Manitoba Hansard — 8 October 1996 (Sitting 61, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-61

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 61- 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 8, 1996

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Aftllia tion Name Constituency Pa.t:t)' ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Alben, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charles wood P.C.

EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. - EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norben P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. - MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Portage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C.

STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Tunle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fon Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P.

4053 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, October 8, 19 96 The House met at 1: 30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Pharmacare Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. THAT during the 1995 provincial election, the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) promised not to cut health services; and, THAT the Pharmacare program brought in by the former NDP government was the first in Canada and has served as a model for pharmacare programs in Canada; and, THAT the Manitoba Pharmacare program has enabled thousands of Manitobans over the years to be able to stay out of costly institutions and to avoid financial ruin due to the high cost of necessary pharmaceuticals; and, THAT previous cuts to Pharmacare have reduced the budget from $60 million to less than $50 million over the past two years; and, THAT as of April 1996 the provincial government is slashing benefits, efftctively putting a tax on the sick and reducing the Pharmacare budget by $20 million; and, THAT these cuts more than double the deductible for most Manitobans to over $1,000 for most families, ejftctively ending Pharmacare for the vast majority of the population regardless of health.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to cut Pharmacare in 1996. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Corrections System Intermittent Sentences Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). Judge Heather Pullan, in sente ncing Mr. Denni s Williams, who has a record as long as your arm, including three impaired drinking and driving convictions, stated that the record is so bad that a message must be sent to Mr. Williams.

It must get through to him. It seems to me that going back weekend after weekend, depriving you of your free time, may have a significant deterrent effect on you. Judge Pullan sentenced Mr. Williams to three months in weekend jail. Unfortunately, Mr. Williams did not serve any time pursuant to Judge Pullan's decision of senten cing. I would like to ask the Premier, given that his Justice department implements the sentences of the day, does he support the decision ofhis Justice department to not have Mr. Williams serve any time? Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The issue of intermittent sentencing has been a very difficult one. When the judiciary sentences people, who I would make it clear are in fact free five days of the week otherwi se to be in the community, when these people are sentenced to weekends we do want to accommodate them. At the moment, however, because of the riot at Headingley we have been unable to for several reaso ns.

One of the most important, of interest to members across the way, is a workplace saf ety and health issue, which is being brought, I understand, today to our correctional guards at the workplace safety and health committee.

4054 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 The issue is that intermittent inmates are often targets for the bringing in of contraband into our institutions. It is not yet clear, because we do not have Judge Hughes's report, what part that may have played in the riot which occurred in April. So there is a workplace safety and health concern to make sure that any intermittent inmates are separate and apart from the general population. Now members across the way are deciding that that is not a very important answer. It is in fact an important answer in terms of the workplace safety and health issues. *

(1335) Mr. Doer: With the greatest of respect, I think the Premier (Mr. Filmon) should start stating whether he supports the decisions of his Justice department instead of sitting down and ducking the issues. This is a Minister of Justice who told us all through last spring that the Headingley riot had nothing to do with the T A decisions of government. So her word means nothing to the people of this province and to the members on this side of the House. That is why I will readdress this question to the Premier.

Given the fact that it was the Premier who was slamming the cell doors during the election campaign and putting bars behind his face during the campaign, does the Premier support the decisions of his Justice depart ment to release, without serving any time, a Cory Sigurdson, a 20-year-old individual who has had two dnmk-driving convictions in the last year, three times the blood level? Does the Premier support the fact that the Justice department did not have this individual serve any jail time?

Does the Premier support that as the proper implementation of both the community respect for the justice system and the Premier's promise to the people in the election campaign? Mrs. Vodrey: Of course, the intermittent sentencing of people, whatever their offences or whatever they have been accused of, is the decision of the court. But it is very interesting to me that it is now that the Leader of the Opposition raises this issue when I, on May 28, 1996, in Estimates informed the House.

What I am informed to the best of our information, to the best information coming to me, is that intermittent-sentenced individuals are reporting to the Community Release Centre. They are being assigned community work assignments or work projects, and they are to the best of our knowledge completing those, working on those. So this is not new information to members from the other side. I believe they have decided, perhaps based on a media report, to now become very concerned about it. This information was delivered to the House, is in Hansard, in May 1996. Minister of Justice Replacement Request Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, this minister on May 16 and all the way through May said that there had been no change in the T A policy based on the Headingley riot. Now she is fully contradicting herself, as she does every day in this Chamber. An Honourable Member: ... your 0\\'0 comments. Mr. Doer: If the Premier wants to answer a question, why does he not have the nerve and the backbone to stand up and answer a question instead of ducking and covering and- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Doer: I would like to ask the Premier, in light of the fact that defence lawyers are aware of this, cons are laughing about these decisions, judges are being undermined-as members of this community with children and families in this community, I am appalled and angry that people with these kinds of driving records are out on the streets and not serving jail time. I would like to ask the Premier, will he ftre this Minister of Justice (Mrs.

Vodrey) and give us a Minister of Justice that has the capacity to tell us the truth in this Chamber and can implement and has the capacity to implement the sentences that judges are providing to comicted individuals in this province? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I wonder what family the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. Is it the family- -

October 8, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4055 Point of Order Mr. Doer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the Premier is imputing motives. I am talking about all our families. We all have friends, family, children, and we all should be concerned about it. I am talking about all our families. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition did not have a point of order. It was a dispute over the facts. * * * Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I was wondering whether it was the family that the Leader of the Opposition rented for his election brochure in 1988 that he was referring to.

His sincerity lacks a little bit of resonance and truth. The issue here is that we have to operate on the best advice given to us by the professionals who work for the Department of Justice. We do not try and play, we do not try and superimpose our values and our judgments on those of the people who are paid to give that advice and to exercise those-[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, it is interesting how the members opposite know everything but they do not find out until there is a media report that tells them what they are supposed to know, and then afterwards they become these big advocates, afterwards they become these big experts, afterwards they become so knowledgeable, but before the fact they know zero. When the minister told them exactly what was happening on May 28-she has just read earlier from Hansard-they had nothing to say about it until it was raised by the media.

That is how knowledgeable they are, that is how expert they are, that is how informed they are, and that is why they are on the other side of the House. *

(1340) Corrections System Intermittent Sentences Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Further to the case raised by the Leader of the Opposition, of Dennis Williams, at that sentencing hearing, the defence counsel made the submission to the judge that on a 90-day sentence he is going to be obligated to do those weekends. He will be more under the control of the government jail agency under an inte rmittent sentence than he would be under a straight sentence, and the judge went on to make the judgment that my Leader spoke of.

My question to the minister is, why, for goodness sake, did the Crown agree with the defence to the sentence? Why did the Crown not inform the court, and, indeed, why did the minister not inform this Legislature that the sentence given was a no-go? Bon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, there has been public discussion about the difficulty accommodating intermittent sentences. However, I am very concerned to learn that some members of the justice system have indicated that they were not aware.

I have made sure today that there has been another statement issued from Corrections to all partners in the justice system of the difficulty accommodating intermittent sentences. But, Madam Speaker, again, I will make it clear. This is not a choice or a path that we would have chosen. It is not the intention of this government to have intermittent sentences not in jail. We want them there. But the realities of the riot are such that there was another accomm odation which had to be made affecting those people serving intermittent sentences, those people who-though the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer) has express ed great distress that they are out on weekends-these are the same people who are out five days a week working in the community, working in other areas. These are people that the court has sentenced intermittently. It is not our choice, but it is at the moment the position we are in. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, with a supplementary question. Mr. Mackintosh: My question to the minister is, why did this minister thwart the deterrent given by the court, given by the courts on many occasions, you understand, dealing with intermittent sentences?

Why did she exhibit this contempt of the court? Why has she covered up her

405 6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 incompetence by hiding from the court the options that were available to the judges? Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, well, there was certainly, in no case, any contempt involved in this matter or any other. It is a well-known fact. I believe, if you asked many people across Canada, it would be very clear to them that Headingley Institution is not running at full capacity.

It was very clear when almost three weeks ago I made the announcement on behalf of government that explained how Headingley would be redeveloped and that in that redevelopment plan, intermittent sentences would be housed separate and apart from the general population. It is amaz ing to me that the other side, who have spoken so frequently about their concerns around labour relations, they had no idea that this was a concern for our correctional officers, bringing intermittent inmates into the general population. It is amazing how that slipped their minds. Mr.

Mackintosh: Would the minister, who has a new found concern today about intermittent sentences, explain why she has not told her Crown attorneys to tell the judges that the sentencing option of intermittent sentences was not a go, that she was thwarting justice, that she was in contempt of the administration of justice in this province, Madam Speaker? Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I will say again that there has been no contempt. There has in fact been a consequence to the people serving intermittent sentences. That consequence is one in which they report to our Community Release Centres.

Through our Community Release Centres, with supervision, they provide a public service for agencies such as the Salvation Army. If they fail to report to the Community Release Centre, in the same way as if they failed to report to serve their jail time, there is a warrant issued for their arrest. So there is not any effort in any way to provide contempt. I will just say again that if there was anyone within the justice system unf amiliar or did not know the current situation, that has certainly been remedied again today by Corre ctions, who have made it very clear this is the situation we are dealing with.

It is known to correctional officers; it is known across the system. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, with a new question. Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, the minister, by her instruction today to her department, admits to her incompetence and admits that she should have done this a long time ago. She has had five and a half months since the Headingley riot to get her act together. I ask this minister, since when does she decide the consequences for a criminal act, rather than the courts of the land? Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, first of all, it always falls to Corrections.

It is a long-standing practice in Corrections that they administer the sentence. Now the member has some legal training. That is well known within the justice system; that is a practice that has been in place for many ye ars. This is not a practice, that Corrections administers the sentence, new as a result of the Headingley riot. So the member continues to show how little he knows. However, I accept the fact that he attempts to ask questions that the public wants to have the understanding of, and so I am happy to explain that Corrections does administer the sentence to the best of their ability.

The court provides the sentence; Corrections administers it. There is an emergency provision within the act which allows for the issuing of temporary absences and accom modation other than a jail sentence in our Corrections Act. But, Madam Speaker, this has been an emergency situation; that is not new to anyo ne. We did not have the space in Headingley Institution. We are looking to have Headingley up and running as quickly as possible and to settle the labour matters, the health and welfare matters as well. "'( 1345) Mr. Mackintosh: The minister now makes another argument about the lack of space.

I ask the minister to explain to this House how she can say that she wants these intermittent-sentenced indi"idua ls in jail when she pulled the prisoners from the Saskatchewan jails last month-! understand, 31. I understand there are spaces in Stony Mountain; I understand there is Bannock Point sitting empty; I understand that there are facilities at Headingley, including the gym and Annex A Why is she making that? There is no motivation on this part except they do not care about justice, Madam Speaker. - -

October 8, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4057 Mrs. V odrey: Again, we hear from the other side who for several days in this session has attempted to make a point about their interest in labour relations and safe working conditions. The member across the way knows very well that, as we move back into the population at Headingley, we are working with workplace safety and health committees. Workplace safety and health_committees are identifying issues which correctional guards are concerned about, and we have to move step by step in order to have the repopulation of Headingley done in a safe way.

Now, I began my answers earlier today by making it clear that there does appear to be a concern around the role of intermittent sentencing and the bringing in of contraband into the general population. That issue has to be settled, and there has to be an acceptance by our correctional officers, by the workplace safety and health committees that they are satisfied when intermittent individuals are returned to the institution that they will be kept separate and apart or that we can guard against any bringing in of contraband. That issue is an important one to the workplace safety and health issues.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, with a final supplementary question. Minister of Justice Resignation Request Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Can the minister possibly explain to Manitobans, explain to the victims, to the people, the likes of Mr. Williams, why it is that she did not tell her lawyers who represent her in the courts of this province to tell the judges that they had less options on sentencing than they believed, that they do not have a deterrent they think they have? Why did she not tell them? Will she resign? Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Our governm ent's concern is in fact for victims and is in fact to make sure that people do receive a consequence when they are offenders and that Headingley Institution will be better able to deal with those offenders, whether they are high-risk offenders, where they are intermittent offenders, whether they are offenders who require some special protection. Madam Speaker, we have had some changes in Corrections over the past while. I have spoken to the new ADM of Corrections.

I have asked him to, very specifically in writing as well as verbally, make it clear if there was ever any misunderstanding. However, I do have to say that the Headingley riot is very well known. My comments in the House indicated several months ago how intermittent sentences were being dealt with. This really is not new, but if there was any misunderstanding whatsoever, the ADM of Corrections has told me that he has spoken by phone both to the ADM of Prosecutions, to the Court of Queen's Bench judiciary and that he will be following up in writing today. Corrections System Intermittent Sentences Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question again is to the First Minister. I asked the Premier about the case of Mr. Williams; I asked the Premier, the case of Mr. Sigurdson-both of whom were sentenced to jail time by the judge. In fact, the judge cited the need for deterrents, cited the need to take away the freedom of individuals, to provide deterrents to try to correct the unsafe driving conditions that threaten all of us.

I would like to ask the Premier, does he defend his Minister of Justice and the Justice department that he is responsible for, for allowing these people to have their sentences and not do any jail time? What does that say to the deterrents that the judges are ordering and sentencing in our criminal justice system? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I think that the explanations that have been given by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) have adequately responded to the concerns that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. *

(1350) Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, on May 16, in this Chamber, we asked a number of times on a number of occasions, is there any change in the temporary absence policy as a result of the Headingley riot. Of course, we were asking those questions on the basis of an alleged murder that had allegedly taken place with an individual that was released on temporary absence. The minister

4058 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 said, my answer is no. She went on time and time again to say that there had been no change in policy. Today there is a different alleged policy in dealing with a different set of circumstances with individuals that have been sentenced. We have even heard the minister say that contraband in jail can be a criterion for this minister to decide not to implement the sentences of courts and judges for individuals in the Manitoba justice system.

Is that the justice system the Premier was promising during the election campaign, that if somebody may have contraband, they are not going to go to jail? I would like to ask the Premier, is that the kind of Minister of Justice (Mrs. V odrey), the ad hoc answers we get in the Chamber, that we can expect from this government, and when can we have a Minister of Justice that will have the confidence of the public and the confidence of all partners of thejustice system? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, either out of ignorance or out of a deliberate desire to misrepresent, the Leader of the Opposition has taken the words of the Minister of Justice, which I heard earlier-and she said that the rec onstru ction of Headingley is going to provide for an opportunity to have these people on intermittent sentences in a separate place so they would not be mixed with the other inmates. That is what her explanation was. The member can choose either to ignore it or he can choose not to understand it, but the minister has again responded adequately to his questions.

Minister of Justice Resignation Request Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the changing position of the Minister of Justice would appear to be hard to defend by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or anyone else in our community.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, how can he keep a Minister of Justice in place when the Minister of Justice was unable or unwilling to inform the judges of this province that the policy had allegedly changed for sentences, where the defence lawyers knew about it and were pleading out cases on the basis of the alleged government position, where the cons know about it and talk about, they would rather serve their time at home rather than serving it on weekends? How can the Premier keep this Minister of Justice in place when she does not inform the rest of the justice system?

I would like to ask the Premier again to ask for the resignation of the Minister of Justice and give us a Minister of Justice that can restore the integrity of the justice system for the people of this province. * (1 355 ) Bon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, all through the time of the Headingley riot, information was being provided as quickly as possible, as thoroughly as possible. It is clear now that we did not always receive all of the information through the process. That is not new.

Every day there was an attempt to provide the best info rmation possible to members opposite, and when thorough and complete information was gained, then that also was delivered to the House. But, Madam Speaker, I think the important issue here is this. We cannot go back and redo everything that happened in Headingley, but we do not ever want it to happen again. So this government has commissioned an independent inquiry that former Justice Ted Hughes will be doing, who �ill be looking at all of these matters. I met with him on Friday.

We will be looking at, right from the beginning to the end, including the issue of temporary absences, whether or not they were reasonably issued, whether or not there was anything that should not have been done that was done. That will be covered in the results of the inquiry and we on this side look forward to it. Canadian Wheat Board Government Position Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. What has become abundantly clear is that this government has been unable to represent the producers, the small family farms out in rural Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, that was demonstrated with the hog industry in terms of the movement towards the single desk checkoff. It is demonstrated through the Canadian Wheat Board and the lack of respect that this government has demonstrated towards it. That lack of respect for the -

October 8, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4059 nual fanner is clearly demonstrated by lack of actions by this government. My question to the Minister responsible for Agriculture is, will the minister indicate what he believes with respect to the recommendations brought down from the Minister of Agriculture late last week with respect to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board? Bon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, the race for the Liberal leadership must be heating up in rural Manitoba, but allow me to answer as directly as I can. Certainly Minister Goodale's response on an issue where he knows there is no middle ground is in

part in keeping with the position that the Manitoba government has repeatedly expressed, that the Wheat Board must change, a position that is supported by Manitoba's largest agricultural producers' organization, Keystone.

He has adopted a number of measures within the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to alter its pooling practices, to consider making available the spot and cash prices for certain portions of the wheat sold and marketed within the framework of the Canadian Wheat Board and, as well, has suggested, at his timing, perhaps later on this winter, to ask the producers for a further question with respect to barley. Madam Speaker, I have generally applauded the minister's direction on this score, although he certainly has not satisfied anybody that is actively engaged in this debate. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, actively engaged in this debate- Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Inkster that a supplementary question requires no postamble, no

preamble. The honourable member, to pose his question now. *

(1400) Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Agriculture tell rural Manitobans what this government's position is dealing with the wheat and barley with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board? Get off the fence, take a position, represent Manitobans for a change, the producer. Mr. Enns: The federal government, who has the sole responsibility with respect to changes to the Canadian Wheat Board, has taken very specific action. Minister Goodale searched the countryside to fmd what has been described on several occasions a blue ribbon committee of experts.

They spent the better part of a year in asking and examining the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. They came back with the recommendations that have been supported by this government from the day those recommendations have been made public. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a fmal supplementary question. Mr. Lamoureux: I am wondering if the minister will attempt to answer precisely whether or not this government recognizes the importance of the Wheat Board retaining its monopoly because it is in the best interests of the wheat farmer. Will he acknowledge that is in fact the case?

Will he stand up for the majority of farmers in the province? Mr. Enns: The panel's recommendations recognize the ongoing role of the Canadian Wheat Board and its single selling desk authority which it recommended with respect to the largest business that it does, the marketing of our wheat, a position that we support. It also went on to make other recommendations which the minister who appointed the committee chose to ignore. We regret that. Corrections System Intermittent Sentences Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Yesterday, Mr.

Dennis Raymond Williams alias Darrell Jesmer alias Dean Kay alias Ray Louison alias Douglas Asham alias Lou Louison stated, and I quote: It is all right with me. The guys, you know, do not have to do time. It is all right staying home and doing time on the weekend. I would like to ask the Premier if he feels tt ts acceptable, due to his government's policy and the incompetence of his Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that this individual is not serving time in an institution when between 1977 and 1996 he has convictions for impaired driving, breach of probation, failure to appear,

4060 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 driving disqualified, possessing stolen goods, break and enter, resisting arrest, driving while suspended, violating parole, impaired driving, theft over $1,000, possession of goods obtained by crime- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am only up to 1980; 1981, impaired driving, break and enter, impaired driving, theft, mischief, failing to comply, theft, assault, abduction of his own kids, possession of weapons, theft- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Ashton: -possession of narcotics, theft under $1,000, assault, uttering forged documents and driving suspended. Is this the policy of this government to allow individuals such as this to not be spending the time in jail that they were sentenced to by a judge in the province of Manitoba? Madam Speaker: Order, please. First, I would like to remind the honourable member for Thompson that we have some pretty explicit guidelines with relation to posing questions, and I would ask for his co-operation in adhering to those guidelines. Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question.

Madam Speaker: The ·honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary question. Mr. Ashton: My apologies. I did feel that it was important to read the entire record into the record of this Legislature. I would like to ask the Premier how he can say this, how he can suggest that he answered the question when the key question Manitobans are asking is, how is this gov ernment incapable of running a justice system that requires this individual to spend weekends in an instit ution as part of his sentence that he received in a court? How can he not have a justice system that achieves that here in Manitoba? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, of course, the member should know that we on this side of the House are concerned. That has already been expressed by the MinisterofJustice (Mrs. Vodrey). No, we do not like to have to make accommodations in dealing with people who have been sentenced in particular ways, but unlike the members opposite, we have to deal with reality. None of us chose to have the riot at Headingley occur. There was a major upheaval that has reduced our capacity. It has done many things obviously within the corrections system that have to be addressed.

We moved quickly to call an independent inquiry to ensure that we had all the information available to us to deal with the situation. These are the realities of the situation that have to be dealt with by this government and they are being dealt with by this government. Members opposite, they want to grandstand; members opposite, they want to deal in situations that do not deal with reality.

This government is doing what has to be done to deal with an intolerable situation, and the minister has indicated the commitments that have been made with respect to $10 million to ensure that all the circ umstances that will prevail in future, we will have adequate answers and resources and accommodations for. But in this time that we are going through as a result of the aftermath of the riot, we have to deal with what we have to deal with, and that is precisely what we are doing, not taking the irresponsible position of members opposite that expect us to do miracles when we do not have the ability to do that.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, it is not irresponsible to expect a convicted individual to spend time in jail for the time he was sentenced. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson was recognized for a final supplementary question. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a final supplementary, if the Premier will now indicate that we are not dealing only with a matter of the incompetence in the Minister ofJustice (Mrs.

Vodrey), but perhaps, in the 1995 election campaign, when we saw the Premier closing the cell doors, he did not explain to Manitobans that he was closing the cell doors to keep people out of jail, serving the time they had been sentenced to in Manitoba, individuals such as Dennis Williams, who should be serving his time behind bars on the weekends as was his sentence. - -

October 8, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4061 Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable that members opposite should be cheering for the fact that we had a riot at a major institution in this province, that it causes a disruption that nobody could anticipate, that nobody could deal with on the spur of the moment. We do not have a second jail waiting to move everybody into. We have realities to deal with .. The irresponsible attitude of the members opposite, cheering on this situation, is the ugliest situation that we ever have to deal with in this House.

Point of Order Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I asked the Premier to explain to Manitobans his election promise in terms of justice, and I would like to ask you not only to ask him to answer that question but to withdraw his comments. All we are seeking is a justice system that works in this province, something we do not have under this incompetent Minister of Justice and a Premier who did not tell the truth to the people of Manitoba in the 1995 election campaign. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

I will take the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson under advisement to research Hansard and report back to the House. *

(1410) Corrections System Intermittent Sentences Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).

Notwithstanding all of the rhetoric we have heard from the Premier today, how can the Premier explain a Minister of Justice who has a policy where prisoners who are supposed to serve sentences get out and do not serve their sentences, when the judges who administer those sentences do not know that, when at least two Crown attorneys who are responsible for advising the courts of that do not know that, and when, clearly, the minister does not know when she in fact said on May 28 about intermittent sentences, she did not know whether or not those people would be getting T As?

How does the Premier support this Minister of Justice when in fact the judges and the defence attorneys and no one in the system knew that these people were getting out? Bon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, their release and how they were being accommodated was in fact talked about. Under what terms, exactly what terms, I made the commitment to speak further about. There is an emergency provision within The Corrections Act which allows for the use of temporary absences. That is in fact what has been happening.

I hear members across the way listing individuals' long records and so on. This is not what we would like either. This is not a position that anyone would like to be in. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, to quickly complete her response. Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So the members opposite should not make out that this is somehow a position that we support; it is not a position we would like to be in.

It is a position that, as quickly as Headingley can become up and running and we have the agreement of the wmkplace safety and health committees, we will certainly be moving to change. Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, if we accept the minister's emergency situation, can the minister explain how it is that the judges who administer this justice, who sentence people to weekends, were not aware of this and how her Crown attorneys who sentence people and who made presentations in court were not aware of this emergency situation?

Does this not suggest a complete lack of competence and capability by this Minister of Justice? Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, again, I have spoken publicly about the way we were accommodating intermittent sentences. This is not a surprise. It is not a secret. But if there are members who did not know, who feel that they did not know- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

4062 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the minister's response. Mrs. Vodrey: If there are members of the community who feel that they did not know, then I am concerned about that too, and I made that clear from my answers very early on. If there is anyone who did not know about the accommodation, then we have acted to correct that today. [interjection] Well, the members across the way say, you know, judges did not know and so on.

Well, Madam Speaker, I think everyone knew about the Headingley riot, and I think everyone knew about the public statements. But the important thing is that today, if there was any doubt in anyone's mind-because we did listen to others who say, here is who knew, here is who knew, well, I think it was fairly well known, but if there was anyone who did not know, we have acted to correct that today. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Fire Prevention Week Mr.

Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, today I would like to remind all of my honourable friends about a very important event that is taking place this week. From October 6 to 12 this week is declared as Fire Prevention Week in Manitoba and this year's theme, Let's Hear it for Fire Safety, is an important reminder for all Manitobans to check smoke detectors at home and at work to ensure that they are safe. Events are taking place around the province in support of Fire Prevention Week.

On Saturday, October 12, demonstrations of fire attack equipment will be occurring at the Gimli , Stonewall and Teulon fire halls where some live hose, proper fue extinguisher use and breathing apparatus demonstrations will occur. A large number of businesses within the Gimli constituency have recognized Fire Prevention Week as being an important event thro ugh their sponsorship of the event and in the advertising done by the fue department.

I hope that all members of the Legislative Assembly will take advantage of this opportunity and make an effort to participate in and support any Fire Prevention Week activities or events that take place within their constituencies. It is important that Manitobans be aware offrre safety, especially the younger generation. The number of fires and fire-related death and injury statistics in Manitoba for 1995 are down from 1994. Smoke remains the leading cause of the majority of frre-related deaths.

Careless smoking is the leading cause of home frre deaths, and children playing -with fue is the second most common cause of home frre deaths. If all homes in Manitoba are equipp ed with smoke detectors in good working con dition and are checked regularly, injuries, death and property loss can be greatly reduced. This week I hope that all Manitobans participate in Fire Prevention Week in some way and ensure that their homes are safe from the risk of fires. Violence Against Women Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, women in Manitoba are under attack.

Sexual assaults on women are escalating at an alarming rate. In the last two days there were two reported vicious attacks on women by men unknown to them. but it is not just random attacks that should be of concern to us. We have also learned that gang rapes of young girls are often part of the initiation rites for Winnipeg gangs. These girls are used as sex slaves by gang members and are terror ized by the fear of retaliation if they tell anyone of their degradation, so they are doubly assaulted, first the physical rape and then the emotional fear of retribution if they share their humiliation.

Actually these girls are triply victimized: by the rape, by the intimidation and perhaps most reprehensibly by the inaction of the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) who also happens to be the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. She has the responsibility in both her portfolios to ensure that the women in Manitoba are protected as much as possible from violence. She has demonstrably failed despite repeated questioning by the opposi tion, and in the face of statistics and stories of women who have been assaulted, she has done virtually nothing.

She has done nothing to deal with the gangs that are terrorizing communities and young women. She has done - -

October 8, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4063 nothing to provide programming for victims of violence, both random and gang related. In fact, after the Headingley riot, dangerous sex offenders were let out on temporary absences. She had the authority to deal with this terrible threat to the women of Manitoba but chose to do nothing. She has proved incapable of addressing, other than by diatribes hurled at the opposition, the terror faced by women in Winnipeg and Manitoba. She has in effect turned a blind eye to young women who are already among the most victimized in our society.

She is a dis grace to her positions and must be removed immediately. The safety of our women demands no less. Madam Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), I wonder if I might ask if those members having private conversations could do so either more quietly in the loge or outside the Chamber. Economic Growth Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Madam Speaker, Manitobans have a great deal to be optimistic about this year despite the negativity perpetuated by members opposite.

The most recent provincial handbook publ ished by Nesbitt Burns states that the Manitoba economy is on track for 2 percent growth this year, once more better than the national average. Fanning output is set to rebound smartly led by gains of both prices and delivery. Farm incomes are poised for yet another year of double-digit growth. This year's earnings bode well for further spending on new farm equipment, of which Manitoba is a major supplier. Machinery shipments, for example, soared almost 45 percent in 1995 and early signs point to another banner year in 1996.

Indeed, man ufacturing now comprises 11 .5 percent of the provincial economy, compared with 10 percent when the decade began. Food processing is Manitoba's largest manufacturing industry, and it is absolutely booming. Last year's termination of the Crow rate subsidy has sparked a flood of new agrifood facilities. Nesbitt Burns stated, and I quote, the strides the province has made in diversifying its economic pace are evident in the rapid expansion of the service sector which has outstripped growth in the goods-producing sector in each of the past three years.

They also praise our government for meeting the challenge posed by Ottawa's transfer squeeze head-on by, in part, streamlining government opemtions. They noted that Manitoba is the only province to have refrained from raising taxes over the past decade and per capita government spending is the lowest in the country. Our province's economic performance has been repeatedly recognized and I am proud to be a part of a government that has ensured Manitoba remains an excellent place to work, live, raise a family and invest. Thank you. * (1 420) Association of Bilingual Municipalities Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.

Boniface): Madame Ia Pn:\sidente, il me fait plaisir de mettre quelques mots pour un programme qui a eu lieu en fm de semaine au College universitaire de Saint-Boniface. C'etait le Forum Ouest qui avait ete organise par I' Association des municipalites bilingues du Manitoba avec le Conseil economique de developpement economique des municipalites bilingues du Manitoba. Tout le programme fut tres interessant. N ous avions des membres presents de Ia francophonie des quatre provinces de I' Ouest et puis du Yukon. La j ournee a ete divisee en trois differents ateliers qui sembla ient tres interessants.

J'ai assiste a celui du tourisme. Et puis il y en avait un sur les nouveaux marches et Ia valeur ajoutee. L'autre etait un atelier Info techno. C'etait plutot pour avoir des partenariats avec les niveaux de gouvernement. Le ministre responsable des services en langue fran�aise, !'honorable Darren Praznik, etait present et puis !'honorable Jon Gerrard, Secretaire d'etat de Ia Diversification de l'economie de l'Ouest du Canada.

Alors Ia chose qui est tres interessante pour !'Association des municipalites bilingues est tres claire lorsqu'ils ont mentionne ici : ccEn vous aidant a reussir, nous assurons notre prosperite collective. Les municipalites bilingues du Manitoba constituent un atout provincial important qu'il faut entretenir et preserver afm d'assurer Ia vitalite culturelle et economique de la province. C'est dans cet etat d'esprit qu'on a cree le CDEM, de f�on a donner aux municipalites membres de !'Association des municipalites bilingues du Manitoba l'elan necessaire pour qu'elles renouent avec la prosperite financiere.

Le CDEM regroupe des gens d'affaires chevronnes et possede le savoir-faire et les ressources qu'il faut pour que votre entreprise soit un succes. De votre succes depend notre prosperite collective, de meme que la survie a long terme et le dynamisme de nos municipalites.»

4064 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 Merci, Madame Ia Presidente. [Translation] Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words about a program that took place at the College universitaire de Saint-Boniface last weekend. It was the Western Forum, which was organized by the Manitoba Association of Bilingual Municipalities with the Economic Development Council of Manitoba Bilingual Municipalities. The entire program was very interesting. We had francophone members present from the four western provinces and from the Yukon.

The day was divided into three different workshops that seemed very interesting. I attended the one on tourism. There was also one on value-added and new markets. The other one was on information technology. The purpose was to establish partnerships with the levels of government. The Minister responsible for French Language Services, the Honourable Darren Praznik, was present and so was the Honourable Jon Gerrard, Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification Canada.

What is very significant for the Association of Bilingual Municipalities is very clear when they state here: "Helping you achieve business success for our collective prosperity. Manitoba's bilingual communities are an important provincial asset, one to be nurtured and preserved for the province's cultural and economic well being. It was with this in mind that the CDEM was formed - to act as the spark for renewed financial prosperity in the member communities of the Manitoba Association of Bilingual Municipalities.

The CDEM is staff ed by experienced business professionals and has the expertise and resources to provide your business with the best opportunity to succeed and thrive. Through your success, we plant the seeds for our collective prosperity and ensure the long term survival and vibrancy of our communities." Thank you, Madam Speaker. Minister of Justice Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, Manitobans have all seen the image of our Premier standing in a jail slamming the door shut to emphasize just how tough this government's policy on crime would be.

Over and over, he and his election co-chair, the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), boasted about their toughness, but now Manitobans have had 18 months to see the reality of that boast. They see it in the failure of the Justice minister's policy on gangs, adult and juvenile, the failure to deal with the Headingley riot, the embarrassing aftermath of that riot when the Justice Minister boasted that those involved in the riot would clean it up-so three of them scrubbed a wall or two. Manitobans saw the release after the riot of dangerous sexual offenders, first denied in this House and then finally confirmed.

We saw press release after press release turn into the Casper initiatives, invisible to everyone except the government's spin doctors and the minister's overly active imagination. Only yesterday, Madam Speaker, this less than forthright minister would not speak the truth that was obvious to everyone else, that over 18 months her own justice committee had never even met. Now we have the spectacle of a Justice minister that decides its serious offenders, drunk drivers, drivers with criminal records as long as your arm, need not spend any time in jail even when jail is a mandatory sentence.

She subverts the court's duty to sentence. She fails to inform her own officials and the judiciary of her new policy. She defends her decision on the basis of there not being enough room when we know there is enough room. Manitobans expect those people who are sentenced to jail for serious crimes to spend time in jail. So do judges, so do Crown attorneys. Now we have a Premier (Mr. Filmon) who will not ftnally do the right thing and relieve this failed minister of a burden which is clearly too heavy for her to bear.

In failing to do his clear duty, the Premier impairs the integrity of the justice system, condones his minister's interference with the rightful role of the judiciary and fails all Manitobans. Committee Changes Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas, \\ith committee changes. Mr. George Dickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the -

October 8, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4065 composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) for the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh); the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) for the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. I cannot hear the honourable member for Point Douglas, nor can the table officers. Mr. Hickes: I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr.

Santos), that the comp osition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) for the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh); the member for Interlake (Mr. ClifEvans) for the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk); the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) for the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), for Thursday, October 10 for 2:30 p.m. I move, seconded by the member for Broadway, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: The member for Elmwood (Mr.

Maloway) for the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar); the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) for the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans); the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) for the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), for Friday, October 11 for 10 a.m. Motions agreed to. MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Lack of Incarceration Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent public importance. I move, seconded by the member for Kildonan (Mr.

Chomiak), under Rule 27(1) that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the actions of the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) regarding the lack of incarceration of convicted people in this province. Motion presented.

Madam Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member for Thompson, I would like to remind all members that under our subrule 31(2), the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other party in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately. Mr.

Ashton: Madam Speaker, the reason we are raising this motion today is because I believe that if you were to truly ask members of this House, there would be a willingness of not only members of the opposition but, I am sure, many government members, to discuss the state of the justice system in this province, particularly the kind of situation that we see day after day with this Minister of Justice in which people who have been convicted of offences, sentenced to jail terms, are not serving that time in jail. I want to indicate why I feel we should be debating this matter.

Earlier in Question Period-and I want to apologize again for the length of time I took in the

preamble, because it is difficult when you have that many sentences that this individual has received to outline in the short time period available to us.

Madam Speaker, we have a situation where an individual who has three impaired driving convictions, three driving while suspended convictions, an assault conviction, a theft conviction, a possession of stolen goods conviction, a parole violation, two break and enters, uttering forged documents, possession of a dangerous weapon conviction, an abduction of his own kids conviction, where this individual was sentenced to spend time in a correctional facility and where this individual now is laughing at the justice system. I quoted earlier his comments that he made: It is all right with me.

The guys, you know, do not have to do time. It is all right staying home and doing time on the weekend. Madam Speaker, we feel it is urgent to debate this matter because we feel that, while Mr. Williams, or whatever his current alias is, may feel it is all right, we feel that the majority of Manitobans feel that a sentence is a sentence and, in this case, that at bare minimum this individual should be serving the time and that it is no excuse from this Minister of Justice, and now the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), to say that they cannot even run the justice system to ensure that this individual spends weekends in a correctional facility.

4066 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 Madam Speaker, this is not the only individual in these circwnstances. But what is particularly concerning is not only are there people such as Mr. Williams and others who are not serving their sentence making a mockery of our ju stice system, but this Minister of Justice, who repeatedly, going back to May of this year, has denied any change of policies whatsoever because of the Headingley riot, today now stands in the House and suggests that what is happening is strictly to do with Headingley. We heard the Premier use the same kind of argument.

Now, Madam Speaker, these new-found converts to the cause of workplace safety and health in our correctional facilit ies might want to consider the issue of public safety, and if they cannot run a justice system that ensures that Mr. Williams spends weekends in jail, they should resign, both the minister and the Premier. Madam Speaker, this is an urgent matter because Manitobans have once again seen just how little they can trust this government and this Minister of Justice. I mention-and I have a copy of a leaflet here and I will quote from it.

This is the Law and Order and Public Safety, and it says inside: We listened to you when you told us to be tough on crime. *

(1430) Madam Speaker, the Premier, Gary Filmon, stated: The safety and security of the public and the individual are vital to the quality of life you as Manitobans demand. You want to know your family is safe in your homes, in your neighbourhoods, in your schools and on your playgrounds. Madam Speaker, how do they explain the fact that Mr. Wil liams is now doing time on weekends at home? Is that their "tough on crime"? I say that is absolutely unacceptable and I say to the members opposite, let us have a debate on this and then the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Toews) I am sure will be interested in what the constituents ofRossmere have to say about this particular matter. This government not only are they not tough on crime, they cannot even ensure that Mr. Williams spends his weekends in jail. It is no excuse to suggest that because Headingley is in the situation it is that that is the reason. They know they have a choice. They are in charge of the justice system. They can made arran gements with other institutions in the province and other institutions throughout the country.

The bottom line is here, so long as we have the Premier defending this Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), who has shown through her actions on this matter that she cannot be believed anymore, I would submit to you that we cannot ensure the security of our citizens, and more importantly, the integrity of the justice system. When we have Mr. Williams and others laughing at the justice system we know that there is a serious problem.

So I would suggest to you that this is one of those times where it would be, I believe, in the best interests of the public of Manitoba if you, Madam Speaker, were to do the appropriate thing, decide that there is a prima facie case and let the House decide, because I believe it is not only members of the opposition but many government members who, given an honest choice about this, would decide to debate with us the very serious concerns about our justice system So I urge you to give us the chance as MLAs to debate the system of justice in this province and in particular the incompetence of the Minister of Justice and the incompetence of the Premier who cannot even ensure the most basic sentence be served in this province.

That is absolutely unacceptable. Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, at the risk of incurring your ire, I would submit that the member for Thompson spoke almost fleetingly at best about the question of the need for urgency. He is still ticked about what happened in Question Period. I would encourage my honourable friend that he should worry about his blood pressure a little better.

It was getting fairly high I think during the midpoint of his address, but it is not a question of whether the member or all of the members over there are ticked or not, it is about the question of urgency, and there is no urgency or they would have raised this back in May of 1996 when the Minister of Justice explained to the justice critic of the opposition party in some detail as to how they were going to deal with the fact that after the Headingley riot there was only limited ability to house criminals or people sentenced to certain sentences in the justice system.

So if this was so urgent, it should have been urgent then. They should have been standing on their feet then to raise the question of urgency, and they did not, as we heard during Question Period, because the press did not cotton on to this until just recently, and of -

October 8, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4067 course, ergo, the members doing their research in the morning paper then found out about this and had to raise it as an urgent matter of public importance. It is not urgent. Now, secondly, will in fact the public good be harmed if we do not debate this today? I submit, no, it will not.

This has been going on for six months or more, and the public, in the minds of the opposition who have chosen only today to raise this matter, it obviously has not affected the public good up until this point, so I do not know what has changed between yesterday and today to cause that concern to harm the public good. They refer to this person with 20 or so convictions and they listed them all in Question Period. The question is not whether this person should be out on weekends instead of serving his weekend sentence, but how did he get a weekend sentence in the first place?

For somebody with that kind of a record, he should have been in there, I submit, a lot longer than just weekends. But, Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is plain. The issue with respect to the whole question of urgency and the whole question of public good has not been made; the case has not been made by my honourable friend, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). In fact, as I said, he hardly touched on it at all. They are upset. Fine, let them be upset.

They have done what they should do if they are upset; they should raise it in Question Period, they should raise it in Members' Statements, but it is not a matter of urgent public importance. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) that he will be entitled to speak if the ruling is in support of the motion to have the matter debated immediately. Is there leave to permit the honourable member for The Maples to speak to the urgency of debate? [agreed] Mr.

Kowalski: I want to thank the members of the each hour, there are arrests being made, and justice is immediate. It needs to be done immediately, and there is urgency to send a clear message that in Manitoba if you commit a crime, justice will be quick and expedient and will be just. That is why this matter has to be brought forward and be dealt with as soon as possible. There may be other opportunities sometime in the future, but this matter affects the lives of so many Manitobans, whether in Winnipeg, in rural Manitoba, northern Manitoba.

Police officers, courts are working now to make our communities safer places, and unless we deal with this matter immediately, today there will be people arrested who will go to court tomorrow. Unless we rectify this situation we will be sending a message to the criminals of Manitoba that business is good in Manitoba. So this has to be dealt with now. That is why I support this motion wholeheartedly on behalf of our caucus. Speaker's Ruling Madam Speaker: I am advising the House that the notice requirement for a matter of urgent public importance has been met.

In order for the matter to proceed to debate, Beauchesne's Citation 389 states that the issue must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention, and Citation 390 states that the public interest must demand that dis cussion take place immediately. There must be no other reasonable opportunities for debate according to Citation 387. The member has not used his opportunity to raise a grievance. He could also use the vehicle of a member's statement to speak to this matter. An Opposition Day motion could also address the issue.

Based on the other opportunities available to the member and based on my assessment that the public interests will not suffer if this matter is not discussed today, I must rule the motion of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) out of order. Chamber for allowing me an opportunity to speak to the * (1440) urgency of this matter. Every day police officers arrest numerous people. Every day courts convict numerous people, and they are expecting those sentences to be carried out. Each day, MATTER OF GRIEVANCE Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I rise on a grievance. It is a preliminary matter.

Little

4068 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 did we know when we agreed to some rule changes that the new grievance procedure and members' statements would be used to supplant the ability of this House to engage in full debate.

I can think of no time such as this when a debate is called for, in this province that we care so much about, and not just a grievance by one member or several members but full participation by the members opposite, something that the members opposite fail to understand the importance of, whether it is on bills and whether, right now as we look around this Chamber, this is not a government that has respect for democracy.

It is a government that is so disrespectful of our system of government that it will pull the rug out from underneath the judges, the judges perhaps the most important institution that we have to protect justice, protect our freedoms. Madam Speaker, we have heard today of a case that went before the Provincial Court, before Judge Pullan. My honourable friend for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) read aloud this person's record which reads like an index to the Criminal Code, read the aliases of this individual.

Here is someone that this community has got to deal with and has been unable to deal with because the record tells us that. Judge Pullan looked at this individual and heard the submissions of the defence and the Minister of Justice's lawyer, the Crown attorney, and she said: It is clear to me that the previous dispositions imposed on you, Mr. Williams, have not been successful, you have not got the message in the past. And then she went on to say: I have got to find a way to get a message to you now. She said: I am going to impose the intermittent sentence because I take to heart what the counsel says.

By the way, counsel included the minister's own lawyer who agreed to a joint submission on sentencing. She said: It seems to me that going back weekend after weekend as the seasons change, depriving you of your free time may well have some significant deterrent effect on you. She believed it. It was a considered judgment. She likely agonized over this.

She said: I want to be the judge that changes your behaviour, I want to be the judge that can help ensure some public safety, I want to be the judge that puts effect to the governm ent's rhetoric and intentions, and I believe they were rightful intentions, to make this province the toughest province on drinking and driving. Well, this is not the toughest province on drinking and driving anymore. That ended when this Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) decided on a little cover-up, and I will explain that little cover-up. The little cover-up was this.

Five and a half months ago there was a riot, a very tragic situatioo in this province, perhaps the worst prison riot in the history certainly of Manitoba. Many individuals were hurt, and it served I think to outline how the Minister of Justice has turned a blind eye not only to victims in this province but to the needs of offenders too, to change their behaviour, and most important of all are to those individuals who in the morning get up and leave their family and children and go to work in our correctional institutions.

She turned a blind eye, and having done that, she came back and said, oh boy, these people are going to clean up, in fact not only going to clean up this institution, they are going to rebuild the whole place. That was a real doozie. Then she went on to make things worse. When we discovered that temporary absences were being granted, not on the basis of an application to the T A board, not because a proper risk assessment had taken place, not because there were proper controls and supervisions in the community, but because of the riot.

But did the minister say, oh boy, extraordinary times, we had to take some tough decisions. No, this minister said everything is rickety-boo. What riot? It made no difference. In fact, we are tougher than ever. Well, then in Estimates we got the minister to try and be forthcoming-because this minister, I am afraid, has been so careless with the truth-and we asked her how many people were really given temporary absences following the riot She came up with a new number. We asked did those include those on intermittent sentence? She said, no, that is not even included there.

She said those on intermittent sentence at the time were doing some community work. Now, Madam Speaker, did the minister at that time say that people who had yet to be sentenced intermittently would never serve time? Did she say at that time that she had no intention of ensuring that the intentions of the court, the reasoned decisions of the court, would be put into practice, be put into place, be enforced by her department? Did this minister say that there was any change in policy? Did she say there was some concern about contraband? Let us take this argument of contraband that she came up with today.

She said there is some concern about contraband coming into the institutions from intermittent convicts. Well, let us follow that to its logical conclusion. You know, there is -

October 8, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4069 also concern about full-timers going in that are increasingly violent. Is she going to extend the pardons now to all prisoners because they pose some threat? We want to know how many people, how many convicts have been pardoned, because that is essentially what has happened here. It has been a political administrative pardon subverting, thwarting the court system and the reasoned judgements of judges in this province. We want to know how long this minister intends to keep people sentenced to intermittent time out of jail. Our concern is this.

What message does this minister give to Manitobans? She is giving a message that justice in this province is a joke. She is saying we are not serious. She was heard to say yesterday, and I think she got back to that argument today about, oh, there was just no space. Well, it is interesting, because the province of Saskatchewan, which was asked and gladly took in I believe over 30 inmates from Manitoba following the riot, would be more than happy to receive another request from this province. Have they received such a request? No.

In fact, all of the inmates that had been sent to Saskatchewan have now been pulled back to Manitoba and plunked in Manit oba's institutions. If there is a space problem in Manitoba, Madam Speaker, it is as a result of a decision of this minister to pull people back from Saskatchewan institutions. We have heard and suggested that perhaps the government should look at Bannock Point which I believe sits vacant. It is a correctional facility. I under stood that it could house 40 to 50 inmates. I understand that Stony Mountain as of today has room for 34 inmates.

I have heard that perhaps, if the minister would have rallied herself over the last five-and-a-half months to look at the issue of staffing of the correctional facilities, the Headingley gym and Annex A would be available for intermittent sentencing. You see, the defence of the minister that there is no space does not wash. The defence by the minister that there should be no intermittent sentences served because of a concern about contraband is false. So what is the motivation for pulling the rug away from the judges? The motivation is incompetence-hardly motivation, but certainly an explanation.

They do not care. She cannot run a department. She is a threat-I am ref erring to the Mini ster of Justice-to our safety, and she must resign. She must be made to resign. If the Premier will not do it, the people of Manitoba will. *

(1450) But of all of the issues we have raised there is none more critical than the cover-up of the Attorney General, which led to her refusal to tell the Crown attorneys on sentencing to tell the court that the option of intermittent sentencing is no longer available. That was her ultimate duty, and that is her ultimate downfall. She refused. It was a cover-up. She did not want it out.

And here were these judges like Judge Pullan, after agonizing and trying to change behaviour, trying to serve justice in this province, being thwarted by a minister when they made judgments-and I want to know how many they made-requiring people to serve time on weekends and, lo and behold, no time was ever to be served. They did not have the options they thought they did. How much police work? How much hope from victims for justice? How much court time has been squandered by this Minister of Justice who decides to impose her own political agenda on the proper functioning of justice in this province by our courts?

If there ever was a time for resignation in this province, in this country, it is now and we call for her resignation now. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): With respect to committees on Thursday morning at 10 a.m. , that is October 10, the Standing Committee on Economic Development will meet to consider Bills 14, 15 and 39. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday next, the 15th of October at 7 p.m., the Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet to consider Bill 54, The Municipal Act.

Madam Speaker: On a clarification of House business, Thursday, October 10, 10 a.m. , the Committee on Economic Development will meet to consider Bills 14, 15 and 39. On Tuesday, October 15 , at 7 p.m., the Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet to consider Bill 54.

4070 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 Mr. Ernst: May we have a two-minute recess, Madam Speaker? Madam Speaker: Is there leave to perm it a two-minute recess so the House leaders may discuss Orders of the Day? [agreed ] The House recessed at 2:54 p.m. After Recess The House resumed at 2:5 7p .m . Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, it would appear that there is a problem with respect to next Tuesday eveni ng for the Municipal Affilirs committee, so that will not take place . Madam Speaker: So the committee previously announced for Tuesday, October 15 at 7 p.m., Municipal Affairs will be cance lled. Mr.

Ernst: Would you call Bills 67, 17, 18, 26, 32 and then the balance of the bills as listed in the Order Paper? DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 67- The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 67, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister respons ible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr.

Findlay), The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant Ia reorganisation de Ia Societe de telephone du Manitoba et apportant des modifications corre latives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed ] Bill17- The Government Essential Services Act Madam Speaker: To resume second rea ding debate on Bill 17, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr.

Toews), The Government Essential Servi ces Act (Loi sur les services gouvemementaux essentiels), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) . Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed ] Billl8- The Payment of Wages Amendment Act Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second rea ding on Bill 18, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toe ws), The Payment of Wages Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur le paiement des salaires), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) . Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed ] Bill 26- The Labour Relations Amendment Act Madam Speaker: To resume second read ing debate on Bill 26, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toe ws), The Labour Relations Amendment Act o . ..oi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les relations du travail), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) . Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed ] Bill 32-The Council on Post-Secondary Education Act Madam Speaker: To reswne debate on second rea ding, Bill 32, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Mcintosh), The Council on Post-Secondary Education Act (Loi sur le Conseil de l'ensei gnement postsecondair e), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) .

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed ] To resume debate on-the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The honourable - -

October 8, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4071 government House leader. [interjection] For a moment, I thought you wanted to debate. *

(1500) Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Anytime the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) wants to debate, Madam Speaker, I am more than willing to debate him. However, to make your job a little bit easier, I would suggest you call Bills 49, 70, 36 and 33 in that order. Madam Speaker: Would the honourable minister please repeat that-49, 70- Mr. Ernst: 49, 70, 36 and 33. Madam Speaker: Thank you. Bill 49-The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 49, on the pro posed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr.

McCrae), The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les offices regionaux de Ia sante et apportant des modifications correlatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. W owchuk), who has 2 7 minutes remaining. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I get to rise to speak to Bill 49, The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act, which basically will establish regional health authorities.

I have comments specific to the bill, and I also have some history that I wish to share in terms of the whole concept of centralization versus decentralization. The concept of decentralization is one that I support. However, it would be evidenced by this bill, not one that this governm ent is willing to take action on. In fact, it is a very serious debate. We can have a form of decentralization which actually empowers communities or we could have what is presented as decentralization but, in reality, is not. There are many arguments for and against this type of governance.

Centralization can be an effective way of governing and decentralization can be an effective way of governing. The overwhelming reason sometimes for moving to decentralization is the fact that it removes the direct accountability of those who are responsible, in this case, the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and the Health department and this government that make the policies and financial decisions that will ultimately have to be carried out by the regional health boards.

When those cuts come from the top, the people who will have to be accountable or part of it will then be diffused to the regional health boards.

The reason that this seems to be the overwhelming argument for this model is clear in the model presented by the bill, which does not provide any true local empowerment to the community; therefore, although it may look on the surface as if we are going to a decentralized, local empowerment model, in fact, what we are doing is centralizing power and diffusing some of the accountability, making it easier for the government to implement their drastic health cuts, the cuts of hospital beds, possibly closures of health facilities, and moving the responsibility of that from directly being on their table to the regional health boards.

Madam Speaker, locally I would like to talk about what I was familiar with in the Winnipeg School Division. We looked at a model of decentralization that included creating actually school advisory councils well before the government ever heard of such a thing, and it is fairly ironic that we see this government is taking up that model.

Actually, in the education governance model, I would argue that in fact what they are doing is smoke and mirrors, that the local councils have virtually no power, and that in effect what they are doing is they are setting up another level of bureaucracy or another level of governance that really cannot be held accountable for those actions because they have no power to influence them. But, when we looked at potentially decentralizing, the important question becomes, is the government prepared to turn over some of that power to local communities. Are they willing to, for example, look at elections? Are

4072 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 they willing to allow the community to select people that they have faith in? Unfortunately, when you look at the bill, that is not the case. In fact, what we have seen are the regional health boards being appointed and no evidence in this bill of future elections. A huge disappointment. Are they willing to actually empower local communities? Apparently not. That is a sincere disappointment, a critical factor that needs to be considered, and I am sure that this government has looked at the consequences. They want to have their people on the boards.

They want to have the control. There are many other parts of this bill that are clearly centralizing, and that would be consistent with the overall philosophy, one of talking about decentralization, talking about local communities, but in reality making them scape goats for what the government intends to do in terms of further health cuts, deregulation, user fees and breaking down our universal public health care system.

When governance is discussed, there are many agendas that can be played out, and the fear of some jurisdictions to moving towards decentralized power is not having the ability to basically control exactly what these local governments and, in this case, a local regional health board will do. In fact, the government can be criticized for being completely inconsistent. In fact, when we look at local governan ce, we saw a large debate for many years about the possibility of school divisions being amalgamated .

The decision in that case was because, I believe, of a very strong lobby of local communities to stay those changes, to look for voluntary amalgamation, to try to deal with it in a more co-operative approach. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) What we see here is fairly arbitrary, decisions for boundaries on regional health authorities, massive boundaries which are going to be difficult to respond to local needs. What we see is a proposal that is before its time.

We have not had the opportunity to discuss in detail as we did with schools boards and successfully argued against the government's so-called changes. What we have here is a bill being proposed that is going to force local boards and other health governance structures into a model that they are not ready to accept. We have not had full debate. The government is anxious to brin g forward legislation that is not well thought out, that is not ready to go on the books, that has not been consulted with the people in the community, and we are asking them to hold back. It pre-empts the process.

What you have done is brought forward a piece of legislation that is not supported by the Manitoba Health Organizations, not supported by health care workers, not supported by the support workers in health care, not supported by the local governing boards of the hospitals here in rural Manitoba, not supported by the religious organizations that run the hospitals such as the Grace Hospital. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it seems to me the only people that do support this bill are sitting on that side of the House, and I would ask them to reflect on that. Give it some time.

Allow the people of Manitoba to look at whether this is a model that is going to work. Apparently not. The government has not been successful in getting the partners in health to adopt this model, and indeed it raises serious concerns about the validity of this structure. * (1510 ) Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill will establish large-as I said, large-re gional health boards, regional health authorities, and the boards which will basically govern these authorities. What it does in reality is add another level of bureaucracy, and that is a shame. We do not need to add further levels of bureaucracy .

If you are trying to empower local comm unities, the goal is to make it more efficient and more effective, and the question would be whether this bill will in fact do that. The bill itself also makes no provisions for elections of members, and the record for appointments has been dismal, to say the best. The number of female board members is woefully under represented. Accusations of political appointments mar the legitimacy of the process. In the North, we understand in a board of nine people, three are former Tory candidates.

Even if this was by coincidence, it would seem highly unlikely that that was a legitimate process, but even if it was, it would raise the suspicion of doubt. That is surely not what this government wants. If it really believes this is a legitimate process, if this is a legitimate bill, that is exactly what it does not want to do. It does not want to be in a process where it is appointing certain people that may not represent the community. -

October 8, 1996 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4073 Mr. Deputy Speaker, although the minister tries to assu re the House that we did not have representation from aboriginal organizations or from women, I have to ask, in the North, 50 percent of the people in the North are fe male, and so I would ask that there would be some sort of justice, justice on the committee. What type of recruitment and searc hing was done to ensure that the boards were fairly representative of the people in the community? Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not want to think that it was the Tory membership list that was consulted. No.

You would like to consider that it was a sincere process, and one way of doing it is by trusting the people and allowing local electi ons. Something that this government is not prepared to do. Something that this government has no indication of putting in the bill, and something that Manitobans are asking for. We are very disappointed, and so is the Manitoba Health Organizations, which has presented its concerns forward to the health community and to the government. The Manitoba Health Organizations is a nonprofit, nongovernment provincial organization of health agenci es.

I would like to quote from their report which basically sums up the bill as: The de gree to which all decision making is central ized in the ministry appears to contravene the publicly stated position of the government to delegate decision making to regional health authorities. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when a provincial organization that represents a broad spectrum of organizations and various workers comes out with such a strong statement, it was one that is weighed with considerab le thought.

This is an organization that must have some Tory mem bers, probably fe wer every day, but it is a represen tation of the whole province that is dealing with health care. So for an organization-! think it is particularly significant having worked with the provincial trustees association, having worked with other provincial organizations-to come out with such a strong condemnation of this bill and the implication that what it really does is centr alize power and basically set up regional health boards is truly astonishing, because they want a working, sincere rela tionship with the government of the time.

They want to co-operate and ensure that the legis lation that we have bef ore us will work, but the concerns that they express in their paper are sincere and are very serio us. Basically, the quote that I just read out talks about the smoke and mirrors that Bill 49 is actually purporting to do. It is centra lizing power through a number of mea ns, and I will discuss a little bit later, while at the same time pretending, or giving the illusion, that we are empowering local boards.

What they have done is actually, probably, intensified or even central ized further the power of the minister and the government in terms of health care while diffusing the blame for the cuts that they are inevitably going to make, given their record, and they are going to diffuse the blame for the cuts and the problems to the regional boards. Mr. Deputy Speaker, not only is that unjust, it is unfair. Regional health boards do not have the power to tax, and I am not one prepared to say that they should. Our health care system is supported by taxes, and it needs to be that way. It needs to be univers al.

There are principles that we believe in and share; the majority of Manitobans and Canadians believe in a universal health care system with the principles identified in the health care act. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we search in the bill for the principles to be upheld, and we wonder why they are not. Are they articulated in this bill? No. Should they be? Yes. Is this province committed to maintaining the principles of a universal health care system? We would hope so. But the reason for it not being there is not by mistake.

This bill has been constructed by the government, prepared, platformed for the people of Manitoba. It was not an omission by error. It is an omission by planning. That is not acceptable to Manitobans. That is not acceptable to this side of the House. We want a commit ment, and we will ensure that Manitobans maintain a public health care system that is universally accessible. One of the reasons to further question the sincerity of the government is that it actually has clauses speaking to fee s. The question there being, what fe es for what services are they talking about?

Why are they articulating or not articulating what they speak of? The Manitoba Health Organizations has also clearly condemned this

section of the bill, as it further facilitates to deinsure the health services in Manitoba. One of the more ominous or scary parts of the bill is the provision of a commissioner, an appointment by the

4074 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 minister, or really by the government, a commissioner czar who has been the story in the recent newspaper has discussed, a person who will be given extraordinary powers such that we have not seen in other legislation, and we must question the motivation, the reasoning, the rationale for such an appointment. How does the creation of such a commissioner-czar with these almighty powers go with the concept of decentralization and providing local communities with decision making?

We do not buy it, and neither do the people of Manitoba. * (152 0) You are including it in a bill. You are trying to mislead the public by suggesting that this is indeed a way of empowering local communities when, in reality, you read the act, it says in terms of the commissioner, the government may appoint, and provides them with the ability to do so, that this com missioner may make recommendations, any recommendations, when it relates to labour relations in the health care sector. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we have a process that is well established in Manitoba and has been working fairly well where we have two sides of a labour issue working together to come to a mutual settlement. We do not have a process where we have a dictatorial system which will dictate which side wins without the both sides agreeing to go into the process. Neither side, in terms of health organizations, is willing to accept this provision. Mr. Deputy Speaker, not only does this commissioner make recommendations, the commissioner's decisions are final, an unprecedented move.

This is not open to questions, not open to review in any type of court, agency or other appeal mechanism. This commissioner has extraordinary powers and no demonstrable public accountability. That is a serious concern to this side of the House. It is a serious concern to the labour move ment. It is a serious concern to everybody who works in the health care sector, but will this government listen? We hope so.

However, the construction of the bill, the timing of the bill, the way that it is being presented to the public makes us suspect, and the fact that members on the other side are busy in their own personal conversations or reading newspapers or, you know, not interested in participating in debate, the government has no interest in this debate, but for the record, I put our concerns on the table. I have put our concerns on the record, because we know that Manitobans want to discuss this legislation, that it is serious to them.

Although it may seem trivial to the members opposite, it is important to Manitobans to talk about these bills and the impact of these bills on their lives-1 think it is very unfortunate that the members on the other side have decided to withdraw from public debate of such important legislation-and challenge them to express their opinions and put on the record where their government stands, to explain to the regional health boards, explain to the Manitoba Health Organizations, explain to the hospitals in Winnipeg-to the Grace, to the St. Boniface-why this legislation should be supported. We hear nothing, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we hear nothing from the other side and we ask, why? They show no interest. They have a platform. The concern is-and we hope it is not true-that they are not listening. They are not listening to Manitobans because they have got a preset agenda and they are willing to push it through. Hopefully, that type of arrogant government is not one that we see from that side of the House, that indeed what we are going to see is some significant amendments or preferably the withdrawal of this bill until we have full, open public hearings on the whole concept of the regional health boards.

The people of Manitoba do not wish to take the blame for the Tory cuts. We do not want local communities to be set up by this legislation to be the ones to, in effect, take the blame for the government's proposed and inevitable, it would seem, cuts. The plan is clearly one which is a centralizing model. Not only that, it contradicts public statements that the minister made and this government has proclaimed or pontificated to support.

What it actually does is centralize control and it is basically unfair to regional health authorities and it is unfair to hold regional health authorities accountable for the cuts that the minister makes, for the cuts that the Premier makes, for the cuts that the Filmon government makes. It is unfair for the Filmon government to hold local health authorities accountable because they have no true power. Not only is this centralizing as a model of governance and putting considerable-it is moving the decision making nowhere but upwards into the minister and putting the blame onto -

October 8, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4075 local authorities. But it is also doing it in a sneaky mann er, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Ifyou look at the further parts of the legislation, many parts of it are going to be determined by regulation.

Regulation and more bureaucracy, that is going to be the legacy of the Filmon government, that is going to be the legacy of this government that should be looking at more efficiency and more effective governance, but what we have is more regulation, more closed doors and, instead of transparency, what we have is closed-door, centralized policy making through regulation. In fact, the other day the Fraser Institute, a think tank, a fairly right-wing, I would say, think tank, submitted a report on the case for less regulation in government.

The move by this government for more and more regulation clearly goes against the concepts of open, accountable government that the Fraser Institute is calling for, is what the people of Manitoba are calling for and is what we are calling for. The way to govern is through legislation to be up front and not through the back door through regulation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is also another area of serious concern, the fact that there is no def med appeal process to this legislation, there is no reference in this legislation to an appeal process, which again we do not believe to be a small error .

Perhaps they just forgot to write in the clause. Hardly. This is again a construed piece of legislation done to definitely manipulate the health care process so that the Filmon cuts can be implemented while local boards take the blame. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have many serious concerns about the Regional Health Authorities bill and governan ce.

I have articulated but a few of the concerns that we have had that are also articulated by the Manitoba Health Organizations, and I do hope that the government on that side, although they are still busy in their own personal conversations, will have the time to read those briefs, will have the time to perhaps look at some of the suggestions our side of the House has presented. In fact, we would like to spend some time debating this issue. Our critic for Health has made just a few questions, a few questions.

We have a few questions about the Regional Health Authorities bill, and I believe it only took our critic a few minutes to think up a hundred questions about the regional health bill, and it is not surprising, since there seems to be a clear contradiction between what the verbiage of the government is, local empowerment and the reality of the bill, which centralizes decision making and reduces transparency rather than making open and accountable legislation, as Manitobans want. Thank you. * (1530 ) Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Swan River who has 27 minutes remaining. Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the legislation that is before us is one that is causing great concern for many people, not only in rural Manitoba but across the province. I want to take this opportunity to put forward a few comments with regard to this bill and the impact that it will have on people and the concerns that have been raised by many people that I believe this government must address.

When you look at regionalization and if it is to be considered a better way to deliver health care services and improve the delivery of health care and improve the relationship between the boards, and then you would say that regionalization is a good thing and it is something that many health experts across the country are saying that it is something that we should be looking at, and if regionalization is an attempt to empower the public and democratize the process and give better health care services, then it is certainly something that should be considered and is being looked at and something that we would support.

When we look at this piece of legislation, that is not what this piece of legislation is doing. In fact, this piece oflegislation is offioading the responsibility or setting up boards that are supposed to have responsibility of delivering health care services in rural Manitoba and, in fact, probably in urban Manitoba. But in reality under this bill, the minister has a tremendous amount of power. In reality it does not give the public more power. It brings more control through the minister and it is centralizing the powers rather than empowering the communities to have better health care services. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because of that we feel that this is a bad piece of legislation and one that should be

4076 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 withdrawn. It is dictatorial in the provisions of its powers and as I say will not improve the way that health care services are deliver ed. There are many concerns and I go back to-the decision to move towards regiona lization was made, and it came from the recom mendations of a committee that was the northern and rural task force on health care. They came forward with this decision, but they put forward many recom mendations , recommendations that were supposed to be mandatory but in reality that has not happened.

One of the biggest concerns is the recommendation put forward that we would have elected boards, and that is what happens in other province s, but the first boards were supposed to be appointed and from then move towards elected boards . When we look at this legis lation there is no provision to have boards elected. They say they may be elected and, of course, that causes us great concern, and it causes a greater concern when you look at the first boards that have been elected and what the structure of those boards is.

When you look at them it looks very much like, in many cases, it is who is who in the Tory membership list or perhaps who was a candidate for the Tories and that is a real concern. Good Tories have been appointed chairs of the boards by this government. I have another concern, and that is that there is no gender balance in these boards. It is really strange that this government, who would like to have the people believe that they are open and understanding, could not find women to sit on the board.

Within my region and the Swan Valley Region, I think the Parkland Health Board, there are two women I believe appointed. Out of a board of 15 , surely there must be women who are willing and able to serve on this board, but this government has chosen to ignore them. When we raised the issue with the minister he said that, well, they put out the call for applications, for people to submit their names for the board, and they had lots of applications from the area but they chose to only appoint those who appeared to have ties to the Conservative Party or the majority of them.

I am also concerned that in those areas where we have a large aboriginal populati on, and my constituency is one of those, the Parkland regional health authority will be responsible for delivering services to many aboriginal people that again there is one aboriginal person appointed. My colleague for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) indicated in his constituency, in that area where 50 percent of the people are aboriginal people, the number ofabaiginal people appointed to the board is very, very low.

So I think that the minister should have been more sensit ive to the needs of the people looking for true representation of the population when he was making the decision to appoint these boards rather than looking at who was friends of the Conservatives to be on the board, that he had truly considered all people. If that had not worked, if they did not get enough applicatio ns, they should have gone back to the drawing board, just as we believe they should go back to the drawing board with this bill. There are many flaws in the bill.

Many concerns that have been raised One of them is a representation, and the fact that boards will not be elected, they will be appointed by the minster. The other is the power that has been given to the minister under this bill. Rather than empowering the people, this legislation gives more power to the minister. The minister has power to overrule the decisio ns of the board. For example, right now, the regional health boards that have been appointed, even though there is no legis lation to make them legal, CEOs have been hired and the regional health boards are putting forward their plan.

The fact is that these boards could put all their annual plans together and the minister has the power to overrule everything that they have done. So, rather than empowering people, it is giving more power to the minister. We believe that there are so many flaws in this bill that in fact the government should withdraw this bill. They should go back to the people and consult and put forward, after consultation, a dis cussion paper.

Let the public have input and then bring forward a p1ece of legisla tion that will really meet the needs of the people, a piece of legislation that will in deed empo·wer the people of the communities to deliver better health care services, a piece of legislation that will allow local people to make decisions on what kind of services they want.

I would hope that the minister would take to heart the recommendations that have been put forward and make a decision to withdraw this piece of legis lation and go back to the public and listen to the public and bring forward a better piece of legis lation that will in deed improve our health care delivery system in the provmce. -

October 8, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4077 I have to ask, as well, whether this government is treating rural and northern Manitoba diff erent than they are the city of Winnipeg. We have a bill that outlines how health care services are going to be delivered in rural Manitoba, but then just recently after the bill was introduced they began reworking the system and then they came up with the idea of a superboard fo r the city of Winnipeg. We have to ask, will this superboard fo r the city of Winnipeg come under this bill or is it going to be under another piece of legislation?

If those superboards in Winnipeg come under this bill, certainly it is going to require huge amendments to the bill. * (15 40) Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think the big concern is here that you cannot have one piece of legislation fo r the city of Winnipeg and a diff erent piece of legislation fo r the rural part of the province. That is what this government has not spelled out, and that is, how will the new superboards fo r the city of Winnipeg be handled under this legislation? Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is also a concern about, what is the role of the existing hospital boards that are there?

What is the role of the CEOs that are in place in the existing hospitals? Are we going to have now a superboard, and I look at rural Manitoba, where there is going to be a chief CEO fo r the whole area and then there is going to be chief executive officers fo r each hospital. What is the role of the existing hospital boards? Do they have any power? The advisory committee recommended that there be district health councils established in each region, a certain number of them established in each region, and that is one of the mandatory recommendations.

How are these district health councils going to be established and how are they going to be funded? That was one of the concerns that was raised by the women's institutes, that there are district health councils who are the lowest level that would be closest to the people, but there is no funding in place fo r these district health councils to operate. They in fa ct fe lt that they would be quite useless without any fun ding.

So I think that the government has created a real mishmash here and has really no direction, has given no real direction to the people of Manitoba as to how all of these people are going to fit in to deliver a better health care system. In fact, you have to wonder what the responsibility of any of these boards or councils are when the minister has the discretionary power to overrule any decisions that these people put fo rward. I guess the other concern that we have, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is that this bill does nothing to support the public health care system, and it is clearly a plan, it fits with the plan by this government to move towards privatization. Whether it be in home care or whether it be in rental of equipment, personal care, we see that there will be a move towards privatization and, within this act, there are specific powers that have been given to the board to charge fo r health care services. That is completely unacceptable and goes against the five major principles ofhealth that we are supposed to be fo llowing in this province.

It appears that this government is more interested in fo llowing the model that is in New Zealand. In fa ct, they sent their senior staff to New Zealand to look at their model on how health care should be delivered and is the model they are fo llowing rather than fo llowing the standards that we are supposed to be having in this provmce. The other concern, and I raised this in Question Period the other day, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is, what we have seen in recent months with this government recapturing surpluses, the retainable surpluses that hospital boards were allowed to keep in order to provide additional services in the hospitals, or if they had a shortf all they could use these surpluses, and they were given the assuran ces that this money would not be taken from them. Now we find that the governme nt is proceeding along this path and is recapturing the retainable surpluses from the boards.

Those boards who were fo llowing the govern ment guidelines and living within their budgets-although it was very difficult to live within those budgets, they chose to do them-now those boards who have done this are being punished, and those funds are being recaptured to run the establishment of the regional health authority. That was not what was set out in the guidelines and that was not what was proposed. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are many problems with the bill, and I think the one that we want to especially

4078 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 emphasize is the dictatorial power that has been given to the minister, a minister who is able to overrule or amend any proposals that are put forward. In fact, as I said, the new regional health boards are putting forward plans right now, but in actual fact if the minister does not like the plans, they- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Anyone wanting to carry on a conversation can do so in the halls or in the loge.

I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable member with all the chatter that is going on, so if we could just tone it down or take it outside. The honourable member for Swan River, to continue. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for that, and I would encourage the members of the government side to listen to what we are saying on this bill, becaus e they have chosen not to speak on these very important issues, and many of the rural members know that the implementation of this legislation will have a negative impact on the delivery of health care in rural Manitoba.

I am quite disappointed that these members would not take this opportunity to speak up for the people that they represent and put on the record any concerns that they might have with this legislation. This is a major bill and there are parts of it that we said that could be supported, but surely the government members must have heard some concerns within their community- Point of Order Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Labour, on a point of order. Bon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I want the member to know that if I have concerns I have raised them with the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), and the Minister of Health has responded in very strong and admirable ways. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister did not have a point of order. * * * Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Swan River, to continue. Ms.

Wowchuk: I appreciate that that member wants the opportunity to put some comments on the record on these bills, because I tmderstand that they are not allowed to do so, but since he has got a direct line to the minister's office, I would hope that the rural members and the urban members as well would want their constituents to know that they are speaking up for them on a particularly important issue, as important an issue as health care to Manitobans, that they would want something on the record rather than have just a private meeting with the Minister of Health to do this. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in previous years when there were bills that were before the House, backbenchers and members of governmen t did put comments on the record, and you would think that on an issue such as this, an issue that could completely change how our health care system is delivered,

an act that could allow the use of user fees, something that Manitobans are completely opposed to, a bill that will result, if passed without amendments, will change health care, that these governm ent members would want to have the opportunity to put some comments on the record before we see an Americanization of our health care system. We know that that is the direction the government was going in when they spent millions of dollars on an American consultant to tell us how to do this. This is just their plan being laid out. Another area of concern, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is that this bill gives the Minister of Health the authority to essentially become a mini-Minister of Labour, dealing with Health matters regarding labour issues such as bargaining units determination and collective bargaining. This is really quite appalling and something that the workers in the health care field are very concerned about, that we would have the Minister of Health taking on that kind of responsibility. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) should also be concerned about this as well, a Minister of Health taking over jurisdiction of labour Issues. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, there are many concerns with this bill. It is in our opinion not a good bill. It has not been well thought out and is one that should go back to the drawing board, because it is very complex and wide ranging. There are wide-ranging issues. I have outlined a few. There is the issue of the election of officers that the minister has backed off on. There is the issue of now -

October 8, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4079 giving the ability for the health boards to allow for charging for services. There is the issue of the minister taking over and becoming really a mini-Minister of Labour. There is the issue of-[interjection] Of course. The member says, then maybe we will have a minister who will speak up; that may be not a bad idea. * (1 550 ) There has to be assurances that our health care system remains a nonprofit health care system, and this legislation does not ensure that. This legislation moves us towards user fees.

This legislation will allow for additional pressure to be put on workers in the health care field. This legislation will allow for privatization of many more services, and we saw the letter that went to all the hospitals the other day where they are going to end the contracts for the lab and imaging departments and aff ect many people who are working. So the government is on their ideological horse and moving forward to a right-wing agenda, which is not in the best interest of Manitobans.

If we were really interested in people, we would be looking at empowering people and giving them the opportunity to have more say in how health care is run. We would be moving towards a preventative health care system. There are many things that could be done without this piece of legislation, and I would urge the government to look at ways that we could deliver a better health care system. We put forward a healthy child proposal, many steps that could be taken to improve health care for children.

But destroying the home care system, destroying our Pharmacare system and putting pressure on workers and privatizing labs is not the best way to deliver health care services. Creating a superboard, another level of governan ce within the health care system, is not the way to deliver a better health care system in this province. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, there are things that the government could be doing, but what they should be doing is withdrawing this piece of legislation, putting forward a discussion paper, consulting with people, consulting with experts who really believe that we should have a universal health care system and put forward a better document than we have here.

But, above all, we must ensure that our health care system is preserved, and those people who built this province have the opportunity to get the services we need and that our aboriginal people have the services that we need, that we put forward policies that will ensure that we have healthy children in this province to carry forward. We saw some real examples yesterday here in the House of people who are lost within the system of this government because they have cut back on so many programs, and that is all part ofkeeping children healthy in this province.

This government has certainly failed the children of this province and is now failing all of the province when it comes to delivery of health care services, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I urge the government members to look at this bill and those who have taken the opportunity to talk to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) on this issue that they urge him to recognize that this is wrong.

We can have regionalization, but it has to be regionalization that will empower people and bring it back to the grassroots but will not be a system that with changes will destroy the system that we want so much in this province and one that we on this side of the House will fight to ensure that we have. Thank you. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 70-- The Animal Care Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns), Bill 70, The Animal Care Act;

Loi sur le soin des animaux, standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows. No? Okay. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be the last member of our caucus to speak on this bill, and then we are prepared to pass it through to committee. As my colleagues the members for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) have said, we are generally in support of this piece of legislation, and I am going to speak in support of some of the processes that went into this legislation.

4080 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 8, 1996 We like very much that there are stiff fm es, that the fines have been increased in some cases tenf old. We fee l that this is important to act as a deterrent, hopefully, fo r people from mistreating animals, both agriculturally and in personal ownership and in organizations fo r animals fo r sale. We also hope that it will act not only as a deterrent but that it will send a message to people who are convicted under

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-61
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 61.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	14ae63981f5c0517f92b7358fb113a4a729d01fe

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).