Manitoba Committee Hansard — Justice Committee, Sitting 2 (43rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

43-2-ju2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session – Forty-Third Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Justice Chairperson Mr. Logan Oxenham Constituency of Kirkfield Park Vol. LXXIX No. 2 - 6 p.m., Thursday, April 24, 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 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 Vacant Spruce Woods

31 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE Thursday, April 24, 2025 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Logan Oxenham (Kirkfield Park) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Tyler Blashko (Lagimodière) ATTENDANCE – 6 — QUORUM – 4 Members of the committee present: Hon. Min. Wiebe Messrs. Balcaen, Blashko, King, Oxenham, MLA Redhead APPEARING: Ron Schuler, MLA for Springfield-Ritchot Josh Guenter, MLA for Borderland Hon. Nahanni Fontaine, MLA for St. Johns Hon. Uzoma Asagwara, MLA for Union Station Kelvin Goertzen, MLA for Steinbach Lauren Stone, MLA for Midland Hon.

Lisa Naylor, MLA for Wolseley PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 9–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act

(2) Keith Horn, Retail Cannabis Council of Manitoba Sharon Clark, Big Buds Cannabis Sales Bill 32–The Resi dential Tenancies Amendment Act (Measures to Address Unlawful Activities) David Grant, private citizen Sel Burrows, Point Powerline Bill 43–The Human Rights Code Amendment Act Desirée Pappel, L'Association des éducatrices et éducateurs franco-manitobains Derek deVries, Park City Gospel Church Christine Ronceray, private citizen Nick Klassen, private citizen Michael Sullivant, Pembina Valley Baptist Church Joshua Shetter, private citizen Naomi Letkemann, private citizen Monica Wiebe, private citizen Candace Sabel, private citizen Tara Sheppard-Luangkhot, Organization for Peace, Equity and Nonviolence Jennifer Friesen, private citizen David Grant, private citizen Karen Sharma, Manitoba Human Rights Commission Don Woodstock, private citizen Kathy Harris, private citizen Caleb Clay, private citizen Helina Zegeye, Sunshine House Barbara Bendera, private citizen Gina McKay, Canadian Union of Public Employees– Manitoba Kristine Barr, private citizen Charlie Eau, Trans Manitoba Michaela Chotka, private citizen Fae Johnstone, Queer Momentum Parker Morran, private citizen Jen Seguin, private citizen Rachamim Enoch Coad, private citizen Kai Solomon, private citizen Michael Shaw, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 43–The Human Rights Code Amendment Act Jeff Burnard, private citizen Annika Baer, private citizen David Krahn, private citizen Gary Driedger, private citizen Darryl Harder, private citizen Scott Ryman, private citizen Dawson Krahn, private citizen Cornelio Dyck, private citizen Caitlin Wall, private citizen Brayden Friesen, private citizen Mike McFarlane, private citizen Jorden Wall, private citizen John Krahn, private citizen Emily Baker, private citizen Vincent Elias, private citizen Steven McGillivary, private citizen Geoff Bergen, private citizen Braden Wall, private citizen Dylan Young, private citizen Raymond Garand, private citizen Rosalie Feener, private citizen Chas van Dyck, private citizen Jonathan Van Dyck, private citizen

32 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 Joanne van Dyck, private citizen Leon Laidlaw, private citizen Raven Hebert-Lee, private citizen Lynne Granke, private citizen Megan Wray, private citizen Erik Thomson, University of Manitoba Faculty Association Sarah Schira, private citizen Breanne Wall, private citizen Fraser Young, private citizen Doug Derksen, private citizen Katie Derksen, private citizen Miriam Robern, private citizen Brooke Reed, private citizen Kelly Hughes, private citizen Darlene Blatz, private citizen Sandra Schira, private citizen Lucy Delgado, private citizen Amanda Morris, private citizen Sara Tarrant, Parents and Relatives Allied with Transgender Individuals of Manitoba Owen Toews, private citizen Maddi Reed, private citizen Robert Martens, private citizen Anny Chen, private citizen Morgan Schroeder, private citizen Emèt Eviatar, private citizen Hillary Siemens, private citizen Katie Leitch, private citizen Tara Forshaw, private citizen Leah Krahn, private citizen Leo Cortens, private citizen Kaitlyn Duthie-Kannikkatt, private citizen Joel Siemens, private citizen Heather Krahn, private citizen Jonathan Janzen, private citizen George Krahn, private citizen Sierra Krahn, private citizen Stokely Lindo, private citizen Chris Scott, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1505 Jason Hodson, private citizen Robert Lentowich, private citizen Victoria Hornblower, private citizen Sarah Borbridge, private citizen Joe Curnow, private citizen Melanie Janzen, private citizen Ellen Bees, private citizen Jeff Patteson, private citizen Kathleen Wilson, private citizen Jennifer Watt, private citizen Karlie Higgins, private citizen Fenton Litwiller, private citizen Raelene Hall, private citizen Mary Peladeau, private citizen Kathy Bergen, private citizen Shannon Moore, private citizen Lani Zastre, private citizen Joan Kirouac, private citizen Natalie Wiebe, private citizen Aimee Rice, private citizen Cale Gushulak, private citizen David Camfield, private citizen Shannon March, private citizen Elizabeth Matte, private citizen Cathy Pleskach, private citizen Timothy Giesbrecht, private citizen Wayne Serebrin, private citizen Greg McFarland, private citizen Gretchen Derige Cortens, private citizen Cherie Schellenberg, private citizen Debbie Whyte, private citizen Sara Patteson, private citizen Sarah Leeson-Klym, private citizen Noah Schulz, private citizen Garry Schellenberg, private citizen Marley Pauls, private citizen Shane Thevenot, private citizen Marianne Shaibu, private citizen Joan Armstrong, private citizen Cameron Griffiths, private citizen Grace Carey, private citizen Emmanuella Shaibu, private citizen Elis Wautier, private citizen Jacklyn de Visser, private citizen Zacharie Montreuil, private citizen Anna Levin, private citizen Helene Bernardin, private citizen Caleb Mcneish, private citizen Louis Richard, private citizen Jacqueline Rados, private citizen Orvie Dingwall, private citizen Leyla Shahsavar, private citizen Alexis Miller, private citizen Mary Richard, private citizen Laurie McDougall, private citizen Sharon Vandenbosch, private citizen Kyle Ross, Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union Andrew Single, private citizen Sherise Fleury, private citizen Cortney Pachet, private citizen Carla Gervais, private citizen Nicole Trottier, private citizen Robyn Dyck, private citizen Jo Turner, private citizen Jennifer Nembhard, private citizen

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 33 Shauna Neault-Pawlychyn, private citizen Rosalie Madden, private citizen Vicenza Enns, private citizen Lindsay Kane, private citizen Mark Derksen, private citizen Elena Anciro, private citizen Isabelle Costanzo, private citizen Roan Regan, private citizen Amanda Mondaca, private citizen Carolynn Derksen, private citizen Gail Matheson, private citizen Gilbert Vielfaure, private citizen Victor Mondaca, Nahuen Consultation Hunter Reynolds, private citizen Alexandra Altunbash, private citizen Kaitlyn Mitchell, private citizen Élyse LeBlanc, private citizen Stacy Cardigan Smith, private citizen Ashley Walklett, private citizen Luca Gheorghica, Poverty Awareness & Community Action Barbara Cowan, private citizen Jill Carr, private citizen Miranda Hutlet, private citizen Ruth Baines, private citizen Lorraine Bisson, private citizen Jennifer Hancharyk, private citizen Jacques Lavack, private citizen Michael Van Damme, private citizen Harv Enns, private citizen Natalie Mark, private citizen Jean-Paul Hutlet, private citizen Erin Bergen, private citizen Dorothy Giesbrecht, private citizen Lise Lavack, private citizen Reginald Giesbrecht, private citizen Kay Maskiw-Connelly, private citizen Jen Gieg, private citizen Angela De Koninck, private citizen Donald De Koninck, private citizen Ivy Fraser, private citizen Kathleen McCandless, private citizen Alexander Gregovski, private citizen John Lamont, private citizen Denis Robert, private citizen Jane Gattinger, private citizen Erika Couto, private citizen Brittany Priest, private citizen Jennifer Demare, private citizen Gillian Moore, private citizen Kyle Coffey, private citizen George Gervais, private citizen Danielle Chammartin, private citizen Sara O'Leary, private citizen Tim Killoran, private citizen Derek Pena, private citizen Chantel Gueret, private citizen Erik Bonnefoy, private citizen Christine Musick, private citizen Kimberly Manaigre, private citizen Gareth Priest, private citizen Daniel Malo, private citizen Chantal Schriemer, private citizen Helene Tymchen, private citizen Meaghan Madden, private citizen Sabrina Gil, private citizen Sandra Hernandez, private citizen Anna Weier, private citizen Lisa Lavack, private citizen Rafael Gil, private citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bills 9 – The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act

(2) Bill 13 – The Minor Amendments and Corrections Act, 2025 Bill 32 – The Residential Tenancies Amend ment Act (Measures to Address Unlawful Activities) Bill 35 – The Manitoba Public Insurance Corpor- ation Amendment Act Bill 36 – The Drivers and Vehicles Amend ment and Highway Traffic Amendment Act Bill 43 – The Human Rights Code Amendment Act * * * Clerk Assistant (Ms. Katerina Tefft): 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?

MLA Eric Redhead (Thompson): I nominate MLA Oxenham. Clerk Assistant: Mr. Oxenham has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Oxenham, will you please take the Chair. The Chairperson: Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations?

34 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 MLA Redhead: I nominate MLA Blashko. The Chairperson: MLA Blashko has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, MLA Blashko is elected Vice-Chairperson.

This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 9, The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amend ment Act; Bill 13, The Minor Amendments and Corrections Act, 2025; Bill 32, The Resi dential Tenancies Amend ment Act (Measures to Address Unlawful Activities); Bill 35, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amend- ment Act; Bill 36, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend- ment and Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Bill 43, The Human Rights Code Amendment Act.

I would like to inform all attendants that a second meeting of the Standing Com mittee on Justice to consider these bills has been announced for Wednesday, April 30, 2025, at 9 a.m. in room 254. I would also like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjourn- ment. A standing committee meeting to consider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause by clause of a bill, except by unanimous consent of the committee.

Lastly, I would like to inform all members of the public in the gallery of the rules of decorum for standing com mittees. Please note that any partici - pation from the gallery is not allowed. Examples of specific actions that are not allowed include clapping, cheering or interrupting presentations. Taking photos or videos of the meeting is also not allowed. And, please, set your phones to mute. I thank everyone in advance for their co-operation. A number of written submissions on Bill 43 have been received and provided to committee members on the MLA portal.

Does the com mittee agree to have these docu - ments appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Also, due to the volume of written submissions that we are receiving, is there leave of the com mittee for all future written submissions to Bill 43 to be included in Hansard until consid eration of the bill at committee is complete, with the under standing that they will be frequently uploaded to the MLA portal for committee members to view? [Agreed] Prior to proceeding with the public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in a committee.

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

If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time , they will be removed from the presenters list. The proceedings of our meeting–[interjection] I would ask members of the gallery to please limit their interactions with the committee. The proceedings of our meetings are reco rded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. [interjection] Thank you. 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 Hansard to turn on the mics.

I will note for members that we have on our presenters list for Bill 43 three presenters who reside outside the province of Manitoba who wish to present virtually. In accordance with our rule 91(2)(b), except by unanimous consent of the com mittee or wri tten permission of the House leaders, only the first two members of the public to register to present to a bill who reside outside the province of Manitoba may present virtually to a standing committee considering legislation.

Therefore, I ask if there is leave for the additional virtual out -of-province presenter to present to the committee. [Agreed] On the topic of deter mining the order of public presentations, I will also note that we have out- of- town presenters in attendance, marked with an asterisk on the list. We also have a presenter who wishes to give their pre sentation in French, marked with a double asterisk on the list. With these considerations in mind, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations?

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 35 Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I propose that we hear French presentations first to accommodate our translator, followed by all presenters to Bill 9 through 36 numerically, followed by out-of-town presenters to Bill 43 who are here in person, followed by all other presenters in orde r of registration.

The Chairperson: It has been proposed that we hear French presentations first to accommodate our trans - lator, followed by all presenters to Bill 9 though 36, followed by out-of-town presenters to Bill 43 who are here in person, followed by all other presenters in order of registration. Is that agreed? [Agreed] * (18:10) I will now–Minister Wiebe. Mr. Wiebe: I–just asking leave of the com mittee if there's a willingness of the committee to allow for an opening statement before presenters.

I know, generally, as part of our process, opening statements happen before the bill is debated or is considered clause by clause. What I'm wondering is if there's leave of the com- mittee that we could do our opening statements now. I know there's a lot of presenters here. Might give us an opportunity to, you know, address the concerns that some folks have. Also, to encourage a healthy debate here this evening. So I'm asking for leave of the committee. Some Honourable Members: Agreed. An Honourable Member: No. The Chairperson: I heard a no. Leave has been denied. Thank you for your patience, folks.

We will now proceed with public presentations. Bill 43–The Human Rights Code Amendment Act The Chairperson: Okay, I will now call on Mrs. Desirée Pappel. Please proceed with your presentation. Desirée Pappel ( L'Association des éducatrices et éducateurs franco-manitobains): Bonsoir. Je m'appelle Désirée Pappel, et j'enseigne depuis 2008 dans la Division scolaire franco- manitobaine. Je suis également la présidente de l'Association des éducatrices et éducateurs franco-manitobains.

Je vous adresse la parole parce que je me soucie de la sécurité de mes élèves, et je pense que la loi modifiant le Code pour les droits de la personne pour inclure la protection de l'expression de genre est une étape importante pour la sécurité de tous les élèves.

Dans un monde où les savoirs et le savoir -faire sont tissés de mésinformation et de désinformation, où la diversité de valeurs et de croyances embrouille parfois ce qui est dans le meilleur intérêt de nos élèves les plus à risque, où le malaise de l'un prend parfois le dessus sur ce qui est une question de santé, de sécurité ou de survie pour un autre, il est nécessaire de rendre explicites, précises et visibles des lois en soutien à toute personne de la diversité de genre pour : (1) renforcer les savoirs et savoir-faire de nos communautés face aux enjeux 2ELGBTQIA+ et de la diversité de genre; (2) valider et soutenir les bonnes pratiques que certains membres des communautés actualisent déjà et rehausser celles de ceux qui cherchent à améliorer les leurs; (3) éliminer l'incertitude et les inquiétudes dans les actions en soutien à la diversité de genre, ainsi que dans les réactions face aux propos haineux, nous permettant d'avancer de façon solidaire dans toutes nos communautés.

Ce changement à la loi s'aligne avec le rapport de recherche, Des nôtres : Expériences vécues en milieu minoritaire, familial et communautaire par les jeunes 2ELGBTQ vivant en situation linguistique minoritaire dans la province du Manitoba, publié au printemps 2024 par le Collectif LGBTQ, l'Université de Saint-Boniface en col laboration avec le Conseil jeunesse provincial. Ce rapport présente des données probantes récentes d'expériences vécues par notre jeunesse du Manitoba d'expression française et propose de créer des politiques reliées à l'inclusion de la diversité de genre.

Selon ce même rapport, 39,2 pour cent des répondants ont été victimes de discrimination fondée sur leur identité de genre en milieu scolaire. Une loi renouvelée avec des précisions à l'égard de l'expression du genre contribuerait à améliorer ces statistiques et favoriserait l'ouverture et l'empathie aux autres. De plus, face à l'adversité et l'animosité croissantes ciblées vers ce groupe dans l e monde actuel, nous en sortirons plus forts si nous avançons d'un front commun.

L'AÉFM donc vers–vient donc, pardon, vers vous pour son appui à la loi renouvelée qui protège et soutient un de nos groupes les plus vulnérables. Le danger d'attendre pour faire un tel changement donne le message qu'au Manitoba, c'est discrétionnaire, ou ce n'est pas une préoccupation de respecter l'expression de genre de tous. Ceci peut être nuisible au bien- être

36 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 et à la sécurité des membres de cette communauté, y inclut les élèves de nos écoles. Nous savons que les membres de l'A ÉFM se préoccupent beaucoup de leurs élèves et veulent faire la bonne chose. Ils ont cependant besoin de votre leadership, d'un appui formel du système pour se sentir confiants dans leurs initiatives en soutien aux élèves de la diversité de genre. Concrétiser la loi pour protéger l'expression du genre affirme le soutien du gouvernement sans équivoque aux membres de la communauté de la diversité de genre.

Avançons d'un front commun vers un Manitoba plus inclusif pour tous. Translation Good evening. My name is Désirée Pappel, and I have been teaching in the Division scolaire franco -manitobaine since 2008. I am also the president of the Association des éducatrices et éducateurs franco-manitobains. The reason I am standing before you this evening is because I care about the safety of my students, and I believe that amending The Human Rights Code to include the protection of gender expression is an important step in ensuring the safety of all students.

In a world where knowledge and know -how are interwoven with misinformation and disinformation, where diversity of values and beliefs sometimes confuses what is in the best interest of our most at-risk students, where one person's discomfort sometimes takes precedence over what is a matter of health, safety or survival for another, it is necessary to make explicit, precise and visible laws in support of all gender-diverse people in order to: (1) strengthen the knowledge and know -how of our communities with regard to 2SLGBTQIA+ and gender diversity issues; (2) validate and support the good practices that some community members are already implementing, and enhance those of those who are seeking to improve theirs; (3) eliminate uncertainty and concern about actions supporting gender diversity, as well as in reactions to hate speech, so that we can move forward in solidarity in all our communities.

This amendment is in line with the research report, Des nôtres: Expériences vécues en milieu minoritaire, familial et communautaire par les jeunes 2ELGBTQ vivant en situation linguistique minoritaire dans la province du Manitoba published in the spring of 2024 by the Collectif LGBTQ, in collaboration with the University of St. Boniface and the Conseil jeunesse provincial. This report presents recent evidence of the experiences of French -speaking youth in Manitoba and proposes the establishment of policies related to the inclusion of gender diversity.

According to the same report, 39.2 per cent of respondents have experienced discrimination in schools based on their gender identity. Renewed legislation with more specific provisions on gender expression would help to improve these statistics and encourage openness and empathy towards others. Furthermore, in the face of the growing adversity and animosity targeted at this group in today's world, we will emerge stronger if we advance with a united front. The A EFM is therefore coming to you to offer its support for a renewed legislation that protects and supports one of our most vulnerable groups.

The danger of waiting to make such a change sends the message that in Manitoba, respecting gender expres- sion is discretionary, or not a concern. This can be detrimental to the well- being and safety of the members of this community, including the students in our schools. We know that AEFM members care deeply about their students and want to do the right thing. However, they need your leadership and formal support from the system to feel confident in their initiatives to support gender-diverse students.

Enacting legislation to protect gender expression affirms the government's unequivocal support for members of the gender-diverse community. Let's move forward together towards a more inclusive Manitoba for all. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you, Mme Pappel, for your presentation this evening.

I appreciate your perspective as a teacher, someone who, as you said, represents these good practices, which are already happening, but is so concerned with protecting the most vul nerable. And in this case, of course, it's our children. So I just want to thank you for your presentation and thank you f or representing your views here this evening.

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 37 The Chairperson: Are there any other questions for the presenter? Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Thank you to our presenter for attending tonight and bringing your views forward. Much appreciated. The Chairperson: Would you like to respond, Mrs. Pappel? Thank you for your time. That concludes the list of presenters requesting translation services. Are there any other persons in attendance who wish to make a presentation in French?

Seeing none, does the committee agree to permit the translation staff to leave the meeting? [Agreed] We will proceed with the remaining presenters on the list. Bill 9–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act

(2) The Chairperson: I will now call on Keith Horn, on Bill 9. Please proceed with your presentation. Keith Horn (Retail Cannabis Council of Manitoba): Good afternoon, Chairperson, and members of the com- mittee. My name is Keith Horn. I'm speaking today on behalf of the Retail Cannabis Council of Manitoba. I am also Manitoban, a cannabis retailer and a parent who, like many of you, believe that cannabis should only be accessible to adults over 19 years of age. The RCCMB appreciates the opportunity to appear before you today, and want to begin by expressing our strong support for this bill.

This legis lation takes an important step toward aligning cannabis policy with what we all want, to keep cannabis from the hands of the youth while supporting safe, responsi ble access for adults. We commend the government for being responsi- ble to our constant changing industry and for recog- nizing the importance of where and how cannabis is sold. This is especially true in commu nities with existing restricted-access cannabis retail licences.

In communities over 5,000 people where licensed cannabis stores already operate, limiting controlled access licences helps to ensure that cannabis is sold in settings that are purpose -built for security, education and age verification. As retailers, we work hard to uphold these standards. Our stores are designed with controlled entry, trained staff and clear protocols that put safety and compliance at the forefront of every transaction. While we support the bill, we want to highlight a meaningful gap that the government may want to take another look at.

We acknowledge that this proposed bill is cleaning up regulation that was implemented by the previous govern ment. As this industr y continues to evolve, we want to get this right this time, so to adequately address controlled access throughout the entire province. * (18:20) The RCCMB represents several independent retailers based in small rural commu nities with popu lations that are 5,000 people, and we would like to put for - ward feedback on their behalf.

The proposed legis lation will allow controlled access licences in com munities with –communities with populations under 5,000 where restricted access licences already provide access, like in Beausejour. Beausejour has a population of approximately 3,300 people, and this small community is being served well by two restricted access cannabis stores already. However, under the current framework, a gas station or convenience store in the same town can still be eligible for controlled access licence.

We believe this may in tentionally leave these rural com munities subject to the same risk this legis lation proposes to close, and while we support providing access to legal cannabis products in rural and northern communities, most communities are very well served by restricted access licences. To better reflect the goal of protecting young people, we suggest the legis lation consider not only population size but also whether restricted access licences already exist in a community regardless of its size.

This small amendment would ensure that cannabis continues to be sold in settings that fully support edu- cation, compliance and youth protection in both urban and rural Manitoba. It would also ensure access to legal, Health Canada-tested cannabis products through controlled access in com munities where a restricted access model may not be viable. Finally, I want to take a moment to thank the com- mittee for being responsive to small businesses in this emerging industry.

As a small -business owner, I can tell you this legislation represents an important com- mitment to the health and safety of our com munities as well as an under standing of the challenges small businesses face in a rapidly evolving market. Your leadership helps ensure that independent retailers can thrive while still prioritizing the well- being of our communities.

38 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 In closing, we wish to thank you again for your leadership and thoughtful approach to this issue. We believe this bill is a strong step forward, and with these refinements it can serve as a model for balanced community-focused cannabis policy. We're grateful to be part of this conver sation that shapes our industry and look forward to working alongside you to ensure the cannabis industry in Manitoba is safe, responsible and viable for businesses big and small. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Horn, thank you very much for your presentation. I ap preciate the perspective of the industry and appreciate that you're coming to this from a perspective of complying and ensuring that this–the safety, especially of young people, is paramount. I also appreciate your comments around the nuance in different communities. I think part of that challenge is tried to be –capture in the bill.

I do think that we'd be happy to chat with you further and just understand better some of the specific concerns you have, and if there's a way that we can work together, we're happy to do that. Thank you for presenting here this evening. Mr. Trevor King (Lakeside): Thank you, Mr. Horn, for your comments. I ap preciate your comments for support of the bill, and I would hope, yes, the minister would work with you on some of those other concerns with the rural-urban impact. I'm just curious.

In your view, does the exclusion of controlled-access licences in urban areas appear to be based on evidence of greater public safety risk, or does it seem more like an arbitrary distinction? [interjection] The Chairperson: I'm sorry, Mr. Horn, I have to recognize you first before we can–Mr. Horn. K. Horn: Oh, I'm sorry. You see the stores, con- venience stores, opening up that sell cannabis in many different areas. It was designed, I believe, for northern communities where it wasn't as viable to open up a huge store.

But they've been loopholed that they could open up here in Winnipeg and other bigger communities. So now you have convenience stores where chil- dren are allowed. While they're buying a Slurpee, someone can be selling the cannabis. Now, I don't think that was what the intention of this bill was. The Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. King: Mr.

Horn, I'm just curious what your thoughts are if some of the established cannabis busi- nesses were to start to fade away and no longer exist and we're down to a few of them, with this licensing it wouldn't allow other small businesses to open up; it would be more of a monopoly, I would say. So what are your thoughts on that: if smaller retailers, smaller businesses weren't able to open up shop? K. Horn: Well, unfor tunately, there are some esta- blished businesses right now that are failing and are closing up. But right now, I think in the queue, there is 25 new stores to be opened.

There is 239, I believe, open right now. And there was more opening all the time than are closing. So I think right now there is a quite sufficient amount of cannabis stores being opened. And I guess if that ever was to happen where it's becoming a monopoly, I guess that at that time the govern ment would look at changing things. But for the future and the way it is now, there is plenty of stores being opened all the time. The Chairperson: Any further questions? Okay. Thank you for your presentation. I will now call on Sharon Clark from Big Buds Cannabis Sales. Please proceed with your presentation.

Sharon Clark (Big Buds Cannabis Sales): Good afternoon, Chairperson and esteemed com mittee members. My name is Sharon Clark, and I'm here representing Big Buds Cannabis Sales. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today and wish to express our support for this bill and our appre cia- tion for the steps the government have taken thus far. As a Manitoban, a parent and a grandparent, I share your belief that cannabis should be accessible only to adults aged 19 and over.

I have spoken with my friends, families and neighbours regarding the sale of cannabis in front of minors, and the response was the same from everyone: We do not want our children or grandchildren to learn about cannabis by witnessing a sales transaction where they are– when they are a minor. Cannabis use is a conversation that parents will have with the child when they reach an appropriate age. Transcona, the com munity I live in, has a con- venience store with a controlled access licence. And

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 39 during a visit with my grandson, there were three other youth in the store that day, as well. And they were all excitedly picking out their candy; you know, they were in there for the afternoon, just –don't know what they were doing, but they were happy buying stuff. And while they were standing in line with their chips and their Twizzlers, they witnessed a conversa- tion between the clerk and the cannabis customer.

This conversation covered the difference between indica, sativa and hybrid flower, the advantages and disadvantages to each, how truck drivers smoke sativa to stay awake after long days on the road–because this gentleman happened to be a truck driver, and he was talking about he and his friends and how they use sativa–and the differences between numerous brands.

This con versation went on for about 15 minutes, which is definitely a normal dialogue when customers come into our age-restricted stores where youth aren't permitted; we have conversations like that all the time, and they–you know 15, 20 minutes; not a big deal. But these three youth, between the ages of eight and 12, got a real cannabis education that day. And as–also, there was a couple of products I didn't even know about, and I manage a cannabis store. And I was like: Oh, I'm going to order that in and orde r that in. So I learned some things, too.

So this legislation amendment is a significant step toward aligning cannabis policy with our industry's collective goal, and that is to protect youth while ensuring safe and responsi ble access for adults. We commend the govern ment for acknowledgi ng the importance of regulating the sale of cannabis, parti - cularly in com munities with existing age -restricted cannabis stores. In oversaturated urban com munities with more than 5,000 residents, where licensed cannabis stores are readily established, limiting controlled access licences makes perfect sense.

While we whole- heartedly support the bill, I wish to highlight a critical gap that warrants further examination. I'm in regular com munication with in dependent retailers serving small communities of under 5,000 people. The planned legis lation currently allows for con- trolled access licences to open in com munities of under 5,000 people where age -restricted stores are already success fully serving them.

We believe this could unintentionally undermine the original intent behind controlled access licence policy, which was to service underserved com munities with no access to legal cannabis within a 30-mile drive–or, a 30-minute drive. Pardon me.

To more accurately align with the original intent of the licensing policy of protecting youth and vulner- able populations, we recom mend that the legis lation take into account more than population size and deter- mine whether or not the com munity is already suc - cessfully being served by cannabis stores and, if so, uphold the goal of protecting youth and vul nerable populations by prohibiting the opening of additional cannabis stores in these communities. * (18:30) This framework helps to protect vulnerable popu- lations, particularly youth and recovering addicts by ensuring that cannabis is not sold in venues where these transactions are witnessed by those that this law was originally –holy heck, what happened–th at by ensuring that cannabis is not sold in venues where these transactions are witnessed by those this law was currently designed to protect.

By ensuring that cannabis is primary sold in age- restricted licensed establish ments, the province can maintain the integrity of its cannabis retail system and avoid the potential for unsafe or inappropriate sales environments where youth or recovering a ddicts are unwillingly exposed to the sale of cannabis. We value your leadership and your thoughtful consideration on this issue. Your governance is crucial to ensuring that the cannabis industry in Manitoba thrives while still prioritizing the well- being of our communities.

We believe this bill represents con sid- erable progress, and with these adjustments, it can serve as a model for thoughtfully crafted community- centred approach to cannabis policy in Canada. We appreciate being a part of this dialogue that influences our industry and look forward to col - laborating with you in the future to ensure the cannabis industry in Manitoba remains safe, responsi- ble and viable for businesses of all sizes. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Thank you very much, Ms. Clark.

I ap - preciate your perspective, especially as a grandmother with kids who are, you know, roughly the same age as my children, so this kind of, really, I think, focuses, for me, on what we're trying to accomplish here. Really, this is about, you know, a balanced approach. I think you've understood the intent of the bill with

40 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 regards to underserved markets, but we take your comments about other markets where the number, or the threshold maybe isn't the issue. I appreciate your perspective and your pre senta- tion, and happy to continue the dialogue with you. The Chairperson: Ms. Clark, would you like to respond? S. Clark: No, thank you. Mr. King: And thank you, Mrs.

Clark, for taking the time out to come to com mittee and share your thoughts and your views on this bill and I can–and I do ap preciate hearing your views and I certainly would hope that the minister will work with you on some of your concerns, as well. So, again, thank you so much for taking the time to share your thoughts with us. The Chairperson: Would you like to respond? S. Clark: Just thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, I will now call on Shannon Sala from the Essential Cannabis Company Ltd.

Okay, I'm going to call one more time for Shannon Sala from the Essential Cannabis Company Ltd. [interjection] Zoom; okay. Thank you. All right. Since we do not have Shannon Sala on Zoom, she will be dropped to the bottom of the list and we will go back to her later. Bill 32–The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (Measures to Address Unlawful Activities) The Chairperson: Okay, now we're moving to Bill 32. I will now call on David Grant, private citizen. Mr. David Grant, private citizen. All right, since he's not here, his name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. I will now call on Mr.

Sel–[interjection]–oh, okay; I will once again ask for David Grant to come present. Floor Comment: Hello. My name is David Grant. I seemed to luck out– The Chairperson: Mr. Grant, I need to acknowledge you first. I need to acknowledge you first, before you begin speaking. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Grant, with your presentation. David Grant (Private Citizen): The luck of the draw has me speaking down there and then running here to speak. And luckily I made it, and thank you. We're dealing with the–Bill 32. Thank you.

When I read this initially, I was thinking, this is a good thing and–so I support it entirely. My concern was that if a neighbour wants to do some thing vindictive, they would report some thing and the authorities would consider that a eviction- worthy offence, when there was nothing going on. And I was talking to Mr. Burrows on the way –in the line, and we're pretty sure that this is only going to be applied to the most extreme cases. So I'm unreservedly in favour of it. And thank you. And as I say, I think there's always going to be somebody pretending to snitch just to get mad at the person–their neighbour.

But, hopefully, that won't be happening, and I support you in your efforts, and the minister. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you very much, Mr. Grant. Great to see you again and nice to see you participating in our democratic process once again. And I also appreciate– always ap preciate your com munity perspective or your perspective of, sort of, the average person in a neighbourhood. And I take your concerns very seriously.

Just to let you know, you know, these investi- gations are undertaken by our PSIU, our investigators–the investigative unit in the province–and these are some really top -notch folks. I take your concerns, but I know that they are very judicious in how they use their authorities. And, of course, everything is done through the act, and we're make sure that everything is done by the books. But I appreciate your perspective, and thanks for being here this evening. The Chairperson: Mr. Grant, would you like to reply? D.

Grant: Yes, and while I was initially concerned that someone would make up a case and call it in, the system is checking out these places. And, as Mr. Burrows said, when you've got 50 people coming

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 41 through in an afternoon, that's not a normal family situation. So, thank you, again. The Chairperson: Any further questions? Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Thank you, Mr. Grant, and I've had the pleasure of hearing you talk at many committees. And I just also want to reassure you from a law enforcement perspective that oftentimes people make frivolous complaints or 'vaxitious'–vexatious complaints because of whatever reasons, for a number of reasons.

But I will echo what the minister said, is that the people in the investigation unit from the Province are trained professionals; they have great skills and dedi- cation, and they would ensure that this wasn't done vexatiously. Thank you. D. Grant: Initially, when I read the bill, I thought it was going to be: somebody calls in a complaint that's like a bylaw complaint and then the City acts on it. But in this case, the information–the data–will be pro- vided by law enforcement. So the grumpy neighbour is not involved in the matter. So thank you for explaining that. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Grant.

Any further questions? Okay. Thank you, again, for your presentation. I will now call on Mr. Sel Burrows from Point Powerline. Please proceed with your presentation. Sel Burrows (Point Powerline): Hello, everyone. And I do want to say a special hello to members of the opposition who were in government, and I was able to work well with them. And I do want to say, starting off, that while I support this bill, it's much too weak. We have 600 people dying in Manitoba every year from overdoses. I'm a strong supporter of the safe consumption sites and harm reduction, but other systems have to do their part as well.

And I start off my notes by saying the Residential Tenancies Branch is the drug dealer's best friend. And I'm going to come back to my evidence on that in a moment. * (18:40) But when I started being involved, when I moved back to Point Douglas some 20 years ago, we identified 32 drug dealers. And Gord Mackintosh, when he was minister of Justice, introduced The Safer Community and Neighbourhoods Act, and we were the first community to really endorse it. And we based our work on Jane Jacobs' concept of eyes on the street. And I want to make special mention to a few individuals: Sandy and Terry Dzedzora.

Sandy is an inner city Métis elder who is now head of the North Point Douglas Seniors Association. Terry is from Peguis and was a teacher. JP –John Paul –the raging bull of Austin Street, who took on the drug dealers nose to nose. Very, very brave man. And the neighbours–what happened is we got to the point where the neighbours just wouldn't accept having drug dealers, other than what you'll know about from Project Matriarch, because she owned all the houses.

And over time, with the support of a wonderful chief of police, Keith McCaskill, and really, really effective safer com munities act–Dave Cameron was running it in the day–and we'd get an eviction within a month. And people who haven't lived in the inner city may not understand that a group of people, many who feel powerless, when it takes months and months when they put a concern in and nothing happens, they lose faith. And right now, I have to tell you, in the inner city, many, many people have lost faith in whether government will serve them or not.

And so I'm going to ask you to take a look not just at the act, but the imple mentation of the act. This is The Safer Com munities and Neighbourhoods Act. It was first passed in 2002. It's been changed a few times, but, you know, I read through it; it hasn't much changed. But it's not used anymore. Now, all eviction of drug dealers falls under the Residential Tenancies Branch.

And I just want to tell you, I just came from a hearing today where a leading Indigenous woman, a volunteer in our com munity, was just evicted after she was beaten badly b y her partner in a resi dential place, and the landlord has provided another home for the man who beat her. And this woman is now going to have to find another place to live after Residen tial Tenancies Branch, based on very narrow inter pretations of the act. That has nothing to do with the drug dealers, but I use that as an example because it happened to me today and I'm very concerned for her.

42 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 One of the things we found is that the term –I'll use the term the bad guys, the people dealing–they learn very quickly what they can get away with and what they can't. And when civil society, which includes govern ment, is firm–and we're not talking about jail time in this case, because we're looking at things that can happen fast, have implications very quickly–then the people who do the negative stuff learn very quickly what they can get away with and they stop doing it.

Quite literally, we went from 32 very public drug dealers–not counting Project Matriarch–down to two. But something happened along the way, and we're not sure whether it was at the tail end of the previous NDP government or the beginning of the Conversative gov- ernment, but the SCAN, the safer com munities act staff, PSIU staff–ceased to have the right to slap that five-day eviction notice on–after they had videotaped, by the way, and got evidence.

We ran into a situation –this would be about two years ago–where one of the people on the street had a video camera, and he tracked 70 to 100 customers a day to a drug dealer two doors from an elementary school. It took us seven months to get them evicted– seven months. Meanwhile, that camera picked up a stolen car ring, and somebody took their life in their hand to go out and get the VIN number so we could go out and get proof. One day later, four police cars and two big tow trucks showed up, seized four cars and arreste d two people. The drug dealing continued for another three months.

What I'm asking of you is not only to take a look; one of the weaknesses of this is that the SCAN staff have to turn their evidence over to a landlord. Many of our small inner -city landlords are scared. They're intimidated by the dealers, and they won't come forward. We need to re- empower the SCAN staff when they get the evidence; when they've done the video- taping that there's 25 or more customers a day, that they will have the power to go to the Court of King's Bench under an emergency power which the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Wiebe) could get them to turn it around in one day, and they can slap that five -day eviction order, bang. And I'll let you know that when a neighbour phones me and says hey, there's a dealer down the street, da, da, da, da, da, and by the way, you know, my 12-year-old kid came back and they offered him a freebie. It's im portant for you to understand that as 600 drug users die, those dealers need to recruit new customers. This is a very dark retail business. And so one piece of the solution, one small piece of the solution is then to empower the people who live in the inner city to protect their streets.

And we can't use the police all the time. By the way, many of you may know that at one point I was assistant director of Adult Corrections, so I know a little bit about that side. Keith McCaskill proudly gave me a Winnipeg Police Service hat, and Nahanni and I sat on a police board at one time, trying to deal with some of these issues. But it's not enough just to change a few words in the act. You must ensure that this is enforced. And I will promise you that six months from now, if we haven't seen any change, I'll be back, and it probably won't be a hearing like this.

The minister and the critic for the Conservatives will hear from me. And we need to stop the free flow of drugs in the inner city. I just want to mention one other thing. I sent a text to James Teitsma, who was the minister responsible for Residential Tenancies Branch under the previous government. James and I had each other's phone numbers on speed- dial as he tried to get a speedier eviction through the Residential Tenancies Branch. And he was unable to get his bureaucracy to move faster. And you guys can talk to James about that problem. So this is not an easy thing.

If the Resi dential Tenancies Branch refuses the evidence of the PSIU, you will know you have a problem, and you'll have a problem with me. I'm sorry; I'm here as a friend. I want you to succeed. But if the community cannot depend on the public safety investigative branch, the safer com- munities act, to remove the drug dealers from their streets very quickly, they will lose faith and we will be half a step back, and the other work that is being done by other branches will have more difficulty. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Mr. Burrows, Sel, we do consider you a friend, and as you know, our door is always open. I know you have plenty of conver sations with our folks trying to get this right. As you said,

an act, SCAN, developed by the NDP but continued to be imple mented by govern - ments of all stripes, and certainly we're looking at

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 43 strengthening it. What I like about your approach is it's always enabling the community to take control and to be–you know, have influence in their own destiny. And if–you know that this is being now imple - mented in other places. My colleague, the member from Notre Dame, I think is taking your model and transplanting it. What I will just say is, is that, you know, this –I think there's a lot about edu cation that needs to take place. I think you're right about that.

We've had our folks out in different communities spreading the word and getting some of this infor mation out. Let's continue to dialogue; I want to make sure that we get this right. But I always ap preciate your perspective, and you've done so much for this city. So we appre - ciate you taking the time here tonight. And go, Jets, go. * (18:50) S. Burrows: The–since you asked me a question, you know, or comment, on my thing, I do want to mention Project Matriarch.

I was very proud of some citizens who lived on– first on Lorne street, and I was very proud of a award the CBC gave me when the owner –the principal person of Project Matriarch –as we were organizing the eviction of the dealers living at 110, 112 Lorne street, which used to be part of that–her empire. She drove up and started swearing at me, and CBC stuck a camera in her face and taped her. And CBC presented me with a disk with Sandra Guiboche saying, F off, Sel Burrows, 32 times in three minutes. So to me, that was one of the greatest rewards.

The reason that we got them off Lorne street first was there were four really strong community members who provided strong evidence to result in the eviction. And in one case–and one of our rules was if there was guns involved, we would work with the police. Other- wise, we wanted to have a non-criminal justice system solution. Thank you. The Chairperson: Any further–Mr. Balcaen. Mr. Balcaen: Well, thank you very much for your presentation, and certainly know that you're very sup- portive of your community and the city of Winnipeg– provincially as well. So I thank you for that.

Wondering if you can expand a little bit on the timelines that you saw in some of the cases and what you would suggest to help those timelines. Is it more staffing? Is it better communication? S. Burrows: You know, when Dave Cameron was running SCAN–it's going a ways back–and then the next two guys; I can't remember their names. It's –it hummed. We were getting one-, two-month eviction. Quite honestly, in Point Douglas, we got very specialized. And when it got to two months, we started working strictly with the landlord.

And by this time, the community knew that if you set up drug dealing, you were going to get evicted fairly quickly. So our first rule was we phone the owner of the property. And one of my favourite stories is that one of the owners was the vice-president of a Manitoba 500 company–a company with over 500 employees. And I phoned him up; I tracked his number down and talked to him about it. And he said: Well, look; I just bought that house as an investment. The project managers manage it. What should I do?

And I said: Well, you go and tell him that they're evicted or if they –or they've got three days to stop dealing. Period. Anyway, the wonderful Indigenous woman leader in our com munity who had called me phoned me about five days later and said: Hey, Sel, some guy in a suit showed up across the street, you know. And the customers were coming and he was slamming the door on them. And he just shut down, just like that. So one of the things I'm suggesting to people is we need to find the most efficient way to counter the efficiency of the negative business of drug sales.

And, by the way, I've spoken to three rural mayors about things we learned, and all three have lobbied the gov- ernment to hire more police. They've shown no interest whatsoever in the power of the com munity, utilizing eyes–the concept of eyes in the street. And if you're talking to any of those mayors, let them know I'm open–my phone number's on a thousand fridge magnets in Point Douglas–which, by the way, I've never had a crank call. So you're welcome to give my phone number to any mayor who wants to look at other things. And I want to also recommend– The Chairperson: The time for questions has expired, Mr.

Burrows. Thank you. Mr. Wiebe: Just wondering if we could ask for leave of the com mittee to allow Mr. Burrows to finish his thought.

44 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 The Chairperson: Do we have leave for Mr. Burrows to finish his thought? [Agreed] S. Burrows: Rural mayors, and particularly rural mayors that have Indigenous communities close by–James has a wonderful, wonderful non-criminal justice style work- ing with people who are dealing and suchlike, and he's set up a company now. When they evacuated people from the North, the Red Cross hired his company. The RCMP in Pukatawagan wrote the band council, saying since James Favel's group had been there, calls for service to the RCMP had been reduced by 50 per cent.

So that was things being dealt wi th outside the criminal justice system. Sorry. I do go on. I know. The Chairperson: Thank you very much for your pre- sentation. Any further questions? Okay. The time for questions has expired anyways. Bill 43–The Human Rights Code Amendment Act (Continued) The Chairperson: We are now going to move on to Bill 43, The Human Rights Code Amendment Act, and as previously agreed, we will begin in person out-of-town presentations. I will now call on Kevin Rebeck from Manitoba Federation of Labour. Keven Rebeck? All right. Mr. Rebeck is not here at the moment, so we will move to Mr.

Derek deVries from Park City Gospel Church. Please proceed with your presentation. Derek deVries (Park City Gospel Church): Well, thank you, honourable Minister, committee. And we have just finished celebrating Holy Week, or Easter, in the Christian tradition, and one of the things that the Christian church says and has said for centuries at Easter time is, He has risen; an d then the response is that He has risen, indeed. Well, I believe that that's not just a religious claim; that's a historical fact. And there are im plica- tions for the fact that Christ has risen.

Christ claimed that–claimed, before He died, that his death would be an atonement for the sins of all people. Him being raised from the dead vindicated that claim, that He was not dying simply for His sins, for He had none. He was dying for those who were his enemies. The other implication is that Jesus reigns. It also means that Jesus knows what sin is. It vindicated His claim that he made to Pilate that He was truth. But, most importantly for this committee, it demon strated that He knows what compassion is. Chri stians are to follow Him, knowing that He tells us what is compas- sionate, what is true.

This law forbids Christians from following Christ's example. It requires speech He would not permit. It requires silence when He would call us to speak. It requires actions which Christ would not call compassionate. In the Scriptures, which are the historical record of Christ's life, Christ declared that compassion in - volves disagreeing with someone. We see this in Christ's example in the Scripture. He confronted those who believed that their religious deeds would gain them heaven. He confronted those who believed their moral deeds would gain them heaven.

He confront ed the religious leaders who thought that they would have a place in heaven above them–above people like prostitutes and tax collectors. Christ confronted those who are in sin. He did it compassionately. He disagreed with them. Christ commands us in Scripture that compassion involves disagreeing with someone. I think you will agree with me that you see this in the real world as well. When a young person tells you that she should die, that her life is not worth living or valuable, com- passion requires that you disagree with her.

When a young man tells you, one whom you love, tells you that he is unloved, compassion requires you to disagree with that young man. When a girl tells you that her only worth is in sexual attention from men, compassion requires that you disagree with her. When a boy tells you that he believes that self-harm, cutting or burning himself is how he should address his inner turmoil, compassion requires that you disagree with him. When a middle school girl tells you that what would give her the most freedom would be to drop out of school and live on the streets, com - passion requires that you disagree with her.

The Scriptures and the Christian tradition declares that God has two books: He has Scripture; He also has Creation, the world in which we live. And in every case those two things agree. The fruition, the telos of gender affirmation is gender-affirming surgery. Studies done by the National Institute for Health under the Biden administration indicate that the rate of suicide

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 45 for those who undergo what is called gender-affirmation surgery is 12.2 times higher than those who do not. * (19:00) While other studies have suggested that affirm - ative medical inter vention reduces risk, i.e., that the studies–the risk, though high, is lower than what would otherwise be the case, subsequent studies reviewing this work, even by those who were doing the initial study, show that there is actually no evidence to support this and that the methodology on which those studies stood was questionable, even in the estimation of the authors.

Regardless of where one lands in analyzing this data, it is entirely clear that those who oppose the af - firmation-as-treatment for gender dysphoria are not without support, and they are not, on their face, wrong. It stands to reason that a person could come to this conclusion without hate and be conscience -bound to resist gender affirmation in response to gender dysphoria. Such citizens should be able to show compassion without threat of the govern ment.

The govern ment's efforts impose a harsh penalty on a person whose conscience is so bound, who disagrees with the gov- ernment, not on whether such a person is owed com - passion and respect, but what compassion looks like in such cases. Biblical Christianity has, for centuries, been a cure for culturally blinded problems, and it would not be rightly claimed that those who are Christians, or call themselves Christians, have committed no injustices or even have never advocated for such injustices. That is not the case, sadly.

However, it is also true that the same could be said of other demogra phic groups, including atheists and Hindus and Muslims. Historically, these problems were not eliminated in the public eye by those who rejected the ultimate authority of Christ and His word, but, in fact, were eliminated by those who embraced the ultimate authority of Christ and His word. A few examples from history bear repeating. William Wilberforce eliminated race-based, transatlantic slave trade. He argued, suc cessfully, that such a practice failed to submit to Christ and His word.

Well, it should not be claimed that Christians alone resisted Nazism in Germany, nor that all those who identified as Christians resisted Nazism. Those Christians who did resist it were those who held a high view of the author ity of Christ in scripture. D ietrich Bonhoeffer was such an example. It should also be noted, in a similar vein, that Martin Luther King Jr. opposed forced segregation on biblical grounds, on the authority of Christ, the risen Christ.

While I grant that you may not agree that we are in a similar situation today with this matter, what you are doing is to preclude, to silence and penalize, a voice which has historically been used to lift people out of oppression and correct social suffer ing and injustice. This is, though–because, though Christians are often wrong–I am often wrong–the principal foundation of Christianity is that Christ is Lord and that His word is the reforming principle. If we reject the thought that Christ is Lord or even penalize it in this case, we have no other conclusion to come to than that the majority is Lord.

And if there is no God, the powerful will see a job opening and not fear a higher authority to which they will have to give an account. St. Peter, an apostle of the Lord Jesus who was crucified upside down for the cause of Christ, said the following in a letter written shortly before he was martyred: For this is the will of God, that by doing good, you should put to silence the ignorant a nd foolish–ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honour everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the emperor.

He says that we are to live as free people, which freedom is undergirded by the fear of the Lord. He says honour everyone, and by this he means as Christ would call you to, what he would say is honour. He says to love the brotherhood. He also says fear Go d– not any god, but the one who actually created the world and the one who has compassion so great that He died for sinners and arose from the dead. Peter also tells Christians to honour the emperor and–or, in this case, the prov incial government, because we do not have an emperor.

Committee members, to threaten your citizens into doing what they believe is not compassionate is not a good strategy for reducing pain and sorrow. You are, perhaps unintentionally, training people not to do what is right by their consciences, but to do what they know would be uncompassionate and harmful. I urge that you do not threaten your citizens who fear Christ and who are called by Him to honour you. Even when no one is looking, they do so out of love and fear of the Lord. Committee members, you, too, will face Christ one day. You will stand before Him to account for

46 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 your actions, including this one, which is against both His–both of His words, His world and His scriptures. For the good of Manitobans in general, I ask that you reconsider. For the good of Manitobians [phonetic] who–Manitobans who suffer from gender dysphoria and for the good of Manitobans who love those people and who are conscience -bound by Christ to show Christian compassion to them. I urge you not to pass this bill and, further, to repeal similar legis lation. Christ is not so unfair as though He would not notice and reward you for doing so.

How compassionate was Christ? Why do Christians honour and love and obey His instructions? For com- passion. And the reason is that He took our punish- ment. Such was His compassion. No one in this room, including myself, has been crucified and damned for anyone's sin against God. So Christ alone– The Chairperson: The presenter's time has expired. Do members of the committee have any questions for the presenter? Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you, Mr. deVries, for your presentation here today. I just wanted to ensure that yourself and members of the audience are clear.

The ability or the right to disagree with somebody is not at issue here. That's certainly a right, as you expressed here today, to share your thoughts freely. What I think this bill is about–what this bill is about–is about respect and protec tion against discrimination. That is what the heart of this bill is. And so we appre ciate you being here, sharing your thoughts freely.

Many members of the com mit- tee might disagree with you, but you certainly were able to present them, and we really want to make sure that we're protecting the rights of all people, especially the most vulnerable in our society, with this bill. Thank you very much. D. deVries: Thank you. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield-Ritchot): Well, thank you very much, Pastor deVries, for your presentation, and it's amazing how quickly 10 minutes goes by. And I do have a question for you and that is, are you concerned with what it might take to get a person investigated by the Human Rights Commission under this legislation?

D. deVries: I would be, yes. The Chairperson: Any further questions? Thank you for your presentation. I will now call on Mrs. Christine Roncerary [phonetic], private citizen. Christine Ronceray (Private Citizen): Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the com mittee, fellow Manitobans, thank you for the opportunity to speak on an issue that strikes at the very heart of our democracy, the protection of our most fundamental freedoms: the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

Today, I rise not to attack anyone but to express serious concerns about Bill 43, a bill that while claim- ing to protect may, in fact, do the opposite. Yes, we must treat all people with dignity. Yes, we must stand against real discrimination. But Bill 43 does not do that. It crosses the line between protection and enforcement, between respect and coercion, between kindness and control.

Under this bill, people could face legal consequences not for being cruel or harassing, but simply for refusing to use simple, certain pronouns or for speaking in line with their conscience or their faith or certain biological facts. Let me be cleared. Compelled speech cannot be mistaken for kindness, and no one in a free society should be forced to say what they do not believe or, worse, be forced to tell a lie. These so -called gender norms being enforced by Bill 43 are not settled facts.

They are government-defined ideologies, not backed by universal scientific evidence or philosophical con- science–or consensus, sorry. Yet the bill treats them as unquestionable truths. And if you question these so-called truths, even respectfully, you could be punished. * (19:10) This raises an urgent concern, not just for the people of faith, but for all professionals, for educators, for counsellors, and yes, for even health- care pro - viders. Imagine a doctor. A biological female identifies as male and insists she cannot have ovarian cancer.

Would a doctor, under this bill, be expected to affirm that, even if it risks a misdiagnosis? Would they be forced to lie just to comply? This is not compassion. This is dangerous. Health care must be rooted in biology and in reality, not ideology. Doctors, like all professions, need the free- dom to speak truthfully, to treat accurately, to care honestly. Lives depend on it. And what about our courts? In a courtroom, wit - nesses are sworn to tell the truth, but if someone under

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 47 oath refuses to affirm a gender identity they do not believe is true, could that now be considered as discrimination? Let's call it what it is. Excuse me. Let's call it what it is. If the law requires people to say things they believe are false in a court of law, that's not inclusion, that's perjury. Our justice system cannot operate on an ideological compliance. It must stand on truth, even uncomfortable truth, especially there, in a courtroom. This is the Standing Committee on Justice.

Bill 43 puts everyday people in impossible positions; a pastor preaching scripture, a teacher explaining biology, a parent talking to their child. Any of them could be accused of discrimination. Not for hate, but for honesty. That is not what the society–sorry, that is not the society we want. If we are forcibly unable to stand on truth and integrity, how can we teach truth and integrity to the next generation? We are not asking for the right to insult or demean; we are asking to maintain the right to speak freely, to believe differently, to live with integrity.

True inclusion means we can disagree without being punished. True pluralism means we make room for different world views, even the ones that challenge popular opinion. If we pass this bill as it stands, we will not be protecting human rights; we will be eroding the very freedoms that allow those rights to exist. Let us find a better path, one that protects against genuine harm but still protects the freedom to speak, the freedom to worship, the freedom to tell the truth.

Because when people are punished for speaking truth- fully, when professionals are silenced for doing their job, when the law demands affirmation instead of honesty, we lose more than freedom; we lose reality. Thank you. The Chairperson: Do the members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Thank you, honourable Chair, and thank you, Mrs. Ronceray, if I'm saying your name right.

Thank you very much for your time And, again, just to be clear, this bill in no way polices thought or beliefs or even the ability to, as you're doing here tonight, express your opinions or your feelings or thoughts on an issue. To be clear for everyone here in the com mittee, this really is about protecting against discrimination based on gender expression, which, you know, might cause someone to lose their job or to be denied an apartment or denied services at a public health facility, as you mention.

There's a number of issues that we want to protect those folks who are expressing their gender in a way that's different, maybe, than you are or people that you know, but we are offering them that respect and dignity with–through this bill. So I ap preciate you being here, I ap preciate the conversation and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts here tonight. Thank you. C. Ronceray: Yes, about that. When bills come onto the floor, that's up to inter pretation.

The laws don't actually get made on this room floor, I –from my understanding of how bills work, but I think that they go to the next layer of government–I don't know much about it; I'm just a farmer. But when bills get done and when–goes to law, that

interpretation kind of changes depending on the situation in the room. So it could be–I don't know, for lack of a better word–a slippery slope, could it not? Mr. Schuler: Well, thank you very much, Mrs. Ronceray, for your very passionate presentation. And I do also have a question for you. Are you concerned with what it might take to get a person investigated by the Human Rights Com mission? [interjection] The Chairperson: Mrs. Ronceray. C. Ronceray: Oh, sorry about that. Yes, absolutely. My–I mean, how far does it go? I understand that the bill is going after –trying to make sure that we instill respect.

And, I mean, what does that respect look like? We see it for gender identity, we see it–where–how far does it go? Like, when we're using language and names, if we choose –from my understanding of the bill, if we choose to use pronouns or we choose not to use that person's pronouns, we can use the person's name, correct? We can use their formal name–that–the name that they give you. Well, we've seen it on the floor; that doesn't mean, just because you use their first name, that that shows respect in any way, right?

I believe Wab Kinew, the other day, used Wally Daudrich's name as Wallay [phonetic], but that doesn't instill respect, does it? It was pretty funny, though, wasn't it? So is it humour when people don't use pronouns or their first name properly or with respect? So where–how far does it go? So I really appreciate the question. I don't know; I'm not the decision-maker. How far does it go?

48 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 The Chairperson: Seeing no further questions–oh. Mr. Wiebe: Oh, no; I was just saying thank you. The Chairperson: I will now call on Mr. Nick Klassen, private citizen. Please proceed with your presentation. Nick Klassen (Private Citizen): Well, I've tried to–I will try to shorten my talk a little bit for the sake of your time. Thank you for spending your time on a playoff night, and I'd rather be watching the Jets right now, but I feel it's an important thing to speak about. I am a husband and a father; I have three kids.

My oldest is 21; he's got his second-level firefighter. And my daughter just started nurses training, and she's working her way through that. And I've got a son in grade 9 in public school. And so we've brought our kids up with respect and honour and taught them to love their neighbour and be a contributing member of society. And I want to speak this evening to you to consider that there are very well -educated and com passionate reasons th at people may choose not to comply with a person's chosen gender identity.

A study on the National Institutes of Health website assessed mortality rates in transsexual subjects receiving long-term cross- sex hormones. This was a cohort study with a median follow-up of 18 and a half years, so it was quite a lengthy study at a uni versity gender clinic. Methods, mortality data and the stan dardized mortality rate were compared to the gener al popula- tion in 966 male -to-female transsexuals. Follow -up was at least one year. * (19:20) Male-to-female transsexuals received treatment with different high -dose estrogen regimens and cyproterone acetate.

The study goes on with the results, and it said this: that in male -to-female–in the male-to-female group, total mortality was 51 per cent higher than in the general popula tion mainly from increased mortality rates due to suicide, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, cardiovascular disease, drug abuse and unknown cause. I looked up the statistics on increased mortality from smoking, and that was a 70 per cent increased risk of mortality. And in this case, this study showed that male -to-female transitioning had a 51 per cent increase in mortality.

So we do many things to discourage people from smoking and yet gender ideology is promoted, even in our elementary schools. I want to quote another study from the journal of clinical endocrinology. It was called the Continuation of Gender-affirming Hormones Among Transgender Adolescents and Adults. Of the almost 1,000 people studied, they found that the four -year continuation rate was 70.1 per cent. This study revealed that around 30 per cent–or 300 people in this case –changed their mind.

Each of those 300 people was affected deeply by their decisions, many of them with irreparable damage that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives. Who will tell their story? I would like to share a story on– written by a mother and their journey, and I've edited it for brevity. My daughter is now 21 years old and a detransitioner. Here is our story: D. suffered from anxiety from a young age. ADHD, inattentive type, first diagnosed in grade 2, generalized and social anxiety that got progressively worse through elementary school.

By middle school, she lacked the executive func- tioning skills to manage all her schoolwork. Her anxiety has become more severe and were accompanied by somatic symptoms: chronic stomach aches, nausea, headaches. Depression started to set in. By grade 8, she wanted to die, wished she had never been born. In late 2016, D. told us out of the blue that she was transgender male. We again sought help. D.'s GP referred her to the CAMH gender clinic and she was placed on their waiting list. Then I found another doctor who seemed to be well known and respected in his treatment of gender-dysphoric and questioning youth.

D. had her first appointment with this doctor in early 2017. At the same time, we contacted Youth Services for family support and guidance. CTYS had a therapist who could see us. We were advised to accept and affirm. I even remember the first phone call. My D. had just told me she was trans and I was still referring to her by female pronouns, and I was sternly corrected by the intake co-ordinator. We did what the experts told us. My husband and I didn't care what gender our child was; we just want- ed a child that was at peace with themselves and who wanted to live.

We switched to using male pronouns and a new name of D.'s choosing. D. was put on cross -sex hormones in 2017. By early 2018, D. was approved for a government-funded double mastectomy based on a one-sentence letter from

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 49 the doctor who had by then met her maybe four to five times, and never for more than 10 minutes at a time. After the surgery, D.'s depression became more and more severe. By late 2019, D. was able to start talking to me about her sig nificant self-doubts that she had said had been there all along. By early 2020, she had realized she was not trans and that she wanted to detransition. D. is angry and upset that she had access to hormones and surgery that easily.

She is thankful that we were with her and sup portive through the entire journey, but wishes she had been able to access more balanced views on the issue and treatment of gender dysphoria, especially rapid onset, and particularly for a child who had a history of mental health challenges. As the mom of a child who has suffered for years, I feel we have been massively let down by the health-care system in Canada. We are lucky D. is still alive. Many are not so lucky. The mental health- care system is severely inefficient and completely broken.

Further studies have shown that upwards of 80 per cent of children with gender dysphoria will resolve their feelings by adulthood if left alone. I would suggest that the best thing we can do, especially for youngsters, is to leave them alone. If we continue down this road to make gender expression a human right, we will start to force everyone– judges, law enforce ment, first respon ders, teachers, and parents to go along with an ever increasing list of genders, which I believe will create disorder, depres - sion, disease and even death. Not my words; backed by peer-reviewed science.

Now I realize that it is an unenviable position to try to balance the freedom of conscience and belief with that of pro tections demanded by the LGBTQ+ lobby. I believe that existing harassment laws already exist for all Manitobans. Many com munities of faith consider LGBTQ+ to be an offensive and sinful life - style. And yet they have no safe space for an entire month in our province. I believe that the existing laws are adequate to live together respectfully. The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: I do. Mr. Klassen, thank you for your time here this evening.

Again, just to clarify the intent of the bill. What we're–been talking about gender identity is already protected in the Human Rights Code. In fact, in this province we've protected that since 2012. When we're talking about gender expression, we're talking about bringing us in line with other provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, in fact most provinces across the country, and it's actually just getting us back on track to correctly, I guess, identifying or cap- turing some of the nuance that you're talking about here this evening.

You know, I think, again, respectfully, we can disagree but I appreciate your opportunity–the oppor- tunity to hear you and to have you here at the committee to lend your voice. Thank you. N. Klassen: Yes. I–one of the things that I've noticed, especially probably the faith com munity, or many of those who have a differing opinion on this matter from maybe many of you, is that there is seemingly no protection from harassment to be called things like a bigot, a transphobe, a homophobe, racist, among other things.

And so I'm wondering if there's maybe–that you're swinging too far in one direction on the basis of, you know, compassionate means or ends that you're want- ing to follow. But it starts to get too far to the point where I've seen that there seems to be no recourse for the harassment that the LGBTQ, those that are passionately on that side, are free to give those who disagree. And so it seems a little lopsided there. Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Mr. Klassen, for being here this evening and for your pre sentation.

I have a question for you, and that is, are you concerned with what it might take to get a person investigated by the Human Rights Commission? N. Klassen: Yes, I'd love to have some clari fication on that question because, if I understand it correctly, you're asking that it might be made quite a lot easier to have somebody investigated by the Human Rights Commission. Is that right? That I'd be concerned it will just make it very easy for somebody who just really dislikes Christians or someone of a different perspective that they are enabled to cause all kinds of lawfare against somebody with a differing opinion.

And I am concerned about that. * (19:30) Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): More of a comment to the presenter.

50 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 I believer the Justice Minister stated that this is bringing us in align with Alberta and Saskatchewan. And I just wanted to note that gender expression is not embedded in the Human Rights Code for Saskatchewan. Mr. Wiebe: I appreciate the clarification. The member opposite is right. Saskatchewan is the only province outside of Manitoba that doesn't currently have this, so every other province. And just to be clear, I think this is helpful for the discussion.

Religion is spe cifically protected under The Human Rights Code: religious belief, religious association, religious activity. We protect those who have specific religious beliefs against d iscrimination and what this bill does is expand that to others to ensure that we have the same protections for them. N. Klassen: And hopefully as well as expression.

And I don't actually quite know because I've never done it, but if I were to speak the Scripture, you know, on a Winnipeg street corner–you know, at my own peril – but to do that, is that –that is not against the law, because even if I read some thing that says that, you know, it's, let's say, a sinful thing to have a certain, you know, actions or whatever, that's totally fine. The Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you for your presentation. I will now call on Mrs. Erika Krahn, private citizen. Erika Krahn, private citizen. Now we will move to Michael Sullivant, Pembina Valley Baptist Church.

Please proceed with your presentation. Michael Sullivant (Pembina Valley Baptist Church): Dear honourable Minister and committee members, I appreciate the opportunity to give my presentation on behalf of Pembina Valley Baptist Church and me, personally. As I represent and care for the 650 -plus people who attend our services and for my wife Brenda, our eight children, their spouses, along with our 37 grand- children, I am concerned about Bill 43, The Human Rights Code Amendment Act. As I state my reasons, I want to state at the begin- ning that you should vote no regarding the amendment.

I would like to present three reasons and subsequent explanations: no on religious grounds, no on freedom of speech issues and no on social grounds. First, no on religious grounds. There are several belief systems in the world such as the Christian and Muslim faith for the most part, which hold to the same tenets of gender identity that a man is one who is born with male body parts, and a woman is one who is born with female body parts. As one who holds the Bible as the very world of God, we see in creation that on the sixth day of creation, God created man in His own image.

Genesis 1:27 says: So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. As Christians who believe and who trust Jesus Christ as their personal saviour, we hold that the Bible is our guidebook expressing our hope of eternal life and also giving us instructions on the day- to-day living out of our lives here on Earth. As He answered and said unto them in Matthew 19:4, Jesus said, have you not read that He which made them at the begin ning made them male and female?

Out of the over 600 laws mentioned in the Scriptures, Jesus boiled them down to two: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and with all thy strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30 and 31. We follow our great God who states in John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

As a church and pastor, we are involved in missions around the world that does not discriminate regarding gender identity or expression. We care for all peoples. However, we hold to the truth that there are only two genders, male and female. They are chosen by God, and biology reflects our stated belief in the scriptures. We encourage you to vote no on religious grounds. Secondly, no on freedom of speech issues. As a Canadian by choice and not by birth, I have appre - ciated the right of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience.

I have been privileged to be here for 37 years and pastor a church with over 15 different nationalities and backgrounds. By altering the stated wording in

section 9(2)(

g) which now reads gender identity to gender expression, this now, however small, opens the door to compelled speech, of which I believe every Canadian should be concerned.

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 51 As one of your colleagues has stated, this bill weaponizes transgender people so that everyone will have to affirm their world view and ideology regard- less of their own conscience and beliefs. For example, if you refuse to call a transgender man, a biological woman, a man, a human rights complaint could be lodged under The Human Rights Code, and you would have to defend yourself before the Human Rights Commission if the process got to that point. When it comes to the Human Rights Commissions, the process is the punishment.

A Manitoban could be accused of deliberately misgendering someone, a human rights complaint lodged and the defendant would have to spend thousands of dollars and consid erable time defending them selves, not to mention the negative media coverage and the consequences of having your name dragged through the mud. We encourage you to vote no on Bill 43 based on freedom of speech issues. The code is quite clear enough as stated. Thirdly, no on social grounds. The issues of gender identity and expression are in the forefront of the news these days.

However, just because people are sensitive in discussing an issue or feel strongly one way or the other does not mean that we should be changing or altering such a provincial governing docu ment like The Human Rights Code. This is such a fluid topic in which even the transgender community finds disagree- ment within their own classification. Statistics Canada 2021 census states, 0.33 per cent of Canadians identify as transgender. That further broken down with 0.19 per cent identity as trans - gender, ages 15 and older, and 0.14 per cent nonbinary.

Liz Stillwaggon Swan, Ph.D., writes in Psychology Today Canada, March 12, 2025, How many genders are there, really? Subtitle states: Here's why the gender number question is unanswerable. She writes the following: What the transgender movement has made clear is that while someone is born female, they might feel male, feel that they were born in the wrong body, and likewise for males who might feel more female and resent their male body.

Or a person might feel like, identify with, neither sex, and thus become transgender as in beyond or above gender just as one's academic research might be trans- disciplinary because it spans economics, public health and sociology while not fitting neatly into any one of those disciplines. The research is trans, beyond disciplinary boundaries in this case. She goes on to write: I don't know whether there are 72 genders, and I don't know how one would even go about trying to prove or disprove such a claim. There may be more or there may be fewer; it really doesn't matter. Dr.

Jay Richards, Ph.D., writes in The Heritage Foundation, on April 18, 2025, these key takeaways: Gender ideology is a source of the belief that children can be born in the wrong body; (2) one can't really define gender ideology without invoking some of the terms it has already inserted into our language, terms that also cry out for definition; (3) the plain truth, gender ideology does not accommodate the reality of sex, the reproductive strategy of mammals including human beings. * (19:40) This

article further states that this issue is too confusing to make hard and fast statements. As such, why get on the bandwagon to potentially open the proverbial can of worms of defining gender expression, when even within the trans community itself, there is no concrete parameter established for identification? Alexander Hall writes an

article entitled: UK Prime Minister Backtracks on Trans Women Are Women Claim After Court Rules They Legally Aren't. A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that ab - solutely clear, Starmer said. In the historic decision, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom unanimously ruled last Wednesday that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. As a result, bio- logical males who identify as women can be excluded from some single -sex spaces and groups under the country's equality act.

I include these articles' quotes to add credence to the fact that this is such a fluid issue that countries made assumptions and drew lines of demarcation which are now out of date and cause so much social discontent. The Human Rights Code of Manitoba on this point should not be altered or changed from gender identity to gender expression. Medicinenet.com states they have identified 72 genders. The idea is to make everyone feel com - fortable in their own skin, irrespective of what gender they were assigned at birth. Since the beginning of time, there has only been two genders: male and female.

The real and present concern is that a person can knowingly–or, even worse, unknowingly–misgender an individual and a complaint can be filed against them. With such fluidity regarding this issue, someone may identify themselves one way and a short time later, identify as another. I would encourage those voting on

52 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 Bill 43 to vote a resounding no based on religious grounds, freedom of speech issues and social grounds. Thank you, honourable members of this commit- tee, for hearing my reasoning and my sincerely held beliefs. The Chairperson: Do members of the com mittee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Thank you, Mr. Sullivant, for your pre - sentation. You quoted one of our colleagues in your presen- tation; I hadn't heard that quote before.

I'm wondering if you could repeat the quote, and I'm–could you identify who said–who stated that quote that you quoted in the presentation? M. Sullivant: I did not seek his permission to give his name. I did at an earlier time, so I didn't want to give that now because I didn't clear that with him. So I quoted him in an anonymous fashion. Should I go ahead and read it? Okay. I'm looking for the exact place where I have that listed. The Chairperson: Mr. Sullivant, would you like to move on to the next question, perhaps? M. Sullivant: Excuse me?

The Chairperson: Would you like to move on to the next question, perhaps? M. Sullivant: Sure, that'd be good, and I'll keep looking and hopefully I can answer at the same time. Sorry. Mr. Josh Guenter (Borderland): Thank you, Pastor Sullivant, for coming out and making a pre sentation and being part of the democratic process in the people's House. I would just note, the minister knows –has been here longer than I have and knows that every word that is spoken is recorded in Hansard, so I'm sure and pos- sibly his staff looking at Hansard–will have staff look- ing at Hansard at some point in time for the quote.

So I dispute the fact that it's necessary to repeat it, but I want to thank you again for taking the time to come out. As a pastor, you know, are you concerned about the implications of this bill, given that many pastors live stream and their services are broadcast abroad and deal with– The Chairperson: Time for questions has expired. Any further questions? M. Sullivant: We are on the radio. We do live stream our services, and so some of the

interpretation of this I'm concerned would be rather subjective. Not neces- sarily the intent of the committee, or those who would pass this, but what –how it might be interpreted later on, to where it could be weaponized, and then we could find ourselves, as I stated in the letter, we could find ourselves in the process of having to defend what we have said. And I did find the quote. The quote is, he says: This bill weaponizes transgender people so that every- one will have to affirm their world view and ideology regardless of their own conscience and beliefs.

For example, if you refuse to call a transgender man, a biological woman, a man, a human rights com- plaint could be lodged under The Human Rights Code and you would have to defend yourself before the Human Rights Commission if the process got to that point. When it comes to the human rights com mis- sions, the process is the punishment.

A Manitoban could be accused of deliberately misgendering some- one, a human rights complaint lodged, and the defendant would have to spend thousands of dollars and consid- erable time defending themselves, not to mention the negative media coverage and the conse quences of having your name dragged through the mud. That's the quote. Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Minister responsible for Women and Gender Equity): I ap preciate that in your quote, the MLA, one of our colleagues, was more concerned about getting dragged through the media if they intentionally misgendered somebody.

And I ap- preciate that the quote clearly highlights that the individual is more care–cares more about money than actually the humanity of people. That's what your quote is actually saying. Can you clarify that quote; was that in the House? Was that a personal con versation with yourself? I know you don't want to share the name. I suspect we already know who it is. But was that, like, a personal conversation between you and the member? M. Sullivant: That was a personal–in written form, as well, and that we informed our whole congregation in regards to that. Yes, so–yes.

The Chairperson: Seeing no further questions? Thank you. All right. Next up on the list is Fae Johnstone, who is on Zoom, so we will keep their place on the presenters list.

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 53 We're going to move down to Mr. Joshua Shetter, private citizen. Please proceed with your presentation. Joshua Shetter (Private Citizen): Thank you, honour- able members of the com mittee. My name is Joshua Shetter. I am pastor of Redeeming Grace Bible Church in Morden, Manitoba, and I am here because Bill 43 is a bad idea. I understand the desire to protect people and discourage discrimination, but this bill does not pro- tect people and actually furthers discrimination. How so? Well first, this bill legislates a certain morality.

My contention is not that laws should not legis- late morality, as laws by their very nature are moral. They naturally place shoulds and should nots on the population. For instance, laws against theft say that people should not steal and that they should make money only by honest means. No, my contention is that this law places an unreasonable and unnatural moral imperative that is based not on objective truth, but on the changing whims of the cultural moment. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that this bill is merely a measure that supports a neutral, secular public square for all citizens. It is not.

It is not only propounding a certain religious and ideological view of man, but it is criminalizing those views which stand in opposition. In other words, it is a should not, as in, you should not hold this view. You are asking those who believe in the biblical view of man and woman to keep their view to them - selves, while encouraging the com munication of the view that gender is merely a private choice. In fact, this bill does not ask those who disagree to keep their mouth shut, but it compels them. This is the very definition of discrimination. * (19:50) This is essentially a blasphemy law.

The govern- ment has sacred things it wishes to protect, and this law crimin alizes blasphemy against the dogma of gender identity or expression. What if the government was compelling people to respond with, He is ri sen indeed, when someone says, He is risen? You blink at this, but the government proposes to do the same thing with their religious dogma of preferred pronouns. Secondly, this bill does not actually protect people. This is clear in two ways. First, we all know that one's sex cannot be changed. Science, natural revelation and the Bible all agree on this.

This being the case, it is not helpful to protect someone's view that they can become another sex. If we incentivize gender confusion through laws like this, we are harming those individuals rather than reaching out to them with the truth and lovingly helping them accept the sex and body God has given them. This bill, in other words, would incentivize all that comes along with gender confusion, like depression, suicide, anger, bitterness, violence. Let the statistics show that this is true and that we've heard quoted. As an analogy, think of the child that is afraid of monsters under his bed.

What should the parent do? Should she sit in the dark with her son and empathize with his pain, telling him, I hear you and I know it is scary to have monsters under your bed. I validate your feelings and I feel them with you. No. She should turn on the light and show him the truth that there are, in fact, no monsters under his bed. He has no reason to be afraid or to have these feelings. There is no threat. So we should not sit in the dark with these con- fused, lost individuals but turn on the light and show them the hope that comes with the truth.

Ultimately, that truth is found in Jesus Christ and his dying for our sin, being buried and being raised on the third day. We should point them to hope and the truth, not the empty promises of a lie. Second, gender expression can itself be hateful. Imagine if a white person identified as Black, put on blackface, dressed in a way he thought was Black, went into a Black organi zation and spoke and acted according to how he thought they act. Would the–those present appreciate this expression as his personal identity? Would they not be rightly offended at his actions? What does he know about being Black?

Does he really think that being Black is just the colour of his skin, his clothes and certain speech and mannerisms? So how is it different f or a man to dress like up a woman and act according to all that he thinks women should be? Would not the women present be rightly offended? How could he know what being a woman is or how women think? Our culture puts so much em phasis on lived exper - ience, but in this case, the lived experiences of women is simply brushed aside as irrelevant.

This bill would force women to refer to trans - gender women as she, effectively saying that being a woman is merely the outward expression and has no root in the soul or consciousness of a person. Are we prepared to do this? Are we prepared to codify into law the view that manhood and womanhood are merely a matter of clothing and mannerisms?

54 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 Finally, let me advocate a better way. I agree that we should discourage hate and encourage love, but we must have an objective standard for love that is not tied to the changing cultural whims. Rooting our under - standing of love in the prevailing winds of the current cultural moment is to make the same mistakes that were made in places like Nazi Germany or the American South with slavery and then Jim Crow laws and in all of the continent of North America with how the Indigenous population was treated.

We must plant a flag in objective truth and define love according to the one who invented love and define hate by what He hates. This is the only true God as He is revealed in the Bible. This God says that love rejoices in the truth, 1 Corinthians 13. And in 1 John 4:10, He says, through John, in this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins or the satisfaction or pay- ment for our sins. You might think, well, we can't use biblical truth to inform or shape our governance because that is Christian nationalism. Well, hear me.

It is not a question of whether government will be influenced or shaped by religion but a matter of which religion. As I have pointed out, laws are by nature moral. And so the question is, on what will the govern - ment base its morality? There is no better foundation on which to build a sound moral system than on the God who made us and has revealed His character and His will to us in His holy word and in the person a nd work of His son, Jesus Christ. Thank you. The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Thank you very much, Mr. Setter [phonetic] for your–sorry, Mr.

Shetter, for your presentation here this evening. I–the part that I took from your presentation is your support for discouraging hate and embracing love, and having that as the centre point for all the work that we do. I think that is essentially what we're getting at with this bill, a respect for all, for everyone in this province. And so I ap preciate your perspective and thank you for presenting here this evening. J. Shetter: Let me just say, I agree, but as you said earlier, we disagree on how to go about that and the definition of love; what is indeed true love.

It must be tethered to truth, is my contention. Hon. Uzoma Asagwara (Minister of Health, Seniors and Long-Term Care): Thank you for your pre sen- tation and for your remarks. I just– The Chairperson: Oh–my apologies. Mr. Balcaen. Mr. Balcaen: Sorry, it was– The Chairperson: Oh–Mr. Goertzen. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I think that there is time. I'll defer to my colleague; I can speak after. MLA Asagwara: I just want to thank you for your presentation, and I want to reinforce some thing the minister has said many times about this legis lation protecting folks.

It just does –this legislation protects folks like yourself. The ability for you to come here today and express values and beliefs, some of which, when you're referencing Black com munities and Black folks, I find deeply offensive and very harmful, extremely problematic and not rooted in reality or the lived experiences of Black peopl e. However, that is your right to come here and express that.

And so I sincerely hope that moving forward that you very–you remain open to learning about the lived experiences of those that you have assumptions about that perhaps, you know, would change with more edu- cation and more relationships and perhaps also w hen it–as it pertains to Black communities as well. J. Shetter: Just for my edification, would you mind pointing out the part that you found this so I know it and understand? MLA Asagwara: Yes, certainly. I appreciate the op- portunity to do so.

I think that it's, you know, pretty concern ing whenever you try to conflate the experiences of Black peoples with experiences that are distinctly different. And there are lots of folks, a lot of educators in all kinds of spheres, who you can reference or go to, to learn why that would be a concern. You know, I'm speaking here because we have the opportunity to have this exchange in a really respect- ful way, and I want to ensure that you maybe park that and take it away and use this moment as an opportun- ity to learn and perhaps speak differently moving forward. J. Shetter: Yes, I appreciate that.

I would like to find true statements which I could agree with and under - stand, you know what I mean, rather than just kind of a–you need to learn more. Okay, well, I'd like to know what to learn. You know what I mean? Like, what – where specifically? That's all I'm saying.

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 55 Mr. Goertzen: A previous presenter who is in the same profession indicated that, in some ways, the process can sometimes be the punishment. At times, the Manitoba Human Rights Commission has had a backlog of 600 cases, sometimes stretching for two to three years. What would be the personal or profes sional out- come–or impact of having an allegation that couldn't be tested made public for two to three years? J. Shetter: Yes, I did read the code, and I didn't study it at length. But as is often the case –and I come from a dif - ferent context.

I've been in Canada for seven years, so I know more the American context. As is often the case, the matter is decided by either public opinion or just the very fact that you have been accused. And so, that's something like the word lawfare, or some thing like that where it's before there is an adjudicated pro- cess, judgment is made in the public opinion, and so I think that's pretty dangerous and can–and I'm con - cerned that could harm people's lives just by having an accusation. The Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you for your presentation. I will now call on Mrs.

Naomi Letkemann, private citizen. Mrs. Naomi Letkemann. Please proceed with your presentation. * (20:00) Naomi Letkemann (Private Citizen): Thank you for having me. It is such an honour to be able to speak in front of all of you. This is the beauty of being in Canada, of participating in the democratic process. And it is for that reason I am speaking. I have to–and the reason that I'm speaking today– there are many reasons –but I signed up yesterday. And this morning, as I was sitting across from my children, I looked at them with this in the back of my mind, and I thought: This is why I'm speaking today.

I'm speaking not just for myself, but I'm speaking because the things I do and say or the things I don't do and say will impact the world that they inherit. And so with that on the back of my mind, what I'm really here for today is to ask for clari fication. Because I think terms are really impor tant. And so how do I support or not support this bill if I don't understand it? Now, I did leave a message with your office, Mr. Wiebe, and I've also contacted my local MLA.

My local MLA did not have any answers for me, so I'm hoping that tonight I will be able to get some answers in order to see if this is some thing that will leave the legacy I want for my children. So I have a couple of questions. How will this committee and how will this bill define gender? What does expression mean? Can you give me an example of why–but just a really concrete example of why this amendment is needed? Can you give me an example of someone going against the amendment and what would happen to them?

And just in some really practi- cal terms, as a woman, I wonder how this might affect my day-to-day life. In high school, I chose to be in the all -girls gym class at Sisler High School, Mrs. Penner [phonetic]. And I did that because that's where I felt comfortable. I felt uncomfortable around boys, and maybe for a variety of reasons, but that was a choice I was given as a teenager. How will this affect my daughter's choice to be in an all-girls environment? How will it affect my choice to have medical procedures from women doctors? How will it affect who administers a Pap test or a mammogram to me?

When going into other public settings, how will it affect my ability to say yes or no to whoever is performing a service? So I come here not with answers but with lots of questions, because if we don't know some of these answers, I don't know that I can make a real decision as to whether or not this is something that will be good for me, for my children and for those others that I love. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you. We will now move on to questions. Mr. Wiebe: Well, thank you very much, Ms. Letkemann. I appreciate you've got lots of questions.

The purpose of the committee, of course, is for us to ask you questions, but I want to make sure you get your questions answered. I did have a chance to talk to your MLA today, and so we'd be happy to follow up, even just directly after your pre sentation, with some of the answers and more fulsome in the future. What I will say is this is not in any way about taking any rights away from your daughter. This is, in fact, about protecting everybody, adding more rights

56 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 2025 to many Manitobans and ensuring that they're not discriminated against based on their gender expression. So I ap preciate that you–I appreciate that you're keeping your kids and your daughter at the centre, at the focus, of your activism, and I think that's what we all need to do, so I appreciate you presenting here this evening. The Chairperson: Mrs. Letkemann, would you like to respond? N. Letkemann: Yes. I guess there's a lot of terms in there that–you said discrimination. What does that mean?

Like, I think it's important to define the words we throw around, because these would have impacts on us. So can I give you a concrete example? If I walked into my doctor's office, would I be able to say to some- one, I would like a woman to perform this test on me? Would I be able to know if that woman was a man who identifies as a woman? The Chairperson: Mr. Goertzen. [interjection] Mr. Wiebe. Mr. Wiebe: Apologize, Chair, I just answered–I think what we'd be happy to– not everybody, I, you know, understands the law or is able to read bills in the same way, so we're happy to walk through all the details.

And, in fact, there are lots of resources to be able to help you understand how the Human Rights Com - mission and The Human Rights Code is interpreted in Manitoba. The Chairperson: Mrs. Letkemann, would you like to reply? N. Letkemann: I came here today, so it's on record that I've asked the questions because this will impact how people interpret this amendment. Mr. Goertzen: Ms. Letkemann, thank you for your presentation. In fact, I think your questions are valid because this is a developing area of law.

The minister has, in the past, referred that this is similar to amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Code and recently, just about a year ago, there was an $18,000 fine levied against somebody for misgendering an individual. And there are probably other circum - stances as well, as there often are, in cases. But that clearly showed that there can be sig nificant financial consequences, not otherwise, for misgendering, and the court in that situation, or the Human Rights Com- mission, indicated that t he law would continue to develop and there could be further consequences.

So I think you're right to ask for further clarity and to see where things are going, and I thank you for expressing that concern this evening. The Chairperson: Mrs. Letkemann, would you like to reply? N. Letkemann: Yes, I guess one of my concerns is the ambiguity around gender, the ambiguity around what it means to be a woman and the ambiguity about my right to say no. And I need those clarified before I can support this bill. The Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you very much for your presentation. Mrs. Letkemann, thank you.

Next up we have Mandalyn Unger, who is on Zoom; however, we will be moving on. We will keep their place on the presenters list. We also had Mx. Ruby Warren scheduled to present, but they are not able to be here, so we will drop down to Monica Wiebe, private citizen. Monica Wiebe. An Honourable Member: On a point of order. To the Chair, nobody can hear you. Point of Order The Chairperson: Mr. Schuler, on a point of order. Mr. Schuler: We can't hear you. Like, can we ask people to speak into their microphones? Like, I can't even hear the Chair. [interjection] As soon as the member for St.

Johns (MLA Fontaine) is finishing with their heckling, I would like to say that individuals in the audience cannot hear most mem - bers; you have to speak into the microphone. We can't–I can't even hear you. Could we please project into the microphone, just like the minister for – member for St. Johns projects all her heckling, seems to be quite well. I think this is a legitimate question. The Chairperson: Minister of Justice, on a point of order. Mr. Wiebe: Same point of order. I think this sounds like an audio-visual issue that maybe the staff can help with.

I'm not sure why the member has to bring this in a way that implies in some way that the Chair's not doing their job as part of this committee. We're happy to address any issues with audio- visual issues for the crowd. That's the work of all of these staff here in this

April 24, 2025 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 57 room. So let's get that solved, but don't–let's not make this personal and certainly not imply that the Chair's not doing a good job. I'm not sure why the member would bring this for- ward in this way. If there's any issues, please, let's make sure that everybody can hear because that's what the purpose of these committees are for. We're happy to be here all night to discuss these impor tant issues and to hear from people, but we have to do it in a way that everyone can hear, so let's make that happen. The Chairperson: All right. This is not a point of order.

However, we will work with the staff to improve the sound quality and, yes, not a point of order. * * * * (20:10) An Honourable Member: On a point of order. Point of Order The Chairperson: Minister Wiebe, on another point of order. Mr. Wiebe: Just on a separate point of order, because we are having these issues with the audio, I'm wondering if maybe it's going to be a long night, can we just suggest maybe a 10-minute recess? We can try to sort out the audio issues and then we can reconvene the com mittee and continue on for the rest of the evening.

The Chairperson: This is not a point of order; however, is there leave from the committee to take a 10-minute recess? Some Honourable Members: No. The Chairperson: I hear a no. Leave has been denied. * * * The Chairperson: We will now move down to the next presenter, Monica Wiebe, private citizen. Order. Order. Please proceed with your presentation. Monica Wiebe (Private Citizen): Matthew 22, verse 36, quote: One of them put a question, Master, which is the greatest commandment of the law? Jesus said: You must love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.

This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second resembles it. You must love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments, hang the whole law and the prophets also. To all honourable members and minister of this standing committee of Justice, I wish to express my concerns regarding the proposed Bill 43, The Human Rights Code amendment, which intends to add the clause gender expression. As it comes with concerns of potential violation to all Manitobans related to freedom of speech, freedom of association and

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	43-2-ju2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	43rd 2nd hansardpdf ju2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ee2f61ae4d865bcf3e429471d3bfcf6f3330d67f

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