Stop Funding Law-Breaking Organizations

Summary#

This bill changes Manitoba’s Financial Administration Act. It ties provincial funding to obeying key workplace and human rights laws. If a funded group or business is found to have broken these laws, the minister must cut their funding, with a possible path to restore it in the public interest. It takes effect once it becomes law.

• Applies to anyone who gets provincial grants or similar funding under a funding agreement, plus certain public bodies named by the Finance Minister.
• Covers violations found by a court or an administrative tribunal under the Employment Standards Code, Human Rights Code, Labour Relations Act, Workplace Safety and Health Act, or other laws named later by regulation.
• Funding recipients must promptly tell their responsible minister if such a finding is made.
• The minister must end the funding once aware, but cannot do so until appeal rights are over or a final decision is made.
• A recipient can apply to have funding reinstated. The minister must weigh harm to Manitobans (especially disadvantaged groups), repeat or multiple violations, and how serious the breach was.
• If funding is restored, the minister must publish the reasons.

What it means for you#

• Workers

  • Your employer is more likely to follow pay, safety, human rights, and labour rules if they rely on provincial funding.
  • Findings by labour or human rights bodies can have real funding impacts on your workplace.

• Clients and families who rely on funded services

  • Some services could be paused or disrupted if a provider loses funding due to a confirmed violation.
  • The law lets the minister restore funding when cutting it would harm Manitobans, especially disadvantaged people.

• Non-profits, charities, and community agencies that get provincial grants

  • You must notify the minister if a court or tribunal finds you broke one of the listed laws.
  • If that finding stands after appeals, your provincial funding must be cut unless later reinstated.
  • Your past record and the seriousness of the issue will matter if you apply to restore funding. The minister’s reasons will be public.
  • You may need stronger compliance checks, training, and documentation to reduce risk.

• Businesses and organizations receiving provincial subsidies or grants

  • The same rules apply: confirmed violations can lead to funding loss.
  • Expect more attention to workplace safety, employment standards, labour relations, and human rights compliance.
  • Reputational risk increases because any reinstatement decision must be explained publicly.

• Government departments and agencies

  • Must monitor funded recipients, end funding after final findings of violations, and publish reasons if funding is restored.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Protects taxpayer money by stopping funding to organizations that break workplace, safety, labour, or human rights laws.
• Creates a strong incentive to follow the rules, which can improve conditions for workers and clients.
• Adds transparency because any decision to restore funding must be explained in public.
• Balances fairness and protection: funding is not cut until appeals are finished and can be restored to avoid harm to disadvantaged people.
• Sets clear, consistent consequences across different laws and sectors.

Opponents' View#

• An automatic cut-off may punish clients and communities more than the offender, especially for one-time or less serious breaches.
• The power to restore funding is subjective and could be influenced by politics, even if reasons are published.
• Adds reporting and compliance burdens that may be hard for small non-profits and small businesses.
• Stacks penalties on top of existing fines or orders, which some see as unfair double punishment.
• The list of covered laws can be expanded by regulation, creating uncertainty about future risks for funded organizations.