Please find below, in black, the Government of Manitoba's Reply to the Complaint of Discrimination of Glenda Whiteman under section 13 of The Human Rights Code (Manitoba), File No. 05 EN 273.
(NB. the government's response was transcribed exactly as written)

In green, please find Glenda Whiteman's rebuttal to the respondent's reply.

1. The Government of Manitoba has reviewed the Complaint of Discrimination of Glenda Whiteman and makes this reply in response.
   Please consider this complaint to be on behalf of those persons considered by the Government of Canada's Standing Committee on the Environment to be the most vulnerable groups to pesticides: “fetuses, children, seniors, women, Aboriginal people, persons suffering from multiple chemical sensitivity or in poor health, and professional users of pesticides. To this end, decisions on pesticides should be based on the protection of the most vulnerable groups.” (page 180)

   Narrowed down to purposes of applying section 13 of the Code, you must consider that this complaint is then on behalf of identifiable groups based on age, pregnancy and disability.

   Dr. Nicole Bruinsma of the Canadian Public Health Association reports to the above noted committee:

   There are also multiple-chemical-sensitive people with less than perfect health,
   including those with asthma or allergies, as well as individuals with a chemical
   sensitivity, who suffer the effects of pesticide exposure more severely than those
   without. We have to wonder how those people became so sensitive to begin with.
   Is it because of the multiple exposures they've received throughout their foetal and
   adult life? For such people day-to-day life can present challenges, since there is
   not often anywhere to hide from the widespread and persistent use of these toxins.
   

2. In response to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint, and the Complaint as a whole Manitoba says that the alleged statement of opinion of the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, does not form the substance of a proper complaint under the Human Rights Code and that therefore Manitoba should not be required to respond to it at all, and cannot provide a proper Reply.
   It is surprising that the Manitoba Human Rights Commission would have accepted and pursued this matter if it does not form the substance of a proper complaint.
   
   

3. Manitoba says further that it has not been provided with either of the alleged statements referred to.
   Actually, this information has been previously provided to offices such as the Prime Minister, Premier and the Minister of Health, but I do not mind providing it again.
   Ontario Chief Human Rights Commissioner Keith Norton writes to Ontario municipalities regarding possible plans to adulticide for West Nile virus, “Apart from reservations that the general population may have about the unknown effects of using chemical sprays, also referred to as “fogging” agents, on areas inhabited by the public, the use of such agents is of particular concern to persons identified by Code grounds such as persons with disabilities, parents of young children, and pregnant women. In particular, the use of these chemicals would likely have an adverse impact on those with environmental sensitivity.”
   
   Saskatchewan Chief Human Rights Commissioner Donna Scott writes on the subject of fogging for West Nile virus to Saskatchewan municipalities that “Discrimination includes a failure to reasonably accommodate special needs.”

4. Manitoba states that regardless of production of the alleged statements referred to in paragraph 1 and 2, there is no factual underpinning at all to this Complaint-for example: there is no action referred to, no time frame referred to, nor any clarity as to the action or omission complained of.
   It is unfortunate that Manitoba cannot understand the nature of this complaint; please accept this clarification. Mandating the spraying of pesticides (in this instance, for the purpose of “controlling” West Nile virus) within the province of Manitoba without providing adequate accommodation (such as alternative housing, transportation, and financial compensation during the period of evacuation) for those considered to be most vulnerable to pesticides (such as women, children, foetuses, seniors, the chemically sensitive...) constitutes a failure to provide reasonable accomodation for the special needs of a group based on a physical disability or circumstance and therefore constitutes systemic discrimination under Section 13 of the Human Rights Code of Manitoba.

5. Manitoba states that it should not be required to Reply to a Complaint on a hypothetical basis, nor to respond to alleged general statements of opinion of others. In essence, a request for a Reply is requesting that Manitoba assume and construct the basis for the Complaint and then respond to it - to which Manitoba objects.
   This is not a hypothetical complaint; the use of insecticides by Manitoba and its municipalities and the failure to provide adequate accomodation has and will continue to put at risk and adversely impact identifiable groups based on age, pregnancy and disability, and constitutes systemic discrimination under Section 13 of the Human Rights Code. Please refer to the attached letter of support from Robin Faye as evidence of adverse impacts.
   
   

6. Manitoba says further that there is nothing in the Complaint to come within section 13 of the Human Rights Code, and denies that the Commission has jurisdiction to review the matter.
   Saskatchewan Chief Commissioner Donna Scott writes, “Municipalities considering the use of chemical agents to control mosquitoes are obligated to consider the impact of any plan to use chemical agents for the control of mosquitoes on persons protected by the Code.”
   
   Ontario Chief Commissioner Keith Norton states, “The Code provides that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services without discrimination because of disability. It is the Commission's policy position...that environmental sensitivity is a disability and is thus protected under the Code. As such...any municipality responsible for implementing the use of chemical insecticides, has a duty to provide accomodation to persons with environmental sensitivity. Failure to do so may contravene the Code.”
   
   If Human Rights Commissions in Saskatchewan and Ontario have jurisdiction in this matter, so should they in Manitoba. Furthermore, is it appropriate for Manitoba to deny the Commission jurisdiction?
   
   

7. In the alternative, Manitoba denies that the Complaint discloses any discrimination as that term is defined under the Human Rights Code.
   Section 12 of the Code clearly points out that even if Manitoba chooses to argue that West Nile virus could be considered to be a bona fide reason to use pesticides, the Province is still under the obligation to provide reasonable accomodation, which it has clearly failed to do.

12 For the purpose of interpreting and applying sections 13 to18, the right to discriminate where bona fide and reasonable cause exists for the discrimination, or where the discrimination is based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications, does not extend to the failure to make reasonable accommodation within the meaning of clause 9(1)(d).

8. For a more detailed submission on the component of Manitoba's Program to deal with the health threat of West Nile virus which component involves the spraying of malathion, Manitoba adopts herein its response to Complaint 05 EN 260. Manitoba reserves the right to respond further.
   Please refer to my rebuttal to your response to Complaint 05 EN 260.
   
   

9. Manitoba states that the Complaint against it should be dismissed.
   When Manitoba stops poisoning its citizens. or alternatively starts offering adequate accomodation, there will be no further need to complain.