Manitoba Committee Hansard — 8 October 2025 (Justice Committee, Sitting 4, 43rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

43-2-ju4

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session – Forty-Third Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Justice Chairperson Shannon Corbett Constituency of Transcona Vol. LXXIX No. 4 - 6 p.m., Wednesday, October 8, 2025 ISSN 1708-6671

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

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

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

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

247 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE Wednesday, October 8, 2025 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – MLA Shannon Corbett (Transcona) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Logan Oxenham (Kirkfield Park) ATTENDANCE – 6 — QUORUM – 4 Members of the committee present: Hon. Min. Cable, Hon. Min. Smith Mr. Balcaen, MLA Corbett, M essrs. Ewasko, Oxenham Substitutions: Hon. Min. Schmidt for Hon. Min. Cable at 9:05 p.m. Hon. Min. Wiebe for Hon. Min. Schmidt at 10:08 p.m. MLA Bereza for Mr. Ewasko at 10:08 p.m. APPEARING: Hon. Tracy Schmidt, MLA for Rossmere at 6:06 p.m. Hon.

Matt Wiebe, MLA for Concordia at 6:21 p.m. Colleen Robbins, MLA for Spruce Woods at 6:23 p.m. Jeff Bereza, MLA for Portage la Prairie at 7:13 p.m. Hon. Renée Cable, MLA for Southdale at 9:28 p.m.

PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 40–An Act respecting "O Canada" and Other Observances and Land and Treaty Acknowledgements in Schools (Edu cation Administration Act and Public Schools Act Amended) David Grant, private citizen Bill 8–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act David Grant, private citizen Sara MacIntyre, Convenience Industry Council of Canada Bill 23–The Public Interest Expression Defence Act Shannon Hancock, private citizen M.J.

McCarron, Camp Morningstar Tangi Bell, Our Line in the Sand Manitoba David Grant, private citizen Heather Fast, Manitoba Eco-Network James Beddome, private citizen Louise May, private citizen Diane Bousquet, private citizen Eric Reder, Wilderness Committee Bill 12–The Housing and Renewal Cor poration Amendment Act Fernanda Vallejo, Latinas Manitoba Erika Wiebe, private citizen Lynne Fernandez, private citizen Tom Simms, private citizen Bill 30–The Election Financing Amendment and Elections Amendment Act David Grant, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 8–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Bill 12–The Housing and Renewal Cor poration Amendment Act Kirsten Bernas, Right to Housing Coalition Bill 23–The Public Interest Expression Defence Act Erna Buffie, private citizen Brent Bjorklund, private citizen Cat M.

Gauthier, private citizen James Wilt, private citizen Bill 40–An Act respecting "O Canada" and Other Observances and Land and Treaty Acknowledgements in Schools (Edu cation Administration Act and Public Schools Act Amended) Ben McGillivary, private citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 8–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act Bill 12–The Housing and Renewal Cor poration Amendment Act Bill 23–The Public Interest Expression Defence Act Bill 30–The Election Financing Amend ment Act and Elections Amendment Act Bill 40–An Act respecting "O Canada" and Other Observances and Land and Treaty Acknowledgements in Schools (Edu cation Administration Act and Public Schools Act Amended) * * *

248 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 Clerk Assistant (Ms. Melanie Ching): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Justice please come to order. Before the committee can proceed with the busi- ness before it, it must elect a Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): I nominate MLA Oxenham. Clerk Assistant: MLA Oxenham has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? [interjection] Oh, sorry–Minister Cable. Hon. Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): I'll nominate MLA Corbett.

Clerk Assistant: MLA Corbett has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, MLA Corbett, will you please take the Chair. [interjection] Oh, my apologies. That 's right, sorry –Minister Schmidt. MLA Schmidt: I withdraw my nomination. Clerk Assistant: Minister–Mr. Oxenham has been – name has withdrawn as a nomination for Chair. MLA Corbett, will you please take the Chair. The Chairperson: Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? MLA Cable: I'll nominate MLA Oxenham. The Chairperson: Hearing no other nominations–oh. Mr.

Oxenham has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Oxenham is elected to Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 8, The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amend ment Act; Bill 12, The Housing and Renewal Cor poration Amend ment Act; Bill 23, The Public Interest Expression Defence Act; Bill 30, The Election Financing Amendment and Elections Amendment Act; Bill 40,

An Act respecting "O Canada" and Other Observances and Land and Treaty Acknowledgements in Schools (Education Administration Act and Public Schools Act Amended). I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjourn- ment. A standing committee is to consider a bill, must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause by clause of a bill, except by unanimous consent of the committee.

Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to com munity–to committee members: Erna Buffie, private citizen, on Bill 23; Brent Bjorklund, Manitoba Green Party, on Bill 23; Cat M. Gauthier, private citizen, on Bill 23; James Wilt, private citizen, on Bill 23; Ben McGillivary, private citizen, on Bill 40. Does the committee agree to have these documents 'inpear'–appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting?

Agreed? [Agreed] Public presentation guidelines: prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise mem- bers of the public regarding the process for speaking in a committee. In accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for pre sentations, with another five minutes allotted for questions from com- mittee members. Questions shall not exceed 45 seconds in length, with no time limit for answers.

Questions may be addressed to presenters in the following rotation: first, the minister sponsoring the bill or another member of their caucus; second, a member of the official opposi- tion; and third, an independent member. * (18:10) If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters list. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript.

Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off. Order of presentations: on the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will also note that have–in-person, out -of-town presenters registered, marked with an 'asterik,' on the list. With these considerations in mind then, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations?

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 249 Mr. Logan Oxenham (Kirkfield Park): I suggest that we begin with Bill 40 and have out -of-town presenters go afterwards. The Chairperson: Thank you. We will now proceed– [interjection] Out of town; or in person, out of town? An Honourable Member: Out of town. The Chairperson: Okay. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with the public presentations.

Bill 40–An Act respecting "O Canada" and Other Observances and Land and Treaty Acknowledgements in Schools (Education Administration Act and Public Schools Act Amended) The Chairperson: I will now call on David Grant. David Grant, please proceed with your presentation. David Grant (Private Citizen): I'll be brief. It is good to begin each day with inspiring words, whether it's at school or at work. If those words teach us our shared history, that's even better. So this bill will ask school divisions to create policies. And if the policy goes beyond what we hear at City Hall, that would be even better.

I believe these words should go beyond: this used to be somebody else 's land. They should explain the purpose and effect of our treaties. The schools have an opportunity to do that. As well as the usual acknowledgement, there could be 20 words explaining some aspect of treaties that could be of use. Because if you see a thousand starts to a school day and all they say is Cree, Anishinaabe, et cetera, it becomes somewhat meaning- less, and the whole purpose is to teach why we have treaties, what the treaties were intended for then and what they're useful for.

So just to–it's–the bill is going that way, and maybe school divisions will add words of clarity and words of education to that function. And then the other part: Remembrance Day. I 'm old and I remember when Remembrance Day was celebrated in school; at 11 o'clock, we went to the gym for an assembly. Now, that it's a stat holiday, I think kids are losing a lot of the gravity of the day and the time.

We can't make it not a stat holiday, so this bill goes through and says, there shall be some thing between the 4th and the 10th–which is a start–but it sure would be better if we were back and had some other stat holiday added and had the 11th as a sombre day for students to appreciate. And in the old days, every kid got to hear the remembrance; they got to hear a speech, sometimes from Ottawa –whatever. And now, I doubt that 5 per cent of them actually take

part in the sombre day. So that's just whining from an old man, but that's how I looked at it. And one of the other ironic ones: my wife is Ojibwe, and quite often, city hall either ignores the word entirely or bungles it with some other word. And that's the sort of thing where if the board is going to have a written policy and a written statement, we can agree on what the words used are so they don' t leave out an important group. There are more Cree here than Ojibwe, but that's beside the point. Anyway, I thank you very much for the opportun- ity. And let you–if you have any questions, I'm willing to take them.

Thanks. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): Thank you, Mr. Grant, very much for your pre sentation here tonight and for your comments and for taking time out of your

schedule to come down and partici pate in the demo - cratic process. I appreciate it very, very much. I appreciated your expressions of support for Bill 40. I agree–when we were talking about –you mentioned Remembrance Day and the need to make sure that it's observed more meaningfully, and so I think that the amendments in this bill do exactly that.

They allow for more flexibility to allow for greater participation, more meaningful participation in Remembrance Day services, and I agree with you that perhaps now more than ever it's a very important time to take that time in the school day, in the school year, to help kids reflect on those lessons and on that history and to respect and honour our veterans. So thank you very much for that, and I also wanted to make a comment–am I running out of time? The – you spoke about the need for–are we out of time? Thank you. I apologize for running out of time. The Chairperson: Mr. Grant, would you like to respond?

250 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 D. Grant: The–with this thing being formalized, hope- fully on the 8th or 9th or so of November, what hap- pens is something akin to what happened decades ago where they–there's a gathering of students and they're led by someone telling some good stories. So we can hope for that, and, again, thank you for the bill. Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): Thanks, Mr. Grant, for coming and presenting, giving us your two cents on how everything sort of rolls and how it once rolled as well.

So, yes, I more than agree with you to make sure that the days of remembrance are put in there, and as the minister stated, she's put in there where there is a time of remembrance to basically give thanks to those that have gone before us and continue to fight for our freedoms. Just so you're aware, maybe, you know, because I know that you' re speaking at other com mittees as well, or other bill pre sentations, we are going to be bringing forward a couple amend ments today in regards to the royal anthem and also– The Chairperson: Thank you for your time, Mr. Ewasko. Mr. Grant, would you like to respond? D.

Grant: No. Thank you very much, Mr. Ewasko. The Chairperson: Are there any other questions? I thank you for your presentation. We will now move on to the next bill. Bill 8–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act The Chairperson: Now we're moving on to Bill 8. I would like to call on Kevin Rebeck from the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Mr. Rebeck will be dropped to the bottom of the list. I would like to now call upon Mr. Victor Vrsnik. Mr. Vrsnik will now be dropped to the bottom of the list. Mr. Grant, David Grant, would you like to comment? Please proceed with your presentation.

David Grant (Private Citizen): Only a few words. I note that it's really good that your bill

summary at the bottom on the website describes the important changes so you don't have to read everything and compare it to the old version. So that part's good. It is missing the why. So we go to Bill 8 and it says we 'll do these things; it doesn' t say what the motivation was. Is it because too many bars in a row is bad or because a very successful place might have some parasitic place pop up right next to it, offering similar services? So–but otherwise, it seems like a good idea to have limitations on the concentration of bars or licensed restaurants.

On the other hand, there are no criteria listed so this in general, in law, and in regula- tion of busi nesses leaving too much to arbitra ry opinion of a minister or the civil servant is –always a bit, I don't know, questionable. You know, people will raise questions as to, I've applied for a licence and you didn't give it to me because of the result of the day. So that's the only downside I can see is that somebody might consider it–the denial of the thing–arbitrary. I don't drink, but I still support Bill 8. * (18:20) And I drive for Red Nose every year, and we, you know, like to get people home.

And we've noticed that actually the bar and licensed restaurant busi ness seems to be diminishing, that a lot of the places that we used to pick up people all evening long are closed at suppertime. So I 'm not sure that this –the need for this may have been greater a few years ago, but–as far as the concentration of licensed places. But, anyway, that was all, and thank you, and, again, thanks for–looks like a good bill. Okay. Any other comments? The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of committee have questions for the presenter? Hon.

Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you, Mr. Grant, once again, for your thoughtful presentation and your participation here in the democratic process. I think you're right that, you know, it's important for us to be clear about what legis lation is about and maybe not as clear in the explanatory note or in some of the details of the bill. We do have an opportunity at second reading, and we had some chance in the House to share some of tha t.

It's really about keeping kids safe, making sure that they' re not getting–they're not around those who are getting served at a convenience store rather than what would obviously be a restaurant or another licensed establishment.

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 251 I also think that, you know, you–I think you made clear that it's important to have that clear direction and make sure that everybody gets an even playing field, a level playing field. And that's really what this bill is about. Before I get cut off, thanks for your work with Operation Red Nose. You' ve mentioned that before. You're– The Chairperson: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Wiebe. D. Grant: Okay, well, thanks again. The Chairperson: Any questions from the opposition? Mrs. Colleen Robbins (Spruce Woods): I'd like to thank you, Mr.

Grant, for speaking on this bill today. As MLA Matt Wiebe –he did mention that it 's to bring safety for the children. But we have them in rural Manitoba. So this is only–this rule is only set for urban areas. And I feel–I am against this bill because if you're saying that it' s dangerous for the youth and the children in urban areas, it's got to be the same in rural areas. We can't split this. And it' s happening in rural areas. We have them in hardware stores, convenience– The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Robbins. Your time is up. D.

Grant: Thank you for pointing that out, and that is one of the problems with a province that is largely– geographically, largely rural. And a lot of the prob- lems are shared, and the solutions aren 't obvious where it 's a very small agglomeration of buildings, and not a city. But this is a start, and I share your concerns. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Are there any further questions? No? Seeing none, we will move on. Thank you. Ms. Sara MacIntyre? Ms. MacIntyre, can you please turn on your microphone and camera? Thank you. Sara MacIntyre (Convenience Industry Council of Canada): Hi.

The Chairperson: Hi. S. MacIntyre: Thank you for having me. Thank you, Chairperson– The Chairperson: Thank you. Just one moment, please. So we'll now call on you, and Ms. MacIntyre, can you please proceed with your presentation. S. MacIntyre: Okay. Thank you. I'll be brief. I didn't realize I was presenting on this topic until a couple hours ago. My name is Sara MacIntyre. I'm the vice-president for western Canada for the Convenience Industry Council of Canada, which is a mouthful, but basically, it's the convenience store industry association. We have 21,000 stores across the country.

Our industry em - ploys close to 188,000 people in the country, and annually, it's a $53- billion-a-year-in-sales industry. So even though we're little, we're pretty mighty. And I'll focus maybe more on Manitoba and where we are at as an industry in Manitoba. In 2020, we had 947 stores in Manitoba, and in three years 100 stores have closed their doors permanently. So there has been a 100-store, or nearly 10 per cent reduction in the number of convenience stores in Manitoba, which is shocking; as we know, the Slurpee capital is Winnipeg. And we're an industry unlike many others that present before committee.

We probably have a member in each and every one of your ridings. These are com- munity members, they're store operators, they're store owners, they're store managers, and they have a vested interest in the commu nity doing well and handling many restricted products. You know, at convenience stores we have gas, we have age-restricted products like cigarettes, and as an industry have always taken that responsi bility very, very seriously for –you know, even with respect to tobacco sales, I don't think that any one of our mem- bers has ever actually been fined for selling under age.

Our membership profile, just to give you a bit more understanding of our members at the associa - tion, we have retailers, like 7 -Eleven, Couche-Tard. We also have vendor partners, those are who sell in our store. They have products, you know, the Coca-Colas, the Hersheys, the chips, as well as we have distributors, and those are our partners that distribute our products across all of our channels. So that just gives you a little idea of, like, who our industry is and what we're like in Manitoba. We have been facing a number of downward pressures as an association.

Since the pandemic, like everybody else, we really haven't seen foot traffic come back. Lots of people are ordering online, and with everything online

252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 these days they're driving less because they're not having to be at the office for work. Contraband tobacco is a huge, huge issue for our industry. We've done some reports with Ernst & Young looking at the size of that market, and it's close to 50 per cent of the market in Canada is actually illegal tobacco. So again, that doesn't bring people into the store, so that doesn't bring foot traffic in and it doesn't bring sales.

So there's lots of downward pressures on our in- dustry, as you can imagine, and many of our members are looking, trying to survive, trying not to be that 101 store that closes in Manitoba. And so we've seen some innovation in the product offering in different provinces; for example, in Ontario, we have beverage alcohol sales, so –you were wondering when I was going to get back to the theme and the topic of the bill, here we are. Beverage alcohol sales in Ontario, we've got beer and wine sales, have been in Quebec, and beer in Newfoundland.

We've got pilot projects in Alberta, and, you know, ensuring our products are handled safely and in accordance with laws is very important. We have a program that we've developed as an industry association called ID Please which we offer for free to all members, and it's to help to ensure that everyone is complying with age restrictions and age - restricted products.

And, in fact, even in Ontario, where we had beverage alcohol sales now in the province for just over a year, we actually have our own beverage alcohol training program that was certified by the AGCO for training for the handling of sales of beverage alcohol. So this is not some thing new to our industry or members or operators. They know that they– we are trusted, we're in the –in your corner, usually, your corner store, and handling these products, is important to do that safely and to ensure members of all public are safe while we're–while coming into a corner store.

Also note, you know, I think what we really need to do is to look at maybe some data and see, you know, are individuals actually getting age-restricted products unlawfully at convenience stores?

Our record for compliance is generally much, much higher than gov- ernment-operated stores, so I'd like to see if there's some data in Manitoba that actually suggests that convenience store operators, who are voters and small- business owners in your communities, are selling these products to underage individuals, which I would sug- gest that they're not. * (18:30) Most often, especially with other products that are age-restricted, kids are getting things online. That's where they get everything.

And, you know, in Canada, unfortunately, there's something like 238 sites where you can get cigarettes and a whole bunch –a host of other age-restricted products delivered to your house, usually by Canada Post, when they're not striking. So, I think, you know, from our perspective as an industry, we want to ensure sus tainability for our stores; we don't want to see more stores closing. Like I have always said, convenience stores are kind of the canary in a coal mine, if you will. If you see a corner store closing, you're probably not going to go into that neighbourhood at night.

So we're here, we're partners, we're big tax col - lectors for gov ernment; we're here to try and find solutions that work for everybody and, you know, I think having this conver sation about beverage alcohol sales at convenience stores is an im portant one, but I also think it's important to look at data and facts, and to ensure that we're starting from a place where we can say, yes, kids actually get beers from convenience stores–which is not the case; it's not been the case in any of our jurisdictions.

And it's not in our interest to do that, it really is not; we want to be com- munity partners and ensuring that we're compliant. It's for everybody's–in everybody's best interest to do so. So I'll just keep my comments to that, and just say thank you for the time to hear our concerns; and I can take any questions. The Chairperson: Thank you. Minister Wiebe? Mr. Wiebe: Yes, thank you, Chair, and thank you, Ms. MacIntyre, for partici pating in the com mittee here tonight.

We had an oppor tunity to meet with some of your members over the last little while and hear from them spe cifically about, you know, the health of the industry, plans that they have to–for expansion; and so we're excited to work with them to make sure that we support the convenience store industry. I think that's an im portant part of the economic success that we're looking to build in the province. And just to be clear, what we're talking about here is not beverage alcohol sales, as you characterized them; this is about service in a convenience store setting–so

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 253 service in a restaurant configuration within an otherwise convenience store setting. So I think there is a distinction and something unique that's– The Chairperson: Thank you, Minister Wiebe. Anyone from the opposition? [interjection] Sorry. Ms. MacIntyre, do you have a response? S. MacIntyre: Yes, I get the distinction the minister's making and I appreciate that; and it's one that we agree– have in pilot projects in a number of other juris dic- tions across the country. So we'd be eager to talk a little bit more detail about that. The Chairperson: Thank you.

Ms. Robbins? Mrs. Robbins: Thank you, Ms. MacIntyre, for your interest in this bill, and I have a question for convenience stores. Can you describe the kind of busi- nesses that are currently licensed in Manitoba to sell alcohol with meals? S. MacIntyre: To sell alcohol with meals? Like restaurants and sit -down locations? I'm not sure I understand the question– and maybe it's better to the minister. Mrs. Robbins: The question is for convenience stores: can you describe the kind of busi nesses that are cur - rently in Manitoba, serving alcohol–licensed to serve alcohol with meals in the convenience store? S.

MacIntyre: Sorry, thanks , Chair. Thank you, Chairperson. Yes, I think you're referring to–there's a few pilots– projects that a couple of our members are running with licences; that you could have beverage alcohol served to by the convenience store employee if you're sitting down and having food with that purchase. The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. MacIntyre. Are there any further questions? Seeing none, we will carry on and we–[interjection] We have had another written submission from Chrystia [phonetic] Bernas. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting?

Floor Comment: For which bill? The Chairperson: For Bill 12, sorry. My apologies. Agreed? [Agreed] Sorry, Ms. MacIntyre. Thank you for your time, and enjoy the rest of your evening. Bill 23–The Public Interest Expression Defence Act The Chairperson: We will now move on to Bill 23. We have some out -of-town speakers, so we will call on them first. So, Shannon Hancock. Shannon, can you please turn on your camera and microphone? Shannon, can you please turn on your camera and microphone? Shannon, we can't see your video. Can you please turn on your camera? There we go.

Can you please–Shannon, can you please proceed with your presentation. Shannon Hancock (Private Citizen): I will, and thank you very much, and thank you for consid - ering this very impor tant bill about public interest expression. I've lived–I have lived experience as an individual who practised for decades as a regulated health pro- fessional in Winnipeg. My voice was silenced fol - lowing protected disclosures under The Work place Safety and Health Act and The Public Interest Disclosure Act beginning in 2013. I was assured that I was protected against reprisal. I was not.

As a regulated health professional being unable to report health and safety issues that in my case were later validated by the government of Manitoba Labour Board in 2018 and by Workplace Safety and Health in 2019, but required to continue practising while effect- ively gagged under a non- disclosure agreement and settlement agreement between the Manitoba Nurses Union and the Winnipeg Regional Health Author ity.

It created a great deal of moral distress, conflicted directly with my pro fessional and ethical obligations as a registered nurse and it is a fact that public sector health-care employers and bargaining agents for regulated nursing professionals are settling grievances by way of agreements that include oppressive non-disclosure agreements, one-sided releases, favouring employees that make union members vulnerable to reprisal.

Regulated health professionals cannot practise while gagged, and it is –to reinforce how that's hap- pening, there are provisions in collective agree ments between public sector health-care employers, Winnipeg Regional Health Author ity, Shared Health, Prairie Mountain Health, all the RHAs and the Manitoba

254 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 Nurses Union, this is the

article that allows this to happen: Manitoba Nurses Union,

article 1311: Nothing in this collective agreement shall preclude a nurse or– not and–or the union committee and the employer for mutually agreeing to settle a dispute by means other than those described in the grievance and arbitration procedures or to extend any of the stipulated time limits. * (18:40) CUPE's agreement is even worse. CUPE Local 2348– those are the social services sectors, so the most vul - nerable sectors –and the health -care sectors, CUPE Local 500 Riverview.

In their collective agreement, 1108, it says: Nothing in this agreement shall preclude settlement of a grievance by mutual agreement in any manner whatsoever. That contract's out of the contract. Those pro- visions are unconstitutional; they're–and they're resulting in settlement agreements between public sector health- care and social services employers and bargaining agents who just don't have equivalent bargaining power. Union–the over whelming majority of nurses –in my case, it was nurses–are women, female, members of marginalized groups.

More than 90 per cent, according to credible public sources, including the Canadian Institute of Health Infor mation and World Health Organization, to name just a few. Regulated nurses, to this day–I know because I've been defending litigation because of a non-disclosure agreement between the WRHA and the Manitoba Nurses Union since 2014 and we're now–finally have sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is a pressing issue in Manitoba. There's no place–zero place–for non-disclosure agreements between the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, the Manitoba Nurses Union.

Nurses cannot be intimidated, threat - ened, gagged and forced to practise that way, because that's a threat to public health and safety. If they can't report, patient safety suffers. So by having–had this sort of legislation existed, and it should exist –I spoke a couple of years ago, actually, and I was assured parliamentary protec tion and there were reprisals after. But I spoke to the issue of non- disclosure agree- ments between government reporting entities like the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Shared Health.

And I'm not the only nurse who –there–another nurse was sued, actually, for a breach of an NDA right before I was. And I'm still in court defending it all these years later. The Manitoba Nurses Union was never served notice; they're a party to the agreement, so I guess what that means is the Manitoba Nurses Union is also gagged by the Winnipeg Regional Health Author ity. And that is–that situation is intolerable, can't stand.

So any legis lation that preserves the voice of somebody like me, like the nurse that you might see today if you or your loved one goes to the emergency room, they can't be under a gag order, and those gag orders can't be enforceable. In addition to violating provincial health and safety legislation and professional and ethical code of conducts, it's actually a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada. You can't intimidate, threaten or inter fere with a regulated professional or health-care worker in the course of their duties. So please pass this bill or something like this bill to protect future generations.

We have a critical shortage of nurses, and there's no way of knowing how many of them are practising today under a gag order. Thank you for your time. The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Hancock. Are there any questions? Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, thank you, Ms. Hancock, for your pre- sentation and thank you for your work as a nurse. Obviously, we appreciate our health-care workers so much, especially these days. So thank you so much for your work. I appreciate that you've had a chance to look at the bill.

I do hope that the legislation that we're passing assists you, without knowing some of the details about your case, but I do hope that it assists you in, you know, making sure that you're–you feel protected. It's really about protecting the vulnerable. So thank you again for laying out some of the – your concerns and some of your support. The Chairperson: Ms. Hancock, do you have a response? S. Hancock: Yes, and thank you very much. I appre- ciate that. It's–every little bit helps. And there's been a culture of–I mean, there's a lot –there's like, parallel universes.

There is the talk about trans parency and accountability and safety and freedom and health pro- fessionals can speak and–oh. Sorry.

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 255 Then there's the reality of nurses who are practising today under gag orders. And so I've been defending myself for all these years and–just because nobody wanted to challenge the practice of gag orders So I got as far as the Court of Appeal, got obstructed there, so I'm now seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and have actually served a copy of the notice on the Attorney General for Manitoba (Mr. Wiebe) by way of deputy minister, Deputy Attorney General Jeremy Akerstream.

It's such an im portant issue and every nurse in this–Manitoba Nurses Union is not the voice for all nurses. It's the only voice you hear, but they are not the voice for all nurses, and their collective agreement is very different from the collective agreement for registered nurses on faculty at the Uni versity of Manitoba. They'll never be in this position because of the difference in their collective agreements and their col- lective bargaining power. MNU needs to revisit their collective agreements because a change to that provision would change the entire situation. You can't contract out of contract.

Again, thank you very much for your time. I don't want to belabour the issue or beat a dead a horse, but I do appreciate your time. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Well, thank you, honourable Chair. It's–as you're–and thank you, Ms. Hancock, for your presentation. It's a very impor- tant process that we follow here to make sure that we get public engage ment and I ap preciate every thing that you've brought forward.

Having a wife that was a nurse, my mother-in-law's a nurse and my daughter is now practising as a nurse, I appreciate your candour and bringing this forward. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any response? S. Hancock: Yes, thank you very much, and thank you to all of the nurses in your family and to anybody who loves a nurse or needs a nurse. You don't ever want the nurse that answers your call bell at 2 in the morning to be under a gag order and sued and threatened by employers that are funded by govern ment, which has been my experience for the last 10 years. So I'm here to change that and that's the goal.

Thank you again, and I hope you all have a good evening. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, we will move on. Thank you, Ms. Hancock. We will now call on M.J. McCarron. M.J., could you please turn on your camera and microphone. M.J., we're just passing out your papers. I would like to call upon M.J. McCarron to start their presentation. M.J. McCarron (Camp Morningstar): Hi, my name is M.J. McCarron. I've been with Camp Morningstar for six years since its inception.

I'm the only non-Aboriginal person or non-Indigenous person that is on the sort of the main committee and boards and I do a lot of advocacy work on their behalf. I'm here today to ask you to protect, again, some of your most vul nerable citizens who are not always under the same protocols and sort of safety nets for speaking out provincially. And I want to back that up with some of the examples that we ex perience in Camp Morningstar that you may not be aware of. * (18:50) First of all, I want to be very, very clear that I am not blaming any individuals or criticizing any individuals.

What I see is deficiencies of the various acts, one being the Indian Act, another one being the mining act, that set up adversarial relationships within the system, often memorandums and other agree ments signed before the com munity is told because, unde r the Indian Act, there is no requirement to consult with the members of the band before signing such agree - ments. So what happens is that, you know, for us, we were not aware of the agreements until machinery started to move onto sacred territory. Immediately, you are criminalized.

The RCMP set up an agency known as a Division Liaison Team and they send RCMP out to babysit you for however long they feel they need to be there to keep the peace. I have to say we had a very good relationship with the RCMP. We asked them to participate in ceremony. We conversed with them to keep, you know, the people there safe. We wer e not interested in being violent. We were a peaceful, sacred ceremony that–whose main purpose was to be able to

256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 provide the information to the population that we felt was not being distributed. So let's get to some of the ways that people are kept quiet. First of all, again, you have the crimin- alization. The information is going one way; there's no two ways about it that the RCMP's job is to assess the situation and to collect intelligence. I don't have a problem with that because we weren't doing anything, and if you read the reports–if you get the reports under freedom of information act, you can see that we were peaceful and they withdrew relatively quickly.

However, within that document that I did give, there was mention of a possible BCR. S o that's one instru- ment that, you know, can be used to prevent –in that case, it was to prevent environmentalists from coming onto reserve land in an effort to make sure that people were not getting the information they needed to make a meaningful decision. I also gave you another piece from the Yellowhead Institute, and on there is, again, going back to the–you know, the way things are done and the way busi ness is conducted.

When benefit agreements are signed, we highly suspect that chiefs and councils are being instructed to keep things secret until there is an - nouncement. I've seen three or four agree ments that have proceeded in that way and caught the population by surprise. But they also, I think, probably provide directives to keep the band members in line, so to speak, if I can say that. Again, that's just an opinion; that's not necessarily a fact. But I found that the Yellowhead Institute

article was quite good. When we started in 2019, freedom of expression was not a right on reserves. I was gobsmacked when I found that out because they weren't sure–there were not enough freedom of speech cases and there was not enough case law to deter mine whether that that was effective and applied to band councils and to band council governments. And so, yes, under, you know, provincial, and yes, under federal, you were guaranteed freedom of speech, but you weren't at that time.

There's since been some cases, and so I would say that that would, you know, proceed in a way that would be fair but it's the whole point that you are –have to get involved in law in order to–or into the legal argument in order to be able to speak out. Because of the involvement of the RCMP with us, you know, there's consequences for the general public in speaking up. I would, under our current political situation, I wouldn't dare cross the border. And even if we didn't have the current political situation, I would be afraid of what those consequences might be regard- less of what my rights are as a citizen.

We know that social media policies are being used to quiet people, especially on reserves. We know that–here's the one that–we live in rural areas, we live in isolated areas, we live in remote areas. We had two citizens of the –of Hollow Water First Nation band. One was an environmental scientist. The other one was an engineer who could read through the docu- ments because they are very technically dense. I can read some of it but I can't interpret most of it to see how it's going to apply to, say, traditional ecological knowledge.

They could but because they worked for the government, they could not speak up or they felt it was not safe to speak up. So, again, this SLAPP policy is really, really im- portant because they were not be–able to stand at the public meetings in front of their com munity and feel the freedom to speak. I think that that is wrong. We don't have, you know, a lot of citizens with t hat kind of educa tional back ground that can filter through things and know the land. And so for that reason, I wanted to make that point.

The other point, again there's systemic issues; only the company speaks in consultation, so it's absolutely vital that we have citizens speak up and share their expertise and be able to tell us what they think of a company's plans. We did not come under any injunc- tions, because the sacred fire was started before the company had a licence and then when they came back a second time they no longer needed the land that we were on. So it, you know, it worked out that way. We didn't have to experience that particular fight. But you can see that there's a, you know, quite a few–one of our members was fired.

We did take that– we did pursue that legally. We lost. We didn't have lawyer; we couldn't afford one, and they won. But it set a tone, it certainly set a tone and–between the social policy–there was an educator whose job was threatened. They thought that, you know, she shouldn't be participating in the sacred fire. They made calls to her principal. Luckily, the principal just said she's enjoying her constitutional rights; we're not going to take discipline.

But they did kind of have a lockdown on social media and you weren't allowed to research or mention the topic in the school until a 10-year-old trapper that– whose trapline was affected –she was 10 -years-old,

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 257 marched into the vice-principal's office and said: This is our land; why can't we talk about it? And that's the thing is that, you know, there –we weren't violent. We weren't–yes, you know, we were just citizens. We were standing up for what we believed in. Instead of being adversarial, why can we not sit and have conversations and open up communi- cations?

So I'm asking you, I'm begging you to consider this particular bill to allow –because sometimes, you know, when all is said and done, the only way to get word out was either through the media or through organizations that represent our issues. And if they are slapped with nuisance lawsuits, that's our last road to justice, discussion, meaningful conversations and every- thing else. So I'm going to stop there. I think I've covered everything I wanted to say. But, again, I'm leaving you with the idea that this has come about because, you know, our legislation is not favourable to public input to begin with.

The Chairperson: Thank you, M.J. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Thank you very much, M.J. McCarron. This is really, really ap preciated that you're partici - pating in the democratic process here, lending your voice in support of this piece of legislation. I think you, you know–without knowing again all the details of the case, what I will say is that what you're talking about here is ultimately protec tion for the little guy, so to speak. And that's really what the bill's all about. So I really appreciate your participation here and giving us some perspective.

The Chairperson: Thank you. Do you have a response, M.J.? M.J. McCarron: No, I just–as I say, I think there are a lot of things that sort of go on that don't come to the attention of the public. So I appreciate this opportunity to share our, kind of, background and our experiences first hand. The Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Balcaen: Well, thank you, M.J., for that informa- tion and for providing that to us.

And, I think it's very important, I've said to many presenters at committee, that we hear from people of Manitoba, people who have varying views and want to share that with the public. * (19:00) This is a very impor tant avenue to do that, so I thank you for bringing this forward. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any response, M.J.? M.J. McCarron: No. The Chairperson: Any further questions? Thank you for your time, M.J. We will move on. The next presenter is –and I apologize if I say your name wrong–Tangi Bell. Okay. Please proceed. Tangi, please proceed with your presentation.

Tangi Bell (Our Line in the Sand Manitoba): My name is Tangi Bell, and I am chair of Our Line in the Sand Manitoba. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on Bill 23, the much-needed public interest expression defence act. Our Line in the Sand formed when a junior mining outfit proposed to mine directly in and operate over our pristine drinking water supply. Needless to say, if anti-SLAPP legis lation was around at that time, it would have prevented threats and inti midation that have caused residents extreme duress and fear.

For example, a concerned citizen posted pictures refuting company statements and received a cease and desist letter. An honest mistake of posting a draft ad for a public meeting prior to removing a logo resulted in the company writing letters, including o ne to the environment approvals branch who posted it to the public registry. Our response letter explaining our posi- tion and questions was not posted. Some residents who were members of Our Line in the Sand were further silenced when Sio, then HD Minerals and CanWhite, had them sign NDA agree - ments.

Two municipal counsellors who voted against the RM and Sio Silica dev elopment agreement were also threatened with legal action by the company if they did not reverse their vote. Of course, such actions have a chilling effect on public partici pation, demo- cracy and cause much fear and anger. We were thoroughly disappointed when anti-SLAPP legislation, bill 236, the public protection act, introduced

258 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 in 2023, was voted down by the previous government. So thank you for bringing this forward. We are in support of Bill 23; however, we do not support the addition of

section 4(2) of the bill as we feel it does not provide the required protec tions for public participation. There should be an op portunity for all proceedings to be paused, even when injunctions are involved. In our opinion, this is an obvious and terrible loophole in the bill. A judge could dismiss the originating action or application, but motions for injunction release would still be allowed to proceed. Keeping it in destroys the integrity of anti -SLAPP legislation, which is to protect discussion and open debate on matters of public interest, including holding our political representatives to account.

As an example, our phone calls, letters, petitions regarding exposure to silica sand particulates from un covered stockpiles were not acted on by our regulator. We had to block a road to have our concerns ad- dressed. Our one–our former, I should say–our former municipal council made no real effort to help voice or act on our concerns. The November 16, 2021 , Carillon article, quote: former CanWhite employee alleges well con tami- nation, lacks site safety, unquote, stated the former mayor, quote: wanted CanWhite to succeed. And CanWhite, as you know, is also known as HD Minerals and Sio Silica.

The Ethics Com missioner report clearly shows the lengths the former govern ment went to have the project succeed. We were left with no other recourse than to set up a blockade. So this so- called public disorder to have our property rights, our livelihood and health protected was necessary. This protest also showed us to have–also allowed us to have the greater com munity aware of what was happening to us, and show that more than a few people were being negatively impacted. Capture of our govern ment by industry develop- ment forces people to take action to protect themselves.

Our antiquated environment and mineral legislation magnifies this need to take action. The system makes public disorder a necessary and, in our experience, a legitimate form of public participation. We had also contemplated another blockade when our water quality complaint with the water branch was dismissed as correspondence. Under Manitoba regula- tions, the branch is mandated to investigate complaints. Because of the threatening environment at that time and the lack of protec tions for citizen action, we did not proceed with the blockade. In our opinion, keeping

section 4(2) that estab - lishes an exception for injunction proceedings destroys the integrity of this anti- SLAPP legislation and thus does not protect the public voice and does not protect the public from negative mental, emotional, spiritual and financial duress and the demands of a legal battle. Passage of this bill as it stands will mean that the next time we need to hold a public protest, whether that be a blockade, to hold our gov ernment and/or industry to account for hazardous materials or opera - tions or bad water or on the steps of the hospital, we will continue to do so under threat of legal action.

Our planet's climate is dangerously changing, and biodiversity is in crisis–our social and economic health too. We all have a role to play in safeguarding our public interest and the environment for future genera- tions. The law should help us do this, not hinder us. Please, please remove

section 4(2) from Bill 23 and close this legal loophole that leaves Manitobans vulnerable to SLAPP suits from the wealthy and powerful through the use of injunctions. So thank you for this opportunity to share our con- cerns on Bill 23. The Chairperson: Thank you, Tangi. Mister–Minister Wiebe with questions. Mr. Wiebe: Thank you, Tangi, for your public advocacy and for presenting here tonight. Thanks for sharing some of the details of the ordeal. I think it helps us better understand the actual impact that it has on individuals and com munity, and I really take that to heart, so thank you for bringing that forward. Your comments on

section on 4(2) are noted, they're appreciated and we look forward to working with you in the future. The Chairperson: Do you have a response, Tangi? T. Bell: Cool. The Chairperson: Thank you. Questions from the opposition? Mr. Balcaen: Well, thank you, Ms. Bell, for your pre- sentation. Again, it's very im portant to hear many perspectives from Manitobans on these bills, and I ap- preciate what you brought forward. Gives us plenty to think about. Thank you.

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 259 Floor Comment: Thank you. The Chairperson: Tangi. T. Bell: Thank you. The Chairperson: Any other–any further questions? Hon. Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your bravery during this ordeal. I know that it couldn't have been easy, and–with all of the political pressures you were facing, everything that was going on. So thank you for your steadfastness and for standing up for what's right. Floor Comment: It's democracy. The Chairperson: Tangi. T. Bell: Whoops, sorry. The Chairperson: No, it's all good.

T. Bell: Thank you very much. It was not easy. That's why this bill is so necessary and a real bill. Take that

section 4(2) out, please. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. Bill 12–The Housing and Renewal Corporation Amendment Act The Chairperson: Now we'll move back to Bill 12 as that concludes our out-of-town–out-of-province, out- of-town guests. And the first person on the list is Fernanda Vallejo. Did I–again, I hope I said your name correctly. Fernanda Vallejo (Latinas Manitoba): Okay, so my name is Fernanda Vallejo from Latinas Manitoba, a non-profit organization that helps immigrant women and families build new lives here in Manitoba. Housing is one of the biggest challenges we see every day.

Many newcomers and single mothers face long waiting lists or poor housing condi tions. Some are afraid to speak up because they don't understand the system or they are worried about their immigration status. * (19:10) I know this bill focuses on improving the govern- ance of Manitoba Housing, and I truly hope it will also improve access, maintenance and communication with tenants, landlords as well. Okay.

So community organizations like ours can play an important role–supporting, providing guidance to the community, to immigrants–but I hope this bill can be approved for all the situations, especially for the women that are facing domestic violence and they are in this waiting list. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Fernanda. Questions? Hon. Bernadette Smith (Minister of Housing, Addictions and Homelessness): Thank you, Fernanda, for your presentation. And certainly this bill is meant to protect housing and keep housing within the portfolio of, you know, govern ment.

Any funding 15 per cent or over is protected under this bill. We saw housing under Lions Place be sold out, which made seniors vul nerable and rents go up, seniors with fixed incomes. And we know that women that are fleeing domestic violence such as you outlined are also, you know, facing financial hardship too, often with children, with families. They need, that kind of– The Chairperson: Thank you, Minister Smith. Fernanda, do you have a response? F. Vallejo: No, thank you. The Chairperson: Okay. Any questions from the opposition? Any questions?

MLA Jeff Bereza (Portage la Prairie): Thank you, Fernanda, for the presentation that you've done tonight, and we look forward to moving on with this bill. The Chairperson: Fernanda? F. Vallejo: Sounds great. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you. Floor Comment: No? But lastly, I just want to mention– The Chairperson: Sorry. Can we ask–I ask for leave for the committee for Fernanda to continue. [Agreed] F. Vallejo: It's just a little invitation. So the Latin American community, we are celebrating our heritage this month, and this October 15, we have a ceremony

260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 here at 5 p.m. I just would like to invite you, all of you. Okay? Thank you. The Chairperson: Nice. Wonderful. Thank you. I will now call Erika Wiebe. Erika, please proceed with your presentation. Erika Wiebe (Private Citizen): Hello. My name is Erika Wiebe. I'm here represen ting the Right to Housing Coalition, and I'm co- chair of a subgroup within the Right to Housing Coalition called the seniors working group.

So in January 2023, as already has been mentioned, Lions Place, the largest non -profit residence in Manitoba for seniors with low incomes, was sold to a private company based in Calgary whose stated goal is to maximize profit. And in effect, this meant the loss of 287 units of seniors –units for seniors wi th low incomes. And in 2018, 185 Smith St., which housed over 300 social housing units, was sold to a private company, and there's now a high- end condominium building on that site. So together, the loss of these two buildings represents 600 less housing units for people with low incomes.

At the same time, homelessness, some thing that we're all concerned about, it is at completely unaccept- able levels in our province, and many more people than that also live in unsafe, precarious housing with no options to move because they can't afford to. So most Manitobans would agree that an im por- tant solution to this problem is much, much more supply of housing that's purposely built for people with low incomes. The Right to Housing Coalition estimates that 10,000 new units are needed.

So in this context, it makes no sense that we should be okay with losing housing stock that's already–that already exists. So it's for that reason that the Right to Housing Coalition strongly supports legislation which puts limits on the sale, demolition or change in use of non- market, social and affordable housing. In fact, the Right to Housing Coalition advocated for this after the sale of Lions Place. While Bill 12 is a positive step, we do have some recommendations that would strengthen the bill.

We believe that now is the time to ensure that this legis - lation is as comprehensive and robust as is needed to achieve the goal of protecting existing and future non-market social and affordable housing. So first recom mendation: in Bill 12, consent for the sale, demolition or change of use of a funded building resides with Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation instead of, more appropriately, with the Minister of Housing, Addictions and Homelessness (Ms. Smith), the latter who bears the respon sibility and is accountable for the oversight of social and afford- able housing in Manitoba.

So we just think that the loss of any publicly funded housing is a serious matter with serious implications for the public, and therefore that decision should rest with the minister. Second: no building should be sold, demolished or have a change in use unless there is a plan in place to replace the social and affordable housing units that are lost. So sometimes some housing complexes are no longer viable. There may be no choice but to demolish or sell.

And in all instances where it is deemed necessary to sell, demolish or change the use of a building, there should be an automatic concurrent development of a plan for how those lost units will be replaced. Third: buildings that receive operating agreement funding for services and/or rent supplements should be included in the legis lation, as well as buildings whose funding agreements have expired. Government- owned housing should also be covered in the legis - lation. Again, the objective is to preserve and protect buildings that are a public asset where public funds have been invested.

So we believe that the types of housing that are covered in the legis lation should be broadened. And with regard to govern ment-owned housing, so many people –as in the case of 185 Smith St., so many people with low incomes rely on this resource for decent housing, and many, many more are on waiting lists to get into it. It should undergo the same scrutiny as other publicly funded housing. This is not about which party's more likely to preserve public housing when in power; it's about long-term practices, no matter who's in power.

Number four: if there's a sale of government-owned housing, all the proceeds of the sale should be reinvested back into the government-owned RGI, rent geared to income, housing envelope. It should not be reinvested into debt repayment or other areas of government. Five: Bill 12 should include protection for tenants in the case of a sale.

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 261 So tenants must be fully informed and alternative, comparable housing, if possible at the same rent, must be secured for tenants in the case of a sale. So the seniors working group that's part of Right to Housing includes people who lived at Lions Place. So we had a first-hand look at the stress–the high levels of stress that were caused by housing uncertainty that this vul nerable popula tion endured. So the govern - ment needs to ensure that tenants are taken care of in these situations. And that's it. Thank you very much. The Chairperson: Thank you, Erika.

Questions? Ms. Smith: Thank you so much for that, Erika, and for all of the work that Right to Housing Coalition does. Certainly, we've worked on this legislation with your coalition, and, you know, the Lions Place was certainly what brought this legislation forward.

We want to ensure that we're protecting, preserving the housing stock that we have and ensuring that we keep safe and affordable housing affordable and that we're protecting taxpayers' money and that we don't have another Lions Place occur under –you know, in the future, and that this legislation protects it for future invest–future governments to come. E. Wiebe: Yes. Totally agree that we need it to be really strong and robust so that it can be long- lasting legislation that really benefits low -income people, low-income residents. * (19:20) MLA Bereza: Ms.

Wiebe, thank you so much for your presentation and for your recommendations. E. Wiebe: Thank you. The Chairperson: Any further questions? Seeing none, we thank you for your time. And I will now call Ms. Lynne Fernandez. Ms. Fernandez, please proceed with your presentation. Lynne Fernandez (Private Citizen): Good evening, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to present on Bill 12. As a senior who volunteers with low-income seniors living in social housing, I'm in favour of Bill 12, The Housing and Renewal Corporation Amendment Act.

There are, however, ways the legis lation can be strengthened to protect tenants, ensure no further loss of social and affordable housing and increase govern- ment accountability. The bill now excludes building buildings whose funding agreements have expired. Given that the goal is to protect low -income renters from losing their housing, these buildings should be covered by the legislation. First and foremost, social housing, whether it be in the non-profit or public sector, is designed to meet the needs of low -income, vul nerable com munities.

Indeed this is a clearly stated mandate of the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation, which works closely with the non- profit housing sector. Taxpayers con- tribute revenue to maintain different types of funding for social housing, so protec tion of any of these investments should not be excluded. Accordingly, buildings that receive operating agree- ment funding for service and/or rent supplements, and buildings whose funding agree ments have expired should be included in the legis lation. Govern ment- owned buildings should also be included.

Given the extreme shortage of social housing in Manitoba, ensuring no loss of units should be top of mind. The sale of 185 Smith and Lions Place removed over 600 units of social housing from the housing stock. I spoke with an individual who had to leave his home at 185 Smith; he moved to Lions Place believing he had a secure place to live, only to find out that it too had been sold. The Province then had to provide rent supple - ments to tenants who were facing the higher rents charged by the private cor poration.

When the two- year supplements were coming to an end, tenants were scared and anxious that they would not be renewed, and that they would be faced with trying to find suit- able accommodation that they could afford. Now, those supplements did come through as we know, but the anxiety that the tenants faced before they came through was palpable, and this is something that Erika managed as well. We should not be forcing vulnerable seniors, many without family support , to deal with such a stressful situation.

To this end, the legislation should stipulate that there be no net loss of social and affordable housing should a building be sold or demolished. Government-owned assets should be covered by this legis lation, but in the event a publicly owned building has to be sold, the proceeds of the sale need to be directed to the social or–and affordable housing

262 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 revenue stream. Sale proceeds should not be used for other government expenditures. Loss of social or affordable housing units has serious consequences on people's lives. The govern - ment of the day needs to be publicly accountable when a building is sold or demolished, so responsibility for a sale needs to rest clearly with the Minister of Housing so the public is aware of what's going on.

And in the event a property has to be sold or demolished, tenants must be provided with suitable living accommodation for the same amount of rent, and a viable plan needs to be in place before approval and sale of–if the sale is granted by the minister. That's it. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Any questions? Ms. Smith: Thank you, Lynne, for your presentation, and certainly this bill is meant to protect and keep affordable housing affordable, and to ensure that Lions Place, something like that, doesn't happen again.

We feel that this strikes the right balance in ensuring that, you know, there's more people develop- ing affordable housing. We know that people that are developing affordable housing aren't in it to make money; certainly they're in it to provide affordable housing. We see a lot of mixed-market housing going up, because we know that they also have to maintain the housing that they're building. So we love seeing those kind of models. We hear a lot of good feedback from folks, that there's some mentorship happening in those models as well.

So your recom mendations are duly noted, and I want to thank you for the advocacy that you're doing. Thank you so much. L. Fernandez: Yes, thank you, and I do believe you're right when you say that people provide –who provide non-profit housing are not in it to make money.

But when they're not adequately supported–I mean, this is a bit–going on a bit of a tangent, but when they're not adequately supported by govern ment so that they can maintain the units and the rent supple - ments, then there are for-profit organizations that are waiting in the wings to swoop down when these properties become available, and that's one of the things that we're concerned about and that we hope that this bill will protect. The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Fernandez. MLA Bereza: Thank you, Ms. Fernandez, for your pre- sentation and thank you for your recommendations. L. Fernandez: Thank you.

The Chairperson: Any further questions? Hon. Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): Thank you for your presentation today and for the work that you've done for years and years and years to take care of our relatives. And thank you for coming with a presentation to remind all of us of the humanity in one another and our obligation to take care of our neighbours who maybe aren't the same or don't come from the same family circumstances, that there really is an obligation for us to consider the most vul nerable in society and to make sure that we keep them top of mind.

And I can assure you that this government is doing that. The Chairperson: Thank you, Minister Cable. Thank you–Ms. Fernandez? L. Fernandez: That's fine. I hope that that's going to be the case. We sincerely hope that this legis lation will pass with these amendments and so that it really is of strong protection for vulnerable people. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Fernandez. I would now like to call Gerald R. Brown. Gerald Brown? Mr. Brown will be dropped to the bottom of the list. I will now call Tom Simms. Tom, please proceed with your presentation.

Tom Simms (Private Citizen): Yes, thanks for the opportunity. It's great to be able to speak. My MLA is here today, the Minister of Housing, Minister Smith. Appreciate all the work you do for us in Point Douglas. I wanted to speak about things from more a personal context here. We're here with, you know, political dynamics and there's community dynamics and there's a lot of stuff going on, right? But I really wanted to talk about it from a personal point of view because I think, in our community, our society, we all care about our elderly people. We care about our grandparents, our grandmothers.

We care about older uncles and aunties and stuff like that. And so I think that transcends partisan lines. We care ab out that, right, but it's how we go about supporting that, I think, is an important thing.

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 263 And I got to say, back in July of 2022, sitting at my place, minding my own busi ness, and I get a call from my mother who lives at Lions Place and she's lived there 25 years, right? And she's–she turned 96 in June–you know, that's a pretty good age, right? And she said, you know, Tom, I got this note slipped under my door that they're going to sell the building. Middle of the night, a note comes under the door that you're– that they're going to sell a building that was home to many elderly people who are on more low and fixed incomes.

And I got to say, that was a real feeling of power- lessness. Like, people's worlds were just shook. No notice. Nothing, right? And, like I say, there's a whole bunch of political dimensions, and definitely, I'm not above that, but I want to just, like–trying to get this at a personal level. I think as a society, as a province, we care about older people. We have cultures and First Nations, Indigenous cultures–important kind of acknowledge- ment of the role of elders in our com munity.

And I want to keep it at that level for a bit. * (19:30) And so that was really a tough feeling, to feel so powerless that this was going to happen. And I guess the other thing for me was that, you know, as we started to learn about things –like I said, I'm sitting there at home minding my own business; I don't need to know all this stuff about housing options and all this kind of stuff–but one of the things we saw that Lions Place was the largest non -profit seniors housing facility in the province; it was the Cadillac. It was a Cadillac.

I guess the other thing I reflect on–what Lions Place has become is we pulled together then–we didn't know what to do but we pulled together a com mittee of family members and residents, right, and it really amazed me–some of these residents. I thought this one guy–he's probably about 75 or some thing; he winds up being 85–who's very active in the com mittee, and this other guy I thought, well, if this person's 85, then this other person's probably the same age–he was 92. And we had to all band together to save the building.

I still remember that our first public protest–so we got all these people in wheelchairs and walkers and everything, and we're standing outside of Smith Street Lofts; that's how we launched the campaign to save Lions Place. We're standing out there and our message was: We don't want Lions Place to become the next Smith Street Lofts. That was our message: It's already happened; we don't want it to happen again. And I think one of the things that's very sad for me is now there just isn't Smith Street Lofts to stand out in front; now the community talks about: We don't want the next Lions Place to happen.

I don't feel good about that. I don't feel good about bei ng a precedent, about we don't want this to happen again, right? And so, I guess, one of the things I think we really need to look at is what do our elderly and senior folks need, right? And as Erika talked about, you know–I'll just focus on Lions Place; that's a loss of 300 units, and I'll talk to you about what it's like there now. We knew it was going to happen that way; we knew that Mainstreet would play the long game. So right now, it's only about 30 per cent of the residents that are seniors in Lions Place.

So we had the Cadillac build- ing in all the province, serving about 300 people. Now there's only 30 per cent that are there. And it's only going to go down further as people need to go to other places to live, as people find the –people really find that they're just living in an apartment block right now; it's not a seniors home. And this past month, I had to move my 96-year-old mother out of there; she'd been there 25 years.

It was her home and–I don't want to focus this on me because there's a lot of people that have a lot worse challenges, right, but I also want to bring some–you know, what's the impact of these things on a per sonal level. And it just wasn't the place for seniors anymore. We worry about the amenities that were in there: cafeteria and the store. The younger people don't use the cafeteria; younger people don't nee d the store.

People who remain there do need it because there's a lot of seniors–a number of seniors that live there that can't afford assisted living and that meal is really important to them; that's what helps them hang in to a place that they really are struggling with. So, you know, I think we need to think about those kind of things. And like I say, I think that's a bipartisan issue. We care about seniors. But I think the previous govern ment needs to understand that that was a colossal error, and that that's a long-term legacy that has impacted a lot of families.

And I just want to be, you know, blunt that–I get it, there's a role for profit-driven housing in our com- munity, but there's an also an im portant role for non-profit, non-market housing. And it doesn't have to be ideological; the numbers just don't add up. People can't afford the rents, and that we need to have a way of meeting the needs of folks like that. So that

264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 is a long-term impact on families. And I think we need to understand that there is an im portant role for non-profit, but I would argue rent -geared-to-income housing. So I do have, you know, a couple of things to say about the bill. When you're doing community work for a long time, you're like a history library that no one ever sees, because you have all these letters and emails and stuff like that. So I did dig up, because I had sort of a general recollection of where this idea for the gov- ernment to intervene on the sale of housing came from.

And so it was right in the midst of when Lions Housing had refused to put a pause on the sale and to allow the community and the three levels of govern - ment to come together to look at an option.

And one of the things –you know, I was going to include it in a package, but I just thought I'll wing it– but one of the things that was really important at that time is one of the Cabinet ministers from the federal government, Dan Vandal, sent a letter to the chair of Lions Place to say the federal government funded this program, this housing initiative, this is public money, we think it needs to remain a non-profit housing entity and we're willing to work with the com munity that wants to look at an alternative. Lions' board refused any of that kind–those kind of options.

And so we were left with needing to say, well, when buildings get sold, what do you do? So it's interesting, and this is why, you know, I think it's a – kudos to the public sector servants, is there was a– The Chairperson: Tom, I thank you for your comments. I do ask for leave for Tom to finish his final remarks. Is there leave? [Agreed] Please continue. T. Simms: So it was a staff person connected with CMHC that was on our working group, and he shot us an email and said, look, there's legis lation in Quebec that prevents the sale of non-profit and social housing. And that's where it started.

We brought that forwar d to the government at the time, we brought it forward to the op position parties. And so this idea around Bill 12 really came from the community and the crisis of the sale of Lions Place. So I'm pleased and supportive of the bill. I appre- ciate and support the recommendations that the Right to Housing Coalition has made. And I would have one amendment that I would really want to focus on that I would like the government to consider.

And that is the amendment to have the responsibility for the decision and the author- ity around the sale of non-profit housing be vested in the minister and not the bureaucratic entity. Now, we've heard from the bureaucratic side of things of the sort of the minutiae of all around that. I get that, but I think the general public needs to know. And I'm more concerned about future govern - ments, not so much this govern ment, that there is direct political respon sibility for decisions that are being made. That when it's– The Chairperson: Thank you so much, Tom. Are there any questions? Ms.

Smith: So I want to thank you, Tom. You know, you've been a huge advocate for years and years and years, and you've done so much work not only with seniors but with our youth. I want to thank you for sharing your story. I'm an emotional person, so you got me. And, you know, seeing all those seniors and seeing the decimation of community, really. Like, that was a com munity. Those seniors had to move and leave each other. And we've seen that and we want to ensure that that doesn't happen ever again with our public housing.

So this bill is meant to protect our housing that we have and ensure in future gov ern- ments that that doesn't happen. The Chairperson: Thank you, Minister Smith. Thank you. Tom? * (19:40) T. Simms: Yes, no. I appreciate that and I appreciate your description is: it was a commu nity, and it feels like that commu nity's getting smaller and smaller at Lions Place, and that's hard. And, yes, I guess, just quickly to say around the ministerial responsibility is that if there's perception of wiggle room in future govern ments that, oh, well, it's Manitoba Housing that made the decision; it isn't us.

That doesn't help the community hold future gov- ernments accountable. And I would, you know, ask that the government look at making that amend ment. It's not costing you any money. And I would also say that it's consistent with the Quebec legis lation. If the Quebec legis lation is saying the minister needs to have that direct authority,

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 265 we think the Minister of Housing should have that responsibility as well.

So our feeling is that is important for future gov- ernments as we in the community are trying to address these kind of things, and that it needs to be political and not deflected to some kind of bureaucratic entity, that while legally people might understand the i's and t–i's that are dotted and t's are crossed, the general public doesn't understand it and it's easy for a govern- ment to say, well, that was Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation's decision, it wasn't ours, when we know it was, right? So I would urge the government to make that amendment. I think it's small but it's really important.

The Chairperson: Thank you. Questions? MLA Bereza: Thank you, Mr. Simms, for your pre - sentation and the infor mation that you brought here tonight. We will hopefully be proposing some amend- ments that will hopefully encourage more investment into this type of housing. Thank you. T. Simms: Sort of unrelated, but I–when I was sitting in the room, there, I knew I had to say it. My grand- father and father were originally from Portage. So I don't know how long you've lived there, but– An Honourable Member: Sixty-two years. T.

Simms: –sixty-two years, so he was the inspector there, my grandfather, for many years, and I once saw in the paper they were really proud that he was able to help get one of the schools indoor plumbing and moving away from the outhouses, so that's one of our claims to fame in our family. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you–oh, Mr. Bereza. MLA Bereza: Thank you, Mr. Simms. I don't believe I was around at that time. The Chairperson: Thank you, Tom. I will now recall Gerald Brown –oh, sorry. [interjection] Sorry, my apologies.

We will move on to the next bill, bill number–we have another–we've had another written submission from Kevin Rebeck on Bill 8. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Thank you. Bill 23–The Public Interest Expression Defence Act (Continued) The Chairperson: Now we go on to Bill 23, and I would like to call upon David Grant. David, can you please proceed with your presentation. David Grant (Private Citizen): Thank you. Bill 23, based on the prior pre sentations, seems like a great bill here. We've needed this bill for a long time.

Unlike one of the other people who found a problem with a paragraph, I was just so shocked to see it there. I'm so glad that it's going to be helping to encourage people to speak publicly that I didn't nit - pick and look for a problem with it. I just love it the way it is. And it's so much of an im provement over what we have. I'm hoping that it'll encourage more people to do what sometimes is called whistle -blowing, although they've–public speaking doesn't have to be that.

Too many good folks in Manitoba know of malfeasance and want to report it but they also know they can be victim to prosecution and other 'victive' –vindictive stuff. I've suffered some of that. Ms. Hancock spoke before, has experienced that to a much greater extent, but they still want to do the right thing. Until the pro tections offered in this bill become law in Manitoba and until the good folks who want to speak out in public know that they are protected, much is wrong with our corporations and institutions will not be fixed. So I have great hopes for it.

I was selected to serve on a very im portant bill– sorry, on a very im portant board. While there, I dis - covered much that was wrong. I was able to use normal board processes and motions to correct some of these. In one other case, 10 years ago, I spoke here to bill 21. I followed the organi zation's rules for board members speaking in public. We were restricted to only speak in favour of actions of that board. So as an action of the board two years before, and I spoke here in favour of that action of the board.

The person who didn't like me speaking then decided that no member of that board could ever speak in public, which is pretty different because what

266 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 happened is the board had made a rule that the organ- ization could make charitable donations to registered charities. Bill 21, 10 years ago, said the organization could make donations. I saw a big difference there: regist - ered charity or just donations to the next -door neigh- bour. And that's what I spoke to, is having bill 21 incorporate what the board had already passed. Anyway, that was seen as a huge violation of trust and so they hounded me for a while and I ended up having to run away.

But anyway, the Bill 23, if it had been in place, would have made it simpler for justice and public interest to prevail. Ironically, in the act that governed that organi z- ation,

section 56 says that no action shall proceed against somebody acting in the public interest. So they ignored their own act to harass me and chase me out of the organization. So that's something else that I'm not sure how you deal with that in Bill 23: if some organization has such crazy leadership, draconian leadership that they're going to ignore their own rules, are they going to ignore Bill 23? So just offer that as a cautionary tale that even where there's a pro tection built into

an act, which is good, bad people may still harass good people when they're doing a good thing. So I'm going to leave that to you. And thank you very much, so much, for bringing this bill forward, and I look forward to it becoming law. The Chairperson: Thank you, David. Questions? Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you very much, Mr. Grant, once again, for your pre sentation. And nobody knows public advocacy like you. You're here for all the commit tees and we ap preciate that and protecting your voice in all ways that we can, I think, is important.

So thanks again for your presentation. D. Grant: And in response, I would point out that there are a lot of cases where people needed this and once it's well known –and again, maybe that's some - thing that one of your people can look at, whether the things that happened to Ms. Hancock could happen after this bill is law. You know, will people still get away with doing nasty things to good people? I would hope not, and if there's a way of rewording some small part of Bill 23 to make sure no nasty people do bad things after this. So thank you, and thank you so much for bringing it forward.

The Chairperson: Thank you, David. Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Mr. Grant, thanks very much. I know you've appeared at any committee that I've been at and certainly bring good perspectives forward. Appreciate you attending com- mittee all the time and having your voice heard. So thank you. D. Grant: It's not just a hobby in retirement. It's–I've been involved in provincial politics for 60 years now.

In the old days, it was just helping get the premier of Ontario elected and stuff, but it's been a lifelong hobby of being–participating and trying to make things better, because you guys are how Manitoba is going to get better, both sides, and anything I can offer to help is definitely worth my time. And thank you very much for the time here. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Grant. I would like to now call Ms. Heather Fast. Ms. Fast, please go ahead with your presentation. * (19:50) Heather Fast (Manitoba Eco -Network): Good 'neening'–good evening, everyone.

My name's Heather Fast, and I'm the policy advocacy director at the Manitoba Eco-Network. The Manitoba Eco -Network is a non -profit reg- istered charity which seeks to strengthen Manitoba's environmental community with the goal of protecting our environment for the benefit of current and future generations. I'm a lawyer and a legal academic who spent a long time working with the grassroots com munity to find ways to improve access to justice in Manitoba. So I'm extremely pleased to be here today to support the passage of Bill 23, The Public Interest Express ion Defence Act.

Bill 23 will create a new legal pathway to protect citizens speaking up about matters of public interest

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 267 and discourage the use of litigation as a means of limiting discussion and debate. This type of frivolous lawsuit is also often referred to as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or a SLAPP suit. Anti-SLAPP legislation, like Bill 23, is an important mechanism for improving procedural justice, ensuring those advocating for public interest do not feel intimidated or afraid to speak up.

I've been seeking the adoption of anti -SLAPP legislation in Manitoba, modelled after the ULCC and Ontario's act for many years, both through my work at the Manitoba Eco-Network and my academic studies as a Ph.D. candidate, which have focused on identifying legal mechanisms that can be adopted at the prov incial level to facilitate access to justice for Manitobans. Unsurprisingly, anti -SLAPP legis lation is often recommended as a means of protecting citizens from frivolous lawsuits.

Community members have spoken with the Eco-Network about their fear of legal reper- cussions for speaking up about public interests. For example, we've heard from citizens who've received cease and desist letters for making a Facebook post about their environmental concerns. Many can– citizens will discontinue their advocacy activities when faced with a legal threat, as the potential legal and financial burden is extremely overwhelming.

The adoption of anti -SLAPP legis lation like Bill 23 will help strengthen the ability of Manitobans to advocate on behalf of them selves and their com - munities without facing severe legal and financial consequences. Anti-SLAPP laws help protect vulnerable citizens such as survivors of gender-based violence when they disclose or report the violence they have experienced. Anti-SLAPP also protect those who study, report and publish about matters of public interest f rom being intimidated or silenced by costly, time -consuming lawsuits.

The Manitoba Eco- Network has had a number of great discussions over the last few years with the Department of Environment and Climate Change about our policy and law reform recommendations and the need for anti -SLAPP legislation such as Bill 23. We appreciate the time that's been spent listen ing to us, both by Minister Schmidt and Minister Moyes. Bill 23 has also given the Eco-Network the oppor- tunity to build a new connection with Minister Wiebe and his staff at the Department of Justice and discuss our thoughts on the bill.

It's nice to feel heard by the Manitoba government and see action being taken to protect public interest advocates. However, there is one big problem with Bill 23 that I hope can be fixed today.

Section 4(2) of Bill 23 could result in situations where, when a legal pro- ceeding involves an injunction, the filing of a dis - missal motion under

section 3 of the act will not pause the proceeding, even if the injunction ends up being meritless. We think this exception weakens the protec tions offered by the bill. There should be an opportunity for the proceeding to be paused even when injunctions are involved. As a result, we recom mend removing

section 4(2) from the bill. Our en gagement with Minister Wiebe and his team seemed to demonstrate a clear interest from the department in justice in improving protec tions for those speaking up about public interests. Next week, when I deliver the lecture on public advocacy to my law students that I rescheduled to be with you here today and we watch this recording in class, I hope I'll be showing them an example of democracy in action; of elected officials actively listening and changing proposed legis lation to better protect Manitobans. We want to see a version of Bill 23 that aligns with the approach used in the ULCC and Ontario acts, meaning no

section 4(2), to ensure there are no gaps in the protec tion of individuals and organizations speaking up about matters of public interest. Although the version of Bill 23 that was intro - duced is not perfect–if I was marking it in my class, I'd give it maybe C+ or a B–it's my hope that we will see the removal of

section 4(2) of the bill today so I can assign The Public Interest Expression Defence Act the grade Manitobans deserve, which is a big, fat A+. Thanks for your time and consid eration of my remarks. The Chairperson: Thank you so much. Mr. Wiebe: Yes, thanks so much, Ms. Fast, for your presentation. Looking to get that A+ tonight, but I ap- preciate it. Your support really means a lot, because not only are you representing the Manitoba Eco-Network who lives and breathes this reality every day and really tries navigate these issues, but your academic work has really lent –lends a lot credibility to this issue as well. We appreciated the meeting and the opportunity

268 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 to talk through some of the –your concerns around

section 4(2). And yes, we're looking forward to working with you. And thank you again for your pre sentation, and thank you for the students who are following along and going to watch this later. We hope to see them in committee, following your lead and partici pating in democracy. The Chairperson: Thank you, Minister Wiebe. H. Fast: Thanks. I hope to be back, and hopefully in the future I will be Dr. Fast instead of Ms. Fast, and you can hear about my study results. The Chairperson: Thank you. Anything else? Mr. Balcaen: Well, thank you for your pre sentation and, again, doing the advocacy.

I also look forward to seeing the students here in the future, because that's what this–committees are about, is having that. And it was good to hear a –finally a passing grade for this government. So thank you. H. Fast: Thank you. And I just –I ap preciate your comments made today about the importance of hearing from the public. I very much agree. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Hon. Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): Thank you for coming here today, and thank you for being such a phenomenal example to your students.

I think that it's so im portant that we have instructors, professors, folks in positions like yours doing the good work of showing students exactly what this looks like in action. So thank you so much for doing that. H. Fast: Thanks, and I'll do my best to prepare them for when they come speak to you. The Chairperson: Wonderful. Thank you. I would now like to call upon James Beddome. My apologies if I mispronounced your name. Floor Comment: No, you're good. The Chairperson: Perfect. James, please proceed with your presentation.

James Beddome (Private Citizen): Thank you very much to the committee; thank you very much to the Chairperson. I'm very happy to be presenting here today in support of Bill 23, the public interest expression and defence act. I also am going to echo–and I will get into that momentarily–echo some of the comments of the previous presenters, that I believe that subsection 2 of

section 4 should be removed from the bill. But overall, this is a good bill. I do want to address an opening matter, which–been lucky enough to present many times to this standing committee. This is a some what unique process in Manitoba; I think only one other province in Canada has the process where anyone in the public can come in and I think we've heard some great comments today.

So I'll make a sug gestion, which is: I know – I believe the legis lative rules provide two days minimum notice for creating a standing committee together; I would suggest upping that to a week so the members of the public can have more time to prepare better submissions and better participate in this process. So just as an opening matter, I want to put that on the record once again, and I hope this may be– might be the last time I have to put it on the record: because I see changes as a result of that. Now, once again, this is a good bill.

It serves to create a legal tool to reduce the risk that legal action will limit the expression that relates to matters of public interest. I'm speaking today as a private citizen, but I will state I'm called to the b ar in Manitoba and, prior to a recent career shift about a year ago, I spent 10-plus years working as a lawyer, primarily in litigation. Couple of adages that I found myself constantly telling clients over my decade long of practice was: There's no justice in the justice system.

And the sad reality of that is sometimes it's relative that we need changes in the laws, but more often than not , it's a reality of the inequity in the justice system. This bill isn't going to solve massive econ- omic issues, but the reality is, the justice system is hugely inaccessible for people: ten, twenty- five, a hundred thousand goes very quickly. That's just the reality of it and it makes it in accessible. I remember advice that I got was that, as I was about to go do my articles from a lawyer, was realize how expensive we are: even most lawyers can't afford to hire lawyers. * (20:00)

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 269 So the reality of our justice system is that, very often, it's for large organi zations and very wealthy people. And that's some thing that this bill provides: a small tool that will help improve that. Another adage that I often ended up telling people is: Even if you ultimately win the suit, just by being sued, you lose, in many respects. Once again, it's a cost issue, right? Because the reality is, once you're served with a claim, you have to respond. If you don't respond, default judgment will likely be–will be awarded against you.

The other party's going to get what they want. And even if you do respond and you fight the suit, the reality is that, typically, costs are awarded on what's known as –lawyers call it tariff basis, which means in accordance with the cost tariffs laid out in the King's Bench rules. And you can't say for sure– depends how many hours the lawyer will take –but I would suggest that, typically, that's about half to one third of the actual costs that people incur. And this is why I think in some ways this bill provides some good provisions, specifically

section 6, which provides costs on a full indemnity basis, which means 100 per cent basis. It also allows for the dis - cretion of judges to adjust that award as they see fit. And I want to highlight the discretion of judges because I think that's very im portant. I want to make it clear that, you know, I want to get ahead of any of the sky-is-falling arguments that might appear, right? Judges are highly competent in Manitoba. They are good at assessing claims, deter mining the merits of claims. That's what they do. So I think we need to realize that.

And I think realize that–you know, entrust our judges to have that discretion. And this bill simply creates the option of moving forward with the motion to dismiss a proceeding where the judge, on the –on balance–it's outlined in

section –sorry, I apologize –

section 3, I believe, where they sort of outline the balance–balancing weight that the judge is going to take to look on balance. Is this–purpose of this proceeding, is it intended to suppress public expression? Now, I will say that subsection 4(2) should be removed. And I think, in addressing that, I want to highlight how injunctions typically proceed. Because this doesn't mean we will never see any injunctions. This doesn't mean we won't see people having lega l protections. There is simply an additional tool, an additional motion that people can avail themselves of if they're going to move forward.

But rule 40 of the Court of King's Bench Rules stipulates how an injunction may proceed, and, although it doesn't always happen, I will suggest more often than not, injunctions proceed on a without -notice basis. That's more common than not. So the–what that means is that the other side isn't there. It's an ex -party proceeding, so the other side doesn't get to argue–make their arguments. And now, although lawyers, we have a obligation to be truthful and honest to the court, we also have an obligation to advance our clients' interest.

So you can probably understand, in an adversarial system, when one side presents arguments, the other side doesn't, it makes it certainly–certainly creates some procedural inequity. Then a party, typically, once they've got their judgment, now they need to respond. They need to deal with the injunction and how it's going to be dealt with. The main action, or application as the case may be that originates the proceeding, is honestly very often nominal. It wouldn't make it into King's Bench in terms of quantum of damages. They're usually trivial suits in nuisance or trespass or maybe detinue.

There may be issues of publication. Can't comment on, you know specifics; each case is unique to its own. But the reality is that the actual claim itself is gen - erally very nominal. And so that's why it's important that subsection 4(2) be removed because that injunction itself would be a way to continue to drain a party's resources. It in many ways is nonsensical with the over intention of the bill.

And all it would mean is that the party that then had that injunction would then end up having a motion where the judge would ultimately decide the entire proceeding–whether it has merit or not and whether the intention of it is to suppress public interest. Ultimately, I just wanted to sort of outline that sort of procedural aspect so that I think members of the Legislature understand that. This isn't going to change the world, but it is going to make a meaningful impact.

It is going to create an option for people when they're facing what is colloquially known as SLAPP lawsuits, strategic legal actions against public partici- pation. And it has broad- reaching impacts, as we've heard tonight: labour disputes and injunctions on labour disputes; e nvironmental issues; publications, broad- casters, journalists, they're–I think–abuse survivors. There's the –a broad range of categories. Polit - icians, right?

I mean, you –we–you were all lucky enough to benefit from parliamentary privilege when you speak inside the Legislature, as are parliamen - tarians in Ottawa; however, municipal councils don't have that same benefit. They don't have that same protection. You may not have that same protec tion if

270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 you're acting outside of your course of official duties when speaking in the Legislature. So this has broad-ranging impacts, and it is a good bill, and it will be made a better bill by removing subsection 4(2), and I hope this government passes it. I hope we see this govern ment pass it unanimously, which is what we saw in BC.

It shows that there is a strong, unanimous support to a meaningful bill, and it would mean Manitoba would be the fourth juris dic- tion, as I understand it, in the country, following BC, Ontario and Quebec in imple menting anti- SLAPP legislation protection for the citizens of Manitoba. Thank you very much, subject to any comments you may have. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Wiebe: Yes, thanks very much, Mr. Beddome. Very good to see you again. I appre ciated the thor - ough analysis that you brought to the com mittee tonight.

That kind of insider's perspective, I think is really helpful for us to understand, you know, the impact that this can have in protecting those folks who are vulnerable, and I appreciate your support of this. Again, we met earlier, happy to listen to your concerns around 4(2). Just as a note, you know this is one of the bills that was delayed by the opposition, and so, yes, I think it's a good question, you know, whether there will be a unanimous support. I hope that there is as well. J. Beddome: Yes, I also hope there will be unanimous support.

It's why I actually–I thank you for your meeting, and took an attempt–I hope it's okay to speak to the other side, so to speak. I hope we don't see it that way, because it's about Manitobans, but about understanding the implications of this bill and that– I also want people to understand that it–like, as I said, it isn't Chicken Little; the sky isn't necessarily falling; this isn't going to –you know, it isn't –it's huge, it's important, but it's not going to change everything. It's not going change the world. Systematic inequality is still going to exist.

We're going to have to make massive improve ments on our economic system, a number of changes. But it is a meaningful tool, so I hope, like you, we can see unanimous consent for this, ultimately. The Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Balcaen: James, thank you very much for the – your presentation, and really putting an expert spin on this for us and bringing that forward. It–you know, it's actually very persuasive, some of your comments that you're making here, so we thank that.

And I'll just add to what the minister said, is that yes, we did hold this bill back, and specifically for the reason that we wanted to make sure it was right. We wanted to check with the experts and we wanted to check with people within the law and citizens that are being affected. So, you know, it's important to make sure we get this right. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Balcaen. J. Beddome: Definitely, I agree it's important that we get this right. It–I think it's impor tant we hear from Manitobans, which, you know, I made the comment sort of about the process, and so I don't know.

I put the–I guess I don't really get to ask the questions, but I'm going to ask one anyway, which is sort of, will we be seeing unanimous support? Has decisions been made now that enough time has been there to reflect and consult with experts? The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you for your time. I would now like to call upon Ms. Louise May. She is on Zoom, so Ms. May, I would ask you to turn on your camera and your microphone please. Hi there. Ms. May, please proceed with your pre- sentation. Louise May (Private Citizen): Yes, okay. Thank you very much.

I appreciate the opportunity to come at this from my home. I was unable to get downtown, and this offered me an oppor tunity to share my thoughts on this important bill. I am very supportive of it. I would like to see it go through. I know there are some amendments that have been proposed, and I agree with those amendments.

I guess I'd like to bring my own personal perspec- tive to it, having just been through quite an involved process, which made a lot of headlines around, but it was certainly a case where this bill would have pre- vented myself from being the target of a lawsuit, and others as well. * (20:10) So we talk about this concept of people being intimi- dated to come forward and protect their communities,

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 271 protect the vul nerable people, protect the history: Burton-forward, important concepts that are not being proactively dealt with by our politicians. And that's, I think, where this needs to start, is that, you know, as we progress as humanity if we can move forward with more rigorous ethical debate that we might be able to circumvent some of these things. And really what it comes down to in the situation that I was involved with, which was the protecting and preserving of the St.

Norbert forest–important forest– Lemay Forest–and the im portant heritage asset of a graveyard of over 3,000 identified childr en from the orphanage that was on that site from the early 1900s to 1950, major historical development and, of course, you all know that the Province did step in finally and expropriate. In the months that were quite stressful for myself, I will say, and for many others, and the decisions that I had to make as an individual –and I will say that I'm also a small-business owner. I am 21 years of Aurora Farm in St. Norbert within the city limits – 160 acres.

So I manage land; I manage a busi ness. I have a lot of ethical con siderations in my busi ness, so I am not coming at this thinking that other business owners don't go through those same kind of ethical decisions. But when we have landowners, in this case in particular, who are, it seems, without that sense of community ethics and that those con versations break down entirely, that what we are left with is literally standing in front of bulldozers, literally holding a fire– a sacred Indigenous fire –for months to try to protect and bring awareness.

In my own case, in early January, the injunction that was brought on by the owner, the landowner, the injunction–I should say by the landowner's company–so an incorporated company is able to do– to create an injunction naming many different people. It named over a dozen people and then numer- ous Jane and John Does. So that left them open to simply –I wasn't even named on it originally, and some of the people who were named had no idea why they were being named, for instance.

So this kind of–this shotgun approach–where, you know, a person who has already lost, has already had his proposal turned down at almost every turn, is able to still circumvent all of that and threaten the com- munity by starting to just cut down the trees. And it's just the bullying techniques and the evidence that was gathered was all illegally gathered. The developer in question had a video camera in his sunglasses, we found out. You know, numerous indi- viduals got different kinds of letters from the lawyer that were nonsensical and just simply threatening us.

I found myself having to hire a criminal lawyer to defend myself in a civil case. And of the four counts that were of the contempt, three of them were dropped and the one charge that was –you know, ultimately, I think, the most bullying charge –was that they wanted me to rescind my private prosecution against the developer and the landowner personally, which was the route I chose to take as an individual to try to stop that–to try to stop the trees from cutting down. And it was a tactic, a maneuver that my lawyer has suggested was something I could do personally. I didn't need to have anyone else with me.

I could just go down and file it, and so we did. So this is–you know, and this is coming from–for myself, 40 years of activism. I became an activism – activist in my teens and I have seen many, many different projects and been in different situations. And what we're seeing is this–over these years is this inch-by-inch control that has now led us to this situ- ation where, you know, individuals just are afraid to stand up.

And many, many –I can't speak for them personally, but I will say that I heard from many of the other participants in the Lemay Forest how afraid they were and how they were afraid to go out of their homes because other threats were happening, not just legal. I had someone drive by my house a week before my sentencing hearing, yelling: F you, Louise. A man. And these kind of –like, all these other kinds of bullying techniques that kind of surround the legal thing; very unnerving. So, you know, if we want to–and we're looking at sort of a global sense of loss of democracy.

And so, to me, the only way that we can protect our democracy is to make sure that individuals who have knowledge, who have experience, who are potentially able to view things in a better, ethical way–because we don't have the same ties and constraints–that we're able to step up and that we're able to be present. You know, with the rise of the hatred-based com- munities that seem to ap propriate all of the social maneuvers that we as progressive activists have pioneered and used over and over, this is another affront against democracy that I just–I don't know.

272 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 2025 This bill is a tiny–we have to pass it. We have to pass it. But it's a tiny protection where we need a much bigger protection from the government. I'm sure you are all wrestling with these things on a daily basis, so I am just here to say I hope everyone will be united on making sure that this happens. If we had had this in place, I would have been protected. I would not have had to put myself way on the line to do what I had to do to stop the trees from cutting– coming down. So I'll stop there. The Chairperson: Thank you for your remarks, Ms. May.

Any questions? Mr. Wiebe: Thanks, Ms. May. Wow; what a story. Incredible. Thank you for sharing. I'm glad that we could step up as a govern ment. We can protect Lemay Forest, and I'm glad that we're moving on from that, but I guess I'm just reflecting on the fact that this bill, again, has been delayed. The fact that Manitoba hasn't had this legislation because it was never considered or contemplated or passed– voted against, I guess, is the way to put it –by the previous government.

I guess, maybe just –can you just recount again, just detail how this bill, if it had been in place, the kind of impact it would have had on your situation specifically and the kinds of pressures that you were feeling–and I guess others in–with regards to saving Lemay Forest. The Chairperson: Thank you, Minister Wiebe. L.

May: So first of all, I think I –and someone more knowledgeable than me–James, probably knows this, but–that provinces that have enacted anti -SLAPP legislation, I would think that those developers or, you know, people wanting to threaten would be a little bit more careful, a little bit more reticent to get involved in doing that kind of threatening action against the community, I hope. So there's that kind of preventative measure that– right there. I, myself, am not exactly clear.

You know, does this come in where a judge –so I watched the judge in my case. * (20:20) Like, I mean, I went in front of that judge many times, and I watched her not have the tools to throw it out. And I wonder–again, James maybe could answer this better, or someone else with a more legal mind – that it gives the –I would hope, that this gives the judges a way to pre-emptively say, yes, no, we're not going to allow this to go through in the first place; we're not even going to get to a trial. We're not going to enforce. We're not going to allow this injunction to move forward.

So, you know, I think the injunction that was out against us, the whole big group, that I ended up being the only one who was tried for that injunction –that injunction, I –it had no basis in fact and it had no evidence, you know, talking about the individu als' participation; it was just a big list of names, and, like I said, mine wasn't on it. So even with mine not on it, I was still–they were still able to circumvent that and use it as a tool to shut me down or to attempt to shut me down, personally. So I'm not repre senting any group. I'm an individual.

I just knew that –you know, that that was what I had to do because I knew that we don't have anti-SLAPP legis lation. I knew that that was what they were going to do. They've already proven in several other situations that this is how they operate. So there was no surprise. So to answer your question, I hope it would have curtailed it right from the –snubbed it out right from get-go. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Mr. Balcaen: Again, thank you very much for your presentation and bringing your specific case forward here. It gives us, again, under standing from many different Manitobans.

Thank you. The Chairperson: Ms. May? L. May: You're welcome. Thanks for having me. The Chairperson: Thank you so much. I will move to the next speaker, Ms. Diane Bousquet. She is on Zoom. Ms. Bousquet, I would ask you to turn on your camera and your microphone, please. Ms. Bousquet, can you please turn on your camera and your microphone? Ms. Bousquet, please continue with your presen- tation.

October 8, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 273 Ms. Bousquet, we can't hear you. Can you please ensure that your microphone is on? Diane Bousquet (Private Citizen): Hello? Hello? The Chairperson: There we go. Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Bousquet, please proceed with your pre sen- tation. D. Bousquet: Hi, my name is Diane Bousquet, Shining Flowering Thunderbird Woman. I am a Métis woman of Bear Clan, a rights holder and a land defender of the Lemay Forest.

I have stood alongside others fighting for the search for Brady landfill where communities continue to seek justice, truth and the return of our missing and murdered sisters. I have also walked from Portage la Prairie residential school, a place my father survived, all the way to Winnipeg, to the homestead of my mother's 'ancestrial' homestead. Every step of that walk was

an act of ceremony, prayer and peaceful advocacy, reconnecting generations separated by trauma, calling this province to remember these acts in search for our sisters. And on my walk from Portage la Prairie and defending the Lemay Forest, I've been assaulted, arrested and criminalized for standing in peace. These experiences are why I'm here today. I come before you in strong support of Bill 23. I am not a lawyer or a politician.

I am a woman with lived experi- ence of being silenced, ignored and restricted for speaking the truth, for defending land, for protecting the memory of children and for standing up for what's right. For years I've spoken in ceremony and in advo- cacy for lands like the Lemay Forest, a place of sacred–sorry, a sacred place in St. Norbert that holds deep cultural, spiritual and significant meaning for our people. In that journey, I've witnessed how systems have often protected those with power and privilege and not those acting in good faith.

I've seen justice systems used as a weapon to discourage truth rather than a shield to protect it. Bill 23 brings hope because it recognizes that public participation, truth- telling and peaceful advo- cacy are not threats. They are essential to a healthy democracy and to recon ciliation in action. While I fully support this bill, I respectfully ask that

section 4 be amended to include the protec tion of individuals facing injunctions, restrictions, arrests or legal orders meant to silence peaceful advocacy or expression on matters of public interest. Right now

section 4–mainly a civil action like defamation, but in reality many advocates, Indigenous land defenders, whistle-blowers and communities face injunctions, arrests and court orders that do more than restrict speech. They cut us off from our lands, our ceremonies and our sacred responsibilities. In my own advocacy, these injunctions did not only limit my right to public participation, they robbed me of my ancestral rights, banning me and others from our ancestral lands and from conducting ceremonies that have been carried out since time immemorial.

These are not –these were not restrictions based on harms I've caused, but the discomfort of the truth I was bringing forward. Meanwhile, others have used the justice system through threats, injunctions and procedural tools to silence those working for account- ability. That's why I recom mend that this

section be amended to include the following language: this act applies to any proceedings that arise from the expres- sion of a matter of public interest, included but not limited to acts of defamation or injunctions, arrests or orders to seek to restrain or penalize public interest expressions or peaceful advocacy by individuals acting in good faith. This amend ment would make sure that the la

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	43-2-ju4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	43rd 2nd hansardpdf ju4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ec417a9ff38854c00a0d34d93d594e2bd179cdeb

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