LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Thursday, May 25, 2023
LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba
CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Shannon Martin (McPhillips)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield-Ritchot)
ATTENDANCE – 6 QUORUM – 4
Members of the committee present:
Mr. Altomare, MLA Fontaine, Messrs. Isleifson, Martin, Micklefield, Schuler
Substitutions:
Hon. Mr. Goertzen for Mr. Isleifson at 7:23 p.m.
Mr. Isleifson for Hon. Mr. Goertzen at 7:31 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Johnston for Mr. Isleifson at 7:45 p.m.
APPEARING:
Mr. Jamie Moses, MLA for St. Vital
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux, MLA for Tyndall Park
Hon. Scott Johnston, MLA for Assiniboia
Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen, MLA for Steinbach
PUBLIC PRESENTERS:
Bill 237–The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act
Nicholas Greco, Providence University College and Theological Seminary
Kenton Anderson, private citizen
Bill 238–The Personal Care Home Accountability Act (Various Acts Amended)
Rhonda Nichol, private citizen
Sheryl King, private citizen
Patricia Rawsthorne, private citizen
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Bill 222–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Nutrition Programs)
Sandy Nemeth, Manitoba School Boards Association
Bill 230–The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Amendment Act
Sandy Nemeth, Manitoba School Boards Association
Denys Volkov, Association of Manitoba Municipalities
Bill 238–The Personal Care Home Accountability Act (Various Acts Amended)
Diana Rasmussen, Family Advisory Council for Oakview Place
MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:
Bill 218–An Act respecting the Title "Associate Judge" (Various Acts Amended)
Bill 222–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Nutrition Programs)
Bill 230–The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Amendment Act
Bill 237–The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act
Bill 238–The Personal Care Home Accountability Act (Various Acts Amended)
* * *
Clerk Assistant (Mr. Tim Abbott): Good evening, everyone. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order.
The first item of business is the election of a Chairperson.
Are there any nominations?
Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East): I would nominate Mr. Martin.
Clerk Assistant: Mr. Martin has been nominated.
Any further nominations?
Hearing none, Mr. Martin, please take the Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chair.
Are there any nominations?
Mr. Isleifson: I would nominate Mr. Schuler.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Schuler has been nominated.
Are there any other nominations?
Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Schuler is elected Vice-Chairperson.
This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 218, An Act respecting the Title "Associate Judge" (Various Acts Amended); Bill 222, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Nutrition Programs); Bill 230, The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Amendment Act; Bill 237, The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act; and Bill 238, The Personal Care Home Accountability Act (Various Acts Amended).
I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hours 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 from the following person–or, I'm sorry–written submissions from the following people have been received and distributed to committee members: Sandy Nemeth, Manitoba school division–school boards association, to Bills 222 and 230; Diana Rasmussen, Family Advisory Council from Oakview Place, to Bill 238; and Denys Volkov, Association of Manitoba Municipalities, to Bill 230.
Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed]
Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I'd like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in a committee. In accordance with our rule 92(2), 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 30 seconds in length, with no 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, any independent member.
If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.
The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or presenter, I have to say–I first have to say the person's name. This is a signal for Hansard recorders to turn the microphones on and off. This is required.
Okay. On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we do have out-of-town presenters in attendance in the room, marked with an asterisk on the list. With these considerations in mind, in what order does the committee wish to hear presentations?
Mr. Isleifson: I would suggest the out-of-town folks who are in the room to go first.
Mr. Chairperson: It has been proposed that we proceed with out-of-towners first; is that in agreement? [Agreed]
Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations.
Mr. Chairperson: Our first out-of-town presenter is Mr. Nicholas Greco, on Bill 237, The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act.
Mr. Greco, do you have anything that needs to be distributed to the committee?
Nicholas Greco (Providence University College and Theological Seminary): I do not.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay. You may start.
N. Greco: Good evening. I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to speak this evening.
I serve as the provost, or chief academic officer, of Providence University College and Theological Seminary, and I come representing our president, Dr. Kenton Anderson, the administrative cabinet and board of governors, the academic senate, faculty, staff, student body, alumni and constituents.
In 2025, Providence will be celebrating its 100th year of providing post-secondary education. Providence began as Winnipeg Bible Training School in 1925, providing theological training for leaders in Christian ministry. Through the years, Providence has transformed itself to become a full university that strives to, and I quote, teach people to grow in knowledge and character for leadership and service. End quote.
Our stated values include community, diversity of thought, exploration and academic excellence. Our academic senate and governance structure is in keeping with best practice across the province and country. In addition, Providence places great importance in service to the community, environmental responsibility, good citizenship, Indigenous inclusion and reconciliation, along with service to international students.
The Providence University College and Theological Seminary Incorporation Act was amended in 2011, and serves to reinforce our continued service to the broader community as an open-enrollment university serving students from a variety of faith backgrounds.
This fall, we anticipate a student body of well over 500 in Otterburne, and through comprehensive distance education and competency-based programs, along with a similar number of students in the downtown Winnipeg initiative. This anticipated enrolment of more than 1,000 represents a doubling in size and budget since the COVID downturn.
Providence is a going concern. We would specifically mention our exceptional associative arts degree in business, marketed primarily to international students who are wanting to become permanent residents in the province of Manitoba. This program is training newcomers for the Manitoba economy in the heart of Winnipeg. Mayor Gillingham, in a recent conversation with President Anderson, was particularly appreciative of this initiative.
* (18:10)
Our academic programs are varied, including health and environmental sciences, psychology and counselling, English language acquisition and teaching, sociology and more. Our Buller School of Business is meeting significant employment and capacity needs in the marketplace.
We recently have upgraded our long-standing aviation degree program by developing a more comprehensive instructional program together with Harv's Air in Steinbach, one of the largest flight schools in the country, to meet the significant pilot shortage in North America and Europe.
The pandemic has brought to the forefront the need for mental health support, made evident by the government's own movement into the area of mental health self-help. Through our counselling psychology graduate programs, Providence is bringing trained counsellors to Manitoba communities that need them the most, in keeping with the government's declared intentions as reflected in the AbilitiCBT and cognitive behavioural therapy initiatives listed on the Manitoba Shared Health page.
In addition to the academic requirements of these programs, every student in the undergraduate program at Providence is required to complete a set of service hours in direct support to people. Providence believes that this service to others is essential to make our communities, the province of Manitoba, Canada and the world a better place. We know that there continues to be marginalized communities that need a voice, and so we strive to come alongside those people to serve them and empower them to improve their life situation. Through these initiatives, we are providing practical work experience, or work-integrated learning, to our students, giving everyone an opportunity for a better place in the world.
We have heard that there might be some concern that this bill could be incomplete without accompanying legislation that guides the function of our university and holds us accountable in a manner like that experienced by other peer institutions. We would note that we are currently acting under such a legislative act that dates to 1948. While we can appreciate that this act might require modernization, we would emphasize this is–this matter should not impede the immediate passage of the private members' bill under current consideration. We also welcome any subsequent action to update and improve the legislation that guides us.
This bill acknowledges the longstanding reality of Providence as a university in the community and will open doors for Providence to fully express its aspirations for the achievement of the educational goals of all Manitobans. In fact, our graduates are accepted at virtually every university in Canada. The implications are far reaching, and we believe that it is time for this recognition to be properly realized.
On behalf of Providence University College and Theological Seminary, I would like to express our thanks to MLA Andrew Micklefield for bringing forward this bill. I would also like to thank those MLAs in both political parties that we have been working with, particularly the opposition Education critic, MLA Jamie Moses, as well as the Honourable Sarah Guillemard, Minister of Advanced Education and Training.
We are bold to ask for your continued support at third reading. We expect that passage of this bill will be noted with appreciation by our entire constituency.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Greco.
Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter?
Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Rossmere): Yes, I want to thank you for coming out and taking the time to speak to us.
I don't know if you want to comment about the work of Providence and how it is received and interacts with other educational institutions, both at an administrative level, but whether or not, perhaps, professors go back and forth from other institutions, as well as students, and the level and layers of degrees that Providence offers?
I guess what is at the heart of my question is, is Providence truly–and I believe the answer is yes, but I want to demonstrate for the committee–that Providence truly is–
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Greco, your response?
N. Greco: Thank you for the question. Let me get to a few of these parts of that question.
Of course, we offer all sorts of degrees and credentials, from certificates, diplomas, associate of arts degrees and full bachelor of arts degrees. We also offer master of arts degrees and doctoral level degrees. So we offer all of the gamut of degrees and credentials that other universities do.
In terms of our students, our students certainly engage with other institutions. As I mentioned, our students have been accepted virtually everywhere in Canada and international–internationally for graduate programs.
But also, students have been a part of various international conferences. I am a professor as well. I teach in the area of communications and media, and I have brought my own students to conferences to present. I'm also glad to say that my professors have joined me in my classes; Zoom has allowed that to easily happen.
And so there is a lot of engagement with other universities. We are well respected amongst our peers, and certainly because of all of these elements, we are, in fact, a university.
Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): I wanted to just take a minute to thank you for the presentation today and thank you for, you know, your words of insight about providing more information about the work that–good work that Providence does.
Want to also pass on a thanks for the meeting with President Kenton and Mr. Ed Bullock [phonetic]. And it was a pleasure to get a chance to chat with him about the details of the bill.
And I just wanted to also note, as you said in your comments, that–about the growth that Providence has had over the many years; it's particularly recently–
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Greco, do you have a response?
N. Greco: Thank you very much.
Mr. Nello Altomare (Transcona): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Greco. I found it really interesting.
Can you expand a little bit more on the work-integrated learning that you talked about and just some samples and examples of that please? [interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Greco. Sorry, I need to recognize you first for Hansard.
N. Greco: All of our students are required to do what we call field education, and as a part of that can be work-integrated learning. Some of that, of course, is volunteer work in various placements. But in some areas where it's particularly useful for students to get experience in a workplace, the work-integrated learning, there are those opportunities.
So, for instance, students in the communications and media program, which is a program that I know a lot about, end up being placed, for instance, working with the Steinbach Pistons, the hockey team in Steinbach, where they help with some of their live-streaming and some of their camera work. They might be involved in other areas of our institution, in our athletics program, doing similar kinds of things.
That's just one example, but there would be many examples that I could point to where students are getting real skills to be able to enter the workplace after they're done their time at Providence.
Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Lamoureux, for one quick question.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I will keep it quick.
I want to thank you for your presentation and congrats on almost 100 years.
I myself went to Horizon bible college when I first graduated high school, and I can remember then coming to University of Winnipeg, and there were challenges and barriers in having some of the classes recognized and accredited, and I was lucky I did have some accredited.
But as I was wondering if there's anything more we can be doing provincially to help with the process of that awareness for other post-secondary facilities to better help with accreditation.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Greco has five seconds remaining. Is there leave to allow Mr. Greco to do a full–more fulsome response? [Agreed]
N. Greco: Thank you. One thing that the Province can do is to recognize Providence as a university. That is one of the things that is actually causing us a little bit of trouble, not so much with universities outside of the province, but actually universities within the province of Manitoba.
Our courses are freely recognized by most universities in Canada, so students are able to transfer courses into the major universities in other urban centres, but unfortunately, because we are not considered a university in the province of Manitoba, some of our Manitoba peer institutions do not give us the respect that we deserve and that we are getting from our other peer universities in Canada.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation and time, Mr. Greco.
Mr. Chairperson: Now I'd like to call Ms. Rhonda Nichol, private citizen, on Bill 238, The Personal Care Home Accountability Act (Various Acts Amended).
* (18:20)
Good evening, Ms. Nichol. Do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee?
Rhonda Nichol (Private Citizen): No.
Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation.
R. Nichol: Hello, my name is Rhonda Nichol. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the importance of and in support of passing Bill 238.
I'm a registered nurse of 34-plus years. Many of us who are present here today have either worked in a personal- or long-term-care home, know someone who has resided in such a home or visited someone in care. The COVID pandemic further exposed some very large cracks in our personal-care homes.
In February of 2022, the Province released the final report on its March 2021 implementation plan with updates on the status of the Stevenson review recommendations. The final report focused on four key areas of completed actions: resident safety, staffing complements, pandemic preparedness and communications with families and staff. At the end of her report, Dr. Lynn Stevenson highlighted the importance of adopting a humanistic and compassionate approach with long-term-care residents, their families and the staff who care for them.
The work delivered by the Stevenson review working group provides that road map and also sets a foundation for the way forward.
Bill 238 further supports the above recommendations. Here in Manitoba, we have 124 personal-care homes with approximately 9,400 residents in care. Oftentimes, many of these residents do not have the capacity to speak up on their own due a variety of factors such as dementia or stroke. Families and those who are like family to the residents need to be their voices in these instances.
We need to protect our vulnerable population and provide a resource to them to ensure their needs are met. Bill 238 is an important step in ensuring their concerns are listened to and acted on.
Bill 238 proposes that any concern raised by the family resident community council is addressed, including by way of an investigation, if necessary, and that a response or a preliminary response is provided to the council at or before its next meeting. This importantly ensures accountability by the personal-care-home management, as they will be legally bound to address the issue. They will not be allowed to ignore the issue at hand.
Bill 238 also lines up with the national long-term care standard's standard No. 2, upholding the resident-centred care. It states, respecting, promoting and protecting residents' rights is the foundation of resident-centred care.
Bill 238 also creates a solid plan for including the minister in the reporting structure and provides key oversight that has been missing from the current structure. The Minister responsible for Seniors and Long-Term Care needs to have a direct role in creating a culture of collaboration, transparency, communication and respect between the residents, their families, management and the government.
This is where our safety net for those in care needs to start. It is the duty of the government to ensure the voices of those in care are heard, respected and then acted on as necessary.
In June 2022, the Leader of the Opposition said the Province should be investing in staffing and resources in the system so there is greater oversight and supervision and that accountability is important. Since 2016, Cindy Lamoureux, MLA for Tyndall Park and Manitoba Liberal Seniors critic, has been calling for the creation of a seniors advocate modelled on a similar position in British Columbia. It was part of the 2019 Manitoba Liberal platform. In January 2022, the Conservative government created the new position of the Minister responsible for Seniors and Long-Term Care.
From the above, we can see that all parties have a valid and real concern for those in care.
I recommend the passing of Bill 238 to further meet the needs of residents and persons in care. We must continue to move forward in creating positive communication strategies, transparency and accountability that centres around the resident and not around the care home. The focus must be on the resident. Bill 238 will help to ensure this.
I would also like to say thank you to Dr. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights, for presenting this bill. It is much appreciated. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much.
Are there any questions for the presenter?
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Thank you so much for your presentation, Rhonda.
I want to thank you, first and foremost, just for the work you've been doing in health care here in our province, especially over the last few years, but I understand over the course of about 30 years now, so thank you for those efforts here in the province.
You talked a little bit about how this bill would, in fact, impact not only the families of loved ones in long-term-care facilities, but it would also impact those who are living in the long-term-care facilities.
I was hoping that you would be able to–
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member's time has expired.
Ms. King? Your response?
Ms. Lamoureux?
Ms. Lamoureux: Finish my question?
Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave for Ms. Lamoureux to continue her question?
Ms. Lamoureux: So, my–
An Honourable Member: Leave. Leave.
Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been granted.
Ms. Lamoureux: Excellent.
My question is, then, could you provide us with an example of a concern that might be brought forward and how it would then be acted upon? [interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Oh. Sorry, Ms. King, I need to recognize you first–sorry, Ms. Nichol, I need to recognize you first.
Ms. Nichol to respond, please.
R. Nichol: So, yes, an example of that would be something as, I'm just going to say, as simple as a family member or even a resident complaining or stating that the food–the quality of the food that they're getting is not good and not up to par.
We know that does occur in care homes. And currently, right now, if a family member or resident brings that forward, it may be passed on to management, but then there's no action following that.
So, this is going to create more accountability, discussion and the care homes now have the ability to actually work along with families instead of against them, because that has been happening; we know that.
Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): I thank the–thank you very much for your presentation and the words you're saying and, obviously, the work that you're doing to advocate for seniors in long-term care.
I wonder, maybe, if you could tell us, if this bill is implemented, how will it go about helping to ensure that long-term-care facilities are providing the highest quality of care for Manitobans?
R. Nichol: Yes. So, now with these–formation of these committees, there is going to be some accountability back to the Minister responsible for Seniors, and I believe that's very important. Currently, that does not happen.
And, again, having these committees now also enables families to–families and also friends to form these committees, have discussion that has to occur with management, and then there's now the capacity for that to be reported back to the minister and also some follow-up there.
So, it just creates accountability at all levels, and that's what's missing right now.
Mr. Chairperson: Any further questions of our presenter?
Hon. Scott Johnston (Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care): Just very briefly, thank you very much for your presentation. It was certainly informative and well thought out.
I can indicate that, certainly, the development of a further composition of a family council is something that we believe is certainly very valuable and would enhance the overall experience and accountability in personal-care homes.
So, I thank you very much for your presentation and your comments.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister's time has expired.
Ms. Nichol, I don't know if you have a response?
R. Nichol: No, I just want to say thank you very much for that, because, yes, I think everyone sitting here realizes that this is something that is very necessary.
Mr. Chairperson: Are there any additional questions or comments to our presenter?
Thank you very much, Ms. Nichol, we appreciate your time this evening.
I have two items for information of the committee. The first item is that Kam Blight, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities submitted a written submission and will not be presenting to the committee. He shall be removed from the list.
Ms. Deneen Allarie is present in the room, but unfortunately, she has lost her voice. Her sister, Sheryl King, who was also scheduled to present, would like to read her presentation on her behalf.
Is there leave to allow Mrs. King to read both presentations? [Agreed]
Calling Mrs. Sheryl King on Bill 238, The Personal Care Home Accountability Act. [interjection]
Oh, sorry, Mrs. King, do you have any written materials for the committee?
* (18:30)
Sheryl King (Private Citizen): No, I don't think so.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, then please proceed with your presentation.
S. King: Okay, I'm a real rookie at this, and–but I'm just going to go.
I'm first going to read an email that was sent to a whole bunch of members of Parliament dating back into January 6th, 2023. Unfortunately, this is a very emotional thing for me, so I'm going to try my best. This–I'm going to read the one that was sent to Heather Stefanson, and I–hopefully I'm allowed to say what I'm saying; I don't know. But this is my sister's email.
My name is Deneen Allarie, and I'm reaching out to you in hope that you can help me. My 94-year-old dad Albert, who has dimension–dementia, has been a resident of Oakview extended-care personal home for 14 months now. In November 2021, after three years of caring for our 89-year-old mom, who had Alzheimer's, we had to make a very bad–a very hard decision to put them both into PCH. Sadly, a month later, our mom passed away and my dad's dementia got worse.
I have other five–I have five other siblings, but my sister and myself are the main caregivers and the POA for our parents. The neglect at Oakview pretty much started immediately after our mom died. Fortunately, throughout any lockdowns, my sister and I were able to visit him daily, but we saw a lot of neglect on our dad as well–other residents. We always took our concerns to the administration, and some issues were dealt with and some were not.
In March or April 2022, Oakview lost a lot of their administration, and for months, up until the end of October, it was revolving door of new administration coming and going and issues not getting resolved. It was and still is literally a gong show.
In August, we discovered that our dad was covered in bruises. This is when we found out that he'd been neglected for five straight days. We have pictures, videos, of said neglect and bruising. Again, after meeting with administration, we still to this day don't have the answers. The same neglect has been going on since January 22nd, up–January 2022 up into the present day.
On the afternoon of the week of January 3rd, 2023, we were notified that evening that our dad escaped out the front door and was found wandering in the parking lot. Needless to say, we had a very sleepless night as it was an unknown nurse who contacted us four hours later, and she had very little detail.
Luckily our dad was okay, but we know the outcome could've been disastrous. Our family is appalled that the administration did not call us to let us know and give us the opportunity to go there and see if he was okay. We showed up yesterday at Oakview to approach admin on what had gone on and why it was still almost 24 hours later they hadn't contacted us. Their response was: He was only outside for two minutes.
They went on to say that it wasn't a serious situation and it wasn't a crisis, and therefore they felt it was okay for some random nurse to call us with zero details. Recently, at an Edmonton extended-care home, 83-year-old Kay Green walked out a facility with a wander bracelet on and temperature was minus 12, with minus 24 wind chill, and she died an hour later. Our dad was outside at minus 10, with minus–wind chill of minus 17, so we feel we were not overreacting about the lack of the serious and concern about what happened to our dad.
Over the course of the past 14 months I have seen, as well of my siblings, first-hand, the–what continues to go on at Oakview, and it's very disturbing and concerning. I have made many friends with these sweet residents as well as their families. Because of these relationships, many have been confided in me about the mistreatment they are getting and the fear that if they talk to the staff, that the staff will retaliate against them. And retaliating is a word that they used, not us.
Many are left screaming and crying in their rooms, their needs unattended. I can help when I can, example, getting staff's attention in dangerous situations. I have seen many laying on the floors in their rooms after a fall, and they beg me to get them help. I have seen big men in wheelchairs colliding and crashing into tiny women who are also in wheelchairs, defenceless of this huge man coming at them. I have seen a lady across from my dad's room be touched sexually by a male resident after holding her down on his bed while forcing her to touch his privates.
When I tell the staff, they say they are aware. But nothing gets done. The list goes on and on.
My sister and I joined the Oakview family advisory committee in September and have been working nonstop with them to try and bring awareness on the goings on in there. We have reached out to MLAs, ministers; you name it, we have contacted them, and nobody responds. We have also reached out to the administration many times, suggesting a meeting with our committee, but they keep declining. This–they just want us to go away.
I have also recently found out that Oakview is the only PCH in Winnipeg that does have a family advisory committee, and I find that rather odd. Maybe this is something that should be mandatory in all care homes.
Another very disturbing situation is the food at Oakview. Since about August or April 2022, something changed in the food menu. The food is absolutely disgusting, and trust me, you wouldn't feed it to your dog. I've listened non-stop to the residents' concerns and complaints and have been fighting to have the changes with that. Still, nothing.
Last week my sister was told by administration if–that if a resident misses a meal or two, they will not starve. The thing is, there is nobody monitoring any resident's food intake. This is shameful. The tears and crying we see when their meals are put in front of them and they are so hungry but refuse to eat–this is absolutely heartbreaking.
They have a resident council as well. My sister and I sat in on a meeting with the residents and the administration a couple weeks ago. They voiced their concerns about the lack of–this is the residents–they're voicing their concern about the lack of recreation activities, lack of communication, language barriers, the call bells never being answered, but most importantly was the food. There was one–that was the one topic that got them fired up.
They were promised change, but that–but they felt they weren't heard. The sweet souls didn't even receive a turkey dinner for Christmas this year, and they didn't get one on New Year's Day either. Most voiced to us that this was the worst Christmas that they'd ever experienced, that they were forgotten about. How sad is that.
I spent every day there throughout December, sitting outside in the courtyard with my dad, and by the end of summer, on any given day, I had 10 to 15 residents sitting with us, laughing with us, talking and singing and enjoying the day. They share stories about their families and lives with me. They brought so much joy to my days. Many tell me I'm like a daughter to them, and every day they hug me and tell me they love me, and I love them as well.
Residents are continually walking around covered in their own feces. Again, we bring it to staff's attention and, trust me, the staff move very slowly around there. And if they have a coffee break at that moment, they feel that comes first, not dealing with the issue at hand.
My dad has had a colostomy bag since 1986, and it has been nothing but an issue since January of 2022 and is ongoing up until today. Every day, we would walk in and he is covered in his own feces because they don't empty his bag enough. He has had explosion after explosion, and this has caused him so much anxiety and embarrassment for him and severe irritation to his stoma.
He is not the only one going through this. There are many others with colostomy bags that are dealing with similar situations.
My sister and I are now known as the troublemaker sisters. We have been accused of abusing the staff, which has never been done. The administration has now retaliated on our heartstrings, put the fear in us of not being able to see our dad, worrying us that if we continue what we are doing we will be escorted out of the facility. How can advocating for these sweet souls be wrong?
We are well aware of the abuse of the 15 residents this past year and know which residents were abused and have become friends with these families. Again, after talking with these families, it is very heartbreaking what the outcome was: no justice for those that were abused, and Oakview continues like nothing has ever happened–disgusting.
The current administration does not want to deal or talk with families who have had any issues before they all took their new positions in October and November. They don't want to go back to our dad's neglect in August. They were not there when it happened; that's what they would say. We weren't here, so we don't know what happened. They just want us to sweep it under the carpet and start a new slate
Sorry, but it just doesn't cut it, since we still don't have answers or accountability of what happened to him. There are very bullish–they are very bullish towards family members and they're concerned about their loved ones.
Many family members are starting to come forward and reach out to my sister and I, as well as the family advisory committee. They have also been scared to discuss issues with staff and administration, fearing it might put their loved ones in jeopardy.
I was notified by a family this evening that they were pulling their uncle out of there tomorrow. They said the experience has been horrible for their loved one. Does this sound normal to you?
The facility is understaffed and the residents' needs are not being met. Between myself and my sister and my four brothers, we have hundreds of photos and videos of this, but, funny thing–nobody's interested in helping these seniors or our dad.
Thank you so much, Premier Stefanson, for taking this time to read my email. I am hoping that maybe this will touch your hearts and make you think of your own parents, grandparents, having to live in this horrible life for their remaining days. It's just not fair, and it's very inhumane.
Our next step may be W5 with all the issues and concerns going on at Oakview. Along with the hundreds of videos, pictures and correspondences to all the government officials who have yet to respond to this very serious and disturbing crisis going on in our province at these care homes. We would love the opportunity to possibly meet with you.
* (18:40)
We did send it out to a lot of members, and I did have a response from Heather Stefanson and Mr. Johnson [phonetic] and Audrey Gordon, and they more or less told us to contact PPCO and WRHA, which we've been doing for 14 months. And that's another story.
So, if I–could I have a sip of my water? Or do I need to take a break; does anybody?
Mr. Chairperson: Your–you still have nine minutes and 33 seconds remaining.
The–Mr. Isleifson, on a–asking clarification.
Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East): Yes, just clarification. Are we doing the one presentation and then asking questions on it, and then when that's done, her own presentation? Or are we doing both together, with a 20-minute presentation?
It doesn't matter to me, I'm just–that might just take away some of the time for questions.
Mr.
Chairperson: The agreement of the committee was to allow Ms. King
her 10 minutes, as well as to allocate her sister, whose voice is
non-compliant, saying–Ms. Allarie, her 10 minutes as well. So we will
allow Ms. King to share Ms. Allarie's comments, and then we will
follow by the question period.
So–sorry, Ms. King, to continue.
S. King: Okay. This letter is in regards to the standing committee on Personal Care Home Accountability Act, Bill 238.
Good evening. My name is Sheryl King, and I am here along with my sister, Deneen Allarie. I never in my wildest imagination would've thought that I would have to come here and speak about seniors in personal-care homes. You will have to be patient and bear with me, for this is one of the hardest things that we have had to deal with as a family.
Our parents, Albert and Shirley Allarie, worked very hard all of their lives and raised a family of six children. They were kind and loving people with hearts of gold, and we were so blessed. We are a close-knit family, something that our parents instilled in us, to love and care for one another.
In 1991, our parents moved to St. Charles area in Winnipeg, and in 2018 we noticed that our mom was getting forgetful. And by 2019 she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. In 2020, our dad was also diagnosed with the onset of dementia. During this time, home care was coming three times a day. We did our due diligence looking after them daily for almost three years.
We reached out to home care for more help, but we were pretty much told that we were out of luck, and to consider 24-hour care at a personal-care home. As time progressed, we were exhausted, and we now–we knew now–we were now looking for an emergency placement for both of them. It had become unsafe for them to be alone throughout the night, as we had invested in cameras and we saw firsthand that safety was a big issue.
So, the search for a PCH began, and it is a–it's–in itself is a whole story. The way we were treated and talked to from WRHA was despicable and rude. Our mom was 88, our dad was 92. Yes, COVID was happening. And this was the start of the realization how pitiful our seniors were being neglected; neglected that had been going on for a very long time.
There's so much to say and so much to share in a 10-minute time frame, but I will do my best. In early September, 2021, Tuxedo Villa had space for both of them, but unfortunately, due to five days of neglect, we pulled them out of there and cared for them until they were accepted into Oakview in November 17th of 2021. Our mom only lasted one month at Oakview, and sadly passed away on December 5th–December 15th, 2021. At that time, the management at Oakview, I felt, was doing a very good job trying to dig their way out of this COVID mess.
Our mother passed away with her family by her side, and the dignity that our mother and family were shown by the staff on her last three days of life was amazing. If that had only been shown during her short stay.
In the next 15 months, our–in the 15 months that our dad was in Oakvlew [phonetic] we witnessed many concerns and several stories of neglect. The biggest problem that I can see in long-term care is management of–for–is management of these for-profit homes and our government that supports them.
There is no personal care, there's no love, there's no compassion, there's no empathy; and let's not forget dignity. Some of these homes are absolutely despicable: old, ran-down, dingy and very depressing. It's hard enough to make a decision to put a loved one in a care home, but when you walk in and see with your own eyes, it's very saddening.
Our elderly people are the backbone of this country. Most immigrated here for a better way of life. Lots of different nationalities, but one thing that they all had in common is they worked hard for a better way of life. They lived through war, depression, disease and the list goes on. They are known as the silent generation: don't complain, eat what's in front of you, for they knew what it felt to go to bed hungry.
The residents don't ask for much, and if they have an issue they, they rarely voice their concerns. Most of them don't want to be a bother because they feel nobody cares and they have a fear of retaliation from staff. Many in these homes have no family, friends and nobody to be their voice.
We saw the neglect they were enduring and no one to speak up for them, so we became their voice with–which Oakview did not like.
If our health-care system wasn't so broken in every aspect, COVID would not have been such a demise on the system. It was a good excuse for COVID to be blamed for what was going on in our personal-care homes.
We know that there has been management and understanding issues for a very long time, and this is when the collapse of the elder care was brought to light. Seniors are petrified of going into a care home.
I don't know all the stats, but I've done enough research to see that the majority of issues in personal-care homes are the ones that are owned by Extendedcare [phonetic]/Revera and the ones that are ran by churches or community organizations seem to have better quality of life, better staff, better management and less complaints. Nothing is perfect, nothing runs without issues, and I understand that this is a big undertaking to run these facilities.
My biggest words of advice to anybody that has to put a loved on in a personal-care home is: Do not trust that they are being looked after and cared for. You need to be their advocate for your parents, just as they were for us when we were kids.
My sister or myself were at Oakview daily, anywhere from one to four hours a day. Our dad was alone in the day care, lost his wife of 66 years, a COVID lockdown at Christmas, not allowed to go out and visit his family and this was very stressful on him.
Thankful the management at that time, Wanda Metro, considered myself and–my sister and I hands-on caregivers for our dad and acknowledged that the last of his wife–that it would be in his best interests if we were allowed to visit him daily. There were requirements, but we were grateful.
We are very guilty at times though, being allowed to see–we felt very guilty at times, being allowed to see our dad when others weren't as fortunate, and we did see a lot of residents crying, reaching out to us, hoping we'd hug them and talk to them. For months previous, there was not much interaction or recreational activities going on with the residents due to COVID restrictions. They were sad, they were depressed and a lot of them died alone.
We watched it go on daily and tended to our dad's needs. We more or less kept our mouths shut so we didn't lose our right to see our dad.
When we started reaching out to different government parties, WRHA and the PPCO, about some of our concerns, we were formed to document, document, document. If I was to put together a package of all the videos, conversations, emails, phone calls that I've had with Extendedcare [phonetic] in Ottawa, Ontario, Oakview, the government, WRHA and the PPCO, I would have a very large file that we all know would go unread.
As for one of the emails that we did send out on January 6, 2023, to a list of government officials, only two parties contacted and met with us. Louis Barre, assistant deputy minister of Public Health and Laura Morrison, executive director of Seniors and Long-Term Care finally responded to our email on behalf of Premier Stefanson, Audrey Gordon and Scott Johnson [phonetic]. They suggested we contact the PPCO and the WRHA, who in fact also received the January 6th email.
We saw this, again, as passing the buck and no accountability. We chuckled when we read their response because this is what we've been doing for the past 15 months, was contacting these people and trying to get acknowledgement and investigation.
Our dad passed away on January 26, 2023. Hallelujah. The months prior to our dad passing were very emotional, challenging for both him and our family. We had been threatened to–more or less to back off with our 'advoscacy' or we would be removed from the facility and our visitation privileges suspended.
I was told to trust Oakview with my dad's care, and maybe I should continue–could–should consider taking a vacation to the beach or Vegas, which I didn't go. After five days, our dad escaped out the front door. After this incident, our trust in Oakview was zero.
Again, the care of our dad received during his final three days was very kind and considerate, and the administration went out of their way to accommodate our family during his passing.
Two weeks later, during our dad's celebration of life, I received an email from Steve Todd at Oakview, stating that Deneen and I were no long allowed to visit the 48 friends that we had made due to some serious 'falk' accusations made against us.
We had friends that were relying on our visits, but we were forced out, and after almost five weeks of phone calls, Zoom meetings, we were finally able to defend ourselves against these horrible lies, and our visits resumed.
The accusations were made against me by staff and administration, were attacks on my character and my very being. I felt I still needed to defend my integrity further, but Extendedcare [phonetic] Ottawa, Ontario would no longer discuss the issue. Their response was, Sheryl, this has been resolved. And I was shut down from defending myself.
* (18:50)
My character has been assassinated and it hurts my heart as–and my well-being every day. I never thought I would experience PTSD from my time being spent at Oakview.
And no, this has not been resolved. I've been silenced and fear retaliation from Oakview if I pursue this.
Thank you for the opportunity speaking with you this evening. We are all here for the same reasons, to advocate for seniors, and we will not be silenced any longer. Seniors' lives 'mather'–matter.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mrs. King, as well as the presentation that you shared on behalf of your sister, Ms. Allarie.
Are there any questions of the presenter?
Mr. Nello Altomare (Transcona): Ms. King, thank you for your presentation tonight.
I mean, we have–we've heard stories, but when you bring your own personal experiences, it really hits home. Absolutely does.
Can you just pick one or two things that you would want to see government do to improve what's happening in personal care, especially in the dementia wards? [interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, Ms. King, I need to recognize you first for Hansard purposes.
S. King: So I can talk now? Okay.
I would think–they tell you that a lot of their staff is trained in dementia and Alzheimer's, and I'm going to tell you they're not trained. There's too much staff that is coming and going, staff is not consistent. So, yes, I would like to see more dementia and Alzheimer's training.
I would also like to see just better care for them. I don't know all the aspects of home care and how it all works, but I thoroughly believe that these for-profit organizations do not work.
They cost an awful lot of money. Like, we're paying people to look after our elderly people, and they're making millions of dollars. Why are we not doing it ourselves? I know it's a long, drawn-out thing that would take a lot of years to happen. I don't have the answers, all I know is what is going on isn't the answer, either.
Every day, there's different staff. You know what? If any one of you wanted to put yourself in that place for one week, you're going to need a psychiatric ward when you're done, because you're not going to have one person that's going to wipe your butt, the same one that was–there's nothing. There's nothing.
And I'm very emotional about it because I've seen it, I've experienced it. There's so many things that need to improve.
I don't know if I answered your question, but–
Mr. Chairperson: Are there any more questions for the presenter?
Ms. Lamoureux: I just–I want to thank you for your presentation, but just express, too, how sorry I am for your and your sister's losses over the last few years.
And I think it is a–what I am seeing here today–such a testament to what you shared about your parents instilling those family values within you. That is very evident and is coming across very strong, and I think you should be very, exceptionally proud of that.
My question for you is: Could you please speak a bit about how a family advisory committee would be beneficial not only for the residents, but as well as for the families of the residents and potentially even the facilities, like the–
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member's time has expired. [interjection] Sorry, Mrs. King, your response?
S. King: I think a family advisory committee would be very important for every home. How they would run them, I really don't know.
I think as a family you need to have a place where you can come to and share your concerns and your expectations and not be targeted, not be retaliated on. We've tried to do it, it just didn't really–because again, administration was changing like–whatever. And–but to have some consistency, where these families know that they can bring their concerns to a group and it's going to be looked at, not swept underneath the carpet.
You know what, everybody's very well trained and very well spoken, they know how to tiptoe around incidents. It's–yes, so, I mean, I think the family–it would be hard because I know they want to say, you know, you want to have some people–somebody from the home–so whether it's somebody that actually works as a paid employee–yes, I don't have the answer, but I just know that it would be important that, if there was stuff set up like that, stuff for the residents, stuff for–I mean, these homes are supposed to have social workers. Where are they? You know, there's nobody there for them to talk to.
And there's lots of people that have public trustees. They have absolutely nobody to talk to. It's sad. It's very sad. And you know what? I never knew that this was going to be my life. I mean, all I did was try to look after two people.
I didn't know that I was going to get so involved with caring for other elderly people that I didn't know but that I got to know. And we've already lost a couple of our peeps that we haven't seen much of lately, but whatever. So, we are considered spies and trouble-makers, so–but whatever.
Mr. Chairperson: Ms. King, the allocated time has expired, but I do thank you on behalf of the committee for your presentation, as well as the presentation on behalf of your sister, Ms. Allarie.
Thank you.
S. King: Thank you for letting us talk.
Mr. Chairperson: I need to advise the committee that we have an addition–a walk-in addition to Bill 238, a private citizen, Patricia Rawsthorne and Ms. Rawsthorne will be added to the end of the list.
Mr. Chairperson: Bill 222, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Nutrition Programs), and we'll call Cindy Despins.
Ms. Despins has been called once. Ms. Despins will be dropped to the bottom.
For the committee's information, Ms. Sandy Nemeth of the Manitoba School Boards Association–sorry–provided a written submission to the committee in lieu of presenting.
(Continued)
Mr. Chairperson: The committee is now calling Mr. Kenton Anderson, private citizen, on Bill 237, The Advanced Education Administration Act. Mr. Kenton–oh, sorry–Mr. Kenton, I understand, will be virtual. Mr. Kenton, are you ready to go?
Kenton Anderson (Private Citizen): Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Mr. Kenton, you may proceed.
K. Anderson: Well, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this bill and in concert with my esteemed colleague who spoke earlier, Dr. Greco. Grateful for all of the interest of those involved and present here tonight.
I appreciate the many worthy interests being expressed tonight, and my heart and moral support goes out to the other presenters on some of these other bills.
But I'm here representing a long line of leaders who have dreamed for this day and this opportunity. We represent many thousands of people across the province who are anxious to hear good news about this bill. We've been building to this moment for a long time, and we feel we're ready and we feel we're worthy of this.
I would just like to add a couple of things to Dr. Greco's earlier comments, in particular a response to the question that came from Mr. Altomare about work integrated learning.
One of the amazing initiatives that we have been pursuing at Providence is our new centre for on-demand education, which is using competency-based methodologies to work directly with employers through mentored contextual learning in direct response to the government's skills, talent and knowledge strategy.
We're particularly proud of this initiative and think it's going to have a massive impact on the workforce in Manitoba.
I would also add to Dr. Greco's answer to MLA Micklefield as to the question regarding our relationship with other peer institutions in the province and beyond.
I have personally met recently with several presidents of our peer institutions, including Dr. Mark Frison from Assiniboine Community College, Dr. Cheryl Pauls from Canadian Mennonite University, and Dr. Michael Benarroch of the University of Manitoba, all of whom who have expressed to me their support and their interest in this process. They're looking forward to seeing what this happens, and I believe they are–they would welcome us to their table.
* (19:00)
We actually currently partner with Assiniboine in hosting their nursing program on our campus, which I think that is one instance of how we've been able to collaborate effectively with other educational institutions in the province.
But, here's the thing, folks: there's just so much more we could do for Manitoba. We want to have a seat at the table and be treated in a way that we think we deserve. We think its time. We think its–we think we're–that we're ready. And we trust you to make a good decision and to grant passage to this bill.
I also want to add to the comment regarding the accompanying legislation, which has been mentioned as a potential impediment to the passage of this bill. And I understand why, and I appreciate the concerns that have been raised, but I want to re-iterate our full willingness to engage the important work of modernizing the act of incorporation that has guided us since the late 1940s.
Of course that bill has been updated already more than once, most recently in 2011, so we don't see any reason why it can't be effectively updated again. We will submit and engage that process fully and happily. We just don't believe it necessary to withhold passage of this bill in order to wait for things that could be done later. Our concern is that we might lose the valuable ground that has been gained to this point.
So, while we are grateful for this process and grateful for this hearing tonight, we recognize that this will all come to focus at third reading.
And while we appreciate the governing party's strong support for this bill, I would ask–and I'll be a little bit bold here–I hope you'll grant me that privilege–I would ask, with the greatest of respect, whether our friends in the NDP and Liberal parties are prepared to support this bill at third reading.
Can I ask that of you, my friends?
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Anderson.
Are there any questions to the presenter?
Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Rossmere): Thank you, Dr. Anderson, for your time and making the effort to join us virtually.
I understand Providence–oh, I have about 30 seconds so I should make this real quick. I understand Providence has issued some 6,000 degrees or so, and, you know, I would like to give the–I do want to state, we–it is our intent to bring this to third reading. I do want to state that the government is in support of this and the–[interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Anderson, I don't know if you have any comment or reaction to that.
K. Anderson: Well, just to affirm that the–that information is accurate and we have over 10,000 alumni around the world doing amazing things. We're proud of them.
We are really anticipating third reading. We have thousands of constituents who are paying attention and who are interested in the outcome of this process.
Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): Mr. Anderson, I appreciate your presentation. I really thank you for voicing those–that today, and I want to just continue to express our appreciation of Providence and I appreciate your engagement on this process, as well, throughout the meeting today, as well as hearing the words from Mr. Greco, and from our previous conversations as well.
I'm very grateful that you guys are engaged in the process and thank you for everything that you do.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Anderson, I don't know if you want to react to those comments.
K. Anderson: I just want to thank Mr. Moses for his gracious willingness to hear from us and of the kind of things that he read into the record earlier in this process. We're very grateful to you.
Mr. Chairperson: Recognizing Mr. Gerrard.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson, and I've been out to Providence College a number of times and been very impressed with the quality of the facility and the work that you're doing and the teachers and the students, particularly so many immigrants who you're doing a wonderful job with as far as I can see.
And so, congratulations, and we look forward to this moving forward.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Anderson, any response to those comments?
K. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Gerrard, and thank you for your long-standing friendship to Providence. While I haven't met you personally, I–many of my colleagues speak well of you, and we're grateful to you.
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you, Dr. Anderson. It was great to hear, I think, the Liberal support for this bill at third reading and, of course, you have our support, so we look forward to that support from the NDP as well.
Just a question in terms of history. I understand that the college you suggest we call Providence college and then became Providence college university–can you tell us the history of how that changed? I believe it might have been an NDP member who changed that to university. Is that correct? [interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Anderson.
K. Anderson: I'm sorry. I jumped in there. That is correct, and thank you for bringing that forward.
Providence is not a partisan organization. We serve all people gladly and willingly, all citizens of the province. We do reside primarily in a part of the province that has had–the Conservative Party has represented for some time. But we are also currently moving back into the city.
We are actually in the process right now of purchasing a campus in downtown Winnipeg to go alongside our rural campus. And the intent is to more effectively serve our international student population in the core of the city. And we want to be part of the solution for the downtown revitalization of the city of Winnipeg. And I know that that's an interest to all of us around the table from whatever party and whatever background.
So we are grateful for all of your support.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.
If there's no further questions of the presenter, I will bid adieu to Mr. Anderson. Thank you.
(Continued)
Mr. Chairperson: We are now moving to Bill 238, The Personal Care Home Accountability Act.
We are requesting Mr. Douglas Wasyliw, private citizen. Mr. Wasyliw? Mr. Wasyliw, not having responded, will be removed to the bottom of the list.
As noted earlier, we have a walk-on private citizen to Bill 238, Patricia Rawsthorne.
Ms. Rawsthorne, will you please–oh, sorry, Ms. Rawsthorne, am I–can you please pronounce your last name for us so we?
Patricia Rawsthorne (Private Citizen): Rawsthorne.
Mr. Chairperson: Rawsthorne. Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Rawsthorne, you may begin.
P. Rawsthorne: My personal experience with PCHs in long-term care covers about 50 years, so I'm well versed in what goes on, what has gone on in the last 50 years up right until today, ever since my nursing training included working as a student in three different personal-care homes during 1970 and '72. Those were eye-openers because we had no idea, as most people who've never been into long-term care just don't know what's happening there.
After graduation from the nursing program, I set out to learn what are the needs of those who are aging in our population and in need of assistance and long-term care and how I felt long-term care could be changed for the better for all concerned.
I spent time researching long-term care, and as time does slip by, I found myself in long-term care with two of my family members, one with atypical dementia, which is very similar to CTE, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, that sports people get, but it's more common in women than in men. So she, unfortunately, acquired that disease. There is no cure, and there was no one that I could go to to say how do we fix this type of dementia in Manitoba. That journey with my two relatives lasted over 20 years.
* (19:10)
When I see a problem in health care, I always try to find a way to change the practice or the care model so that it meets the needs of all patients, residents, staff and other workers and those in charge of the facility. The best way to make an effective collective change was to inform and engage those involved.
I see The Personal Care Home Accountability Act as the way forward to help heal those who have had to work through and care for people without the additional supports of families and caregivers who are essential to the residents and those working in PCHs. Supporting the families and caregivers will support and help the residents and staff in those facilities. The personal care home act–accountability act is a step forward in–for all invested in care and well-being of the residents who live in personal-care homes.
What does this act do? Working together offers the chance to heal all sides and work towards advocating supporting all residents, families, caregivers, staff and operators of PCHs. Working together offers hope for a new model of care, and a chance to create a sense of worth and value in staff, operators, families, caregivers, so that residents are the centre of our focus and attention. Working together towards a common goal of all is that the well-being of all involved in caring for residents.
Working together to identify areas of concern that affects all in the PC community, find a better way to change and–what is causing the systemic concerns for the good. Working together offers the chance to learn something new or introduce new ways of caring for residents in PCHs and lend support to the staff and operator to move forward constructively in–with changes that will be sustained–have a sustained effect and impact all concerned.
What are the benefits of a family council? Number 1 is support, mutually between family members by providing and receiving emotional, informational and practical support. Education, learning and understanding how PCs operate, which is often a mystery to new family members; they have no clue. Providing resource information, discussions on topics of interest, such as end-of-life care, powers of attorney, health-care proxy. Number 3, problem-solving, advocacy of a collective concerns to improve the quality of life of the residents and for the family caregivers.
The pandemic hit everyone in long-term care very hard, and losing someone without being present is a long-life struggle for most of these family members. There is a need to come together and to try to come to grips and provide suggestions to operators and governments that families and caregivers are the supports that long-term-care facilities need and can count on.
Finally, communication leads to informed family members of PCH residents. They can share information with new family members and offer support and suggestions to improve the lives of those in PCHs.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for that presentation, Mrs. Rawsthorne.
Are there any questions of the presenter?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you very much, Trish [phonetic], and for your long experience with personal-care homes and what's happening. I've come to appreciate how important families are, and hopefully this bill will give families a better window, a better bridge and a better ability to work in concert with the operators of personal-care homes.
Thank you for presenting.
Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. Rawsthorne, do you have any response?
P. Rawsthorne: Thank you very much for your support and the support of all others who put this act together.
It is a necessary one, and we really do need to heal, because it will only get worse. And I always have to remind people, we don't actually age younger, so we better change it now.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other questions of the presenter?
Hon. Scott Johnston (Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care): I just wanted to echo, I think, what was said. Appreciate your presentation.
Was particularly impressed with the experience that you bring to the table, as well as you mentioned the modernization of the structuring of the system, and that's something that we are very, very aware of and understand that, based on the change in demographics in our society as a whole, we have to look at accommodating everything long term–
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member's time has expired.
Mrs. Rawsthorne, I don't know if you have a response to that.
P. Rawsthorne: No, I totally agree with your comments, and we do need to move forward. There are so many other changes that are being made in dementia care that we aren't even looking at at the present time, and we need to be. So anything that this government can do to help us move forward and to ensure the lives of our residents are well taken care of would be welcome.
Mr. Chairperson: Are there any additional questions of tonight's presenter?
Seeing no other questions, Mrs. Rawsthorne, thank you very much for your presentation this evening, and have a pleasant evening.
(Continued)
Mr. Chairperson: We are now moving on to Bill 222, The Public Schools Amendment Act, the nutrition programs.
Calling Cindy Despins, private citizen. Cindy Despins.
Ms. Despins is now struck from the list, having been called twice.
(Continued)
Mr. Chairperson: The committee, in reference to Bill 238, The Personal Care Home Accountability Act (Various Acts Amended), is now calling for the second time Mr. Douglas Wasyliw, private citizen.
Mr. Wasyliw, not being present and having been called twice, will now be stricken from the list.
This concludes the list of presenters I have before me.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed with clause by clause.
In what order does the committee wish to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of these bills?
An Honourable Member: Numerical.
Mr. Chairperson: Having heard numerical, is it the will of the committee to hear the clause by clause numerical? [Agreed]
Mr. Chairperson: Bill 18–oh, sorry, Bill 218. Does the bill sponsor, the honourable member for St. Johns, have an opening statement?
MLA Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I want to just say miigwech for all of the folks that I was able to speak with in respect of Bill 18 and the need to update and modernize the language that we use in respect of judges.
It's very important that once we know that we can do better in respect of the language that is used, that we should do better. And so, Bill 218 amends various acts to change the title of officials working in the judiciary system from master to now what would be called associate judge. This is an important change, as the term master has negative connotations with slavery. And certainly, I would expect and hope that everybody around the table would understand that that is harmful, particularly for Black lawyers that come before the courts and that would have to use that word master.
And so Bill 218 is just one step that we can take here in Manitoba to move towards decolonizing our 'judicional' system and the language that is implicitly used in those courtrooms and processes and therefore making Manitoba more accessible for everyone.
And I'm happy that Bill 218 was supported by all parties in the Legislature, and then, again, just a particular miigwech to everybody that helped along in respect of Bill 218.
Miigwech.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the member for their comments.
Does any other member wish to make an opening statement on Bill 218?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I want to thank my friend from St. Johns for this particular bill. We've had some discussions over the last, oh, I don't know, couple of months, maybe longer, about it, and certainly there was never any dispute that the term master is an outdated and inappropriate term and it needs to be changed.
* (19:20)
There was maybe some question about change to what, and I think that that's been some of the discussions in other provinces that have gone down this particular path. And I think we've agreed upon the term that the member has put into the bill as associate judge. There was, I think, some input that both of us had from members of the judiciary just to ensure that there wasn't a better term, and none came forward that I'm aware of. So, pleased to see this be moving forward.
I would note–and I mentioned to my friend across the way earlier in the afternoon–I was advised by Leg. Counsel that it would be wise to make an amendment to the enacting clause of the bill. So, just to be sure the bill will pass, it's our expectation–unforeseeing a natural disaster–I would expect that it'll pass on Tuesday of next week third reading and receive royal assent certainly before the House rises on June 1st.
So the coming-into-force date is currently on royal assent. I was advised that it should be changed somewhere between 120 days to six months. I thought we'd go with the lower number of 120 days. That way it comes into force–for no particular reason–but comes into force prior to the election date and prior to the House sitting again. So the member can be assured that it comes into force before anything else from an electoral perspective happens.
And the reason for the change is–my understanding is that there are forms at the courts that, of course, refer to the term master. If they're improperly filled out or if they're–wrong terms are on there, it could potentially be cause for disruptions or delays. And so they wanted a transitional period to change the names on the forms.
So I wanted to put that on the record, to reiterate that we are supportive of the bill, we'll support it at third reading and royal assent and then it'll come into force with an amendment at 120 days from getting royal assent, so 120 days from what I expect to be on Tuesday.
So I thank the member for bringing forward the bill, for advocating for the bill and I look forward to it passing next week.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable member.
The honourable member for St. Johns (MLA Fontaine), on a point of clarification.
MLA Fontaine: Miigwech to my friend from Steinbach. I do appreciate the support for the bill.
I guess just a little bit of a clarification in respect of the 120 days. I understand the rationale for the amendment. Is it possible, though, that it would be 120 days or earlier? Because it could very well be that those changes would be made prior to 120 days.
Mr. Chairperson: I apologize, this discussion should occur when the amendment is moved.
So at this point, I'm asking if any other members wish to make an opening statement on Bill 218.
Committee Substitution
Mr. Chairperson: I would like to inform the committee that under rule 85(2), the following membership substitution has been made for this committee, effective immediately: the honourable member Len Isleifson for Kelvin Goertzen.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, during the consideration of a bill, the enacting clause and 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; clauses 3 through 6–pass; clauses 7 through 9–pass; clauses 10 through 12–pass; clauses 13 through 16–pass; clauses 17 through 19–pass; clauses 20 and 21–pass; clauses 22 through 26–pass; clauses 27 and 28–pass; clauses 29 through 32–pass; clauses 33 through 36–pass; clauses 37 through 45–pass; clause 46–pass; clauses 47 and 48–pass; clauses 49 and 50–pass; clauses 51 and 52–pass; clauses 53 through 56–pass; clause 57–pass; clauses 58 through 61–pass; clauses 62 through 64–pass; clauses 65 and 66–pass.
Shall clause 67 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Chairperson: I hear a no.
Mr. Goertzen: I have an amendment, Mr. Chairperson. I move,
THAT Clause 67 of the Bill be replaced with the following:
Coming into force
67 This Act comes into force 120 days after the day it receives royal assent.
Motion presented.
Mr. Chairperson: The amendment is in order.
The floor is open for questions.
Mr. Goertzen: So, now trying to make these comments at the appropriate time.
I won't reiterate what we said before, the rationale for the amendment, but my friend from St. Johns had asked a question about timing.
So, my understanding–and legal counsel will advise me if I'm wrong, which they often do–that we can either give a prescribed time; so, I chose the 120 day, even though I think there was some advice to go longer, this will be tight, but I thought it would give assurance to the member that, you know, it would happen before fall.
The alternative, I suppose, if there's–if we want to do it at a time that it's ready, if it would be ready 10 days sooner, we could just do it to be fixed upon proclamation. But I don't think that would give her the assurance that she wants, either.
So I thought this would be more comforting to the member, in terms of the time frame, as opposed to leaving it to proclamation. Then she's leaving it to trust me–which I think she does–but, still trying to provide comfort in this time of uncomfortness in the world.
MLA Fontaine: And I appreciate that flexibility there. I'm fine with the amendment, as long as it's proclaimed within the 120 days from royal assent. So I'm fine with that.
Miigwech.
Mr. Chairperson: So, the question before the committee is as follows.
Amendment–pass.
Clause 67 as amended–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill as amended be reported.
* (19:30)
Committee Substitution
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to inform the committee that, under rule 85(2), the following membership substitution has been made for this committee, effective immediately: the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Goertzen) for the member for Brandon East (Mr. Isleifson).
(Continued)
Mr. Chairperson: The committee will now consider Bill 222.
Does the bill's sponsor, the honourable member for Transcona, have an opening statement?
Mr. Nello Altomare (Transcona): I would like to thank committee members, members of the Manitoba Legislature, for coming to an agreement on this bill.
It's an important bill, Mr. Chair. It's an important bill because it will specifically identify all nutrition programs that currently exist in the province. What this does is then allow us to better know what the needs are out there and how people are accessing, and how students are accessing, nutrition programs in schools.
Just to provide an example, when we toured Lakeshore School Division earlier in the year, and we were at Ashern central high, Mr. Chair, and we found that they did apply for support through the Child Nutrition Council, but were put on a waiting list. And so, what ended up happening, of course, is that school leadership there took initiative and created their own meal program, their own program that was run essentially by the principal, who arrives early in the morning, bakes banana bread and muffins for kids every day.
What this bill does will then encompass those programs, just like occur at Ashern central, and put it into a way that can be reported to the public so that we can respond accordingly and provide the support necessary to important institutions like Child Nutrition Council and school divisions, so that kids can have nourishment while they're at school.
Because some of the interesting things that we've learned throughout this process, Mr. Chair, is that we all lead very busy lives and look to schools for support, and certainly, parents rely on schools for support, and part of that, it's done through a nutrition program.
It's more than just a breakfast program. A lot of schools now have meal cards available on demand as students arrive at school because, as you know, at a high school campus, Mr. Chair, students don't always start at 8 o'clock, sometimes they start at 10:30, et cetera. And it's available to them when they need it. Certainly we have 'athletter' 'probrams' that are–occur afterwards that will also have demands on programs such as this.
So, I'd like to thank all members of the Legislature for coming to agreement on this bill. It's an important bill, and I look forward to having it go to third reading.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the member.
Does any other member wish to make an opening statement on Bill 222?
Seeing no other 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; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.
Mr. Chairperson: The committee will now move to Bill 230.
Does the bill's sponsor, the honourable member for Brandon East, have an opening statement?
Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East): I do want to thank Ms. Nemeth and Mr. Blight and Mr. Volkov for their submissions.
I know I have spoken to–I have had a meeting with Mr. Volkov prior and to a number of others in the community in both sitting and past trustees, and sitting and past municipal officials, councillors, in regards to this bill.
And, again, the purpose of this bill is to amend the act just to simply to require candidates to disclose offences that they have either pleaded guilty, or in respect of which they have been found guilty, so it brings them basically on par with provincial requirements and federal requirements.
I will admit there is–there was one challenge that–if you've read the submissions and the conversations I've had, one of the challenges was with section 44(2) on the publication of a website to be maintained by the elected authority.
I agree with all party's concerns and have therefore–can comfortably say that I have met numerous times with the Department of Municipal Relations even as recently as 4–or, pardon me, 5 o'clock this afternoon, just to confirm that the department has committed to working with both AMM and the school boards–Manitoba school boards in ensuring that they have the ability and the tools needed and the assistance they need to make that provision happen.
So with that, again, I look forward to the passing of this bill along with the many, many folks that I have spoken with and I appreciate everybody's support.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for those comments.
Do–does any other member wish to make an opening statement on Bill 230?
Seeing no other requests, 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; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.
(Continued)
Mr. Chairperson: The committee will now move on to Bill 237.
Does the bill's sponsor, the honourable member for Rossmere, have an opening statement?
Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Rossmere): It's a wonderful evening at the Legislature. We're passing many things and I trust this will go in the same direction.
As has already been noted, Providence college university has been in existence coming up 100 years; 14 presidents, several name changes, six physical locations, on track to welcome about 1,000 students in September.
They have issued some 6,000 or so degrees: bachelors, masters, doctoral degrees. Professors from around the world teach there, and go from there to teach around the world.
I don't think there's any dispute about those facts at this table, or in discussions about this bill. What has been a matter of contemplation is whether or not the legislation that oversees Providence should be updated first, before this change.
And the advice we received from Leg. Counsel, because we did discuss this with them, was actually that is not necessary. That such a change that would recognize what is already happening is at our discretion, and need not be put forward with other legislation adjusted.
Now, we heard from Providence tonight that they're actually eager to co‑operate with any other adjustments that need to happen, and indeed they are functioning as a fully fledged university in every sense, except for this act where they're not listed alongside the other universities they interact with at–in every other sense, just not on paper here at the Legislature.
* (19:40)
So, I'm trusting that, you know, we will be bringing this–we are looking at bringing this to third reading so that we can give the other parties that opportunity to show their support.
I'm also going to be introducing an amendment tonight. And it's fairly minor, but I think it, perhaps, is a goodwill amendment that could broaden things a little bit.
Namely, that it would come into force on a day fixed by proclamation, so not necessarily September, but when it's proclaimed. So, that's a gesture of–you know, seeking to broaden the scope of the proclamation maybe leaves time for conversations, for clarity and so on.
But, look, there are hundreds of families in this province, probably in all our constituencies, watching this, and their families and friends, too, as well as the other universities who we heard about this evening. So, I'm certainly hoping–you know, I really do believe this is the right thing.
We're looking at an institution with a senate, with all the bylaws, all the policies. And if there is anything that is not there, they are eager to put that right. I actually don't know of any such thing.
So, those would be my comments. I'll be introducing an amendment at the appropriate time, Mr. Chair. And I think that, for now, I will leave it there.
In these last few days, I think it'd be a good way–a good message to send to the academic community and the institution that we're going to recognize it–for what it has become over nearly 100 years now. That's quite a long time and quite a dependable legacy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: Does any other member wish to have an opening statement?
Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): I just wanted to take a brief moment to, again, once again thank Providence college for their engagement on this process.
This bill obviously affects their institution, so I'm–just want to thank them for the effort that they do to educate folks in Manitoba as well as advocating for their institution and the growth that they've shown over the last many years, especially with their 100th anniversary coming up in just a short couple of years from now.
So, again, want to thank them for all the work that they do, and I really appreciate the clear communication we've had over the last few weeks with respect to Bill 237.
Mr. Chairperson: During the consideration of a bill, the acting–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.
Shall clause 4 pass?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Chairperson: I hear a no.
Mr. Micklefield: I would like to make an amendment.
Mr. Chairperson: Go ahead, Mr. Micklefield.
Mr. Micklefield: I'd like to propose that clause 4 of the bill be replaced with the following–
Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Micklefield. You need to, I move, seconded by–[interjection] Oh, sorry. Just I move.
Mr. Micklefield: I don't need a seconder? [interjection] Oh.
I move,
THAT Clause 4 of the Bill be replaced with the following:
Coming into force
4 This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
Motion presented.
Mr. Chairperson: The amendment is in order.
The floor is open for questions.
Seeing no questions, is the committee ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay. The question before the committee is as follows: Amendment–pass.
Clause 4 as amended–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass.
Shall the bill be reported?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Chairperson: Agreed? The bill–[interjection] Oh, sorry, I apologize.
Shall the bill as amended be reported? [Agreed]
Bill as amended be reported.
Committee Substitution
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to inform the committee that under rule 85(2), the following membership substitution has been made for this committee effective immediately: MLA Isleifson for MLA Johnston.
Thank you.
(Continued)
Mr. Chairperson: The committee shall now move to Bill 238. Does the bill's sponsor, the honourable member for River Heights, have an opening statement?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Dr. Gerrard.
Mr. Gerrard: This bill provides for the formation of family councils. It in essence provides a more formalized and I think a better way to have interaction between families and the operators and managers of personal-care homes to improve the quality of care that we have in personal-care homes.
Families care about their loved ones. Many family members spend long times with their loved ones in personal-care homes and observing. Families have a lot to contribute. And particularly in this situation where we're sometimes dealing with family members in personal-care homes who have dementia, who are less able to communicate their own needs and who are sometimes feeling awkward about bringing forward concerns because they don't want to be stigmatized or pointed out.
So, what we're trying to do is to have essentially a better situation where there is real potential to have a strong working partnership between families and the operators and managers of personal-care homes with the goal of improving care.
The goal here is to have a better and a more positive relationship–sometimes it's adversarial, in the past–between family members and personal-care homes so that they can have discussions under an organized manner and come up with solutions to concerns that are raised.
Family members can also pass on, in this way, information to family members of new arrivals so that there can be a continuation of participation and a better understanding of new arrivals into personal-care homes, their families, of what's happening.
I want to thank the Minister for Seniors and Long-Term Care, we've had a dialogue with. The minister has some amendments, which I support.
I also want to thank the presenters and the people like Rhonda Nichol, Sheryl King, Deneen Allarie who were involved in generating the idea or the concept for this bill and Trish [phonetic] Rawsthorne who presented who's had a long-time experience with personal-care homes, and once this was presented to her she had an immediate grasp of what a difference this could make.
So, with those few words, I look forward to this bill moving forward and to the amendments which the minister is going to bring in.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the member for those comments.
Does any other member wish to make an opening statement?
Mr. Nello Altomare (Transcona): I want to thank the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) for bringing this forward. It's an important bill.
Certainly the presentations this evening were moving and not–and also affecting, because many of us have experienced this and want to see improvements.
We're being challenged here today to make those improvements, to make this happen for Manitobans. I do believe there is goodwill around the table and goodwill around the Chamber to get this done.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for those comments.
Are there any additional comments?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I want to just thank both Dr. Gerrard, but also the Minister of Seniors for really reaching across the aisle and agreeing with some changes to bring this bill forward.
* (19:50)
I know in the time that he's been the Minister of Seniors–and then before that, before he was in Cabinet serving with me–he just really has a great heart for these important issues and how they impact families.
In particular, since he's been named the Minister of Seniors, I've seen how strongly he's leaned into these issues related to care and other issues, as well, when it comes to seniors, and that was demonstrated in our budget.
But it does speak to the character of the Minister of Seniors that he has reached across the aisle on this and supported an opposition member's bill. I think it shows how greatly he does care about this issue and his willingness to look for improvements regardless of where the ideas come from.
So I think it speaks very much to his heart on this issue, and I just wanted to put those words on the record and commend him for that.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister 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.
Shall clause 4 pass?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Chairperson: I hear a no.
Hon. Scott Johnston (Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care): Certainly, the merit of this bill–as I think my colleague, Minister Goertzen, had indicated, we certainly support the merit of this bill.
And we will continue to work towards further development of this particular area, but at this time, this component of the bill, we feel, needs further diligence.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the minister for those comments.
Are there any further comments from the floor?
Seeing no other–seeing no further comments, clause 4 is not passed.
Shall clause 5 pass?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Chairperson: I've heard a no.
Mr. Johnston: Basically the same commentary, Mr. Chair.
I've had some discussions with the member from River Heights on it, and he is understanding of the government's position in that we do need to do a little more due diligence in this particular section of the bill. We don't necessarily believe that it's–we can't support it, but we can't support it at this time without doing further due diligence.
Mr. Chairperson: Clause 5 is accordingly not passed.
Clause 6–pass.
Shall clause 7 pass?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Chairperson: I hear a no.
Mr. Johnston: I wish to bring forward an amendment.
I move, on behalf of MLA Gerrard,
THAT the following–will–be added after Part 3 of the Bill:
PART 3.1
CONDITIONAL AMENDMENTS
Conditional amendments
–If Bill 23, introduced in the Fifth Session of the 42nd Legislature and titled–the vulnerable persons living with mental disability amendment act–receives royal assent,
(a) the heading for Part 3 is replaced with "THE ADULTS LIVING WITH AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY ACT";
(b) section 6 is replaced with the following:
C.C.–excuse
me–C.C.S.M. c. A6.1 amended
6 The Adults Living with an Intellectual Disability Act is amended by
this Part.
(c) section 7 is amended insofar as it enacts subsection 25.4(1), by striking out "a vulnerable person" and substituting "an adult living with an intellectual disability".
Mr. Chairperson: Is there agreement in the committee that the amendment be presented as written? [Agreed]
THAT the following be added after Part 3 of the Bill:
PART 3.1
CONDITIONAL AMENDMENTS
Conditional amendments
7.1 If Bill 23, introduced in the Fifth Session of the 42nd Legislature and titled The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act, receives royal assent,
(a) the heading for Part 3 is replaced with "THE ADULTS LIVING WITH AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY ACT";
(b) section 6 is replaced with the following:
C.C.S.M.
c. A6.1 amended
6 The Adults Living with an Intellectual Disability Act is amended by
this Part.
(c) section 7 is amended insofar as it enacts subsection 25.4(1), by striking out "a vulnerable person" and substituting "an adult living with an intellectual disability".
Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by the MLA for Assiniboia
THAT the following–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Chairperson: Dispense.
Okay, the motion is in order.
The floor is open for questions.
Seeing no questions, amendment–pass.
Clause 7 as amended–pass.
Shall clause 8 pass?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Chairperson: I hear a no.
Mr. Johnston: I'm moving an amendment. I move
THAT Clause 8 of the Bill be replaced with the following:
–This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
Mr. Chairperson: Apologies, Minister. You need to read the amendment, its entirety.
Mr. Johnston: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Chair. I move
THAT Clause 8 of the Bill be replaced with the following:
Coming into force
8 This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
Motion presented.
Mr. Chairperson: The amendment is in order.
The floor is open for questions.
Mr. Johnston: Basically, the rationale behind the amendment is that we would need more time for implementation rather than it being implemented as soon as it receives royal assent. It is our intention by supporting these components of the bill that we will move forward on them. However, I don't believe that we'll be in a position for implementation the day that it receives royal assent, therefore the amendment.
Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other questions?
Seeing no other questions, is the committee ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Chairperson: The question before the committee is as follows: Amendment–pass.
Clause 8 as amended–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill as amended be reported.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Just before concluding the committee, just a couple personal comments. This'll probably be the last committee I'll have an opportunity to chair. And I just want to say Manitoba is an incredibly unique province in the public availability of its members during this legislative stage and it is my absolute honour to serve with each and every one of you as part of the democratic process, and I mean that truly.
So, the hour being 7:59, what is the will of the committee?
Some Honourable Members: Committee rise.
Mr. Chairperson: The committee rises.
COMMITTEE ROSE AT: 7:59 p.m.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Re: Bill 222
Dear Committee Members:
On behalf of our association, we would like to thank you in advance for the opportunity to provide comment and observations on the above noted Bill.
The role of school boards in providing child nutrition programs cannot be more critical to student success and well-being. Extensive research has confirmed the vital co-relationship between school- based breakfast and lunch meals, provision of daily snacks and backpack-based care packages, and the performance of pupils in the classroom. In sum, these studies have concluded and confirmed that it is impossible for schools to fill eager young minds in the presence of empty stomachs.
Over the course of many years, external grant and funding support for school nutrition programs has regrettably not kept pace with demand for such programs. As a poignant example, not only have existing programs suffered the impacts of escalating food stuffs costs, leading them to try to do far more with far less, but the waitlist for grants in support of new programs only continues to grow. This contributes to a critical disparity that must be addressed if our most vulnerable students are to meet with success.
While the Federal Government stands on the cusp of developing a national school food initiative, such a program remains under development and funding has not yet materialized. Many school nutrition programs in Manitoba therefore continue to depend exclusively upon the grants that are made available through the Child Nutrition Council of Manitoba, for which our Association plays a supportive role in terms of the annual administration of these grants.
In order to enhance the provisions that are proposed under Bill 222 with the aim of promoting public accountability and transparency, we therefore recommend that the Bill be amended prior to third reading by adding three further sub-clauses under section 47.2(3.1):
d) the total amount of expenditures on nutrition programs at each school, and by each school division and district, with identification of the source and amount of funds by funder in support of such programs.
e) an estimate of variance between the total amount of expenditures on nutrition programs at each school, and by each school division and district, and the total amount required by such programs to respond to annual pupil needs
f) identification of any schools that are wait-listed to receive funding grants in support of the establishment or operation of school nutrition programs.
Commensurate with these proposed amendment, the word "and" would therefore be placed at the end of subclause e) rather than subclause b).
The Manitoba School Boards Association believes that the addition of these further sub-clauses will foster a shared ethic of responsibility and of greater public awareness of the needs and requirements that exist across the public school system for nutrition programs moving forward.
While it is important for the Committee and our shared public to understand that reporting under such sub-clauses would capture monetary expenditures by divisions through grants received only, without equally capturing in kind donations and contributions from important non-divisional partners such as food banks and third party contributors, we remain firm in our belief that the ability of a future annual report to capture an ongoing assessment of current and projected requirements would help to strengthen transparency and accountability for the funding of nutrition programs.
With respect to section 47.2(3.2) of the Bill, we can confirm, on behalf of our members, full support for the introduction of such a reporting requirement and obligation.
In relation to the proposed addition, after clause 48(1)(h) of a new sub-clause (h.1): "provide, without charge, nutrition programs to pupils;" we would note that the proposed language does not cohere with the wording of clause 48(1)(h), insofar as the words "with charge" (as currently featured within 48(1)(h)) are not featured under the proposed new sub-clause.
With the sole objective of promoting greater ability and flexibility on the part of school boards to respond to the complex needs of all pupils as well as to ensure that nutrition programs are available where needed, we would advocate for coherence of provision between clauses 48(1)(h) and (h.1) by way of amending (h.1) to "provide, with or without charge, nutrition programs to pupils;".
At current time, there is no nutrition program that is provided "with charge" to our pupils. However, we feel that the aim of any amendment to The Public Schools Act must align with the local autonomy of school boards to meet pupil needs according to each community's context. We well understand the intention for providing nutrition programs without charge to our pupils. This is why at current time, no such programs are provided "with charge". This said, we believe that nutrition programs, under current programming or under the prospect of a national school food program or any other such initiative as may be undertaken in future, must balance affordability and ability to pay on the part of schools, school divisions and districts, and the pupils and communities that we serve.
Adding "with charge" to proposed subclause (h.1) will promote our members' responsiveness to meet needs according to local circumstance based on an assessment of our pupils' ability to pay. In future, should a universal food program be introduced across all schools in Canada on an obligatory basis that foresees introduction of such programming for all pupils, adding "with charge" would ensure that funding for such programming will not fall exclusively to school boards that are already having to address far greater needs within public education, albeit with far lesser funding and resources than ever before. Should the Committee feel that making such an amendment ought be accompanied by additional qualification such as "provide, with or without charge, nutrition programs to pupils based upon pupil ability to pay;" or some other such wording, we would certainly be open to such qualification.
As always, we thank both the members of the Committee and of the larger Legislative Assembly for their consideration of our observations and recommendations and request that you please do not hesitate to contact us further should you require any further information from us in the above respect. You may direct inquiries to Executive Director Josh Watt at jwatt@mbschoolboards.ca.
Sincerely,
Sandy Nemeth
President
Manitoba School Boards Association
____________
Re: Bill 230
Dear Committee Members:
On behalf of our association, we would like to thank you in advance for the opportunity to provide comment and observations on the above noted Bill.
While we always appreciate the opportunity to engage with Members of the Legislative Assembly on the development of Bills, including Private Member's Bills, in advance of such proposed legislation appearing before legislative committees, we were not afforded such an opportunity in respect of Bill 230.
As the Committee members may be aware, municipal and school board elections occur in tandem on a fixed date prescribed by The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act but the operational and administrative requirements may in fact remain separate. Both municipalities and school boards can appoint their own Senior Election Official (SEO) as an example and there are also differentiated processes and associated timeframes outlined under The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act regarding candidate registration (municipal) and nomination (school board) requirements.
Subject to these noted differences, our association would equally reflect the concerns and issues raised by our municipal counterparts at the Association of Manitoba Municipalities regarding the next steps that must be taken to ensure that implementation of these proposed amendments are seamless and harmonized province-wide, should Bill 230 receive Assent.
As noted by AMM in its brief to the Committee, streamlining of the new requirements would be achieved under the development of a standardized template and appropriate reporting inputs for SEOs when publishing information as would be required under section 44(2) of the amended Act. Again, noting the differences between municipal candidate registration and school board candidate nomination periods established under the Act, we equally believe that establishing clear timeframes for reporting of such information would be an advantage to the successful implementation of these proposed amendments.
During future pre-election timeframes, based upon the information generally provided by Manitoba Municipal Relations to SEOs at the municipal level, it will prove essential to ensure that congruent information is tailored for provision to school board SEOs, in order to reflect the nuances that apply to school board elections.
To that end, if any new training is to be made available through Manitoba Municipal Relations regarding use of a reporting template or form related to an amended section 44(2), with explanation of associated timerames for reporting of information to the public under The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Amendment Act, we would request that Manitoba Municipal Relations share this information with our association, in order to reflect harmonization of practice and procedure province-wide during the future administration and conduct of local elections.
As always, we thank both the members of the Committee and of the larger Legislative Assembly for their consideration of our observations and recommendations and request that you please do not hesitate to contact us further should you require any further information from us in the above respect. You may direct inquiries to Executive Director Josh Watt at jwatt@mbschoolboards.ca.
Sincerely,
Sandy Nemeth
President
Manitoba School Boards Association
____________
Re: Bill 238
Thank you for accepting this documentation on behalf of the Family Advisory Council from Oakview Place and its members.
My name is Diana Rasmussen – I am the Chair of the Family Advisory Council for Oakview place and have been for the last 10 years.
The FAC (Family Advisory Council) predates my involvement for some previous 8 years.
We agree there needs to be a legislative framework for Family Advisory councils throughout Manitoba for the following reasons.
1. Accountability from Management to follow through on written complaints and concerns submitted by families.
2. Currently there is little or no acknowledgement - meaning there is little or no verbal or written response back of these concerns
If there are compliments to be given, then a written response is received which may well be justified.
3. This legislation may help when families observe situations of verbal, physical, or sexual abuse without fear of retribution. These situations must be followed up and in writing.
4. Acknowledge annually the number of complaints, issues, accidents, abuse claims, etc which all must be documented and responded to.
5. Make things easier to be in touch with the Protection of persons in Care should something happen and an orientation to this done when a person moves into the Nursing Home.
6. Staffing must be improved especially on evenings and nights. More Health Care Aides needed so that residents don't end up being put to bed so early so that staff can get round to everyone before the night is over.
Going to bed at 6pm is very early for someone in the summer or winter. They may ant to go outside for a walk around the courtyard or be involved in activities. Would you want to be put to bed that early???
7. Complaints procedures should be easier and simplified to complete.
Quote from a family in the last 5 days:
"Mother experience being kicked by another resident – No staff around, no staff arriving on the unit until she yelled for help – 5–10 minutes"
This could have been disastrous, and the person was badly bruised."
Resident Quote in the last 7 days:
"Staff asked to turn the TV down at night – did not happen they were playing loud 50-80's music and singing.
We are not all deaf and want to sleep – can't they play soft peaceful music maybe people would sleep better.
I complained once and don't anymore as they laugh and carry on, its scary when they come in your room.
Its not our fault that we are here–there are so few nurses now , all the good ones are leaving or let go. No one cares anymore."
8. The Administration /operators should work closely with the FAC's to bridge gaps in communication and help make sure that concerns are addressed.
Likewise, accolades should be acknowledged.
9. Mechanisms must also be in place so that if an Administration/operator does not comply with the legislation that there is recourse so that issues are not swept under the carpet and the FAC is silenced.
10. Residents want and need to be heard. Surveys that are short about their living conditions/food/noise/ housekeeping/care etc – 10 simple questions asked through FAC or Resident council: Food:" why do we have Eat Indian food so often can we not have meat and potatoes, I am 89 and don't eat that stuff"
Quote from a resident – does not mean it cannot be served for people who enjoy this type of food – but there must be alternative.
Make it look appetizing, dining is an experience -- attention to detail.
11. Maybe have Resident and family council meet once a year together.
12. Membership of the Family Advisory Council should include: FAC committee of 8-12 people representing the number of floors in the home. Members do not have to have a resident currently in the home. Include Administration, Recreation, Social Work, Infection control, House keeping and maintenance and Dietary on the committee.
Meetings help 4-6 time a year or every 2nd month.
13. Administration should not be able to arbitrarily stop families visiting. This should require some communication and intervention. There should also be always two people in meetings and no bringing in people with out advising families, so families feel ganged up on.
Autonomy of the FAC is very important. Accountability from Administration is imperative.
14. New Resident family orientation is required within 3 weeks of their loved one coming to the home.
15. Families can include almost anyone. There are many definitions -but many families are apart and friends, a POA are all important.
This legislation is so very important – my own mother died in 2022 at the age of 103 at Oakview place. It was great at first then she became fearful.
She did not like men giving her care and I actually had to step in when they Would not let me in the bathroom with her. She screamed and I said enough and told them to leave and I gave her care. After this I cam in daily to give her care. I was her daughter and caregiver. She lived 10 years at Oakview place. I have been on this committee the whole time to advocate for people like my mother. I now care for another family member and am her POA at Oakview place she is 93 next week -she has experienced many things also.
I want to see better care, quality care, and people who care about their job and how they do it. Follow up is required urgently to make things better and let our elders and loved ones have Quality of Life. Please pass this legislation
You may be in a Nursing Home one day – won't you want Quality care and Quality of Life and Happiness in your last days? Thankyou For Your Time!
Diana Rasmussen
Chair
Family Advisory Council for Oakview Place
____________
Re: Bill 230
To Whom It May Concern,
On behalf of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities (AMM), I am writing to provide some comments regarding Bill 230: The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Amendment Act.
As municipal government is the order of government often described as 'closest to the people,' the AMM believes that there is value in municipal candidates disclosing offences while running for office to enhance transparency, credibility, and accountability as well as increase public trust. While we understand the proposed amendments that require prospective municipal candidates to disclose past offences, the AMM always encourages consultation with our organization prior to the introduction of any proposed legislation that may impact our members.
In regard to Section 44(2) specifically, the reporting process required by a Senior Election Official (SEO) requires greater clarity. To prevent possible confusion and inconsistent approaches, the AMM would encourage Manitoba Municipal Relations to develop a standardized template form for SEOs to use to publish offences and clear timelines to be established that outlines when information should be posted online. Moreover, the standardized form and supporting instructions should also be included in departmental guidance and training materials for municipal candidates and election officials that have been used to support the conduct and administration of previous elections.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these brief comments.
Sincerely,
Denys Volkov
Executive Director
Association of Manitoba Municipalities
LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba
CHAIRPERSON
–
Mr. Shannon Martin
(McPhillips)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON
–
Mr. Ron Schuler
(Springfield-Ritchot)
ATTENDANCE – 6 QUORUM – 4
Members of the committee present:
Mr. Altomare,
MLA Fontaine,
Messrs. Isleifson, Martin, Micklefield, Schuler
Substitutions:
Hon. Mr. Goertzen for
Mr. Isleifson at 7:23 p.m.
Mr. Isleifson for
Hon. Mr. Goertzen at 7:31 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Johnston for
Mr. Isleifson at 7:45 p.m.
APPEARING:
Mr. Jamie Moses, MLA for St. Vital
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux, MLA for Tyndall Park
Hon. Scott Johnston, MLA for Assiniboia
Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen, MLA for Steinbach
PUBLIC PRESENTERS:
Bill 237–The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act
Nicholas Greco, Providence University College and Theological Seminary
Kenton Anderson, private citizen
Bill 238–The Personal Care Home Accountability Act (Various Acts Amended)
Rhonda Nichol, private citizen
Sheryl King, private citizen
Patricia Rawsthorne, private citizen
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Bill 222–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Nutrition Programs)
Sandy Nemeth, Manitoba School Boards Association
Bill 230–The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Amendment Act
Sandy Nemeth, Manitoba School Boards Association
Denys Volkov, Association of Manitoba Municipalities
Bill 238–The Personal Care Home Accountability Act (Various Acts Amended)
Diana Rasmussen, Family Advisory Council for Oakview Place
MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:
Bill 218–An Act respecting the Title "Associate Judge" (Various Acts Amended)
Bill 222–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Nutrition Programs)
Bill 230–The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Amendment Act
Bill 237–The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act
Bill 238–The Personal Care Home Accountability Act (Various Acts Amended)
* * *