LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, April 18, 2023


The House met at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.

      We acknowledge we are gathered on Treaty 1 territory and that Manitoba is located on the treaty territories and ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg, Anishininewuk, Dakota Oyate, Denesuline and Nehethowuk nations. We acknowledge Manitoba is located on the Homeland of the Red River Métis. We acknowledge northern Manitoba includes lands that were and are the ancestral lands of the Inuit. We respect the spirit and intent of treaties and treaty making and remain committed to working in partnership with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people in the spirit of truth, reconciliation and collaboration.

      Good morning, everybody. Please be seated.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' busi­ness

Speaker's Statement

Madam Speaker: I have a statement for the House.

      As previously announced, the hon­our­able member for St. Boniface has indicated that Bill 215, The Non-Disclosure Agree­ments Act, will be his selected bill for this session. In accordance with rule 25 and the letter from the member and the Gov­ern­ment House Leader (Mr. Goertzen), Bill 215 will be considered this morning as follows. Debate at second reading will begin at 10 a.m. imme­diately following this statement. The question will be put on the second reading motion at 10:55 a.m.

      Second Readings–Public Bills

Bill 215–The Non-Disclosure Agreements Act

Madam Speaker: Accordingly, I will now recog­nize the hon­our­able member for St. Boniface to move his second reading motion to begin the debate.

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for Tyndall Park (Ms. Lamoureux), that Bill 215, The Non-Disclosure Agree­­ments Act; Loi sur les accords de confidentialité, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Lamont: First, I want to thank everyone who attended and witnessed the com­mit­tee meeting on November 2nd where we presented the original version of this bill. I think for anyone who was there, it was absolutely clear that this is a bill that needs to be passed in some form or another. We–there were im­prove­ments and sug­ges­tions made, but the original challenge with the bill in the first–sorry, the original challenger on NDAs came to us through a number of different avenues, where people have said that they were being pressured into signing NDAs.

      And the whole dif­fi­cul­ty with NDAs is the degree of silence that they impose on people actually makes it in­cred­ibly impossible–or incredibly difficult for people to get justice and for people to speak out, even if it's to a counsellor.

      So, the origins of this bill were with Professor Julie Macfarlane and Zelda Perkins. Julie Macfarlane is a professor emeritus at the Uni­ver­sity of Windsor; she won the Order of Canada and she's been working on this because she dealt with an issue at her uni­ver­sity where a professor had a number of charges against them and–but everyone involved was required to sign an NDA and they nevertheless–despite the fact that there was a list of docu­mented abuses and mis­treatment of students and other staff–that they got a recommendation letter to go work at another place.

      And what he found is that once we talk to people at com­mit­tee, that it's not bound to any one area. If I consider the witnesses–there was a witness from–who was a Demo­cratic presenter on Fox News in the United States who had been harassed by Roger Ailes, and she testified at committee that she's not even allowed to talk about the Oscar-winning movie that was made about her life.

      We talked to people in policing, in busi­ness, in journalism, health, edu­ca­tion, justice. We've heard in talking to the Law Society of Manitoba that NDAs have been used, sometimes to silence resi­den­tial school survivors.

      The list goes on, but one of the things that when you actually read–if you read the Hansard, the testi­mony in Hansard, or if you watched the videos and ex­per­ienced that, because the individuals at com­mittee were able to speak, they were protected by parlia­mentary privilege, they were allowed to–essentially that their NDA did not apply.

      And so they were able to speak for the first time in years. And there were also cases–individuals–more than one case of family abuse where a family member was victimized, they sued their own family, and in one case a woman who was abused by her father–even though her father died, her father's estate was still keeping her silent.

      So, it's truly–this is­–it's the origin of NDAs, which is some­thing we actually want to preserve is just to protect intellectual properties. It's the idea that, you know, if you work at a parti­cular place, if, you know, if it's bakery–if it's a tech­no­lo­gy company, it's–and there's a parti­cular algorithm or some­thing, some piece of technology that needs to be protected, that's what NDAs are for. But they're not to be used for protecting misbehaviour, and that's what we heard over and over again.

      So, the other thing–a number of things that happened–one was that we had a recom­men­dation at  committee that NDAs–it should be broader than just NDAs, it should also include non‑disparagement clauses in contracts. So, this new bill has been improved and strengthened in that manner.

      The other is that in February, the Canadian Bar Association has passed a motion by 94 per cent, calling on members to no longer use NDAs to cover up misconduct, while also urging gov­ern­ments to reform the law surrounding the use of NDAs.

      So, this is a bill that has the support of the Canadian Bar Association. We consulted extensively prior to the first bill being intro­duced with the Human Rights Com­mis­sion and with the people across Manitoba and across the province.

      And this is some­thing that has been changing, simply because it's been recog­nized that NDAs are–have gone too far and that they're too common. And actually, one of the ways in which they're too common–I opened up a Google docu­ment, and they have a number of templates, and the second template right there was a basic NDA.

      That NDAs have been used very–they've sort of been–become part of the wallpaper. They've become a thing that's used all the time, but people don't really understand the full impact. And back to the testimony of some of the folks in com­mit­tee, it was clear that people may not be able to speak to their–a counsellor. They might not be able to talk to a psychologist or they­–and they're not even allowed to talk to a spiritual adviser.

      They're not allowed to share anything with their family; they can't share anything with their future employer. So, it becomes in­cred­ibly difficult; in­cred­ibly difficult and, in fact, traumatizing for many of these people because I think sometimes when NDAs are presented, they're presented as a sort of escape valve. Other people said, well, you know, if you sign this NDA, you can move on with your life.

* (10:10)

      And often there's a payment that goes along with it. But the im­por­tant thing, which has been em­pha­sized again and again by Professor Julie Macfarlane and by Zelda Perkins and others, when they–their campaign is called Can't Buy My Silence, because the idea here is that the payment that's being made by somebody who's done some­thing wrong is a fine for the fact they've done some­thing wrong. It's not a payment to keep somebody else quiet.

      And that's one of the things that has to be recog­nized, and that this really is some­thing that I think enabled the sort of dif­fi­cul­ties and–not just dif­fi­cul­ties, the abuse and cover-up by individuals like Harvey Weinstein and others over years and years, to be able to–that–continue abuse because they are–you would have repeat offenders who would be doing the same thing over and over again. Each new victim and each new survivor might think that they're the only one this has happened to, when, in fact, it's somebody where it's happened a number of times.

      And we've–we had cases like that at the Uni­ver­sity of Manitoba, where a uni­ver­sity professor was mistreating students. And instead of–in, sorry, in this case again, they were recom­mended to go to another–they got a glowing letter of reference to go to another uni­ver­sity despite the fact that they'd, at one point, were facing criminal charges and had had a number of incidents of complaints of harassment of students.

      And the Uni­ver­sity of Manitoba ended up having to pay more than $200,000 for violating the individual's privacy. So they–he ended up being awarded for the fact that somebody else had actually mentioned the truth. And I think that is one of the things about this, is that it's absolutely essential in a free and demo­cratic society for people to be able to be free to speak the truth, and to be free to talk about these things.

      And I hope, certainly I know that at com­mit­tee we had, I think, everyone who was there was absolutely stunned by what they heard, and very rightly so because it was only because people could actually finally speak for the first time that you could see the devastating impact that it had had on individuals' lives. And that's some­thing that we should be very conscious of. Because they've been unable to speak, and that is some­thing that, really, that we're looking to do here.

      I hope–I look forward to the debate, and I cer­tainly hope that we can get a unanimous agree­ment. Or, if not unanimous agree­ment, most agree­ment to be able to pass this to the next stage.

      Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Questions

Madam Speaker: A question period of up to 10 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the sponsoring member by any member in the following sequence: first question to be asked by a member from another party; this is to be followed by a rotation between the parties; each in­de­pen­dent member may ask one question. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield-Ritchot): As this issue is being reviewed by the Law Reform Com­mis­sion, do we have a time frame available for when the Law Reform Com­mis­sion will release their work in this matter?

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): We don't. I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Goertzen) had made a commit­ment to, and was encouraging the Law Reform Com­mis­sion to do this as quickly as possible. However, I don't see that as an impediment. The–we made a pre­sen­ta­tion to the Law Reform Com­mis­sion. This–not all laws that we talk about–often we bring forward bills where it doesn't go to the Law Reform Com­mis­sion.

      And I would say that some­thing like the endorsement of the Canadian Bar Association, and the fact that it's passed in provinces like PEI, and that it's being passed elsewhere across–both across Canada and being considered­–actually, in Ontario, they're bringing in a no‑NDA law for uni­ver­sities. That–I don't see the Law Reform Com­mis­sion's report as being an impediment to moving this–

Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague in the Legislature for bringing forward this bill, and I'd like to hear his thoughts on why he thinks the PC gov­ern­ment did not support this bill last session.

Mr. Lamont: I–well, look. I'll just say that we always struggled to get our–as an in­de­pen­dent member, we always struggle to get our bills forward. I can't actually–I can't speculate on whatever reason that might be. We did try to push this forward as far as we possibly could to make sure that it got to com­mit­tee.

      So, we–and–but–and I know at which point it was a little too late for us to pass it during the last session. But I will say that it did give us the op­por­tun­ity to strengthen it because there were people who insisted that it needed to have a non‑disparagement clause as well.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I'd like to thank my colleague for St. Boniface for bringing forward this really im­por­tant piece of legis­lation that can affect thousands and thousands of Manitobans.

      The member spoke with the Canadian Bar Association, and I'm wondering if he can speak a little bit to what their thoughts were about this legis­lation.

Mr. Lamont: Well, again, the Canadian Bar Association in February called on members to no longer use NDAs to cover up misconduct and urged gov­ern­ment to reform the law. And that was a vote of 94 per cent; it was really, really exceptional. And I do have to give a lot of credit again to Julie Macfarlane, who has been an absolute powerhouse. But that's it–is that recog­nizing that this is some­thing that's been accepted by the Canadian Bar Association, I think sort of gives us the seal of approval.

Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Midland): I thank the member for bringing this forward, and, obviously, NDAs are not just a problem within Manitoba, but I was won­dering if the member–I know he mentioned briefly of other provinces' legis­lation, but could he elaborate on whether this bill will be similar to other provinces' legis­lation or has he learned from and made changes to make this even better that other provinces have?

Mr. Lamont: I thank the member. Yes, we have–spe­cific­ally with the change. Sorry, I'll step back and say that Prince Edward Island passed this unani­mously. The bill was sub­stan­tially developed by Julie Macfarlane, again, who is a law professor emeritus at the Uni­ver­sity of Windsor. So, the bill was developed in con­sul­ta­tion with her. We also spoke to people around the world from–we partici­pated in an inter­national conference led by Senator McPhedran who's also been trying to get this done at the federal level.

      So, the one thing that we have added here is, it was just non-disclosure agree­ments, but non-dis­paragement clauses are also essential. And simply to say we actually had a witness who was–signed a non‑disparagement agree­ment, but it was one‑sided.

Madam Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Ms. Naylor: I'd like to ask the member from St. Boniface if the PCs' gov­ern­ment has communi­cated to him that they'd support Bill 215 through all stages.

Mr. Lamont: I haven't–no, I haven't received that. I haven't received any such guarantee, but that's par for the course, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, two points. One is, of course, we have an example in Manitoba with Peter Nygård. Would this law, if it had been present earlier, have resulted in the matter moving forward more quickly?

      And second, if this goes to com­mit­tee, will the Law Reform Com­mis­sion, or members, have then an op­por­tun­ity to present their views at com­mit­tee stage?

Mr. Lamont: There was a com­mit­tee member–sorry, a com­mit­tee presenter, Jan Wong, who was a former Globe and Mail writer who said that in 1995, her very first interview–she had a famous column, Lunch with Jan Wong, which–where she–her first interview subject was Peter Nygård. And then she went to go try to speak to two other individuals about a sexual harassment case and they had been–they could not speak because they'd been required to sign NDAs back in 1995. So that was some­thing that was noted at com­mit­tee that was–we possibly could have prevented future harm had we–people been able to speak out some 25 years ago.

      The other is, anybody should be able to present the law–

Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Schuler: When survivors came and told their truths at com­mit­tee, it seemed that most of their concerns were directed towards unions and uni­ver­sities.

      Has the member spoken with union leaders about what they are doing to address the abuse that was heard at com­mit­tee from these survivors?

Mr. Lamont: I will say, we have spoken with people. We've spoken with folks in labour. I do want to correct the record though: it was not mostly unions or uni­ver­sities, it was an in­cred­ibly wide range. It was across–it included, I think, like I said, it included police, edu­ca­tion, the private sector; it included journalism. It's everywhere. And I think that's–even if we look at Hockey Canada, there were NDAs. If we look at the cases of sexual abuse in the military, there were NDAs.

* (10:20)

      It's not–it's endemic. It's not systemic to any one area, it's everywhere. And that's part of the reason why it needs to be done.

Ms. Naylor: I'd like to invite the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Lamont) to share a little bit more detail about what we heard at the com­mit­tee stage for this bill last session.

Mr. Lamont: I thank the member. I think–when I think about the most–the toughest ones I–we heard, because it was all very, very powerful, was really that being silenced in itself is also traumatic. Is that signing NDAs and–it has meant that people can never get the healing they need, they can never get–they're never able to speak up, they're never able to–and they're never be able to get reso­lu­tion. And so it is a matter of justice.

      It was truly heartbreaking and–because we had five hours and 20 people speaking and every single story was different and every single story was heart-rending. If anyone has the time, it's five hours of YouTube, but if you read the Hansard testimony it's just as powerful.

Mr. Pedersen: So, this is prov­incial legis­lation and it's based on what other provinces are doing. Does the federal gov­ern­ment also need to bring in similar legis­lation for–perhaps for their employees, federal civil servants, as an example, or federally regulated industries or employers?

Mr. Lamont: Yes, I absolutely agree it's long overdue. This is some­thing that we've met with Senator McPhedran about. In fact, part of the reason why she was frustrated as an–I've called her an ultra-in­de­pen­dent Senator–was because they were looking at reforms in the Senate and one of the first things they said, well, we need more NDAs. And she said, well, that's completely unacceptable.

      So we need this NDA reform to happen at the federal level, but, of course, it has to–there is certain areas where, even if it's done federally, we have to do it at the provincial level to make sure everyone is covered.

Madam Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Debate

Madam Speaker: If not, the floor is open for debate.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I want to thank my friend and colleague from St. Boniface for again bringing forward this bill, similar but not exactly the same as the bill that he intro­duced last year.

      And as a result of the private member's bill that he intro­duced last year, a few things happened. As has already been described this morning, the bill went to com­mit­tee, where we heard extremely emotional and impactful, heartfelt testimony. One of the things–well, there's a few things that I learned. Certainly, we learned some of the negative impact that NDAs have had on individuals, including–which was a surprise to me–the inability for some individuals to actually get medical help and medical support as the result of an NDA. They weren't able to share their story to psychologists, as an example. And that might be a relatively narrow example, but it was an impactful example that I wasn't aware of.

      I also didn't know, from a more technical perspective, that our–the privilege that we have as MLAs in the House extends to presenters at com­mit­tee, which was a learning ex­per­ience for me. But it also, of course, it allowed, then, individuals to speak about things without repercussion because of their NDAs. So, that was very both impactful and im­por­tant to hear that. And the reason we called it to com­mit­tee last year was to be able to ensure that those stories could be heard publicly.

      We had asked the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion by that time to take this matter on and they indicated to me that they couldn't remember the last time a minister of Justice had referred some­thing to the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion. They generally do their work based on what they believe their priorities should be, but I appreciate Grant Driedger, who's the chair of the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion, agreeing to take this on as a priority. I think he saw the importance of it.

      As a result of that, the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion released a docu­ment, a con­sul­ta­tion docu­ment in December of last year, so just a few months ago. They held an online hearing regarding that docu­ment to provide context and explanation around it for those who wanted to provide infor­ma­tion to the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion. They held that in January. And to answer the question from my friend from Springfield, my under­standing is that their report is due in weeks–not months, but in weeks.

      So, relatively shortly, we will hear from the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion. And I think that's im­por­tant and I know the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Lamont) indicated that we don't have to wait for that, that we can sort of just go ahead without that.

      I personally think that that would be a disservice to those who presented at com­mit­tee, which will form part of an evidentiary basis for the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion. It would be a disservice of those who used the consultation docu­ment to provide advice to the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion. And it would be a disservice to the com­mis­sion itself, which is doing all of this work and is going to produce a report in just a few weeks.

      I understand. Having said that, this is debate on second reading. And second reading is the principle of the bill. Second reading is the principle of the legis­lation. Third reading is details of the legis­lation. On principle, we believe this should be reviewed. On principle, we think that this needs to be looked at. It's the reason that I, in my role as Attorney General, as the Minister of Justice, referred this to the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion.

      It's the reason why we're doing–or why they are doing the review. So I have no concern about passing this bill at second reading because in principle, we agree that this matter needs to be reviewed and it is being reviewed. And I look forward to the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion's report in a few weeks, which will take all of that evidence that they heard, both at com­mit­tee, and from others who partici­pated in the con­sul­ta­tion process over the last few months, and then we can bring forward legis­lation that encapsulates all of that con­sul­ta­tion.

      But in conclusion, I want to thank the member for St. Boniface. I know he's passionate about this issue. There's many times in this Legislature where in­de­pen­dent or private members have brought forward bills that have passed–you did, as well, Madam Speaker, when you were in op­posi­tion–and were able to impact change.

      And it's because individual members have taken things in a passionate way and been able to bring about change for the benefit of Manitobans, and I suspect that there'll be some changes on this in the future, and I commend the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Lamont) for bringing this forward and taking this issue on.

Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): I'm happy to stand today and put a few words on the record. I've previously debated on this bill the first time that it was called, and I had the opportunity to attend the com­mit­tee and say some words at that time.

      So, I won't take my whole time today, but I will say that non‑disclosure agree­ments were first used in the 1980s to prevent employees from taking trade secrets from one busi­ness to another, but since then they've become in­cred­ibly common across North America.

      And there's standard con­di­tions of settlements in cases ranging from work­place terminations, product liability and sexual abuse or harassment allegations. Even sometimes in racial or gender discrimination cases. And I, you know, one of the things that I noted at conclusion of com­mit­tee, what I've been very aware of for years because I was in a work­place in the '80s when we first started to develop sexual harassment policies. And then the next work­place I went to, we developed the first sexual harassment policy.

      And all of this was born out of the '80s era of people starting to talk about these things, Anita Hill being the leader for women across North America to talk publicly about these issues in the work­place. And it's very clear to me that as women have become–and other groups that have been targeted such as non‑binary, transgender, racialized individuals–as people become more outspoken about their rights in the work­place, and as people have stood up to harassment and violence in the work­place, that NDAs have just proliferated across, you know, from com­panies and busi­nesses from all kinds of places.

      And so, it is very im­por­tant that these things get reviewed and discussed. And I know that this is the second time that the member from St. Boniface has brought forward this bill, and I believe that he is genuinely passionate about this issue.

      But I also want to say that the member bringing forward this bill does have a history of making employees sign agree­ments that they later regret, and it must be said that in July 2018, the Manitoba Human Right Com­mis­sion dismissed a complaint from a former political staffer, Elizabeth Gonsalves, who said that she lost her job and was discriminated against because of mental illness.

* (10:30)

      Ms. Gonsalves received severance and signed an agree­ment not to pursue the Legis­lative Assembly for anything further when she was let go in October 2017. And the complaint was dismissed because of that agree­ment.

      But in response, Gonsalves said she was dis­appointed by the outcome. She said she agreed to release the Legis­lative Assembly from any complaints because she believed her employer was the Manitoba Liberal Party, not the Legis­lature.

      The quote from CityNews, July 25th, 2022, said: I feel very disheartened by the process and the out­come. Ms. Gonsalves said she was on medical leave for post-partum depression when she was fired by the member for St. Boniface shortly after he became leader of the party.

      An employee should never be punished for being on medical leave, or pushed into an agree­ment they don't fully understand. And this member must address these concerns in the spirit of the trans­par­ency that he's calling for today.

      I want to say that I do agree, that I think it's im­por­tant that we wait for the report from the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion. That was an outcome of the com­mit­tee, and I think that's an im­por­tant step for us to move forward with this kind of legis­lation.

      Some aspects of this bill are already codified in case law, as people cannot be forced into a legal agree­ment, and Canadian courts have usually deter­mined that to be enforceable. NDAs must meet the require­ments of reasonableness and legitimate busi­ness interests, including limits with respect to time and 'specifity'–'specicifity'.

      However, the absence of a time limitation has been held to be enforceable. If language is too broad, unreasonable or onerous, it can void an agree­ment. And courts will also challenge or invalidate agree­ments that are overly expansive, oppressive or try to cover non-con­fi­dential infor­ma­tion.

      Many employees are unaware of what their rights are when it comes to their NDA, and despite the options available to them, the language in their agreement makes them feel limited. NDAs are most com­monly given when an employee is hired, fired or finalizing a settlement; and when presented with an NDA, individuals have the right to request ad­di­tional time before signing, although many people don't know this.

      That really stood out to me at the com­mit­tee, as well, is hearing how many people didn't necessarily understand the NDA at the time of signing. And also recog­nizing that often folks were in a time of great distress or trauma at the time of making that decision.

      The other thing that stood out to me is that I believe that some of the people speaking at com­mit­tee were actually speaking about con­fi­dentiality agree­ments, not NDAs, some­thing that might not be binding in the same way. I did question a few people on what–if they had actually signed an NDA, and their under­standing of their own ex­per­ience. And it was disheartening to realize how little infor­ma­tion a lot of people have about this whole process, and I certainly have learned a lot from partici­pating in that com­mit­tee and the reading that I'd done before and since this bill was intro­duced.

      But, you know, many employees, including many–our employees sign con­fi­dentiality agree­ments at the onset of being hired, and those are, you know, to protect infor­ma­tion. And, you know, they're not intended to harm the people who are doing the job. But if people have left a job and been threatened with their con­fi­dentiality agree­ment over some­thing that they've reported or talked about, then that's a problem.

      We need to be addressing that, and I think this also speaks to citizens needing a greater under­standing of the role of con­fi­dentiality agree­ments in the work­place, and the role of NDAs in the work­place, and what their legal rights are in regards to that and their legal pro­tec­tions.

      So I hope that that is a fuller, broader con­ver­sa­tion that we can have about this going forward. I think that that's probably all I do need to say on this today, as I imagine that this won't be the last time that we have the op­por­tun­ity to talk about this topic.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Are there any–the hon­our­able member for River Heights.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Just a few words here. I think–first of all, I would like to say that it is urgent, it is im­por­tant we move on this as quickly as we can. It is having an impact every day, every month that there's a delay.

      I am hopeful that we can get it to com­mit­tee stage, that at the time of committee stage, we will have the report from the Law Reform Com­mis­sion and that hopefully it will align to at least a fair extent, hope­fully completely, with this legis­lation and if it is a little bit different, we can make amend­ments.

      But we have a piece of legis­lation which there has been already a lot of work put into, a piece of legis­lation which has–now the Canadian Bar Association has come out in support of this approach. And there is clearly, from the words that we heard at the com­mit­tee stage, from people who presented, there is clearly a need for this legis­lation and a change to how NDAs are used. The use of NDAs to cover up abuse, to cover up misbehaviour, to cover up criminal behaviour, in some instances, is not ap­pro­priate.

      We are at a time in Manitoba where we have a too high rate of sexual assaults in this province, a higher rate than most other provinces, and we need to do some­thing about it. And I believe that this is an im­por­tant step, because so long as people see that they can use NDAs to buy off people and to cover up sexual assaults, then they will continue and people will have–feel free to use sexual assaults as we have seen too often in the past.

      It is time to stand up for women in parti­cular–not that sexual 'accaults' can't be the other way around on occasion. But it is im­por­tant we stand up and we say we're going to do some­thing about sexual assaults.

      We're going to act to send a message to Manitobans that we as legis­lators care about the high rate of sexual assaults and that we're going to do some­thing to send a message that this needs to stop in Manitoba. We don't want cover‑ups, as we've had in the past, and cover‑ups which went on, in the case of Peter Nygård, for many years. We want a new way of looking at things.

      We want this NDA bill to go forward to com­mit­tee. We need it to have one more hearing to have the input from the Law Reform Com­mis­sion and then we can make that informed decision. And I hope that informed decision will be to pass this unanimously into law and end the abuse that's gone on and the sexual assaults that have been sometimes given free rein under the use of NDAs in the past.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker, merci, miigwech.

Madam Speaker: Are there any further members wishing to debate this?

      Is the House ready for the question then?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 215, The Non-Disclosure Agree­ments Act.

       Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Is it the will of the House to call it 11 a.m.?

Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 11 a.m.? [Agreed]

      It has been agreed that it is now 11 a.m.

Resolutions

Res. 11–Calling on the Prov­incial Gov­ern­ment to Recog­nize the Valuable Role that Foster Parents play in Manitoba Communities

Madam Speaker: And it is time for private members' reso­lu­tions.

      The reso­lu­tion before us this morning is the reso­lu­tion on Calling on the Prov­incial Gov­ern­ment to Recog­nize the Valuable Role that Foster Parents play in Manitoba Com­mu­nities.

* (10:40)

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I move, seconded by the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard),

WHEREAS even though work must continue to ensure that biological families are not unnecessarily separ­ated, it is important to recognize that foster parents play a very important role in our communities; and

WHEREAS children in care often face many chal­lenges but it is important to understand that all children should feel safe, live in a caring environment and feel loved; and

WHEREAS it is in the best interests of the child no matter their age, circumstances, and needs, that they live in a home environment where they are most likely to have the type of care, love, and support that all children deserve; and

WHEREAS cross-cultural exchanges are often an important part of raising a child, and foster parents often learn about reconciliation and important cultural considerations which are essential to the process of raising a child; and

WHEREAS foster parents open their lives for 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week in hopes of contributing to the wellbeing of a child whether it be for a short or a long period of time; and

WHEREAS the emotional and enduring connection between a child and a foster parent lasts a lifetime, and often is reflective and like that of a biological parent and child relationship.

      THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba recog­nize the in­cred­ible con­tri­bu­tions and sacrifices that foster parents have made and continue to make every day and urge that the Minister of Families consult for an ap­pro­priate day of the year that can be recog­nized as foster parents' day.

      Thank you.

Motion presented.

Ms. Lamoureux: I want to begin by just addressing we're going to have some guests be joining us here in the gallery. We've been cruising through legis­lation this morning and my guests are actually in the hallway right now and they're going to be joining us up in the gallery. So I want to thank them for taking time out of their days to be with us here this morning.

      Some of the foster parents who have been–who are going to be joining us have actually been fostering for over 17 years. And I'm excited to share a little bit about their stories this morning.

      So, I'm excited to intro­duce this reso­lu­tion. It recog­nizes the in­cred­ible con­tri­bu­tions and sacrifices that foster parents have made and continue to make. And it asks that this gov­ern­ment look at designating a day of ap­pre­cia­tion for them.

      A little bit of back­ground on the reso­lu­tion, Madam Speaker. It actually stems from a con­ver­sa­tion that I had with my Ate Myrna Ong, who's going to be joining us. She's a foster parent herself. We were at a birthday party at the Marlborough Hotel and it was herself, her son Paul Ong, myself and my father. And she was telling us about her ex­per­ience as a foster parent. And we were talking a lot about edu­ca­tion in parti­cular. And it's through this con­ver­sa­tion with her that I started to feel very inspired and noticed how we don't often talk about foster parents here in the Chamber. And it is an im­por­tant con­ver­sa­tion that we be having, Madam Speaker.

      So, from this con­ver­sa­tion with my Ate Myrna, my father and I, we decided to put together our Queen Jubilee pins. Now, all MLAs and all members of Parliament were provided with some of these pins to share with their con­stit­uents how they felt they should be shared. So when we combined ours, we called upon foster parents. We decided to do some­thing to recog­nize the work that they have been contributing to our province and to so many children, Madam Speaker. And so, we met with them in some of their homes. Some of them came and joined us at the McDonald's that we go to every Saturday. And we even had a small ceremony at my con­stit­uency office for them and–where we gave them the pin, as well as a certificate just acknowl­edging the hard work that they do.

      So, the reso­lu­tion itself, it starts by sharing that the No. 1 priority is to never un­neces­sarily separate families. And we, being us as politicians, Manitoba judges, CFS, I believe we all have a role to play in this. We all have to make sure that we're doing every­thing in our power to keep families together. And this includes em­power­ing parents, Madam Speaker.

      The reso­lu­tion speaks to how foster parents, children and families often have cross-cultural exchanges. And it's upon the foster parents to learn about recon­ciliation and im­por­tant cultural con­sid­era­tions. I was speaking with members of the Kinship & Foster Family Network of Manitoba, some who will be joining us very shortly here in the galleries, Madam Speaker. And they said, and I quote, kinship and foster parents are very often undervalued for the complex work they do every day. They are im­por­tant and active parti­ci­pants in recon­ciliation. I know I plan to continue to work with Kinship & Foster Family Network on more legis­lation going forward.

      The reso­lu­tion continues to talk about how children should always feel safe and live in caring environments. And how realistically, there are many challenges faced and sacrifices made by foster parents. And allow for me to share a couple.

      It is not easy to become a foster parent here in the province of Manitoba; anywhere in Canada, Madam Speaker. There are social workers involved, back­ground checks, interviews and ongoing training. And this is not just step one to become foster parents; this is through­out the entire fostering process. So, imagine those foster parents here in Manitoba who have been fostering for 17‑plus years.

      And I know there are some who have been fostering for over 30 years, Madam Speaker. They have ongoing visits with social workers; they have ongoing training; they are constantly learning and adapting to make sure that they are contributing to the lives of these children and doing every­thing they can to keep families together.

      It's a full-time commit­ment. I like using the term that to be a foster parent it truly is a lifestyle. It's not a 9‑to‑5 job where you clock in in the morning and you clock out after work at 5 o'clock. It truly is a lifestyle. And my theory is this is why it often goes unnoticed. Why sometimes we forget to acknowl­edge our foster parents is because it becomes such a natural part of their lifestyle. And it's why we're here today, to pro­vide that recog­nition, to provide an op­por­tun­ity for all members of the House to share some of their thoughts and pay tribute to our foster parents.

      Madam Speaker, Foster parents are changing the worlds of thousands of children presently. According to page 104 of the '21‑22 Manitoba Families report, which I table right now, Madam Speaker, as of March 31st, 2022, there were 9,196 children in care. And I know there are members of this House–my colleague from Dawson Trail, who I hope speaks to this legis­lation, he is a foster parent himself. We all know foster parents within the province of Manitoba, it's not just the city of Winnipeg. And they continue to open up their hearts and their homes, and this is why we're here today, to honour them and to recog­nize them for all of their work over the years.

      Now, I am going to wrap up my remarks fairly soon because I want to make sure that all members have the op­por­tun­ity to speak if they wish and that we have time to pass this reso­lu­tion this morning. But I want to be clear: this is just the begin­ning. This reso­lu­tion is a starting point, Madam Speaker. We need to be talking about basic maintenance, increased budgets for food and clothing, we need to talk about the issue of people aging out of care and ensuring that there is safe and affordable housing for individuals. We need to talk about the rules around respite funding within care and how every level of gov­ern­ment, whether it be the federal gov­ern­ment, prov­incial gov­ern­ment or munici­pal, they all have a role to play in this.

Mr. Andrew Micklefield, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

      But for today, we are here to formally recog­nize the astounding work and countless sacrifices made by our foster parents and to ask and encourage this government to designate, at minimum, a day–but this could be a week or a month, but at minimum, a day of appreciation for our foster parents. I hope to have the reso­lu­tion passed unanimously with both the support of the gov­ern­ment and the official op­posi­tion.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Questions

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Okay, order please.

A question period of up to 10 minutes will be held and questions can be addressed in the following sequence: the first may be asked by a member from another party; any subsequent questions must follow a rotation between parties; each independent member may ask one question. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is open for questions.

Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East): I welcome the guests to the gallery today and I thank the member from Tyndall Park for bringing this excellent reso­lu­tion forward.

      And I know in her preamble she talked briefly about the inspiration at a birthday party that brought this forward. And I know it's only 45 seconds, but I'd like the member to maybe, if she has other inspirations for this reso­lu­tion, she might want to explain that to the House as well.

* (10:50)

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I'd like to thank the member from Brandon East for the really good question, and it also allows me to have another op­por­tun­ity to speak, as some of my guests join us here today in the gallery.

      The inspiration actually stemmed from a con­ver­sa­tion that I had with my Ate Myrna Ong, who has joined us up in the gallery. She was sharing with myself and a few others at a birthday party at the Marlborough, just about the in­cred­ible work that foster parents do and how she in parti­cular was having to navigate a lot around edu­ca­tion.

      And this is what first put the topic of foster parents on my radar, and from there, I've had the op­por­tun­ity to meet with, I'm going to argue, hundreds of foster parents through­out the province of Manitoba. And I've had the op­por­tun­ity to learn stories from them, and the biggest takeaway–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

MLA Malaya Marcelino (Notre Dame): The number of Filipino foster families in Manitoba is on the rise, and one of the service providers that I spoke to said that, just in the period of 15 years, we went from about eight foster–Filipino foster families in 2003 to 200 Filipino foster families in 2018.

      And I'd like to thank these long‑time foster parents, who have been recog­nized for their commit­ment to Indigenous recon­ciliation and for their commit­ment to care for children. I'd like to ask the member if she could speak on the value of having a foster parents' day in Manitoba.

Ms. Lamoureux: I'd like to thank the member for Notre Dame for her remarks and her question. She is right: the Filipino popu­la­tion here in Manitoba, they have been growing rapidly at–with respect to fostering them­selves, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They have such a way about them for opening up their hearts and opening up their homes and wanting to give back to the com­mu­nity.

      That's why we're so grateful to all foster parents here in the province of Manitoba, and I hope to con­tinue to learn more from the foster parents. And I'm going to ask if my colleague can repeat her question as well.

      Thank you.

Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): I thank the member for intro­ducing this reso­lu­tion. She men­tioned very briefly that she had consulted with a number of different individuals. I'd like to give her an op­por­tun­ity to expand upon that.

Ms. Lamoureux: I'd like to thank my colleague for his question. A lot of con­sul­ta­tion went into this reso­lu­tion, and I think the bottom line, the most con­sul­ta­tion that we did was with foster parents them­selves. Again, we must have spoken with over 100 different foster parents from all over Manitoba, where they shared with us their personal experiences, their pers­onal examples of what it's like to be a foster parent here in Manitoba.

      And they spoke a lot to the needs that foster parents have, and there are a lot of needs that I've spoken about in my opening remarks. But again, just  to reiterate, we need to talk about the basic maintenance: ensuring that there are funds available. We need to talk about the per diems and how they're being used, and we need to talk about how children are often aging out of care–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

MLA Marcelino: Currently there are thousands of kids in care in the province of Manitoba, and the Manitoba NDP are calling on the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to provide more funding for the care of foster kids, to remove arbitrary cut‑off dates for kids aging out of care, and for more supports for young people aging out of care. And most im­por­tantly, to suffi­ciently fund pre­ven­tative services to keep families together in the first place.

      Would the member please speak to how could the province better support foster parents and children?

Ms. Lamoureux: I'd like to thank my colleague from Notre Dame for the question. I think there are a lot of ways the province could better support foster parents. And I don't think it's only the province; I also think it's the federal gov­ern­ment and city gov­ern­ment.

      But bottom line is, we need to be enabling and creating more resources. Foster parents have had the same resources. They have not gone up in funding. With every­thing else going on in society, with the cost of living going up, with the cost of groceries going up, they have had no increase. We need to be having discussions such as those to ensure that families are able to keep up with all the increases that we're facing here in Manitoba.

      But I want to also remind the member that we're here to celebrate our foster parents with the foster parents who have joined us here today. I'm hoping that we'll all have the op­por­tun­ity to just thank them–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Isleifson: I know in my family we have a number of–my family and my wife's family–who are foster parents, so I totally understand where this reso­lu­tion is coming from. But I'd like to ask the member from Tyndall Park if she could high­light any Manitobans who have played a vital role in being a foster parent.

Ms. Lamoureux: I'm weary to go down a road of pinpointing specific people because then it's inevit­able I'm going to leave some people out. But I'm going to make the argument that those who have joined us today in the gallery are all playing a pivotal role right now, here in the province of Manitoba.

      The work that you are doing in the fostering process–I know you face a lot of barriers, but you are doing such in­cred­ible work in the lives of so many children and I just want to thank you directly for that.

MLA Marcelino: I'd just like the member to perhaps speak a little bit more about con­sul­ta­tions that she underwent in pre­par­ation for this private members' reso­lu­tion.

      For instance, were you able–was the member able to speak to any children or young people that have aged out of foster care or any con­sul­ta­tions with Indigenous com­mu­nities?

Ms. Lamoureux: That's a great question, and it actually provides me the op­por­tun­ity to speak a little bit about the small ceremony that my father and I actually hosted for foster parents at my con­stit­uency office. Because we had foster parents come into the office, often with their foster children, some who were no longer their foster children.

      And it speaks to the stories of how these are long‑lasting relationships and foster children, who were often adults in this case, were sharing with us how years later, after being with the foster parents, they're still coming back for the holidays. They like to come and spend Thanksgiving, for example, with the families, and some of the parents–or, foster children who have aged out also spoke to the sibling relationships that they have grown and they have gone on to be lifelong friendships.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Wishart: I'd like to ask the member how she thinks we can encourage more people to become foster parents.

      I think we all only have to think back to 2014–'13 and '14 when we had a shortage of foster parents and the gov­ern­ment of the day used hotels to look after kids and the fiasco and the disaster that that led to.

      So we certainly need to make sure that we have enough foster parents now and moving forward.

Ms. Lamoureux: That's a really good question that is something that all of us as MLAs I think have a role to play. We should be finding more ways to provide whether it's incentive or reason to become foster parents.

      But we also need to bring it back to the most im­por­tant point, and I think this has to be key priority: we need to keep children with their biological families. This has to be the No. 1 priority. We need to focus on that. We need to focus on em­power­ing parents so families can stay together and just continue to support the foster parents that we have, with the end goal that we ultimately don't need to have children in care because everyone is with their biological families.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able member–I must just comment to the gallery–if we can just pause the clocks for a second, please.

      The rules do specify that there is to be no partici­pation from the gallery. We're so grateful you're here, but if you could refrain from clapping, that is a rule of this House. So, thanks for your co‑operation with that.

      We can resume the clocks, and the member for Notre Dame (MLA Marcelino) has the floor.

MLA Marcelino: I'd just like to take this op­por­tun­ity to lift up an inspiring set of foster parents that I know: Noralyn and David Pua, who have been designated as volunteer foster parents by the Southeast Child & Family Services, who together have cared for 55 sets of siblings over 20 years, in addition to their three children.

      And I'd just like to go back to the question and I'd like to ask the member why she has chosen to put this forward as a PMR rather than a bill that would implement foster parents' day.

Ms. Lamoureux: I'm happy to address the question. The reason I chose to bring it forward as a reso­lu­tion is because I believe it should be some­thing we are celebrating. We are here to celebrate our foster parents and show them that they have done so much work and it needs to be acknowledged. And this was an op­por­tun­ity to do so over the next couple of months. And it also allows for the op­por­tun­ity for all members to rise and speak to the reso­lu­tion.

* (11:00)

      And it allows for me to continue to work with the gov­ern­ment about new legis­lation when it comes to actually the basic maintenance, when it comes to ensuring that those who are aging out of care have the supports in place. There is a process in intro­ducing legis­lation that is proven to be best suc­cess­ful, and I believe this was the first step towards that.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The time for questions has expired.

Debate

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

MLA Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I'm pleased to put a couple of words on the record this morning. You know, as most folks, certainly in the Chamber and certainly in our province and certainly across the country know or should know, we currently find our­selves in this era of recon­ciliation, in an era of recon­ciliation that seeks to understand the inherent trauma and damage and harms of colonial Canada.

      We understand and we should be on the path to rectifying those harms and those intergenerational effects and legacy of the resi­den­tial school era. And one of the things about, you know, colonization in its totality is that it is a historical continuum. By that I mean our territories were colonized by explorers and settlers. Indigenous people were forced to assimilate and to assimilate in a variety of different ways. The colonial state esta­blished and created the resi­den­tial school system; simultaneously, afterwards, created the child-welfare system.

      And so the child-welfare system is an extension of that colonial history that we still operate within, and we still deal with the con­se­quences of, this very second. We had '60s scoop and again, child welfare.

      And as most people in this Chamber should know, in fact, when you look at the child-welfare system from coast to coast to coast, there are more children–and in parti­cular, quite obviously, more Indigenous children–in the child-welfare system now than at the height of resi­den­tial schools.

      And that is born out of the way that Indigenous parenting is understood. It is born out of the systemic racisms and systemic gaps for Indigenous peoples, i.e., housing, food insecurity, endemic levels of pov­erty, isolation and I can go on and on.

      And so this–the Child and Family Services is predicated upon that colonial history. It is predicated upon the continued oppression of Indigenous peoples in our own territories. And like resi­den­tial schools, which understood that if you take children from their parents, if you take children from their grandparents, if you take children from their com­mu­nities, it is the surest way to destroy a people. The '60s scoop understood that as well.

      And so we have Indigenous children that were stolen from their families and shipped all over North America. And so we have Indigenous children, to this very moment, that are taken from their families because of all of those systemic issues that I listed.

      Instead of supporting Indigenous families, instead of supporting Indigenous parents or Indigenous mothers with the supports that they need and that they rightly deserve. Parents and more spe­cific­ally, Indigenous women are penalized for those oppres­sions. And penalized in the way of taking our children away from us. And as was done in the resi­den­tial schools and as is currently done, that is the quickest way to destroy a people.

      Our children deserve to be with their parents. Our children deserve to be with their mothers. Our chil­dren deserve to be with their grandparents, growing up with their cousins and their aunties and their uncles. They deserve to grow up in their com­mu­nities. And they deserve to grow up with all of the op­por­tun­ities that most children are afforded here in Canada. And, unfor­tunately, that's not the case.

      And so, ultimately, what an air of recon­ciliation demands is a decolonizing approach to child welfare. A decolonizing approach that seeks to dismantle and undo the effects of colonization. A decolonizing approach that centres the voices, experiences and expertise of Indigenous peoples, of Indigenous mothers, of Indigenous parents, of Indigenous grand­parents. A decolonizing approach that centres Indigenous women and Indigenous mothers because so much of colonization has been borne off on the bodies of Indigenous women and mothers. Mothers who had their children ripped from their very arms and shipped off to unknown places to never be seen again in some cases.

      And still, to this day, there's an Indigenous mother out in BC, Sonja Hathaway, whose little baby daughter, Amella was born on March 11th, 2023, and whose baby was just stolen from her on April 17th, 2023. Taken from the NICU at the Victoria hospital in Vancouver. This still occurs. That was only a couple of days ago. And so here is this mother appealing to Indigenous peoples and to allies across the country to help get her daughter back.

      We cannot talk about recon­ciliation and continue to take Indigenous children away. We cannot talk about recon­ciliation and still maintain a status quo in which Indigenous parents and Indigenous mothers are penalized because of the systemic 'racicism' and gaps in the services. Those two don't–they're–they don't go together. You can't talk about recon­ciliation.

      And so at the end of the day, the most im­por­tant thing that matters is the needs of children. And I will share with the House that when I was five or six, I was in CFS care. I was in CFS care for about six months. And I was very lucky to be in a house with a very good woman, a very nice, young woman. Her name was Lee. I've never forgotten her. She was very kind to me.

      And despite all the abuse that I went through, from my mother, and being left on the streets of Vancouver and having to go to court, ultimately, myself, like every child that is in CFS care, wants to be with their parent. They want to be with their parents. They want to be with their family. They want to be with their com­mu­nity. And I say that from ex­per­ience. And so ultimately, on this path to recon­ciliation, we must work to ensure that we have a system that keeps families together, that reunites children with their parents, with their mothers.

* (11:10)

      Because if we do not, the only thing that we are ensuring is the continued destruction of our people, the continued destruction of Indigenous women, the continued destruction of Indigenous parents, the continued destruction of Indigenous com­mu­nities. Recon­­ciliation demands that we centre our children, as Indigenous people have always, for gen­era­tions and gen­era­tions.

      Miigwech.

Mr. Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in sup­port of my friend, the member for Tyndall Park (Ms. Lamoureux) and the reso­lu­tion recog­nizing the importance of foster parents.

      As most of you know, my wife and I have opened our home for the past 14 years to children who are displaced by no fault of their own. We have offered a safe place for them to grow, be loved unconditionally and, if possible, to reconnect with family.

      Being a foster parent is not easy. You commit to walk and ex­per­ience the traumas of children who are placed in our home and care. You commit to love and care for kids who are ex­per­iencing fear and displacement from their natural families. I have had multiple con­ver­sa­tions with people who talk about how they could not foster and how foster parents are awesome for what they do. I normally respond, when this comes my way, that my wife and I are simply doing what we are called to do: love and care for others, to care for the less fortunate and the vul­ner­able. This means accepting traumatized children where they are and working with them with the hopes that they will feel loved and that love will translate to the child's future success.

      I've shared in the past how each child impacts your life and how you impact theirs. This impact on your life can translate to profound loss when the child leaves your home. When a child leaves my home, it's like a death for me. I always, when circumstances allow, would like to maintain contact, but this doesn't always occur.

      To the foster parents, kinship homes out there, thank you for opening your hearts and your home. The role you play in a child's life is in­cred­ibly im­por­tant.

      I'm reminded of a few quotes on fostering I have heard and read and I would like to share them with the House, as they are meaningful to me: If you can help a child, you don't have to spend years repairing an adult, Joyce Meyer.

      One hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of car I drove, what kind of house I lived in, how much money was in my bank account, nor what my clothes looked like, but the world may be a better place because I was im­por­tant in the life of a child. That's an excerpt from Within My Power by Forest Witcraft.

      And I leave you with a description of fostering that I relate to by Maralee Bradley, found on the following website: Her View From Home. Maralee writes: If foster care is hard, you're probably doing it right. If you're doing foster care right, it may be the hardest thing you'll ever do.

      You will witness behaviours that are startling and break your heart, as you realize they used to serve a purpose in the life of this child. You'll see physical wounds that are painful just to look at. Sorry–you'll read court reports that frighten you. You'll spend your days and minutes and hours doing a thousand things to build trust but the one time you respond in harshness, you're back to square one. You will be up at night with a child who has nightmares, then be chastised by her mother for not having her dressed in the clothes mom prefers for the visit that day.

      There are days it will feel like you're beating your head against the wall and you'll wonder why you ever willingly signed up for this. And that's usually the day someone will make an off-hand comment about how foster parents are all in it for the money. And you'll have to do your best not to cry, because you know they aren't paying you well enough to make it worth the pain.

      If you're looking for some kind of min­is­try op­por­tun­ity where you can put a minimum of effort and receive the maximum praise, this isn't the thing for you. If you're not willing to do some­thing hard, don't bother. But if you jump into this world and in those dark moments find yourself asking: Is it supposed to be this hard? Just know that there are many other foster parents with you, standing beside you saying, yes, it is. Because you're doing it right. We know the cost of doing foster care well and we validate the pain you're ex­per­iencing and promising it isn't in vain.

      Foster kids need you to be all in for them. They need you to be willing to take on the hard so they can have a chance at healing, at normalcy.

      Struggling through the pain of foster care is not a sign that you're doing it wrong or that you shouldn't be doing it at all. It's a sign that this child needs you and you're fighting to be sure that their needs are met. And the struggles of foster care aren't the whole story, because the challenges are so intense, the pain is so deep; the joy is intense, too.

      There are moments of stunning beauty. The child who finally comes to you when they're scared instead of hiding; the teenager who tells you how they'd protect you from any harm; the baby that learns to calm when you sing to them; the little girl who proudly brings you her school project; the little boy who shyly hands you his dandelion; reunification with a mother who worked so hard; adoptions by families who loved their children from the start.

      In foster care you learn not just to seek joy and happy endings, because they are exceptions rather than the rule. You learn to find joy in the process. You seize these fleeting moments of peace, because you know what a gift they are.

      You become a different person than you ever thought you could be as your heart stretches to love, not just the helpless child in front of you, but the family that gave him life and is struggling to reclaim their own. Even in the brokenness of the system and the frustrations of the foster-care process become op­por­tun­ities to find your voice as an advocate and fight for this child and many other children stuck in legal limbo as wards of the state.

      Could foster care be easy? Sure, if we weren't so invested, if we didn't love so hard, fight so strongly, so deeply, if we were just collecting a monthly reim­bursement and walling ourselves off from these kids and their struggles. There's a way to do foster care more easily, but it–that involves these kids being denied the real chance at normalcy, stability and love.

      I know those kinds of foster homes exist and it breaks my heart. Easy isn't my goal. Even in the very hardest days of foster care, foster care is the right thing to do. It isn't right because the results go the way we want or we always feel ap­pre­ciated, loved for our sacrifices, or because this child and their family become functioning and healthy.

      Foster care is often hard, because this work is messy. And getting involved means you're going to get messy too. But that's exactly how it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be this hard, and we're supposed to keep at it because these kids are worth it.

      My heartfelt thank you to foster parents and kinship homes, also to my friend for Tyndall Park for bringing this forward today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A couple of comments before we proceed. To the member for Dawson Trail (Mr. Lagassé), if you could–I know you've just spoken. If you're speaking again, and to any other members who are virtual or plan to be virtual, you do need to wear one of the Leg. Assembly headsets or a headset that is not going to be muffled.

      I'd say to the member from Dawson Trail, it was a little muffled. We could hear you but it was not as good as one of the other headsets.

      Also–and I just need to clarify some­thing about the order as well. I did not see the member from Dawson Trail because they're on the screen. So, technically that member should have been first, not the member for St. Johns (MLA Fontaine). So, the order got a little bit mixed up.

* (11:20)

      What I'm going to do is keep the rotating order. I'm going to recog­nize the member for Notre Dame for 10 minutes, and then the member for Brandon East (Mr. Isleifson) for–will have 10 minutes.

      So, I apologize if that caused any confusion, and I think though, in the end, this will all work out just fine.

      So, the member for Notre Dame does have the floor.

MLA Malaya Marcelino (Notre Dame): The reso­lu­tion that we have forward today is a very sensitive topic. On the one hand, we have foster parents here, and I personally know of so many foster parents that–and the member for Dawson Trail spoke very elo­quently on his and his wife's ex­per­iences as this.

      And I know and I see the im­por­tant work that you do, the sacrifices that you go through and how much you care for those children. It's very, very clear to see this. And on the other hand, if we take a look at the comments made by the member for St. Johns, the very, very brave comments that she made, even speaking about her own experiences as a child, we have to know and understand that this current child and family services system is predicated upon the visceral pain of mothers and of Indigenous com­mu­nities.

      But I do believe that we can get to the shared goal together, because both Indigenous com­mu­nities–and obviously Indigenous parents–and our foster parents want the same thing. And that is for the best interests of that child that we love.

      This reso­lu­tion has a good start, because we need to acknowl­edge the role that foster parents play, that they're doing. And we also need to acknowl­edge how much more resources that need to be put into this system to properly care for these children.

      But I do believe that there is some more con­sul­ta­tion that needs to happen, especially with Indigenous com­mu­nities, before we could even approximate some­thing close to a celebration. Because, as parents know, and as foster parents know, while we do have these joys, there is a lot of sadness and a lot of trauma that these children are ex­per­iencing and that the families that they've left are also ex­per­iencing.

      So I trust that the member for Tyndall Park (Ms. Lamoureux) will take on that work. Because she's coming from this from a right place.

      At this point I'd like to also recog­nize some foster parents that I have been inspired to meet, because I heard about the type of work that they were doing.

      From nannies to nurses, Filipinos have a reputation the world over as providers of care. In Winnipeg, an increasing number of Filipino families are continuing this tradition of care by opening their families and homes to Manitoba's foster children.

      Noralyn Pua and Rhodora Cruz are both long‑time foster moms who I have met, that have been recog­nized by their respective agencies, Southeast Child & Family Services and St. Amant, for the excel­lence in care that they con­sistently provide to their kids.

      Both moms talked candidly to me about the work, joys and dif­fi­cul­ties of being a foster mom. They discussed the complex relationships that have arisen with their wards' biological families, and they challenge the popular thinking that fostering is a money‑making enterprise.

      First I'd like to talk about Noralyn, or Mama Norr Pua. There's a reason why Noralyn Pua is called Mama Norr. She has cared for 55 sets of sibling in addition to her own three biological children. Along­side her husband David, the couple have been proud foster parents for the past 20 years, provi­ding a home for children ranging in age from infants to young adults who need emergency or short-term care until they can be reunified with their biological family.

      Next I'd like to speak about Rhodora Cruz, a pioneering Filipino foster mom. Thirty-three years ago, when Rhodora Cruz and her husband Arthur first became foster parents, they did not know of any other Filipino foster parents in Winnipeg. Since then, the Cruzes have provided permanent care to 47 children, raising each child until they reach the age of majority. And currently, Rhodora is unable to care for her foster kids, as she is recuperating from heart surgery, but she hopes to do so once again in the future.

      Rhodora explained to me, there's no difference between raising my children and foster children. No difference, she said. Every day, we are a normal family getting ready for school, preparing school lunches, driving them to their schools. My role is to nourish, to care, to protect them from harm, any physical, emotional or mental injury.

      Mama Norr also echoed the need to treat each foster child as a family member. She said, my biological kids treat them like brother and sister. They need to feel welcome. They only need love, not labelled as foster kids. According to Mama Norr, foster mom duties include attending training sessions, taking kids out to activities and submitting paperwork, including daily entries in log journals and financial reports. But there is often extra work involved in caring for children who might have special needs due to emotional or developmental challenges such as ADD, FASD or autism.

      Rhodora described to me that there's a lot of driving, lots of ap­point­ments, doctors, dentists, assess­­ments, speech therapy, specialists. It really depends on the needs of the kids.

      And both foster moms concurred that fostering can only be possible with the support and under­standing and the help of their husbands and children. Both Rhodora and Mama Norr agree that transitions, or when kids first come, and again, when it's time for kids to leave, are the toughest part of foster parenting.

      Mama Norr related how incoming foster kids might be going through various emotions and are wary of a new family situation, and that kids alter­nately act out or retreat inside them­selves or even refuse to eat. Mama Norr approaches this type of transition scenario by making friends with the kids. She recom­mends at this point it's up to the foster parent to adjust by giving them the space and time to speak about issues because eventually the kids will open up.

      Rhodora noted that the transitions can some­times take months before there is trust, and stresses the importance of making children feel that they really belong. On the other hand, once it's time to say goodbye, Rhodora readily admitted that as a permanent care provider, it can be especially difficult to overcome the attachments to a child that you've parented for several years or more.

      But along with what they say is lots of patience and compassion, both women explained that they also need to esta­blish rules in the house and show tough­ness just like being a regular mom. Mama Norr explained that if the kid's behaviour becomes unman­ageable, she calls in the social worker for further guidance.

      In Manitoba, 90 per cent of children in care are  Indigenous. And both Mama Norr and Rhodora regularly interact with children's families. They attend extended family parties, com­mu­nity powwows and sweetgrass ceremonies. These foster moms also provide children with familiar foods like bannock and plenty of fish. And they both noted that there are a lot of similarities between Indigenous and Filipino diets.

      Rhodora described that there is a marked dif­ference in attitude and approach towards Indigenous family reunification and respect for Indigenous culture now, compared to almost 30 years ago when she first began as a foster parent.

      Agency staff used to intro­duce Cruz to foster kids as their, quote, new mom, whereas now, Mama Norr explains that even when the little ones want to call her mom, she has to gently tell them to call her auntie instead.

      Mama Norr says that during the difficult transition period when she accompanies foster kids to see parents, their Indigenous parents, their real biological parents, the relations can be strained with parents who are suspicious and resentful towards her. But in most cases, she strives to improve those relationship between foster parents and biological parents, even to the point of true friendship.

      Rhodora added that foster moms not only try to help the kids that they're helping, but also their families too, so that they can take care of the kids until their families can get past the distress. And Rhodora has had first‑hand ex­per­ience in provi­ding to–has first‑hand ex­per­ience in knowing about provi­ding support to families in distress because she and Arthur first stepped up to take care of their own nieces and nephews during a very, very difficult time in those children's lives.

* (11:30)

      Mama Norr has admitted that this work is utterly exhausting and that it's hard to explain to others–bakit ka nagpapakahirapor work so tirelessly. But she says that fostering has meant self-fulfillment to her and she's watched her kids–her foster kids go on to graduate from high school and post-graduate studies. Many are pro­fes­sionals and some have good jobs as managers and hospital workers now.

      So, those are some of the comments in the short time I have and I'd just like to thank the members of the gallery for joining us here today.

Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East): I'm only going to take a couple of minutes. I do want to ensure that this bill passes today in the House. So I give you my word, if I'm still talking at 25 to, everybody just yell at me: enough, grab a hook and sit down.

      But I do want to acknowl­edge those in the gallery today and thank you for what you do. A lot of people, I would assume, and I know one–we should never assume, but I assume there's a number of folks out there that don't have a clear under­standing of what foster parents do. Some are emergency fosters parents, some of them are longer term.

      And I want to take the op­por­tun­ity–and I men­tioned in my preamble when I was asking questions about family members. And I know on my wife's side, Bill and Janine Frovich, from Winnipeg here, have been foster parents for a long time. And believe me, I have met some in­cred­ible kids, some in­cred­ible people, through them, that they have fostered.

      I mean, I've been married to my wife now for 40 years and we'd dated for, I think it was three years or four years before that, so I've known them a long time and they have been foster parents that entire time.

      And I do know that they started as an emergency foster parents and they even got to a point where–I'm sure some in our–in the gallery today, as well, go one step further and they have actually adopted a couple of the children that they were fostering.

      Because my heart goes out to you. I can understand because I've been there, getting to know these kids, when they are foster children and you spend all that time and energy with them. You raise them as your own and then they move on. And that is some of the hardest times. And my heart goes out for you when that happens, as our member from Dawson Trail mentioned. So again, I really want to give hats off to that.

      My nephew, Dustin Isleifson, and his fiancée, Cherokee Ferland, they're doing emergency foster care just west of Brandon. And I see the joy on their face when, you know, at Christmas time, when they bring the little girl with them–and I'm not going to mention her name, because I'm not sure they want that public, but when they bring their little girl with them, with their son, it's like you don't have to say, can I belong to the family. She is part of the family.

      And the care that they show to this little one–and I'm sure as everyone else does, they are part of the family. Even if it is emergency foster care, getting over that time, you know, it's–they're still part of the family.

      And I just really want to say, on this side of the House, as I'm sure is through­out this entire House, we all believe that children–they have the inherent right to be safe, to be loved and raised in a loving household.

      And we certainly want to ensure that continues. And I know even through the work of our Minister of Families (Ms. Squires), doing in­cred­ible work to make sure that happens.

      And again, I want to thank the member from Tyndall Park to–bringing this forward. You know, it is certainly some­thing that, you know, we understand that foster parents dedicate–it's not a 9‑to‑5 job.

      It's a 24 hour, seven day a week–and I'm not even going to call it a job. I believe it's a labour of love. And you do what you do because not only do you care for society, you care for these children and you want to make sure that they have the best op­por­tun­ities to live a fulfilling life. And again, I thank you for that.

      So, again, I said I wanted to stop by 25 to; I've got 30 seconds and I don't want to be pulled down. So, I thank you very much for the op­por­tun­ity to speak and once again, thank you for bringing this forward.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you all for being here and thank you as foster parents for the role that you do.

      I have two quick stories of the role that foster parents can play in this process of recon­ciliation. Both are stories from Indigenous friends, one who was raised as a foster child, but the parents kept in close contact with his biological parents and he told me that his big advantage was that he had four parents when he was growing up. And he benefitted from all four of them.

      The second is a story of a friend who, with his wife and partner, had two children. She, very sadly, committed suicide. He realized that he wasn't in a place to be able to look after both kids, at least at that point. They were put in foster care but he kept very close relations with the foster parents.

      And steadily, over a period of 10 years, he has got a job, he is working. He has had more and more time and he now has full‑time care of his two kids. And they are both doing really well. Foster parents can make a big difference.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other speakers?

      Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the reso­lu­tion? [Agreed]

      I declare the reso­lu­tion carried.

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Acting Government House Leader): I ask for leave to see if it's the will of the House to call it 12 o'clock?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 12 noon? [Agreed]

      This House then is recessed and stands recessed until 1:30 this afternoon.


 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, April 18, 2023

CONTENTS


Vol. 43a

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' business

Speaker's Statement

Driedger 1569

Second Readings–Public Bills

Bill 215–The Non-Disclosure Agreements Act

Lamont 1569

Questions

Schuler 1571

Lamont 1571

Naylor 1571

Lamoureux  1571

Pedersen  1571

Gerrard  1572

Debate

Goertzen  1573

Naylor 1574

Gerrard  1575

Resolutions

Res. 11–Calling on the Provincial Government to Recognize the Valuable Role that Foster Parents play in Manitoba Communities

Lamoureux  1576

Questions

Isleifson  1578

Lamoureux  1578

Marcelino  1578

Wishart 1578

Debate

Fontaine  1580

Lagassé  1581

Marcelino  1583

Isleifson  1585

Gerrard  1585