Manitoba Hansard — 2 May 1985 (Sitting 40B, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-40b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGIS LATIVE AS SEMB LY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 2 May, 1985. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COM MITTI:.I:.� ::>F SUPPLY SUPPLY- ATTORNEY-GENERA L MA. CHAIRMAN, C. Santoe: Committee please come to order. We are still in the item where we started, 2.(a)

(1) Criminal Justice, Crown Prosecutors: Salaries; 2.(a)

(2) Other Expenditures - the Honourable Minister. HON. A. PENNEA: I would just like to correct the record with respect to a statistic that I gave this afternoon having to do with break and enters. lt was noticed by Charlie Hill, our Director of Law Enforcement, that the 1983 statistics were missing the "Other" category. So we were comparing apples and oranges. The figures for 1983 complete for Winnipeg with the addition of the Other category was 12,163 and, in 1984 as I gave, it was 12,171. So while that is still .. MA. G. MEACIER: What was it for 1983 again? HON. A. PENNEA: 12,163.

So while that is still not, of course, an acceptable figure, and I readily grant that, there has been virtually no year-over-year increase, and I think we would all welcome that. MA. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIEA: Mr. Chairman, even with that correction, I believe my remarks and my concerns are still appropriate . . . HON. A. PENNEA: Yes. MA. G. MEACIEA: . . . with that level of offences. Mr.

Chairman, on another matter , the Attorney General signed an Order-in-Council on January 30, 1985 that did away with the $10 for a half-day witness fee and the $20 for a full day to substitute reasonable expenses, etc., for transportation, meals and accommodation. Could the Attorney-General explain the rationale for this Order-in-Council? HON. R. PENNEA: With respect to· witness fees? MA. G. MERCIEA: Yes. HON. A. PENNEA: We had considered the matter over two years and had looked at a number of factors, one of which was other jurisdictions.

We noted - and I'll get the figures in a moment - that Manitoba was one of relatively few jurisdictions in which the witness fee was paid, it being commonly accepted that it Is a duty that falls upon many of us at one time or another when called upon to give evidence for any party in criminal or civil proceedings. That was one aspect of it. Another aspect, quite obviously, was hoping to be able to save money where the expense seemed unwarranted in an attempt to allocate money to higher . priority items. I think we've done a very effective job in doing that.

We were of the view on the basis of information received that the $10 was not compensatory at all really , that many, perhaps the largest number , perhaps a great majority - I don't have precise figures on that, of course - of persons who were called upon to give evidence and who were in fact losing time at work, were not docked pay either because of an understanding or because of a collective agreement, received their day's pay or their half-day's pay, whatever the case may be, and that the best system indeed was to have a compensatory system in the sense of providing out of-pocket expenses and to leave it at that.

I think the net saving there, which we expected to adduce was $150,000 or 125. MR. G. MEACIER: Were there any actual surveys conducted? HON. A. PENNEA: Of what kind? MA. G. MEACIEA: Of people who attended as witnesses as to whether or not they were docked pay, etc., along that line. HON. A.

PENNEA: Wh at we had were reports, anecdotal of course, from people in the Victim Witness Assistance Project that quite frequently - they didn't keep track - people would say, "Well, what's this for?" They'd say, "Well, that's your witness fee." They never expected to receive this, or sometimes they'd say, ·�Well, what's that, $10? it doesn't mean anything anyway." it was this kind of evidence, if I can call it that, which we had, but basically the evidence that we used was by comparison with other jurisdictions. MA. G. MEACIEA: How many other jurisdictions have a similar practice? HON. R.

PENNEA: If you'll just bear with me. I believe I have it here. If I haven't, we'll get it.

I will give you what I have; it's by no means complete: Newfoundland, all usual expenses reimbursed; British Columbia, no provision for payment to police or civilian witnesses unless they live 50 kilometres or more away and then are reimbursed for travel expenses; Nova Scotia, travel expenses paid; P.E.I., mileage at twenty cents - that must be per kilometre - and all other travel expenses to and from court; in Alberta, they pay self employed witnesses only; Ontario, 25 cents per kilometre for travel expenses and all other reasonable travel expenses to and from court; New Brunswick, reimbursement for mileage, meals, hotels, etc.

This Is the inloramtion I have before me and 1 believe it's accurate. MR. G. MERCIEA: Mr. Chairman, I know the department has been in a bit of a dilemma over witness 1522 COMMITTEES OF

Thuradey, 2-May, 1985 fees for some time, but I think under the system that has been set up, there is not adequate consideration for those people who actually lose wages. Certain ly, the province doesn't want to be paying money to people who are not going to· be docked for it, but it seems to me that there are situations where - I think he referred to Alberta who reimburse self-employed people who will suffer a loss. I wonder whether the Attorney-General would want to give conslderetion to that group of people who will suffer an actuaUoss. HON. A. PENNER: Well, that's a good suggestion.

What I would like to do, in following up on this - we have had, in a sense, parts of this discussion over a couple of years - is through Mr. Guy who sits on the board of the Victim Witness Assistance Program suggests the possibility of doing some six months monitoring on a good random sample to see if we can have harder statistics. I think it would be useful to have those statistics as to whether or not there are any people who suffer, In fact, the kind of loss which we ought to take a look at in terms of selective reimbursement, so I'll follow that up. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I thank the Minister for that answer. Earlier on I think he indicated he had some statistics on impaired driving charges. 1t would be interesting, perhaps, to see what those are with the emphasis that was begun last year on driving and drinking and attempts to discourag&it in as many ways as possible. HON. A. PENNER: All I have at the moment - and I'll provide those and the city statistics later, are the RCMP statistics. The RCMP statistics for prosecutions under Sections 234, 235, 236 of the Code show a very , very marked decline.

I have statistics that go back to 1977 and I'll give you those figures, because I think it's important to note them. 1977, 6,563; 1978, 7,206; 1979, 6, 189; 1980, 5,384; 1981, 5, 171; 1982, 6,097; 1983, 5, 159; 1984, 4,345. So a year-over-year reduction,'83-'84, I make that to be about a 15 percent reduction. MR. G. MERCIER: Were those just RCMP statistics? HON. A. PENNER: Those are just RCMP statistics. I haven't got the City of Winnipeg and I'll have them before we're through with the Estimates. MR. G.

MERCIER: lt's probably here, but were there any additional Crown Attorneys ·to be employed in Criminal Prosecutions? HON. R. PENNER: Sor ry, would you repeat the question. MR. G. MERCIER: Were there any additional Crown Attorneys to be employed in Criminal Prosecutions? HON. A. PENNER: There have been some in Young Offenders. I'll just get those figures for you in a moment. We're showing an increase of two, year-over-year. in Crown Prosecutors and that's a total increase. One is an additional Prosecutor in Young Offenders and the other is a secretary to the ADM Criminal Justice.

Those are the two staff-year increases in the Crown Prosecutors Branch, but this comes sharp on the heels of an increase during the course of'84-85, that was as an adjustment to our total vote of another Crown Attorney that was hired for Young Offenders during the course of'84-85, so that in recent months we've hired two additional Crown Prosecutors, both with respect to The Young Offenders Act. The one for this year Is in the process of being hired, but we have the staff year . MR. G. MERCIER: Has a cost-sharing agreement been concluded with the Federal Government on The Young Offenders -Act? . HON. R.

PENNER: lt has. MR. G. MERCIER: Could the Attorney-General indicate what funding will be coming to the province? HON. A. PENNER: I can only deal with my own department. As the member is aware, there are really two funding agreements; a considerable amount of funding is being channelled through Community Services and Corrections, which has a number of responsibilities under The Young Offenders Act, but with respect to the Attorney-General's Department we expect to receive in fiscal 1985-86 approximately $427,000 in Young Offenders Legal Aid.

That will completely pay for our Young Offenders Legal Aid Program in'85-86. As I mentioned at the very beginning when I was talking about systems, we have an agreement with the Feds to develop the kind of systems - record-keeping - a computerized data bank on young offenders, which is part of the system. We're getting 80 percent of the funding that will be required for the development of that system and it's well under way. MR. G. MERCIER: On another matter, Mr.

Chairman, the topic of unpaid parking tickets at the City of Winnipeg has been In the news for some time. 1t now appears that, in many of these instances, people are being picked up on warrants and incarcerated - in a fair number of instances. 1t seems to be an extraordinary step to deal with parking tickets. Is the Attorney-General satisfied that that is an appropriate remedy in this instance? HON. A. PENNER: My friend Waiter, In the back, shakes his head; I don't know how many tickets he has, but his name is going forward to the authorities very shortly.

I don't want to pass judgment on the police, but I think it is appropriate because they are only going after people who have accumulated 10 or more tickets approximately. They're not looking at anything below that level. So what you have in the first instance are people who believe that they have a licence not to conform to the requirements of the law, that they will simply collect these tickets and put them in their back pockets and forget about it. I don't think that's the kind of behaviour we ought to be too charitable towards.

Secondly, they do give warning; they don't just sort of count up to 10 and rush out with a warrant. Indeed, 1523

Thursday, 2 May, 1985 if anything - and this will go on the black side of my record - I think they've been somewhat too charitable, because when they step up the law enforcement in this area and there's a little publicity attached to it, which I think isn't a bad idea, a lot of people come forward and pay their tickets. The City of Winnipeg needs that revenue. We operate an expensive street system in the City of Winnipeg that is, to a very considerable extent, financed from that kind of revenue. I think citizens who ge ts tickets should oa y them - all citizens. MR. G.

MERCIER: Lookin g at the estimates of revenues, related to criminal prosecu tions, it shows fines and costs go ing up from 5.2 million to 6.2 million. Ca n the Attor ney-General indicate the reason for that increase? HON. R. PENNER: I think we're sort of kicked in to the full effect of changes that were introd uced over a year ago - tho se are the changes In The

Summary Co nvictions Act procedure where we actually have a fixed percentage as costs added in to the ticket amount, and of course the system that is bein g used now with respect to the way in which these offences in the main are enforced throug h the summ ary procedure that we now have, notice and conviction by mail is, in effect, paying off - perhaps strang ely, perhaps not - because I think on the whole, we live in a law-abiding province, people have accepted that system in good spirit. Where they have a ticket and they get notice, they drop a chequ e in the mail, and it's workin g . MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(a)(1)- pass; 2.(a)(2)- pass. 2.(b)

(1) Fatal Inqui ries Act: Salaries; 2.(b)

(2) Other Expenditures - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Ch airman, does the Attorne y General intend to introduce amendments to The Fatality Inquir ies Act at this Session? HON. R. PENNER: I believe that there are some minor amendments which may come forw ard In the Statute Law Amendment, but again, let me check on that and come back to the member tomorrow mornin g on that. Nothin g major , certainl y. MR. G. MERCIER: Would that be to auth orize the hirin g of medical examiners' assistants? HON. R. PENNER: I wouldn't think that that needs a statuto ry change. MR. G.

MERCIER: How many medical examiners' assistants have been hired? HON. R. PENNER: Okay, we'll have that in a moment. I just wanted to draw the member's attention to the sup plement ary material where we'r e showi ng no projected staff increase for 1985-86, so I don't think that the statutor y changes which are being antici pated - which may be broug ht in - are related to that.

Now, the qu estion add resses steps that were taken last year, but we'll get the answer - we hired two medical investigators and what we did there, we were using people on a part-time basis to do the medical investigations at very considerable costs and not gr eat efficiency. We took a look at the money that was being expended and came forw ard with the notion which was put in place last year that it would be better to have two full-time medical investigators than sort of farming it out on a piecework basis. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Ch airman, how much were those assistants paid? HON. R.

PENNER: Somewhere in the $40,000 ran ge, somethin g like that - but we'll have it in a moment. I'm ashamed to say that we're paying them as low as $24,500.00. Perhaps I should put it differently on the record in case we get an application for an Increase . We're paying them the sumptuous rate of $24,500 per annum each. MR. G. MERCIER: How many cases do they handle? HON. R. PENNER: I'll take that as notice. MR. G. MERCIER: How much is a medical examiner paid to handle a case? Is it not $50 per case? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it is. MR. G. MERCIER: What degree of trainin g do these assistants have? HON. R.

PENNER: The. investigators? MR. G. MERCIER: They've had the trainin g of nu rses. I don't know whether they're reg istered nurses, but they have the qualifications of fully-trained nurses. I think one could ge nerally describe them as paramedicals. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Ch airman, obviously because I have had concerns expressed to me, I would ask that the Attorney-General to report on whether these investigators are auth orized under the legislation to perform what they have been asked to do and to compare their cost-efficiency to medical examiners, In view of the fact that medical examiners - and I unde rstand there are only seven or eight in the City of Winnipeg - they're only paid $50 per case so, obviou sly, they're not in it for the money either. lt would be interesting to know how many cases these two investigators handled at $24,000 per year.

When you compare that to the $50 per case that the medical examiners are being paid, I'd like to know whether there is some cost-efficiency in what is happening . HON. R. PENNER: Righ t, we'll track that down. The way the system works, as I understand it, is that the investiga tors do, in a sense, the preliminary and make a decision as to whether or not the circumst ance requires the attendance of an exami ner. There's not an equivalence between the number of persons seen by an investigator and the number eventually seen by an exami ner. The num bers seen by an examiner will be much fewer. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Ch airman, I'll have to leave it at that and wait for the Attorney-General's comments un less he has somethin g else to add to it at this stage. 1524

Thiusdey, 2 May, 1t85 MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(b)(1)-pass; 2.(b)(2)-pass. 2.(c)

(1) Board of Review, Salaries; 2.(c)

(2) Other Expenditures - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERC'IER: Mr. Chairman - I'm just trying to find it - somewhere in this material there is a list of the persons detained by the Board of Review. HON. R. PENNER: I may have provided that list on a supplementary basis. MR. G. MERCIER: On the last page of the (Interjection) - HON. R. PENNER: The supplementary material? MR. G. MERCIER: Of the highlights, the smaller material. I notice, Mr. Chairman, in the last set of Orders-in Council that there are five or six cases that were dealt with by Order-in-Council. Would those have affected the statistics? HON.

R. PENNER: I have the figures as of April 24, 1985. Is that the statistical information sheet that the member has? I think those include the five recently passed LGWs. MR. G. MERCIER: Could the Minister indicate how long these persons have been held in custody? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I could. lt varies. There's only one that has been in for what could be really be considered a significantly long time. That one person has been - there are two people - in since 1954.

Most of the others were incarcerated around the mid '70s, a little later, and quite a few in the early'80s,'84, and then, of course, we have those new ones ln'85. MR. G. MERCIER: How often are their cases reviewed? HON. R. PENNER: Every year. Well actually, that's the minimum. If the Board of Review feels that progress has been made, there may be reviews more frequently than once a year. MR. G. MERCIER: Who presently serves on the Board of Review? HON. R. PENNER: The chairperson is Carolina Cramer and there are, I believe, two psychiatrists. I'll get the names for the mem ber, I don't have them with me.

I think it's a board of four or five - four at the moment; the chairperson, two psychiatrists, and a layperson. MR. G. MERCIER: The Attorney-General doesn't recall the layperson at the present time? HON. R. PENNER: The reason I don't, Mr. Chairperson, is because there has been a change fairly recently. We had someone, I think, from around Neepawa or in that area who, I think, resigned the position and I believe has been replaced, but I'll have that information tomorrow. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(c)(1)-pass; 2.(c)(2)-pass.

Resolution 17: Resolve that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,832,900 for Attorney General, Criminal Justice, for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1986-pass. Item No. 3.(a)

(1) Legal Services - Civil Litigation: Salaries; 3.(a)

(2) Other Expenditures. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: I think this is an appropriate place to deal with this, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General will recall the amendments made to The Child Welfare Act with respect to broadening the category of people who were entitled to access to a child; and over the past year there was the case, that I think was resolved in the Court of Appeal, with respect to a male babysltter obtaining visiting rights to a three and-a-half-year-old child. In view of that case, is the Attorney-General giving any consideration to proposing any further amendments to that

section of The Child Welfare act? HON. R. PENNER: Some thought was being given, but then the Court of Appeal, in its decision, I think made it quite clear in its view and that will be the binding case in the jurisdiction. The

section was not intended to cover the kind of case which had led to the order by the judge below . MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, within the Civil Litigation Department is the

section Involving Robyn Diamond and the Family Law Section, I note a report in January of this year that indicated that the province saved $250,000 in welfare payments in what refers to 1983 as a result of the enforcement system we introduced in Manitoba. I wonder if the Attorney General has a figure for 1984. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I do. I'll give the member all of the statistics relating to the Family Maintenance Program. Just the general statistics, year-over-year , in 1983 the total number of accounts with respect to which collections were made were 8,554, yielding to recipients $8,347,750.00.

In 1984, the number of accounts had jumped to 9,696 and the amount of money obtained for recipients had jumped to $9,573,900, so that, as has been noted very recently in reports from Ottawa and in a broadcast tonight on "As it Happens,'' Manitoba certainly leads the way; and I have no reluctance in saying, as I've said before, that the Member for St. Norbert introduced this system and I congratulate him for it.

With respect to Income security payments received, the partial payments to the payee were about $81,000, but direct payments to the Minister of Finance - and this is very significant - $725,000-plus dollars, so the system is doing very, very well. it's not only paying for itself, it's yielding a direct profit to the province and at the same time producing for women, who must depend on maintenance, an annual amount which is now close to $10 million. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased, as I'm sure the Attorney-General was, to see the reference to the Federal Government, I take it, including in its 1525

Thureday, 2 May, 1985 divorce legislation some additional authority to obtain federal information to help locate defaulting spouses. I wonder if the Attorney-Genera l's had an opportun ity to see that legislation and if he could comment on it. HON. R. PENNER: The first comment I would like to make is that, to a very considerable extent, that legislation was a collective effort in which my provincial colleagu es and I played, I think, a very useful role in all aspects of the legislation.

In fact, because of Manitoba's experience in this area, I was asked to become the lead Min ister on behalf of the provincial colleagues and sent an extensive brief on the behalf of all of tho se Min isters to the former Min ister of Justice and su bsequently to the present Minister of Justice and he's been pleased to note the contribution that all of us have made, but Manitoba particula rly, and we did press home the point over a couple of years, but now successfully, that a federal prog ram on maintenance collection was crucial; and I think it's been - as somebody described it yesterday - a gr eat day for women particularly that this new legi slation is being introduc ed which will provide a national collection system and use updated records to trace maintenance skippers.

MR. G. MERCIER: Mr . Ch airman, are any other provinces moving towards the automatic enforcement system? I believe Ontario certainly was talking about it within the last few months. HON. R. PENNER: My latest information is that all but about two provi nces are moving now very qui ckly to emula te the Manitoba system. The two who aren't - but I stand to be corrected - are Qu ebec and, I think, PEI, but PEI simply because they don't feel, with their small population, it's warranted. I don't qu ite follow the logic but we'll take tha t on faith.

Alberta, inter est ing ly enou g h, which was very skeptical for a period of time, when the head of our Family Depar tment, Robyn Diamond, went down about a year ago and conduc ted a semin ar, the Attorne y General, Neil Cr awfo rd, was very interested and subse qu ently advised me tha t indeed they're now seriously considerin g emu lating the Manitoba system. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr . Ch airman, have any other provi nces moved to adopt the Manitoba policy of providin g Cr own Attorneys to assist in the enforcement of custody orders, which I think is a distinct advantage to people caug ht in that situati on. HON. R.

PENNER: I agree it is a distinct advantage as it is one of the key aspects of the system. To my knowledge, this has not yet been emulated by any other province - as far as I'm aware, it hasn't been emu lated by any other province. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr . Ch airman, I believe this area would cover a fund to retain outside counsel. HON. R. PENNER: I'm sorry, I missed the qu estion. MR. G. MERCIER: I believe this item would include monies to retain outside counsel. HON. R. PENNER: The monies being voted in Legal Services? MR. G. MERCIER: Yes. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I think there is an appropriation for outside counsel.

I'm advised that, in fact, the system that we're using is that where outside counsel is reta ined, the payment for outside counsel really comes from the Client Department so it doesn't show up as a lump sum in our appropriation. MR. G. MERCIER: Does the Minister approve the names of counsel retained by his department and other departments? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, under the General Manual of Admin istrati on, the Attorney-General is req uired to approve. I don't think I ever disapprove.

If a Client Department says that they want to hire X, whoever X may be, as long as I have no reason for doubtin g the ability of X, I approve. I'm quite sure, I can't recollect an instance in which I've said no. I'm just too nice to do that. MR. G. MERCIER: Co uld the Attorney-General indicate who the outside couns el are that have been retained durin g the past year and how much they've been paid? We're awa r e of the Police Co mmission. HON. R. PENNER: No t really. lt's spread very widely. In corporate matters, we've used people like Mr. Shead, for examp le; with respect to the Northern Union Insurance, Mr.

Olson from the Simonson firm as it then was - we really spread it across the board. I can say in a very strai g htforw ard way that we really do look for competence, that there's no pork barrel here. There's no favourite counsel with the rig ht political stripe. We have to defend the interests of go vernment and we look for the best lawyers. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: A qu estion of collection of arrears of maintenance. I'm talking now in particular when the old system was located at the Fort Osborne Barracks.

My line of qu estioning is really leading up to whether there has been any chan ge in the system, because thou gh I have never done that much in the way of dome stic practice, over the past four or five years prior to its transferring over to its present location, there were at least three maj or errors in the amounts of money being either recorded or credited in the name of the - in this case it was three husbands. They just didn't square with the records of the individual. HON. R. PENNER: One wife, three husbands ? MR. C. BIRT: No , the amounts paid in. HON. R. PENNER: Oh, I see. MR. C.

BIRT: Clients being pulled in on the arrears and why haven't you paid your arrears sort of thing . 1526

Tttursdar. 2 May. 1985 There was, I felt, bad record keeping; a fairly major problem. I know people down there who worked hard, in effect. In one case, Miss McGregor and I spent several hours going through the record and finally found out that, in fact, if I kept my mouth shut my client would have been further off, but the amounts of payment in and records appearing on the computer just weren't matching and there were some problems.

I'm wondering, were there problems brought to the department's attention because on more than one occasion I felt like writing to the department and just saying, hey , I think the record keeping here is terrible. HON. R. PENNE A: it's true, of course, with the computer the old saw is garbage in, garbage out. I'm happy to say that I have no evidence to show that there's garbage in in the sense of mistakes being made in getting data into the compute r.

Interestingly enough - and I'm glad you asked the question because there may have been some problems early on but, if so, they've been resolved - there's only one case that has been brought to my attention in three and a half years and that was very recen tly. lt was a case in which the husband had paid directly rather than through the system, so the system didn't catch it. When the system did, apologies were made and the whole thing was sorted out. MR. C. BIRT: I guess the frustrating

part is that the Crown Attorney sits there and the computer sheet says - and a great deal of time had to go back through the system showing that there were errors, and in two cases it was errors in favour of my client and in another it was again an administrative foul-up. I'm not blaming anyone because I realize that a great deal of money and paper go in. lt's a question of getting the right system to make sure it's all properly recorded so that when the Crown Attorney says this is what the sheet says, it is, in fact, correct.

For it to appear the number of times it did for my small practice, I felt it may be sort of the tip of an iceberg of a much bigger problem. HON. R. PENNER: I'm happy to say - and again, it has to be, in a sense, impressionistic - that on the basis of complaints received by me, I will find out whether or not there are a greater number of complaints received by the department. I'm sure there are some.

One has to think of this as an outstanding success from every point of view because dealing with 9,696 accounts, and I've only heard about one problem, then either things are being kept from me or the system is working very well. I think the latter, but I'll follow that up. MR. C. BIRT: The system that is now presently in operation across the street, is it the same set-up as it was at Fort Osborne, or has it been upgraded or changed in any way? HON. R. PENN ER: Mr.

Sinnot, our Director of Administration, and one who is responsible for putting in place the Personal Property Security Register in the province, advises me that there were some problems early on the system, but we've rewritten parts of the program and put the program into a much larger computer and, since that time, we are not having those problems. MR. C. BIRT: I must say that the Crown Attorneys handling that particular matter were sympathetic, and we were able to resolve it, but it was a concern I felt. I haven't had any of those problems of late so maybe the system has corrected itself. HON. R.

PENNER: Yes, okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a)(1) - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCJER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Attorney-General could give a brief description of how this experiment will work in this department to provide a lawyer for the purpose of enforcing family maintenance orders. I take it that's for the purpose, also, of obtaining orders. As I indicated to him in past years, the problem was that Legal Aid would not grant a certificate, in many instances, to a person on social assistance to obtain a separation order because they didn't see any cost benefit.

However , I think there could be a significant saving to the taxpayer. There's no reason why just because, let's say, a husband is married to a woman who is receiving social assistance shouldn't be required to contribute in some way at least a portion of it to offset the cost to the taxpayer, even if it may only be $100 or $150 a month but in many of those cases, it would seem that those husbands in those situations are getting off the hook completely just because their wife has been placed on social assistance. I wonder if the Attorney-General could give some general idea of how this proposal would work.

Would people be referred to Legal Aid directly to the lawyer that has been hired by the department to handle these cases? HON. R. PENNER: There'll be two points of referral primary from Economic Security, the Department of Economic Security. The referrals will come from there and there's somebody who has been given the task in Economic Security of working the lawyer who has been hired to run the system for a year. As I mentioned earlier , it's a trial period. What we're looking at is, in fact, to see whether or not there is a net gain to the province. I hope there is.

The argument that was advanced contra that assumption was that what would happen is, in a significant number of cases, the wife applicant who might be reluctant to go or to seek a Court Order or who would have been denied a certificate and didn't seek a Court Order would now, through the system, go and we'll provide the lawyer in those instances; but in many of the instances the respondent is not much of an earner and will, in fact, at those levels where the person, the respondent would be eligible for Legal Aid, so that we would have a significant loading, in terms of Legal Aid costs, with minimal returns.

Now those were all assumptions and you may remember that we exchanged views on that but that wasn't the argument. But we said, as we approached this year, maybe we'd better run that for a trial period 1527

Thur8day, 2 May, 1985 and I must say that the init iative came - suggestions, of course, were made by the Member for St. Norbert - but the init iative we took up came from the Minis ter of Economic Security and persons in his department. We met around the table and worked out this proposal for a trial system. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Is the Mini ster contemplating making any changes to The Builders' Liens Act at this Session? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Min ister. HON. R. PENNER: Perhaps some minor amendments.

There is one area that's presently under study that hasn't resulted in a decision yet. lt would not be a major change, but I would not say it would be an insign ificant change; but we're not really looking at any general changes. The member may know - I think he does - that a very large number of amendments were brought in, in the'82 Session and, in fact, a few minor amendments in subsequent Sessions.

There may be some that would be in The Statute Law Amendments Act for this Session but there is one possible amendment of some greater sign ificance that is being considered by a client department and I have no instructions on that as yet. MR. C. BIRT: Correspondence I have received from a constituent, and it's been addressed to yourself, Mr. and Mrs. Chapman, as it relates to Harding Carpets placing a lien on their home as a result of an installer whose supplier installed the carpet going bankrupt.

The question I want to deal with arises from the problem that they raise and, basically, it's the third party in the lien busine ss. Often the homeowner suddenly receives notice and then doesn't know what's going on and often has to incur costs or a little bit of anguish and in this case I know he's written several letters to your department, as well as to myself and others.

Is the government giving any thought to trying to relieve these people or at least transfer the onus from them onto perhaps the installer, the supplier or the cont ractor giving them notice because. though ignorance of the law is no excuse, I think, really this is contract taw, and you're talking trust and hold-b acks and things like this that the ordinary citizen isn't aware of; and in this particular case, it's put them to some considerable concern. I'm wondering if the government would be, or would take under advls ement, the possibility of making changes. HON. R.

PENNER: That case has given my other department, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a great deal of concern and has given myself a great deal of concern and there doesn't appear to be a ready answer to it. The scheme was elaborated over time with some difficulty, the scheme that is presently In place, and it's clear, the point is very well taken that the average person is unfamiliar with the hold- back requirement under The Builders' Liens Act because it's not a public statute, in a sense. lt's public statute but it doesn't deal with public rights. lt deals with rights between individua ls and how would they know.

So the question arises, how do we get notice to individua ls so that they realize tha t they may be liable to a subcontractor unless, for the period of time required by the statute, they've held back 7.5 percent. There must be a number of cases like the Chapman case. MR. C.

BIRT: lt happens with sufficient frequency and I will be dealing with this issue in the other departmental Estimates because I see that seems to have led the list of complaints; but I think the basic thrust of The Liens Act is to protect the supplier or creator of the improvement of the land, but I think it implies a certain degree of sophistication and knowledge to the parties who are involved. lt seems to me one of two tacks could be taken.

Either there could be an exemption provision, say on residential construc tion, up to $2,000 or $3,000 - and that's an arbitrary limit - that you wouldn't have a lien or, alternati vely, as Mr. Chapman suggests, that if you, the supplier or contractor, wish to take advantage of it - and in this case, it's the supplier of materials - you would have to make some designation or notation on the bill that you tender, or at least you, if you want to take advantage of it, must give notice to the ult imate consumer of the goods.

I don't think it's something we can just ignore because a great deal of renovation and reconstruction of homes is going on. In fact, the province is funding some of this; part of the Core Program is being di rected to this and the homeowner, the recipient of any of these funds Is just not aware of it, so would the government give some consideration, if not in this act, perhaps amending The Consumers Protection Act, or at least bringing something into play where the innocent third party is given some relief? HON. R.

PENNER: I'm not so sure whether we can work out something that will give the innocent third party relief, so much as protection against this type of thing; but yes, we'll certainly look into it. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a)( 1) - the Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: One question. At least I'd like to deal with the Civil Litigation aspect. Has a Director of Civil Litigation been appointed? HON. R. PENNER: Not yet. MR. C. BIRT: When do you anticipate filling that position? HON. R. PENNER: Two weeks at the outside. MR. C.

BIRT: I'm looking at the organizational chart for the Civil Litigation Department. Do I read it property that, I think at the moment it's one unit of 20-odd lawyers. Is it going to be broken up Into sub-units or directorshlps? Because In the past it's had a director, a deputy director, and then a number of staff lawyers and I believe one specialty area dealing with the domestic legislation. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, you read the chart correctly. We're looking towards the development there where 1528

Thursct.r. 2 Mar. 1985 the - at least we identify, in an or ga nization sense, the specially units, Family Law and Co nstitutional Law. We also are thinking of the development of a policy planning and evaluation unit which at the moment is insipient only, but these will not take away from the Civil Litiga tion Department. MA. C. BIAT: The primary responsibility for Civil Litig ation was to advise the go vernment throu g hout its various departments . . . HON. A. PENNEA: And act for it. MA. C. BIAT: . . , and act for it in the courts, ri gh t. Is it Intending to break that major part of it into specialized units?

HON. A. PENNEA: Aside from the Family Law unit, which for all practical purposes is . MA. C. BIAT: Really a part of it. HON. A. PENNEA: Yes, a separate unit In any event, the rest of legal services will remain Intact. MA. C. BIAT: it's not contemplated to breakin g them into smaller units with a supervisor. HON. A. PENNEA: No. MA. C. BIAT: The area you called Research Directorate, I forg ot the exact phrasin g , but a research unit, what is its intention and who would you be staffing it with? HON. A.

PENNEA: We have one person now who when hired was hired as the research person reporting directly to the Minister and to the Senior Legislative Co unsel, it was a split-reportin g basis and that person is located In the Office of Legislative Co unsel, so that person would be increasing ly working as a res earcher and doing a significant amount of work In the area of constitutional law, would be part of a unit that we want to develop.

We're thinking of the addition perhaps durin g the course of this year of one person. - (lnterj ection)- As indicated earlier we have the staff equivalent of 3.2 in Policy Planning and Evaluation and I think we'll be looking at two or three in the constitutional law area. Co nstitutional law is perhaps too narrow a design ation, but it is basically the resea rch, but most of that resear ch, legal rese arch, is presently in the area of constitutional ra w and charter related qu estions. MA. C. BIAT: I believe that th e Ci vil Litig ation Department used to advise on constitutional matters.

Is it now anticipated that you're go ing to create this research and development thing as a specially shop and will be moving that sort of expertise ou t of the line department into that specially area? HON. A. PENNEA: In part only, there are two particular areas, which have placed such heavy demands on us that sort of the reg ulars in Civil Litigation have been unable to undertake the tasks.

One is the Ch arter ge nerally and it's sort of looking , in a pro - active way, at Ch art er compliance, tracking Ch arter cases and what is the significance of tho se Ch arter cases for our legislation and for our pro gr ams; the other is Abo rig inal constitutional rig hts, where we've used an outside consultant up to this point and we feel that the demands are simply increasin g to the point where we need the personnel that have been indicated to concentrate on constitutional law. Our sister provin ce, Saskatchewan, has a constitutional law unit of what?

Seven? - (I nterjection) - Five lawyers and support staff in addition, but people who are presently In Civil Litiga tion, many of them will continue in the particular area for which th ey' re responsible, let's say Labour . There are some cases now pending in the Supreme Co urt in which Manitoba is an intervener, and the cases raise some Ch arter qu estions. In a specific case, the Labour people In Civil Litigation would be the ones who would represent the province and would do the resea rch, but they may call upon the res earch staff to assist them in briefin g . MA. C.

BIAT: Your comments are tha t they're to play more of a passive role, either to advise, to assist legislative counsel; they will not get involved in the court system. HON. A. PENNEA: Not particularly, you're righ t, they're more of a res earch unit. We don't see them as front line counsel. MA. C. BIAT: I believe . . . HON. A. PENNEA: First rate, but not front line. MA. CHAIRMAN: We are having trouble recording , too fast. HON. A. PENNEA: Mr. Birt, you're too fast. MA. C. BIAT: I believe you're hirin g a Cr own Attorne y, is it for human rig hts cases? HON. A. PENNEA: Civil Litigation. - (Int erject ion) Yes.

MA. C. BIAT: Will tha t be a specific entity on the Civil Litigation side or will it appear in this Research and Development Office? Where will it fit into the system? HON. A. PENNEA: lt will be within Civil Litiga tion, or the position will be in Civil Litigation. MA. C. BIAT: lt won't be a department, it will just be HON. A. PENNEA: No, it won' t be a department, because you see we do have people who, rou g hly speaking, are responsible for a particular area, but all of them are expected to, as their caseload permits, be on call for other areas.

We're in fact trying to stren gthen the shop, as it were, by brin ging in from the cold some people who have actually been physically located with, let's say, Housin g is one example, because we believe that we simply deliver legal services better when these people are part of the firm, the go vernment's law firm. 1529

Thur�ay, 2 May, 1985 MR. C. BIRT: The special department dealing with domestic relations, family law, are you adding any people to it this year? If not, do you see expanding its role in the near future? HON. R. PENNER: There is one addition that we've all ready talked about and that 's a person in Civil Litigation to assist the social allowance recipients in enforcing maintenance judgment, so that 's the addition. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, no further quest ions. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(b)( 1)- pass; 3.(b)(2 )-pass. 3.(c)( 1) ... 3.(b)( 1) Legislative Counsel, Salaries; 3.( b)

(2) Other Expendit ures - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, with respect to Legislative Counsel offices, I had written to the Attorney General and he provided me with a response in December of last year that the Legislative Counsel will retain an office in the Legislative Building so that he can be available to all mem bers of the House, particularly during the Session. I take it that that's a given and that will continue and there will be no change in that arrangement. HON. R. PENNER: lt's a given, there will be no change in that arrangement. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, could the Minister indicate how many Legislative Counsel are there? I take it there's Mr. Moylan, Mr. Balkaran, Mr. Silver . HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Yost. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, he would be in the Translat ion Services. Is he regarded as Legislative Counsel or in the Translation Services? HON. R. PENNER: He is basically in Legislative Counsels' complement; he was seconded to the legal translation unit and he is working both sides of that street, but he basically should be identified as a posit ion in Legislative Counsel. MR. G. MERCIER: How many other lawyers are there? HON. R.

PENNER: Well, in the legal translation unit which has now been brought under the umbrella of Legislative Counsel, there are either five or six. Of the 11 that we - we have now 11 plus 4, 15 . Of the 11 presently in place, in that unit seven are legally trained people. MR. G. MERCIER: Who are they all then besides the ones that I'v e mentioned? HON. R. PENNER: Well, these are people who have been recruited for legal translation, in all cases, been recruited out east in Ottawa, Quebec, some I think from Moncton. MR. G.

MERCIER: Okay, forgetting for a moment about translation services, in Legislative Counsel there's Mr. Mo ylan, Mr. Balkaran, Mr. Silv er, Mr. Yost - (Interjection) - HON. R. PENNER: And Mr. Szach. MR. G. MERCIER: And Mr. Szach - five lawyers. And the other three, staff years would be a secretarial clerical? HON. R. PENNER: We have one systems person and two other support persons. MR. G. MERCIER: In Translation Services, there's to be an addition of four people? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G. MERCIER: What areas will they work in? HON. R. PENNER: They'll work primarily in Legal Translation.

We're just in the process of hiring. What happens is that twice a year, or perhaps three ti mes, at least twice a year, the Federal Government through its resources runs an exam series and persons who wish to qualify as legal translators write that exam. lt's only after the exams are written and graded that we then go in and try to recruit and those exams currently were written on April 15-16 and we now have, or will shortly have, the list of those with respect to whom recruitment might take place. We hope to be able to hire the four. lt hasn't been easy. We have built up the unit bit by bit.

If we hire the four , the y'll be brought here basically in a probationary capacity while their work is tested, and while they learn on the job. MR. G. MERCIER: What salaries does the province have to offer to attract people with that expertise? HON. R. PENNER: About $35,000.00. MR. G. MERCIER: What is the status of tran slation of statutes at the present time? How much progress has been made? HON. R. PENNER: I wonder if the member doesn't mind if I leave that till tomorrow.

I had taken that as notice in the House and, I think perhaps, as a matter of protocol - I have it downstairs in any event - I'll give that answer in the House tomo rrow. The question had been asked on April the something or-other by the Member for Elmwood. I just within the last day or so received an update and, I think perhaps, as a matter of protocol I'll give the answer in the House tomorrow? MR. G. MERCIER: Sure. How long does the Attorney-General estimate it will take to translate the balance of legally required statutes and regulations, etc.? HON. R. PENNER: 1t depends on the dimensions of the job.

If we had to do no more than the 400-plus statutes in the cont inuing consolidation, I estimate that if we're successful in hiring these four additional 1530

Thur•der. 2 ... y, 1915 persons, and if we're successful in gett ing and keeping a good reviser- and that's a very key

part in the process - we could complete those in two to three years. Now, if - well, there's hardly an "if" about it - we have to then look at the problem of the regulations and we really haven't made any significant step on the regulations. We have some of the key regulations about ready. We will need additional staff to do the regulations, but we hope to have some staff to really sink our teeth into that job fairly soon. There are other requirements that will just have to wait until the Supreme Court decides.

If the Supreme Court decision is such that we have to do the roughly 3,500-4,000 other -statutes, then we've got a problem. MR. G. MERCIER: Does the reduction in Other Expenditures ind icate that there wou ld be less contracting out of Translation Services? HON. R. PENNER: That's right. MR. G. MERCIER: What contract ing out would there be? Was any proposed in that 162, 000? HON. R. PENNER: The contracting that we have, we have some contracting which was to have been completed by March 31s t and hasn't been. That is principally, but not exclusively, with the University of Moncton.

That has been extended a couple of months. - (Interjection) - I'm right in that in formation . Moncton, principally working at the moment on The City of Winnipeg Act which is a pretty horrendous act. We have, in fact, got someone working directly with them on The City of Winnipeg Act so that when it comes to us, it will not need further revision. We've got a reviser working with the translation unit at Moncton. We're not looking, in fact, at very much outside translation in fiscal'85-86. We have a small amount budg eted, about 30,000, for that. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, why would you be contracting the translation of the City of Winnipeg Statute when the government has undertaken a review of The City of Winnipeg Act which, I expect, may result in some significant changes in the act? HON. R. PENNER: lt's a question of which comes first. A horrendous decision from the Supreme Court or Mr. Cherniack. - (Interject ion) - lt may be - I would be inclined to doub t this - that Mr. Chern iack will recommend no significant changes to the present City of Winnip eg Act. We simply don't know and, clearly, he's not reporting until Septem ber.

Now, sometime, - this government will be in power for another 5-6 years - we will have time, in fact, to deal with The City of Winnipeg Act should it be required in that period of time. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I really do think the cautious thing to do would be to put off The City of Winnipeg Act with this review going on and do something else. However, I wonder . . . HON. R. PENNER: it's just my fondness for the City of Winnipeg that makes us sure that they're not an outlaw government. MR. G. MERCIER: With respect to Mr.

Cherniack, I told him the that the bi blical injunction, "B eget not the sins of a father upon his son" should have been appropriately used in this case. Mr. Chairman, could the Attorney-General indicate whether it was part of the University of Moncton contract for translating, Roger Bilodeau is doing some of the work? HON. R. PENNER: You've been reading too many spy novels recently. You figure there's a mole down there. No, Mr. Bilodeau, to my knowledge, is not qu alified is not qualif ied as a legal translator. He has expertise with respect to parking tickets, but . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort Garry.

MR. C. BIRT: When asked about what grants that the Minister or the department had given and some 21 ,000 had been given to women in the Constitution - that's not the correct phraseology - but he had indicated . . . HON. R. PENNER: The Charter of Rights Coalition. MR. C. BIRT: . . . a report was being made to a researcher in the Legislative Counsel's Office. Who is that researcher? HON. R. PENNER: Eugene Szach. MR. C. BIRT: Is that person intended to be part of this research unit that you're esta blishing in tha t department? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(b)(1)- pass; 3.(b)(2)-pass. 3.(c)

(1) Manitoba Law Reform Commission: Salaries; 3.(c)

(2) Other Expenditures. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Ch airm an, again the appropriation for the Manitoba Law Reform Commission is certainly not up in any significant way and has never been increased in any significant way for the past numb er of years although it does do - I would regard, and I think the Attorney-General shares that view and I'm certain many other people do - that it does excellent work. I wonder why, with the Attorney-General making money available to - and I'm not downgrading any of these other groups - but the Charter of Rights Coalition and Mr.

Gibson and others to review statutes, etc., why hasn't the Law Reform Commission been asked to undertake some of these tasks? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON. R. PENNER: The Law Reform Commission has some excellent people there, but none of them, to my knowledge, have expertise in the area of constitutional law. That's principally why, and the ones who are there, all of them are heavily engage in ongoing projects. Two that I can think of, for example, have been ongoing for some time and will engage counsel in that office 1531

Thursday , 2 May , 1985 for some time to come - The Dower Act; we've had a preliminary report on that and I think there is an area where the Law Reform Commission is going to make its next very significant contribution to law reform in this province.

They've also produced the first of what will be a two part report on administrative law and this is something of exceptional importance; and there is something that we'll have dovetail in with the work that it be done in department by our constitutional people because a lot of the things that are being looked at and maybe recommended with respect to procedures to be followed by administrative tribunals will have to be checked against the requirements of the Charter and any jurisprudence which will have developed in Charter cases by the time we get the final report from the Law Reform Commission; so it doesn't stand, by any means, in splendid isolation. lt continues to be a very significant component in our Legal Services Division.

We recognize it as such. We've met, the deputy and I, very recently with the chairperson of the commission, who continues to render very valuable services. I'm quite excited by the work that is being done with respect to The Dower Act. I think that is really something that will lead to perhaps a whole complex of changes in succession statutes, The Devolution of Estates Act is going to be touched by that and some of our other statutes, marital statues, The Married Women's Property Act, all of them will be affected by anticipated changes in The Dower Act. MR. G. MERCIER: I take it, Mr.

Chairman, there'll be no amendments to The Dower Act at this Session. HON. R. PENNER: There may be, as I recollect, two or three that are so clearly required by

Section 15 of the Charter, that they would be included in the

Section 15 package. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Chairman, perhaps I read it somewhere, but has his term not come to an end? Has his term been extended? HON. R. PENNER: lt has. MR. G. MERCIER: For how long? HON. R. PENNER: Three years, I believe. lt was originally a seven-year term and it's been extended at three, and that's at his request. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(c)(1)-pass; 3.(c)(2)-pass. Resolution No. 18: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,928,700 for the Department of the Attorney-General, Legal Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1986- pass. Item No. 4.(

a) Law Enforcement - Provincial Police. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General identified, I think, in his opening remarks some . . . I thought it was a decrease in 11 positions in staffing. Could he indicate whether there will be any reduction in manpower in the RCMP in the current year? HON. R. PENNER: No. In fact, I think there'll be a slight increase, at least in terms of the complement. I make that distinction when I say in that way rather than nece ssarily in terms of live bodies on the spot.

There have been some assignments from various detachments across the country to Ottawa duties in connection with a program for increased security of Embassies and so on, so that there will be a bit of a turnover during the course of the year, so there may be some vacancies from time to time; but in the actual establishment there'll be a slight increase because we will be increasing, overall, the number of special constables and that will be offset in part by a reduction over time in non-Native police, but the net effect, I think, is a bit of an increase overall in the RCMP staffing. MR. G.

MERCIER: Are there any movements of detachments or reductions in services anywhere in rural Manitoba contemplated in this year? HON. R. PENNER: I'm sorry, would you repeat the question? MR. G. MERCIER: Are there any movements of detachments or reductions in services in rural Manitoba contemplated this year? HON. R. PENNER: No, the basic detachment as such will remain in place. There may be some movement of the odd person. There was a recent movement of one person from one of the detachments into Winnipeg in connection with one of the programs. Charlie Hill, our Director of Law Services.

There's movement from time to time of one or more persons out of a particular detachment or a couple of detachments on a special assignment. We had a special unit set up to try and deal with some rash of break-ins in a particular area that required an ongoing investigation over several months. So, there's that kind of movement, but otherwise none. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the DOTC Police Program has been somewhat up in the air over the past number of years.

There was a report - I think I can go back three or four years - supposedly to be made on the whole program and, as I recollect, discussions; it wasn't received and then it wasn't fully considered and now I see in these Estimates that the increase in the grant for the program by the province has been increased by $50,000 to $150,000.00. I recognize that the Federal Government must be picking up a very considerable part of the cost of that program, but has there been agreement with the Federal Government on the program and its continuation? HON. R. PENNER: No, there hasn't.

Negotiations have been going on for an unconscionably long period of time. There has been agreement in principle that the time has come for an agreement over some years for multi year funding on some formula, but beyond that we haven't gone other than on an ad hoc basis for the last couple of years. Part of the reason for that is the change of governm ent. Discussions were held with the previous Minister which, I may say with some note of 1532

Thurec:laJ, 2 May, 1985 cynicism, tended to be somewhat accelerated as we came closer to an election and, then, dropped off, of course, while the new Minister became acclimatized.

The task of negotiating an agreement was taken up by the new Min ister in about October of'B4; followed by a letter from myself in Janu ary of'85; followed by a meeting between several Ministers, the Minister of Northern Affairs, myself and others, and the Min ister here in Winni peg on March 7th or Bth; followed by a meeting today, this morning in fact, between myself and members of the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council representing each one of the eight reserves, plus the Chief of Police, a member from the RCMP, and Mr. Hill, we looked at the present state of funding.

There has been, I'm pleased to say, significant increase in funding by the Federal Government, so that with the $1 50,000 grant from the province, they look to be in fairly good shape for fiscai'B5-86. lt would still be, I think, important to try and establish a longer term. There was a period of uncertainty in the history of the force,'82-83, when under the previous chief, and not necessarily because of the previous chief, there was a large tu rnover. One of the reserves had opted out of the program.

There was some uncertainty, but we seem to have reached a period of time in the life of the DOTC where it's beginning to prove itself. lt has very good relationships with the RCM P. 1t has a Board of Police Commissioners on which we're represented, and the RCM P. So, we're looking, hopefully, at that program recognizing some limitations. I expect to be following the meeting this morning in touch with the Federal Minister to see whether we can get officials from my department and officials from his department to sit down and begin to look at mult i-year funding. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, does the Attorney General consider it to be an effective policing program that should be continued indefinitely? HON. R. PENNER: I think it has proven to be quite effective. There are problems associated with police forces of this kind in that it's cost effectiveness is hard to judge. That's the area of uncertain ty. I think it has proven itself as a good police force. The cost-effe ctiveness problem is this that you have a relatively small population scattered between - actually seven, although there are eight reserves - seven locations for policing; widely scattered locations.

The whole question of an optimum size for a detachment is very difficult to meet and so you have on any cost effective basis if it's not nearly as effective, for example, as the RCMP, but it is their police force and they feel very proud of it and they feel that it has done a remarkable job for them, that it has boosted the morale on the reserves, that it has turned a lot of things around and they feel very strongly about it. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a)- pass. 4.(b)( 1) Law Enforcement Administration, Salaries; 4.(b)

(2) Other Expendit ures - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the budge t highlights indicate, in general, some additions here. Could the Attorney-General outline - there are an additional two persons in staffing and he indicated that there will be an investiga tive capability created for The Law Enforcement Review Act and special assignments? I wonder If he could offer a further explanation? HON. R.

PENNER: The two persons being added in this area are a research analyst to assist in the very complex and important job of analyzing the RCMP bud get for any particular year, and the second person is support staff for the research analyst - well, for the unit as a whole. I think, as the Member for St. Norbert will recall, at the beginning of the fiscal year or prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, we get an estimate from the RCMP of the anticipated cost of the services for the ensuing fiscal year.

We're asked to accept that as a starting budget and make progress payments on the basis of that budget. lt's true that subsequently, adjustments will be made on the basis of actual costs, but we have found, particularly since Mr. Hill has come on staff that by rigorous examination of that budget, we are able to suggest to the RCMP in advance, some significant cost savings. For example, in this fiscal year, we were able to suggest savings that total $475,000; that is the provincial share so that the overall amount of savings was greater.

We feel that with the addition of a research analyst - Charlie says he wants to go on piecework - a lot of the work that is presently falling on Mr. Hill's shoulders and with some help from administrative staff , can be done by the analyst, leaving Mr. Hill free, or giving him more time to work as he has been working with special projects such as the DOTC, just as one example, and other aspects of policing in the province. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, there was one question I omitted to ask on Law Enforcement - perhaps I could just ask it here.

Has the Town of Emerson entered into an extension contract with the province? HON. R. PENNER: Not as of this date. MR. G. MERCIER: What Is the situation in the Town of Emerson, then? HON. R. PENNER: The situation in the Town of Emerson Is that, at the moment, they're getting a free ride. There is a detachment there. Clearly, If some victim of crime in Emerson phones up the RCMP, the RCMP are not going to say, but you didn't pay. So policing goes on as it has by the detachment; it responds as one would expect it to do, leaving the problem of the financial liability for those services as yet unresolved. MR. G.

MERCIER: Have they been provided with an extension contract? HON. R. PENNER: Have they been shown what an exten sion contract looks like? Yes, they have no doubt as to what an extension contract looks like. They were sent one in April of 1984 and the basic contract is no different. They know what the current year's figures are; that would be about the only change. MR. G. MERCIER: How many persons does the department say reside in the Town of Emerson? 1533

Thursday, 2 May, 1985 HON. R. PENNER: We say that Statistics Canada tells us that In 1981, there were 762. The Town of Emerson says that it conducted its own census on a windy day and came up with - I say that because if you're standing on a corner counting, the figure can get confused - but they did conduct their own census and they say that there are fewer as of now. The position that we have taken up to this point is, we are using for all towns and villages covered by the requirement, the StatsCan figures. We also use these figures for benefits that are given to municipalities.

We simply don't think that as a matter of sound public policy you can say, well, we'll use a different statistical base for different towns or for different programs. What we've tried to do, as the member knows, is initiate a program where we sort of spread the liability around and all municipalities contribute to the general cost of police services. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the next census is 1986, as I understand it? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G.

MERCIER: What different concerns are there for the 1985-86 budget year than there have been for the last four or five years when the Town of Emerson has received free policing? HON. R. PENNER: lt's not that long, but it's just - I thought they came off the system in terms of paying - just in the last fiscal year was the forgiveness year while we looked at the problem and there is this current year - but leaving that aside, what are the financial problems? There's a loss to provincial revenues of the amount that the town would pay. MR. G.

MERCIER: First of all, how long has the Town of Emerson received free policing services? HON. R. PENNER: We'll have to check that. MR. G. MERCIER: I believe it's correct to say - isn't it? - that the Town of Emerson has received free policing service not just in the last two years, but it goes back quite a ways. HON. R. PENNER: lt may go back to 1981. We're just checking on that. MR. G. MERCIER: And if that's the case, and I think it is, Mr. Chairman, what different considerations are there, again for the 1985-86 budget, than there have been for all the budgets leading up to this point in time? HON. R.

PENNER: The same considerations. To go back, the Town of Emerson has, in a sense, been off the hook on the one hand, and off the dole on the other , since the 1st day of April, 1980 - Order-in-Council bearing the signature of the Member for St. Norbert. The considerations in this current year are the same as in the previous year other than when the matter came to my attentio n and I entered into some discussions with representatives from the Town of Emerson about a year and a half ago, approximately.

I was concerned by the situation that was brought to my attention and took time to look into it and to discuss it with my colleagues to see whether some way of dealing with that problem might be elaborated, might be developed, and came to the conclusion, as I announced in the House, that there was no sound reason and public policy for acceding to the request that a different statistical base should be used.

Now, once that decision was made - and I will defend that decision, I think it's right- then under the provisions of The Municipal Act, there are certain requirements that towns or villages exceeding a population of 750 must follow. That's the ultimate decision that was made. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, would it not make greater common sense that where you have a situation like this that has existed since 1980, that you simply wait another one or two years until the next census is done and resolve it. on the basis of the next census? HON. R.

PENNER: Well, I suppose we might be able to deal if the Town of Emerson entered into a firm commitment to pay restrospectively for four or five years if the 1986 census produces a differe nt figure than the one they've been using. I should say that we have Mr. Hill and Mr. Loeppky from Municipal Affairs who went down to Emerson about three weeks ago and had a discussion with council and mayor. That was not conclusive, regrettab ly, and we're looking at the situation since that time. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, on another matter, the budget highlights refer to the development of an investigative capability created for The Law Enforcement Review Act and special assignments. I take it this will be the so-called independent investigation of complaints against police, rather than using the city's internal investigative unit. I wonder If the Attorney-General could advise what type of investigative capability will be created for The Law Enforcement Act under this section. HON. R.

PENNER: Well, certainly under the act, the act does not, as the member knows, permit the old method of dealing with citizens' complaints alleging the abuse of power and the complaints, If they cannot be resolved informally - and so far, the record I think has been good there - then there would have to be an investigation.

We feel that, at the moment, rather than going outside on a contract basis, that we have people within the department who have some expertise and experience here who might be used but if we get to a situation- I hope we don't - but if we get to a situation where the people we have within the department, either because of conflict of interest, that is some previous connection with the particular police department from which the complaint comes, or because they're too busy, can't deal with it, then we may have to, in fact, use an outside person.

But we're trying to avoid that and so we want to, by some internal reorganization, develop an internal investigative capability. MR. G. MERCIER: This would be located within this Law Enforcement Administration? 1534

ThurlldaJ, 2 Mey, 1985 HON. R. PENNER: No, this will be in dependently of the Law Enforcement Review Agency itself. We think it should be Independent. lt will be located within the department. MR. G. MERCIER: That's what I mean. HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G. MERCIER: lt's not there now. HON. R. PENNER: lt Is, in part. We have Del Hanson, for example, who is now sort of with the department. He used to be with, the Manitoba Police Commission but he's now with the department. MR. G. MERCIER: In this area of Law Enforcement Administration? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G.

MERCIER: Is that the only capability that exists within the department? HON. R. PENNER: There is other capability within the department which, if pressed, we could use. MR. G. MERCIER: There are other people? Who are they? HON. R. PENNER: People within the department. Do you want their names? MR. G. MERCIER: Yes. HON. R. PENNER: Jack Hu nter, ex-police officer. So the capability that we have at the moment are Del Hanson and Jack Hunt er. MR. G. MERCIER: If you had to go outside the department to have someone do this investigation, do you have any idea of whom and where you would go? HON. R.

PENNER: There is a very substantial list of fairly recent retirees from various departments that we have, people who have from time to time applied for jobs within the department, some of whom are exceptionally capable with excellent records. This is not to make a decision in advance, but I would think that the sensible thing to do would be to look at that list in the first Instance, rather than to go to some private investigative firm. MR. G. MERCIER: Has there been any need yet, to date, for this independent review? HON. R. PENNER: No. MR. G.

MERCIER: The Attorne y-General, I think, in developing this type of procedure, did it on the basis that, if the City of Winnipeg's internal investigative unit did this type of investigation, they almost had some type of conflict of interest within their own group. Is there not a concern here that if the Attorney-General's Department is doing it at the same time that they are responsible for the prosecution of any criminal offences, the Attorney -General's Department itself might have some sort of conflict of int erest? HON. R.

PENNER: No, the scheme of the act is such that where, in fact, a matter is being Investigated by a police force as a possible criminal offence, then the Law Enforcement Review Agency does not get into the picture and indeed, where charges are laid, that ends the matter as far as the Law Enforcement Review Agency is concerned. lt can have no Involvement, so that the Law Enforcement Review Agency Is excluded ab ini tio where there's a suggestion that the act complained of amounts to a criminal offence and is being investigated as such. lt might be that the police then investigate it as a criminal offence and do not proceed with charges, in which case it might be the subject of the third party application to the Law Enforcement Review Agency.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(b)(1 )-pass; 4.(b)(2)- pass. MR. G. MERCIER: I would just say, if the Attorney General does have the privilege of presenting another set of Estimates to the Legislature next year, perhaps there could be at that time an updated report of what . . . not dealing with the facts of the cases, specifically, but the numb er of Investigations carried out by the department or people retained by them on the outside? HON. R. PENNER: Certainly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item No. 4.(c)

(1) Canada-Manitoba Gun Control, Salaries, 4.(c)

(2) Other Expenditures - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: I don't think there are any outst anding issues or any difficulties particularly related to this area unless the Attorney-General would advise the Committee, and if there aren't, we'll simply pass the item. HON. R. PENNER: There are no outs tanding issues there. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(c)( 1) -pass; 4.(c)(2)- pass. 4.(d)( 1) Manitoba Police Commission, Salaries, 4.(d)

(2) Other Expenditu res - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: The discussion on this Item could go on for a little while. If the Attorney-General wishes the committee to rise, that's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the pleasure of the committee? HON. R. PENNER: Committee rise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise. SUPPLY - HEALTH MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Department 1535

ThursdaJ, 2 May, 1985 of Health, Item 7. Ma nito ba Health Services Commission, The Hospital Program. The Memb er for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before the Comm ittee rose for Private Memb ers' Hour, we were discussing some of the viable options and some of the problems, some of the statistics that are part of our health care system. it appears as if in terms of national comparisons, we have some anomalies in Manitoba which are leaving us with a higher cost per patient day.

That's particularly evident in our teaching hospitals and evident to some degree in the general hospital structure of Manitoba as well. The Minis ter expressed some confidence that the hospitals could operate basically within the supply increase guideline that has been announced this year, the 2 percent as a basic increase, and another 2 percent if they can justify it. Given some of the anticipated price increases in the supply sector, it would appear as if they may well have an opportunity to go back and successfully plead for that additional 2 percent. Mr.

Chairman, over the course of these Estimates from time to time we have indicated to the Minis ter and had discussion with the Minis ter about the level of service in the hospital system In Manitoba and some Interesting facts have come out over the past few weeks. We have from time to time a problem in the intensive care unit beds in our teaching hospitals, Health Sciences Centre in particular. I haven't got the

article with me tonight, but there was an indication that we are below a national average in terms of intensive care unit beds. - (Interjection) - Below the national avergage on that, yes. We discussed last night about CAT Scanners and we are below what is a recommended national guideline for provision of CAT Scanning facilities for our population.

We've seen over the past three years, certainly, an increase in the waiting time for elective surgery and some of those problems probably showed up as recently as ten days ago with the problem that Mis ericordia faced with some dozen patients In the Emergency Ward and in the halls, because there was a shortage of beds in the hospital. Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister indicated In the discussion this afternoon that we've got - if I can find the figures in my notes - in the province, in the entire province, rural and the City of Winnipeg, that we've got roughly 1, 066 patients who are either panelled or who are extended care, chronic care patients in our hospitals, and obviously are taking up beds that were designed for acute care. One could argue and we discussed this this afternoon that if we build more personal care home beds, we could eliminate some of that backlog of panelled patients that are in our hospitals, but, Mr.

Chairman. it is cheaper to care for those seniors in a personal care home setting, but the difficulty that the Mi nister faces, but more importantly that the institutions face, is that if those beds that are currently occupied by panelled patients that are panelled for personal care home placement or the chronic care and extended care patients, that probably those beds will be filled by people who are in the elective surgery lineup, so that those beds will be occupied.

The problem to the Mini ster and to the Budget that we're discussing tonight in the hospital service, but more importantly the problem to the hospitals is that if all of a sudden they were able to clear those chronic care patients, those panelled patients, they would probably be faced with severe budget problems, because as I say the elective surgery lineup would im mediately fill those beds and we would have patients in the hospitals that would require more care, more nursing care, which of course translates Into higher costs and higher budgetary costs, so that represents a challenge.

I was going back through the newspaper clippings and over the past I recall vividly the kinds of debates we had during the four years that we were government where our cutbacks were causing extreme problems in the hospitals, and that was a case that was alleged by members of the opposition. The Min ister even, from time to time, got In on that, but it was primarily some of his colleagues that were particularly vocal on that aspect, but nevertheless the case was laid out that in 1981 the hospital system was in a disarray, it was severely underfunded, and it was almost into a situation of crisis.

I presume that's what stimulated the New Democratic Party in 1981 to give Manitobans "A Clear Choice for Manito bans" In the election and develop policies of the Manitoba New Democratic Party, which of course solemnly slimed, signed - I almost said it the way it really was - solemnly signed by the then Leader, the now Premier, in which he gave us a promise in terms of health care that I've referred to before, and the Mi nister will pardon me If I refer to it again, it said, "Health Care Not Cut-backs." One of the promises that was made by the now Premier as Leader of the Opposition was the desperately needed personal care home beds that would be built by an NDP Government.

Basically, they had focused on an issue of a problem in the health care system. They successfully sold that to the people of Manitoba. As I said in my introductory remarks, that promise was probably one that the people of Manitoba believed. Probably that helped a num ber of the members in the government to successfully contest the election. Now, Mr. Chairman, th.e promise was to restore the health care system. lt wasn't to maintain its status quo, it was to restore it to some targeted increased level of service.

That was kind of an interesting promise, particul arly, when as I've used this document before - it's a series of press clippings that were done by the Free Press back in December of'83 and the series was entitled "Hospitals In Crisis." lt talked about a number of different things; unequal distribution of doctors, the line-ups for elective surgery, the list goes on. lt laid out in rather extensive detail how nurseries were understaffed and the newborn babies were losing their lives. The articles were quite severe, quite devastating to the government. Now, Mr.

Chairman, this one head lined, "Bed Shortages Cited In Deaths Of Four Patients", under the

article of "Ho spitals in Crisis." Mr. Chairman, that was the situation in 1983 and, as I indicated to the Mi nister in my openings remarks, basically, it hasn't changed. Mr. Chairman, that puts us into a situation of asking, today, of the Min ister of Health whether the 1536

Thuraday, 2 May, 1985 funding for the hospital system has been adequate over the last three years and will be adequate In th e Estimates we're approving here this evening to allow that restoration of the health care system that the New Democratic Party promised back in 19 81 and whether, in fact, the system is sufficiently funded to allow Manito bans access to the health care that they believe they rightfully deserve and, indeed, which it's fair to say the New Democrats promised to them in 19 81. Mr.

Chairman, the question that I'm posing to the Minister of Health is whether he believes that the system has been sufficiently funded to accomplish that? I base that question on the basis of a, once again, newspaper article. The nature of my question is as to whether hospitals have had to undertake any unique budge tary adjustment measures or costly-cutting measures, efforts to stay within the Budget, efforts to plan their activities in the hospital around the available budget dollars and not the needs of Manitobans.

In other words, had the hospitals had to structure their operations in such a way that they accommodate, not medical needs, but financial restrictions? 1 pose that question, Mr. Chairman, as a result of an October 15 th, 1984

article in the Winnipeg Sun; and 1 just want to read to the Minister the opening statement on this article. it says - this article, incidental ly, was written on October 15, 1984. it indicates that 10 months ago, a senior administrator of a major Winnipeg hospital sent a 20-page personal and confidential memo to his department heads which said, In part, "The hospital can no longer accept the faster patient through-put as a financially viable option," indicating - (I nterjection) - Pardon? The first part of the

article for the Min ister - he missed it - was that this

article indicates that 10 months ago a senior admini strator of a major Winnipeg hospital sent a 20-page personal and confidential memo to his department heads which said in part, "The hospital can no longer accept a faster patient through put as a financially viable option." Basically, what we were talking about this afternoon, that we have - if I find my figures and I'm not sure I can, because I've got them scribbled all over the place, but I believe the Minister indicated that roughly 2 percent of the patient admissions were taking up 30 percent of the hospital days.

The Min ister and I also discussed this afternoon that indeed, In terms of staying within budget, the panelled pati ent, th e chronic-care patient is an economic patient to have in the hospital. Now this newspaper

article would ind icate that indeed, because of financial constraints on this hospital, this major Winnipeg hospital, that they were considering ways of delaying patient through-put in order to stay within budget. "The hospital can no longer accept a faster patient through-put as a financially viable option." That would seem to indicate that this hospital is encouraging longer stays and the Min ister of Health this afternoon also indicated that In the Winnipeg hospitals the average length of stay is somewhat higher than In, for Instance, Brandon; and it would seem as if this di rective has possibly been followed. it indica tes further in the

article - there's a numb er of things it indicates further in the

article - but basically, quoting from this memo. My question to the Minister is whether he's aware of that sort of an administrative plan which would tailor the patient through-put of the hospital and the patient complement of the hospital, not necessarily to the medical needs of patients, but rather to the budgetary gu idelines that are set; In other words, hospital care is set by budget, rather than by medical needs of patients in Manitoba? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Chairman, first of all, it's not the administrator or the admin istration that decides who will be admitted In the hospital; it Is the medical committee or the medical staff at the hospital and it is definitely against their own interest to keep_ people that'll be there too long. I think it's - no matter how many years - always easy to pick one thing and say this is the cause, but it is a number of things, a number of reasons.

There Is no doubt - I'll be very candid, a moment of candid, not usually officially, but confidentially - I think that every administrator and every Mini ster of Health in this countr y of ours will admit, and might even at times suggest that they keep certain long-stay people. I'll very candidly admit it. it's been admitted by members on the other side when they were in office. The economists will tell you that there's too many beds. The news media will tell you there's not enough. I think that you've got to find the solution somewhere in the middle and that's why it's not so easy.

Probably the statement that I quoted somebody making last week, that there's probably enough beds for the patients but not enough for the doctors, is very true. You have 56 percent - I stand to be corrected on that, I haven't got the report in front of me - more GPs in Winnipeg than you had ten years ago and practically the same population: and you have 25 percent more GPs in Brandon than you have with practically the same population, and these people need beds. Now, you'll take any serious doctor - I would say any expert - will tell you that there has to be waiting lists.

Having said that, it doesn't absolve you of everything and say you can stretch the waiting list for ever and a day, that's not what I'm suggesting, but that acts as a balance and also is a precaution, because if not, if you had the beds there'd be more and more operations. You read even in any medical jou rnals and you see that they're very much worried about that. I can point out articles In the newspaper, too, that have been saying let's go easy on this bypass, there's too many of them and it's dangerous. My own doctor told me the same thing.

You've heard rumours that I was slated to go into hospital; it's not that I'm waiting for a bed; it's not that I refuse a bed; but I'm treated in a way that is probably better, at this time anyway. You can't just go by the waiting list. I think there's some awfully good writers In the media people, but there is some also - and I don't blame the media as much as th ose that set up the policies for the media - that are only interested in one thing, is to try to find a scandal or something that is wrong. I think the best example I had of that. was last week when I announc ed my five-year program.

This Is something, which In the past, was always of a lot of interest to the media and the people of Manitoba. I'm sure you read it - nobody has quoted it to try to ridicule me or to feel that this would be harmful to me - after that with Including the 250 beds that we said we would build in a hurry, well then there was an

article saying 1537

that I didn't care and that we didn't care at all. The reporter was all disturbed because he had had heard there was 1, 800 people on the waiting list and he felt that every single one of them should have a bed. So, you'll excuse me If I don't just take everything that's said in the media as the gospel or as the true way to go. There is no doubt that they have a role to play, but there's also a little more than that at ti mes when you see that there's not serious reporting at all, not even the reporting is serious. Mr. Chairman, you can't rectify everything in one day.

I say that we have lived up - I'm not going to talk about the past, the accusations. I've covered that a million times and people will speak one way when they're sitting there and I'm not immune to that in a different way when they're ... I guess that's the democratic way. I don't think anybody should lie purposely. I don't think anybody should mislead.

The situation when you're in government, you have many more responsibilities and you've got to ma ke th e thin gs work and yo u'r e responsible for the funds. lt's easy to be in opposition and on everything say you're short of this, you're short of that, you should do this. lt doesn't matter what. We hear it every day - more money to help the sugar farmers, more money for this and, then, when it comes to the deficit, look at the big deficit that you have, you shouldn't have these deficits. When the tax comes in, well you're increasing the taxes. If you change a program, well then you're saying that you've cut.

We haven't cut. I think we've done very well under probab ly, in the years that I've been here, the most difficult years of all. I don't think anybody can accuse us at this time that we're doing things to get ready for an election. The facts are different. For instance, in the four years that the previous government was in power, they started the first year right after an election. You remember they had the restraint. They had an average of 4.7 increase. I'm talking about the total cost now. The second year 10.7. The third year 16.2, and just before the election 22.2.

Then, it was all the things that they had said we weren't going to do, they're panicked. I remember the day that the then leader was saying that the best news he had was the Crosbie Budget, but Crosbie hadn't gone far enough. Shortly after that the Conservatives were defeated. I'm not saying this to start an argument. My friend keeps on referring to that paper. I admit it that it must have been and there were a lot of exaggerations. I'm saying that we've lived up to what we're saying and we're continuing to live up.

If living up to something means that you're just going to throw money away, that you'r e not going to advise the people, and if it's not my duty to say that in 10 years if nothing else is done but what we're doing now, that the Budget instead of being a little less for the Manitoba Health Services Commission, than being a little less than $1 billion will be $3.44 billion, and to say that we must do something because we won't be able to pay for that and we're going to lose the whole program, well then we didn't live up to what we said. lt takes awhile. lt is true and I'm not criticizing the past government.

I'm tellin g you facts, that the government, the first thing they did - the previous government, was freeze for a couple of years. You talked about the Misericordia Hospital. If there had been no change in the Misericordia, it would be built now. I can't accomplish miracles. lt was frozen, then there were an architectural drawings approved; I approved the construction of it and because of the facilities, the set up, it's going to take a long time and there's nothin g holding them back. We're not told, go easy - as fast as they can go and it'll take another five years or so.

That cert ainly wouldn't answer all the call, but that building would be there now; so at least share some of the blame with me If you're going to talk about the Misericordia Hospital and the conditions, the situations that are there. Now, as I said, at that time - we always hit it wrong when we change governments. In 1977, up to '77, we had cost-sharing formula. At that time the Federal Government announced another formula which was bad in the long run, but for the first few years brought in a lot more mo ney.

Again, I've never made the point that they should have spent it on Health. lt was their responsibility to spend it the way they want and 1 don't even question them; but the facts are there that they, in 19 77-78, for hospital and Medicare, the share of Manitoba was $15 2.7 million, while the Feds was 198 and then in the following year, Manitoba reduced by $20 million their contribution. Not the total contribution. I'm talking about the contribution after taking out what came from the Federal Government. The following year they added a bit, but they was still less than the '77-78.

In '77-78, the first year that they had the responsibility, hospital and medical was $15 2.7 million; the following year was 132.7 and then 13 3.058, so you know these are factors. At the time also, if you remember, we had too many civil servants and there was a clean sweep of all the civil servants. There weren't that many people that were panelled because the people weren't being handled as fast.

I know that my friend doesn't like that, but it is a known fact. lt's a fact that if you've got people that are waiting to be panelled and if you can't service them they're not on the waiting list until they're officially panelled. That was another one and, as I said, the Misericordia Hospital. The Seven Oaks Hospital, you didn't want it at all, but it was too far gone so it had to be built and we're moving at the Health Sciences Centre also. Then, as I say, the Plannin g and Research Division of the department was comple tely depleted. There was nothing at all; we had to start from scratch.

On the personal care homes - because that's going to come, it might as well come right now - from July '73 to November '77, in the Schreyer years, the personal care home beds that were first approved, there were 1, 480. I'm comparing apples and apples and oranges and oranges. From Novemb er, '77 to October '81, the Lyon government, there were 15 6 approvals. That's in the four years they were there. They approved 156, and from Octobe r'81 to March'85, we've approved 729. Now you might say, what's an approval? lt doesn't mean a thing. You can approve anything before an election.

Well, let's look at the construction starts then. From July '73 to November '77, the construction starts were 1,208 and in November '77 -8 1, 364, many of them started un der the former government. it's obvious. Then October' 81 to March'85, 239 and the projected for this year are 605. Now you can look at the opening 1538

Thursday, 2 May, 1985 date also, available of those beds. July '73-77, there were 71 9 and November '76-8 1 there were 635. lt couldn't have been only those 15 6. They weren't all ready. Mr. Chairman, I don't fault the government at the time. They felt that there should be a rest raint, but instead of looking forward, instead of saying, let's get together, and that offer was made to them quite often; and my honourable friend today had some pretty valid points and now I know that he understands the situation. it's obvious that he understands the problem.

I didn't think so last week, but I do now after listening to him. He's done his homework very well and he understands the situation a lot better than I thought he would, especially with his first year as a critic on Health. But the situation is that these things take a lot longer time than that. There is no doubt that it's the balance. You can listen to everybody and they all have their pet ideas. My friend tried to find something to say we would cut. That's the biggest challenge he gave himself toda y and he can't find definitely - what did he hit that we cut?

There was one person that he said, instead of spending $35,000 a year, we spent $70,000 a year, but he said we cut hours. When we've talked about not cutting, it would be a very irresponsible government who would keep on programs that are obsolete or programs that could be replaced by others, by better ones, and my hono urable friend said that. My honourable friend said that there are cert ain things that maybe we should quit as we get new equipment and so on. A few years ago nobody heard about a CAT scan.

There wasn't very much talk about tha t and the CAT scan costs about a million and a half right now and the operating cost is quite heavy. We could make this a battle between two levels of government. I know my friends do not like the idea of that commitment that was made on Health, but wouldn't they be well advised to think of the future? That past election is thr ee, three and a half years ago and another election should be within a year.

I think we've should start thinking of the future and let the past take care of itself on this thing, because whoever forms the next government will have a real challenge in Health and those problems won't go away. If you should be sitting on this side, I don't think those challenges will go away, and you will have . . . you know, I have a pretty good reco rd.

From the days I was Health critic for the Liberal Party I kept pretty good records and I could show you every year there was somet hing, people in the hall or people not being able to get in the hospital or hospitals phoning the ambulance services and telling them, don't bring any patients here - and that's going to happen again. Right now you have a certain group of doctors who will not be satisfied and it's their right. They are fighting the question of no extra billing and they are trying to do everyt hing possible to discredit the government; and that is to be accepted.

Now you didn't have the problems on psychiatry in those days either because not too many people knew anything about it and no two people agreed of what should be done.

I think that in the th ree years that we've been there, in setting up a good Planning and ResearGh group, in working very closely with the different go :'ls that are delivering the services, in trying to tell i! tne way it is - and I certa inly will not try to embellish th;-,gs just because an election might be coming, and I hope that nobody else will, but I still say tha t with all the problems that we have, all the reports in the media and so on that we still have, if not the best, one of the very best health services in Canada and in the world.

You can compare - and we'r e talking about universality in Manitoba and in Canada. Sure you can compar e certain facilities in the United States and so on, but how many people are taken care of, and they're spending an awful lot more money. Now it is a very expensive service and should the people that are trying to get value for their dollars and trying to do away with the waste, should they be faulted for that? I don't think so. My honourable friend talked about the intensive care services; I know there's problems there. There is more and more problems, they're used more and more.

I annou nced tha t we had $400,000 additional funding on an annual basis to open more adult intensive care beds at the Health Sciences Centre and the first step in this process is for the Centre to open those intensive care beds for which they're being already being fully funded. At present less than of the adult medical intensive care beds at the Centre are staffed and in operation, and this has placed an undue demand on other Winnipeg hospitals. Now with the current, the new funding, the Centre should be able to staff and maintain 11 or 12 adult medical intensive care beds in operation.

Additional funding of approxima tely $275,000 every year Is also being made available for the Misericordia General Hospital to reopen six beds in its intensive care unit. These measures should greatly relieve the pressure on adult intensive care beds throughout Winnipeg. lt won't solve all the problems. Then there's a further $300,000 annually in additional funding will be provided for expansion of pediatric and newborn intensive care nurse training programs to enhance the supply of nu rses for the high-risk units at the Health Sciences Centre and St. Bonif ace General Hospital.

This is part of the current ongoing commitment of this gove rnment to maternal and child health programs. What was done in maternal and child health programs in the past? Neonatal lntensive care was recen tly expanded, which incr eased the capacity for high-risk newbo rns' ventilators to nine at the Children's Hospital and 15 at the St. Bon iface General Hospital. These services will be further enhanc ed when a new 18-bed neonatal inten sive care unit comes into operation at the Childr en's Hospital in approximately one year. Mr.

Chairman, those are some of the methods that we're trying to do, some of what we're trying to do, to rectify. As I say, I'm not that naive to think that everyt hing is perfect or that it'll ever be perfect, or that there'll never be waiting lists. In fact, I think it would be a sad day if the day comes when there's no waiting list at all, well, then our plan is in danger if it's not all ready gone out the window. I think that's an impossibility. That is why I'm suggesting that the rules and the planning and all tha t should not be done only by the politicians.

They certainly have a role to play, because they are in charge of the purse strings. I think the admin istrators, who certainly have experience about the medical professi on, the nursing profession and In other areas also, and I'm not going to panic if somebody 1539

ThUJ8dal 2 ... , 1985 points out that on this one person you 've spent less, or they've had 12 hours less, because we are- especially in an area where we have bent over backwards to do something - and I'm not going to panic if somebody said, well, you corrected an anomaly. In dealing with the chiropractors, instead of treating people all as equal, if some happened to be married and their wife and child was not using the syste m, you could go ahead and use it three times as much as your nelgh bor, and when we have expanded that by 50 percent.

So if we save money, fine. lt means that in general the people are not going that much, and it might be that someday - I said and I was on the record that I favoured that it should be fully funded, fully insured, and that's a possibil ity, but I don't think, and I wouldn't want it to be right now, because I hope that we can put some safeguards and learn from the way that we esta blished Medicare, so there will not be this constant bickering between the two and they'll be able to have safeguards and do away with some of the abuse that we have.

Now, also other programs that we've done, if my honourable friend wants to hear about some programs; in 1982-3 we spent over $1 million on the Health Sciences Centre, Women's Hospital, regeneration; 1983-84 was Phase 11 at $230,000; the Lennox Bell House, hostel facilities, it was $95,000; the Ultrasound Obstet rical Outreach Screening Program at St. Boniface Hospital, $1 70,000; Diagnostic Ultrasound Program development in Dauphin, Health Sciences Centre, St.

Boniface, Grace Hospital, $1 75,000; Dialysis, Chronic and Acute, Renal Failure Program, there was a total of $278 ,000; Victoria Ho spital Emergency and Physi other apy, $350,000; the Seven Oaks Hospital, the program, the expansion there, over $4 million; the Mount Carmel Clinic - some of these were announced, well they were approved - Mount Carmel Clinic was approved in the days of Schreyer. That was another that was frozen and then it was released. I must give everybody their due. lt was started and practically all built under the former government, but we had to pay some of the cost s.

The new Mount Carmel Clinic was constructed at a cost of $2,250,000 and then we added on at least $603,000. The Central Dialysis expansion at the Health Sciences Centre, $380,000; the Health Sciences Centre Cardiac Su rgery, over $1 mi llion; St. Boniface Hospital Diagnostic and Oncology Services, $1, 150,000; St. Bonif ace Hospital Obstetrics expansion, $21 5,000; St.

Boniface Hospital Neonatal Intensive Care, $290,000; the Grace Hospital Psychiatry Extended Treatment Service, $700,000; Commu nity · Health Centre development, $1 ,400; and there was what was added at Seven Oaks, another $2,830,000; the Adolescent Psychiatry Unit at $2,860,000; Health Sciences Centre Int ensive Care Nursing Program, $1 35,000; Children's Hospital Int ensive Care Nursery, $498,000. I could go on and on; I'm not going to take the time of the committee.

The point I'm trying to make is fine, I think that this afternoon we were on the way to look at the problems the way they exist, and I think there was a lot of constructive criticism that I don't mind at all. In fact, 1 invited the member to assist me in this, and any members of this House, but the situation is that if we're going to start talking about the past government and this government not delivering, well, of course, I'll have to stand up and give you the facts, because we have. My honourable friend hasn't found too places, he's talked about three things.

He's talked about saving money with the chlropractors, saving money with one individual on home care, and saving money, I think that he mentioned the closure of obstetric beds at Concordia, which was approved by the former Minis ter and accepted during the life of this government just in the first year that lt was annou nced, that lt was accepted at the time.

I'm ready to took at the future and take constructive criticism, but if my friend wants to insist that we're going to compare the two governments, the two departments, I don't think that that is going to be too meaningful an exercise, but I can put it on the record also. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister dealt at great length, but he didn't deal with the issue I raised with him a few minutes ago, in that newspaper reports quote directly from an administrator's memo, which indicates that the hospital was undertaking certain steps back in late 1983 in response to the 3 percent budget increase that was annou nced for that'8 4-85 fiscal year. Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is an astute politician.

He does not have articles like that come up in the paper in which they are indicating that memos for meeting budgets and the directives to departments for meeting bud gets are set and include options which restrict patient flow through the hospital, or reduce patient flow through the hospital.

The Minister is an astute enough politician that I know that he would have checked that out and would have determined whether, in fact, that memo was circulated and whether, in fact, that memo was given direction to the medical staff, etc. etc. and the administrators in the hospital as a method of matching their patient flow to their budget. Now, the Minister has said he's answered that. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Yes, I did answer that. If it's the

article that my honourable friend is talking about, that was refuted by the administration. lt was a certain doctor who said that he saw a memo. lt was misquoted. There was a letter appearing from the chairman of the hospital on that and lt was refuted. I repeat, I said I answered that. The administrator doesn't admit or discharge patients. lt is the medical profession. If ever there was a decision like made, or if there would be a decision, it's certainly not in the direction of the department or myself, I can assure you of that.

If it's the one that I'm talking about, this was refuted by the administrator of the hospital. MR. D. ORCHARD: Is the Minister indicating that it was St. Bon iface Hospital that was considered in the article? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: And the memo that was theoretically to exist didn't exist, that's what the Minister is saying? HON. L. DESJARDINS: My honourable friend - and it's public. Apparently, we're talking about the same 1540

Thursday, 2 May, 1985 thing - was reading a letter put out by a Dr. Krahn at St. Bonif ace Hospital. - (Interjection) - Well, that's the one. Dr. Krahn quoted a memo that he said he saw. That memo was supposedly written by Mr. Quaglia, the Adminis trator of St. Boniface Hospital. Then this was refuted, that it was a memo that was a working memo and then that the Chairman, Dr. Doyle, refuted and said that it was out of context. That's all I can say. When we saw that, we were nervous about that also and we got in touch with St. Boniface Hospital. That's the explanation we had and I'm told that Or.

Krahn had apologized to the hospital for what it's worth. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, is the Minis ter, I'm not sure what he's establishing here. We're talking about the same newspaper article, obviously, and the same memo. Is the Minis ter saying that the memo had never been written? HON. L. DESJARDINS: First of all, I'm not responsible for the memo. I've never seen the memo. I saw the letter of Dr. Krahn like anybody else. I saw the reply from Dr. Doyle. I had an explanation from St. Bon iface Hospital, both Dr. Doyle and Mr.

Quaglia. lt was a working document that was never sent. lt was for discussion and then that it was misrepresented. I was told that it was brought to the attention of Dr. Krahn who apologized and there was an

article in the paper subsequent to that. That's all I know. The thing I want to emphasize is that it certainly was not and is not the policy of the government. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I have no argument with the Min ister in terms of him saying that that memo wouldn't be policy of the government. That's correct, but the point that, I think, was being made by the line that's quoted out of the memo in the newspaper

article in the Winnip eg Sun, I think, reflects on the budgetary polic y that the hospital had to work under. Now, the Min ister is correct in that he says that that is not his government's policy. - (Interjection) - The chairman denied what? HON. L DESJARDINS: The validation of the document. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well now, Mr. Chairman, is the Mini ster saying that St. Boniface did not undertake an overview of patient through-put in the hospital in a means to attempt to stay within their budget? The Minis ter will recall that at that time the St.

Bon iface was running at a fairly sizable deficit and in late 1983, the government gave the indic ation to the various hospitals, St. Bon iface included, that they were going to be faced with a 3 percent budgetary increase next year. Some of the recollection I have about the deficit situation at St. Boniface - I think I can find it - would ind icate that they were - I could find it in the clippings - but at any rate, they were somewhere near a 10 percent budgetary overrun mid-year and faced with a 3 percent increase the following year, they could foresee very stringent financial problems on the institution.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Min ister indir 1es that the admini strator ind icated that report - rm not sure whether it didn't exist - but is the Minis ter S:'','ing that the options of tailoring patient admittance and patient through-put in the hospital - the option, for instance, of retaining geriatric patients, and those kinds of options - in his discussions with the administrator were not ones, that the admi nistrator made him aware of, that they may have to undertake in order to stay within their budgetary allotment? HON. L. DESJARDJNS: No, Mr. Chairman, not to my recollection.

In fact, every single hospital that I can think of that discussed that with me always reminded me that many of their beds were occupied by people that should be in personal care homes, many of them, so that was never suggested to me by St. Boniface Hospital or any other hospital What I said earlier that all Mi nisters at that kind of a time would say, yes, it's not as bad as that if we have a few patients there, it cuts and it helps the standards, because they take less care, that's true. Then, it has kept a kind of a check on the waiting list, so there's not that much surgery going on.

I also said that now and that's one of the reasons in my five-year program that I announced something should be done, but I do recognize now that it is getting to be serious. That is only one thing. The beds will help. I think my honourable friend has brought in a very important point and I'm glad he did. lt's not because it's easy, because the answer will be very difficult, but as we clear these beds, it's going to be a lot more costly. That is why - and I think that everybody should realize it - I don't want to panic and start building any more acute beds at this time.

There are probably more personal care beds than that. That is one factor. That is why also, I'm talking about more services that are now presently done in hospital that could be done in a not-for-admitting condition. That is why, with that, we'll probably be able to have at least a thousand eye operations that we couldn't have. That is why we're talking about im proving the home care, because home care is not just for older people, home care is for people who might not need the hospital, but might need some follow-up, some help in the community; the early discharge program also which is going up at St.

Bonlface Hospital. There is no getting away from it that St. Boniface was in a difficult posit ion, but I'll give you - and I think it might be helpful - the increase that St. Boniface has had since the base of 1977. 1977-78, they had a 5.9 increase - I hope my friend won't miss that, okay? In 1979-80, they had an increase of 9 percent; in 1980- 81 - and that's all approved - they had 15.4 percent; in 1981- 82, they had 23.6 percent; in 1982-83, 18.1 percent; in 1983-84, 17.3 percent; and the approved'84- 85 is 11 .4 percent.

Again I say that the admitting and discharge of patients is not up to the admi nistrator anyway. There is no doubt that the Admin istration have responsibility and we're squeezing them quite a bit because of the way the situation Is going, and it had some advantage to it because they come out with some pretty good ideas. You know how we work in there; there are a lot of things they can't control and during the year they'll have certain emergencies or something that they'll come for approval for; we'll approve it and then we'll go to 1541

�2MaJ, 1985 the Tr easury for extra funds. You know also, that every single one of those city hospitals, I think, has, because they can't control, they have some deficit and much of that is approved later on. So the situation is that it might be - and it wouldn't be the end of the world if somebody would prepare a memo like that, but it's certainly not government policy. As soon as we find out, or I'm sure as soon as the board heard something like that, they would veto that.

At times, let's face it, some of these things have been brought in by adminis trators to try to convince us or to panic us to loosen the purse strings a bit. There are all kinds of ways to do that, but in this instance, I'm telling you that it was brought to my attention and it was not accepted by the chairman; it was denied by the chairman and I'm told that he had a talk with the person who wrote the

article and that person apologized and was to write a letter to somebody - I don't know. MR. D.

ORCHARD: So then the Minister is saying that to his knowledge, options to effect a turnaround in budgets such as reducing patient activities and not patient days so that expend itur es would match reve nues, and attempts to plan for extended care patients staying In the hospital for an extended period of time - those sorts of dir ectives may have been discussed, may have been considered as an effort to meet the budgetary problems at this hospital, but the Minister is saying that he received the assurance that those kinds of efforts to tailor the patient activity to the budget rather than, say, elective surgery needs, etc., etc., did not end up being Im plemented in order to stay within the government's manda ted budget guidelines.

HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that I understand what Is said. I thought the statement that was made, and that I had been asked was if they could keep more people that have been panelled, to cut down, to stay within the budget, and I denied that. Now if my honourable friend says they'll introd uce certain guidelines or something, or put a maximum on certain things in their own hospital, or try to do that, I've been told by at least two or three different hospitals, here are the keys, you run the hospital - when they cou ldn't get ever ything they wanted. Then they calmed down a bit.

For instance, if we say, you've got to cut down - and I'm not going to name the hospital - they would say, all right, we're cutting down on this program; programs that we know and they know that they are the only ones delivering it, it is actually the Manitoba program, and we wouldn't allow it. That's why all these things then would have to be discussed with the commission; that's the safeguard that we have - the commis sion wouldn't allow that. They would come back to us and say, we need more mo ney.

But I'm not going to hide that; there has been a real effort to try to stay within the budget and I mus t congratulate all the hospitals. lt hasn't been that easy. At times, I, personal ly, think we are asking them certain things that are impossible. I say impossible, because there are so many things that nobody has control over and then they come back, they have a deficit, but it's an accepted deficit and we pay it later on. lt is the guideline and it has been working quite well in the very, very difficult years tha t we've been going through.

I think it's a miracle tha t we've done so well and tha t our hospitals have done so well. it's cert ainly not perfect . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, although the Minister doesn't like to get into the discussion along these sorts of lines, it is possibly true that the admin istrators have worked wonders in staying within their bud getary guidelines. But, Mr. Chairman, I think some things have become evident and they are there, which Is a problem that this government has, the next govenment is going to have as well.

I think it's clear - and the Minister will accuse me of trying to make political points, which Is true, in part - but I don't think there's any question that in our hospitals tod ay, there is a larger number of beds that are tied up with panelled patients and chronic care patients. There is no question that the line-ups or waiting times for elective surgical processes are longer today than they were three years ago, five years ago, seven years ago - I'm trying to make it not political because I don't want to get into a hair-pull with the Minister tonight - and that for some di

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-40b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 40b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	33101cb4bb9c16b86791b871b445c3fdc95e312e

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