LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGIS­LATIVE AFFAIRS

Tuesday, May 9, 2023

TIME – 6 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Dennis Smook (La Vérendrye)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie)

ATTENDANCE – 6     QUORUM – 4

Members of the committee present:

Hon. Mr. Johnson, Hon. Ms. Squires.

Mr. Brar, MLA Fontaine, Messrs. Smook, Wishart

APPEARING:

Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights

PUBLIC PRESENTERS:

Bill 23–The Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Amend­ment Act

Jessica Croy, People First of Manitoba

Tomas Ponzilius, private citizen

Sharon McIlraith, private citizen

Twila Richards, private citizen

Dale Kendel, private citizen

Debra Roach, Family Advocacy Network of Manitoba

Amy Shawcross, Com­mu­nity Living Manitoba

Bill 31–The Animal Care Amend­ment Act (2)

Brenna Mahoney, Keystone Agri­cul­tural Producers (by leave)
Cameron Dahl, Manitoba Pork Council (by leave)

Bill 32–An Act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous Juris­dic­tion and Related Amend­ments)

Doreen Moellenbeck-Dushnitsky, Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services

Trudy Lavallee, Animikii Ozoson Child and Family Services Inc.

Sherry Gott, Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Bill 23–The Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Amend­ment Act

Suzanne Swanton, Continuity Care Inc.

Bill 31–The Animal Care Amend­ment Act (2)

Kaitlyn Mitchell, Animal Justice

Bill 32–An Act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous Juris­dic­tion and Related Amend­ments)

Joshua Nepinak, private citizen
Bert Crocker, private citizen

MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:

Bill 23–The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act

Bill 31–The Animal Care Amendment Act (2)

Bill 32–An Act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous Jurisdiction and Related Amendments)

* * *

Clerk Assistant (Ms. Katerina Tefft): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Legis­lative Affairs please come to order.

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

      Are there any nominations?

Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of Agriculture): MLA Smook, please.

Clerk Assistant: Mr. Smook has been nominated.

      Are there any other nominations?

      Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Smook, will you please elect a Chair–take the Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson.

      Are there any nominations?

Mr. Johnson: I would like to nominate MLA Wishart.

Mr. Chairperson: MLA Wishart has been nomin­ated.

      Are there any other nominations?

      Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Wishart is elected Vice-Chairperson.

      This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 23, The Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Amend­ment Act; Bill 31, The Animal Care Amend­ment Act (2); Bill 32, An Act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous Juris­dic­tion and Related Amend­ments).

      I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions of our rules regarding the hour of adjourn­ment. 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.

      Written submissions. Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distrib­uted to com­mit­tee members: Suzanne Swanton, Continuity Care Inc., on Bill 23; Kaitlyn Mitchell, Animal Justice, on Bill 31; Joshua Nepinak, private citizen, on Bill 32.

      Does the com­mit­tee agree to have these docu­ments appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed]

      Prior to proceeding with public pre­sen­ta­tions, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in a com­mit­tee. In accord­ance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations with another five min­utes allowed for questions from committee members. Questions shall not exceed thirty 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 their name–when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom list–sorry, just read that. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.

      The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA, or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off.

      Order of pre­sen­ta­tions. On the topic of deter­mining the order of public pre­sen­ta­tions, I won't–note that we do have out-of-town presenters in attendance, marked with an asterisk on the list.

      When–with these con­sid­era­tions in mind, then, in what order does the com­mit­tee wish to hear the presenters?

Mr. Johnson: I would–if it's the will of the com­mit­tee, we would listen to out-of-town, in-person repre­sen­tatives first–or, presenters.

Mr. Chairperson: Is that the will of the com­mit­tee? [Agreed]

      With the will of the com­mit­tee, we'll then consider the out-of-town pre­sen­ta­tions first–oh, in person–out-of-town, in-person pre­sen­ta­tions first.

      Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public pre­sen­ta­tions.

Bill 23–The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act

Mr. Chairperson: I will now call Ms. Jessica Croy, People First of Manitoba. Is Jessica present?

      Is it the will of the com­mit­tee to recess for a few minutes 'til we bring those people up from the front door, or should we–

An Honourable Member: Could we continue on to out-of-town presenters? There's only three, so she'll get right back in there.

An Honourable Member: I would say let's just keep going.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay. It is the will of the com­mit­tee that we keep going.

      So, we will now move on to Mr. Dale–sorry.

Bill 32–An Act respecting Child and Family Services
(Indigenous Juris­dic­tion and Related Amendments)

Mr. Chairperson: Would Doreen Moellenbeck-Dushnitsky from the Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services be here?

      Is Mr. Bert Crocker in the room?

      Then we will go back to–that was the out-of-town presenters.

Bill 23–The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act

(Continued)

Mr. Chairperson: We will now go back to Bill 23.

      Mr. Dale Kendel. Is Mr. Dale Kendel available? Mr.  Dale Kendel's name will be moved–okay. Mr. Dale Kendel is not here, so we will move him to the bottom of the list and then we will call him at a later time.

      Ms. Debra Roach, Family Advocacy Network of Manitoba. Is Debra available? Ms. Roach is not available, so her name will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

      Ms. Amy Shawcross. Is Amy Shawcross avail­able? Ms. Amy Shawcross from Com­mu­nity Living Manitoba will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

      Ms. Jessica Croy is not in the room yet–[interjection]–she's online? Ms. Croy, are you avail­able?

Jessica Croy (People First of Manitoba): Here I am.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Croy, you may proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion when you are ready.

J. Croy: Okay. Here we go.

      Hi, my name is Jessica. Can you guys hear me?

      Can you guys hear me?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes, we can hear you, Ms. Croy.

J. Croy: Okay.

      My name is Jessica Croy, and I am here on behalf of People First of Manitoba. Thank you for the op­por­tun­ity to let me speak.

      We at People First agree that the–on the labels on the vul­ner­able persons act need to change.

* (18:10)

      People First has always stood by we are people first, and dis­abil­ity second. We–sorry. We believe that if People First–oh. People First believes that it should be called people labelled with an intellectual dis­abil­ity, instead of just intellectual dis­abil­ity.

      Now I'm going to be talking about substitute decision makers. People First believes that people should have the right to make their own choices. We understand when there is certain circum­stances where substitute decision makers should be brought in, but that should be the last resort, not the first–one of the first options. Supported decision making should be encouraged.

      I think that's all I have. I believe that's all I have.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion, Ms. Croy.

      We will now have–the hon­our­able–[interjection] Oh, yes. We'll now move into a five minute of question period.

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister respon­si­ble for Accessibility): I just want to say thank you to Jessica for your pre­sen­ta­tion tonight.

      It's–it takes a lot of bravery and courage to come to com­mit­tee. We know that this is not an easy process, and I just admire your courage and your tenacity for continuously advocating on behalf of people with dis­abil­ities.

      And I see so much of the work that you've done is now being reflected in legis­lative changes, in policy changes for the way the Manitoba gov­ern­ment and all Manitobans regard people with dis­abil­ities. So I just want to once again thank you for your tenacity and your advocacy and for coming to com­mit­tee tonight, for your bravery.

Mr. Chairperson: Did you have a response to that, Ms. Croy?

J. Croy: Thank you very much.

MLA Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I just wanted to say–reiterate what the minister was speaking about, that it does take a lot of courage to come and present in front of a bunch of strangers in the Manitoba Legis­lative Assembly. And so I just want to say miigwech to you for your advocacy and for all of the work that you do.

      Miigwech. Thank you.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Jessica, thank you very much for appearing tonight by Zoom, and managing it and making a really good pre­sen­ta­tion.

      And you made an im­por­tant point, that substitute decision makers shouldn't be the last resort. They should be the–only at the end, and the first option should be talking with people like yourself, who have a dis­abil­ity but who can make up their own minds about lots and lots of things.

      So, thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: My apologies, Ms. Croy, I did not give you the op­por­tun­ity to respond to MLA Fontaine, so you may respond to both now.

J. Croy: And again, I would just say thank you to both.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): Ms. Croy, I just wanted to say thank you for exercising your right, this demo­cratic right. I ap­pre­ciate you presenting today.

      Thank you.

J. Croy: Again, thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

      Ms. Croy, we would like to thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      And we will now move on to the next presenter. Mr. Tomas Ponzilius. Tomas?

      Do you have any written material for the com­mit­tee? Is–[interjection] Okay, you may proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion whenever you are ready.

Tomas Ponzilius (Private Citizen): Good evening.

      My name is Tomas Ponzilius. I am grateful for this op­por­tun­ity today to speak to you about Bill 23, The Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Amend­ment Act.

      I'm here to present as someone with lived ex­per­ience because I was born with certain specific learning dis­abil­ities. I was born with non-verbal learning dis­order, auditory processing disorder and dysgraphia. I am also here to represent others with other specific learning dis­abil­ities such as dyslexia, dyscalculia, language processing disorder and visual perceptual disorder.

      I would like to thank you for your dedi­cation and hard work in developing this bill amend­ment. How­ever, I feel tonight, while an accom­plish­ment, is, in my opinion, a series of missed op­por­tun­ities.

      People with learning dis­abil­ities and com­mu­nity organizations that represent us consist of some of the largest com­mu­nities in Canada. These statistics come from Stats Canada and the Ontario prov­incial gov­ern­ment. I am not pulling from Manitoba's prov­incial gov­ern­ment, because Manitoba has never in­de­pen­dently assessed its own popu­la­tion.

      The median measurement is approximately 8 per cent. This would then mean about 100,000 Manitobans have learning dis­abil­ities. If this is true, then this statement means that there are more people with learning dis­abil­ities in Manitoba than all other dis­abil­ities combined.

      Again, this is not my opinion, but a combined assessment of multiple in­sti­tutions. Yet we remain not consulted, with the only op­por­tun­ity provided, this public session.

      Now, when decisions are made, resources are often consulted. Well, resource dis­tri­bu­tion must con­sult the size of a popu­la­tion and its needs. Those are the two primary measurements. Had this been con­ducted, people with learning dis­abil­ities, since we are some of the–since we are the largest and some–and have some of the most complex needs, would have been consulted.

      We may have then received an in­de­pen­dent attention in the amend­ment, not lumped together with all other dis­abil­ities. Learning dis­abil­ities are very much their own separate neurological series of dis­orders. Again, a missed op­por­tun­ity.

      After careful review of the com­mu­nity groups consulted, it was of interest to note that the largest group that represents people with learning dis­abil­ities, the Learning Dis­abil­ities Association of Manitoba, was not consulted. While there were other groups, none of them specialize in this neurology that affects, again, about 100,000 Manitobans. A missed op­por­tun­ity.

* (18:20)

      I am the sole person with learning dis­abil­ities with lived ex­per­ience here. While I'm accom­plished in my willingness to advocate and strive against systemic inequalities, these accom­plish­ments come at a willingness to study complex neurology and be my own lawyer.

      My expertise in law comes from having to study the Manitoba Human Rights Code and its various clauses and its relevant precedents, all on my own, without assist­ance. I'm someone who's struggling to learn, who's expected to learn things. There is an irony in this.

      The norm, though, is very much more tragic than what I described for myself, though. The norm is a high drop-out rate in post-secondary and college. The norm is an above-average rate of in­car­cer­ation. The norm is an above-average rate–an above-average suicide rate.

      The norm is no public attention; not a single public awareness campaign–not one–goes to the largest group. The norm is challenge–is the challenges in integrating in every major public in­sti­tution.

      The norm are parents of children left to be their own children's lawyers and neurologists, simultan­eously while working full time. And then, their children are expected to do the same for the rest of their lives somehow.

      The norm are adults with learning dis­abil­ities abandoned by society and left to the wolves, neither wanted by academia or employers, neither valued by the general public or the prov­incial gov­ern­ment.

      However, I feel that personal stories are an excellent way to high­light endemic, systemic prob­lems. Local stories. I'd like to high­light some examples during the fall and winter terms of 2021 to 2022 at the Uni­ver­sity of Winnipeg.

      I had one professor who insisted that I would be laughed at by my classroom–he was–he is tenured, has worked there for over a decade–because I would ask questions. This was not 50 years ago, this was in 2021.

      Another professor believed he had the author­ity to instruct me not to go to dis­abil­ity services. My response? Well, fortunately, I knew that I was expected to be a lawyer, so I contacted the uni­ver­sity's human rights lawyer and made it very clear that there were some serious breaches occurring.

      The follow-up was, at least in one situation, a formal apology by my uni­ver­sity. I have about five of them from just the last three years. These terms were not cherry-picked; it is about 20 per cent–one in five.

      And this is not limited. Physicians? Well, I have–unless it's written down–so, unless a speech is written down like I have tonight, my thoughts, well, can be very disorganized. They can be, at times, really challenging to make sense of. So, physicians–well, since they have no training and no willingness to, I'm left to figure out, how do I–again, learn how to teach them complex neurology and then express health needs. I feel there is an irony somewhere hidden in there.

      The only reso­lu­tion, as I've said, that seems to work constantly is the Manitoba Human Rights Code, since there are no other en­force­ment mechanisms available. The norm in general is systemic. This is why I feel to not consult us was a missed op­por­tun­ity.

      We need procedures and policies that ensure that we can interact with every in­sti­tution within the province of Manitoba. For example, we need profes­sors to be mandated to comply with guide­lines that were published, I believe, in 2012 by the Province of Manitoba but are not mandated. Therefore, professors can simply refuse, and there's nothing I can do about it. The answers are there, but not the policy.

      We need our public health in­sti­tutions to incor­porate our challenges with learning to ensure that our need sets are met. What that could look like is having every physician be able to explain every con­di­tion two or three ways.

      I'm entering hopefully, eventually, a graduate program in–a graduate program. I need to be able to explain things in multiple ways to different clients. This is an ex­pect­a­tion, and shouldn't it be an ex­pect­a­tion for our physicians? Our professors? Our teachers?

      Other–we need–overall, though, if this isn't done, we see overall worse health out­comes, because they will not talk to you. They will simply not go to the doctor.

      We need public edu­ca­tion campaigns so that when I tell people I have learning dis­abil­ities, or what I've described to you today, people don't think it's a rare disease. It is not rare; 8 to 10 per cent is statistically sig­ni­fi­cant. Sig­ni­fi­cant starts at about 5 per cent and moves upwards. We are nearly–and some measurements place us double that. And yet, when I say these words, most don't know what I'm talking about. It is challenging; it is like I am a ghost that some don't believe even exists. Yes, I talk well, but try and teach me.

      We need resources to stop only con­sid­ering IQ as the primary measurement. This has been dis­regarded in academia for decades. We know executive function, which is the primary measurement that these resources should be con­sid­ering, is not evaluated. IQ is irrelevant. IQ measurers IQ, and only IQ. It's very clearly defined.

      But, well, what did I do? Fortunately, I had a parent who made an above-average income of nearly $100,000 to assist me. Let's keep in mind the median income in Manitoba is $50,000.

      That would then include expanding programs like the Com­mu­nity Living disABILITY Services. IQ is wrong, it has been wrong for decades and it needs to stop being used.

      But, what happens when we don't get our services met? Well, how do you go to work when you can't get to work on time? We're saying an hour worth of hiring someone, to get someone working full-time, could get someone maybe making that median income of $50,000.

      Why? Because our IQ is average–so, about 100–and higher. I have severe learning dis­abil­ities; I don't think any member of this room would think that I have a low IQ. But yet, they are moderate to severe when evaluated–

Mr. Chairperson: Unfor­tunately, Mr. Ponzilius, your 10 minutes for your pre­sen­ta­tion has expired. We'd like to thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion and we will move on to questions.

      Do members of the com­mit­tee have questions?

Ms. Squires: First of all, I want to say thank you to Mr. Ponzilius for coming in and making your pre­sen­ta­tion, and it is very unfor­tunate that you've had some of the unfor­tunate experiences that you've had in your uni­ver­sity, in your academic career and in society.

      And it just really highlights the areas of op­por­tun­ity and ways that we need to expand and move upon in ensuring that everybody can live equally and freely in the province of Manitoba.

      This bill, spe­cific­ally, was in–to address legis­lation that was brought in force 26 years ago called The Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Act, and we had struck a task force–[interjection] Oh, okay.

      Anyway, thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Ponzilius, did you wish to respond to the minister?

T. Ponzilius: Yes, I would.

      The task force, while a valued effort, focused on IQ. This was–this is the crux of my criticism. In brief, if I might have 10 seconds to add some­thing, to not–to make the claim that all dis­abil­ities are consulted, when the largest group is not–may I remind all party members it is a violation of The Human Rights Code.

      It is, put simply, a false claim. Narrow the defin­ition. Do not say it's all dis­abil­ities, because IQ is not us. We won't fall under an IQ–an assessment. It's a neurological assessment. They are–well, it's like, you know, civil law versus criminal law. They're just different categories.

      I speak to you as knowing many of you are lawyers.

      Thank you.

MLA Fontaine: Miigwech for your pre­sen­ta­tion tonight, Mr. Ponzilius.

      I am curious, you've mentioned con­sul­ta­tion a couple of times, and you did note that in respect of this parti­cular legis­lation that we're talking about this evening, that there wasn't con­sul­ta­tion with some of the biggest advocacy and agencies.

      I'm interested from your perspective and your lived perspective: What kind of con­sul­ta­tion would you like to see? Like, how would you like to see that unfold? Which would be the most meaningful for you?

Floor Comment: Yeah, I have 10 seconds to–

Mr. Chairperson: Yes, Mr. Ponzilius, you have time to respond, whatever it takes you to respond is fine.

* (18:30)

T. Ponzilius: Ideally, if budget were not a concern, there are, and there have been, studies that show that things like executive function can be improved–multiple studies. You can teach these skills.

      What did I do? So, I couldn't understand what I was reading. You can–and one of my–sorry, who would you consult? The Learning Dis­abil­ities Associ­ation of Canada? Learning Dis­abil­ities Association of Manitoba? Neurologists who specialize in this–because not all of them do, and many will make the–it–you know, so this is the other challenge. And then, likely, sociologists, to understand how we blend into those systems.

      But I would say that one of the biggest challenges is that a lot of the ac­com­moda­tions I'm requesting are very minimal. I mean, if it comes down to it, I ask a professor: Can I ask more questions in class? Others are fine with it. My uni­ver­sity says it's fine. He says no. What am I left to do? If he budges–he won't. I have to go to their lawyer because there's no other avenue.

      Dis­abil­ity services isn't mandated to know about learning dis­abil­ities. So, essentially, we're simply unknown.

      So, I'd say part–so one part of the solution: contact neurologists, sociologists and–who specialize. And those two organi­zations would be excellent examples. Speak to someone like me. Consider that if I am here, I am more than likely willing to be a willing and com­pas­sion­ate party to complex political mech­anisms.

      But one of the problems is that they're just weak en­force­ment mechanisms. It is like speeding. Imagine if you sped, and the only way to stop a speeder is if another driver reported a speeder to the police. It's–this is what's left. I have gotten every ac­com­moda­tion. I've spent thousands of hours. Right now, I have accused the Uni­ver­sity of Winnipeg of systemic breaches. I've filed a human rights complaint in addition to the law school admin­is­tra­tion council. And this isn't new. What I–my accusations aren't novel. It appears that these are well sped–and well understood.

      Did you know, for example, that the law schools many of you have come from do not recog­nize our laws in any province–in any? It shocked me, and I ask, how is that legal? Well, the law schools have replied, and their response was simply, well–

Mr. Chairperson: Unfor­tunately, Mr. Ponzilius, our five minutes for questions has expired.

      We'd like to thank you very much for your pre­sen­ta­tion, and we will now move on to the next presenter. Thank you.

      I will now call on Sharon McIlraith. I–if I'm not pronouncing your name right, please correct me. Sharon? Sharon McIlraith, are you online? Sharon McIlraith, are you there? If you could please turn on your camera and your sound, your audio.

Sharon McIlraith (Private Citizen): There we are.

      Hello, can you hear me?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes, we can hear you.

      You may proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion as soon as you are ready to do so.

S. McIlraith: Thank you so much, Sir.

      Good evening. My name is Sharon McIlraith. I am a parent of a neurodiverse individual.

      Changing wording in the act to remove the terms vul­ner­able persons and mental dis­abil­ity with intel­lectual dis­abil­ity–the scope of the act is narrowed to limit its application to people with IQ 75 or lower. Intellectual dis­abil­ity is precisely defined in the DSM‑5 and must include both deficits in intellectual functioning and deficits or impairments in adaptive functioning.

      Intellectual dis­abil­ity is becoming an inter­nationally recog­nized term. But, while the removal of the term mental dis­abil­ity has been recom­mended to reduce confusion with the term mental illness, its re­place­ment with the term intellectual dis­abil­ity nar­rows the scope of the act to a popu­la­tion that comprise about 1 per cent of the popu­la­tion.

      There are several problems with using intellectual dis­abil­ity as it is currently defined as a criterion for provi­ding services to people who are vul­ner­able by virtue of their dis­abil­ity.

      (1) Intellectual functioning is assessed based on IQ, usually a score under 70. IQ scores have a well-documented failing because they are an average number. Extreme deficits in some of its component indices are hidden.

      (2) Some people cannot function in society with­out support if they are lacking intellectual functioning or adaptive functioning. Intellectual dis­abil­ity re­quires deficits in both.

      (3) It assumes that the 1 per cent of the popu­la­tion diagnosed with an intellectual dis­abil­ity are the only people needing support. An entire popu­la­tion of people who are unable to function on their own practically or socially are not included in this bill and will now be further excluded by the use of the narrowly defined term intellectual dis­abil­ity. These people are now becoming known as neurodiverse people. People who have diagnosises of, for example, dyslexia, autism, ADHD, FASD, tic disorders, learn­ing disorders and there are more.

      Because many of these individuals have a high IQ, they are excluded by the term intellectual dis­abil­ity in this bill and other areas, including CLDS. Their high IQ does not mean they can function in life, since they are often lacking executive functioning. Exec­utive functioning determines when a person can eat, sleep, cook, dress, problem-solve and much more–just live.

      My child, of whom Dr. Gerrard has spoken, and who has a high IQ, spent a winter homeless due to his low executive functioning/adaptive functioning. He has been unable to keep a job, having lost three jobs to date, including a volunteering position. He often does not eat for days at a time, not showering and often not leaving his apartment for days. He has recently accidentally overdosed twice on his medi­cation, and we have had several emergency room visits as a result. He then has gone several days without medi­cation until the next batch is ready, making him volatile, depressed and totally non-functional. Recently, he did not eat for three days, and when we found him and got him to eat, he was violently ill for days because his stomach was unable to handle food.

      His apartment is full of dirty dishes, and when he can no longer use the counter, sink or stove, he stops eating, being too overwhelmed and anxious to clean up. Often, his toilet remains unflushed, dirty laundry accumulates everywhere, garbages overflowing and scattered, causing an outbreak of flies and who knows what else in his living space. Again, he is too over­whelmed to clean, and he spends his time in bed and retreats. He does not take care of his hygiene and often is dirty and smelly.

      He has mismanaged his bank accounts to the point where we have had to go to his bank manage­ment to fix it. We get phone calls in the middle of the night and have to go help.

      In short, we have become his support workers, having to help and guide him to do any task in life. Why? Because he does not count. Because he is thrown out. What happens when we die? He will again likely be homeless. That is our biggest fear as parents. The system has set him up to fail as an adult. Support was there through­out his child­hood and through grade school. At 18, support completely disappeared. The system dumped him.

      We fought to get him registered for EIA dis­abil­ity, as he could not get it himself. He cannot manage any ap­point­ments, including doctors and even picking up his own medi­cation without help. Even on EIA disability, he must prove every two years that he still has a dis­abil­ity that he has had since birth.

      Virtually every service and organi­zation says that he must be eligible for CLDS. He is not, because he does not check the intellectual dis­abil­ity box. With support, he can take care of himself. Our son can function with help, as evidenced by what he has accom­plished. With supports as a child, he sang in choirs, including nationally, graduated high school and raised over $70,000 for Winnipeg Harvest.

      We as a family should not be his support worker. He needs help. As I mentioned, what happens when we die? He is a human being who deserves better.

      It is good that we are updating the act in question. But words matter. Choosing words like intellectual dis­abil­ity with this in­cred­ibly narrow focus to replace outdated ones continues the dangerous trend of exclu­sion of individuals for support and services. This is the opposite of the oft-stated goal of inclusion.

      I ask that you please consider ensuring that this act include neurodiverse people like my son, like many other sons, like many other daughters, like many other humans of families like ours, who would contribute so much to this society if they had the support that they needed.

      Our son has goals and dreams like so many his age. His friends are on to jobs, further edu­ca­tion and so could he, if he were given the chance.

* (18:40)

      I thank you very much for your time today in hearing me and, as a family, we thank you. We have had this lived ex­per­ience for many years now, and our son, as I said, spent his time homeless last–not last winter, the winter before, and we have been through every agency that there is in the city, and every agency has told us that he is not eligible for anything.

      Right now, he is living on his own, in his own apartment, and he's not functioning. Without our support, he does not function. We have to go there and say to him, can we please do a dish? Can we please get you to the doctor? Can we please go pick up your medi­cation? How about let's go get you some gro­ceries?

      If he were given the chance to have a worker that could come in there and help him do those, he could go to uni­ver­sity. He is brilliant. He graduated high school with honours. He could, but he's not functional in life. Just because he has a really high IQ and he's brilliant does not mean he can function in life.

      So, we ask that you please, please support families like ours, support us in helping him, support other people who need the help, because we all need the help.

      Again, I'll go back to what I said in the begin­ning. Intellectual dis­abil­ity. The scope of the act is nar­rowed to limit its application to people with IQ 75 or lower. In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, they have gotten rid of that. They have recog­nized that people are people and they are human, and they deserve dignity and respect, and that is all we are asking. We are asking for people who are neurodiverse to be given the dignity and respect, to be treated as the human beings that they are.

      Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      We will now move to questions.

Ms. Squires: So, I want to thank you very much for coming here and not only advocating for your family but for all neurodiverse individuals in the province of Manitoba. And, of course, we recog­nize that there is definitely more work to be done.

      One thing I am very pleased to be able to inform you is that our gov­ern­ment, as of April 1st, did change the quali­fi­ca­tions for the dis­abil­ity income support program and certainly hopeful that, after April 1st, that your son will not need to come in and requalify for dis­abil­ity income support. [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. McIlraith, did you have a response to the minister. [interjection] Ms.–yes, Ms. McIlraith, you may proceed now.

S. McIlraith: Thank you, Minister Squires, for your comment.

      Unfor­tunately, he is not eligible. We do have that application right here at home, and it says that all the people on EIA who were CLDS were grandfathered in, and everyone else has to go through a medical assessment with no guarantee that he will be accepted.

      Again, it is–seems to be dependent on IQ.

MLA Fontaine: Miigwech for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      I ap­pre­ciate you sharing with the com­mit­tee the journey that your family is going through. I know that that's not easy, and certainly everybody in the room can hear and feel the fear that you have. You've said it a couple of times, you know, what happens once you pass. So, I do want to say miigwech for that.

      I am interested how old your son is, and you were saying that every resource that you've gone to has not been able to offer you any type of resource or support–

Mr. Chairperson: MLA Fontaine, sorry.

S. McIlraith: Yes, I would like to respond.

      Miigwech, Ms. Fontaine, for your kind words.

      He is 20. Oh, actually, he will be 20 on June 20th–June 14th.

      And, yes, we have gone to every resource and every service and every agency, and we have all been denied because of his IQ.

Mr. Gerrard: Thanks so much, Sharon. You know, you've got quite a story with your son.

      One of the things that people don't often under­stand is that when you have an IQ test, there are different sections. And so, somebody could score 160 on one and 20 on the other and they might be averaged out at 80, which is above 75.

      But clearly, when somebody's so bad that they're 20 on part of the IQ test, that they really–the IQ test doesn't tell you what you really need to know.

S. McIlraith: Yes, I would like to respond.

      Thank you, Dr. Gerrard, for your kind words.

      Yes, he scored like 98 percentile on some parts of the IQ tests, which were like verbosity, intellect, academically, but when it came to functioning and executive functioning, adaptive functioning and life skills, he scored 6–I'll hold up my fingers–6 per cent. And because it's a mean average that's taken, then it put his average too high to be eligible for CLDS and that is the problem; the criteria takes a mean average.

      And there's that term again, that intellectual dis­abil­ity. And the IQ 75 or lower.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

MLA Fontaine: I ap­pre­ciate you mapping out for us in respect of all of the percentile and all of that.

      I'm wondering: Have you personally reached out to the de­part­ment or to the minister to see how to attempt to kind of rectify what clearly is a gap here because of the way that the system is set up? But are–have you been able to do that?

S. McIlraith: Yes. In the few seconds that I have left, we have met with a Cabinet minister for mental health, we have reached out to Minister Squires, and we've received letters saying that the criteria is not going to be changed.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion, Ms. McIlraith, and we will now move on to the next presenter.

      I just wanted to inform the com­mit­tee that it is 30 seconds for questions. I did read it out at the begin­ning when I was reading through the script. I've had this issue at a couple other com­mit­tees where 30 seconds does not seem to be a lot of time, but that is nothing that I can do. I may have even given you guys a few extra seconds, but–my apologies, but there's–that's just what's happening here.

      We will now move on to the next presenter, Ms. Twila Richards. Is Twila Richards present? Do you have any written material for the com­mit­tee? Then you may proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion when you are ready.

      Twila, please proceed.

Twila Richards (Private Citizen): I'm Twila Richards from Right to Read Manitoba, and vice‑president of Manitoba Teachers for Students with Learning Dis­abil­ities. I'm here to advocate for those who have learning dis­abil­ities, or LDs.

      Under the Manitoba Human Rights Com­mis­sion, or MB HRC, those who have LDs are protected. The following quote is how: Discrimination is treating a person differently to their disadvantage where it is not reasonable to do so on the basis of their mental dis­abil­ity. Discrimination demeans a person's individual worth and dignity and is prohibited in em­ploy­ment, services available to public, contracts and housing.

      I believe in edu­ca­tion, as it creates under­standing and compassion. Please let me explain to you the term dis­abil­ity. It is a physical or mental con­di­tion that limits a person's movements, senses or activities. Synonyms include disorder and impairment. Disorder means state of confusion and impairment is a state or fact–or faculty or function being weakened or damaged.

      I bring these terms up, as LDs are described as the following in the DCM-5 [phonetic]: specific learning disorder with impairment in reading, written expres­sion and math, which are dyslexia, dysgraphia and dyscalculia, respectively.

      We can't negate or ignore or put shame on the struggles of people who have LDs. Yes, they can learn; it will take time and they will always struggle, even when they become literate. Diagnosis is clinical, but treatment of LDs relies on having proper edu­ca­tion best suited for their needs. I started Right to Read Manitoba by contacting the Manitoba–or, MB HRC, as I was tired as an individual, a parent and a teacher.

* (18:50)

      For too long I have met many individuals, from youth to adults, with LDs who have fallen through the cracks. Those who are not taught properly are often functionally illiterate or even illiterate. These intel­ligent individuals are then expected to be productive members of society. But how can you get a good job if you can't keep up with the reading and writing?

      I have no issues with the term dis­abil­ity, because I've seen many of my heroes of mine have dis­abil­ities. They struggled with an ability to do things; it didn't mean that they couldn't, but it–they had a hard time doing so. Terry Fox, for example, didn't let his dis­abil­ity stop him from running almost halfway across Canada.

      My grandfather, having polio after World War II, still rigged up his van to be able to drive it around and climbed up onto a roof with his arms to help shingle. I also want to say he taught from his wheelchair.

      My cousin is deaf, and I am always impressed that he can hear in a busy or loud room much better than I can, as he lip-reads so well.

      Another cousin who is cognitively impaired, learned to read and spell with ease to me. Or my children who struggle to learn to read, spell, write and do math, create the best fantasy stories. All of my heroes have worked hard to be able to do things able people don't have to worry about.

      There's no shame in having a dis­abil­ity; the shame comes from how those who have dis­abil­ities are treated. Discrimination needs to end. Students, there's no shame in having an LD. It's as–as every super­power has its kryptonite.

      Let's understand why LDs are referred to as mental dis­abil­ities. Let's make one thing very clear right now from the start: most people with LDs are average to–or above average or even genius level IQ. Having a mental dis­abil­ity does not mean that you struggle with intellect.

      Although those who have LDs do not have physical or cognitive dis­abil­ities, they do have neuro­logical dis­abil­ities. From Dr. Shaywitz from Yale Uni­ver­sity: Dyslexics have exceptional learning needs, as this specific learning disorder is neurological in origin and is proven by FMRIs.

      Please remember, at the start of my speech, the term disorder is a synonym for dis­abil­ity. Let me focus on dyslexia. The corpus callosum is different, causing the right and left lateral connections to travel further.

      For example, the right side of the brain is great for problem solving, big-picture thinking, et cetera, which is strengths some dyslexics may have. However, since the corpus callosum is narrower, they have to think with the right side of the brain, then travel over to the right frontal lobe, to the left frontal lobe.

      It's not just the corpus callosum; other sections of the left lateral lobes of the brain are different in a person with LDs than a typical learner. For instance, there's less grey matter in the left parietal temporal area, which causes problems with processing sounds of language.

      There's also less white matter which influences reading skills in a challenging way. Being told, does that sound right or does that look right does not make sense to a dyslexic person. The DSM-5 states that dyslexia is an alter­na­tive term used to refer to a pattern of learning dif­fi­cul­ties associated with problems with accurate or fluent word recog­nition, poor decoding and poorer spelling abilities.

      Those who have strokes could also have secondary acquired dyslexia. Dyslexia is often spoken more of than any other LDs, because if you cannot read or spell, it makes dysgraphia and dyscalculia more difficult.

      Eighty per cent of people who have LDs have dyslexia. Dysgraphia is the dif­fi­cul­ty with writing and putting your thoughts on paper. Dyscalculia is the math learning dis­abil­ity. Reading and spelling and writing and math are foundations for one's ability to learn.

      These intelligent individuals struggle with learning literacy skills than the general popu­la­tion. Even with proper interventions and support, they will continue to struggle as the brain tires easier than the typical person.

      We live in a literate society. If you're functionally literate your op­por­tun­ities in life are more sig­ni­fi­cant, as more doors are opened for you.

      LDs are often called invisible, but if you take the time to speak to somebody, have them read, spell, write or do math in front of you, it becomes quite apparent as these people struggle with these abilities.

      With brain scanning and brain images there are distinct areas of the brain that function distinctly and differently than the typical brain.

      Please put yourself in the shoes of a person who has an LD. How would you feel if you struggled with literacy? What kind of life would you have? What would you do for work if you were illiterate?

      Those who have LDs are often forgotten. There are many strengthens of having LD, but being functionally illiterate is no fun at all. I put some alarming statistics and infor­ma­tion into my letter in writing to the MB HRC in 2020.

      From Dr. Michael Ryan: Persons with dyslexia are more likely to report dramatically higher levels of stress, depression, anxiety and poor mental or physical health than the general popu­la­tion.

      From Literacy and Policing in Canada: Low literacy in Canada is a personal, family, com­mu­nity and societal problem. And low literacy is a law en­force­ment problem. Those who have–like, how many of these people have LDs? LDs is a law en­force­ment problem, just because they're illiterate or functionally illiterate.

      From Dr. Fuller-Thompson from the Uni­ver­sity of Toronto: Female adults with learning dis­abil­ities have a 46 per cent higher odds of attempting suicide, even when many potential confounders are con­sidered.

      Having a functionally literate society decreases poverty, mental illness, health issues, inmate expenses and un­em­ploy­ment.

      Those who have learning dis­abil­ities are reliant on public edu­ca­tion to teach them to become literate. With gov­ern­ment funding cuts to public edu­ca­tion, students with learning dis­abil­ities are still disad­vantaged. Their literacy skills will be limited. This makes them a vul­ner­able person.

      So I ask you: Why are people with learning dis­abil­ities excluded from Bill 23?

Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion, Ms. Richards.

      We will now move on to questions.

Ms. Squires: Thank you, Ms. Richards, for your very informative pre­sen­ta­tion.

      And I've learned many facts and have taken many notes during your pre­sen­ta­tion and certainly do recog­nize that when we struck the task force and they came back with 18 recom­men­dations, which were in scope of the current legis­lation, we all recog­nized that there is much more work to do and certainly look forward to enhancing and expanding on that work based on your pre­sen­ta­tion.

T. Richards: I just want to say thank you.

MLA Fontaine: I just want to say miigwech, Ms. Richards, for your pre­sen­ta­tion today.

      I really love that you framed through­out, in many respects, you said, you know, all of my heroes. And you really framed your discussion about Manitobans, you know, from a strength place, and so I really honour you for doing that tonight, and I say miigwech for sharing every­thing that you shared with us tonight.

Floor Comment: You're welcome.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Richards, sorry.

T. Richards: That's all right.

      I want to say thank you and I also want to say I kind of was trying to hold back my emotions. I strug­gled to learn to read and spell and math. So, I came back as a kid presenting in front of–and I had huge anxiety of reading to you today.

Mr. Gerrard: Yes, thank you so much for coming here and presenting and pleading for those with learning dis­abil­ities.

      You know, I think that, you know, what is striking, when you look at this, is people with learning dis­abil­ities like Winston Churchill and Picasso and Agatha Christie, you know, have achieved extra­ordin­ary things. But they have to be given a chance.

      Maybe you'd comment.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Richards. Sorry, again.

T. Richards: That's okay, I'm getting used to this. Right near the end though.

      I want to say I'm a Manitoba educator and I've tried for a long time to teach kids in a way that–manner that works for kids who have learning dis­abil­ities. I don't want to say I would own–endorse a pro­gram.

* (19:00)

      I want to make it very clear: every kid is individualized but what has been known to help kids with a learning dis­abil­ity has been known for a century, and there's only one thing that I would recom­mend. It's not a product, it's knowledge and methods 'besthined'–designed for kids with learning dis­abil­ities, spe­cific­ally dyslexia and dysgraphia.

      And its namesake is after two doctors, Dr. Orton and Dr. Gillingham, and Orton-Gillingham is the only thing I would recom­mend. It's knowledge, not a program, and it–you could incorporate other programs on top to help other kids, because not everybody struggles like kids with learning dis­abil­ities.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

      We thank you very much for your pre­sen­ta­tion, Ms. Richards.

Bill 31–The Animal Care Amendment Act (2)

Mr. Chairperson: We will now move on to pre­sen­ta­tions from Bill 31.

      We have received a request that the next two presenters, Brenna Mahoney of Keystone Agri­cul­tural Producers and Cameron Dahl of the Manitoba Pork Council, be allowed to give a joint pre­sen­ta­tion.

      Is there leave of the com­mit­tee for these pre­senters to give a joint pre­sen­ta­tion? [Agreed]

      Ms. Mahoney and Mr. Dahl, you may proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion when you are ready.

Brenna Mahoney (Keystone Agri­cul­tural Producers): I want to start off with saying hello.

      I am Brenna Mahoney, I am the general manager at Keystone Agri­cul­tural Producers. I'd like to thank all the com­mit­tee members for allowing me to speak this evening, as long as with my colleague, Cam Dahl, regarding Bill 31.

      I am here today repre­sen­ting Keystone Agri­cul­tural Producers, also known as KAP, to express our strong support of Bill 31, the animal care amend­ment act. This bill aims to amend The Animal Care Act, spe­cific­ally focusing on the processes of the Animal Care Appeal Board, as well as intro­ducing changes to the Animal Care Regula­tion.

      Firstly, let me provide you with some back­ground infor­ma­tion on KAP. We are Manitoba's general farm policy organi­zation, serving as a unified voice for over 4,400 members, as well as 19 commodity associ­ations, of which Manitoba Pork is a member. We represent the interests of a diverse range of agri­cul­tural producers in the province.

      Manitoba boasts a vibrant agri­cul­tural sector with producers raising and caring for various animals, including dairy cows, hogs, chickens, turkeys, sheep, goats, elk, bison and beef cows. Bill 31 aligns with the needs of farmers and has–and this modernization has been long advocated for by producers in this province.

      The Animal Care Act plays a vital role in ensuring that farm animals are treated with the acceptable level of care, and Manitoba producers strive to meet and exceed these standards in their daily operations.

      Now let's just discuss the provisions of Bill 31. This bill seeks to stream­line and modernize the process of the Animal Care Appeal Board. The proposed amend­ments allow for the extension of the time limit for appeals by the Animal Care Appeal Board. This change will provide greater flexibility to respondents in preparing and submitting their appeals.

      Another sig­ni­fi­cant aspect of this bill was the provision that empowers the appeal board to dismiss certain matters without a hearing, under specific circum­stances. This amend­ment will help expedite the reso­lu­tion of straightforward or unsubstantiated claims, saving valuable time and resources for all parties involved.

      Furthermore, admin­is­tra­tive amend­ments are proposed regarding the notice of appeals filed with the appeal board, ensuring smoother com­muni­cation and efficient handling of appeals.

      Additionally, the Animal Care Regula­tion will be amended to remove the daily and weekly reporting require­ments for livestock markets and assembling stations. This change eliminates the burdensome paperwork associated with these reporting obli­gations, without compromising the overall welfare and care of the animals.

      KAP firmly believes that Bill 31 will bring about much-needed efficiencies within The Animal Care Act. The proposed amend­ments will enhance the timelines, offer greater flexibility conducting hearings and intro­duce the option of virtual hearings, which will benefit all parties involved.

      Moreover, the provision allowing the appeal board to reject frivolous or vexatious claims is com­mendable. This aligns The Animal Care Act with other relevant legis­lation, such as Work­place Health and Safety Act, and will prevent unrelated matters from overburdening the appeal board by reducing the number of such claims on–the board can concentrate its efforts on addressing more pertinent and sub­stan­tial issues.

      In conclusion, KAP whole­heartedly supports the amend­ments proposed in Bill 31. We are excited about the modernization of The Animal Care Act through this bill. It will ensure the act remains efficient and effectively serves the needs of all parties involved. We look forward to the swift passage of this im­por­tant legis­lation.

      Thank you for your attention, and I am happy to address any questions or concerns you may have.

Cameron Dahl (Manitoba Pork Council): And, members of the com­mit­tee, thank you very much. And by doing this together, I think we'll save you about 15 minutes.

      My name is Cam Dahl, and I'm the general manager of Manitoba Pork. And, of course, that's one of Manitoba's largest animal–farm animal organi­zations in the province. And we're also members of KAP, and so I'm here today to say that we support that position and felt it im­por­tant to you to know that Manitoba's animal livestock sectors support the bill and support the changes.

      But, further, I just want to em­pha­size as well that we very strongly support the–Manitoba's Animal Care Act, and Manitoba Pork Council and the farmers we represent recog­nize that proper animal care is essen­tial to maintaining health and well-being of our pigs, as well as ensuring safe and high-quality food for consumers.

      All Manitobans, including everyone in this room and around this table, can be proud of the record of animal care on Manitoba's hog farms and, in fact, in all of our livestock agri­cul­ture. Hog farmers take very seriously the respon­si­bility for the animals under their care. Hog farmers in Manitoba adhere to strict animal care codes that are a combination of pro­fes­sional standards backed up by regula­tory en­force­ment. And that regula­tory en­force­ment is, of course, The Animal Care Act.

      Every hog farmer in Manitoba is expected to follow the code of practice for the care and handling of pigs. Similar codes of practice exist for all other animal livestock enterprises in Manitoba.

      The code is a result of rigorous dev­elop­ment processes that uses the best science on health and welfare and has been compiled through in­de­pen­dent, peer-reviewed processes. The code dev­elop­ment com­mit­tee includes in­de­pen­dent scientists and repre­sentatives from non-governmental organi­zations involved in animal welfare.

      Backing up the code of practice is legis­lation and regula­tion like The Animal Care Act. And, in fact, the code of practice–following the code of practice is embedded directly into Manitoba's legislation. Those who not–do not provide for the animals in their care with adequate food, water and ensure that they are kept in sanitary and safe con­di­tions are subject to fines or imprisonment.

      Animal care on a modern hog operation is further enhanced or assured by the Canadian Quality Assur­ance program and the Canadian Pork Excellence program that requires adherence to the code of practice. If they don't adhere to the code of practice and don't follow the strong recom­men­dations, then they're not allowed to deliver to federally inspected processing plants. So there is both regula­tory as well as com­mercial sanctions for not following the code.

      Ms. Mahoney has outlined why we support adjusting the act, and so I won't go through that again. But I do want to em­pha­size that we continue to sup­port The Animal Care Act. It is a tool that helps Manitoba farmers deliver world-class animal care and meet society's ex­pect­a­tions. And we also support ongoing efforts to improve the act and its efficient delivery, and bill C-31 does just that.

Mr. Chairperson: We would like to thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      Now we have a five-minute question period. Would you like to–whoever's going to be answering the questions, put up their hand; then I could recog­nize them?

      Okay, we will now move on to questions.

Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of Agriculture): Yes, I want to thank KAP, or Keystone Ag Producers–I don't think that was actually said in your pre­sen­ta­tion–for bringing forward your voice today. And I know you went through a large list of organi­zations that you represent as KAP, including Manitoba Pork.

      Would you have any idea how many voices that would hold with the–all your organi­zations together that you're here repre­sen­ting tonight?

B. Mahoney: Thank you.

      You know, it's interesting. We have about 4,400 direct members with KAP spe­cific­ally. We have 900 supporter members. And then, with our 19 commodity groups, there's about 15,000 producers in Manitoba, and we would represent about 90 per cent of them through those commodity group associations.

* (19:10)

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): Thank you, Brenna and Cameron, for your pre­sen­ta­tion today. I ap­pre­ciate that, and animal care is im­por­tant.

      I thank you both, and your members, for taking care of the animals, plants and taking care of the time today.

B. Mahoney: Thank you very much, and it is a pleasure to be here and work col­lab­o­ratively with everybody regarding agri­cul­ture and its modern­ization.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you for coming and presenting today, and much ap­pre­ciate your remarks.

C. Dahl: So, it would be my turn to say thank you.

      And yes, again, ap­pre­ciate the col­lab­o­ration across the aisle on again, ensuring that our world-class regula­tory system remains up to date and modernized.

Mr. Johnson: Yes, just questions to Manitoba Pork, represented here by Cam Dahl here today.

      And just if you could esti­mate how many producers you represent just with Manitoba Pork. I  know it's inclusive of KAP's numbers.

      But also, enlighten us–you said you represent the largest amount of animals. So, could you just enlighten us on how many animals are raised through Manitoba Pork? [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Dahl.

C. Dahl: I didn't wait for you.

      Thank you. That's a really good question.

      So, Manitoba farmers produce about 8 million pigs every year, and that con­tri­bu­tion is almost $2 billion to the Manitoba economy, and we esti­mate about 14,000-plus jobs. So it is a really big segment of our economic machine in Manitoba.

      And it's not just in small little rural towns. It's–you know, that corner of, what is it, Marion and Lagimodière, there's 3,000 people that work there. And every single one of them depends upon the pork industry.

      And if you go through Neepawa, you know, this explosive growth that we've seen in Neepawa is being driven by the pork industry. And it's not just jobs. It's, you know, building com­mu­nity and, you know, access to schools and, you know, hospitals and all those other things.

      So, it is a major driver of our economy.

Mr. Johnson: Yes, I just want to say thank you once again for coming in and making the time for us tonight.

Mr. Chairperson: We'd like to thank you for pre­sen­ta­tion.

      We will now move on to our next bill.

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Families): I would like to ask leave to revert back to Bill 23 to hear pre­sen­ta­tions from three individuals on the list for Bill 23 who were present when their names were called but did not hear their names being called.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, it has been brought to the com­mit­tee to revert back to Bill 23 to listen to the three presenters that are left on that list, that their names were called but some­thing happened, they didn't hear or whatever, so they were moved to the bottom of the list.

      What is the will of the com­mit­tee?

An Honourable Member: Allow leave.

Mr. Chairperson: Allow leave? Okay.

Bill 23–The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act

(Continued)

Mr. Chairperson: We will now revert back to Bill 23 and the presenters for there. We will start with Mr. Dale Kendel. Is Dale Kendel available?

      Mr. Kendel, you may proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion when you are ready.

Dale Kendel (Private Citizen): Hon­our­able members, it's just a great op­por­tun­ity to be here.

      I'm here as a private citizen with about five decades of ex­per­ience in the field of intellectual dis­abil­ity. And we're going to talk tonight about how to improve the vul­ner­able persons act, living with a mental dis­abil­ity.

      By way of back­ground, the act was passed by the Legislature in 1993, proclaimed in 1996, reviewed in 2007 and then, most recently, reviewed by a nine-member task force in September of 2020 and issued a report called Pathways to Dignity: Rights, Safeguards, Planning and Decision Making. The report was submitted to Minister Rochelle Squires in May of 2021, made public in November of 2021. It includes 82 recom­men­dations and 16 distinct theme areas that impact the lives of people with intellectual dis­abil­ities, families and agencies that support people in com­mu­nities through­out Manitoba.

      Over 7,500 people are impacted by the legis­lation and we regard it as im­por­tant and meaningful.

      The act is complicated. It covers rights, princi­ples, pro­tec­tion, abuse reporting, in­vesti­gation, crim­inal offences. It covers planning for individuals. It establishes a com­mis­sioner. It tells about various forms of decision making: supported and substitute. It establishes powers for personal care and health, and it esta­blishes procedures to take away or limit rights and the role of the public guardian-trustee.

      The proposed amend­ments that are being con­sidered today are, in fact, the third set of amend­ments for this act. The first, approved in 2011, helped to esta­blish the Adult Abuse Registry; then two–21 amend­ments to increase the renewal terms and length of term for a substitute decision maker; and today, the many amend­ments that are before you.

      I wish to compliment the minister and her staff–many are here today–for their excellent support in moving ahead with the recom­men­dations and imple­men­ta­tion of Pathways to Dignity, and the recom­men­dations that call for policy change and practice, as well as legis­lative amend­ment. It is the three–legis­lation, policy and practice–that are keys to making this suc­cess­ful.

      I am pleased to see the esta­blish­ment of the intellectual dis­abil­ity advisory council, a positive step that will continue to oversee imple­men­ta­tion of Pathways to Dignity report and help direct the work in the future.

      The proposed amend­ments are good ones and build on the framework of the original act. While they seem like good im­prove­ments, the work is not yet complete. Among the positive changes are:

      (1) Changing the name of the act–adults living with an intellectual dis­abil­ity act. It is less labelling than the former Vul­ner­able Persons Act, but a more neutral name was desired, personally. Other groups and presenters may offer additional comments.

      (2) I'm pleased with the updating of the principles No. 4 and adding the sixth principle to comply with the United Nations convention of rights of persons with dis­abil­ities, and the Canadian Charter of rights. That's positive.

      (3) Improving and broadening the definition of abuse and improving the process for in­vesti­gation of abuse is a major step forward.

      (4) The abuse registry issues still require some work, and other groups may have some sug­ges­ted changes and further thoughts.

      (5) Esta­blish­ing a five-year legis­lative review of the act is good. Regular reviews suggest–were sug­gested strongly in the com­mit­tee hearings in this room in 1993, and I was part of that. They're not–they have not been included until now.

      However, it is proposed that after a five-year review the reviews would be every 10 years thereafter. In my opinion, that's insufficient. The gap is too long, and it should be changed to a review every five years. More frequent reviews allow for im­por­tant matters to be anticipated, planned for and researched.

      The best practices and strengths of other provinces' approaches should be considered. Ongoing commit­ment to modernize and improve practices are im­por­tant safeguards and are doable.

      And please, don't forget that the first review of the act took place in 2007, 19 years after proclamation, and the next review in 2021 was completed 14 years after. Much had changed in terms of ex­pect­a­tion, policy and practice.

      (6) There will be a need for further amend­ments in the future, and I believe that these are going to be worked on. The legis­lation will need to enhance assisted decision making, create repre­sen­tation agree­ments, enhance the author­ity of the com­mis­sioner to  monitor all substitute decision-maker situations, including the public guardian-trustee, esta­blish appeal mechanisms, and perhaps changes in abuse reporting and in­vesti­gation procedures, and changes to the adult abuse registry may be required.

      Eligibility for the act might need be considered, and you've heard several pre­sen­ta­tions about that.

      Seventh point: Monitoring. Although recom­mended on the pathways report on page 40 to 42 and 52, the de­part­ment is not planning to proceed in this area. Monitoring of the public guardian trustee, who serves as a substitute decision maker for almost 1,200 individuals, has no monitoring by the com­mis­sioner of the act.

      So, my question is, how do you know whether the first–the 'guardin' is acting in the best interests of the person?

* (19:20)

      There are lots of stories and pieces that we haven't been able to resolve between the public guardian and the de­part­ment. The act enables the com­mis­sioner to monitor families and com­mu­nity members who per­form the same functions. This is seen as an incon­sistency in the legis­lation and a practice that could be improved. On page 84 of the pathways report, we offered sug­ges­tions of how this could take place. And this may require an amend­ment to the powers of the com­mis­sioner.

      (8) Policy and practice still needs improving and im­prove­ment. The most recent one-year update of the de­part­ment indicates progress in most of the areas of the Pathways to Dignity report; this is very com­mendable. Things being worked on in the de­part­ment include abuse in­vesti­gation procedures, developing a com­pre­hen­sive training plan, improving individual planning, consulting with Indigenous concerns, im­proving transition from adult–transition to adulthood, creating a working group with the public guardian trustee and strengthening the com­mu­nity capacity–all necessary and im­por­tant areas of work to create greater stability and security of our system and support services for and with the individuals with intellectual dis­abil­ities.

      My ninth point is that in the task force report we talked about acronyms and plain language. We wrote an entire 84-page report without the use of one acronym, and that we should encourage trying to eliminate or reduce the use of acronyms. Say the words for clarity and purpose; it's a symbol of respect for the people involved. Speak in plain language. We as part of the task force did in each section of the report, and included a full plain language section on page 72 to 75 of the report. And I think that you've heard from several people tonight that talked about more clarity and plain language.

      So, I thank you for this op­por­tun­ity to inform, suggest, con­gratu­late and celebrate the changes ahead for improving the lives of people with intellectual dis­abil­ities in Manitoba.

      I urge you all to continue to study the Pathways to Dignity: Rights, Safeguards, Planning and Decision Making report and all of the 82 recom­men­dations, and follow the progress reports of the minister and the de­part­ment on the status of imple­men­ta­tion.

      Con­gratu­la­tions on your fine work.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your–Mr.–for your pre­sen­ta­tion, Mr. Kendel. We will now move on to our five minutes of questions.

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister respon­si­ble for Accessibility): Thank you very much, Mr. Kendel, for your work 26 years ago. Thank you very much for your work in the last few years in reviewing and amending this act.

      And you brought up public trustees. And, of course, this is a con­ver­sa­tion we've had many times. I want to thank you for your work on that pilot project that we had announced, the 120 Maryland Group.

      We think that that's really im­por­tant, and the gov­ern­ment of Manitoba certainly does agree that the use of public trustees and substitute decision makers needs to be reduced overall in the province of Manitoba.

D. Kendel: I think the project–and there are people here tonight connected directly with the project.

      I think that's a huge step forward and the goal to reduce the reliance on the public trustee, but I still would not under­esti­mate the need and necessity for monitoring what the public guardian trustee is doing.

MLA Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Miigwech for your pre­sen­ta­tion–very thorough pre­sen­ta­tion, and the bits of history there. And I'm sure that it's been a long time for you; as you said, five decades.

      So, miigwech for all of your hard work and advocacy as well.

      You did–said that you would've preferred a more neutral name. Can you share with the com­mit­tee what that would've been?

D. Kendel: In my–again, my personal opinion, in the report, four names of the act were offered up, and my favourite–but we work by consensus and it wasn't the one. I don't think we really reached a consensus of what the name should be. But we suggested that the act be called: rights, safeguards, planning, decision making for adults living with an intellectual dis­abil­ity–putting it in the reverse order that the four major pillars of the Pathways Report would be put out in front.

      That would be my personal choice of it. There are other sug­ges­tions, mind you, and I, you know, and every person–not every person–but many people that I speak to have another variation of what the name could be.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you, Dale. Thank you so much for being here, for being such a big part of this–these changes.

      Let me ask you to give us a little bit more detail about how you think the Public Guardian and Trustee could be best monitored, or the activity should be monitored, on a day-to-day or a month-by-month basis.

D. Kendel: That's tricky, you know.

      I think there's two points I would make. One was that we didn't have an absolute final version of what was going to happen.

      But during our discussions in the task force, the com­mit­tee that was doing the work with Public Guardian and Trustee had a sug­ges­tion made by the Public Guardian and Trustee to esta­blish a working group, to try and resolve–to be a forum to resolve multiple issues that had been brought forward and unresolved for many years, including the delegation agree­ment, in terms of frequency of making people–individuals that there's substitute decision maker, so that they know how much money they have.

      And we have circum­stances where it takes a long period of time to get a response in terms of vacations for people and the spending of the person's own money. And there was a list of about 12 items that were presented at that time, and we felt that the working group was going to be one of those really positive things.

      And it's not. It's not easy to get. I would think it's been worked on, I know that. And I personally have been involved with the Public Guardian and Trustee for umpteen years, and I know that it's a difficult piece to maneuver.

      Part of it is that it resides in a different de­part­ment than Families. I think that's one of the reasons. It keeps moving around, over in consumers, it was in Finance, it was–been in I don't know what other de­part­ments, but it may be made easier if it was respon­si­ble to the Minister of Families (Ms. Squires) because those are the individuals that they're supporting.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other further questions?

      Seeing as no further questions, thank you very much for your pre­sen­ta­tion, Mr. Kendel.

      We will now move on to the next presenter. Ms. Debra Roach, Family Advocacy Network of Manitoba.

      Ms. Roach, you have written infor­ma­tion for the com­mit­tee? [interjection] Sup­ple­mentary notes?

      You may proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion when you are ready.

Debra Roach (Family Advocacy Network of Manitoba): Hello, my name is Debra Roach, and I am here today as sister to Chris [phonetic], who was intellectually disabled. She died in 2020. She was a victim of substantiated neglect in her com­mu­nity home.

      Thank you for the op­por­tun­ity to share my thoughts on the proposed vul­ner­able persons act amend­ments which, while a step in the right direction, do not meet con­sti­tu­tional or inter­national law.

      I want to speak spe­cific­ally to what would appear to be two separate standards for access to justice in Manitoba.

      There is the access to justice that most people in this room have available to us. Should we be as­saulted, we can pick up the phone and call the police, and they will in­vesti­gate offences against us. Then there is a different standard for people living with intellectual dis­abil­ities, who would have the De­part­ment of Families personnel in the pro­tec­tion unit in­vesti­gate an instant of abuse or neglect, when even the pro­tec­tion unit staff do not have the power to arrest or lay charges.

      These facts would illustrate that people with intellectual dis­abil­ities do not have the same right to have a police in­vesti­gation for an assault that they may be victim of, or the op­por­tun­ity for their case to be considered by Crown prosecutors for charges.

      As a result, they do not have the same access to justice as the rest of us. The proposed law sets up a double standard, two parallel tracks that are unequal and unfair.

      The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Dis­abil­ities–the UNCRPD–article 13 says State's Parties shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with dis­abil­ities on an equal basis with others, including for the provision of procedural and age-ap­pro­priate ac­com­moda­tions, in order to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect parti­ci­pants, including as witnesses, in all legal pro­ceedings, including at in­vesti­gative and other pre­liminary stages.

      The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads: Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal pro­tec­tion, equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in parti­cular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical dis­abil­ity.

* (19:30)

      The good news: Bill 23, which deals with the amend­ments to the vul­ner­able persons living with mental dis­abil­ity act, changes the definitions of abuse and neglect that were part of the 27-year-old legis­lation. The definitions of abuse and neglect in Bill 23 finally describe the serious nature of the offences that many Manitobans with intellectual dis­abil­ities suffer at the hands of others with little or no assist­ance to the support for which they are entitled to be able to contact police them­selves or with the assist­ance of their support persons. That's the end of the good news.

      The new definitions as described in Bill 23 warrant imme­diate police involvement if there is even a suspicious–suspicion that they occurred. And yet, here comes the bad news: Bill 23, section 25(1) indi­cates that an internal de­part­ment in­vesti­gation will take place in advance of any police in­vesti­gation.

      Only after the de­part­ment in­vesti­gation takes place will con­sid­era­tion be given to requesting an investi­gation by law en­force­ment, shown under section 25(1)(b), a decision made by the executive director, which process does not comply with the rule of law or the CRPD or the Charter.

      Meaning no disrespect, but in my opinion, the de­part­ment will be in a conflict of interest if permitted to operate under the proposed parallel system contrary to the rule of law.

      The legis­lation reads as follows. If, after an investigation, the executive director believes that an adult living with an intellectual disability is or is likely to be abused or neglected, the executive director may take such action to protect the adult as the executive director considers appropriate, including the following: requesting an in­vesti­gation by a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction respecting the matter.

      De­part­ment of Families policy encourages an allegation review of a report of abuse or neglect by a  person or persons who are not trained police investigators or have any training in forensic in­vesti­gations. When an injury or suspicious marks happen to a person with an intellectual dis­abil­ity while sup­ported in resi­den­tial care, home share or day program, follow-up procedure dictates that an incident report is to be filled out in accordance with policy. It would follow that the incident reports could be filled out by the very person or persons respon­si­ble for the injuries or suspicious marks.

      It has been heard by families that it is, at times, unknown how an injury or marks happened. A year before her death, my sister had a black eye and bruising on her forehead with a large bump. No one knew what happened. No de­part­mental in­vesti­gation took place for my sister. No police in­vesti­gation took place for her, either, and she was not taken for a medical examination for a head injury. No reason was ever deter­mined for this injury. There was no incident report done, either. The service provider would not supply myself or the de­part­ment infor­ma­tion that they retrieved through their own in­vesti­gation.

      My sister and others com­muni­cate in methods and means that are non-traditional, but com­muni­cation they are. Because of history and bias and the parallel differential system set up for people like my sister, she and others have been unable to com­muni­cate what happens to them.

      I cannot stress enough that, in my opinion, a formal police in­vesti­gation may have uncovered the truth about what happened.

      Policy on injuries and suspicious marks: Service providers are required to make a verbal report to the com­mu­nity service worker, or CSW, of injuries or suspicious marks within 24 hours of an incident or occurrence. A written report should follow the verbal account within five calendar days. Information is to be documented on an incident report, body diagrams or within a written summary, all of which may be shared with the CSW–com­mu­nity service worker–via fax, email or postal mail.

      This policy does not mention calling the police imme­diately. Why are suspicious marks or injuries being documented by someone who doesn't have police training? Why are there instructions to–why aren't there instructions to seek medical–imme­diate medical attention, as well?

      Service providers and staff are not medical pro­fes­sionals or trained police officers. The timelines and policy do not involve police inter­ven­tion and have serious potential to taint evidence that could be collected by trained police investigators as soon as possible.

      Allegation review process, part one: In order to deter­mine that infor­ma­tion from an incident or con­cern is a potential allegation of abuse or neglect, the com­mu­nity service worker conducts the allegation review. There is an assessment of infor­ma­tion gathered from the service provider, vul­ner­able person and maybe others to validate the authenticity of the concern. If the infor­ma­tion supports the likelihood of mistreatment, abuse or neglect that has caused harm to a vul­ner­able person, the incident or concern meets the criteria to be considered an allegation.

      In con­sul­ta­tion with the CSW, the de­part­ment will deter­mine if the concern is an allegation of abuse or neglect that requires a formal pro­tec­tion but not police in­vesti­gation.

      There are three potential conclusions that can be made when reviewing an allegation, only one of which is that a pro­tec­tion, not a police in­vesti­gation, is required. Someone who has no legal or police training is making decisions about whether or not a complete–a complaint is a criminal offence.

      If it is decided that a pro­tec­tion in­vesti­gation is required, then part 2 is brought into play. In general, de­part­mental pro­tec­tion in­vesti­gation should be com­pleted within 60 days from the point in time that it was deter­mined that a pro­tec­tion in­vesti­gation was warranted.

      At any time during the allegation review or in­vesti­gation process, if it appears that the allegation of abuse or neglect may be criminal in nature, physical, sexual, financial abuse, de­part­mental staff must con­tact law en­force­ment to request their involvement in a case, provide infor­ma­tion for con­sul­ta­tion on any matter that may be of a criminal nature, provide infor­ma­tion on suspected violation of the Criminal Code, provide evidence of actual violations of the Criminal Code.

      Waiting 60 or more days before police are brought into an in­vesti­gation is nothing short of inter­fering in the course of justice. Waiting even one day before calling police is unacceptable.

      Police believe that numer­ous interviews of a victim re-traumatizes that victim. In­vesti­gations are the public service for which police are paid to provide. Police are investigators, not consultants on matters that are of a criminal nature.

      Police gather infor­ma­tion or evidence on actual or suspected violations of the Criminal Code by inves­tigating the complaints, and if the police are not called right away, evidence could be lost.

      Pro­tec­tion policy procedure and guide­lines: Any person who has reason to believe that the vul­ner­able person is or is likely to be abused or neglected must imme­diately report that belief, and the infor­ma­tion upon which it is based, to the regional office with a written report to follow from the service provider if the person lives in resi­den­tial care or is a day service parti­ci­pant. The licensing co‑ordinator must also be advised.

      This policy also states while reporting any suspicions of the abuse or neglect of a vul­ner­able person to the ap­pro­priate regional office is mandatory, they may also report to the police that the vul­ner­able person is a victim of a criminal offence.

      The police will deter­mine if further in­vesti­gation is warranted under the Criminal Code. This must be reported to police, not may, must. If the person is a victim of a criminal offence, police will in­vesti­gate. The word must, should replace may.

      If the offence meets the standard for prosecution and there is a conviction, then the offender's name is automatically placed on the registry for 10 years, which brings me to my last point.

      The vul­ner­able person's act and amend­ments will directly impact The Adult Abuse Registry Act. The deter­min­ation of 10 years for a conviction of abuse or assault is an inappropriately low sentence for an adult offender.

Mr. Chairperson: Unfor­tunately, Ms. Roach, our 10 minutes for the pre­sen­ta­tion has expired. We will now move into questions.

Ms. Squires: Thank you very much, Ms. Roach, and we certainly do have a lot more work to do together.

      I do just want to touch on three quick things in the 30 seconds that I'm allotted. This bill does ensure that family members and substitute decision makers, as well as the individual himself, are brought into infor­ma­tion when an in­vesti­gation is being conducted. That wasn't in the legis­lation before and family member substitute decision makers and individuals were not notified.

      The amend­ments don't preclude a resident from accessing justice. And, in regards–

Mr. Chairperson: Unfor­tunately, your 30 seconds has expired.

      Ms. Roach?

D. Roach: Thank you, Minister. Thank you very much.

      I did–I just wanted to really em­pha­size that police in­vesti­gations can be very, very helpful in a lot of circum­stances. Thank you.

MLA Fontaine: Miigwech for your pre­sen­ta­tion and miigwech for sharing very personal details about your sister, and I'm very sorry for yourself and for your sister and for your whole family.

      You did provide us with a little bit of sup­ple­mentary information here. I am curious as to your inter­pre­ta­tion of what you've provided us and what you see here that you think is im­por­tant for the com­mit­tee to know.

D. Roach: Thank you, Ms. Fontaine.

      There is an explanation as to what I find is im­por­tant about these statistics in the paper. It's just a little, I wouldn't say scattered, but maybe not directly behind it.

      I hope that suffices.

* (19:40)

Mr. Gerrard: Yes, just thank you very much. Very helpful, your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      I'm concerned that we've got a–reports of alleged abuse and neglect going from 341 a few years ago to 945 last year. What's happened?

D. Roach: I don't rightly know.

      I think that probably the pandemic and the–probably the diminished numbers of direct support workers probably influenced that. And what I also think is definitely required is stan­dard­ized training for a lot of the people that–and–yes, that–with the diminished numbers.

Ms. Squires: I ap­pre­ciate just another quick moment to give you an update in that our de­part­ment will be under­taking a review of the pro­tec­tion unit that we have and the way abuse in­vesti­gations are handled. And certainly the statistics you brought forward high­light the–and underscore the need for doing some of that work.

      We'll be calling on you for further infor­ma­tion and col­lab­o­ration, and that is why we did just bring $104 million into the budget this year to stabilize the sector, so we can have better trained DS–direct service workers and a strengthened sector.

D. Roach: Thank you, Minister Squires.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

      Hearing no further questions, we thank you very much for your pre­sen­ta­tion, and we will move on to the next presenter, Ms. Amy Shawcross, Com­mu­nity Living Manitoba.

      Ms.  Shawcross? Do you have any written material for the com­mit­tee?

Amy Shawcross (Com­mu­nity Living Manitoba): No, I do not.

Mr. Chairperson: Then you may proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion whenever you are ready.

A. Shawcross: My name is Amy Shawcross, and I am repre­sen­ting the Association for Com­mu­nity Living-Manitoba today.

      I would like to take this op­por­tun­ity to express my gratitude and thank you for offering this op­por­tun­ity for Manitobans like me to share their con­tri­bu­tions and con­sid­era­tion to Bill 23.

      I would like to speak to four topics connected to the amend­ments to Bill 23.

      I will start with the United Nations convention on the rights of dis­abil­ities. In keeping with the amend­ment of our commit­ment to uphold the principles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Dis­abil­ities, namely article 12, the right to legal capacity, we must consider our long game as we move toward full realization of this right for Manitobans labelled with an intellectual dis­abil­ity. In full realization, we are recog­nizing each Manitoban's right to personhood.

      I don't believe as a society or as our legis­lative framework are ready for this yet, but I am hopeful we will get there. And I believe it starts with this legis­lation. This is an im­por­tant point I will come back to. And to understand this implication, we must first understand the difference in the definitions of legal capacity and mental capacity.

      Legal capacity refers to the right to legal standing and legal agency. In review of the United Nations draft general comment on article 12 on equal recog­nition before the law, you can find the term legal capacity defined as the ability to hold rights and duties, legal standing, and to exercise these rights and duties, legal agency.

      And the term mental capacity, defined as the decision-making skills of a person, which naturally vary from one person to another and may be different for a given person depending on many factors, including environ­mental and social factors.

      If we can differentiate between these two terms, we can start to understand legal capacity's place in personhood as we draw from the historical parallels of the women's liberation movement and the civil rights movement. Any time we segregate a person based on presumed or proven differences or deficits for purpose of justifying the denial of legal capacity, we are in violation of article 12. However, we continue to amend legis­lation and support systems that validate this rights infraction.

      However, we see our gov­ern­ment being cautious in their steps forward, and we are hopeful that this means they are being thoughtful of a vision for a future where all Manitobans can be recog­nized under the law.

      I use the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Dis­abil­ities as a preface to my other three con­sid­era­tions, as I believe each step forward needs to be carefully deter­mined in con­sid­era­tion to article 12, and a final outcome where Manitobans labelled with an intellectual dis­abil­ity are finally recog­nized as persons before the law.

      I'll start with language. I'm in full support of the recom­men­dation to change the term vul­ner­able person to a more valued reference. I agree with the term intellectual dis­abil­ity; however, our com­mu­nity–namely People First, as Jessica Croy spoke to earlier, as well as People First of Canada–have asserted for almost two decades their preference for the term labelled with an intellectual dis­abil­ity, and are now accepting the term developmental dis­abil­ity where ap­pro­priate, either separately or in conjunction with intellectual dis­abil­ity.

      I move to the title. Although I am in support of the amend­ment that supports more respectful lan­guage, I believe we need to take into con­sid­era­tion the bigger picture when contemplating the impact of this change to the title of the act. The sug­ges­tion of amending the title to reflect more respectful language unknowingly creates disruptive inter­ference on the vision of full personhood for Manitobans labelled with an intellectual dis­abil­ity as our final outcome.

      If we can first recog­nize People First's preference, to be separated from their label, when recommending the term labelled with an intellectual dis­abil­ity, we can use this as a guide­line in our legis­lative framework. Within this framework, we recog­nize that a more respectful approach to the language of the act is not to use the label as the key identifier in the title of the act; rather, the action of the act.

      We can make recom­men­dations such as the safeguards and supported-decision-making act, similar to what Dale spoke of. Identifiers can be used through­out the act to esta­blish who falls under the act, and this can be done using the updated and more respectful terminology.

      I understand this leaves us with the conundrum of sticking with outdated, less respectful language while we play catch-up in the next review of the title. However, I believe it is worth con­sid­ering, if it means we are not stuck with a title that does not fully reflect the values of a respectful language framework.

      Repre­sen­tation agree­ments. Article 12 of the UN convention states: All adults are presumed to have capacity and are entitled to the decision-making sup­port necessary to exercise capacity. Decisions made interdependently with family, friends and trusted others chosen by the individual will be recog­nized and legally validated. Perceived or actual deficits in mental capacity must not be used as justification for denying legal capacity.

      I am hopeful that the continued work towards repre­sen­tation agree­ments reflects my belief that Manitoba is working towards a future where Manitobans labelled with an intellectual dis­abil­ity are no longer discriminated against based on their mental capacity. Rather, the future of Manitoba suggests a stronger legis­lation that encourages and upholds decision-making ac­com­moda­tions and supports. When done right, repre­sen­tation agree­ments allow for those with varying mental capacity to have their right to legal capacity be enjoyed and reaffirmed.

      What we know about repre­sen­tation agree­ments, and its supporting legis­lation, is that it also opens the  door to less discriminatory and segregating ap­proaches and practices within our systems. They do not have a medical-model lens that places focus on the person and their deficits. Repre­sen­tation agree­ments come from the more updated and value-based social model, where we focus on environ­mental factors, ac­com­moda­tion and support.

      This means we are no longer basing our legis­lation on a discriminatory and restrictive framework; rather, a sup­port­ive framework that opens the door to support and accommodation to all who can benefit.

* (19:50)

      Representation agree­ments reflect the principles outlined in article 12: that all adults are presumed to have capacity, and are entitled to the decision-making support necessary to exercise capacity. This is why I would also like to come back to language, and recom­mend that we continue the use of the term supported decision making, rather than assisted decision making.

      Although it may seem trivial to some, and the mincing of words, in definition of the right to legal capacity, we can see support infers we are not only assisting people to make informed decisions, but also respecting and supporting one's right to autonomy. That we are taking into account one's will and pref­erences, and supporting them in how they reach a decision. It is a sup­port­ive position, not just a sup­porting position. We could not use this same adjective comparison in assist.

      This is why this language is im­por­tant in legis­lation. All forms of support in the exercise of legal capacity, including more intensive forms of support, must be based on the will and preference of the person, not on what is perceived as being in his or her objective best interests. State's obligation to replace substitute decision-making regimes by supported decision making requires both the–sorry, abolition of substitute decision-making regimes and dev­elop­ment of supported decision-making alternatives.

      The dev­elop­ment of supported decision-making systems, in parallel with the maintenance of substitute decision-making regimes, is not sufficient to comply with article 12 of the convention. Guardianship does not allow for this principle to be fully recog­nized.

      I am hopeful that a slow and steady pace will one  day get us to a place where guardianship is in Manitoba's past, alongside in­sti­tutions. We have the op­por­tun­ity now to make some in­ten­tional steps in the right direction, that builds a framework that will support this paradigm shift–

Mr. Chairperson: Unfor­tunately, Ms. Shawcross, the time for the pre­sen­ta­tion, 10 minutes, has expired. We will now move on to questions.

Ms. Squires: Thank you very much, Ms. Shawcross, for your words today and your advocacy.

      And certainly our gov­ern­ment does share that same vision where each individual will have autonomy, and respect for the autonomy of all individuals in the province is the goal. That is why we moved forward with that pilot, and we'll continue working towards that.

      As well as closing the last developmental centre in the province of Manitoba, with the closure of Manitoba developmental dis­abil­ity–or, Manitoba developmental in­sti­tution.

      So, thank you very much for the work that you've done, and certainly more work to do together.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Shawcross, did you have a response for the minister? Please proceed.

A. Shawcross: Thank you Minister Squires.

      I ap­pre­ciate all the support that you have given us over the years–or, this year.

MLA Fontaine: Miigwech for your pre­sen­ta­tion this evening and all the infor­ma­tion that you provided us. It was a lot to digest. And still certainly a lot of work yet to still be done.

      But, what I really loved about your pre­sen­ta­tion was that, you know, you rounded it up with a sense of hope, and a sense of–that we can get to where we need to be in the province of Manitoba.

      And so, I ap­pre­ciate that, Miigwech.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Shawcross, do you have a response?

A. Shawcross: Yes, thank you very much.

      I do very much see wonderful relationships between our com­mu­nity stake­holders and those in gov­ern­ment that makes me very hopeful for these positive changes in the future.

Mr. Gerrard: Thank you so much.

      Just so that I've got this right, I mean, I think that what you were saying is that this bill wouldn't meet the standards of the United Nations declaration of the rights of persons with dis­abil­ities.

      Is that correct?

A. Shawcross: When you look at where we started, with the vul­ner­able persons act, when it was first created–and it astounds me that we were so far ahead with the rights of persons with dis­abil­ities.

      But you're correct. If we are to fully–if people with intellectual dis­abil­ities, labelled with an intellectual dis­abil­ity, are to have their right to legal capacity fully recog­nized as it is outlined in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Dis­abil­ities, we have more work to do, one hundred per cent.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

      We thank you very much for your pre­sen­ta­tion, Ms. Shawcross.

Bill 32–An Act respecting Child and Family Services
(Indigenous Juris­dic­tion and Related Amendments)

(Continued)

Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed on to presenters from Bill 32.

      I will–I would like to call on Doreen Moellenbeck-Dushnitsky. And if I'm mispronouncing it, if she could correct my pronunciation.

      I see you have written pre­sen­ta­tions for the com­mit­tee as well.

      And you may proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion when you are ready.

Doreen Moellenbeck-Dushnitsky (Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services): Thank you. I want to thank you for the op­por­tun­ity to present today.

      My name is Doreen Moellenbeck-Dushnitsky, and you said it correctly. So, thank you.

      My member com­mu­nity is Shoal Lake 40 First Nation, so I just want to acknowl­edge and honour the members from Shoal Lake 40 and the water that we're drinking today and that we use for the City of Winnipeg also.

      And, today I am honoured to present on behalf of Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services. Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services was the first Indigenous agency in Canada to receive a child-welfare mandate on July 1st of 1981.

      This was after our member com­mu­nities gathered to high­light and advocate for their children not to be removed and losing their children at high numbers off the com­mu­nity. Their advocacy was based on the love, care and genuine concern for their children and the disconnection created by their removal from their families and their children.

      After com­pre­hen­sive negotiations and col­lab­o­ration with their founding grandfathers and grand­mothers, they agreed to the–receive an interim prov­incial mandate only as an interim measure until the com­mu­nities were able to obtain their own.

      The agency's vision has been taking care of our own. During the last 41 years, the agency has remained steadfast to fulfilling this vision. With the changes occurring in child welfare in the last four decades, we have adopted and expanded our services to our com­mu­nity members in both urban and Indigenous com­mu­nity centres.

      During this time, we have provided many op­por­tun­ities, access to innovative service practice to support our families, children and their com­mu­nities. However, we have also been disadvantaged with the lack of resources, funding and culturally ap­pro­priate services to address the needs of our children and our families.

      As a result of these barriers, the DOCFS or Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services board of directors, three members which are currently sitting in   the audience–and if they could come up–is Elder Alvina Chaske from Canupawakpa; vice-chair­person, Councillor Esquash, from Swan Lake First Nation; and Councillor Henry from Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair

      Today, we are advocating for seven recom­men­dations to support our families, children and com­mu­nities beyond juris­dic­tion.

      The first recom­men­dation is in addition to the section–to add a section entitled alter­na­tive dispute reso­lu­tion. And the quote says: families and children are provided with an alter­na­tive dispute reso­lu­tion meeting to address the child's pro­tec­tion, needs and concerns.

      The act does not provide op­por­tun­ities for an alter­na­tive dispute process when a child has been determined to be in the need of pro­tec­tion. Rather, the process is adversarial and requires the courts are then–other agree­ments that have just been created can shift customary care or the voluntary placement agree­ment. It is based on the infor­ma­tion presented by the agency workers and the caregivers.

      Our sug­ges­tion is to incorporate a model like honouring our family voices, which is also a form of family group conferencing, a process the agency developed and would benefit the parti­ci­pants. Since they learn about the resilience, culture and history from the paternal and maternal figures, mothers, aunts, grandmothers, and others.

* (20:00)

      The outcome of the adding this recom­men­dation is to develop an alter­na­tive dispute reso­lu­tion process meeting which includes input from caregivers and their support system, extended families and sup­port­ive resources.

      As a result, when offering the alter­na­tive process, families and children will be em­power­ed to address issues and concerns, increase support between families and their systems, their foster family connection and voices in the planning for them­selves and their children.

      This could also result in the family developing a col­lab­o­rative plan to support the care in–the care for parents and children under a private arrangement, thus resulting in em­power­ing families to taking care of their own.

      Recom­men­dation No. 2 is eliminating the appeal process. Section 51 permits the agency to remove a child from a foster home for–the amend­ments to the CFS act eliminated section 51(3), that a foster parent can appeal the removal, even though it has been deter­mined in the child's best interest to–a child's best interest and creates an undue burden on the agency and could create delays in meeting that placement priority that's added within the current act.

      The outcome of removing section 51 and the foster parent regula­tions–the regula­tions that go with that–will allow agencies to return children to their families when the pro­tec­tion concerns have been addressed and placed children with their extended family if they're not currently placed with families without delay.

      The removal of the foster care parent appeals will support the children's lifelong connection to their family and their com­mu­nity and allow the agency to meet sections of the priority placement in a timely manner.

      Reunification is recom­men­dation No. 3, and it's one word, but the word is very, very powerful. The current CFS act has no–the current one and the one that's just being amended–has no reference to the term reunification or reunify. The only terms utilized is order is terminated or order–and enter into an agree­ment. As a result, the lack of usage of the term reunification and reunify highlights the tenets and the scope of the act, which is adversarial and does not support families regaining access to their children. And the suggested amend­ments add the following three words: preserve, sustain and restore.

      So adding–the suggested amend­ment falls short of supporting reunification. Rather, it supports the adversarial relationship of deter­mining placement and entering into different agree­ments, such as kinship, customary care, voluntary placement agree­ment, which are reviewed yearly without the premise of the child being reunified with the parent. 

      And the wording for the recom­men­dation: Indigenous children are best cared for by their family, extended family and their community. Every effort must be made to reunify children to their family, extended family and com­mu­nity where possible and ap­pro­priate.

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

      The outcome of this one word, the current wording and restrictions of the child to be returned to their family, extended family and com­mu­nity highlights ad­di­tional barriers for families in having their children return. This CFS act has strict timelines to seek orders and other agree­ments to care for children but is not lenient when children are returned to their families or utilize language sup­port­ive of having children returned to parents.

      But this addition and this recom­men­dation will add a sup­port­ive and positive outcome families and children seek. It will place–if they are placed away from each other, this will enhance the role in their family and extended family and the com­mu­nity to care for their children.

      The next three recom­men­dations is with regards to changes to the author­ities act, which is outside of this act. The first one is lessen the role. Although the author­ity does not provide direct services to families and children and com­mu­nities, the role, based upon the act, is arm-length in assist­ance support agencies and the delivery of service to agencies as the director within the CFS act in the child and youth division.

      During the last two years, there's been a shift in the author­ity and moving towards an adversarial relationship with agencies and does not support the col­lab­o­rative and sup­port­ive planning. Rather, the author­ity has significantly increased their control over agencies while the agency is required to do more with less money, resources and support.

      Con­sid­ering there is no new money to provide services to support families and com­mu­nities, should not be at the backs of our–and at expense of our families and our children. Con­sid­ering the whereas statements listed above–and that's within your packages–statements of the author­ities act role need to shift to support agencies to deliver service priorities and the com­mu­nities and leadership, this supporting innovating and com­mu­nity-based programs and services.

      The recom­men­dation for an addition to the author­ities act, whereas the author­ity has an ongoing respon­si­bility to support and advocate for com­mu­nity-led services and programs for children, family, youth, families, to meet their unique needs.

      The author­ities would be sup­port­ive of com­mu­nity-led programs and services to meet their needs. Every agency has quality assurance co‑ordinators and monitor compliance. In this, the agencies, com­mu­nities will be innovators to create life–long-lasting change for children and families and com­mu­nities.

      And I'm going straight to the end. Our children are our future. The changes we make today pave the way for them for the future. This–we need to support our families and com­mu­nities, to support our children and their future and our future.

      And the bears are for bear day tomorrow. So, please have your bear.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank you very kindly for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      We will now move on to question period.

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Families): Thank you very much for coming here and presenting at com­mit­tee, and thanks to all the members of your com­mu­nity that have come to support you and the elders.

      I am very interested and I was very pleased to hear some of your words in regards to the changing relationship between the author­ity and the agency. And I certainly do want to learn more from you from your perspective. I've been hearing some comments lately in that regard that need to be explored further. And this bill does have some of those initiatives it touched upon, whether it be foster parent appeals, use of voluntary agree­ments and–

Mr. Chairperson: Unfor­tunately, the minister's time has expired.

      Ms. Dushnitsky, do you have a comment back to the minister?

D. Moellenbeck-Dushnitsky: Yes, we would look forward to having that col­lab­o­rative meeting, on having that discussion with regards to the author­ities act.

      Thank you.

MLA Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Well, I want to say miigwech to the board for everybody being here and for coming to present. And really, it's an act to bring our children home. And it shouldn't be lost on anybody in this room that here are Indigenous folks that are the experts on how we bring our children home appealing to, pre­domi­nantly, other than myself and my colleague, but non-Indigenous folks here.

      I am also curious. There has been quite a bit of things that I've heard in respect of the author­ities and what seems to be a disconnect between the agencies. You do have some time, so I'm wondering if you might be–feel comfortable to share a little bit of the concern in respect of that disconnect between the author­ities and agencies.

D. Moellenbeck-Dushnitsky: Yes, and I think that we've–within the pre­sen­ta­tion that I provided, there's additional infor­ma­tion with regards to the author­ity and then developing even cultural standards.

      There isn't any cultural standards but the–the way that the relationship has changed is that the director–within the act, the director–are the child and youth division has transferred their respon­si­bilities to the author­ity, and then the author­ities tell us. But we don't have a mechanism on if we have any concerns with regards to the directors or anything that may come down or the allocation of funding or lack thereof. We have no mechanism on going back up. So we are stuck, and we have no advocacy level at all.

      And I think the relationship, we need to work on that in a way that would be col­lab­o­rative. We're hoping that we'd be able to do that col­lab­o­ratively as Indigenous peoples. And not having, no offence or anything, but having the director or the division being involved.

      So, hopefully we're able to mediate that, and I think that's some­thing with our board of directors and our elders can assist us with that piece.

      So, hopefully that answers your question. Thank you.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you very much for your detailed pre­sen­ta­tion.

* (20:10)

      Just to–clarifying where you're talking about CFS act as strict timelines and you need some flexibility, I think. I was aware of a situation where the mother had committed suicide and it actually took the father several years to be fully prepared to look after the child–or, the children. And he had help at every stage along the way, so it has actually worked very well.

      But it–you need that sort of flexibility, I think is what you're saying. Is that right?

D. Moellenbeck-Dushnitsky: Yes, thank you. We need the flexibility, but we also need an alter­na­tive.

      I think family group conferencing that was provided by a service provider within the Winnipeg area has really good out­comes. And it supported families on having that voice and that plan in the begin­ning so then we wouldn't have the tragedies, and we wouldn't have the continued trauma that our babies are ex­per­iencing and our families are ex­per­iencing.

      So, I think that if we can do some­thing in the begin­ning to lessen the end–so we don't have the end. Because it's really–it's tragic when we have our mothers and our fathers and sometimes our children that will take their lives.

Mr. Chairperson: We'd like to thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion, and we will now move on to the next presenter.

      I will now call on Mr. Bert Crocket [phonetic], private citizen.

      Mr. Crocket [phonetic], do you have written material for the com­mit­tee? We will get that distributed and, as soon as you are ready, you may proceed with your–Crocker. Mr. Bert Crocker.

      Mr. Crocker, yes, you may proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion.

Bert Crocker (Private Citizen): Good evening, hon­our­able Chairperson, Minister, com­mit­tee members, and thank you for the op­por­tun­ity to share my thoughts regarding this bill.

      I wish to make it clear that I'm speaking as a private citizen, not on behalf of my employer or any other organization.

      Owing to the complexity of the issues and the limited time for presenting, I will only be reading those parts of my written submission that appear in black ink. Those portions in blue are important for context, and I hope you have a chance to read them.

      I therefore wish to request of the committee that there be a decision to include the entire document you  have received in Hansard. Accordingly, I am requesting of the Chair that there be sought a motion for inclusion in black and white of this document in Hansard.

      Mr. Chairperson, can you call the question? And please, stop the clock.

Mr. Chairperson: As per the rules of speaking in com­mit­tee, you may do a verbal pre­sen­ta­tion or a written pre­sen­ta­tion, but not both.

      So, I would ask you, like, if you're wanting to submit your written pre­sen­ta­tion or your verbal pre­sen­ta­tion.

B. Crocker: I wasn't aware that the rules had changed. I'm on record in Hansard in 2017 as having been approved to have both a written and an oral submission.

Mr. Chairperson: Unfor­tunately, those are the rules today. I was not here or present in 2017, so I couldn't answer that. But the com­mit­tee rules today are one or the other; you may provide a written submission or you may do a verbal pre­sen­ta­tion. [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, I have to recog­nize you first, Mr. Crocker.

B. Crocker: Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My choice is that I will submit my written submission. I would urge all the members to read it.

      The last page and a half has about half a dozen specific recom­men­dations for changes–specific changes to the legis­lation that will bring this amend­ment in compliance with the charter, and I hope that members present will see fit to move and second and that the com­mit­tee will send this back to legis­lation–whatever it is–for redrafting.

      Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the com­mit­tee to include Mr. Crocker's pre­sen­ta­tion in–written pre­sen­ta­tion in Hansard? [Agreed]

      It's been agreed. So, yes, Mr. Crocker, your written submission will be included in Hansard.

      We will now move on to question period, so we have–[interjection] Sorry. Because it's a written submission, there are no question period.

      We thank you very much for your pre­sen­ta­tion. [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Crocker.

B. Crocker: –reference to this report. I'll leave a copy of this report with someone as well.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Crocker.

      We will now move on to Trudy Lavallee.

      Ms. Lavallee, are you ready? You may start your pre­sen­ta­tion whenever you are ready.

Trudy Lavallee (Animikii Ozoson Child and Family Services Inc.): Good evening.

      My name is Trudy Lavallee, and I'm the executive director of Animikii Ozoson Child and Family Ser­vices agency here in Winnipeg.

      We fall under the Southern First Nations Network of Care, with 10 other child-welfare agencies. Our agency is primarily respon­si­ble for Ontario First Nation children who are–who interface with the system here, the CFS system here in Winnipeg.

      Prior to our mandate, the Ontario children pri­marily were in care with Winnipeg child and family. During the–just shortly after the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Child Welfare Initiative, we were mandated in 2005, and many of those children from Winnipeg transferred over to Animikii.

      It's fair to say that I've most probably worn every hat around this table, except I'm not a minister or any political person in that respect. But I've also been witness to tre­men­dous dev­elop­ments of–and evolu­tion of First Nation child-welfare pro­gram­ming here in this province in regard to policies and legis­lation dev­elop­ments–actually, over the last 38 years. I am aging myself. And I was involved in the design of the devolved child-welfare system here, under the AJICWI.

      I'm here today to talk to you about the new prov­incial Bill 32, an act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous juris­dic­tion and other amend­ments). As an ED of a First Nation child-welfare agency, we have been advised by family services officials that Bill 32 has been esta­blished by the Province of Manitoba to incorporate national stan­dards from the federal Bill C-92, a.k.a. C-92. The goals of the new prov­incial Bill 32 is to bring the Manitoba CFS act in line with the federal law, apply standards that are best practice for all families while em­pha­sizing the necessity of preventing any further assimilation of Indigenous children and drive practice change within the prov­incial system.

      Bill 32 has put forward priority amend­ment areas and new agree­ments that provide enhanced voluntary supports and placements. The bill recognizes kinship and customary care agree­ments that can be used even when there are child-pro­tec­tion concerns, which is not permitted under the current act. I kindly remind the gov­ern­ment that this is not a new concept and that all of us Indigenous agencies have developed practices, keeping within prov­incial standards, whereby chil­dren are placed in kinship homes and homes that have Indigenous caregivers.

      The latter is now being identified as an element of a newly developed customary care agree­ment by this gov­ern­ment. For years, our agencies have endeav­oured, as best as we can, to keep children with family members or in suitable Indigenous foster homes and connected with their com­mu­nities in times when, unfor­tunately, biological parents are unable to provide that care.

      Basically, these new arrangements will no longer identify these as children in care. This is a good thing for sure for most–especially the ongoing legacy of a child's trajectory in life of not having that label of being a child in care. However, I am concerned that these legis­lative changes will not address the ongoing and, in many cases, the lifelong special needs of disadvantaged and vul­ner­able children, regardless of label changes.

      Agencies will still be required to be involved in many of these children's lives but not as a child in care. Therefore, we will not have to obtain legal orders of guardianship.

      This is a good thing but there will still be involvement, if not sig­ni­fi­cant involvement, of–expected of mandated agencies in many situations, and that's fine. However, while the sig­ni­fi­cance of–sorry, however, while I see the sig­ni­fi­cance of Bill 32 and its many aspects, I also foresee risks associated with legis­lative changes at the same time, ignoring the ongoing and possibly lifelong struggles in face–faced by many of these children and the need for the children to still have ongoing supports, such as therapy to address their trauma and mental health ailments, dis­abil­ities and a multitude of special needs.

* (20:20)

      These special high–special and high needs children will not disappear because there is a new label espoused upon them or that they now live with their aunt or uncle or grandparent. Agencies will still be provi­ding services to children in need, even though they are placed with extended family or an Indigenous foster parent. I'm hoping that the Province is not changing the labels of the children as a means to reduce funding supports for children. Extended family rates may be reduced, thus moving backwards to a time where the Province in the past once spoke of this.

      We are advised that the data will change within CFSIS–which is the Child and Family Services Information System; it's our database–whereby these children will not be counted as a child in care. What will this mean at the Estimates Treasury Board stage, when the Minister of Families (Ms. Squires) applies for Treasury Board author­ities to fund these services to cover child welfare? What is the in­ten­tion of the de­part­ment in moving forward in this regard?

      As agencies, we are in the lurch on this front. Again, there's no doubt to my mind that many of these prov­incially funded Indigenous children will or may require ongoing lifelong supports in the system that their caregivers will not be able to afford going forward. What will happen if there is no funding from the gov­ern­ment of Manitoba to ensure the children receive the supports to help with their trauma and navigate their lives as they grow up to address these challenges?

      We know what will happen: some­thing will likely break down and require child-welfare pro­tec­tion inter­ven­tion. The writing's on the wall.

      I don't want to see the system going backwards to start–and start depriving children again. This will be counter-productive to meaningfully addressing the well-being and best interests of children.

      It's imperative we keep our children with their families and cultural connections. This can be done, but certainly not within the guise of a misguided intent to lower the numbers of children in care, reduce funding and further displace vul­ner­able children, who will be denied op­por­tun­ity to realize their potential.

      If the Province can provide stranger-based foster homes with adequate funding to support vul­ner­able children, then the Province can provide those equit­able funds to kinship and customary care parents at the same level of funding and pro­tec­tion of funding to support the same children.

      Bill 32 praises the key change of this new proposed legis­lation on the principle of substantive equality and primacy of pre­ven­tion and placement priority. Ap­pro­priate and stable funding must both follow and be applied to children in need. The–Manitobans will expect no less.

      When disadvantaged and vul­ner­able children suffer in our com­mu­nity, repercussions within the com­mu­nity produce multi-folded con­se­quences: in health out­comes, edu­ca­tion out­comes, civil dis­obedience out­comes, criminal out­comes, poverty out­comes, further safety risks to other citizens, but most im­por­tantly, the needless suffering of a child.

      When I was involved with the AJI changes in Manitoba, our chief stated that the province-wide mandates given–being given to First Nation agencies and their com­mu­nities were an interim measures of juris­dic­tional changes and that First Nations would continue to exercise their right towards full, inherent juris­dic­tion.

      The new federal law, in conjunction with current First Nation child-welfare laws, has moved towards this milestone. This is a success, but it still does not fully erase nor ignore the current suffering and plight of Indigenous children and families impacted by past intrusive colonial laws and policies and the ongoing need for these children to access ap­pro­priate supports, therapeutic supports.

      Our agencies were esta­blished incrementally through­out the early '80s, and all our com­mu­nities are now served by their respective agencies. And now, with band repre­sen­tatives and 'advotcate' programs intro­duced under the federal Bill C-92, with one First Nation com­mu­nity exercising all control under their own law, sig­ni­fi­cant strides have been made in knowledge and edu­ca­tion and training. New practices and capacity building within our First Nation com­mu­nities to better provide child-end supports to those who need those supports.

      I caution that this new law will not impede these suc­cess­ful dev­elop­ments by again reducing funding and formulating policies and practice entrenched under prov­incial law that will restrict the ability of agencies and the caregivers to appropriately support children and families in need.

      We need to celebrate our families and children's momentum towards progress. We don't want to see the voices of children and youth impeded. I would be remiss if I didn't address the following matter.

      So, in closing, I share a very sig­ni­fi­cant concern in, while that the current new federal legis­lation is positive in that our Indigenous com­mu­nities have reclaimed inherent right to care for and make deci­sions on behalf of their children and families, the federal legis­lation–and now in conjunction with these new prov­incial amend­ments–in some cases have proven to have negative impacts on a growing Indigenous child demo­gra­phic of displaced Indigenous children.

      I am seeing these displaced Indigenous children directly through the lens of the unintended con­se­quences resulting from the imple­men­ta­tion of the federal legis­lation. There is a growing segment of Indigenous children that do not fall under the criteria of First Nations status recog­nized by the federal gov­ern­ment's Indian status rules.

      These children are at risk of not being represented by their affiliated Indigenous com­mu­nities. We've already ex­per­ienced some of the numbers of this demo­gra­phic right here in Manitoba as a result of First Nation drawdown–law drawdown. These chil­dren look in the mirror every day, and they see their beautiful brown face looking back at them. They see an Indigenous child.

      I'm not here to contest any First Nations decision. In fact, I celebrate these successes–

Mr. Chairperson: Unfor­tunately, Ms. Lavallee, it's–time for pre­sen­ta­tion has expired.

      We will now move on to questions.

Ms. Squires: Thank you so much, Ms. Lavallee.

      And I agree that you and I could chat, and I'm sure the com­mit­tee would love to hear more from you. But I thank you very much for succinctly and quickly putting your comments on the record. Lots of infor­ma­tion there to–a lot of food for thought.

      I did want to mention that this year, our gov­ern­ment did increase the allocation: $27 million more to CFS agencies and author­ities for inflation, wages, retro payments and for the imple­men­ta­tion of those national standards, and we do agree that much needs to be done to reform the CFS system.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Lavallee, did you have a comment back for the minister?

T. Lavallee: Yes, thank you. Yes, we've–I've–I just want to reiterate what Doreen talked about in regard to some of the issues with the author­ity. As agencies under the south, we haven't seen some of those dollars.

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): Ms. Lavallee, I ap­pre­ciate you taking time to share your thoughts today.

      Thank you so much.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Lavallee, did you have a response?

T. Lavallee: Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure.

Mr. Gerrard: Thank you very much for your carefully considered remarks.

      There's sort of been an assumption that the First Nation kids will all fall under the federal govern­ment, but what you're making clear is that a sig­ni­fi­cant proportion–what kind of proportion, really–will con­tinue to stay under the prov­incial gov­ern­ment and will need to continue to have strong supports from the Province.

T. Lavallee: Thank you, Dr. Gerrard. You are correct. In fact, right now, most probably amongst most of our First Nation agencies, 65 to 70 per cent of the children they have in care are funded through the Province–by the Province.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Gerrard: Given the critical role of the Province and that this is adjusting and bringing things into line with the federal act, is this bill going to be workable, or does it need to have some adjustments and changes?

T. Lavallee: I would say there needs to be more clarity, and there would have to be some adjustments. Like, I spoke earlier about the customary care and kinship placements; we haven't–like, half of our children right now at Animikii are placed in customary care/kinship types of placements with Indigenous families, and I would not want to see their long-term ongoing-need supports unfunded.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions? Seeing as no further questions, we thank you very much for your pre­sen­ta­tion, Ms. Lavallee.

      We will now move on to our next presenter: Mrs. Sherry Gott, Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth.

      Mrs. Gott, do you have any written submission for the com­mit­tee?

Sherry Gott (Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth): No, I don't.

Mr. Chairperson: Then you may proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion.

* (20:30)

S. Gott: Tansi, kinanâskomitinawaw. Good evening.

      My name is Sherry Gott, and I'm the Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth. I'm here today to speak about Bill 32, an act respecting children and services (Indigenous Juris­dic­tion and Related Amend­ments).

      Pursuant to my respon­si­bility under section 11(a)(ii) of The Advocate for Children and Youth Act, our governing legis­lation, I am here to represent the rights, interests and viewpoints of children, youth and young adults and to advocate on their behalf.

      First, I want to con­gratu­late and thank the many people inside and outside of this room that have pushed for a better child-welfare system in Manitoba, one that acknowl­edges the harms our colonial system has caused, focuses on keeping families together, ensuring Indigenous legal traditions are valued. It is a long time; it is long past time for a change.

      An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, which I, from now on, refer as the federal act, creates a tre­men­dous op­por­tun­ity to improve the CFS system in Manitoba. MACY is excited that the Indigenous com­mu­nities will finally have more autonomy to care for their own children, and we are eager to support and col­lab­o­rate with Indigenous governing bodies in any way they see fit.

      I would also like to take this op­por­tun­ity to voice my concerns over the absence of a child rights lens within bill C-32. Spe­cific­ally, my office has heard numer­ous concerns from relevant stake­holders and com­mu­nities through­out Manitoba, as well as the federal–at the federal level, that there is no objective ombudsperson or mechanism to ensure the rights and well-being of children are upheld. We regularly field calls and emails from individuals and organi­zations who share this concern.

      One concern my office has heard last week was that of children falling through cracks. Nations going in­de­pen­dent have, for example, cut kids unable to esta­blish their status due to being in care. This runs counter to the intent of the legis­lation, which is to bring children home.

      Just like in prov­incial systems, children cared for within the CFS systems of IGBs must be protected and their voices must be heard. If a child or a youth is not receiving adequate services from CFS from an IGB, it is critical there be an objective, impartial third-party body, individual or a mechanism that a youth can go to. There must be a place that children can share their concerns and have their voices heard.

       The changes stemming from the federal act and, consequently, legis­lation passed by IB–IGBs them­selves will impact this province and Canada as a whole in many complex and intersecting ways. As we navigate this new world, which is spe­cific­ally designed to promote the well-being and safety of young Indigenous people, it is imperative that those same young people are not left behind.

      My office is committing to serving, protecting and uplifting youth. It is always our goal to amplify and centre the voices of children. Consequently, I urge Manitoba to explicitly provide MACY with the legis­lative ability to enter into agree­ments with willing IGBs to provide services and perform functions of–under The Advocate for Children and Youth Act. When children and families encounter issues within the system itself, MACY wants to be there to help them navigate those issues, to provide an objective assessment of the situation and to ensure, above all else, that the rights and needs of children are met. A system is only suc­cess­ful when it adequately serves its most vul­ner­able popu­la­tions. As the office in charge of ensuring service providers meet the needs of children and their families in Manitoba, I know first-hand that a system without checks and balances cannot do this.

      I'd like to reiterate that MACY is excited that the child-welfare system in Manitoba is changing and Indigenous com­mu­nities will finally have more auton­omy over caring for their own children. My office is eager to embark on this journey and partner with IGBs to whatever they see fit–to however they see fit. We are keen to enter into agree­ments with interested IGBs so we can continue provi­ding support to children in care and their families. Several nations have already approached us to enter into an MOU with them, and we hope to work with many more IGBs.

      As my respon­si­bility is to first and foremost the children of Manitoba, I must advocate for this new system to include checks and balances, and as–and a way for youth and families to have their complaints heard and issues addressed by an impartial third party.

      A new way of doing things is im­por­tant. Child welfare needs to change in this country. As an Indigenous woman, I know this all too well. I am happy to see nations finally getting–finally gaining the ability to care for their own children, but many relevant actors in a new legal landscape–IGBs, the Gov­ern­ment of Manitoba and service providers–need to work together to make sure this new way of doing things is equipped with the proper infra­structure to ensure it is the right way of doing things with youth voices at the centre.

      I must say to you that, you know, imagine a world where–Phoenix Sinclair didn't have a voice. So, we all know what happened there.

      Those are my comments on bill C-32. Thank you for your attention and con­sid­era­tion.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion, Mrs. Gott.

      We will now move on to questions.

Ms. Squires: You've raised many good points, and we are very pleased that MACY can enter into those agree­ments with Indigenous governing bodies to provide oversight. And we certainly do share your concerns.

      We have advocated at the federal level that there be legis­lation for an advocacy for IGBs. That would have to come from the federal gov­ern­ment. And I certainly do–will continue to advocate for that and would certainly love to have further dialogue with you on what your vision for–but if you wouldn't mind expanding a little bit what you would think that third-party oversight could look like in this new child-welfare system.

S. Gott: One of the things that we know in BC–our legis­lation that we have in Manitoba mirrors BC–and they have entered into agree­ments with IGBs there, so I would think that we would follow that process con­sid­ering–and try to consider the landscape in Manitoba.

Mr. Brar: Mrs. Gott, thanks for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

S. Gott: Thank you.

Mr. Gerrard: Yes, just trying to get a clear under­standing here. I think that you're saying there really must be some changes to the bill as it is now to ensure that kids are not going to fall through the cracks, and that one of those changes is a clear statement in the bill that you can do these arrangements, third-party arrangements.

S. Gott: Yes, we would sure hope that that would be considered. We know that, you know, many children have–fall through the cracks in the system, and we want to make sure that they're provided the services that they need and to ensure that their voices are amplified for their–for services.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions for Mrs. Gott?

      Seeing as no further questions, we thank you very much for your pre­sen­ta­tion. And we will now move on.

      That concludes the list of presenters I have before me.

* * *

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

Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of Agriculture): Global, numerical? Which one? Numerical.

Mr. Chairperson: Numerical? We will now proceed–is it agreed that we will go numerical? [Agreed]

Bill 23–The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act

(Continued)

Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed with clause by clause of Bill 23.

      Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 23 have an opening statement?

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister respon­si­ble for Accessibility): I do.

      So, thank you very much for allowing me to bring Bill 23 to this com­mit­tee. It does address many of the recom­men­dations made by the vul­ner­able person task force, which was appointed in September of 2020. And we heard from a number of those members tonight. I want to thank them for their work and dedi­cation to ensuring the rights for people with dis­abil­ities in the province of Manitoba are advanced and upheld.

      So, this bill will modernize the act, parti­cularly when it comes to the language we use when talking about a dis­abil­ity. It updates our approach to abuse and neglect, aligning the act with best practices in other juris­dic­tions and reducing the threshold in which abuse and neglect can be substantiated.

      As well, it will provide victims and their support network with more infor­ma­tion through the in­vesti­gative process.

      I want to start by thanking the members that came here tonight, parti­cularly Mr. Kendel, who has been a tireless advocate.

* (20:40)

      The De­part­ment of Families had targeted discussions with a number of groups that informed the dev­elop­ment of this bill, including families and self-advocates, advocacy organi­zations, service delivery organi­zations, and of course our pro­tec­tion and in­vesti­gation unit and Com­mu­nity Living disABILITY Services.

      I assure you that the De­part­ment of Families is exploring further options as we move forward, including tools to bolster assisted decision making, and we will be following up as future work continues.

      In Budget '23-24, we were pleased to intro­duce $21.4 million in new funding to expand the capacity of Com­mu­nity Living disABILITY Services to support new entrants.

      Then, we also invested an ad­di­tional $82 million to increase the funded wage for frontline workers to $19 per hour, and $8 million to launch the support–launch the Manitoba supports program in order to better serve the needs of Manitobans living with severe and prolonged dis­abil­ities.

      We are confident that these invest­ments, alongside with these proposed amend­ments will help improve the lives of adults living with an intellectual dis­abil­ity and those who support them.

      I'm pleased to see that we have presenters registered tonight, and I thank them for their comments and col­lab­o­ration in regard to this bill.

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

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

      Mr. Brar, you may proceed.

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): Using language that is inclusive and respectful of people with dis­abil­ities is crucial to reducing the stigma surrounding dis­abil­ities and promoting awareness and acceptance of dis­abil­ities.

      Bill 23 makes a number of changes to termin­ology, including replacing vul­ner­able person with adult living with an intellectual dis­abil­ity.

      This is an im­por­tant change, and there are many other im­por­tant changes like it in Bill 23. Bill 23 also expands the definitions of neglect and abuse. The definition of abuse is expanded to include physical, emotional, psychological, sexual, or property abuse, even if it does not cause serious physical or psych­ological harm.

      The definition of neglect now includes acts of omission that cause physical or psychological harm, even if the harm is not defined as serious. However, it's clear from the speakers we have heard from tonight that this bill doesn't go far enough.

      We have heard how the definition of intellectual dis­abil­ities doesn't include neurodiverse Manitobans who have been diagnosed with dis­abil­ities like autism, dyslexia, ADHD and many learning dis­abil­ities.

      It's clear that using IQ to deter­mine who qualifies for supports is leaving thousands of Manitobans to fall through the cracks, as many people who have a learning dis­abil­ity also have high IQs.

      We've heard how the system in Manitoba has failed these Manitobans and has left them to fend for them­selves, often with terrible impacts. It's clear we need to do more to support these Manitobans and I would urge the minister to sit down with these presenters and talk with them.

      Under­take real con­sul­ta­tions so that we can build a Manitoba that supports all Manitobans and that sees people as people first, and dis­abil­ities second.

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

      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.

      Also, if there is agree­ment from the com­mit­tee, the Chair will call clauses in blocks that conform to pages, with the under­standing that we will stop at any parti­cular clause or clauses where members may have comments, questions, or amend­ments to propose.

      Is that agreed? [Agreed]

      Clauses 1 through 3–pass; clause 4–pass; clauses 5 through 8–pass; clauses 9 through 11–pass; clauses 12 and 13–pass; clause 14–pass; clauses 15 through 17–pass; clauses 18 and 19–pass; clauses 20 through 25–pass; clauses 26 through 28–pass; clause 29–pass; clause 30–pass; clauses 31 through 33–pass; clause 34–pass; clauses 35 and 36–pass; clauses 37 through 41–pass; clauses 42 and 43–pass; clauses 44 through 46–pass; clauses 47 through 49–pass; clause 50–pass; clauses 51 through 55–pass; clauses 56 through 58–pass; clauses 59 and 60–pass; clauses 61 and 62–pass; clauses 63 through 67–pass; clauses 68 and 69–pass; clauses 70 through 72–pass; clause 73–pass; clauses 74 and 75–pass; clause 76–pass; clauses 77 through 79–pass; clause 80–pass; clause 81–pass; clauses 82 through 86–pass; clauses 87 through 89–pass; clauses 90 and 91–pass; clauses 92 through 95–pass; clauses 96 through 99–pass; clauses 100 and 101–pass; clauses 102 through 105–pass; clauses 106 through 111–pass; clauses 112 through 115–pass; clause 116–pass; schedule–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

* (20:50)

Bill 31–The Animal Care Amendment Act (2)

(Continued)

Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed with clause by clause of Bill 31.

      Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 31 have an opening statement?

Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr. Chair and com­mit­tee members, and members of the public, on behalf of Manitoba Agri­cul­ture. I am very pleased to speak on Bill 31, the animal care amend­ment act.

      I want to thank the presenters, the Keystone Ag Producers along with Manitoba Pork, for their interest today, who spoke about the proposed amend­ments. I heard your comments on the Animal Care Appeal Board, an in­de­pen­dent appeal board for civilians who come into contact with The Animal Care Act.

      Prior to 2009, animal care appeals were made directly to the minister. The proposed legis­lative amend­ment supports Manitoba Agri­cul­ture's ongoing mandate on animal welfare. Bill 31 is an im­por­tant part of ensuring regular and timely review of appeals by the Animal Care Appeal Board. The proposed animal care amend­ment act introduces some oper­ational changes to the Animal Care Appeal Board.

      The proposed animal care amend­ment act stream­lines the Animal Care Appeal Board procedures and powers to ensure animal care and welfare. The bill introduces greater efficiency for the Animal Care Appeal Board in adjudicating appeals for citizens who have come into contact with The Animal Care Act. The proposed amend­ments will modernize The Animal Care Act with respect to the Animal Care Appeal Board.

      In summary, Bill 31 introduces en­hance­ments to the process and facilitates citizens' ability to present to the Animal Care Appeal Board. The bill streamlines board procedures and powers, and introduces greater flexibility and efficiency to support animal care and welfare.

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): I thank the attendees, presenters and written submissions today. Treating animals ethically is very im­por­tant and there must be repercussions for those who fail to do so.

      Bill 31 would change how the animal care board hears and processes appeals to make the process more flexible. Under Bill 31, the time limit for an appeal may be extended by the board. The appeal board may also dismiss a matter without a hearing in certain circum­stances.

      In addition, Bill 31 will enhance the hearing pro­cess by intro­ducing electronic submissions of appeals, as well as allowing hearings to be held by telephone or other electronic means. The proposed amend­ment will bring greater clarity to The Animal Care Act, intro­ducing a more efficient way of adjudicating appeals brought before the Animal Care Appeal Board.

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

      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; clause 6–pass; clause 7–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

Bill 32–An Act respecting Child and Family Services
(Indigenous Juris­dic­tion and Related Amendments)

(Continued)

Mr. Chairperson: We will now move on to clause by clause of Bill 32.

      Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 32 have an opening statement?

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Families): I do.

      I'm pleased to bring forward Bill 32, An Act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous Juris­dic­tion and Related Amend­ments), to this com­mit­tee today.

      Bill 32 amends 11 prov­incial acts to recog­nize Indigenous juris­dic­tion, support imple­men­ta­tion of the federal CFS act and provide prov­incial CFS agencies with more tools to better support all children and families.

      These changes respond to many recom­men­dations made by Indigenous leadership and reflect long-requested changes from our CFS partner author­ities and agencies.

      Changes to temporary orders will allow judges to grant and extend these orders until a child reaches the age of majority. This will reduce the need to sever parental ties due to arbitrary timelines. These changes will lead to better out­comes for children and youth as they support the continuous work to reunify children with their parents.

      A new set of agree­ments will be intro­duced to create a sup­port­ive pathway for children when they cannot safely stay with one of their parents. These agree­ments will provide support to meet the ongoing needs of a child and their family and take place outside of a court process. Through these agree­ments, parents can retain guardianship of their children even if they are not in a place to provide them with the day-to-day care.

      Kinship care and customer-care agree­ments will reflect placement priorities as outlined in the federal CFS act by em­pha­sizing the importance of placing children with family or com­mu­nity members. These new agree­ments take into account the customs and traditions of Indigenous people and acknowl­edge the importance of extended family in caring for children.

      A revised voluntary placement agree­ment, called a voluntary care agree­ment, may now be used if a child is in need of pro­tec­tion. This agree­ment will only be used after all other options have been explored for a child to live with family, kin or com­mu­nity.

      Caregivers who are respon­si­ble for the day-to-day care of children will be able to access infor­ma­tion and make decisions for these children, reducing barriers for such individuals when accessing prov­incial services on behalf of a child in their care.

      The Court of King's Bench and Prov­incial Court family division's juris­dic­tion is confirmed and expanded to include matters arising under Indigenous law over child and family services. This is only possible when enabled within gov­ern­ment Indigenous law. This means that if an Indigenous governing body does not want to have matters decided through a prov­incial court, it does not have to.

      For the benefit of com­mit­tee members and those from the public who've joined us, I would like to use this op­por­tun­ity to respond to some of the questions that we have heard in response to this proposed bill.

      A question was raised about how Bill 32 will align with the federal CFS act. These amend­ments align Manitoba laws and practices with the federal CFS act. National service-delivery principles for the provision of CFS services for Indigenous children will  be embedded within prov­incial law to support agencies in realizing these goals. The amend­ments help to remove barriers for Indigenous governing–gov­ern­ments enacting CFS laws. They also support children and families who receive services under emergent Indigenous CFS laws.

      Another im­por­tant question relates to the jurisdiction of the Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth, and I thank the advocate for her pre­sen­ta­tion earlier. I want to clarify that these proposed amend­ments outline that the advocate is not author­ized to review a serious injury or death of a child or young adult if an Indigenous law governed the provision of the CFS services in relation to that child or young adult at the time of injury or death. This change is con­sistent with respecting Indigenous juris­dic­tion for the delivery of CFS once an Indigenous gov­ern­ment has enacted its own CFS law.

      However, the advocate may review a serious injury or death if the Indigenous governing body that made the Indigenous law agrees to review and wishes to work col­lab­o­ratively with the prov­incial advocate. And I'd like to point out that this did receive the support of the many people that were consulted on the dev­elop­ment of this bill, including the Indigenous leaders in com­mu­nity.

* (21:00)

      These were also a few questions about juris­dic­tional concerns when one parent is Indigenous and one parent is non-Indigenous, or in situations where parents are from different Indigenous com­mu­nities. Such issues will be addressed either by how com­mu­nity members are defined under Indigenous law or through discussions between Indigenous nations and their service providers.

      That said, it is im­por­tant to note the following: that these amend­ments align with the federal CFS act by first supporting the principles of the best interests of the child, which the–which must be a primary con­sid­era­tion when CFS agencies make decisions.

      And secondly, the principle of substantive equality is reflected in the under­standing that a child, a child's family member and the Indigenous governing body to which the child belongs must have their views considered without discrimination.

      Juris­dic­tional disputes must not result in a gap in services in the Child and Family Services provisions that–in relation to Indigenous children.

      Lastly, these amend­ments recog­nize the principle of Indigenous cultural continuity, which is essential to the well-being of Indigenous children, their families and the Indigenous group, com­mu­nity or people. These include the trans­mis­sions of languages, cul­tures, practices, customs, traditions, ceremonies and knowledge of the Indigenous group, com­mu­nity or people to which the child belongs.

      The De­part­ment of Families engaged with a number of First Nations, Métis and gov­ern­ment partners during the dev­elop­ment of this bill. I thank the leadership, their expert officials and our author­ity and agency partners who partici­pated in these en­gage­ments.

      This bill is a sig­ni­fi­cant step toward over–addressing the over-repre­sen­tation of Indigenous children and families in the child-welfare system, while enhancing services to all families in need of CFS supports.

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): I want to say thank you to the attendees, presenters and Manitobans who submitted a write-up today.

      The PC gov­ern­ment does not have a good track record of giving Indigenous children in care what they need. The changes made in Bill 32 are a positive step forward, but procedural matters need to be addressed to ensure proper record-keeping across systems, as well as for transfer arrangements of children across systems.

      We affirm the right of First Nations, Inuit and Métis people to exercise juris­dic­tion over Child and Family Services. We also recog­nize that there is more that the prov­incial gov­ern­ment can do to support First Nations and Child and Family Services.

      We want children to grow up in safe and loving homes with the supports they need to get a strong start, a good edu­ca­tion and good jobs. We want to see real action to reunify families and reduce the number of children in care, and we recog­nize that children who age out of CFS care need ad­di­tional supports so they can transition to in­de­pen­dent living. We know far too many people are being cut off from supports and are struggling as a result.

      Unfor­tunately, the gov­ern­ment has not been open and forthcoming with the infor­ma­tion regarding this bill with First Nations. This must change. First Nations need to be included in every step of the process.

      Thank you.

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

      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.

      Also, if there is agreement from the committee, the Chair will call clauses in blocks that conform to pages, with the understanding that we will stop at any particular clause or clauses where members may have comments, questions or amendments to propose.

      Is that agreed? [Agreed]

      Clauses 1 and 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clauses 4 and 5–pass; clauses 6 through 9–pass; clauses 10 and 11–pass; clause 12–pass; clauses 13 through 17–pass; clauses 18 through 21–pass; clauses 22 and 23–pass; clause 24–pass; clauses 25 through 27–pass; clauses 28 through 30–pass; clauses 31 and 32–pass; clauses 33 through 36–pass; clause 37 through 41–pass; clause 42–pass; clauses 43 through 45–pass; clause 46–pass; clauses 47 and 48–pass; clauses 49 through 51–pass; clauses 52 and 53–pass; clauses 54 and 55–pass; clauses 56 and 57–pass; clauses 58 and 59–pass; clause 60–pass; clauses 61 and 62–pass; clauses 63 through 65–pass; clause 66–pass; clause 67–pass; clause 68–pass; clauses 69 and 70–pass; clauses 71 and 72–pass; clause 73–pass; clause 74–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

      The hour being 9:09, what is the will of the com­mit­tee?

Some Honourable Members: Rise.

Mr. Chairperson: Com­mit­tee rise.

COMMITTEE ROSE AT: 9:09 p.m.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Re: Bill 23

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my feedback on Bill 23 and the proposed amendments to the Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Act.

My name is Suzanne Swanton and I am the Executive Director of Continuity Care and I am representing this organization and our members, who are families across Manitoba who have a child or family member with an intellectual disability.

I would like to first recognize the work of the Vulnerable Persons Act Task Force members who took on the huge job of reviewing the VPA, consulting with stakeholders and writing the report entitled "Pathways to Dignity: Rights, Safeguards, Planning and Decision Making which included their 16 recommendations which was released in December 2021. When I read the title of the report, I think that every word is so important and is what we want to see reflected in this legislation.

Next, I would also like to acknowledge the Minister of Families, Assistant Deputy Ministers – Catherine Gates and Heidi Wurmann and their team of policy analysts for their positive and timely response to the report and their commitment to address the recommendations with their lofty implementation plan. We have appreciated the level of engagement and the opportunities to be a part of the consultation with the many stakeholder groups and look forward to continuing to be a part of this process going forward.

In terms of the amendments that are being proposed at this time under Bill 23, I would like to focus my submission on the following items:

1) Updating the wording and language of the Act

- Language is very important and has the power to shift people's perceptions and attitudes, biases and therefore their behavior and actions.

- The current wording and terminology used in the Act is outdated, unclear and does not reflect the principles and values of inclusion, dignity and respect for the people whom the Act is intended.

A) The term "Vulnerable Person" is unclear and could refer to many people or groups of people who are vulnerable for a variety of different reasons and therefore causes confusion about who the Act applies to.

- The proposed change is to "adult living with an intellectual disability" is an improvement as it is more specific and is more current.

- The parents and family members who I consulted with agreed with this change.

- We wanted the opinion of people with disabilities therefore asked representatives from People First of Canada and Manitoba what language they prefer and are currently using and their response was "people labelled with and intellectual or developmental disability."

- When asked about what they thought about the wording "adults living with an intellectual disability", some of their comments were "we live with- all sorts of things, conditions and circumstances" – so perhaps the word "living" is not needed

B) Replacing the term "mental disability" with "intellectual disability"

- This change is also an improvement as the term "mental disability" is also unclear and causes confusion as it doesn't distinguish from mental disorders and psychiatric conditions.

- Having a clear definition of who falls under the Act is important.

- The term "intellectual disability" is also consistent with the definition used in the DSM 5, which is the most current version.

C) With respect to changing the title of the Act – this is an important decision and may require further discussion.

- In conversations with advocates and stakeholders, it was suggested that the action and intent of the legislation should be the focus of the title; which is the promotion of rights, decision making and protection.

- Leaving out who the Act is for can be stated in the definitions and body of the Act. An example of this would be the Inclusive Education Act or the Accessibility for Manitobans Act.

- Keeping the title short and avoiding additional wording is preferred. It may also allow for longevity of the title and not having to revisit that in another 5 years when the terminology and languages changes, which we expect to happen.

D) Changing the title of the Vulnerable Persons Commissioner

- Perhaps just the word Commissioner is all that is needed

- A change in name of that Office should be consistent with the title of the Act.

2) Updates to the Principles of the Act

- I am in support of this amendment as it is important that this Act upholds and refers to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and other related Acts, such Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Manitoba Human Rights Code.

-  Canada had ratified the UN Convention therefore as a country, each province has an obligation to fulfill the requirements under this legislation.

3) Mandatory legislative review of the Act

- The proposed amendment is to include a legislatively mandated review process that is to be within 5 years and every 10 years after that.

- I am in agreement with including a requirement for legislative review in the Act

- Given what we have observed with other provincial legislations, such as the Accessibility For Manitobans Act – 5 years may not be a long enough time period – as these processes take longer than expected. 10 years is too long. Therefore we thought that every 7-8 years would be more reasonable and attainable.

4) I will not be addressing the amendments regarding the definitions of abuse, the Adult Abuse registry and the Protection for Persons in Care Act – as I am aware that others with more experience and expertise will be addressing those items in their presentations.

5) As a final note, I would like to comment on some of the recommendations that are not being included as amendments at this time.

- Representation Agreements – which is a tool that is being used in BC as an alternative to substitute decision making.

- I support the recommendation that more work needs to be done in Manitoba in the area of supported decision making to make this a more viable and recognized option.

- Continuity Care is one of the partners in the 120 Maryland group who is part of the Community Based Assisted Decision Making Project.

- This is a two year pilot project and one of the outcomes is to research and develop a framework for supported or assisted decision making in Manitoba.

- This is a huge undertaking, and we are excited to be a part of this important work which needs tobe done in consultation with the many stakeholder groups, including community and government.

- I am pleased that process is not being rushed and included in this round of amendments.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Swanton, B.A., B.S.W., R.S.W.
Executive Director
Continuity Care Inc.

____________

Re: Bill 31

Dear Standing Committee Members,

Re: Bill 31, The Animal Care Amendment Act (2)

Please accept the enclosed comments submitted on behalf of Animal Justice – Canada's leading national animal law organization – regarding Bill 31, The Animal Care Amendment Act (2). As an organization focused on strengthening legal protections for animals, we commend Manitoba for introducing this Bill. However, as set out below we have several suggestions in terms of ways to strengthen the Bill to protect animals as well as promote transparency and public accountability.

Animal Care Appeal Board procedures

During second reading of Bill 31, Minister Johnson explained that a main purpose of the Bill is to streamline Animal Care Appeal Board procedures and powers to "ensure animal care and welfare." Animal Justice agrees that efficiency in Board proceedings is important.

The Bill will amend sections 33.6, 33.12, and 33.13 of the Act. We recommend additional amendments to these sections to improve public transparency and, where warranted, participation in Board proceedings. We note that there is no opportunity for individuals other than the appellant (who is appealing an order issued against them) and Chief Veterinary Office representative to participate in appeals to the Board. The health and well-being of animals is a matter of increasing importance to Manitobans. In proceedings involving matters of public interest, or where important legal questions are at issue which have implications for the interpretation and application of the Act more generally, it would be beneficial to allow interested groups or individuals to participate in Board proceedings. Yet unlike other jurisdictions, there is no apparent means by which interested persons can participate in an appeal (see, e.g. Rule 3.6 of Ontario's Animal Care Review Board). This could be accomplished by amending the new s 33.12 as follows:

Hearings

(2) The appeal board may add a person as a party to the proceeding if the person has a significant interest in the proceeding.

Animal Justice Canada

Similarly, Animal Justice supports the proposed enhancements to Board hearing processes via the introduction of electronic submissions and allowing for virtual hearings. However, we recommend further improvements to facilitate public transparency. Indeed, it appears virtually impossible for members of the public to even watch Board hearings at this time as there is no website for the Board or public list of appeals before the Board.

This is counter to important principles of accessibility in tribunal hearings. We recommend that the Board be directed to make the list of appeals before it public so that interested members of the public can know which matters are before the board, request documents pertaining to those appeals, and attend and observe (whether in person or virtually in the case of electronic hearings) hearings of interest.

Costs of caring for animals

Amending the Act to enable the director to register with the court the debt owed by an individual who has caused an animal to be in distress and whose animal has thus been seized is an important means to ensure that the costs of caring for and treating animals who suffer due to abuse or neglect are not borne by the public purse but rather those who caused their suffering. This may also serve an important deterrence function.

The Bill will amend section 24 of the Act. In future amendments to the Act, we would recommend clarifying that costs recoverable under this part include not only costs of caring for seized animals but also the costs of transporting those animals to relieve their distress where it is necessary to provide them with adequate shelter and/or care. At present, section 21 provides that owners are liable for the costs of "care" when an animal is seized or taken into custody, but "care" is defined as "the provision of food, water, shelter and medical attention." In order to provide abused or neglected animals with the food, water, shelter and/or medical attention that they need it is often necessary to transport them.

This is an issue that has arisen in other jurisdictions where transport costs have been significant (e.g. where a large number of animals has been seized or where the animals requiring transport are large cattle) and individuals have challenged (often successfully) bills of costs issued against them on the grounds that costs of transportation cannot be included in costs of care and are thus not recoverable by the government. Additional clarity on this point in the Act could avoid unnecessary litigation costs in the future.

Conclusion

We thank the Committee for its consideration of Bill 31 and the above-noted recommended reforms to the Bill. We note that during second reading MLA Brar asked Minister Johnson which groups had been consulted on this Bill and all of the groups named by the Minister were representatives of the agriculture industry, such as Manitoba Beef, Manitoba Chicken Producers, and Manitoba Pork. To our knowledge, no animal protection groups were consulted. In the future we, along with groups such as the Winnipeg Humane Society, would appreciate the opportunity to be consulted on amendments to the Animal Care Act and other laws with significant animal welfare impli­cations. While those in animal use industries may be stakeholders with an interest in such amendments, so too are the animals themselves and the views of animal protection groups should also be taken into account.

While we are generally in support of the amendments proposed through Bill 31, we remain concerned that Manitoba Agriculture is also proposing to amend the Animal Care Regulation 126/98 in a manner that will put animals – including captive wild animals held at zoos in particular – at significant risk.1 While we appreciate that those regulatory amendments are not before this Committee through Bill 31, we enclose the April 3, 2023 comments of Animal Justice and the Winnipeg Humane Society on those regulatory amendments here for your information.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at kmitchell@animaljustice.ca should you have any questions regarding the above comments.

Yours truly,

Kaitlyn Mitchell
Director of Legal Advocacy
Animal Justice

____________

Re: Bill 32

Manitoba Legislative Committee,

I'm here today to discuss section 9 of Bill 32: An Act Respecting Child and Family Services - specifically to bring attention to the CHRT orders and subsequent orders that allow for youth to be extended to 25 years old . This order is not implemented in Bill 32 Section 9 where it defines "young adult".

As a First Nations citizen, I'm overwhelmingly familiar with the consequences of exclusionary policy and legislation. Bill 32 presents an opportunity to work together – Nation-to-Nation – in the best interest of First Nations children, youth and young adults. In its present state, Bill 32 and its processes are mandated to protect children, youth and young adults up to 21-years-old.

It is with this in mind, I am requesting the definition of "youth", as it relates to Bill 32 and subsequent orders, be extended to include individuals up to, and including, 25-years-old. Committee members: it's time for policy and legislation to include and meet the needs of First Nations. Committee Members: this government has a historically binding fiduciary duty to First Nations people. It is unwise to expect a child who has endured the child-welfare system be appropriately equipped to manage their affairs at 21‑years-old. Canada's hard-lined approach to age cut-offs presents a narrow understanding of its fiduciary duty to First Nations. It's understood that Bill 32 is supposed to protect and perform in the best interest of First Nations

First Nations often dominate the most unenviable statistics this country has to offer. We know First Nations children and youth are disproportionately overrepresented in the child and family services system. Canada's historical practice of taking a narrow view of its fiduciary duty to First Nations has created spaces where young people are able to be exploited and often have no where to turn.

How can we, as members of society, allow this to happen, especially to our most disadvantaged, vulnerable members of society?

As stated by the Honourable Rosalie Silberman Abella.

"As the curtain opens wider and wider on the history of Canada's relationship with its indigenous peoples, inequities are increasingly revealed, and remedies are urgently sought. Many revelations have resulted in good faith policy and legislative responses, but the list of disadvantages remain robust. This case represents another chapter in the pursuit of reconciliation and redress in that relationship."

-Abella J.

Young First Nations peoples involved in the Child Welfare System are disadvantaged. First Nations communities are disadvantaged. The disruption of cultural transmission, identity transmission, and familial transmissions are all proponent factors as to why these groups are disadvantaged from this system. With approximately 9000 Indigenous youth in the Manitoba Child and Family Services system we owe the youth the due diligence to extend services and let them know that if reunification does not happen this system has got them and will not only look after their childhood needs but also their adult needs.

In the age of reconciliation how can we give allowances to our young first nations to develop in time and process into functional adults in the already present 36-month timeframe? How can we give these young people any assurances of life after the agency? How can we continue to have high numbers of Indigenous representation on Income Assistance, involvement in the Justice system and other socially servicing systems.

We must extend the age of services to create equitability that further allows for these youth to fully develop into adults. We must take the necessary approaches to consider the development of the adult. A study done by the University of Rochester Medical Centre states: "It doesn't matter how smart teens are… Good Judgement isn't something they can excel in, at least not yet. The rational part of a teens brain isn't fully developed and won't be until age 25 or so." We must take the necessary steps to develop our children and mold them into members of society so that we can continue to strive and prosper as Nations conglo­merated under one Manitoban society.

I am advocating for young people to have 48 more months of extended services with their agency. This extended service should be added to the already 36 months this government provides. In total this will allow for the young adult to develop as there will be 84 months provided in total of supports.

Lastly, this request of amendment is not a handout by any regard to our most vulnerable members but instead is a hand up, this amendment will allow for our government to follow the sciences of developing adults, as well align with the federal mandates and aid them out of this system accordingly. This amendment also aligns and follows the spirit of reconciliation and aids in the historical age that we live in.

Miigwetch - Thank you.

Joshua Nepinak

____________

Re: Bill 32

Dear Madam / Mr. Chairperson,

Re: Bill 32 - An Act Respecting Child and Family Services

(Indigenous Juris­dic­tion and Related Amend­ments)

Introduction and General Comments

[1] Good Evening Honourable Chairperson, Minister, and Committee Members, and thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts regarding this Bill. I wish to make it clear that I am speaking tonight as a private citizen, and not on behalf of my employer or any other organization.

[2] Owing to the complexity of some of the issues, and the limited time for presentations, I will only be reading those parts of my written submission that appear in black ink; those portions in blue ink are important for context, and I hope you will have a chance to read them. I therefore wish to request of the Committee that there be a decision to include the entire document you have received in Hansard. Accordingly I am requesting of the Chair that there be a motion for inclusion (all in black ink) of this document in Hansard.

[3] I have been involved in child welfare in Manitoba almost continuously since the fall of 1969, and (among many other things) have had the privilege of assisting former children in care and who have become young adults view their old Child in Care (CIC) files, files that have been 'closed and sealed' in accordance with the provisions of s. 76(14) of The CFS Act. As a person whose employment since 1981 has been with Indigenous child welfare organizations, I have had considerable experience in working with families to identify and utilize extended family resources of various types, now to be called Kinship Care Agreements (the subject of s. 13.2), Customary Care Agreements (the subject of s. 13.3), and Voluntary Care Agreements (the subject of s. 13.4). When Bill 32 becomes law, all three of these categories of resources will replace the former Voluntary Placement Agreement category (V.P.A.), currently the subject of s. 14 of The CFS Act, and the records of those arrangements should receive the same protection, a theme we will return to later. I support those portions of the Bill that seek to bring the legislation into compliance with the spirit and intent of the Indigenous family laws that have been produced and that are under development.

[4] I wish to speak this evening about five aspects of these proposed changes:

1. A recommendation to include some transitional provisions related to the repeal of s. 14 in the text of the amended Act that now would appear only in the amending Bill. This will reduce confusion on the part of future users of the legislation. This will also necessitate a re-numbering of s. 46 (Transitional Provisions);

2. Clarifying the protection of the confidentiality of records under s. 14, and protecting records under new sections 13.2, 13.3 and 13.4 [i.e., better wording in the amended s. 76(14)];

3. Enhancing the provisions around potential financial contributions;

4. Enhanced protection for CFS agency staff, including staff that are identifying and developing the types of resources that will be used through the provisions of the 13.x sections, and staff involved in the confirmation of decision-making responsibilities in accordance with s. 15.1 (confirming decision-making responsibilities for those not parents or guardians);

5. The restoration of an option covered by s. 38(1); in clause (b); the option of another CFS agency (a corporate "person") becoming the guardian.

Continuation of VPAs

[5] In section 46 of the Bill, there are three aspects of the CFS Act that are mentioned in the context of transitional provisions. Two of them will have lasting impacts on how services are provided to some individuals, and are transitional in only a strictly legal sense of the term. For example, a voluntary placement agreement (VPA) initiated on the day before the amendments take effect could be continued for up to a year, even though s. 14 is repealed. A front line worker in an agency, with a caseload significantly higher than that recommended by Commissioner Hughes in the final report of the Phoenix Sinclair inquiry, will not have time to go through the details of this Bill to discover the so-called transitional provisions in s. 46(2) of the Bill to realize that there is no problem. It would be appropriate for the Bill to insert wording near the repealed s. 14 to ensure that the 'transitional' provisions are easily accessible by front line staff, on short notice.

[6] This provides an opportunity for this 42nd Legislature to provide assistance, just as an earlier legislature built transitional provisions into the (then) new CFS Act, to ensure that future generations would understand the details of the transition away from the former Child Welfare Act, of which the subsection below is one example;

Transitional provision

87(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where prior to the coming into force of this Act any action, proceeding or matter was taken or commenced under The Child Welfare Act, it shall be continued and completed in accordance with the provisions of that Act and regulations made thereunder, as if this Act had not been enacted.

[7] To facilitate the transformation away from Voluntary Placement Agreements (s. 14), I am proposing that the following [which borrows heavily from the wording of s. 46(2) of the Bill] be added to the Bill;

22.1 The following is added just above section 15:

14.1 A voluntary placement agreement under the former section 14 that is made before the repeal of that section continues to be in force according to its terms.

Regarding Section 76(14)

[8] Similarly, there is a need to document within the CFS Act (as opposed to merely including it in the amending legislation) the continued protections accorded to records of former placements involving VPAs. Currently, this aspect of transitional planning is covered only at s. 46(4) of the Bill, which will not become text in the amended CFS Act. Even thirty or forty years from now, there will be some people attempting to review those records, with help from staff. Staff in those organizations tasked with assisting those applicants will need guidance from the legislation, and not from an obscure amending Act, to sort out how they can be of assistance in response to those requests. The numbers will not be high enough so that these will be routine procedures, but they will be very important to the affected individuals.

[9] As it reads now, s. 76(14) of The Act states that files of all children in the care of agencies will be closed and sealed when the child reaches majority as per the following;

76(14) Where a ward, or a child placed under an agreement referred to in section 14, has reached the age of majority and the record of the wardship or placement has been closed, the record shall be sealed in a separate file and stored in a safe depository, and information from the record shall not be disclosed to any person except

(a) by order of a court; or

(b) subject to subsection (8), to the subject of the record, but in the case of a record made before this section comes into force, the information shall be in the form of an excerpted summary; or

(c) subject to subsection (15), with the consent of the person who is the subject of the record; or

(d) in accordance with subsection (16); or

(e) by the director in the course of carrying out searches of the post-adoption registry under The Adoption Act; or

(f) where disclosure is necessary for the safety, health or well-being of a person; or

(g) where disclosure is necessary for the purpose of allowing a person to receive a benefit.

[10] The protections provided to those records by clauses (a) through (g) are significant; and that is because they contain pretty significant private information. The yellow-highlighted words, above, are to be struck out by s. 42(3) of the Bill. Subsection 46(4), one of the transitional provision sections, states that those provisions will still be applicable in situations that involved VPAs. For the reasons mentioned above, it would be beneficial if there could be continued mention of s. 14 records within s. 76(14). In addition, neither the wording in the amended subsection 76(14) of The CFS Act nor the transitional provisions in s.46(4) of the Bill address the question of the treatment of records of children who are the subject of arrangements through the new sections 13.2, 13.3 and 13.4. Those 13.x records will not have the same protection as ward files, although they will contain the same types of sensitive information. This needlessly creates a double standard, and contravenes s. 15(1) of the Charter;

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[11] To reflect both the transitional needs addressed by s.46(4) and the on-going protections necessary for records pursuant to sections 13.2, 13.3 and 13.4, I am recommending that the wording at the beginning of s. 76(14) should be changed to keep the reference to s. 14, and add references to sections 13.2, 13.3 and 13.4;

76(14) Where a ward, a child placed under an agreement referred to in the former section 14, or a child who is the subject of a kinship care, customary care or voluntary care agreement has reached the age of majority and the resulting record has been closed, the record shall be sealed in a separate file and stored in a safe depository, and information from the record shall not be disclosed to any person except

[12] Based on the above, I am therefore proposing that s. 42(3) of the Bill be replaced with the following;

42(3) Subsection 76(14) is amended, in the part before clause (a), by striking out everything before "the record shall be sealed" and replacing it with the following:

Where a ward, a child placed under an agreement referred to in the former section 14, or a child who is the subject of a kinship care, customary care or voluntary care agreement has reached the age of majority and the resulting record has been closed,

[13] If this suggestion is adopted, the resulting introductory portion of s. 76(14) would read as set out in Paragraph [11], above, and there would be no need for the (a) and (b) clauses in the original s. 42(3) of the Bill.

[14] There remains only a single transitional issue in s. 46, covering current foster parent appeals. By definition, this is a short-term issue. I am therefore proposing that s. 46 of the Bill be amended by deleting subsections 46(2) and 46(4), and renumbering s. 46(3) as s. 46(2), so it would appear as follows;

Definition

46(1) In this section, "former Act" means The Child and Family Services Act as it read immediately before the coming into force of this Act.

Independent appeal by foster parent

46(2) A foster parent is entitled to an independent appeal under subsection 51(5) of the former Act only if the foster parent had asked the appropriate authority to reconsider the matter under subsection 51(4) of the former Act before the coming into force of section 41 of this Act.

The Possibility of Financial Contributions

[15] Although generally, families whose children come into care cannot afford to contribute financially, there are exceptions. Although there are not many, there will be some situations where a family with a child in care through a VPA and who is contributing financially will want to (and should be expected to) continue to contribute financially. There will also be situations where arrangements under the 13.x sections could include financial contributions. Within s. 23(4) of the Bill, only clause (b) would require alteration. The earlier portions are included only for administrative convenience. The following suggested replacement of s. 23(4) of the Bill will facilitate the transitional provisions regarding s. 14 and allow for financial contributions in the 13.x regime;

23(4) Subsection 15(3.5) is amended

(a) by striking out "section 12," and substituting "section 12 or"; and

(b) by replacing the period after "section 14" with a comma, and adding "or the date of placement of the child under any of sections 13.2, 13.3 or 13.4."

Better Protections for CFS Staff

[16] The process of developing resources to enable arrangements under the 13.x sections will be a process that, in many cases, will be driven by an immediate need. Some of the potential candidates will have 'attributes' that will require careful consideration, as case managers and extended family members work together to find a plan that is in the best interests of children. In some of those situations, the potential liability exposures will be greater than zero.

[17] In September of 2018, the Manitoba government took receipt of a legislative review report dealing with changes to the CFS Act, entitled, "Transforming Child Welfare Legislation in Manitoba: Opportunities to Improve Outcomes for Children and Youth".

[18] On p. 34 of that report, appeared the following;

Protection from Liability for Child Protection Workers

All child protection workers should be granted protection from liability for anything done or omitted in good faith, while exercising their powers, duties or functions. That a provision [sic] on protection from liability, similar to the provision found in British Columbia's legislation, be adopted in Manitoba (see Appendix B for an excerpt).

[19] Appendix B, on p. 38 of that report, contained an excerpt from s. 101 of B.C.'s Child, Family and Community Services Act;

Protection from liability

101 No person is personally liable for anything done or omitted in good faith in the exercise or performance or intended exercise or performance of

(a) a power, duty or function conferred under this Act, or

(b) a power, duty or function on behalf of or under the direction of a person on whom the power, duty or function is conferred under this Act.

[20] As it turns out, Manitoba's CFS Act had a similar provision until November of 2003, when subsection 6(11) was removed. The wording as it then was;

6(11) Neither the president, nor any officer or director of an agency, nor any person acting under the instructions of any of them or under the authority of this Act or the Adoption Act is personally liable or answerable for any

(a) debt, liability or obligation of an agency or in respect of any act, error or omission of an agency or any of its officers, employees or agents; or

(b) loss or damage suffered by any person by reason of anything in good faith and without negligence, done or omitted to be done, or caused, permitted, or authorized to be done or omitted to be done, pursuant to, or in exercise of, or supposed exercise of, the powers given by this or any other Act of the Legislature.

[21] In short, since November 23, 2003, while CFS workers in government Regional Offices have enjoyed protection through the Civil Service Act, CFS workers in Manitoba's non-share corporation agencies have been working 'without a net' for a generation. I am advised that the removal of s. 6(11) was accidental, but the accidental nature of its removal seems to have had no effect on its restoration. What the 37th Legislature took away in 2003, apparently by accident, this 42nd Legislature should restore. It is to those dedicated front line staff who are more than willing to assist in the transition to services being provided by Indigenous Service Providers that we owe that restoration.

[22] Accordingly, I am proposing that s. 6 of the Bill be re-structured, such that the original wording would become s. 6(1), which would be followed by a s. 6(2), as follows;

6(1) Clause 4.1(5)(b) of the English version is amended by striking out "his or her" and substituting "the director's", and

6(2) Restoring the former section 6(11) from its status as "repealed", so that it reads as follows:

6(11) Neither the president, nor any officer or director of an agency, nor any person acting under the instructions of any of them or under the authority of this Act or the Adoption Act is personally liable or answerable for any

(a) debt, liability or obligation of an agency or in respect of any act, error or omission of an agency or any of its officers, employees or agents; or

(b) loss or damage suffered by any person by reason of anything in good faith and without negligence, done or omitted to be done, or caused, permitted, or authorized to be done or omitted to be done, pursuant to, or in exercise of, or supposed exercise of, the powers given by this or any other Act of the Legislature.

The Restrictions Coming to S. 38(1)

[23] Section 36(1) of the Bill proposes the yellow-highlighted additions to s. 38(1)(b);

(b) that the child be placed with a person other than an agency that the judge considers best able to care for the child, with or without transfer of guardianship to that person, and subject to the conditions and for the period the judge considers necessary; or

[24] Although it is very rare, there have been situations where it was deemed appropriate by the presiding judge to make an order in favour of an agency other than the one putting in the case. An example can be found in the case of ACFS v. D.M.O. and N.A.O., file number CP90-01-03482, originally cited in 82 Man R (2d) 232, and available online through CanLii at 1992 CanLII 13140 (MB KB) | Anishinaabe Child and Family Services Inc. v. D.M.O. and N.A.O. | CanLII .

[25] It would be unfortunate if a judge was prevented from making an order that was in the best interests of a child because of a response to an apparent concern about narrowing the definition of "person" to exclude the concept of a "corporate" person.

[26] Just as we expect CFS workers and the families and children they work with to be able to make the correct decision, based on a number of possibilities, so should we expect judges to do the same. If that expectation is somehow unfulfilled, opportunities for better outcomes will have been abandoned unneces­sarily.

[27] Accordingly, I am proposing that s. 36(1) of the Bill be replaced by wording that would retain the provisions of s. 38(1)(b), as shown below. It would continue to replace the wording for clause (c) as originally set out in Bill 32, and repeal clauses (d) and (e);

36(1) Subsection 38(1) is amended

(a) by replacing clause (c) with the following:

(c) that the agency be appointed the temporary guardian of a child for a period not exceeding 24 months; or

(b) by repealing clauses (d) and (e).

Conclusions

[28] With respect to procedural conclusions, and subject to the call of the Chair, I am requesting that when the relevant clauses come up for consideration, a mover and seconder of this Committee propose the amendments set out in yellow highlighting, below.

[29(a)] (From Paragraph 22, above): That section 6 of Bill 32 be replaced by subsections 6(1) and 6(2) that will read as follows;

6(1) Clause 4.1(5)(b) of the English version is amended by striking out "his or her" and substituting "the director's", and by

6(2) Restoring the former section 6(11) from its status as "repealed", so that it reads as follows:

6(11) Neither the president, nor any officer or director of an agency, nor any person acting under the instructions of any of them or under the authority of this Act or the Adoption Act is personally liable or answerable for any

(a) debt, liability or obligation of an agency or in respect of any act, error or omission of an agency or any of its officers, employees or agents; or

(b) loss or damage suffered by any person by reason of anything in good faith and without negligence, done or omitted to be done, or caused, permitted, or authorized to be done or omitted to be done, pursuant to, or in exercise of, or supposed exercise of, the powers given by this or any other Act of the Legislature.

[29(b)] (From Paragraph 7, above) That a section 22.1 be added to Bill 32 to provide transitional clarity, as follows;

22.1 The following is added just above section 15:

14.1A voluntary placement agreement under the former section 14 that is made before the repeal of that section continues to be in force according to its terms.

 [29(c)] (From Paragraph 15, above): That subsection 23(4) of Bill 32 be replaced by;

23(4) Subsection 15(3.5) is amended

(a) by striking out "section 12," and substituting "section 12 or"; and

(b) by replacing the period after "section 14" with a comma, and adding "or the date of placement of the child under any of sections 13.2, 13.3 or 13.4."

[29(d)] (From Paragraph 27, above) That subsection 36(1) of Bill 32 be replaced by;

36(1) Subsection 38(1) is amended

(a) by replacing clause (c) with the following:

(c) that the agency be appointed the temporary guardian of a child for a period not exceeding 24 months; or

(b) by repealing clauses (d) and (e).

[29(e)] (From Paragraph 12, above) That subsection 42(3) of Bill 32 be replaced by;

42(3) Subsection 76(14) is amended, in the part before clause (a), by striking out everything before "the record shall be sealed" and replacing it with the following:

Where a ward, a child placed under an agreement referred to in the former section 14, or a child who is the subject of a kinship care, customary care or voluntary care agreement has reached the age of majority and the resulting record has been closed,

[29(f)] (From Paragraph 14, above) That section 46 of Bill 32 be amended by leaving subsection 46(1) unchanged, deleting subsections 46(2) and 46(4), and renumbering s. 46(3) as s. 46(2), so it would appear as follows;

Definition

46(1) In this section, "former Act" means The Child and Family Services Act as it read immediately before the coming into force of this Act.

Independent appeal by foster parent

46(2) A foster parent is entitled to an independent appeal under subsection 51(5) of the former Act only if the foster parent had asked the appropriate authority to reconsider the matter under subsection 51(4) of the former Act before the coming into force of section 41 of this Act.

[30] With respect to a more general conclusion, I thank all the Committee members, and express the hope that these very practical suggestions will have the effect of streamlining Manitoba's transition towards more complete congruence with Indigenous Family Laws pursuant to the federal, "An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families".

Respectfully submitted,

Bert Crocker, M.S.W.

 

TIME – 6 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON –
Mr. Dennis Smook
(La Vérendrye)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON –
Mr. Ian Wishart
(Portage la Prairie)

ATTENDANCE – 6     QUORUM – 4

Members of the committee present:

Hon. Mr. Johnson,
Hon. Ms. Squires.

Mr. Brar,
MLA Fontaine,
Messrs. Smook, Wishart

APPEARING:

Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights

PUBLIC PRESENTERS:

Bill 23–The Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Amend­ment Act

Jessica Croy, People First of Manitoba

Tomas Ponzilius, private citizen

Sharon McIlraith, private citizen

Twila Richards, private citizen

Dale Kendel, private citizen

Debra Roach, Family Advocacy Network of Manitoba

Amy Shawcross, Com­mu­nity Living Manitoba

Bill 31–The Animal Care Amend­ment Act (2)

Brenna Mahoney, Keystone Agri­cul­tural Producers (by leave)
Cameron Dahl, Manitoba Pork Council (by leave)

Bill 32–An Act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous Juris­dic­tion and Related Amend­ments)

Doreen Moellenbeck-Dushnitsky, Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services

Trudy Lavallee, Animikii Ozoson Child and Family Services Inc.

Sherry Gott, Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Bill 23–The Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Amend­ment Act

Suzanne Swanton, Continuity Care Inc.

Bill 31–The Animal Care Amend­ment Act (2)

Kaitlyn Mitchell, Animal Justice

Bill 32–An Act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous Juris­dic­tion and Related Amend­ments)

Joshua Nepinak, private citizen
Bert Crocker, private citizen

MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:

Bill 23–The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act

Bill 31–The Animal Care Amendment Act (2)

Bill 32–An Act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous Jurisdiction and Related Amendments)

* * *