LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE

Monday, May 9, 2022


TIME – 6 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Janice Morley‑Lecomte (Seine River)

ATTENDANCE – 6   QUORUM – 4

Members of the committee present:

Hon. Messrs. Friesen, Goertzen

Ms. Fontaine, Mr. Isleifson, Ms. Morley‑Lecomte, Mrs. Smith

MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:

Bill 18 – The Legislative Security Amendment Act

Bill 19 – The Beneficiary Designation (Retirement, Savings and Other Plans) Amendment Act

Bill 23 – The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2022

Bill 26 – The Officers of the Assembly Act (Various Acts Amended)

Bill 35 – The Commemoration of Days, Weeks and Months and Related Repeals and Amendments Act

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Justice please come to order.

      Our first item of business is the election of a Vice‑Chairperson.

      Are there any nominations?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): It's my honour to nominate MLA Morley-Lecomte.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Lecomte.

      Any other nominations?

      Seeing none, Ms. Morley-Lecomte is elected as Vice-Chairperson.

      So, this meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 18, The Legis­lative Security Amend­ment Act; Bill 19, The Beneficiary Designa­tion (Retirement, Savings and Other Plans) Amend­ment Act; Bill 23, The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2022; Bill 26, The Officers of the Assembly Act (Various Acts Amended); and Bill 35, the 'commemoratition' of days, weeks and months and related repeals and amend­ments act.

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

      In which order does the com­mit­tee wish to proceed with clause-by-clause con­sid­era­tion of these bills?

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Chairperson, I would propose in the order that they are listed on the standing com­mit­tee notice.

Mr. Chairperson: As listed in the com­mit­tee standing notice. Is everybody in agree­ment with that? [Agreed]

Bill 18–The Legislative Security Amendment Act

Mr. Chairperson: Then we will now proceed with clause by clause of Bill 18.

      Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 18 have an opening statement?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I do, Mr. Chairperson. I'll continue on with the tradition that I have of, when I take questions as notice at the second reading, I try to provide the answers at com­mit­tee.

      Before I begin, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Morden-Winkler (Mr. Friesen), for his work on this and other pieces of legis­lation that appear before the com­mit­tee tonight.

      So, there were two questions that I took as notice at the second reading debate. One was a question on what the prohibitions will be, the activities, by regula­tion. And speaking to officials within the de­part­ment, they indicate that we will be listening to law en­force­ment and security experts before determining the specific prohibited activities.

      But we can advise that we'll be addressing issues  of vandalism and other unlawful behaviour such as intimidating MLAs and other government staff, or attempting to breach the building, and stopping prolonged blockades and other activities that restrict access to the building and the grounds. Those will be priorities going forward.

      We have no in­ten­tion of restricting or prohibiting peaceful protests, as I've re­peat­edly stated publicly and in the House. There is certainly a sig­ni­fi­cant difference between peaceful protests and activities that inter­fere with the proper functioning of demo­cracy or restrict access to this building.

      There was a second question, and I believe it was from the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard): What is the plan, in terms of security, to work with people who are neurodiverse, who have, for example, autism, and Asperger's type.

      Response from officials: It is critical that our chief legis­lative security officer and other security officers are trained to recog­nize neurodiverse indivi­duals and effectively com­muni­cate and de-es­cal­ate any situation that may arise in the course of their duties.

      There are a number of training programs that are available to law en­force­ment and security officers with respect to recog­nizing and interacting with neurodiverse individuals, and we are committed to ensuring that our legis­lative security officers are trained to the highest standards in order to effectively serve all Manitobans.

      I thank members who are on this com­mit­tee and who were in the House on the day that it was up for second reading for those questions, and I hope that those answers are helpful to them.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, and we thank the minister for those comments.

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

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Bill 18 proposes the prov­incial Cabinet will esta­blish a list of 'prohidivid'–prohibited activities on the Legislative grounds, security officers would have the power to evict people who engage in those activities, and folks in violation could face fines up to $5,000.

      As I stated in my debate in the House, there needs to be clarity around which activities will be prohibited and how any of these on the grounds will respect the rights of Manitobans and also ensure that we understand the Legislature is an im­por­tant building that should be ac­ces­si­ble to all Manitobans.

      It's im­por­tant to uphold the con­sti­tu­tional right of all Manitobans to peacefully protest and ensure it does not improperly restrict anyone's freedom of speech. A key part of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows fun­da­mental rights, like freedom of expression, to be limited in a reasonable manner to protect other rights, which is why this–this is what this bill is attempting to do. However, we must remain vigilant in balancing between protecting people on the Legis­lative grounds and allowing people's right to protest, even if this protest is some­thing that we disagree with.

* (18:10)

      This PC gov­ern­ment has tried to suppress freedom of the right to protest before, when it pro­posed its anti-protest legis­lation, bill 57, which would have given them the author­ity to silence voices of those who oppose them or some­thing that they don't necessarily agree with.

      So, as I stated before, we need to ensure that there are checks and balances on Cabinet's power and that there are key definitions on what activities will and will not be allowed.

      Miigwech.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for the comments.

      So, 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 an 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; clauses 3 through 7–pass, clauses 8 through 10–pass; clauses 11 and 12–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

Bill 19–The Beneficiary Designation (Retirement, Savings and Other Plans) Amendment Act

Mr. Chairperson: We'll now move on to Bill 19.

      Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 19 have an opening statement?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): So, again, there was a number of questions that were technical in nature around the bill. I don't propose to be a financial planner or advisor, so I'll try to provide some of the answers that were asked at second reading.

      It was asked whether or not I, as the minister, have an under­standing of how frequently this issue has been a problem–that of not being able to transfer the 'beneficirary' when a substitute decision maker is putting the finances into a new instrument.

      The response is that we do not know how frequently this issue is a problem. It is most likely to arise when the holder of an RRSP converts to a RRIF before the end of the year that the holder turns 71. Other Canadian juris­dic­tions, including BC, Alberta, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, have recently made similar amend­ments to their statutes governing beneficiary designations.

      I was asked what happens if, at the time someone passes, and then you get into this situation, if at that point the designated beneficiary has died or passed away or designated charity has gone–is defunct.

      The beneficiary–the answer is the beneficiary in the new plan must be the same person designated in the old plan. The bill does not allow the substitute decision maker to name anyone else.

      If the beneficiary has died and then no designa­tion could be made and the funds will pass to the estate and if they were to die without a will or intestate, I–there's a scheme for that, which the funds are distributed.

      A question about what financial in­sti­tutions did the minister speak with in regards to proposed changes: This bill adopts recom­men­dations from the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion of 2019. Submissions were received from the Invest­ment Industry Association of Canada and CIBC. And CIBC advises that they were asking all prov­incial gov­ern­ments, on behalf of all the large banks, to consolidate the requests.

      So, it comes out of the Law Reform Com­mis­sion and there's sig­ni­fi­cant en­gage­ment from Manitoba's large banking in­sti­tutions.

      There was a question about, could this be used–just to be the devil's advocate–that's not me saying that, I think I'm quoting the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard)–in–to change the plan so that the–it would not be the same plan that the individual had.

      The bill says that the plan must be a similar plan. A similar plan is not defined; it's left to the repre­sen­tative to satisfy this require­ment, but it's im­por­tant to remember that repre­sen­tatives already have the author­ity to manage and change invest­ments. This bill isn't about restricting the changing of invest­ments and the–ensuring that when the change happens, that the beneficiary continues on.

      What safeguards are in place to make sure legal repre­sen­tatives act in the best interests of the person that they're repre­sen­ting?

      An attorney must act–must account to the person named in the power of attorney or to the nearest relative. A com­mit­tee must account to court and a substitute decision maker must account to the Vul­ner­able Persons' Commissioner.

      So, in short, you know, as was stated in the House, there are duties that already are assigned–fiduciary duties, rather–that are already assigned to these individuals.

      There was a question about moving some­thing from a more secure invest­ment, like a tax-free savings account, to some­thing less secure.

      Again, this allows for the change of the bene­ficiary. There is already an ability for substitute decision makers to move to different instruments–have to act within their own legis­lative respon­si­bilities–but this doesn't prohibit nor make it easier to move to a different instrument. It just allows the beneficiary to go with two of the instruments.

      So I think that that answers the questions that came from members at second reading.

Mr. Chairperson: And we thank the minister.

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

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Currently, legal repre­sen­tatives can only make decisions regarding beneficiaries on behalf of other people while a plan, such as a bank account, is ongoing.

      However, if changes to the plan need to be made–for example, if the type of bank account needs to be changed–the repre­sen­tative is not able to make this decision without the express consent of the person they're repre­sen­ting, who may no longer be able to make such a decision due to a dis­abil­ity or health con­di­tion.

      This bill will add ad­di­tional safeguards to ensure that a plan administrator is expressly required to verify the identity of a person making a designation and the identity and author­ity of the repre­sen­tative before accepting a designation.

      This bill is one small step for Manitobans living with 'dilibit'–health con­di­tions or a dis­abil­ity and those that support them. However, this gov­ern­ment must do more to support our vul­ner­able Manitobans.

Mr. Chairperson: And we thank the member.

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

      Also, if there is an 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]

      Thank you.

      Clauses 1 and 2–pass; clauses 3 and 4–pass; clauses 5 through 7–pass; clauses 8 through 10–pass; clause 11–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

Bill 23–The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2022

Mr. Chairperson: Now move on to Bill 23, The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2022.

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

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

      So, at second reading there were a few questions–and members will know this is a compilation bill in that the–some of the amend­ments come from de­part­ments that aren't normally under the mainstream of the De­part­ment of Justice.

      So, go through–come of­–the answers–there was a question about what happens if a snowplow gets into an accident or–which affects other vehicles.

      So the focus of this bill is that the–or, this portion of the bill–is that the registrar of insurance no longer has to pre-approve forms used to offer automobile insurance. This is an archaic provision that, in light of MPI being the general insurer for automobiles, is pretty much spent. The current registrar does not remember ever approving such a form.

      As part of the change, there is a provision that will now state that the provisions of The Insurance Act dealing with automobile insurance do not apply to a vehicle that is not required to be registered if the contract excludes them. Snowplows were simply used as an example. They are not motor vehicles within the meaning of The Highway Traffic Act. They fall into a separate category of vehicle called infra­structure equip­ment that does not need to be registered or plated. It does, however, have to still be insured. So there are–there is still insurance on snowplows, which has been relevant this year.

* (18:20)

      Question about why is it that the in­de­pen­dent auditor is not given the ability to make decisions about which programs should be reviewed under The Workers Compensation Act.

      The change just removes the role of the minister from the existing framework. The board of directors is comprised of equal repre­sen­tation of workers, employers and the public interest. The minister tended to approve the program that the board of directors deter­mined would be audited anyway, so there was a potential for this provision to be seen as politicization of the process. So it simply makes it more in­de­pen­dent for the board to be clearly making those decisions, although they were doing so otherwise.

      There was a question regarding The Em­ploy­ment Standards Code. And there's a reference, before the email was sent–by notifying the sender in writing, does this include by email, or does it have to be a written letter, signed?

      The response from the de­part­ment is that the email would qualify as in writing, parti­cularly given that these amend­ments author­ize written notices to be served by email.

      And finally, there was a question about a require­ment for a report to be given by the military envoy or liaison to the Legislature, to the minister.

      I indicated that when the military envoy reported to me in a previous role, and they did report–and the Minister of Advanced Edu­ca­tion and Immigration, very, very diligent in his previous role as minister–or  as–respon­si­ble–as military envoy and reported regularly. But there isn't a specific require­ment under The Executive Gov­ern­ment Organi­zation Act for an annual report by the military liaison, in the same way there isn't a specific require­ment for legis­lative assistants to have an annual report, but they do report regularly, of course, to their ministers who–which they serve with.

      So, while there isn't a specific require­ment for a report, I can assure the member–and I think it was the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) who asked–that I don't believe there's ever been a gov­ern­ment since the military envoy position was created where that envoy has been as active as the envoys under our gov­ern­ment have been, including the current envoy, who is an exceptional individual as well.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister.

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

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): This act makes it easier for people to attend appeals online. This is  necessary because the PC gov­ern­ment's policy decisions when it comes to housing and the rights of renters have been an utter disaster, to say the least.

      We believe that housing is a right and that all Manitobans should have access to affordable, safe, quality housing. Unfor­tunately, the PC gov­ern­ment is not doing enough to help renters, parti­cularly low-income Manitobans, to help them afford housing.

      This bill also amends The Em­ploy­ment Standards Code and makes it easier to submit docu­ments by  email, which makes life a little bit easier for Manitobans.

      However, the PC gov­ern­ment could have done this months ago when they last amended The Em­ploy­ment Standards Code. That bill, bill 44, imple­mented paid sick leave for workers only after the  federal gov­ern­ment committed to funding the program.

      This PC gov­ern­ment is still cleaning up The Workers Compensation Act four years after having received a qualified opinion from the Auditor General, and this bill supposedly reduces red tape, but it gives this gov­ern­ment the potential to add another deputy minister, and they already have two more deputy ministers in place than the previous NDP govern­ment.

      Miigwech.

Mr. Chairperson: And 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]

      Clause 1–pass; clauses 2 and 3–pass; clause 4–pass; clause 5–pass; clause 6–pass; clauses 7 and 8–pass; clause 9–pass; clauses 10 and 11–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

Bill 26–The Officers of the Assembly Act
(Various Acts Amended)

Mr. Chairperson: Next, we move on to Bill 26, The Officers of the Assembly Act (Various Acts Amended).

      Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 26 have an opening statement?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): There were no questions at second reading from members of the Assembly which, I take, is a good sign.

      But–so I won't repeat all of my comments at second reading other than to say, again, this is about ensuring that in­de­pen­dent officers–or officers of the Legis­lative Assembly, as they prefer to be called–truly are seen to be in­de­pen­dent in that their hiring isn't an OIC, like gov­ern­ment, but that it's a motion into the Assembly; that LAMC has more author­ity in terms of the deputy officers who are appointed.

      This won't mean maybe a lot to people outside of this building, but to those of us who work here, I  think it's im­por­tant those roles are elected here. It's im­por­tant that these officers not only be seen to be in­de­pen­dent, but are in­de­pen­dent in terms of how it's structured.

      And so I ap­pre­ciate those who've advised me on this bill because, yes, I know that it won't capture the hearts and minds of the public, but it is im­por­tant to ensure that the things are structured well here in the Assembly for not just us, but we're caretakers for future elected repre­sen­tatives who come to this House.

      And so, I know it means some­thing to the Official Op­posi­tion House Leader (Ms. Fontaine) and the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) to have that as well and leave that as part of our, you know, gov­ern­ance, small-g gov­ern­ance legacy, and that I appre­ciate the anticipated support on this bill.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister.

      Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement? None?

      Thank you.

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

      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 clause or clauses where members may have comments, questions or amend­ments to the–to propose.

      Is that agreed? [Agreed]

      Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clause 4–pass; clause 5–pass; clause 6–pass; clause 7–pass; clause 8–pass; clause 9–pass; clause 10–pass; clauses 11 and 12–pass; clause 13–pass; clauses 14 through 16–pass; clause 17–pass; clause 18–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

Bill 35–The Commemoration of Days, Weeks and Months and Related Repeals and Amendments Act

Mr. Chairperson: Now, we move on to Bill 35, The Com­memo­ra­tion of Days, Weeks and Months and Related Repeals and Amend­ments Act.

      Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 35 have an opening statement?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): There were no questions for me to report back on from second reading, as I have–previously have committed to do.

      Again, this bill, really, it recognizes the good work that MLAs in this composition of the Assembly and previously ones have done, often through private members' bills, of identifying days to–and weeks to–and months to commemorate in–for a variety of different reasons or causes.

* (18:30)

      But there are so many. There's been so much good work done that it made sense to put them under one umbrella so that Manitobans could easily find them and see them. Doesn't change the nature of the bills. It does add Manitoba Day as a specific bill–or a specific day under Manitoba legis­lation, but other than that, the days remain the same.

      I know that there are bills that are expected to pass  that are in­de­pen­dent members' bills this session, and so we'll have to go back–and I think this was a question from the member for Tyndall Park (Ms. Lamoureux)–we'll have to go back in the next session and bring those bills under this umbrella as well.

      And then, going forward from there, members who want to add recognition days, months or weeks have to simply amend this bill and have them added on there.

      Then Manitobans for time 'immemoriam' can just simply go on and see the various great work that MLAs have done and the reasons why days, weeks and months are commemorated.

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

      Does the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Very quickly, I agree with my colleague, the minister. I think that this is a good bill to kind of, you know, coalesce and bring all of the good work that's gone on, again, previously and certainly with this cohort of MLAs.

      But I also do want to recog­nize that a lot of the  work or a lot of the bills or com­memo­ra­tion days that we have here actually derive them­selves from commu­nity, right? Often those ideas for, you know, Sikh heritage or Filipino heritage week or month or whatever it would be, derives itself from the com­mu­nity and the com­mu­nity wanting to get engaged, in some small part, in legis­lative affairs, but certainly, in recog­nition of their role and their con­tri­bu­tion to the collective here.

      So I do want to put that on the record that, you know, a lot of this work comes from them and we should ap­pre­ciate that and acknowl­edge that, and certainly we're in support of Bill 35.

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

      So, during the con­sid­era­tion of a bill, the preamble, 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; clause 5–pass.

      Shall clause 6 pass? Whoops, sorry, my mistake, my mistake. I looked up.

      Schedule 1–pass; schedule 2–pass; schedule 3–pass; schedule 4–pass; schedule 5–pass; schedule 6–pass; schedule 7–pass; schedule 8–pass; schedule 9–pass; schedule 10–pass; schedule 11–pass; schedule 12–pass; schedule 13–pass; schedule 14–pass; schedule 15–pass; schedule 16–pass; schedule 17–pass; schedule 18–pass; schedule 19–pass; schedule 20–pass; schedule 21–pass; schedule 22–pass; schedule 23–pass; schedule 24–pass; schedule 25–pass; schedule 26–pass; schedule 27–pass; schedule 28–pass; schedule 29–pass; schedule 30–pass; schedule 31–pass; schedule 32–pass; schedule 33–pass; schedule 34–pass; schedule 35–pass; schedule 36–pass; schedule 37–pass; schedule 38–pass; schedule 39–pass; preamble–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

      So, the hour being 6:36, com­mit­tee rise–[interjection] Oh, what is the will of the com­mit­tee?

Some Honourable Members: Com­mit­tee rise.

Mr. Chairperson: I didn't think you wanted to stay all night. So, com­mit­tee rise.

COMMITTEE ROSE AT: 6:36 p.m.


 

 

TIME – 6 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Janice Morley‑Lecomte (Seine River)

ATTENDANCE – 6
  QUORUM – 4

Members of the committee present:

Hon. Messrs. Friesen, Goertzen

Ms. Fontaine,
Mr. Isleifson,
Ms. Morley‑Lecomte,
Mrs. Smith

MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:

Bill 18 – The Legislative Security Amendment Act

Bill 19 – The Beneficiary Designation (Retirement, Savings and Other Plans) Amendment Act

Bill 23 – The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2022

Bill 26 – The Officers of the Assembly Act (Various Acts Amended)

Bill 35 – The Commemoration of Days, Weeks and Months and Related Repeals and Amendments Act

* * *