Wednesday, May 10, 2023

TIME – 6 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail)


Members of the committee present:

Hon. Messrs. Goertzen, Teitsma

MLA Asagwara, Messrs. Isleifson, Lagassé, Ms. Lathlin


Mr. Matt Wiebe, MLA for Concordia

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux, MLA for Tyndall Park


Bill 7–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amend­ment Act

Brandon Guenther, Pedal Pub Winnipeg

Kevin Selch, Little Brown Jug Brewing Company


Bill 7–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amend­ment Act

Bill 16–The Domestic Violence and Stalking Amend­ment Act

Bill 27–The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Amend­ment Act

* * *

Clerk Assistant (Mr. Tim Abbott): : Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Justice please come to order.

      Before the committee can proceed with the busi­ness before it, it must elect a Chairperson.

      Are there any nominations?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Sir, I would like to nominate the hon­our­able member for Brandon East.

Clerk Assistant: That would be Mr. Isleifson. Mr. Isleifson has been nominated.

      Any other nominations?

      Hearing none, Mr. Isleifson, please take the Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: Good evening, everyone. Our next order of business is to elect a Vice-Chairperson.

      Are there any nominations?

Hon. James Teitsma (Minister of Consumer Protection and Government Services): I nominate Mr. Lagassé.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lagassé has been nominated.

      Any further nominations?

      Hearing none, Mr. Lagassé is elected Vice-Chairperson.

      Okay, so this meeting this evening has been called to discuss the following bills: Bill 7, The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amend­ment Act; Bill 16, The Domestic Violence and Stalking Amend­ment Act; and Bill 27, The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Amend­ment Act.

      I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment. A standing com­mit­tee–pardon me–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.

      Prior to proceeding with public pre­sen­ta­tions, I  would like to advise members of the public regarding the process in which we use for speaking in committee. In accordance to our rule 92(2), a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presenters, with another five minutes allotted for questions from commit­tee members. Committee members' questions shall not exceed 30 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; second, a member of the official op­posi­tion; and third, an indepen­dent 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 these meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to recog­nize the person and say their name. This is the signal for Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off.

      Thank you all for your patience, and we will now proceed with public pre­sen­ta­tions.

Bill 7–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act

Mr. Chairperson: And I will call on Mr. Sean Jackson. Mr. Jackson?

      Okay, well, one more time for Mr. Jackson. Then now, we'll move Mr. Jackson to the bottom of the list.

      Our next presenter is Mr. Brandon Guenther from the Pedal Pub Winnipeg. Sir, I just ask you to come to the podium.

      And do you have any materials that you want to hand out to the com­mit­tee?

Brandon Guenther (Pedal Pub Winnipeg): I do, actually.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, we will get those handed out.

      Okay, sir, you have ten minutes. The floor is yours.

B. Guenther: So, hello, everyone. My name is Brandon Guenther. I'm here on behalf of my busi­ness, Pedal Pub Winnipeg.

      I would like to start off by talking a little bit about  my busi­ness and what we do. So, we are an ecofriendly tourism busi­ness that offers a two-hour tour to some of Winnipeg's best and brightest breweries and restaurants. We operate three 15-person pedal-powered bikes that run solely on electricity and power gen­era­tion from guests pedalling.     

      Our certified pilots, who are trained on the bike, operate these tours and have full control at all times. We are a franchisee to Pedal Pub Canada, which was brought over from the US in 2018. Pedal Pub has been around since 2007 and started in Minneapolis. We only use the highest quality bikes on the market  which are Het Fietscafe. They're built in the Netherlands, shipped to Nashville, then up-fitted with electric assist before being shipped to their final destination.

      We truly believe Pedal Pub Winnipeg, combined with the city's own cultural elements enhances the vibran­cy of an engaged tourism sector, brings boldness and liveliness to the downtown core and offers a completely unique, shared ex­per­ience that strengthens Winnipeg's economy.

      After our first year, we have already seen im­pressive com­mu­nity impact beyond our own imme­diate scope, as well as an amazing feedback from the local police de­part­ments, busi­nesses we interact with, our customers and com­mu­nities we work in. Some of these impacts include the economic impact, so we did a study and each of our two-hour tours results in over $1,200 in direct spending to local vendors.

      Job creation: local esta­blish­ments that we provide  tours to have extended staffing and hours of  operation in order to realize new revenue from Pedal Pub guests. Pedal Pub's own imme­diate staffing require­ments include over 20 full and part-time personnel.

      Traffic calming: Pedal Pub tours run in pedestrian-centric locales, operating safely and diligently by maintaining a slow, predictable and con­sistent pace within the city of Winnipeg.

      Through our own efforts we've also been able to  create a mutually beneficial part­ner­ship with the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. So those are some of the impacts that we've had.

      In 2021, the Manitoba gov­ern­ment reintroduced its in­ten­tion to modernize the LGCA's liquor service framework to provide more flexibility for the industry to meet shifting consumer preferences. With the ever-changing tourist industry, we continue to look for ways to grow and expand the ex­per­ience offered to our own customers.

      We see the modernization of the liquor service framework as an essential project for the Province of Manitoba that could not only be an im­por­tant key for the growth of our busi­ness but will also help other local busi­nesses thrive.

      Today, my primary goal is focussed on working with the Province of Manitoba and the LGCA to  create, develop and launch a new licensing model that  would allow safe and respon­si­ble alcohol consump­tion while on board our large format 15‑passenger bikes.

      We understand that our busi­ness model may not currently fit with the traditional mold for licensing. However, the op­por­tun­ity to work together on creating a new framework is a chance to revolutionize how our city and residents spend their time and money within it.

      We strongly feel that should Bill 7 pass it would provide us with the chance to create the ap­pro­priate licensing model that will define how we can make this  function work for our parti­cular busi­ness, which I believe is extremely advantageous for Manitoba's tourism, night economy and cultural sector.

      The absolute safety of our guests and the greater public is of critical importance to us. We know that with the ap­pro­priate policy underpinning all of our training, respon­si­ble con­sump­tion on our bikes can be safely and seamlessly intro­duced to our operation, should Bill 7 be passed.

* (18:10)

      Elements amid–aimed at mitigating onboard consump­tion risk are: a mandated clean driver's abstract for all Pedal Pub pilots; mandated LGCA Smart Choices Certification for all Pedal Pub pilots; comprehen­sive annual pilot training and certification; tours are booked online in advance, eliminating hop-on, hop-off functionality and cash on board; waivers starting–stating a guest may not arrive intoxicated; Smart Choice certified staff may disallow service to intoxicated patrons, despite it being a prepaid tour; no glass containers allowed on board–zero tolerance; one op­por­tun­ity to pre-purchase a limited number of beverages before the tour with no  possi­bility of purchasing during.

      We would also have strictly enforced onboard rules to ensure tours are operated in a safe and respectful manner; pilots will have the author­ity to cancel a tour and provide customers with a safe ride home; electric-assist vehicle require­ment, to ensure con­sistent speed in traffic and the ability to overcome changes in terrain, irrespective of the level of effort put forth by the guests on board.

      Currently, Alberta and Saskatchewan have approved their Pedal Pub locations to sell and serve liquor on the bikes, and those respective locations have since seen an increase in bookings of between 150 to 200 per cent once receiving their licenses.

      We are hopeful that the Province of Manitoba will  also see a benefit in encouraging and supporting Bill 7 so that the governing bodies can work with a new and unique busi­ness like ours in the creation of a framework that could support the safe and respon­si­ble con­sump­tion on board our large-format bikes within the province of Manitoba.

      That's all I have. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      We will go to the op­posi­tion first, if you have questions.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Well, I just wanted to thank you, Mr. Guenther, for presenting here tonight. Exciting venture that you're embarking on. And it does sound like you've thought this through in a respon­si­ble way. I ap­pre­ciate that.

      Before this com­mit­tee hearing, have you had any  op­por­tun­ity to share these thoughts with the govern­ment? Have you been consulted, or has this infor­ma­tion that you're sharing here today, has that been communicated to gov­ern­ment before this opportun­ity?

B. Guenther: Yes, we have talked to the LGCA. We've talked to the minister of the LGCA about this, as well.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you very much, Mr. Guenther, for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      I just wanted to confer with our executive director and CEO of LGCA, who does a tre­men­dous job.

      So, my anticipation is that, if this bill passes, we will be able to provide a licensing framework for the busi­ness as you described it. Requires regula­tory changes. We would do our best to get those regu­lations through as quickly as possible, but the bill would provide a framework, my under­standing is from the regulator, for you to have licence provisions on Pedal Pub.

B. Guenther: Sorry, could you repeat the question? You kind of trailed off there.

Mr. Goertzen: Less of a question and more of an assurance for you that, if the bill passes, we should be able to provide a licensing provision for you for Pedal Pub, and we'll need to get some regula­tions passed. We would do our best to get them in for summer, but this bill would be im­por­tant for you to get a licensing provision, as you've requested.

Mr. Chairperson: Any further questions from commit­tee members?

      Hearing none, thank you very much, once again, for your pre­sen­ta­tion this evening.

      Next we'll move on to Little Brown Jug Brewing Company, Mr. Kevin Selch.

      And, Mr. Selch, did you have any docu­ments to hand out to the com­mit­tee members?

Kevin Selch (Little Brown Jug Brewing Company): I didn't know I was allowed to hand out docu­ments, so I didn't make enough copies.

Mr. Chairperson: That's okay. It's–we can have some made and sent around.

      In the meantime, sir, the floor is yours.

K. Selch: Little Brown Jug Brewing Company supports bill C-7. Currently, we are the beer sponsor for Pride Winnipeg, Jazz Winnipeg, and the Winnipeg Folk Festival.

      For our con­tri­bu­tion, the festivals serve our products in their beer gardens. The sale of our product partially offsets the cost of the festival sponsorships. The festivals, for their part, rely on sales from beer gardens to help fund their operations, and festival goers enjoy a hot–a cold beer on a hot day.

      The LGCA legis­lation restricts the sale of beer to 750 millilitres per person at a time, which would be two beers just under 13 ounces. In discussions with the LGCA, no one seems to know why that volume was selected, although I suspect it was based on the  largest common beer bottle at the time. This legislation would have allowed for the service of two of them.

      The beer industry has moved away from glass and into aluminum cans, and a common can size is 473 millilitres, or 16 ounces, which is often called a tallboy. This is truer in the craft beer industry where the tallboy can is the industry standard. Moreover, a standard beer cup is designed to hold 16 ounces, and it is the same volume a customer expects when ordering a standard pint from their local watering hole.

      However, added together, two tallboy cans, or standard pints, are more than the LGCA allowable serving amount. This means that festivals are not able to serve customers two full pints or two tallboy cans. The difference equates to 98 millilitres or about 3 ounces per drink. As I like to call it, it is the tale of two sips.

      Now, this issue may seem a little silly or esoteric, but it un­neces­sarily costs festivals and it costs local busi­nesses like Little Brown Jug. It diminishes the festival-goer ex­per­ience as they are served cups that are clearly not full, and it creates tension with serving staff, all of which are volunteers. The festival is less equipped to manage lines with this restriction, and there is an environ­mental impact to the added waste.

      It is here where I need to explain that for small producers like Little Big Jug, it isn't as simple as filling smaller cans for festivals. The cost to retool and redesign packaging would make any potential sponsorship untenable.

      Supplier sponsorship is an im­por­tant source of revenue for the festivals, so this is an im­por­tant relationship both ways.

      For two and a half years, Little Brown Jug, as well as festivals, other suppliers and organi­zations have failed to gain traction on this issue with the LGCA or its board. The LGCA currently grants an exception to the major sporting venues to serve two 16-ounce pints to one patron. So, there are places in Manitoba where you can buy two standard pints at a time–just not at a festival.

      What we would like to see is equal treatment between venues and operations. The LGCA has informed us that they're not willing to consider any changes to serving sizes or current exemptions until  they gain the powers–the new powers under bill C-7.

      The summer festival season is fast approaching, with Pride, June 4th; Jazz Festival, June 14th to 24th and Folk Fest, July 6 to 9. I am hopeful that we can remove this frustrating barrier for the upcoming festival season. These changes would demon­strate that Manitoba is open for busi­ness, is serious about removing red tape and regula­tory burden and is working to create a culture of yes.

      For this reason, Little Brown Jug supports the swift passage and royal assent of bill C-7.

Mr. Chairperson: And thank you very much for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      The floor is now open for questions. Do we have any questions of the presenter?

Mr. Wiebe: Well, thank you very much for your presen­ta­tion and for the visual repre­sen­tation of what you're talking about. And I think we can all ap­pre­ciate upon looking at that exactly what you're talking about.

      It's similar to the question I asked before. You've obviously thought these issues through very carefully. You want to be respon­si­ble. You've communicated this to LGCA.

      Is the–are you getting a good response? Is it–have–do you feel that your concerns are being listened to and that if this was passed that you would, in fact, be able to serve as you think you need to?

K. Selch: I am optimistic. I mean, my under­standing is that the author­ity exists to provide this exemption now, that this will greatly simplify it, and that's the reason why they're waiting on C-7 to pass to simplify the powers that they have within it so that it doesn't require legis­lative change.

      It would require legis­lative change, is my under­standing, to make it permanent, but an exception could be given on a temporary basis.

Mr. Goertzen: Thank you very much, and thanks for being here for your pre­sen­ta­tion and for the letters and for the service you provide to the com­mu­nity.

      The bill is im­por­tant to help achieve what you're trying to achieve. I know that exemptions can be brought forward. But I think it's also im­por­tant that when it comes to social respon­si­bility we don't have a framework that's overly complicated and has lots of different exemptions that are sometimes confusing and complex.

      My under­standing, though, is similar to the previous presenter, the Pedal Pub, that we'll be able to bring forward after this bill has passed, a–can I get leave to go a little longer?

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave? [Agreed]

      Minister, there has been leave. The floor is yours.

Mr. Goertzen: That we'll be able to bring forward a package of regula­tion changes, we hope, by the summer that will not only allow Pedal Pub to be able to find a licence for their busi­ness but also larger serving sizes as you've requested.

* (18:20)

K. Selch: Do you think that would be likely before the festival season this summer, which starts June 4th?

Mr. Goertzen: We'll absolutely do our best.

      I am always hesitant to make commit­ments on the timing of the Legislature because it's not all entirely within our control. But I can assure you we'll do our best to achieve that.

      I do also want to say, while I have the floor, Kristianne Dechant, who I am conferring with, who is the CEO and executive director of LGCA is–does an outstanding job.

      And, I really ap­pre­ciate the work that she does, so I know she has to do–sometimes give difficult messages, but she does it through social respon­si­bility and ensuring that we're doing things the right way.

      But I think we're getting close to achieving what you want.

K. Selch: That would be–if it is possible that the gov­ern­ment knows where they're going with this change in regula­tion, and it's not quite ready, an exemption would make a big difference for this festival season as we follow through with the regula­tory process.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      I just wanted to provide the op­por­tun­ity for you to share a little bit about why it would be im­por­tant that, if this legis­lation goes through, it take effect sooner, rather than later. If you can speak to that a little bit.

K. Selch: Last season we had this restriction. This year, in parti­cular, the festivals want to serve cans as well as draft, so it's even going to be more difficult to provide that level of service.

      And the cost to–the cost in terms of–I know for the Folk Fest on how they price their products, the cost of lost revenue to us for some­thing that is pretty trivial in a small amount can make a big difference for the overall festivals.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Goertzen: Only again to thank you. You know, this is some­thing we've been trying to move towards in a lot of different ways–more broadly in terms of trying to provide more options for licensing.

      The bill hasn't moved as quickly as we'd hoped through the Legislature for a variety of reasons–I won't get into politics tonight–but I think we're closer than we've been in a long time, so I hope we can achieve what you've been looking for.

K. Selch: I know that the LGCA was–had also signalled to us that they were hoping this–to move along so then they could bring along regula­tions as well.

      So, thank you for your time, I ap­pre­ciate it.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, and thank you very much for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      So, we'll move on to Mr. Sean Jackson, who was moved to the bottom of the list. We'll call Mr. Jackson one more time.

      And seeing no one, we will remove Mr. Sean Jackson from our pre­sen­ta­tion list.

      I haven't seen anybody else walk into the room, but just want to make sure there was no one else to do any pre­sen­ta­tions, as that is the conclusion of my presenters list.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: So, to the com­mit­tee, in what order does the com­mit­tee wish to proceed with clause-by-clause con­sid­era­tion of these bills?

Mr. Goertzen: Numerical, with the lowest number going first.

Mr. Chairperson: Numerical has been recom­mended.

      Is that all right with everyone here around the table? [Agreed]

      So, numerical. We will now proceed numerically, starting, of course, with Bill 7.

Bill 7–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act


Mr. Chairperson: Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 7 have an opening statement?

Hon. Kelvin


 (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I do. Thank you very much.

      At second reading, I gave more detailed com­ments in terms of the content of the bill. I don't think there were any questions that were asked that we weren't able to answer at that time, so I can't report on any answers as I traditionally do at com­mit­tee.

      I do just want to say that, you know, this bill is, you know, some of the things we learned during the COVID years, some of the complexities that we've learned about the licensing system when it comes to liquor service in Manitoba, it's about modernizing that, making it more ac­ces­si­ble.

      You heard some of the new service providers, the new ways in which people are delivering service of alcohol. I know this sounds ironic, sometimes, coming from the MLA for Steinbach, where we didn't have beverage rooms up until 11 years ago, but the reality is that there's a lot of different ways, now, that people are looking to consume alcohol as part of their broader enter­tain­ment in safe and socially respon­si­ble ways. And this bill allows for more of that to happen.

      I think maybe there was some mis­under­standing about what the bill did or didn't do, in the past, from the op­posi­tion. I'm glad that, this time around, it's being advanced. I ap­pre­ciate that from the op­posi­tion. I think we have a clearer under­standing of what it is and what it isn't.

      And again, I want to echo my thanks to Kristianne Dechant, who's the executive director and CEO of LGCA, who does an outstanding job of ensuring that, you know, we're doing things that move us along in terms of modernization, but doing it in a way that is socially respon­si­ble and that doesn't create even more complexity in an already complex environ­ment.

      And so, with those few comments, I look forward to a quick passage of the bill, and we can start working on those regula­tions that had been requested by the two individuals today.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those comments.

      Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Mr. Matt


 (Concordia): Once again, I just want to take the op­por­tun­ity to thank our presenters here this evening.

      Not only did I think they present their own specific cases and how this legis­lation will help them in terms of furthering their busi­ness and being–you know, continuing to be suc­cess­ful in that realm, but I also ap­pre­ciated the fact that they came to this  com­mit­tee, as I said before, you know, obviously very informed, knowing the current rules, but also under­standing how we can advance the rules, we can make things easier and more ac­ces­si­ble for people and, at the same time, being conscious of serving responsibly.

      And I think that's what I'm hearing very clearly from both presenters. And I think, in general, that's the message that we're getting from the industry and from folks who want to, as I said, start busi­nesses or find new ways of delivering services and, you know, delivering good times to people.

      I do think I am concerned when I hear the minister say, you know, sort of on the fly, well, we'll approve this, we won't approve that and, you know, we'll move these things through quickly or we won't move other things through quickly.

      It does give me concern, and part of that is because much of the legis­lation that we've seen come forward has been, you know, without many specifics and without those kind of clear guide­lines that we expect in legis­lation. It can work in the benefit of some, but not always. And so, we're always concerned when it's being left to regula­tion and some of the intent is not as clear as I think it should be.

      We also want to be very clear that, as the Manitoba NDP, we support the public delivery of liquor in this province. And while we want to work with our partners in the, you know, in the entrepreneurial space and with private busi­ness, we also want to make sure that Manitobans know that  public–our public liquor system does work. And by modernizing it in ways like what we see in Bill 7, I think we can certainly achieve that.

      But, as the minister referenced, we're always wary when this gov­ern­ment has made it clear they want to priva­tize liquor sales in this province in a variety of different ways that I think just don't meet the needs of com­mu­nity and aren't respon­si­ble in the bigger sense.

      So, as I said, we support Bill 7. We do expect it to move quickly through the legis­lative process beyond this point, and we look forward to making sure that those regula­tions, as they're imple­mented, do meet with the needs of the industry and that ultimately the customers are happy with what they're receiving.

      And maybe I'll just editorialize a little. When I  hear about festival season coming, that certainly piques my interest. I know a lot of Manitobans look forward to that time. So, hopefully we can all enjoy it  together responsibly and we can enjoy ourselves as  Manitobans, enjoy the beautiful weather and experiences that we have.

      So, with those few words, I look forward to seeing the bill move forward.

Mr. Chairperson: And we thank the member for those comments.

      Just a reminder, during the con­sid­era­tion of a bill, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.

      Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clause 4–pass; clause 5–pass; enacting clause–pass.

      Shall the title pass?

Some Honourable Members: Pass.

An Honourable Member: Comment.

Mr. Chairperson: Minister Goertzen.

Mr. Goertzen: Yes, I'd–I just want to put on the record quickly, Mr. Chairperson, there was a comment made about assurances that were made quickly.

* (18:30)

      I'd like to repeat, in terms of the two presenters who presented here tonight, these are requests that they've had before LGCA for months, if not years. They're not new requests. They're not things that haven't been considered. But they needed a statutory framework around it.

      So, I think the member for Concordia (Mr. Wiebe) likely misspoke. He'll correct me if he didn't misspeak, but if he did misspeak I suppose he'll leave it at this. But the–these are not new requests. They've been presented for quite a long time and been  considered for a long time, but we needed a statutory framework to build around them.

Mr. Chairperson: Any further comments on that? No?

      Hearing none, then we'll go on.

      Shall the bill be reported–oh, we did that one already. Okay, well, we'll do it again, sure.

      Title–pass. Bill be reported.

Bill 16–The Domestic Violence and Stalking Amendment Act

Mr. Chairperson: So, next we'll move on to Bill 16, The Domestic Violence and Stalking Amend­ment Act.

      Does the minister responsible for Bill 16 have an opening statement?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Just briefly, there aren't–there weren't any questions at com­mit­tee that were left–or,  sorry at second reading Q & A that were left unanswered and I gave comments at second reading that were fulsome, and there'll be more at third reading.

      But just again, this is really in response to the different ways now in which we try to deal with family  matters out of court. There's a lot more options  for families to be able to be involved outside of court and have shared custody in a variety of other ways for supervised parenting time and child exchanges. And this is generally seen as best practice, to try to find ways to resolve things out of court.

      However, what has caused and has been advised in terms of changes is that at times, when people have  orders against them, pro­tec­tion orders, it might inadvertently cause them to be in a breach where the two parties have agreed to enter into some sort of a supervised situation, perhaps involv­ing their kids and–or, their children. And it takes away the op­por­tun­ity, then, to have those reso­lu­tions and to do things in a way outside of court.

      So, we want to ensure that we're not causing harm by actually putting in things that are supposed to benefit parents and their children and I'm advised that this will certainly assist in that.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those comments.

      And does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas-Kameesak): Bill 16 amends The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act to make changes to pro­tec­tion orders.

      Pro­tec­tion orders are an im­por­tant safety measure for people ex­per­iencing domestic violence. Domestic violence, parti­cularly gender-based violence, is an epidemic that we need to address. We know that domestic violence is gender based and racialized into who it impacts, and we need to take–we need to always take this into con­sid­era­tion.

      Pro­tec­tion orders are a critical way that people exper­iencing domestic violence can protect them­selves. However, it is not a preventive measure that stops violence from occurring in the first place. For this, we need to invest in women's health and safety in all areas so we can better provide support to people ex­per­iencing dangerous situations at home.

      I'm happy to support this bill.


Mr. Chairperson: We thank the member for those comments.

      So, once again, during the con­sid­era­tion of a bill, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.

      Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clause 4–pass; clause 5–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

Bill 27–The Intimate Image Protection Amendment Act

Mr. Chairperson: Next we'll move on to Bill 27, The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Amend­ment Act.

      Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 27 have an opening statement?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I do.

      There were two questions that I committed to come back to committee with answers for. One was by the member for Concordia (Mr. Wiebe), who asked who had been consulted in the crafting of this bill. I  indicated at the time that the Canadian Centre for  Child Pro­tec­tion had been consulted. That, in  fact, is true, but in addition to that, the project was  also supported by the Gender-Based Violence Com­mit­tee of Cabinet.

      Also, an environ­mental scan deter­mined that  several other juris­dic­tions in Canada–excuse me–have comparable legis­lation, placing consent onus on the defendants, including Saskatchewan, New  Brunswick, PEI, Newfoundland and Labrador. As well, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada recom­mended these changes in their January 2021 report, and there was also–due diligence was com­pleted by obtaining a legal analysis by the Con­sti­tu­tional Law branch of the Justice De­part­ment.

      My friend, the MLA for Tyndall Park, asked to  confirm whether or not the bill would be retroactive, including cases that were currently ongoing. I indicated at that time that I did not believe that that would normally be the case, in terms of making laws retroactive.

      The de­part­ment advised that the general rule is  that a change in the law does not affect litigation that has begun before the change of the law–section 50 of The Inter­pre­ta­tion Act–and we don't normally want to change the rules in cases that have  already begun because the parties have con­ducted their cases on the basis of the law that existed at the time.

      Also, the de­part­ment indicated that civil–because there was a question about how many cases might be involved–civil court proceedings under the statute are not tracked in court infor­ma­tion systems, and so we're not–we are not able to advise whether any cases are currently before the courts.

      So, I hope that satisfies my friend from Tyndall Park, and with that, we look forward to this bill passing at com­mit­tee tonight.

Mr. Chairperson: And we thank the minister for those comments.

      And does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas-Kameesak): Bill 27 shifts the burden of proof during legal actions regarding the non-consensual dis­tri­bu­tion of intimate images.

      Under Bill 27, the dis­tri­bu­tion is presumed to have occurred without consent, requiring the person respon­si­ble for distributing the image to prove otherwise if it was consensual.

      This is an in­cred­ibly im­por­tant change. Everyone has a right to not have their intimate images dis­tributed without their consent.

      The effects of non-consensual intimate image dis­tri­bu­tion can be devas­tating and life altering. In extreme cases, it has caused people to take their own lives.

      Bill 27 is an im­por­tant step in helping empower people who have had intimate images distributed without their consent. And I'm happy to support this bill.


Mr. Chairperson: And we thank the member for those comments.

      So, again, during the con­sid­era­tion of a bill, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.

      Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clause 3–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

      The hour being 6:38, what is the will of the com­mit­tee?

Some Honourable Members: Com­mit­tee rise.

Mr. Chairperson: Com­mit­tee rise.




TIME – 6 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

Mr. Len Isleifson
(Brandon East)

Mr. Bob Lagassé
(Dawson Trail)


Members of the committee present:

Hon. Messrs. Goertzen, Teitsma

MLA Asagwara,
Messrs. Isleifson, Lagassé,
Ms. Lathlin


Mr. Matt Wiebe, MLA for Concordia

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux, MLA for Tyndall Park


Bill 7–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amend­ment Act

Brandon Guenther, Pedal Pub Winnipeg

Kevin Selch, Little Brown Jug Brewing Company


Bill 7–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amend­ment Act

Bill 16–The Domestic Violence and Stalking Amend­ment Act

Bill 27–The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Amend­ment Act

* * *