that the people recording us know that you're speaking. So that's why I'm interjecting to say your name first before I give you the floor to speak. Floor Comment: So you are the former Public Trustee? Mr. Chairperson: No, I'm just the Chair of the committee. Mr. Helwer has a question for you. Mr.

Reg Helwer (Brandon West): Thank you, Mr. Sinclair, for coming and presenting to us tonight and your document you have here. Floor Comment: You do have the brief? Mr. Helwer: Yes, we have it in front of us here and I've read through most of it as you were discussing it. And I appreciate your presentation to us. You were obviously involved–somebody with this individual, your friend. And at what point would you have liked to have some intervention on your behalf to deal with it? Mr. Sinclair: I even confronted Central Park Lodge about their practices. He was allowed $5 a week.

If he didn't request the $5, the Public Trustee's office wouldn't send it. Now, that's up to the social workers of Central Park Lodge to send that money automatically. People in jail even have to request five –they get more money t han that. And the Public Trustee is charging money to handle his affairs on top of it? And they can't even send the $5 over to the nursing home after he had a brain injury? And he got that brain injury from falling down a rental agency, where he could ha ve sued the landlord, and the Public Trustee laughed about it – didn't do anything about it. That's pathetic. Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you very much.

August 7, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 Just a couple of items. One, when you say that your friend felt bullied and coerced into si gning the document, was that by the Public Trustee? And– Floor Comment: By the WHR –RHA. See, a physician has to notify the Public Trustee's office. And when they do an assessment, there's such a shortage of psychiatrists in Manitoba, to even get a second opinion is ridiculous. You can't even–even at Health Sciences Centre right now, you see a psychiatrist for five minutes, you're placed with a mental health nurse for six months and you're thrown on the street.

And you never see a psychiatrist again. And y ou only seen that psychiatrist five minutes. How can he assess you in five minutes? No assessment can be done in five minutes. * (19:20) Mr. Gerrard: And the other question that I want – I'm having trouble understanding why it should have taken five months to replace the glasses and nine months to get a replacement for the dentures. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair: Because the social worker at Central Park Lodge, who no longer works there, never informed the Public Trustee's office. Mr.

Chairperson: Okay, seeing no further questions, I thank you so much for your presentation here tonight. And next, call Mr. Daryl Wallman. Mr. Wallman, welcome. Do you have any written material to distribute? Mr. Daryl Wallman (Private Citizen): No, I don't. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, then, sir, the floor is yours. Mr. Wallman: I'd just like –with the Public Trustee, is to try and help my mother out. My father's been put into an old folks' home. They won't release money to her to help her out.

It took five minutes to get shaving cream–five months to get shaving cream for him, blades, stuff he needs in the old folks' home. She hasn't done nothing but argue, fight with us, and that's just a little sickening. Like, help these people out. Work all their life –they get nothing, treated like this. I really don't have much to say. The trustees do nothing. You try to get help. The only one that's helped me is Mr. Gerrard. He's been on my side here. I don't know what else to say. I'm just looking for help for my father in the old folks' home and my mother. She's 85 years old, staying by herself.

I've got to take time off work. I can't work right now; I'm taking care of her, and I can't get nowhere with this trustee. So trustees, I don't know; they're no good. I can do better than they can. I got nothing else to say. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, thank you, sir. Questions for Mr. Wallman. Mr. Swan: Well, Mr. Wallman, you're very efficient in what you're telling us tonight. If I can–if you would like to speak to my assistant who's in the back of the room, we can take down some information and I'll make sure I pass that on to the Public Trustee's office. I'd appreciate if you can do that tonight. Thank you. Mr.

Wallman: Thank you. Mr. Helwer: Yes, Mr. Wallman, thank you for your presentation tonight. Just to go back to–you describe the conversation–that was with the trustee that was confrontational? Mr. Wallman: The trustee, yes. I tried to get help from her with my father, my mother; she's an 85-year-old lady staying by herself. Just asked for her–them to help out, take a little money out of his to help her out because she only gets a thousand dollars a month paying rent, food, bills. You can't get nowhere with her. So, you know, I don't know what to say. Mr.

Gerrard: Yes, I'd like to get clarification on a couple of things. Why has the Public Trustee taken over? Is there nobody in the family who could've? Mr. Wallman: I was power of attorney; they took that away from me because they sent bills that went NSF that no one was notified about. Next thing you know, it's NSF in the account, which would've been covered if they would've notified me, told me about this from the Golden Door criteria where my father is staying. But they done stuff, charge him, and no one was notified about it.

So the money was used by my mother to pay his wheelchair, his cable TV, the rent and everything, and it was gone. So they NSF'd us and they went to this and got the power –or trustee involved. So that's how it all started. Mr. Gerrard: When it started, did you try and approach the Public Trustee and say, you know, we can clear this up and– Mr. Wallman: I tried talking to her. She won't phone back. She phones back once in a while, and

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 it's just back and forth. She won't talk. I don't know. I can't get through to her. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, one more thing. You mention that they took five months to get shaving cream for your dad– Mr. Wallman: Sorry. Yes, it took five months to get shaving cream from her to buy for him, stuff he needs in there. It took five months to get that. Mr. Gerrard: He's wher eabouts now, and maybe you can–[interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Wallman –sorry, I feel like I'm playing tennis here, but I'm trying to make sure that Hansard knows who's speaking here. Mr.

Wallman: Okay, he's in the Golden Door criteria old folks' home. So, ever since the Public Trustee's taken over, he's been there. They've taken over his rent; it's been late. They –she hasn't paid. The cable's been cut off once already. She hasn't paid. And [inaudible] I asked them to get T -shirts and stuff for him they won't do nothing. That's all I got to say. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no more questions, I thank you for making a presentation tonight and for speaking with us. Next I will call Mr. Errol Pinnock to join us. Mr. Pinnock. Welcome, sir. Do you have written material to distribute? Thank you.

And, with that, Mr. Pinnock, the floor is yours, sir. Mr. Errol Pinnock (Private Citizen) : Thank you. As–already know, my name is Pinnock, but most refer to me as Sonney. I have had a concern after viewing the bill, [inaudible] best I can, and I have some major concerns regarding this bill. My concerns are based on what has happened and continues to happening to a Manitoban, so this is Olga C umberbatch. Olga is a very good friend of mine who entrusted me and my wife Lorraine enough to take care of her affairs, particularly when her mind and her brain would not function as well as it once did.

We have been very good friends for year –over 30 yea rs. My wife and I were basically the only people Olga has trusted. Olga is a very sweet, caring woman. She was born in Barbados. In 1968, she came to Winnipeg to provide care for a child and a mother of a doctor. After her first few years in Canada, she w orks for many years with Child and Family Services in Manitoba, providing care for children in group homes.

Here is a woman who works for the government, provided exceptional service to the care of children, wards of Manitoba, that she received an award of excellence in service in 1986, '87, recognizing her service out of the home –her own home in Elmwood. Olga made decision for me to care to take care of her affairs and gave me the power of attorney, as she realized her son in the US was no –was not sufficiently mentally capable of doing so. She initially tried to [inaudible] in England to have this power of attorney, but that did not work out.

So that is in –so that is when she approached Lorraine and myself to take care of her when being an interest in this regards. We agreed to this for Olga because we care for her and love her, are friends very deeply. When she contacted me to do this, she decided for us to meet with a lawyer to make these arrangements, for which we did. In early 2010, Olga was starting to need some home care, and the Public Trustee became involved without having a discussion with myself or Lorraine, my wife.

The Public Trustee moved in, took over the power of attorney and shortly move into– moved Olga into Central Park Lodge personal c are home in Edmonton Street. This initial action by the Public Trustee disregards any attempt to collaborate and plan with me or Olga. Later years, planning–Olga entrusted me to take the care of her affairs, and this has been documented. When the power of attorney took over, without any consultation with us, it was done in a manner that we had no say on what has transpired.

We answered–we were planning to put Olga in a list to get into River East nursing home so that we could visit frequently and knowing the personal care home, we were happy with the quality of, most importantly, knowing Olga on a very personal basis. We knew that Olga needs would be met there. The action of the power of attorney prevented us from visiting on our own, other senior citizens ' resident personal care home, to at least have had a chance to view other facilities so that we could make an informed decision for Olga based on her needs.

Regardless, at this point, that opportunity was taken away from Olga and by us, the power of attorney, when they so quickly and unilaterally took Olga out of her home and put her into Central Park

August 7, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 Lodge. In fact, at that time, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority came–home-care service, officially went to Olga's home and told her that they were taking her to visit a friend. Olga had no idea that this government had–official actually taking her to visit Central Park Lodge permanently, and she had been there ever since. Olga tells me lots of times she has been there, she's not being–been outside, only to look out the window. Every day, Olga would call me telling me that she did not want to be there.

It is plain to see that she is extremely unhappy. * (19:30) As the loved ones, we are sickened by how this was handled by the WRHA, Public Trustee office. If we would have had the opportunities and right, as invested upon us by Olga from the beginning, we would have been able to have placed Olga in a home we knew that she would be happier in and have all physical, mental and emotional needs met. She has a right to this in her later years.

She has worked all her life, was a good, law-abiding and caring, contributing citizen to the province and, therefore, deserves and had a right to have her decisions followed through on–for her last years of life so she would live in dignity, happiness. Her well -being was totally disregarded by this province's policies and legislations. The bill, as currently written, does not adequately represent the needs, nor best interests, of Manitobans. Both are vulnerable, and our families had loved ones who have been identified as decision maker and care giver for an individual.

From my experience in dealing with the WHR, the Public Trustee–but, most of all, Olga experienced the manner in which the government invented– demonstrated a lack of regard of –for Olga's emotional and mental health –'instrusive' eliminating any opportunity for operating collaboration and consultation with myself and complete disregard for Olga's wishes. This bill, therefore, requires democratic improvement and in accountability and meaningful processing to ensure good 'consulation' and discussion and partnership with family and friends of vulnerable persons.

Mechanis ms and opportunities need to be available and provide for mediations and appealing decisions without having to go to court. These include ensuring that financial agreement arrangement with respect to health and quality of life of the vulnerable person are optimal–in event of the Central Park Lodge, never to be found. No one knows where these were involving. I asked for Olga's affairs. I would have –and, by the way, now I –she has lost her glasses and the dentures, and they've never been found since.

And I search where–is about this –if I would have had involvement or say, Olga figures I would have followed up with replacing the dentures so she would eat her food she wants and requires. My concern is that the Public Trustee is not acting in her best behalf t o address these difficulties in her day-to-day functioning. I sincerely urge the government to ensure these critical areas and implementing in legislation so that all Manitobans have their voice and decisions heard and–intended listen to in their seniors years so that they are affordable and quality of life deserved. Thank you, sir. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Pinnock. Are there questions for him? Mr. Swan : Yes, well, Mr. Pinnock, thank you for your patience in coming and presenting to us tonight. And this–I don't know the specifics of this case, so what I'm going to say is more general, but you did raise a situation where you say that there's a power of attorney that was prepared beforehand. And I have no knowledge of the details of that, but what this bill will do is it will give improved protections to people who prepare a valid enduring power of attorney prior to the Public Trustee becoming involved.

In some cases, I'm aware that the Public Trustee may not even know the power of attorney exists. And we think it is very important when somebody has made a choice of who they would like to manage their affairs–as long as it's properly prepared and created and as long as there aren't any concerns about the person who's been appointed, this bill will actually make it easier for the person who has the power of attorney to act as the public –as the power of attorney and have the Public Trustee step back, because when I met the Public Trustee's office, in hearing from Manitobans, I understand that is an issue.

So, I want you to know that the bill we're talking about tonight is actually going to deal with situations where there's an existing power of attorney. Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Mr. Pinnock, for your presentation tonight and for waiting through the evening to come and talk to us.

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 Can you tell me what caused the Public Trustee to become engaged in this case? Mr. Pinnock: I believe it's both–I think it's a conflict of interest and also because she has a very good economic strength of finance that she can handle and they probably would like to get hold of that particular finance from her, because there was no reason. She was never abused. She never been elected–neglect by us.

And they take it upon themselves to inform the trustee and, as I said, conflict of interest, and they came in and they have never even contacted us to discuss what they could do and what we could do for this lady. And she has her own home that she lives in for all these years. And I was there for every step of the way, to assist her, and that was her reaction and that is wrong and that should change and this legislation needs to change that. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation. It's heartbreaking to hear what has happened to Olga under these circumstances.

And I wanted to–you to clarify how long she'd been without the dentures, but I also want you to talk for a moment. You had the power of attorney when the Public Trustee took over. Did you make an effort to tell the trustee that there was a power of attorney and you had it? Mr. Pinnock: I gave them–we gave them the power of attorney from –we had from the lawyer and [inaudible]. We gave them that. We read letters to them. We phoned them. They did not want to hear of it. They disregard of all of that and take her bodily and move her out of her house and bring her down there. So, there's no lack of communication.

It was available between my wife and I, but that is no –that doesn't mean anything to them. They said that she need to go in a nursing home. We choosed to look another s omewhere for her. Where she is right now, it's a piece of dump. And this is a piece of dump. You go there –spit on the floor, food on the floor, people lay on the floor, people walking half-naked up there, men and women together. That's disgusting for a woman who live her life and worked in this country and pay her taxes and save her two pennies for later years today –to take care of herself and the government walks in and take it away from her.

This is not democracy. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, and how long did she –was she without her dentures? And was there no effort to get her dentures back? Mr. Pinnock: She out about probably since about over a year. Just guessing, over a year. And I went up and asked the nurses and the staff what happened to her dentures. She says they can't find it. I said, what do you mean you can't find it? She said, well, probably lost in the wash, I think. I said, why would it be in the wash? They don't know where it is. And up to this day, she has no dentures. She can't eat solid food no more. Her glasses disappear –cannot be found.

She now become in a wheelchair –restrained in a wheelchair ever since then, and now she's unable to walk, understand. These are the type of things that happen to our seniors in this country. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir. Our time for questions and answers has come to a conclusion. I appreciate you coming down here tonight and speaking with the committee and making the presentation. Bill 38–The Provincial Offences Act and Municipal By-law Enforcement Act (Continued) Mr. Chairperson: Next, I will call Mr. Harold Dick from the City of Winnipeg. Welcome. Long time, no see. Glad to see you again.

You have material to distribute–I see that you do. And with that, sir, the floor is yours. Mr. Harold Dick (City of Win nipeg): Well, as noted, my name is Harold Dick. On–I want to correct, though, that on your program it said that I'm the city solicitor. I'm not. I am with the Legal Services Department of the City. The city solicitor is out of town and unable to make it.

Thank you for the chance to make a presentation this evening on behalf of the City, and I'm here to share some of the City's comments respecting Bill 38. * (19:40) First, the City appreciates the intent of this bill, as Minister Swan told the House on May 21st, to modernize the way we deal with provincial regulatory offenses and, in our case, the most important, the enforcement of municipal bylaws. We appreciate that the intention of the legislation is to ensure that the system is fair, effective and effic ient. And if I may add, it's–it is overdue.

The City does have some key concerns with this legislation as it was drafted and presented to the House. We believe that this legislation may not do all that it is intended to do. We wonder if it may have

August 7, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 unintended consequences for municipal policy, for bylaw enforceability and for the practicality of our system of bylaw enforcement. Mayor Katz wrote to Minister Swan to express these concerns and to make some suggestions for improvement on July 24th, and thes e issues have, as well, been raised at the staff level. And I want to express my appreciation for having had the opportunity to raise these issues at the staff level, and we were given a fair and thoughtful hearing.

Unfortunately, although the City was c onsulted in advance about The Municipal By -law Enforcement Act, the City did not have any opportunity to contribute to the formation of The Provincial Offences Act. Both pieces of legislation will have a significant impact on the City's work, and given the scope of these effects and the considerable experience that the City has with dealing with these matters, we believe an earlier consultation could have been helpful.

That being said, we are committed to working with the Province to continue to improve the legislation, to assist with its implementation and, if I may add, to monitor how it is–once it is in effect. It's important to note, and I want to note, that there are aspects of both statutes proposed under this bill which the City finds positive. And you'll find that my presentation echoes some of the comments made by the AMM and by Mr. Strang. Under the proposed Municipal By -law Enforcement Act, for example, we see serving of documents by mail, settling matters on a balance of probabilities, as positive developments.

We hope these measures will help make the system more effective and more timely. Under the proposed Provincial Offences Act, we appreciate the extension of time during which prosecution of a bylaw offence can be initiated. We– from–that is, from six months to one year. We believe that access to information held by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles will be helpful to enforcement staff. We also appreciate the limitation of the timeframe and circumstances for setting aside of default convictions under both of the proposed statutes.

And, if I may add, we also note and appreciate the improved collection mechanisms provided in the legislation. Still, as noted, we have a number of concerns, and I would like to spend some time focused on them. The Ci ty believes that The Municipal By -law Enforcement Act should extend the time for initiating prosecutions from six months to a year, just like The Provincial Offences Act does. The principle is the same; the result would be the same, improving the effectiveness of our enforcement process. And if you're interested, I can provide, perhaps, some examples of why that would be important for the City.

The City is also concerned that its current practice of permitting early payment of fines at a discounted rate, not merely for parking offences, but also for a variety of municipal bylaw offences, may not be adequately accommodated in The Provincial Offences Act. In many situations, early payment discounts, so to speak, make sense for all concerned, reducing the cos t to citizens, the City and the court system. Early payment discounts are an incentive to payment and a cornerstone of the City's bylaw enforcement strategy.

We believe that the City's use of early payment options is guaranteed to it under the City of Winn ipeg Charter. And so it may not necessarily be fatal for The Provincial Offences Act not to refer to that power, but it is important that –to the City that this feature of its enforcement practice be accommodated in the–at least the implementation of The Pr ovincial Offences Act. As Mayor Katz advised Minister Swan in his letter, the City would be happy to work with provincial officials in designing a system where the City takes sole responsibility for the administration of early payments under the act.

Another concern the City has regarding The Provincial Offences Act is that it prov ides for guilty pleas before a J udicial Justice of the Peace with no notice to the City or representation from the City. This raises for us a serious concern with respect to fairness whether the appropriate facts will be heard and taken into consideration. It also raises a concern about potential payment delays. The City is concerned that both The Municipal By-law Enforcement Act and The Provincial Offences Act impose serious c ost inequities on municipalities.

They impose the full cost of fine collection on municipalities without giving commensurate collection tools, like the denial of driver's licence and renewals or vehicle registration renewals or the ability to add unpaid fi nes for, especially, property -related offences to property taxes, as is done, I would note, in Ontario. And you'll recollect that the –that that particular concern was raised by my friends with the Association of Manitoba Municipalities.

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 The City believes that these discrepancies will make enforcement less effective and not to be addressed, if not now, then perhaps with future amendments. The City is also very concerned that several aspects of The Municipal By -law Enforcement Act will weaken enforcement. Un der the proposed act, adjudicators would be empowered to ignore a pre-set fine, either reducing it or issuing a reprimand instead.

We note that this differs from BC's version of the adjudicator model for municipal bylaw enforcement, where the adjudicator i s not entitled to take exceptional circumstances into account when imposing a fine. We are concerned that this provision will act as a disincentive to settlement and also curb council's capacity to make effective public policy for the City. Fines are important deterrents which curb behaviours that elected representatives identify as community problems. This legislation weakens council's capacity to enforce its policy priorities.

The Municipal By -law Enforcement Act also sets the fee for seeking an adjudic ator's hearing very low, at $25, which may be less than 10 per cent or even 5 per cent of the fine being challenged. This, too, we believe, will discourage settlements, delay payment of fines and ensure that the City bears an unreasonable proportion of hearing costs. So, yes, the City does have serious concerns about Bill 38, in terms of cost and practicability, its effects on bylaw enforceability and its effects on making public policy at the municipal level.

We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Province to improve the legislation to correct these oversights. In particular, we would like the chance to be involved in the development of regulations that affect the City's enforcement of its bylaws. As a city, we would like to work with you to see better collection powers for municipalities so that, where appropriate, the City could deny driver's licence or vehicle registration renewals and add unpaid fines to property taxes.

We would like to see higher fee paid by defendants applying for adjudic ation under The Municipal By -law Enforcement Act, so there's greater fairness in the distribution of costs for adjudication. We would like to see a reduction in an adjudicator's power to ignore pre-set fines under The Municipal By -law Enforcement Act. This would reduce the incentive to avoid settlement, where settlement is warranted, and seek adjudication. We would like to ensure that the City's ability to utilize a reduced payment option for tickets is not undermined by The Provincial Offences Act.

We would like to see the limitation period under The Municipal By-law Enforcement Act extended to one year, as it is under The Provincial Offences Act. These are the City's key suggestions for improvement of the bill. Once again, we are happy to participate in any work to improve the legislation. We'll provide any help or information we are able. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to present the City's comments on Bill 38. Mr. Chairperson: Well, I thank you for making the presentation. I need to advise you that it appears we only had two of what looks like a four -page document.

And I'm not quite sure how that happened, but I just wanted you to know that, as we were following along, we encountered the odd gap. Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justic e and Attorney General): Mr. Dick, thank you for coming down on behalf of the City of Winnipeg. Of course, I do have Mayor Katz's letter from July 24. I'm not – first of all, are you aware that I wrote back to the mayor on October –sorry, August the 2nd, to deal with the issues that were contained in the letter? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Dick. Mr. Dick: Oh, sorry. I'm not aware of the contents of that letter. Mr.

Swan: Okay, well, then we can go through the checklist, I think, and perhaps address some of the City's issues, and I'll end with a question for you. I do believe that the request to extend the limitation period from six months to one year is reasonable. I'm aware of situations where the City might not –or other municipalities might not be aware of a situation and be able to issue a notice within six months. So I will be moving an amendment once we move to line- by-line consideration of the bill. I did ask about the City's use of early payment systems, and the very smart people that give me advice tell me that

section 3(3)(

a) of The Municipal By-law Enforcement Act will expressly continue to allow for that early payment discount to administrative penalties. * (19:50) So we don't see anything that would stand in the way of the City continuin g to do what they do. And,

August 7, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 if the City is of the view that that gets greater compliance in people paying their fines, there is nothing in this act that will stop the City from being able to do that. So I advise the mayor, I'm aware that –and, from the earlier presenters, some municipalities would like to be able to use some other measures such as tax liens. We've strengthened the collection mechanisms. We think that will be a step forward, but that is a discussion that we're prepared to have with the AMM a nd individual municipalities as we go forward.

This bill will move things a long way, but I'm not averse to coming back and looking at this, in a reasonable time, to see if there's some other measures that could happen. With respect to the adjudication process, of course, we're replacing a court procedure with a very different system. First of all, of course, it'll be a City employee, likely, at first, employees of the Parking Authority, that will serve at the first instance.

The advice I've been given is that we should have an independent adjudicator, and that independent adjudicator should be given the ability to vary the fine based on extraordinary circumstances. That will be the same–that's the same test as under The Provincial Offences Act that relies– that responds to provincial offences. So we've tried to balance fairness with convenience and efficiency. We think that the $25 fee will serve as a disincentive for people who are simply appealing for no valid reason, yet, at the same time, give people the ability to have a valid case heard by that adjudicator.

And, as I committed to AMM, I think we can continue the discussion on whether there's particular training for adjudicators that would be very helpful. We want to make sure the adjudication proc ess can be as informal and as creative as possible, yet also give people an opportunity to, if not have their day in court, at least have their day by having an independent person who's not an employee of the municipality, hear their case. As part of the ongoing consultation process, I certainly welcome the City's input on the draft regulations. So I will certainly take you up on that offer.

The other point you made is you were concerned about The Provincial Offences Act. Mr. Dick, is there anything in particular in The Provincial Offences Act that creates a concern for the City? Is it a conversation we can also have as we move towards regulations and getting the bill proclaimed? Mr. Dick: Yes, well, if I may address a number of the points. I understand your comment about early payment being accommodated by

section 3(3)(

a) of the MBEA. My concern is more about whether it can be accommodated under The Provincial Offences Act. Now, we think that it may well be able to be accommodated, but that we wanted t o place that concern on the table. In terms of the adjudicator's discretion, we would prefer, as I think the AMM would prefer, that there be less discretion, or at least that it be more carefully circumscribed. So it may be a question of monitoring to see how things are working out. In–oh, the question about concerns.

I–we have, I think, some questions or concerns about the general framework of the act, in terms of that–now is the–I'm speaking about The Provincial Offences Act –about essentially breaking the–breaking all offences into two categories, one being with pre -set fines, and another system for anything else. That it may unduly constrict us in some specific ways. It would have been helpful, I think, for us to have been able to raise some of those questions earlier, if –we were, unfortunately, not advised of the –that even a review was under way until it was introduced into the Legislature. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you.

Owing to the extended discussion between two lawyers, I want to be sure that Mr. Eic hler and Mr. Gerrard have the opportunity. Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Thank you for your presentation. We heard from AMM in regards to the appeal process that was a concern there. Is there concern from the City of Winnipeg in that same regard? And, if so, what changes would you like to see made in that regard? Mr. Dick: Thanks. Yes, I think we are somewhat concerned about the fact that adjudicators and also Judicial Justice of the Peace. The adjudicators will have no capacity to be appealed.

A Judicial Justice of the Peace dealing with a ticket, will have some limited capacity to be appealed on a question of law or mixed fact in law.

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 So we do have some concerns about that. There have been occasions when, in the past, we have filed appeals of Judicial Justice of the Peace decisions and found the Queen's Bench to be quite supportive of our concerns. So we would like to have that capacity at some level. That being said, I understand that there has to be a balance between wanting to make the system efficient and not overly cumbersome. So I haven't highlighted that as a particular concern of the City but it would have been helpful, I think, to be able to have some discussion about that. Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, it has always seemed to me that the City's approach to parking fines, which is to have an escalating fine if you're not paying it early, is an incentive to pay quickly and is probably a smart move on the City's part. Maybe you can give us some experience, do you think it has helped in people paying early and do you think this is actually a good system which really needs to be continued? Mr.

Dick: Yes, we're advised that over half the parking fines are paid early which, of course, saves a lot of time and money for both, I would argue, the defendant as well as the City and the court system, of course. The –we have introduced that kind of a system for a variety of bylaw offences; for example, the fine for failing to license a dog right now involves an early payment option which–I don't know what the percentages are but some people are taking advantage of it.

And there is some effort, and I don't know to what extent it's concerted, among departments that I deal with to move to that kind of system more significantly. Currently, most of the fine s are minimum fines and under this–these two acts, they would have to be pre-set fines. They would have to be settled, as opposed to minimum fines. But I can tell you under the parks bylaw, the traffic bylaw and a variety of other bylaws, there are efforts made to set out–here's the minimum fine but if you pay within, I think, it's 15 days, you can pay a lower fine. And it's usually half or two thirds. Mr.

Chairperson: I thank you, Mr. Dick, for your presentation here tonight and for waiting to be the final presenter and much appreciation. That concludes the list of presenters I have before me. Are there any other persons in attendance who wish to make a presentation? Seeing none, that concludes public presentations. * * * Mr. Chairperson: In what order–oh, Mr. Eichler? Mr. Eichler: Mr. Chair, I ask leave that the presentation by Mr. Dick, even though we didn't have the total presentation, that it be recorded in Hansard as he presented it. And also I ask leave of the committee that Mr.

Kerry Anderson's presentation, written presentation, be recorded in Hansard, as well. Mr. Chairperson: Does the committee agree to the two suggestions? [Agreed] Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to tell my story. I have been dealing with the Public Trustee and the fallout from their actions and those of the Director of Psychiatric Services for almost 19 months and with Winnipeg Regional Heath for almost 22 months –2 of these entities under the umbrella of the "Minister of Justice".

It is ironic that these agencies fall under the "Minister of Justice" since there has certainly been no justice in what these departments have done to our family since Nov 1, 2011. They have not looked after the best interests of the vulnerable people in our society and they certainly have not protected the innocent but rather have prayed upon their vulnerability. My aunt, Dorothy Loewen, suffered a massive stroke in December 2005. The stroke left my aunt paralyzed on the left side of her body. Since that date, she has been confined to a wheelchair and requires assistance for her daily activities.

She needs help getting in and out of bed, in and out of her chair and on and off the toilet. Other than that she is self-sufficient in that she feeds herself, cleans herself and is capable of doing any activities that can be done with one hand. She is a bright, intelligent, astute individual with a quick wit and a sharp tongue who fully understands what is going on and what these people have done to her. My uncle, Les Loewen, her husband was diagnosed with lung cancer in February 2011.

Now there is no way for you to totally understand our situation without giving you some background history about my aunt and uncle. Dorothy and Les owned and operated a number of successful businesses throughout the years and lived a fairly opulent lifestyle. However, they were never fortunate enough to have children of their own. It became commonplace throughout the years for various individuals to befriend Dorothy and Les and take advantage of their generosity. Dorothy could always read people bett er than my uncle and she would frequently say that although Les was a savvy

August 7, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 businessman, he was extremely gullible and easily conned by people with ulterior motives. Les was especially susceptible to people that showed admiration for him, and further, treated him as a father figure. Given that they never had their own children, Les welcomed this type of attention. A number of these people would start calling Dorothy and Les "mom" and "dad" which absolutely thrilled Les. These relationships could go on as long as a year or more.

Les and Dorothy would often go to a lawyer and change their wills, taking out family members and replacing them with their new found children, which of course was their right to do. However, I also know that once these relationships soured, Dot and Les would be back at their lawyers changing their wills again. How do I know this? For the past 40 years, I have been the executor of their estates and they always made it a practise to review their wills with me every time they were changed .

I was like a son to them having lived with them on 2 separate occasions when I was young as well as being their friend in my adult life. My wife and I were their friends, We hung out together, partied together, travelled together and even worked together. It became a running joke with the rest of the family. Every time new people would come into their lives, it would be a matter of months before I was called over to look at a new will that included these new people. Dorothy and Les also made it a practise of telling these people that they had changed their will to include them.

Whether this was their way of holding onto relationships, no one ever knew but we could only speculate. Everyone knows that you can't buy friends but in their case, I believe they really thought they could. I was never removed from the wills but I did see various other relatives removed and replaced by the current group of friends. I can tell you that they changed their wills frequently sometimes more than once a year. So now, after m y uncle's cancer diagnosis, a friend of his, Mr.

Dueck, becomes a daily visitor to their home, insisting that he could take time off from his carpet laying business to drive Les to doctor's appointments, and provide any assistance required during Les's tre atment. Even though friends and family have never liked Brad and had suspicions about his motives, we all decided to give him the benefit of the doubt until he proved otherwise. In April, Les felt that he needed more assistance especially in the area of managing the health care staff.

He said that he needed someone to deal with the daily issues of running a home, as well as take over scheduling and managing the staff. Les made it very clear to us that this was a temporary solution to assist them during his treatments. He had not been told, at that time, that his cancer was terminal. During this same time period, my wife and I were dealing with the 2011 flood. We were on emergency evacuation standby for weeks on end, we were manning up to 7 sump pumps continually to keep the water out of our house and were reduced to boating in and out of our property.

Given our personal situation, we could not commit to providing the daily assistance that Les felt he needed. Therefore, we agreed with Les that Mr. Dueck, would be the best candidate to take over the day to day responsibilities and the homecare manager responsibilities while Les was undergoing treatment. It even made more sense since Mr. Dueck lived 5 minutes away from my aunt and uncle, while I lived 35 minutes away. If we had not been under water, Mr. Dueck would not have been put in this position but given our situation, it was the only other course of action that was acceptable to Dorothy and Les.

If Kerry and I did not take on this role, the only other person they felt comfortable asking was Mr. Dueck. Ms. Karen Lake was the Case Coordinator from Winnipeg Regional Health assigned to my aunt and uncle. Her relationship with the Loewens consisted of an annual visit to the home and monthly phone calls with Les. M s. Lake did not know any of the Loewen's family or friends or any of their personal history. She came to the house to meet with Les, Dorothy and Mr. Dueck to discuss Mr. Dueck becoming the Care Manager on the plan. Ms.

Lake admits in her Affidavit that she did acquire Dorothy's approval for having Brad Dueck assume the role of Care Manager but she also admits that Mr. Loewen did not want Dorothy to know how serious his illness was; to further ensure that Dorothy was left in the dark, Ms. Lake met with Mr. L oewen and Mr. Dueck in a separate room. Any agreement or documents signed by Dorothy were not signed with all of the information provided to her. She believed she was agreeing to temporary solutions to assist them during the treatment phase. At no time was Dorothy ever told that this would be a permanent solution if Mr.

Loewen passed away. As time went on and Les became sicker, we all realized that Les was not going to win the battle. Dorothy was not told that her husband was

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 7, 2013 terminally ill until September 2011 and he passed away on October 24, 2011. During the last weeks of Les's life, Brad Dueck and I talked frequently and shared many stories. We talked about what would happen to Dorothy when Les passed away and we also talked about our individual families. I told him about the relationship we had with one of my sisters, Shawne Lister. I told Brad about Shawne claiming to be abducted by aliens on not one but two different occasions.

I told Brad that she did nothing without consulting with her psychic and b asically told Brad what she had done to our father after our mother died, which was to convince my father to build a manufactured home on her property in St. Norbert. She convinced him not to tell the rest of the family because we would try to stop him. This was absolutely true. We would have tried to stop him. We did not want him making any drastic moves for at least one year after my mother's passing.

My father gave my sister power of attorney to deal with any issues while he was way as he winters in Ariz ona and now admits that while living on her property, he believes that his accounts were short by approximately $80,000. These actions, along with other things she had done over the past ten years have alienated her from the rest of the family. My father let it go and continued a relationship with Shawne however he did sell the manufactured home in St. Norbert because he was not happy living in Shawne's backyard and realized he had made a huge mistake.

This caused a further rift between them when my sister threatened to sue him. My uncle's friend, Brad Dueck, had never met my sister, Shawne Lister, until the day my uncle passed away. Two weeks before he passed, when my other sister, Melissa, appeared at the hospital at the same time as Brad, he introduced himself and asked her if she was "Shawne". Why am I telling you this? Simply to show you that there was absolutely no relationship between Mr. Dueck and my sister, Shawne and to point out that Mr. Dueck was fully aware that we had only one family member who was alienated from the rest of us.

While my uncle was still at the Victoria Hospital in September before being moved to Palliative care at the St. Boniface, he began to ask for private meetings with me at the hospital. I worked out a visiting

schedule with Mr. Dueck so that we would not be at the hospital at the same time –thereby providing Les with round the clock visitors/support while giving me the private time to spend with my uncle as he requested. Twice my uncle told me he had to talk to me and I arra nged to go back early the following morning. Both times, when Mr. Dueck found out that I was going to see Les in the morning, he appeared at the hospital at the same time, preventing any private conversation between my uncle and me.

It was very obvious to me that he did not want me having private conversations with my uncle without him being present. I finally decided not to tell Brad when my wife and I were going to see my uncle and on that day, in the few moments of privacy we had with him, he made it very clear that he no longer trusted Brad. My uncle called my aunt from his hospital bed that same day and told her that he no longer trusted Brad and he didn't want her to trust him either. Two days later my uncle told his best friend, Ray St. Germaine, that he no longer trusted Brad.

By the time my uncle passed away on Monday, October 24th, 2011, we were all suspicious of Brad's intentions but unfortunately, Les became critically ill sooner than he expected and any changes he wanted to make were left undone. My uncle was extremely upset about this and we promised him that we would make sure Dorothy was looked after. At the time, we did not know what decisions Les regretted specifically. All we knew was that he had made an error in judgment and that he was sor ry that he had done it. We could only assume at the time that his regret related to having Mr.

Dueck take over the role of Family Care Manager. My aunt and uncle had 2 caregivers –Catherine Benson and Barbara Thorarinson. Barbara was the day shift worker and worked Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 4:00 p.m. Catherine was the evening and weekend worker. She worked from 4:00 pm every weekday until 8:00 am in the morning and she worked 24 hours a day on Saturday and Sunday. She not only cared for my aunt, she cared for my uncle in the last months of his life. On the very day that my uncle passed, Mr. Dueck removed Catherine fro

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	40-2-ju1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	40th 2nd hansardpdf ju1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d8ecd458ef79ee93000b16a3bdc011b39916b228

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