Manitoba Hansard — 19 June 1992 (Sitting 90, 35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-90

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39-40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLI No. 90 ·10 a.m., FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1992 Printed by the Office of the Qu.ns Printer; Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOM IAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMM INGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY,Neil GILLESHAM MER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HE LWER, Edward R.

HICKE S, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCH ELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage Ia Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin- Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Rin Ron La Verendrye Fort Garry St.

Johns Swan River PARTY Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

510 7 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, June 19, 1992 The House met at 10 a.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lynn Fehr, Jake Fehr, Esther Cowlthorp and others, requesting the gove rnment consider reviewing the funding of the Brandon General Hospital to avoid layoffs and cutbacks to vital services. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Jamie McColl, Klaus Tibelius, Ruth Fletcher and others requesting the gove rnmen t consider restoring the former full funding of $700,000 to fight Dutch elm disease. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) . It com plies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba, humbly sheweth that: The Brandon General Hospital is the major health care institution for southwestern Manitoba; and The citizens of Brandon and sou thwestern Manitoba are deeply concerned and disturbed about the do wnsizing of the hospital and view it as a threat to the quality of health care in the region; and The Manitoba government has chosen not to review the current budget to ensure that cutbacks to vital services do not occur; and The administration of the hospital has been forced to take drastic measures including the elimination of the Palliative Care Unit and gynecological wards, along with the layoff of over 30 staff, mainly licensed practical nurses, to cope with a funding shortfall of over $1 .3 million; and WHEREF ORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba consider reviewing the funding of the Brandon General Hospital .

PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs. Louise Dac quay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Comm ittee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), thatthe report ofthe comm ittee be received. Motion agreed to. • (1 005) Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): I beg to present the Fourth Report of the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendments. Mr.

Clerk (William Remnant): To the honourable the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba: Your Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendments presents the following as its Fourth Report. Your committee met on Thursday, June 18 , 19 92, at 10 :00 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider bills referred. Your committee heard representation on bills as follo ws: Bill 47-The Petty Trespasses Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'intrusion Mr. David Kovnats - Baker, Zivot & Company Bill 7 4-The Law Society Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe du Barreau Mr. Gordon Gillespie- Private Citizen Bill 88- The Hom esteads, Marital Prop erty Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur Ia propriete familiale, modifiant Ia

Loi sur les biens matrimoniaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois Mr. Jack King - Private Citizen

510 8 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 19, 1992 Bill89-The Family Maintenance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'obligation alimentaire Mr. Gordon Gillespie- Private Citizen Your Comm ittee has consider ed: Bill 72- The Law Reform (Mi scellaneous Amendments) Act;

Loi sur Ia reforme du droit (modifications diverses) Bill 7 4-The Law Society Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe du Barreau Bill 88- The Hom esteads, Marital Proper ty Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur Ia propriete familiale, modifiant Ia

Loi sur les biens matrimoniaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois Bill89-The Family Maintenance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'obligation alimentaire and has agreed to report the same without amendment. Your comm ittee has also considered Biii47-The Petty Trespasses Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'intrusion, and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOnON: THAT the proposed subsection 1 (5), as set out in

Section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out "or articles• and substituting • ,articles or a resol ution•. MOnON: THAT the proposed subsection 1 (5), as set out in

Section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out everything after "loitering• and substituting the following: , nuisances, and other disruptive behaviour on the lands or premises, means such an official or officials acting in accordance with those by-laws or articles or resolution. All of which is respectfully submitted. I move, seconded the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the comm ittee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1992-93 Revenue Estimates, Department of Finance.

Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this morning, from the Southwood Elementary School , thirty Grades 7 and 8 students. They are under the direction of Jake Driedger. This school is located in the constitu ency of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). Also this morning, from the Kirkness Adult Education Centre, we have 17 adults under the direction of Lin Stevens. This school is located in the consti tuency of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) .

Also seated in the gallery, from Winnipeg School Division No. 1, we have four adult classes of the English as a Second language Progra m. They are under the direction of Mary-Jean Davis. Also this morning, we have some of the members of the Student Parliament at the University of Manitoba, and they are under the direction of Mr. Scott Murray. These students are the guests of the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey). On behalf of all members, I welcome you here this morning. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Labour Adjustment Strategy Federal-Provincial Co-ordination Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Mr. Speaker, over the last three years, there has been absolutely no labour market adjustment training for people affected by the free trade agreement negotiated with the United States. At present, in spite of the decline in support from the federal gove rnmen t to labour market adjustment training in the province of Manitoba, there are two sets of negotiations going on that the province is involved in.

One is the trade negotiations with Canada, U.S.A. and Mexico, where the provincial government has put as one of their six conditions that the federal government provide labour market adjustment strategies to the provinces and to the people of the country. The oth er set of negotiations taking place is the Constitution , where this province and many other provinces have agreed to a rolling draft devolving labour market training to the provinces .

June 19, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 510 9 I would like to ask the Premier whether there is a co-ordinated strategy in his government dealing with the human elements of the proposa ls: One, to devolve powe r to the provinces; and the oth er one calling on the federal governmen t to have a federal strategy for the human beings affected by the trade? * (1 01 0) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I might say that our governmen t has always insisted that in terms of the funding and support for labour market adjustment and human resources training strategy, we rely upon Ottawa to con tinue to provide major funding for that, not only through the vehicle of EPF payments to the provinces, but over and above that, for special additional fun ding, wher e suc h adjustment is as a result of something such as a trade agreem ent which is an international agreement signed by the government of Canada on behalf of all of the provinces. So we certainly have made that point over and over again.

I might say as well, tho ugh, that we have not simply relied on federal action. We have initiated a number of programs that have, I think, been received very, very positively. As a matter of fact, I know that the Workforce 2000 program has been involved in the training and upgrading of training of thousands and thousands of Manitobans in the work force at very, very reasonable cost, because it has been done on an industry basis and it has been done, targeted to ens u re that Manitobans are trained for positions that exist and for which they can be qualified by additional training.

We have in fact, I believe, received many, many letters. I was at a public event just yesterday, in which an individual-1 might just say an individual, as it just so happens, is not necessarily a supporter of this governme nt-took me aside to say that the Workforce 2000 program of assisting with retraining in industry in this particular case, a company to train people on CAD/CAM, computer assisted design for their particular purposes was the best training program that he has encountered in this province's history. As a result, Mr. Speaker, we believe that we are discharging our responsibilities.

We will also ensure that the federal governm ent discharge their responsi bilities of funding these matters. With respect to the area of the Constituti on, I would say to him that the area of devolution of authority on work force training programs is a matter that we have two views on obviously. The first view is that if there is evidence-and there has been -for instance, through many, many prog rams thro ughout the country, that you can do a better job if the priorities and the targeting is done by the province rather than some body in Ottawa deciding what is a good training program for Manitoba.

So there is some positive to that. On the other side, we will be absolutely insistent that the funding that is required in order to discharge that responsibility is transferred along with any devolved authority, because obviously we must have that funding in order to do the best possible job on behalf of the people of Manitoba. [interjection] Mr. Doer: I do not know how members opposite could clap for the federal governm ent's delivering training progr ams to this prov ince, Mr.

Speaker, and how the Premier could talk about making his point, when ACC ESS programs were cut an d acknowledged last week, when the Core Area Trainin g Program gradua tio n ex er cise jus t com pleted last week, when 50 percent of the Canadian jobs strategy money has been cut, and this Premier says he has been making his point with Ottawa. No wonder Manitobans are worried about the free trade agreement with Mexico. Mr.

Speaker, I want to table a memo, produced by the federal government in the Department of Employment and Immigration Canada, wherein it states that on the table right now for delivery of services for movemen t pote ntially to the provinces is employment counse lling, project- based training, wage reimbur se men t, pu rchase of training, purchases of training utilities, income support, em ployment assistan ce , outreach, mobil ity assistance, delivery assistance, Labour Market Adjustment, human resource planning, work-based training, industrial adjustment service, labour market adjustment gr an ts, Com mu nity Development Progr am.

I would like to ask the Premier, (

a) how that fits in with the all-party task force report on a a strong national government, and (

b) how that fits in with a strategy of having a labour market adjustment strategy as part of the free trade negotiati ons being the responsibility of the national government and the federal government. * (1 01 5)

51 10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA June 19, 1992 Mr. FIImon: Mr. Speaker, I have hadthatmemo for several days. I am surprised it has taken so long for the Leader of the Opposition to raise the issue. When I evaluated that memo, it appeared to me that it was one that was obvi ously developed by the self-interest of the individuals who are currently employed in doing these labour market matters by the federal gove rnment and did not want to lose their jobs and so were implying that somehow these matters would not be carried out by the pro vinces.

The fact of the matter is that every government in this country, and even previous gove rnments of different political stripes, have been concerned about Ottawa imposing their view on what were the needs for labour market training in a pro vince, that education and training have always been the major purview constit utionally of the provi nces, because it does not make sense for somebody in Ottawa to decide what are the target needs of a provincial gove rnment. What are the needs in our economy? Where are the skill short ages? Where are the requirements for people to be trained? Where are the job opportunities?

It seems that if people in Ottawa are making those determinations and those priority choices, they are not really going to be consistent with what the provinces are doing with their industrial strategy, with their training strategy and with their work force development strategy. This is the reason why that issue is on the table. Many provi nces feel very strongly about it.

We have said that we are cautious about it, because the only basis upon which we believe that such a transition should take place is if it is fully funded by Ottawa so that we get the dollars that are necessary to ensure that the job can be done as thoroughly and as completely as possi ble. That is part and parcel of what people are looking at.

It is not a matter of just saying, you are respon sible; it is a matter of saying, you are going to take over the responsibility because we believe you can do it more efficiently and more effectively, and these are the dollars that we are going to transfer along with that to ensur e that you can carry it out at least as well, if not better, than it is currently being carried out. Mr. Doer: I think the Premier should be a little careful in criticizing employees of the federal government, impugning their motives.

I think the Premier should take the high road in his debate, because the rolling draft that his minister distributed had labour market training in it as it devolved powe r. The Premier, on March 2, said, oh, we do not want to make the federal government a post offi ce box. Now he is defending a different division of provi ncial powers. That is his right, I suppose. I think he should be ver y careful. The memo is not inconsistent with the rolling draft distributed by his minister, and to impugn motives, I think, is really unbecoming of Premiers, Mr. Speaker. A question, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier.

You have one set of conditions to the federal gov ernment in your negotiati ons, your secret ne got iations on free trade with Mexico, calling on the federal gov ernment for a national strategy. You have an all-party task force calling on the strengthening of the federal gov ernment, not the devolving of the federal government powers to pro vinces, and you have a situation where many powers are now in the rolling draft to be devolved to the provinces. How does this fit?

How will this fit with the human beings who are calling on the gove rnment to have a strong national government, to have a co-ordi nated national training strategy versus the provincial power position that the Premier is putting forward? How will this impact on the Manitobans impacted by a pote ntial free trade agreement with Mexico? They had no adjustment strategies after the '89 free trade agreement. They have lost all kinds of federal government su pport through this government's negotiations. How will it impact on the families of Manitoba? Mr. Fllmon: Mr.

Speaker, it is interesting that the Leader of the Oppositio n, despite some experience in government, does not seem to understand that there is only one taxpayer in this country of ours. That is all of us. To be honest with you-(inte�ection] That is not inconsistent, because he never recognizes the taxpayer in any of the things that he does in this Legislature. Everything that he does calls for more taxes and more cost to the taxpayer. He did that when he was in government, and he conti nues to do that while he is in opposit ion. That is why he has been discredited so badly by the people of this province.

Raise the taxes is the only answer that he wants to give. The fact of the matter is that we are 12 5 years since Confederati on. At that time, when the Fathers of Co nfede ration ev aluated wha t wer e the appropriate distributions of responsibilities in ju risdiction, I do not think they could have anticipated the country evolving the way it has. This is an appropriate time for us to evaluate whether or

June 19, 1992 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 51 11 not we are having those responsibilities conducted by the level of government that can most efficiently and most effectively carry them out. I think it is incumbent upon us to look at that. I have suggested that for instance, responsibility for financial institutions ought to be given to Ottawa from the provinces, because they are more appropriate ly placed and can do it more efficiently and more effectively.

I have suggested that there ought to be greater responsibility in Ottawa's hands to ensure that our environmen tal standards across the cou ntry are conducted to the same level so that you do not have a pulp mill developed in Quebec or British Columbia with different standards from a pulp mill in Manitoba. [interjection] Mr. Speaker, I wish that the member for Dauphin {Mr. Plohman) would control himself. He will have plenty of opportunity to interrupt; he will have plenty of opportunity to demonstrate how little he knows about these subjects when he stands on his feet.

The fact of the matter is that if we do not take this opportu nity to look at who can do things most effectively and most efficiently, which level of government is best positioned to deliver those services, then we will have missed a real opportu nity, because this opportunity will not come back for decades, Mr. Speaker. So that is all that we are doing. But we are saying that if Ottawa transfers responsibil ity, it ough t to transfer responsibility with the full funding to allow us to do the job as effectively as possible. * (1 020) Mental Health Care System Reform Co-ordination Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St.

Johns): Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Health was away at a federal-provincial meeting discussing national co-or dination of health care reform , it became clear that there is further evidence of chaos and lack of planning and co-ordination in Manitoba's so-called health care reform plan. In fact, the minister will now be aware that a proposal went to the Seven Oaks General Hospital Board last evening to cut all of its 20 psychiatric beds. Fortunately, they had the foresight to turn down a draft plan that did not have any evidence of co-or dination.

I would like to ask the minister: Since his Assistant Deputy Minister, Reg Toe ws, appears not to have known anything about this proposal , who is making the decisions and where is the overall co-ordinated plan for mental health care refo rm? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the issue of mental health reform is one that has been before citizens of Manitoba in a formal action plan since January of 19 92.

My honourable friend might be well aware that significant discussion is ongoing at present in the city of Winnipeg and Westman Region of the provi nce of Manitoba and, indeed, northern and the Interlake regions of Manitoba around how the mental health councils representing the regions of Manitoba believe we can accomplish what all of us believe has to be accom plished, that being the shift of resources from institutional-based care in psychiatry and mental illness to more commu nity-based care. That involves a series of discussions that are ongoing, development of plans that are ongoing.

My honourable friend talks about proposal s. Now there are proposals that are even turned down that my honour able friend says are part of a plan. Obvio usly, a proposal that is rejected is not part of anybody's plan, Sir. My honourable friend is having a little difficulty coming to grips with the fact that there will be significant reform and change for the betterment of health care service delivery in the pro vince of Manitoba under the leadership of people in the health care community. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr.

Speaker, that does not answer the question about chaos in the system, and these proposals going to volunteer boards to make decisions. I want to ask the Minister of Health: Why are these proposals for psychiatric bed cuts going to boards to be acted upon without the kno wledge of his own department, the highest of ficials in his own department of Mental Health reform, without input from health care providers like nurses and without any evidence of commu nity alternatives in place? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, with all the respect I can muster for my honourable friend, maybe my honourable friend ought to simply be patient and allow the process of consu ltatio n, based on January's paper, the work of, for instance, the Winnipeg Regional Mental Health Council and a number of associated discussion groups to come to fruition. It shall point us, Sir, in a direction which will involve , perchance, the reallocation of resources from currently funded staff and occupied acute mental health beds in facilities in Winnipeg with a reinvestment of that resource, bridge funding,

51 12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 19 , 1992 develop ment of co mmunity programs as the Winnipeg Regional Mental Health Council and associated discussion groups present action plans to gove rnment. The goal, Mr. Speaker, is one that we all believe in. The process is a very, very excellent one, involving consult ation and inpu t from many providers and cons umers- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: These proposals are going to boards without the benefit of that consultation and knowledge of the overall plan. * (1 025) Bed Closures Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels {St.

Johns): I would like to ask the minister then a very specific question. How is he responding to the proposals pertaining to Misericordia for 20 psychiatric beds to be cut, from St. Boniface for 24 psychiatric beds to be cut and from Hea lth Sciences Centre with at least 17 psychiatric beds on the table? Is he answe ring positively or negatively to those proposals, and how do they fit into a plan? Hon. Donald Orchard {Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, in terms of the Misericordia psychiatric acute care capacity, I would anticipate very shortly that we will be anno uncing a favourable acceptance decision and begin the process to build the commu nity resour ces necessary to replace the acute care sources at Misericordia Hospit al. My honour able friend has used the wor d •pr oposals" at two other institutions. Those proposals are under discussion within the facility and are being presented to gov ernment, and they mustfit both reform action plans, Sir, before they are accepted.

My honourable friend refers to a third proposal that is no longer even a proposal as som e concern that my ho nourable friend might have abou t a proposal that has not become a proposal because the pr oposal wa s tu rned down becomes a gove rnment policy. That is silliness. Health care System Reform Public Awareness Campaign Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs {Leader of the Second Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. The Liberal Party of Manitoba has tried very hard to give support that we thought was justified to a policy of significant reform in the health care system.

We believe that significant reform is very much required if we are going to preserve medicare in this pro vince and in this coun try. Yesterday, we were delighted when the Premier (Mr. Filmon), in respons e to a question from the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), indicated by a •yes" that he would be prepared to keep the public of Manitoba informed every step of the way as to what changes wer e being made and what alternative services were being put into place. We would now like to know from the minister exactly what are the details of this commitment.

For example, will there be a quarterly briefing like the one that we had a month ago when the minister very publicly presented his reform package? Will they be given the kind of data that was in that reform package? Will they be kept apprised, on a quarterly basis, exactly what the government is doing with regard to this health reform package? Hon. Donald Orchard {Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the process of reform, as outlined in The Action Plan, is a two-year process of reform.

It will commence with announ cements by government and affected facilities as to processes of bed closures, types of bed closures at the teaching hospitals, replaced, Sir, at the same time, by additional resources and bed capacities at commun ity and long-term care facilities within the city of Winnipeg. The balance of the process of change involves a whol e dynamic of monitoring which has been referred to an evaluation, which has been referred to in The Action Plan discussion paper.

It is my full expectation that as reports are available from the various evaluations and recommendations for change, those will be made public, Sir, by myself, because I believe, after yesterday's meeting with Health ministers across the length and breadth of Canada, that we very much have an opportu nity for reform , a very excellent opportunity based on common sense, logic, scientific evidence, and we have the best program of reform in Can ada, Sir. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about monitoring. He talks about evaluation.

He talks about the necessary processes that must be put in place to make reform work, and that is the goal here, to make reform work.

June 19, 1992 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 51 13 Will the Minister of Health now tell this House exactly what form that reporting process will take to the public of Manitoba, who are the ones who will be most affected by a whole reform package? *

(1030) Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate the forum would be press conferences by myself, ministerial statemen ts on topics appropriate to the reform , where the Minister of Health, as the senior centre of responsibility and leadership, would natu rally make those kinds of statements.

I would expect, Sir, that as the next two years progress, for instance, the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation in terms of development of issues important to the public, debate around health care reform would make those reports part of the public discussion with full briefing opportunities available to members of the opposition and members of the media. I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the process of public consultation will involve the direct participation of those involved in the evaluation process from time to time- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr.

Speaker, the Liberal Party is convinced that this reform package will not work if, on a daily basis, we hear all the negatives and none of the positives. It simply will not work if one isolated incident is allowed to mushroom so that it appears to dominate the reform package. That is why we have called for an independent monitor system that would be free from the minister's offi ce, that would be able to report, with no vested interest, on a step-by-step initiative. The minister said that he would take that under consideration.

Has he taken it under conside ration, and what is his response to an independent monitor system? Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): You cannot mon itor something that does not exist. There is no plan. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, as my honourable friend was posing her question, the Leader of the Official Opposition said there is no plan.

Pos sibly the Leader of the Opposition ought to consider the statement by the form er Minister of Health, with whom he sat in cabinet, as to whether there was a plan that was a good working do cument, a good vision of the future, something that is desirable for health care and the future of Manitoba. At least former Ministers of Health have the decency to understand the need for change and the process of change that we have put in place and are not taking the nar rowed , carping political view of my honourabl e frien d the Leader of the New Democr ats. Mr.

Speaker, my honourable friend the Liberal Leader is making a suggestion that we ought to report on the process of reform as it happens. We shall do that, but I want to tell my honourable friend that the reform plan is a two-year, very much staged and developed plan of reform , in the first year involving our teaching hospitals, primarily. As those changes occur, the results of those changes shall be monitored and reported on. But, Sir- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Inner City Programs Minister's Position Mr.

George Hlckes (Point Douglas): As each week goes by, it becomes ever more evident that the platitudes that this gove rnment makes on their commitment to the inner city, renewing the Core Area Initiative, the CP Station and their so-called urban aboriginal strategy-why does the Minister of Urban Affairs say, in a letter, that the long-term support and involvement ofthe business commun ity is essential to any tangible impro vement to the problems of Main Street and then refuse to support the very organizations that promote development there? Does he not read the letters he signs? Hon.

Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the question of Main Street and what can be done to solve the innume rable problems that plague that particular area is an extremely important issue and one that needs to be addressed. We have, over the past year, year and a half, in o ur discussions with both the city and the federal gov ernment, raised the question of Main Street as a major focus for any new renewed tripartite agreement relating to the inner city of Winnipeg. Mr.

Speaker, we agree that certainly the business com munity associated with that- they are the property owners, by and large, of the property there, and they are the ones who provide economic develo pment opportunities for people who are in need of employment in those areas. So together we have to try and work out a solution to that, and I am hopeful that we will be able to do that very soon.

51 14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA June 19, 1992 North Main Development CorporaUon Funding Mr . Geor ge Hlckes (Point Douglas) : Mr. Speaker, he does not need a Core Area Agreement to back his own so-called commitment to the inner city. If the minister does indeed care about the inner city, why is he refusing to fund a North Main Developmen t Corporation which is central to the revitalizing of Main Street? Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, the question of funding of any numer able organizations that were previously funded, either in par t by the Co re Area Ini tiative or other organizations, comes to this government on a daily basis. There is only so much money. If and when we reach a conclusion with respect to this new tripartite agreement, then there may be funding available, Mr. Speaker, but in the interim, they are businesses. They should be able to fund their own organization . Inner City Programs Government Support Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): Anot her prerecorded announcement.

That is all we ever hear over and over and over-wait till the Core comes in. How many ot her projects in the inner city are closing this month due to this government's refusal to support the inner city of Winnipeg? Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the assertion by the member for Point Douglas that this government, in any way, is abandon ing the inner city. Mr. Speaker, I have spent countless hours, over the past year and a half, attempting to get a new agreement that will meet the needs of those people in that area.

I could have signed an agreement a year ago, but it would not have been the best agreement that we could getfor the people. It would not have met all the needs we could pos sibly meet with those people. They might have signed an agreement that was worth nothing, but this government is trying to get one that will work. Youth Unemp loyment Rate Programs Funding Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): For months, Mr. Speaker, we have been warning the government about the problems that students and young people are going to be facing in terms of summer un employmen t.

For mon ths we have been imploring the government to reverse its patterns of cutbacks in terms of st udent employment that has taken the STEP Program from 475 jobs to 300, that has cut the CareerStart Program in half over the last two years and has not done anything to reinstate a Northern Youth Corps, which previously employed 875 students. Now the figures show what we have all known these last couple of mo nths, Mr. Speaker: un employment amongst returning students has increased by 50 percent.

The increase is leaving many students without jobs and worryi ng about whether they will be able to return to their education in the fall. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), once again: Will he recognize what is happening, and will he reinstate the funding for the CareerStart Program to its previous level and reinstate funding for the Northern Youth Corps Program? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I would remind the member that we have maintained the CareerStart Program at last year's level. We have continued with the STEP Program.

We have introduced a new progr am, the Partners with Youth program. We have also main tained our studen t job offi ces in 34 comm unities. We expect that upwards of 1 0,000 students will be placed through those offices in the various communities throughout the province. We are hopeful tha t ther e will be mo re announcemen ts in the near future about student employment. Mr. Ashton: I want to ask the question again to the Premier. Will he now recognize that it is simply not good enough to have those prerecorded announcements from his minister? Unemploymen t is up 50 percent. They have cut funding by 50 percent.

Why will they not reinstate the level of funding that we had only two years ago, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Gllleshammer: I would report that, in the job offices that are located throughout many parts of Manitoba, the enrollment of students looking for

June 19, 1992 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA 51 15 work is at last year's levels, and those students are being placed in jobs. We have maintained the Caree rStart Program and have been able to accomm odate almo st all of the reques ts for CareerStart grants. The federal gov ernment has also maintained its CHALLENGE program and are providing jobs. As I have indicated, we did create a new progr am, the Partners with Youth, that we are enrolling people in. Those proje cts will be starting in the near future. Youth Unemp loyment Rate Programs Funding Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson}: Once again, Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier, and I hope he will answe r. How can he justify what he has done in terms of youth unem ploymen t when the numb ers of un employed is up 50 percent? When is this gov ernment going to recognize it is a tough summer for students out there and do something, Mr. Speaker? * (1 040) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible has indicated that there have not been the reductions from year to year that the member has indicated, and in fact, with the Partners with Youth program, there are more programs available than there were last year.

The fact of the matter is that the member for Thompson, of course, discredits himself, as he does his party, by just simply getting up here day after day and saying, spend more money, raise the taxes. That is all they want to do is raise the taxes to the people of Manitoba and spend more money. That may do well, may go over well in his constit uency, may be good for vote -getting, but it is irresponsible. The people of this provi nce do not want their taxes raised. They do not want go vernment to just throw money at every problem that there is.

They do not want us to do as the NDP did and drive up our taxes, drive up our debts, Mr. Speaker. They want us to be respo nsible, and we are listening to the people of Manitoba. That is why we have kept the taxes down for five straight budgets. That is why we do not accept his demand for higher taxes and just spend, spend, spend. Mount Carmel Clinic Cross-Cultural Counselling Unit Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. This minister had made a comm itment to the mu lticultural health policy.

We see the cross-c ultural program at the Mount Carmel Clinic losing its funding and the Planned Parenthood program , which prov ides health care to newcomers, does not have funding on a long-term basis. The studies indicate that Mount Carmel Clinic's cross-cultural counselling program provides a cost-effective way of delivering the health care system in Manitoba. If it works, and if it is cost effective as they are saying, why is the minister not providing funding through the mental health program ? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, I think this is probably at least the fourth or fifth time that this issue has been brought up. I simply want to indicate to my honourable friend that within the request for grants and sustaining funding, we are often faced with the circumstance of picking up funding provincially on progr ams which have been started often through short-t erm, start-up funding from the federal government and from ot her sources other than the provi ncial go vernment.

We attempt to accomm odate those funding requests as their funding sources from either the federal gove rnmen t or elsewhere are cut off and stopped and curtailed. We are doing that, Sir, for instance, by provi ding almost $1 65,000 to Planned Parenthood of Man itoba this year, to provide refugee immigrant health support and education program s-· Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Health Care System Multicultural Polley Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): The minister has a multicultural health task force.

Can the minister tell us what are the recommen dations by that task force, and when can we expect a multicultural health policy in Manitoba? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the multicultural advisory council that I established some two and a half years ago took a look at the number of requests that were coming from varying organizations to provide similar program ming and appreciate, Sir, that as each pr oposal group prese nts the ir request to gov ernment, naturally they believe it is the best program available.

51 16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 19, 1992 The Mu lticultural Advisory Comm ittee has attempted, over the past number of months, to provide some guidance to government as to how we handle a multitude of requests to assure that we are not duplicating or replicating funding requests and to provide a central focus to government in terms of who we fund and what we fund in the multicultural commu nity. Multicultural Legislation Consultations Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): My final supplementary is to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship has put forward a multicultural act, a significant act but it lacks many areas. One of them is the multicultural health policy. Can the minister tell us: Has she consulted this task for ce, and what are the recommendations of the task force? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Indeed, I have consulted many from the multicultural commu nity on bringing in the multicultural act. We try throughout gove rnment to deal with programs that in fact can serve many, many individuals.

Within the commu nity, needs change, things do change, and we try to structure our policies and our progr ams to meet those needs so I have indeed consulted with many within the communi ty. Port of Churchill Grain Shipments Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Since April of this year, Mr. Speaker, the Port of Churchill facilities have been ready to accept grain for export. The Russian government has indicated that they want to purchase and ship grain through Churchill as they have indicated in a letter dated February 25, 1992.

The Wheat Board on April 18 of this year indicated a willingness to ship grain through Churchill if the Russian gover nmen t wants it to. The people of Churchill do not need further false rumours. This is very detrimental to them. My qu estion is for the Minister of Highways and Transport ation. Has the minister met with Mr. Hehn of the Wheat Board as the Premier has asked him to do in an April 1 letter of 19 92? What was the response of Mr. Hehn, and what guarantees of grain shipments did the minister receive? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr.

Speaker, both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) and myself met with the Wheat Board and Mr. Hehn. We have been in contact on an ongoing basis, but we had an official meeting with them about three or fou r weeks ago, and since that time, the Minister of Agriculture has again met with the Wheat Board. I have been in touch, on a weekly basis, with the Wheat Board , promoting the idea that grain should be moved through there.

They indicate all the activity that we have in place in terms of the supposed willingness of the Russians to take grain to the Port of Churchill and the supposed willingness of the Wheat Board to take and move grain through there as well. There is one other player involved, and that is Export Kleb, which is the Russian counterpart that is the purchaser of the wheat. We are having a terrible time getting everything synchronized to the point where we are going to have that commitment. I am still hoping for a commitment. Rail Line Upgrading Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr.

Speaker, given that the Mani toba Chamber of Comm erce is pressing for an upgrading of the bayline and the fact that CN has received tens of millions of dollars in subsidies for this bayline maintenance , has the Minister of Transportation contacted CN Rail to express the government's fru stration with the condition of the rail line to Churchill? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr.

Speaker, over the four years that I have had the opportunity to be Minister of Highways and Transportation and to carry some responsi bility for the Port of Churchill and the rail line , I have had many, many meetings with repr ese ntat ives from CN, with the federal gov ernment. I think it is a well-known fact that CN is not a big supporter of the Port of Churchill, necessarily, with their line, that they would like to turn that ove r to the province if they could. Mr.

Speaker, there has to be the pressure from the federal government to make a commitment that the Port of Churchill is going to be an entity for the future. If we have that, CN, Ports Canada and the Crown corps are going to fall in line with that. So we have to have that desire and that promotion from the federal government that Churchill will stay, that there is a long-term future for

June 19, 1992 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 51 17 Churchill. If we get that, then things are going to happen. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): Mr. Speaker, I have some comm ittee changes. I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay); the member for Gimli (M r. Helwer) for the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render); the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.

McAlpine) for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer). (Agreed] I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Industrial Relations be amended as follows: The member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme) for the member for Ste. Rose duLac (Mr. Cummings); the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner); the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer); the memb er for Seine River (Mrs.

Dacquay) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) ; and the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. Mcintosh) for the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). [Agreed] I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Econom ic Development be amended as follows: The member for Assiniboia (Mrs. Mcintosh) for the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) ; the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau). [Agreed] I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.

McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Municipal Affairs be amen ded as follo ws: the memb er for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) for the member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme); the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst); the member for Ste. Rose du Lac (Mr. Cummings) for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); and the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). [Agreed] Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms.

Wo wchuk), that the composit ion of the Standing Comm ittee on Econom ic Development be amended as follows: Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for Thompson (Mr. Ashto n); Flin Ron (Mr. Storie) for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar); Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), for Monday, June 22, 19 92, at 10 a.m. (Agreed] I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) , that the com position of the Stan ding Com mittee on Mu nicipal Affairs be amended as follows: Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar); Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for Wolseley (Ms.

Friesen), for Monday, June 22, 19 92, at 10 a.m. [Agreed] I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowch uk), that the com position of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Transcona (Mr. Reid) for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), for Tuesday, June 23, 1992, at 10 a.m. [Agreed] House Business Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I woul d like to make some announcements with respect to comm ittees. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Law Amendments Committee will be sitting this afternoo n.

I would propose that we also set aside Monday coming, Monday evening for Law Amendments and that committee, besides considering, having referred to it at this point Bills 71 , 73, 75. I would also like to refer to that committee, Bills 86, 87, 93 and also private members' Bill97. Mr. Speaker, I would just also like to refer to Mun icipal Affairs Committee, Bills 82 and 79. I will give further detail on these comm ittees later on today. I would seek unanimous support from the House to move two bills that had been referred to the Standing Comm ittee on Public Utilities and Natural Resou rces.

I would request of the House to move them to the Standing Comm ittee on Municipal Affairs, Bills 34 and 49. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to move Bills 34 and 49? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill42?

5118 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 19, 1992 * (1 050) ORDERS OF THE DAY DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS 811142- The Amusements Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Prazn ik), Bill42, The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modif iant Ia

Loi sur les divertissements, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I look forwar d to speaking on Bill 42. It is an interesting bill and has an interesting history. This is a rather brief bill. It has a very direct intent and impact. It is somet hing that this gove rnment has been trying to bring in for the last number of years in the guise of not being a matter of particular controversy. But I say they are wrong.

Bill 42 is significant because once again it shows the true agenda of the Conservatives and what drives the kind of legislation we so often see in this Chamber from the Conserva tive Party. This bill has a history that goes back to the late 19 70s, Mr. Speaker. What it involves is de licensing pro jection ists. The Conservative government at the time, as the minister himself outlined in his opening remarks, attempted to delicense projectionists in their entirety.

The pro jectionists objecte d, not the cinema owners an d operators ; obviously they had their own reasons for supporting and lobbying for this initiative. But the pro jectionists objecte d. At that time, as the minister indicated in his opening rem arks, in some of the smaller com munities there were not licensed pro jection ists available. What was arrived at, at that time, was something of a compromise that continued to require, in major centres, that they be licensed, while removing that requirement in smaller centres, where ther e wer e few , if any , available licensed projectionists.

Well, that was the late 19 70s. Lo and behold, we have another Conservativ e government elected in 1988. Lo and behold, the cinema owners and operators have again got the issue of delicensing pro jectionists on the agenda. Lo and behold, the three Conservative Ministers of Labour, in a row, attempted to get this included as part of our Statute Law Amendment bill. Well, those who are not aware of what we deal with in terms of the legislative process in this House probably are not aware of what Statute Law Amendment su pposedly is for. It is number of technical changes, Mr. Speaker.

The current Statute Law Amendment Act was just released this morning. It is a fairly extensive bill. Most of the changes are innocuous. But you know, every session, I think, for the last four years, the Conservative Ministers of Labour have been trying to sneak in the delicensing of pro jectionists in The Statute Law Amendment bill, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) withdrew it every time, and I do give him credit.

Quite frankly, I wish it was back in Statute Law Amendment, because I know, if I approached the Minister of Justice now, he would again withdraw it as part of The Statute Law Amendment. He is a fair and reaso nable man on some issues, at least, that we know, on the projectionists. We may disagree on othe rs. Mr. Speaker, we are now seeing that this Minister of Labour has come up with a new approa ch. It is to introduce a bill, Bill 42. Bill 42 is prob ably the shortest bill of this sessio n. While it does not affect a large number of Manitobans, I can say right now, as far as we are concerned, it is a bad bill.

We will be opposing it, and we will be continuing the fight against the attempt to delicense projectionists. I want to say why. The minister has walked hook, line and sinker, the line of cinema owners and operators. Those who run the movie theatres, obviously, as a business have been trying to make the most of their business. I do not blame them for arguing of delicensing pro jectionists. You know , they use the argument that years ago there was a more dangerous situation.

There was more of a requirement, given the type of equipment that was used for licensed and trained individuals, and that no longer applies, Mr. Speaker. In actual fact, I believe that licensing of proj ectionists creates difficulties for them, both in terms of ensuring obviously that there are licensed projectionists hired, but in particular, in terms of salaries. I believe the real agenda here by delicensing projectionists is that they will no longer be treated as qualified tradespeople, which they are, but instead will be treated-and especially in salary-as just another employee. That is the

June 19, 1992 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 51 19 agenda of the movie theatre owners, cinema owners. Mr. Speaker, what about the response of the pro je ction ists? Well, I have met with the pro jectionists each and every time this bill has come up. There are licensed projectionists in this province, and there are licensed projecti onists working in the designated centres, the major urban centres, and what they say is that the movie theatres are wrong. They say that the Minister of Labour is wrong when he suggests that there are no longer safety problems.

The equipment that is being used is not the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago. For example, the bulbs that are used in the projection process are highly volat ile, can explo de, and-{interjection] Well, if the minister is concerned about rural Manitoba and wants to bring in the previous situation in terms of licenced projectionists rather than Bill42, I can tell him right now we will withdraw our opposition. If he wants to change this bill to bring it into rural Manitoba, as he says from his seat, Mr. Speaker, that is fine. We will support that, as will the pro jectionists .

What he is doing here is, he is buying, hook, line and sinker, the line of the motion picture industry, the movie theatres in this province in the major centres, Mr. Speaker, without prope r consideration of the concerns of pro jectionists. I ask the minister when he last met with the pro jectionists. I ask whether in fact he has met recently with the pro jectionists before bringing in this bill. Has the minister consulted? If he has met with the projectio nists, what do they say about this bill? Why has the minister not addressed the concerns that they have expressed?

I read the lengthy history in terms of the situation here, and I go through the lengthy history the minister gave in the backgrou nd of this bill. In each and every case, it is clear to my mind that the minister has not considered the concerns of the project ionists. He even went into detail in regard to the agreement of Local 299 of the International Alliance of Theatrical & Stage Employees Moving Picture Machine Operators in the United States and Canada in terms of providing competent, trained individuals. I find it interesting that he quotes quite extensively from the collective agreement.

What I found most amazing, from his opening commen ts, he spent most of his commen ts reading a collective agreement which talks about providing competent projec tioni sts but not licensed pro jectionists. Well, I do not think the minister is understanding what the pro jectionis ts themselves are saying. They are saying, particularly in the large movie theatres, particularly using the modern equipment, that a competent projectionist is a licensed projectionist. The minister has completely and absolutely missed the point.

I can say, the minister in his opening remarks talked about working with the union to provide a certificate of proficiency to the current holders of that licensing agreement. * (1 1 00) Mr. Speaker, the projectionists have rejected out of hand the proposal of the minister to com e up with some sort of certificate, which they consider to be meani ng less because they are now being essentially delicensed. They are delicensing the projectionists. That is not acceptable. So the minister has completely failed to take into account the concerns of the pro jectionists.

There are indeed many licensed projec tionists in major centres. What possibly could be the reason for this bill? Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say this may come as no surprise to those who observed this government over the last four years and its predecessors. We have a business group saying, delicense them. We have the workers saying, that is not fair; it is not the proper, it is not the safe thing to do. So they have two sides here. They have a decision to make. They could have left a com promise in place that has worked fairly well for 1 0 years.

They could have done what the Sterling Lyon government did, my predecessor, the member for Thompson, Ken MacMaster, the then-Minister of Labou r did. They sat down, and they did not delicense projectionists. They worked out a compromise. Mr. Speaker, again, this is like Bill 85 we will be debating later. This governmen t, led by the member for Tuxedo (Mr.

Filmon), who likes to hide from the reality of what he does is-[interjection) Oh, indeed, paddle canoes in election campaigns, go off to Rio for a couple of weeks and be the great environmen talist, go to the Premiers' meeting and be the great statesper son in terms of the Constit ution, you know, the kinder, gentler Premier, I do not think so. This is a Premier, Mr. Speaker, who, in the four years, has consistently, for five sessions in a row, rolled back labour legislation each and every

512 0 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 19, 1992 session. Whenever the Chamber of Commerce has said, Mr. Premier, we want you to jump to it and make sure you introduce a new bill affecting the working people, what does he say? He says, how high? He says, yes. He says what bill? You know, he is not happy with just one bill a session. He brought in Bill 85 this session. They could not stop with that, so they had to introduce Bill42. Well, what a brave group of Tories they are. There are probably a few dozen projectionists in this province. They have a union. They will fight back, Mr.

Speaker, but this is not exactly going to kill them in an election, is it? There are probably no projectionists living in Tuxedo, so the Premier probably does not care in terms of that. In fact, they probably would not vote for him anyway, even if they did live in Tuxedo, after this particular bill. This big, brave Conservative government has said, aha, we have another labour group, big, bad labour, the projectionists, a few dozen projectionists. Well, we will be watching in the next election on the obligatory attendance of the Conservative and Liberal Parties at the Chamber of Commerce.

We will be watching the bidding war as the Conservative leaders and Liberal leaders go before the Chamber of Commerce and up the ante. pnte�ection] The payroll tax, labour legislation, they will be bidding for the support of the Chamber of Commerce. I am just wondering if maybe the Premier is not going to go in there and say: We sure showed them. We are a tou gh bunch. We stood down a few dozen projectionists. We pushed through this bill, and we de licensed them. Well, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The labour movement can fight its own battles.

Whenever the Tories launch an attack on labour, as they done, in an unprecedented way, the labour movement will fight back, and they will remember. But the projectionists, a few dozen projectionists? Do we want to be really spending the time of this Legislature dealing with a compromise that has been in place for a dozen years? Is that good public policy? I do not think so. I ask the question really, to this Conservative group across the way.

Does it not bother any of them that the Sterling Lyon gove rnmen t- my God, the Ste rling Lyon government, God knows it was one of the most right-wing governments in Manitoba history-is the only one-term government in Manitoba history. Mr. Speaker, the Sterling Lyon government did not touch The Labour Relations Act. They came up with a compromise that was quite satisfactory to the projectionists. In the four years they were in, they did not roll back labour legislation . I ask the question in terms of the Conservatives.

Do they not have som e difficu lty with the direction this government is taking them, their front benches? The back benches- there must be some members of conscience on this side in labour matters in terms of matters affecting working people. Has it not dawned on them that the member for Tuxedo is more right-wing? Mark my words, I never thought I would be standing in this legislature and saying something of this nature-more right-wing, more anti-labour, more slavish to the concerns of the Chamber of Commerce than Sterling Lyon. Sterling Lyon must have said no a few times. Has the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) said no anytime the Chamber of Commerce has asked for a rollback of labour legislation? No, he has not, for five sessions in a row. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are going to fight the fight on Bill 85 later on today, and we will fight it in comm ittee and we will fight it again. I will tell you that it would have been easy just to stand up on this, because there are only a few dozen projectionists involved and say, what are we going to do? We have stopped them from bringing this in four years in a row. What can we do?

I thought about that this morning when I was thinking about what I was going to say on this bill. But you know, the principle of this bill is the same principle as Bill 85. It may only affect a few dozen Manitobans, Bill 85 will affect many more. Rnal offer selection, the repeal of the public sector wage freeze bill last year affected a great numb er of Ma nitoban s . The Workers Compen sation bill brought in last year, the worst piece of Workers Com pensation legislation in Manitoba history, that is affecting Manitoba workers. We, in this party, do not judge issues on the basis of numbers.

There may only be a few dozen pro jec tionis ts, but it is wrong to deli cense projection ists in this pr ovince. It is wrong to implement a kind of agenda that we have seen from this Conservative government for the lastfour years. Just because it is a union, just because it is part of the labour movement, just because they are working people asking to maintain the licensing that has been placed for decades does not mean that they should be subject to the targeted attacks of this government.

June 19, 1992 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 51 21 I found it ironic the other day when the Premier got up and rose in tribute to Duff Roblin. Indeed, all of us should pay tribute to Duff Roblin, Mr. Speaker. This government has done more to dismantle the legacy, not just of NDP governments in terms of labour relations, but of the Roblin Conservative government. They will not stop at anything. A $4,000 scholarship to the labour college in Ottawa first brought in-when? -by Duff Roblin in 19 63.

Every government since the Weir government, the Schreyer government, the Lyon government, the Pawley government kept it. Which is the first government in history, since 1963, to say no to a $4,000 labour college scholarship? Well, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) puts his hand up. If the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was able to do so in this Chamber right now, I am sure he would put his hand up. It is this government, Mr. Speaker. You can run through what they have done. The Unemployed Help Centre, well, they are a suspect again. They work closely with the labour movement.

Oh, the Labour Education Centre, that was an early target. They were suspect. My God, they have a mandate for educating workers on labour issues, on workplace issues. It did not matter that a lot of business groups are relying on the service of the Labour Education Centre, Mr. Speaker. They were a target. * (1 110 ) Well, they have gone through The Labour Relations Act, final offer selection has been killed. They went through The Workers Compens ation Act and brought in some of the most negative changes that we have seen in decades.

They have gone not only further than Sterling Lyon, who basically did not tamper with the labour relations legislation-and I mean that in a collective sense, the various bills affecting working people in terms of labour matters-they have gone further than that. They are not only more right-wing than Sterling Lyon, they are now dismantling their own legacy, the legacy of Duff Roblin. So what I can say to the mem bers opposite- An Honourable Member: Yes, communi ty colleges. Mr. Ashton: Well, indeed the commu nity colleges once again are an im portant area for many Manitobans.

But what I can say to the Conservatives is-you know, this reminds me of-there was talk earlier today of the story, of course, of the emp eror with no clothes, Mr. Speaker. You know, I do not think anybody in the Conservative caucus has realized exactly what has been going on. The Premier likes to create the image that he is a moderate. The spinners and the media handlers always find a way of keeping the Premier out of controversial issues.

Now the Premier has a habit-even if his handlers are trying to keep him out of the controversial issues-of jumping into them on occasion and revealing his true approach in this House. But you know, has anyone over there not understood the fact that this Premier is probably, in terms of record, the most right-wing Conservative Premier-more right wing than Sterling Lyon-In Manitoba history? Well, the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) appla uds that. I know, for the member for Rossmere, he still has concerns. He would like to see a lot more dismantled in the labour legislation. We will talk about that on Bill 98.

I am looking forward to his comments on Bill 98. But, are all the Conservative caucus memb ers happy with that, Mr. Speaker? Are they going to be happy when the truth about the Premier and his cabinet and his caucus starts to really sink in to the public of Manitoba? An Honourable Member: A la st place government. Mr. Ashton: Oh, dead last in terms of economic performance. They know that already. But in terms of this being the most right-wing government in Manitoba history that is dismantling the legacies of not only NDP governments but Conservative governments, well, Mr.

Speaker, they are going to find increasingly that their true agenda is going to be known. When it comes to the big, brave Conservative government delicensing a few dozen projectionists, well, I am not impressed. If this is what they talk about as being the big labour movement they rail against, the bogey man, the big labour mo vement, a few dozen projectionists. I know they would like to paint the labour movement as being responsible for all the problems in Canadian society. Is this the kind of thing that is going to solve it, delicensing of a few dozen projectionists? (Mr.

Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Mr. Acting Speaker, this government's sense of priorities is a twisted one. It is wrong to be introducing this kind of bill. It may only affect a few

51 22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 19, 1992 dozen Manitobans. The principle is wrong, though. We will be fighting on the basis of that principle. We are going to be opposing this bill in second reading, in committee and on third reading, taking the true agenda of the Conservative Party on labour matters to the people of Manitoba. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: No. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): Agreed? No?

All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): I believe the Yeas have it. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On division, Mr. Acting Speaker. *** Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, would you call second reading of Bill 1 01 . The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): I would call Bill 1 01 , the Statute Law Amendment Act, 19 92 (Loi de 19 92 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives). Point of Order Mr.

Ashton: Bill 1 01 is not on the Order Paper and would require leave, Mr. Acting Speaker, for second reading. *** The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): Is there leave to introduce Bill 1 01 ? An Honourable Member: Leave. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): There is leave. SECOND READINGS 811110 1- The Statute Law Amendment Act, 19 92 Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Acting Speaker, I believe I have leave of the House, and I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness), that by leave Bill 10 1, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 19 92 (Loi de 19 92 modifiant dlverses dispositions legislatives), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. McCrae: As is customary near the end of a session-and I am assuming that we are getting near that point. I am not sure though, but it is customary for the government to introduce a Statute Law Amendment bill which deals with nonsubstantive changes to our statutes in Manitoba. I do this with Bill 10 1. The honourable member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) just finished speaking about a bill which was withdrawn, this particular type of bill, in a previous session. The normal practice is to deal with issues of an nonsubstantive nature in this bill, which we are proposing to do this time. If I have not already done so, I would be happy to make available, to appropria te critics in the opposition parties, information about the changes that are involved in this bill. The bill traditionally deals with spelling changes, numb ering errors in our statutes.

Sometimes legislation which is spent and no longer of any use-in other words, obsolete-is removed from the body of our statute law in its entirety. This bill deals with various acts of this Legislature, including The Animal Husbandry Act, The Communi ties Economic Development Fund Act, The Corporations Act, The Design Institute Act, The Education Administration Act, The Manitoba Emplo yee Ownership Fund Corporation Act and on and on. Without further comment, Mr.

Acting Speaker, I would commend this bill to the attention and support of honourable member s of this House so that it can be gone over in a little more detail in committee. Thank you. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Acting Speaker, I have a question for the minister. Will he be tabling an explanatory set of notes along with this, as is the case with The Statute Law (Taxation) legislation, for instance? Mr. McCrae: As I said, Mr.

Acting Speaker, having just distributed this bill with the leave of the House today, which was kindly given that I could introduce it for second reading, if I have not already done so, I would be happy to make explanations available to honourable mem bers previous, I hope, to the time we get the matter to the committee.

June 19, 1992 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 51 23 Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. *** Hon. James McCrae (Acting Government House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, I have been asked by my House leader to request that you call Bill 64. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 64- The Child and Family Services Amendment Act The Acting Speake r (Mr. Penner): On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), Bill 64, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les services a !'enfant et a Ia famille), standing in the name of the honourable member for Osborne. • (1 12 0) Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Acting Speaker, this bill is standing in my name on behalf of the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs). Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Acting Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill 64, a bill which brings into place the position of a Child Advocate, a bill that we would like to be enthusiastically supporting.

Unfortunately, it has been drawn in such a way that it does not meet all the needs and expectations of children living in our society. What is the purpose of a Child Advocate's office? Well, the pu rpose of a Child Advocate's office would be for the protection of children. It would be for children who, having been let down within their family units and also let down by the system, would find an avenue whereby their needs could be adequately addressed. The purpose of a Child Advocate's office is to protect the most vulnerable in society, children, because they do not have the wherewithal to protect themselves.

From the moment of their birth until the time that they are 18 years of age, they do not have full legal rights. They rarely have any financial resources. They rarely have the capacity to hire lawyers on their own behalf. They rarely have the opportunity even to be heard. Many of us have stood in line on frequent occasions at a simple thing like a store counter waiting for service, to watch children, barely able to get their hands up to the counter, tapping their quarters on the counter wanting attention while others, adult-like, are serviced.

It is a recognition that while we all pay lip service no matter what our political persuasion to the needs of children, we know that society somehow or other treats them as inferior creatures. It is only until they reach some magical age where they have money of their own, where they have capacity of their own, do we somehow or other fully respect their needs, their aspirations and their desires. When I think of children's rights, I think back to an incident which occurred to me early in my teaching career. I was teaching a young girl. Her first name was Shirley. Shirley was a Metis child.

At that time, Shirley lived at the Salvation Army Children's Village in Calgary. The Salvation Army Children's Village was kind of a big group home. There were many little cottages located on the site and each one had a substitute parent model, and these children lived there.

Shirley was a slow learner as defined by the school system, and she was in a class called 9-3, because in those days we streamlined, but they did it in a way that the 9-3 class was smaller and, therefore, you were able to give the students in that class more attention than the 9-1 s who were essentially A, B students and bright and capable of perlorming at high academic levels. The 9-3 class had about 16 students in it, of which Shirley was one. Well, Shirley had a lot of problems. There is no question about that. She did not know who her parents were.

She did not know whether there was anybody out there who really cared about her, and she had learning difficulties. One Friday night about quarter after five, I got a phone call from Shirley, saying, I am running away from the Children's Village. The question was, why and where do you think you are going? I mean, you are 14 years old; where do you think you are going? I am coming to you. I said, well, Shirley, come to me. I immediately got off the phone and phoned the village and said, Shirley has just called. Shirley is going to come to me.

When I have talked to her and, hopefully, resolved whatever difficulties she is having tonight, I will personally bring her back to the village. I was shocked when the person in charge

51 24 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA June 19, 1992 of the village said, no, we will send the police. I said, you do not need to send the police. I will bring her back to the village. No, we will send the police, she is a juvenile, and she has run away, and we will get the police to come and get her. Within a half an hour, long before Shirley had arrived at my door, I heard the front door open. Now I lived in a street in Calgary where there is a lot of mixed housing. They could well have thought that this house was more than just a single-family residence. It was a big, old house in the lower

section of Mount Royal, and in came two big, heavy-set police officers, who immediately charged me with harbouring a juvenile. I started to laugh because I thought the whole thing was unbelievable that I could be charged with harbouring a juvenile, particularly as the juvenile had not even arrived at the home at that particular point in time. But, no, I was harbouring a juvenile. My husband came over the steps at this particular point in time and imme diately identified himself as a member of the Alberta Bar.

I have to suggest to you at the point the attitudes of the police officers changed dramatically because they now discovered that there was a lawyer in occupation of this particular home and perhaps they should use a little bit more caution in charging and making allegations of harbouring a fugitive from apparent justice in this particular situation. The long and the short of it was that, following our conversation, they decided that they would leave. When Shirley arrived, I would contact them and inform them that she was with us.

They would give me time to talk to her, and presumably we would be able to resolve this thing. So they left. Within 15 minutes, Shirley arrived. At that point in time, we talked to Shirley and she was very upset. She did not want to return to the Chi ldren's Village. John and I ma de the determination that, if necessary, we would keep her for the night if that was acceptable to the village, and the police arrived. The police had been informed by the village that Shirley was to be taken to juvenile hall. Shirley had done nothing wrong, except to run away from the Children's Village.

But she was to be put in the detention centre. Police had said, no, that is not acceptable to them. They wanted her returned to the village. By this point, they realized this was really not a child with criminal intent. Shirley said she would rather go to the detention centre. She did not want to go back to the village. They would not allow her to stay with me, so they took her to the detention centre. She was left at the detention centre Friday, Saturday, Sunday. When I arrived in my classroom Monday morning at nine o'clock, she still was not there.

I immediately contacted John and said, find out where this child is. He made calls and discovered that she was at the detention centre, and the Children's Village had no intention of getting her out. He them made the appropriate calls as her acting solicitor and said, you will get her out of there. She arrived back in my classroom about 11 :30 that morning. That is why I believe in a Child Advocate. That is why I believe that somebody has to defend this child that the system was not prepared to defend. The system let her down, and they let her down badly, very badly.

But those are not the only cases in which children are let down. Children are let down in divorce situations almost all the time when parents begin to fight among themselves and forget about the children. I had one of those situations in my own family, my sister and my brother-in-law fighting over two little kids nine and 10. The husband went in and took custody or grabbed custody of them, was going to spirit them away. I had to go with a bailiff to get the kids back. I got them back, and they continued to fight. Every time the husband got custody of these children, he took them for psyc hologic al counselling.

They ha d 15 psyc holo g ical evaluations, 15 of them. The result, quite frankly, was that John and I said if you two are going to fight about these kids the way you are doing it, we are going to petition the court for custody. Right now, we think you are both unfit parents, because you do not seem to care enough about these kids. You seem to care more about the fighting that you are doing between each other. * (1 13 0) So we will go to court, and we will ask for custody of Karen and John because we love them and we care about them, and we want to make sure they have some stability in their lives.

Well, they smartened up, and they settled and they got a joint custody arrangement. It finally worked out, but children become the innocent victims of a system that does not protect their interests.

June 19, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 51 25 That is why when the minister announced he was going to introduce a Child Advocate bill, we were pleased. We thought, finally we are going to have something in place that will be able to act for the interests of children. Then we became dismayed, Mr. Acting Speaker, when we realized that this was going to become just another arm of the minister's department. I have to express to the minister in the clearest possible terms why I think that is so wrong.

If the system is letting down the youngsters, and I think we will all admit that youngsters do get let down by the system, then why would you have a Child Advocate who is to protect them from the system report to the same bureaucracy that has let them down? That is what is wrong with this system. It is what is wrong with the piece of legislation presently before us. We all know how bureaucracies protect each other. We are well aware of that. So why would we put into force and effect a piece of legislation that will allow the bureaucracy to continue to protect itself.

That is what I find so fundamentally wrong about having a Child Advocate's office report to the Minister of Family Services. It is not the minister I am concerned about. It is not one person at the top that concerns me. It is the kind of situation that is going on right now at that inquest in Brandon where we are seeing that an inappropriate investigation went on in the Child and Family Services department. Now why did it go on? Why did they not ask the questions they needed to ask? Why did they not do the evaluations that needed to be done?

The Ombudsman pointed o:.Jt in spades in his letter that they did not do it. They did not ask the right questions. They did not involve themselves in the manner, to the degree that they should have. What are we talking about here? We are not just talking about a tragic event in which a young 1 3-year-old boy commits suicide, because, let us be honest, we cannot do anything for Lester Desjarlais. He took his own life. He took the system into his own hands and said, I cannot cope with this system, I cannot live with this system, and he killed himself.

But there is another little child out there who at five years old walked into a classroom with a penis drawn on her body and with an accusation, Uncle Jimmy loves me. What are we doing for her? The system has done nothing for her to this point in time, nothing. She has received no counselling, no support, nothing. The system has let this child down, tragically. That system that let her down is the department officials in Child and Family Services. That child needs an advocate. That child needs an advocate who does not report to the department of Child and Family Services. Mr.

Acting Speaker, several years ago in St. Norbert, just before I entered politics, I taught a young boy by the name of Lee St. Hilaire. Lee St. Hilaire was accused by his commu nity of child abuse against his sister. I taught this boy for two years. I am no expert on identifying somebody who will abuse a child. I do not think any of us are. But after two years of working with the young man, he did not exhibit the kind of characteristics that I would have thought would have made him guilty of this offence.

Those of you in the Chamber know that I was abused as a child so when people come to me and say they are innocent of that kind of offence, I have to say I do not take an unbiased attitude towards it. I bring my biases. I had difficulty resolving this one. Knowing this youngster, I really had problems. I went to the min ister-at that point, Muriel Smith-and I said, Muriel, I do not know whether this young boy is guilty or not, but I do not have a good feeling about it. I have serious problems. I know this youngster. I find it difficult to imagine that he would be guilty of such an offence. Would you investigate?

Would you scratch the surface a little bit? Maybe this is a case of the innocent; scratch it a little bit. No. No. They would do nothing. For those of you who may remember, this was a case in which his mother, Agnes, eventually went to the Supreme Court and had this young man's name removed from the Child Abuse Registry because it was never proven-never pro ven . Well that obviously was not enough for Lee St. Hilaire because two years ago Lee St. Hilaire shot himself to death. He comm itted suicide. Somehow or other the system let him down.

Either he was guilty and could not live with the guilt, or else he was not guilty and could not deal with the system that had accused him and convicted him without a court of law. Whatever happened, he took his own life. We badly let him down. His mother needed to be able to access a child advocate's office to help him to resolve this difficulty, but I could not get the minister of the day to even open the investigation. Do we even take the word of a colleague in the Legislature

512 6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 19, 1992 that this did not ring true, that maybe there was something we were not getting at, that we were not dealing with it appropriately and effectively? That is all I asked, a simple review. So it is not the political persuasion of the minister that bothers me here one iota. I have no reason to believe that he will not advocate on behalf of children. I believe he will. I believe he shares the concerns. He has spent years in a classroom . He kno ws these issues intima tely.

But I am desperately concerned about a bureaucracy that is far too interested in protecting itself and not adequately interested in protec ting children. That is why I wanted a Child Advocate's office that would not report to this same bureau cracy. 1 wanted a child advocate 's office that would be broad enough to do the investigation that it needed to do, broad enough to do what it could do to slap whoever's hands needed to be slapped to ensure that children were adequately protected in our society. So, Mr.

Acting Speaker, we would love to give unqualified support to this bill because we think it is a modest step in the right direction, but we are very fearful that this modest step in the right direction may lead to a whole series of expectations that cannot be fulfilled. • (1 140) If we put into place a Child Advocate's bill that reports to the minister and that Child Advocate is part of the whole bureaucracy that has failed to protect the child in the first place, what will happen? First of all, will children and/or their parents or guardians or supporters go to the Child Advocate?

Will they trust the Child Advocate when they know it is not separate and apart from the ministry? Will they get the kind of cases they should get in the first instance? That we will not know. Secondly, will they get the kind of independent help and support thatthey require because it is part of the gove rnment department? You know, there have been some discussions, I know, in the Conservative caucus about why it was that the Liberal Party did not support this bill.

Let me make it very clear that nobody in the caucus supported the bill in its present form, but the one for which the opposition was the greatest was the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) and the member for River Heights. Why? Because both of us have worked in the social service field. Both of us know how children have fallen through the cracks. Both of us know about the need to ensure more adequate representation for them. Both of us knew that this bill was not going to meet all of the needs out there. It was not going to meet all of the expectations out there. It was not going to achieve what we wanted.

But we will send it on to committee and we hope that the minister will listen clearly to the voices out there. He knows that I have tabled any number of petitions, that I have a whole group more that, unfortu nately, were not written in the type of format required for tabling in the Legislature.

I think he has been sent copies of all of these: people indicating the need for the mandates office of the Child Advocate 's office to be expanded to all settings that affect children-schools, child care centres, the justice system, health care, aboriginal and special needs children; the need for the Child Advocate to report directly to the Legislature; and the need for children to be given legal counsel when necessary.

Let us stop paying lip service to children; let us stop saying they are our most precious resource and yet not make legislation that ensures that they are protected as our most precious resource should be protec ted. Let me end with this, Mr. Acting Speaker. Every now and then the Winnipeg Sun, in fact most Saturdays now-it used to be Sundays-does a profile on a Manitoban and it does a whole bunch of things. I know that a number of members of this Chamber have been profi led in that little thing. One of the questions they ask frequently is, what is your most favourite possessi on?

I read them and I am always deeply disturbed when somebody puts at the bott om "My most precious possession is my child or my children,w because children are not a poss ession. Children are ours for short periods of time so we can educate them in our value system, so we can raise them with our beliefs and our social outlooks, but the most precious gift we can give a child, the most precious gift we can give them is their sense of themselves and what they are as human beings. That is the most precious gift we can give to a child, but we do not own them.

We will never own them, and those who think they own them do not understand how very precious they are. So, let us try and give to those very precious resources all that they need in our society to grow , to educate, to maximize their potent ial, to maximize all of their abilities, to teach them our values that

June 19, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 512 7 allow them to develop their ow n, and if some time in future their value system comes into conflict with ours, then we say, thank God I gave them the opportunity to become fully mature adults with a mind and will of their own, that I did treat them as a precious gift; I allowed them to be themselves. The Acting Speaker {Mr. Penner): The question before the House is second reading of Bill 64. All those in favour, are we agreed to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker {Mr. Penner): Agreed and so orde red.

Bill 70-The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act The Acting Speaker {Mr. Penner): On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), Bill 70, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres loi), stand ing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) . Mr. Leonard Evans {Brandon East): Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to put a few remarks on the record. The Acting Speaker {Mr. Penner): Order, please. Is there leave to have the bill remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) ? An Honourable Member: No. The Acting Speaker {Mr. Penner): No. No leave. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr.

Acting Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to put a few remarks on the record , a few commen ts on the record with regard to Bill70, proba bly one of the more significant pieces of legislation that is before this Legislature in this particular session. It deals with, of course , the problem of the two- tier system which we have had histor ically in this province and which a couple of other provinces have, along with the province of Manitoba. I believe it is Nova Scotia and Ontario who also have a two- tier system. It is a problem that has been with us.

It is a problem that I attempted to deal with as a form er minister. We were on the verge of dealing with it in 19 88 just prior to the gove rnment changing, with various arrangements having been made to move in a way that we believe would have been more equitable for people who are on welfare in this pr ovince, par ticularly in rural Manitoba. Unfortunate ly, the bill, in my view, does not deal adequately with the problems that we have in the two-tier system. The two- tier system, Mr.

Acting Speaker, is definitely very inequitable because what we have in Manitoba now is a tot ally unregulated system whereby you can get considerable variation in the rate of social assistance paid from one municipality to another and the way the various mun icipalities treat their people. I have some figures here. They are a couple of years old, but they still are relevant for the point I want to make. Back in January of '87, the monthly social allowances rates, excluding shelter, varied very significantly. A single adult in Winnipeg in that year would obta in $1 79 from municipal assistance,

whereas in the R.M. of Wood lands you would only get $72, less than half of what was paid in the city of Winnipeg. The R.M. of Minitonas paid $92; the Village of Bowsm an paid $1 14 ; City of Portage Ia Prairie paid $1 49. So there was a great variation in the amounts paid and some were tota lly inadequate. It was also a system that was inaccessible to many people, inaccessible in the sense that some municipalities had no offi cials who could really deal with someone who wished to obtain weHare.

They had no officials dealing with welfare cases day in and day out as in the case of the city of Winnipeg or the city of Brandon, for example. In many ways, the experience of going to the mun icipality was a very demeaning experience. In fact, it still is a demeaning experience in many ways, Mr. Acting Speaker, where the would-be applicant has to appear before the entire council in some instances and plead poverty and on bended knee ask for a few dollars. Frankly, this is absolutely and totally un acceptable. Unfortunate ly, this bill will do nothing, in my judgment, to address this question.

This matter of admin istrative deficiency is still left there before us. If this bill is passed, there are still people who are going to be forced to go thro ugh a very demeaning experience. The situation we have at the present time is also very inadequate because it forces migration. The story is ofte n told of smaller municipalities advising their would-be social allowance recipient to simply move on to the city of Winnipeg, in particular, and often a one-way ticket was offered out of that mun icipality to anywhe re,

512 8 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 19, 1992 usually the city of Winnipeg, in some cases the city of Brandon, and suggest to the person that they go on municipal welfare in the bigger municipalities. This is to tally inadequate, Mr. Acting Speaker. It is unfair to the people who live in rural Manitoba who, for whatever reason, are forced to seek municipal welfare. The other problem that we have at the present time and that this legislation does not deal with is the question of employment linkages.

When we had planned to bring in more equity into the system in 19 88, we were going to provide for a very large, very significant training program for people on welfare to get them off of welfare. There is nothing here that deals with the problem of retraining people or of training them to the point that they would have a better opportunity to seek employment. So there are no employment linkages in the past, and there is noth ing that is going to be coming forward in the future as far as I can see.

The othe r problem that we have had historically and that this bill still does not deal with is it continues to be a levy on mun icipal taxpayers. It continues to be a levy on property taxes, and I believe in principle that is wrong.

I believe social service, just as health is a soci al service in many ways, and the other child and family services that we have and other social security programs that we have that are paid for essentially by provi nces and cost shared in many instances with the federal government should be paid for by the senior levels of gove rnment and not by municipalities. * (1 1 50) The municipal ratepayers should not be required to finance services.

They should be required to pay the basic local services that have to be provided by municipalities, whether it be road cleaning, garbage collection, fire protecti on, local police protect ion and so on. Yet this unfair system is going to carry on in spite of this legislation. Mr. Acting Speaker, there are a lot of inequities. There are a lot of inadequacies in the system that we have that are simply not being addressed by this legislation. Ultimately, it is a serious problem because, unfortunately, we are experiencing a great deal of unem ployment. The welfare numbers are rising because of high unemployment.

We are well over 50,000, approaching 60,000 people on municipal welfare in this pro vince. Admittedly, most of them are in the city of Winnipeg, but nevertheless we have too many outside of the city of Winnipeg as well. As I inferred, one of the main criticisms that I have of this legislation is that it does not deal with the problem of administrative approach . We are still going to have would-be recipients being forced to go before the whole council to plead their case.

I do not think that is fair compared to what happens in the urban areas, where they go to an off ice, fill out the application, are interviewed by the welfare of ficials, social security offi cials and are dealt with in a private way, rather than doing what happens in many R.M.s, where you have to go before the whole council and people and explain your unfortuna te circumstances. I just think that is a demeaning experience .

Why should the people of rural Manitoba be forced to continue with this type of approach that is not in keeping with what happens to those people who live in the urban centres of Winnipeg, Brandon, Thompson and so on? The other difficulty is-when I say that it does not deal with the administration side-that many municipalities simply do not have the administrative capacity. The local secretary-treasurer is busy with many other things and simply does not have time, in some instances, and does not have the expertise, in some instances, in dealing with welfare situations.

I have talked to municipal councillors around the provi nce about this, and I appreciate the problems that they ha ve, too. They do not pretend to be experts, and they may only have one or two cases of people who may wish to seek welfare and they are not really attuned to dealing with it. I am not saying that these are not good people on the councils. They are very understanding people, and people of rural Manitoba are very concerned people and tend to be very, very interested in their fellow man, fellow woman, and ensure that those people are no t deprived in any way. But nevertheless we do have these prob lems.

Now, this problem of administrative approach that I referred to was dealt with by the Ryant comm ittee. The Ryant Task Force on Social Assistance, which reported in September of 19 83, points out very well, Mr. Acting Speaker, this problem of lo cal administration. I will jus t qu ote a co up le of sentences from that report, because it is very germane to the argument that I am making. Local respon sibility for the administration of social assistance is a double-edged sword-1 am quoting

June 19, 1992 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 512 9 from page 44. It allows for the marshalling of communi ty resources to assist those seen as deserving. It also allows for public castigation of those perceived as undeserving. We have seen indications of both . However, in Man itoba em ployable recipients mo st often seen as undeserving are vulnerable to local punitive action by the jurisdictional division of responsibility. Un fortu na tely, ther e is much evidence of punitiveness. Many mun icipalities offe r assistance in the form of vouchers which identify recipients as untrustworthy or incom petent.

As described earlier, some decide eligibility through public discussion, which humiliates applicants. Finally, representa tives of many municipal assistance program s have openly described to us the ways in which the •undeserving" are subject to stricter eligibility requirements, the threat of liens, a more difficult application process, the offer of lower benefits and so on. Then I quote another sentence on page 45. Many recipients classed as medically employable are not realistically employable at all.

For example, there are many municipal recipients in their 50s or 60s with sporad ic employmen t histories, limited education, few skills and long-standing alcohol problems who are classified as employable, despite the extremely low likelihood that they will obtain employment. At any rate, Mr. Acting Speaker, there is this problem of administrative deficiency. I also refer to page 62 in the Ryant report where they discussed the stigmatization that goes along with the system that we have and which will not be corrected by this legislation.

Quote : Unfortu nate ly, it is true in Manitoba that social assistance functions in a manner which often agg ravates and reinforces stigmatization. Vouchers are used much more extensively than could be justified by the need to control the expenditures of those few recipients who have demons trated serious irrespo nsibility. Many municipalities use vouchers for all recipients as a matter of cou rse .

Similarly, requirements for verification of declared resources identify recipients as such to financial institutions and employers, and they do so in a manner which communic ates an attribution of un trus tworth in ess . Those investigated may find it difficult to maintain employment or deal with particular institutions in the future. They also occasion great embarrassment. In addition, we have found that many recipients live in fear that they may be accused of wrongdoi ng for such normal activities as accepting gifts, having male friends visit them or economizing in order to obtain telephones.

Indeed, many jurisdictions subtract the value of gifts from benefits and initiate embarrassing common-law investigations on the basis of a neighbour's report of a visiting boyfri end. Obtaining a telephone without permission is ofte n interpreted as a violation of the rule that benefits must be used only for the basic needs for which they were intended. If I can cont inue quoting here: Many recipients are demoralized by the fact that they must have permission in order to be able to buy sheets for their beds or to attend courses to which they have been accep ted.

They repor t fe eling belittled and demeaned by the need to make these requests and more often so when they are denied. Many are embarrassed when they cannot share food or lodging with visiting family members for fear that they will be deemed to have received income in exchange. Howeve r, perhaps, the negative effects of stigmatization are almost alarming on the children of recipients. We heard the following from one recipient, and I am quoting. This is from a recipient, Mr.

Acting Speaker: I have already asked the welfare If I could have extra money to buy clothing for my children, and she says, okay, we can allow you a little bit more, but you will have to go to the secondhand and make sure that whatever you buy you have to bring to me the receipts. What child, especially a teenager, wants to go in secondhand all the time, because they know when they are dressed up with secondhand clot hing, they do not look like the others who are walking on the street.

They feel they are so rejected and ashamed of themselves. * (1 200) Well, that is the end of a quote from a welfare recipient, and she goes on to explain how her son is ofte n excluded from social and sports activities of his peers because of his visible welfare status. Just one last sentence here, one last paragraph: We conclude that the social assistance system in Manitoba provides support at the price of social and psychological impairment.

The magnitude of the costs of these practices in dependency are unknown but, clearly, there is a cost to society in undermining the competence and self-sufficiency of recipient s. Quite apart from the effect of

513 0 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 19 , 1992 stigmatization on dependency, the processes described violate the right of any individual to be treated with dignity and respect. Unquo te, and that is from page 63 of the Ryant report. Mr. Acting Speaker, this sad situation will not be corrected , will continue to exist under the proposal in this legislation. As I said also, it does no thing about the one-way ticket phenomenon which causes migration to the larger centres.

I would also like to refer the minister and members of the Legislature to the comm ittee that this gov ernment set up, the Social Assistance Review Committee, the SARC committee that was set up by the Honour able Charlotte Oleson when she was minister and which is the basis, I believe, of some of the legislation that we have. I would note that ultimately we are talking about a relatively small amoun t of money outside of Winnipeg and Brandon, but particularly outside of Winnipeg.

The SARC comm ittee notes on page 20, and I will just quo te this one paragraph: However, the cost of assistance and individual contributions to these costs varied greatly from municipality to municipality. In 19 87 there were 36 municipalities and LGDs which did not incur any net assistance cost . In other words, there were 36 municipalities in which there was no municipal welfare paid out. Some of the reasons were because the people were driven out of the municipalities and forced to go to Winnipeg, or Thompson perhaps, or Brandon.

Further quoting: A further 13 7 municipalities incurred costs of under $1 0,000 and only 28 municipalities in Manitoba incurred costs of over $1 0,000 after cost-sh aring. So what we are talking about, Mr. Acting Speaker, is not a great deal of money when you look at the amount being spent in the city of Winnipeg which is many, many tens of millions of dollars. We are talking about a relatively small group of recipients.

What I am suggesting is that there is need, therefore , to be careful when we are bringing about these amendments to ensure that we bring about as equitable an approach as pos sible, that we bring about something that is closer to, in my judgment, what happens in the city of Winnipeg where you have professional staff dealing with municipal welfare recipients and where the rates are far more reaso nable than you find in rural Manitoba. Anot her complaint I have with the legislation is that there is no tie-in with training and employment programs.

The minister makes no reference, I believe, in his introduction in this matter. I would point out that when we announced our approach to eliminating the two- tier system outside of the city of Winnipeg, we also announc ed a major Cana da-Manitoba Agreement on Employability Enhancement for Social Assistance Recipients. We signed a two-year agreement in early 19 87 and $6 million was to be provided jointly by the two levels of government, and this money was directed specifically for training and employment of welfare recipients.

We got the federal government on side to co-ope rate with the Province of Manitoba to tie it in with this reform that we were about to institute at that time. So I say, it really is unfortunate that there is no initiative coming from this government to conce ntrate on pro viding training, education and skill impro vement of people who are on municipal welfare, are deemed to be employable and who are not employed. Now, I appreciate the fact that you can be trained infinitely and still not get a job if there is a recession or a depression, but that is another subject again. We are also concerned about that.

Nevertheless, there should be emphasis on trainin g and employment pr ograms for the unem ployed people who are drawing municipal welfare, and that too has not been addressed by this legislation and even by the government in the lack of program announcem ents for this. I say, Mr. Acting Speaker, it should not be a levy on municipal taxpayers, because municipal taxes should be for local services.

Again, I would like to quo te from the SARC report, the report prepared for this government where they make reference on page 23 to the fact that-maybe I would best quo te the report, it is only one paragraph, to make the point: The comm ittee noted that social assistance costs at the municipal level are financed through municipal property taxes, but does not believe that property taxes are the most appropriate mechanism for funding social assistance.

Thus, the committee believes that the current ove rall municipal contri bution to costs should not increase as a result of the introd uction of regulation; nevertheless, the committee acknowledges that on an individual basis social assistance costs in some mun icipalities will

June 19, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 51 31 increase as a result of the introduction of consistent benefit levels and financial eligibility criteria. So there, Mr. Acting Speaker, this committee also recog nizes that this will be a burden on municipal property taxpayers that should not be. Anot her problem I see, and that is this approa ch, where you are regulating mun icipalities into a standard rate of payment, requires the gove rnment to become a policeman, to become involved in the policing of the municipalities. I, for one, do not find that a suitable way to go.

I do not like to see the gov ernment of Manitoba having to overlook, more than ever, over the shoulders of the municipal councillors, the municipal administrations in this province, to see that they are abiding by the regulations on welfare. I read on page 11 , where this is noted by the SARC committee, the Social Assistance Review Committee, quote: The committee also concluded that the financial eligibility criteria of the Municipal Assistance Program should be extensively regulated to ensur e that eligibility is assessed in a consistent manner throughout the provi nce.

The comm ittee noted that having one set of est ablished rules to determine eligibility would also be more efficient as it would eliminate the need for municipalities to develop rules for han dling situations which they infrequently encounter. So, in effect, we are going to have the Province of Manitoba be required to hire staff or utilize staff in whatever way to ensure that the municipalities are abiding by all these regulations with regard to rates.

I believe there are other problems with this legislation, and I am trying to deal with this as expeditiously as I can, and that is the problem of penalizing those municipalities that wish to pay more than the provi ncial standards. I am thinking particularly of the City of Winnipeg where, from our reading of this legislation, the m inister says, well, the legislation permits the municipalities to have flexibility. They can exceed the minimum standard, but the point is there does not seem to be any pro vision for this government to pay those municipalities, and I am really thinking of the City of Winnipeg.

There may be one or two more as well, but it is essentially the City of Winnipeg who may be paying more for certain categories of social assistance than the pro vince. H that happens, the major financial impact of this legislation will be, therefore, to penalize the City of Winnipeg and poss ibly some other cities, possibly Brandon, possibly Thompson, and maybe one or two oth ers.

The fact is that the pro vince, it appears, will be establishing a standard which may raise a lot of rur al muni cipalities to that standard but, neve rtheless, will not meet the standards of the major urban centres where 90 percent or more of the welfare recipients happen to be. .. (121 0) In fact, Winnipeg alone, I believe, accounts for 85 percent of the welfare recipients. In fact, it is referred to in the appendix of the SARC report.

It suggests that it has some cost estimate of the proposed refor ms, but it is quite obvious from the information here that the major impact will be with regard to the City of Winnipeg, because the City of Winnipeg accounts for almost $40 million out of $44 million in gross assistance paid today to municipal welfare recipients; $40 million out of the $44 million is paid by the City of Winnipeg. Then the other cities pay $2.6 million, and then the balance is paid by all other towns and villages in the pro vince. Let us face it.

On the one hand, you might say there will be a few hundred welfare recipients in rural Manitoba who may benefit because the rates will go up there and this is fine. On the other hand, you are going to have 85 percent of present welfare recipients who are going to possibly be penalized in the future because this government will refuse to contribute to the City of Winnipeg to the extent that it can today under the existing legislation. Under the existing legislation it meets Winnipeg's costs in accordance with a form ula. As I read this legislation-and if we are wrong, we would be happy to be corrected over it.

If I am wrong, then so be it, but it seems to us, Mr. Acting Speaker, that what we have got here is a very serious situation whereby the City of Winnipeg may be penalized. Therefore, the recipients in the City of Winnipeg will be penalized, because if the City of Winnipeg pays more than the levy or than the standard of the Province of Manitoba, it will be penalized. This is referred to in the legislation. In fact,

Section 11 ( 1) makes reference to •shareable cost of muni cipal assistance." So when we compare this-and I do not want to get into the details of the actual provisions of the bill-the way we read it, there is going to be a very, very serious negative impact on the city of Winnipeg. So this, in my judgment, is the crux of the matter. On the one hand, it seems to be a step in the right

51 32 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA June 19 , 1992 direction to say, well, we are going to bring the rural municipalities, small towns, villages, up to a certain defined provi ncial standard. That is fine, but as I said, it is still not going to deal with the major problem of inadequate administration where people have to go on banded knee to the local council and beg for welfare. That is still not going to be addressed. To me, that is a major probl em. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) I am summing up here. As I was saying, Mr.

Speaker, the real problem in terms of finances will be in terms of the penalties that are going to be suffered by 85 percent of the welfare recipients in this pro vince. In other words, this legislation is going to penalize 85 to 90 percent of welfare recipients in the province of Manitoba. This is pu nishing legislation. It is going to penalize, essentially those in the city of Winnipeg, to some extent in some of the other cities. That is what this legislation is going to do.

On the other hand, while it seemingly will raise the rates with a few people in rural Manitoba, it will still not address the major problem out there. It does not address the problem of the one-way ticket. It does not address that pro blem, because there is nothing in this legislation which forces a municipality. It requires the municipality, if they decide to pay out, to have to pay a certain standard, but there is noth ing that says that they have to pay.

What if they suggest to the person who is on banded knee before the local council that that person would probably be far better off to go to Winnipeg or to Brandon, because they have a welfare department there that knows how to deal with these things? Therefore , they discourage the person. This has happened. There are actual living examples, many examples, where this has happened, where someone has gone, saying we cannot get work; we have no income; we need some help. There is provincial-federal legislation which says, by law, we are entitled to some income security, some income protecti on.

Yet there is nothing in the law which forces the municipality to say, well, we are going to pay it out. The municipality, presumably, if it decides to pay it out under this legislation will have to pay it out in accordance with a rate that is still to be established. We still do not know what these rates are going to be. Therefore , Mr. Speaker, you have the situation where you are still going to get in Manitoba, the same inequi table situation of welfare being inaccessible to people in many parts of rural Manitoba. They are in the minor ity.

They are only 15 percent of the total outside of Winnipeg, but still, it is going to be inaccessible to these people. There is nothing which says that their privacy is going to be respected. There is nothing in this which is going to remove the stigmatization that occurs in rural Manitoba, which was a major concern of the Ryant Report. The Ryant committee, made up of some very excellent people, spent a year in studying this proble m, who went arou nd the pro vince, who talked to municipalities, who talked to social service agencies, who talked to social welfare recipients.

They say that we have a situation which aggravates and reinforces stigmatization. That was one of their major concerns. As I sai

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-90
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 90.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	413203c1810b44a03e471f6d3a03841d4ee3d0af

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