Manitoba Committee Hansard — 16 July 1980 (Private Bills Committee, Sitting 2, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-pb2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature oflhe Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BILLS 29 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker WEDNESDAY, 16 JULY, 1980,8:00 p.m. Printed by W. T.-icllyna. a.->s Prinfer. Protrince of lllenitobs

MANITOBA LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty - First Legislature Members, Constituen cies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A. R. (Pete) ANDERSON, Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOYCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COWAN, Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell DOMINO, Len DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLAY, Hon. Doug GRAHAM, Hon. Harry E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER, Hon. Ken MALINOWSKI, Donald McBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Morris McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vie SHERMAN, Hon. L R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WES"fBURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Aiel St. Boniface Elmwood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kildonan Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Virden Roblin Os borne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC PC lnd NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP NDP Lib PC

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BILLS Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 Time - 8:00 p.m. MR. CHAIRMAN, Jim Galbraith (Dauphin) MR. CLERK: Gentlemen, the former chairman of this committee, Mr. Steen, has been removed and we are now without a chairman, so I would be looking for nominations for a new Chairman. Are there any nominations to be made? MR. L.R. (Bud) SHERMAN): Mr. Clerk, I nominate Jim Galbraith, the Member for Dauphin. MR. CLERK: Mr. Galbraith has been nominated. Are there any further nominations? Hearing none, I would ask Mr. Galbraith to take the Chair. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Members of the Comm ittee, I would like to call this committee to order. We are here tonight to deal with Private Bills. Bill No. 54,

An Act to Grant Additional Powers to Charle swood Curling Club Ltd.; Bill No. 57,

An Act for the Relief of lngibjorg Elizabeth Alda Hawes and George Wilfred Hawes; Bill No. 65, The Registered Nurses Act; Bill No. 66, The Registered Psychiatric Nurses Act; and Bill No. 87, The Licensed Practical Nurses Act. We have certain people here who have been in contact with the Clerk's Office: Mr. Robert Hucal and Mr. John Hilgenga, appearing on Bill 54; on Bill 57, Mr. Walker; on Bill 65, Miss Tod, J.F .R . Taylor, the Manitoba Health Organization, the University of Manitoba School of Nursing (Prof.

Cynthia Cameron), Miss Barbara Bradley (Nursing Administrator); on Bill No. 66, the Manitoba Health Organizations, Miss L. Tod, and from the Regis tered Psychiatric Nurses Association, Ms Osted; Bill No. 87, The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, we have the Manitoba Health Organi zat ions and we have from the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, Miss L. Tod and Mrs. Margaret Mackling, Mrs. Man Coleg rave (Chairman of the Licensed Practical Nurses Advisory Council), and Mrs. Barbara Bradley, represe nting Directors of Nursing Interest Group. Are there any further . . . MR.

SAUL CHERNIACK: Could I hear the last name you mentioned? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Barbara Bradley. Are there any other persons here wishing to make presentat ions to any of these bills tonight? Could we have your name? MS PHYLLIS WAINE: Phyllis Waine, Instructor from Red River Community College. MR. CHAIRMAN: On Bill? MS WAINE: 65. MR. CHAIRMAN: What was the name again? 9 MS WAINE: Phyllis Waine. Pardon me, Bill 87, I'm sorry. MR. A.G. LAWRENCE: Mr. Chairman, my name is A.G. Lawrence and I am wishing to make represe ntations on behalf of Bill No. 54. That's the one dealing with the Charleswood Curling Club. Mr.

Hucal is unable to be here; perhaps later he will arrive, but I would like to speak to it. MR. CHAIRMAN: What was your name again, sir, please? MR. LAWRENCE: A.G. Lawrence. MR. STREET: Mr. Chairman, my name is Mr. Street. I am the President of the RPNAM and I will be here to speak on Bill 66. MR. CHAIRMAN: What was the name again, please? MR. STREET: Street, S-t-r-e-e -t. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other persons wishing to make pres entations? MS CAROLE FAWCETT: I am Carole Fawcett and I am the President of the Manitoba Association of Licensed Practical Nurses. MR. CHAIRMAN: On which one? MS FAWCETT: Bill 87.

MS MARGUERITE BICKNELL: I am Marguerite Bicknell, President of the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses. Bill 65. MR. CHAIRMAN: There are no other persons wishing to make presen tations? MR. KEITH TURNER: My name is Keith Turner, Vice-President of the Law Society of Manitoba, with respect to proposed amendments to Bill 57. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGill. MR. EDWARD McGIU: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, could we perhaps call those delegations that are from out of town so that they might be heard first? MR.

CHAIRMAN: May I ask the committe one thing, which bill do you want to deal with first, the one at the top of the order? MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I think, Mr. McGill made a sugges tion. I think you should find out if any of the persons wishing to present briefs are from out of the city and then we would, as he suggests .

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 ' MR. CHAIRMAN: May I ask if there are any persons in the Assembly here tonigh t wanting to make presentations from out of town? What is the wish of the committee? Do you want to start with the first bill on the top of the list? (Agreed) BILL NO. 54 -

AN ACT TO GRANT ADDITIONAL POWERS TO CHARLESWOOD CURLING CLUB LTD. MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time I will start dealing with Bill 54,

An Act to Grant Additional Powers to the Charleswood Curling Club, I would like to call Mr. A. G. Lawrence to the stand please. MR. A. G. LAWRENCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am the president of the Charleswood Curling Club, and during the passage of this bill through first and second readings, I was asked to give a commitment that I would submit a by-law to a meeting of the shareholders providing, first, that no more shares shall be issued to a person over and above the number that he already holds, most shareholders own one share but there are several that own quite a number; and secondly, that if the bill is proceeded with and in the future, if we issue more shares, that only one share would be issued to a shareholder; and thirdly, that when it becomes legally possible that we would convert the company to a non-profit company.

This company was incorporated some 40 years ago before non-profit companies were very common. While we have operated as a non-profit company we are, legally speaking, a profit-making company. The reason we cannot convert now is that in order to convert, under

Section 165, subsection (3) of The Corporations Act, you require the consent of 95 percent of the shareholders and we can't find 95 percent of our shareholders. We have lost track of them one way or another. Our concern about this bill is that over the course of the years people have quit curling, they have moved away, they have died, and that situation is getting worse and worse. If I could just give you briefly some figures, there are 324 shareholders.

There are altogether including men, ladies, and seniors, 445 curlers, that's aside from juniors and renters and things; and of those 445 there are only 75 shareholders that are actually curling. We are concerned about our position that eventually somebody will be able to gather up enough shares to sell the company and it's admitted that the company, if it could be sold, if a curling club can be sold, it would net a good deal more than the 25 that all the shareholders originally paid for their shares. Actually, Mr.

Chairman, there is a demand for shares but we can't buy curlers that are curling without shares, but we can't get people to sell their shares and this situation has been going on for two or three years. If the bill is passed the directors of the company will certainly try to sell all the shares of any shareholder that wishes to sell and we think we can. We are not sure but we think we can.

Our situation is that anybody can curl without a share, we don't insist on that, but if you are a shareholder our proposal is that you must curl and to get our shareholders down to the same people that are 10 curling and operating the club as a whole, this assessment would gradually revoke the shares over perhaps a period of five years or th ree years, whatever the directors decide on. We take care of the people that are the shareholders by reducing their membership fees. If there are any que stions, Mr. Chairman, members, I will attempt to answer them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cherniack. MR.

CHERNIACK: I am sorry, I was called out for just a moment. I didn't hear the conclusion of Mr. Lawrence's statement. I don't have a copy of it from Hansard, but I believe it is correct to say that Mr. Steen, speaking as the mover of motion when he closed deba te, stated tha t in addition to the voluntary offer of the club to do those things in their by-law that Mr. Lawrence described at the beginning of his presenta tion, th at there would be an acceptance of an amendment which I would like to read to make sure that Mr. Lawrence knows it and hear from Mr. Lawrence confirmation of Mr.

Steen's statement that it would be acceptable. I would like to read that, Mr. Chairman, to him, that there would be an additional clause which would read: THAT upon dissolution of the corporation, property remaining after paying all the debts and obligations of the corporation shall be paid to an organization in Manitoba, the undertaking of which is charitable or beneficial to the community. I am wondering if Mr. Lawrence would care to comment on ... MR. LAWRENCE: Mr.

Chairman, that amendment was mentioned to me and my information was that this bill was dealt with at a formal mee ting of the shareholders of which the notices had been sent out and the resolution that was passed include this amendment as the honour able mem ber, Mr. Cherniack, mentioned. lt was impossible for me to agree to an amendmen t to the bill which the shareholders hadn't dealt with .

I would be the happiest guy in the world if it did take place because we want it and if we fulfil our commitment and get our shares down to where we can get ahold of 95 percent of our shareholders, become a non-profit organization, then it is my understanding by law that if we dissolve the company that it has to go to a charitable institution. If Mr. Cherniack or this committee wants me to add that to my commitment I will certainly present that to the shareholders.

As a matter of fact, it was discussed that it should be a non-profit company and that if it ever was wound up that it would go to a charitable organization and we have one in mind as a matter of fact, but it was not dealt with form ally by the shareh olde rs at the mee ting dealing with the resolution to present this bill. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify to Mr. Lawrence, it is my intention to present this amendment. Mr. Steen is not here, but I intend to present it on the assurance that he gave to the House in closing second reading that would be acce ptable, and I just thought with Mr.

Lawrence here, a man whom I have known for so many years and always respected , that I would like to have his I

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 ra�Gtlon as tc •vhcthcr or not it �·Jct.:!C be :1cceptable. I guess I can't ask him formally because he said he hasn't had a mee ting, but does he himself see an objection to this addition to the bill? MR. LAWRENCE: Yes, I can't consent to it, Mr. Ch::-�:::: :!�, !:��:!:.:!:e !he ��!"e!"!�!�er£ d!!:!!"!'t consider it formally. If it's presented and the bill is defeated that's too bad, but I certainly would advocate that's what we do. I have a copy of Hansard here. I don't see where Mr. Steen, maybe that's the first rea ding, I'm not sure. MR. CHERNIACK: No, it's second read ing. MR.

LAWRENCE: I don't see any place that he made any commitment to agree to this amendment. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, it's okay. This is the copy of what Mr. Steen said when he presented the bill on second read ing, it's not when he closed debate. I will have to get a copy of that, and if I can get it in time I will be happy to show it to Mr. Lawrence. I have to get it now for my own satisfaction. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions of Mr. Lawrence? If not, that's fine, thank you, Mr. Lawrence. MR. LAWRENCE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to call now Mr. John Hilgenga, on Bill 54. MR.

JOHN HILGENGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Hilgenga. I am a long-time resident of Charleswood and I am a shareholder of the Charle swood Curling Club Ltd. When I read this bill, Mr. �,;na1rman, 1 got alarmed. I got alarmed before that when the executive of the holding company came with no proposal at all.

They just said, "We need more money and you fellows do nothing with your shares, they are worth nothing, you should contribute them to the company." The argument was used that one man cou1a own all the shares and sell the assets of the company at what they feel , now, I say it is worth a quarter of a million but they have doubled the value on it of mare than that. The very intent of this Act, as it reads now, will just work out the opposite way as they have m mmd.

What prevents the executive of the curling club, of the holding company, of assessing 2.50 a year, or 5.00 a year, against a share of 25.00, and five years from now they own all that? What guarantee have we, at this particular time, in this bill, that money will go to the community as a wno1e·1 I must state a little more. At a general meet ing called by Me Lawrence, as chairman, there was less than one-forth of the shares repres ented. The meeting was held at 9:30 on a Sunday morning, when many of us object to going to a meeting of that Kmd, one ot the reasons that there were very iew people in attendance.

Now, Me Chairman, if this bill proceeds I would like to see that at least it was stipulated in this particular bill to whom the money would go in case 11 the curling club or the holding company went out of busine ss. I agree with Me Cherniack that that is, in essence, one of the musts. I cannot see that this legislation will go ahead with a bill watered like this. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am objecting to Me Ste en, who doesn't repre.sent our area at all , presenting the bill. I see maybe there is a reason why the gentleman who represents Charleswood didn't sponsor this bill.

Anyway, I will leave that in the middle. I would like to see very much that until such time that this bill guarantees that my money - I hold four shares and I don't care for the 100, I'd give it to the curling club or to an organization anytime, but I am objecting to that they will be in a position of distributing that money, after they get it, after our sh ares are useless and they own the curling club, that that money will go to whatever they think it should go, and who knows who. I will not go any further, Mr. Chairman.

I think that this bill is a discredit to the man who presented it and to the Legislature that sits to adopt it. I thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hilgenga, could we just have you wait for a se cond. Would you answer any questions if there are any? MR. HILGENGA: I will always answer questions, Mr. Chairman, that are asked of me. I am wondering about a bill like this coming before the legislature in the first place. We could handle tha t stuff in Charleswood just as well as it can be handled here and far better. MR . CHAIRMAN: Do any of the members of the committee have any questions for Mr. Hilgenga?

Thank you, Sic Now we'll deal with Bill No. 57,

An Act tor the Rel ief of Mrs. Hawes and Mr. Hawes. Mr. J. S. Walker. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, it's not usual, if I may interrupt for a moment. Mr. Reeve was kind enough to quickly get a copy of Mr. Steen 's response in closing debate, which contains a sentence which reads, . . . MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cherniack. Maybe I had better refer back to Bil! No. 54 then, we were on Bill No. 57. MR. CHERNIACK: Please do, Mr. Chairman. I think you will agree on a point of order. MR. CHAIR MAN: Would you excuse us for a second, Me Walker while we finish the Bill 54, then. I'm sorry. Mr. Cherniack. MR.

CHERNIACK: it's jus t tha t according to Han sard, Mr. Steen said the solicitor for Charleswood and the executive are prepared to accept the amendment that the Honourable Member for St. Johns has suggested, and I showed it to Mr. Lawrence and his react ion was not such that I felt should be left so that the committee is not aware of his reac tions. I asked him if he wanted to come back and address the committee on that and I think he

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 ' does by the fact that he's here and I am wondering if the committee is prepared to hear him further. MR . CHAIRMAN: Is the committee prepared to? (Agreed) Mr. Lawrence. MR. LAWRENCE: The sentence quoted by Mr. Cherniack that I advised Mr. Steen that I would agree to the amendment, as far as I'm concerned, I never agreed to it, and couldn't. Actually I told Mr. Cherniack that on the phone that I couldn't agree to it. I don't know at what stage that occurred but I am telling this committee that I never made any commitment to Mr. Steen, and how that got in the proceedings, I don't know. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you, Mr. Lawrence. BILL NO. 57

AN ACT FOR THE RELIEF OF INGIBJORG ELIZABETH ALDA HAWES AND GEORGE WILFRED HAWES MR . CHAIRMAN: I'll now call, Mr. Walker, on Bill No. 57. Thanks for putting up with us, Mr. Walker. MR. J. S. WALKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. When I came to this meeting here at 8:00 o'clock, I was familiar with the Private Members' Bill that had been submitted to the Legislature. I had a hand in drafting that bill.

As I walked through the door at 8:00 o'clock tonight, I was handed an amendment to the bill and I have had an opportunity in the last few minutes to look through that amendment, and I would like to speak on that amendment. I think that the amendment puts forward a further injustice to Mrs. . .. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is not before the committee yet, Mr. Walker. MR. WALKER: I see , okay. I would like to, first of all, then just speak on the bill itself that was presented.

This is a bill to extend the time to allow a plaintiff to issue a statement of claim in the Court of Queen's Bench because the solicitor that had been retained in the case, Robert Szewczyk, of the town of Selkirk, had failed to file a statement of claim in time and the two year period had expired. Now bills for relief of this nature have been granted frequently by the Legislature over the years and I submit that this bill when you look at the facts is as deserving of being passed as any bill has ever been.

The injustice that has arisen in this case will soon be six years old. it's more than five-and-a-half years old now, and we are still on the threshold of trying to rectify this grave injustice. This whole matter began with an accident on the road to Selkirk on December 14th, 1974, when Alda Hawes, who was a passenger in the front seat of a vehicle, driving into Winnipeg was very severely injured through no fault of her own.

An oncoming vehicle, operated by a man who had allowed his vehicle to go out of control, slid across the icy road broadside and collided with the front of the vehicle in which Alda Hawes was a passenger. She suffered nine broken ribs; also a collapsed lung; multiple serious fractures to her pelvic area and to her right leg; a fractured ruptured hip, including fracture of the head of the femur and the socket; a fracture of the right ankle; lacerations to the right side and forehead.

She had damaged nerves in the right cheek that have to this day resulted in numbness in her cheek, and general contusions and bruises throughout her entire body. While she lay in the hospital her husband, who is not the most articulate person, took the case to Robert Szewczyk, in the town of Selkirk, and asked hirn to look after the interests of Mrs. Hawes and himself.

They had both dealt with this lawyer for many years and it was not until April of 1978, when the lady decided to change lawyers that she learned for the first time that the Statute of Limitations had passed and the lawyer had never sued her case out. She had been led on and on and on, calling week after week in good faith wondering when she was going to hear some end to her case. Throughout this period of time Autopac's adjusters dealt with Robert Szewczyk.

They got various claim forms signed; they got all the medical reports which were available to Alda Hawes; they had consent to write to the doctors and obtain further medical information that they required; they fully - I'm referring to Autopac - investigated the accident, I have no doubt that they would have taken photographs and statements and measurements and whatever they do in any serious accident claim, they proceeded to, one by one, deal with the other persons who were injured in this terrible accident.

The wife of the driver of the other car was killed and the children were seriously injured, and there were other people in the Hawes' vehicle who were also seriously injured, and one by one, Autopac dealt with all of these claims.

They dealt with all of the claims except this one, and they continued to deal with Robert Szewczyk up until December, 1976, at which time they wrote him a letter advising that they had made a search in the ' Queen's Bench prothonotary's office, that they could find that no Statement of Clain had been issued within the time period and therefore they no longer had any power or any authority to deal with him. 12 During this period of time, we understand that a contingency fund was set up by Autopac, as they do in all cases, so a reserve fund was set aside to cover Alda Hawes' injuries.

At this time, Autopac did make some payment to Alda Hawes. As a result of their investigation and the no-fault benefits, they paid out to her 1,996.54, or some amount of that nature, based on their investigations. In July, 1978, I appeared before this committee, and at that time I asked the Legislature, as the court of last resort, to grant relief to us by allowing us to bring an action against the defendants, the driver of the other car, and at that time, the bill passed the committee stage; it was approved at this stage. In July, 1978, the bill went to third reading in the Legislature and there it was defeated.

During the debate when the bill was defeated, and 1 even in the committee stage, there was considerable objection raised to the effect that why should the Legislature be relieving a negligent lawyer of his responsibility. They were sympathetic. You were sympathetic towards Alda Hawes and you appeared

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 willing to grant her relief, but there was some reluctance to grant relief to a negligent lawyer. When we left the Legislature in July, 1978, we commenced an action against that lawyer. The action was commenced on November 29, 1978. At that time, I think I indicated to the Legislature that I thought that the action would produce nothing, that I didn't think that he was worth suing in terms of having any assets. Nevertheless, we undertook a lawsuit against Robert Szewczyk and early in April, 1979, there was a hearing before Mr.

Justice Hamilton in which we tried to seize or by injunction to have the assets of Robert Szewczyk held so that there would be something to attach when we were able to get a judgment. We knew at that time that Robert Szewczyk was facing some claims by the Income Tax Department and we suspected that it was just a matter of time before any assets that he had would be dissipated. Mr. Justice Hamilton heard the argument; it was contested. Mr. Szewczyk had a law firm engaged to defend his interests throughout. Mr. Justice Hamilton said he was not prepared to accept the fact, as a proposition, that liability is clear.

We were arguing in court that there was clear liability against the lawyer and Mr. Justice Hamilton said, "As I know only of the allegations of the plaintiffs and I am not aware of what, if any, defences might be raised, Mr. Szewczyk raised as defences the fact that he was not retained for the purpose of bringing an action for general damages, that he was only retained for a limited purpose, to collect no-fault benefit s. " In spite of various admissions that we thought that we had in the Exam. for Discovery, and we tried to bring these to the Court's attention, the Court was not satisfied that liability existed.

"The plaintiff says that an injunction is necessary as no judgment can be obtained for at least six month s. " At that time, Mrs. Hawes was undergoing serious surgery for the replacement of a hip and it was not known what the outcome of her surgery would be. lt was not known how successful it would be. Mr.

Justice Hamilton went on: "Counsel for the plaintiff suggests that this is an unusual case, therefore the discretion of the Court should be exercised in favor of granting an injunction prohibiting the defendant from disposing of certain assets, " and we enumerated the law office that was partially owned by the lawyer, his house, which was partially owned by himself and his wife, and we asked for an injunction for a period of six months.

"I find this case no different than many others that appear before the courts where counsel could argue that the question of liability is clear and that a court should require a defendant to refrain from disposing of assets until a trial is held. " Mr. Justice Hamilton concludes that he " .. . commends counsel for the plaintiff for his initiative in bringing this motion . . . I can find no foundation for it in law, " and he awarded costs against us. So we were unsuccessful in an attempt to try to have the assets of this lawyer frozen so that we could have something to seize with our judgment.

We pursued our action against Robert Szewczyk. In June, 1979, Robert Szewczyk appeared in court in the town of Selkirk, charged with evasion of income tax, and attached to the petition, you will find a 13 Certificate of Conviction. The Certificate of Conviction is for the charge, "That Robert H.

Szewczyk, at the town of Selkirk, in the province of Manitoba, between the first day of January, 1965 and the third day of May, 1977, did unlawfully and wilfully evade the payment of taxes imposed by The Income Tax Act by failing to report income in the sum of 148,312.27 for the taxation years 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1976, thereby evading payment of 24, 293.49 in taxes, contrary to the provisions of The Income Tax Act.

" Now, we understand that there is a total of about 90,000 that the Income Tax Department has as a claim against Robert Szewczyk and their claim takes priority to any other claims against him. So he now has this very sizeable sum of money to pay to the Tax Department and that claim, as I have indicated, comes before ours. As a result of that professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a barrister, the Law Society suspended Robert Szewczyk from the practice of law on July 17, 1979, for a period of six months.

Still realizing that it was pretty unlikely that we were ever going to collect any money from this lawyer, we still sailed ahead with our lawsuit, pressing on as quickly as we could to judgment, simply because this was the objection that we met in the Legislature: Why didn't we sue the negligent lawyer? Why can't we have relief for Alda Hawes ... Okay, we first have to deal with this negligent lawyer. I, from time to time, wrote to Autopac, keeping them advised. I will just read one type of letter that I wrote to Autopac .

This was written June 8, 1979: "As you are no doubt aware, the limitation date for suing this matter expired . . . During the two-year period from the time that the accident occurred, there was various intermittent discussions and negotiations between your adjuster and Mr. Szewczyk. We are aware that a reserve was established by the Manitoba Public Insurance Commission in connection with this matter. The purpose of this letter is to advise you that we anticipate returning to the Legislature of the province of Manitoba, requesting them to consider again a bill for the Hawes' on the basis that Mr.

Szewczyk does not have assets to pay the amount which will be awarded to our clients and, as a result, you should keep the reserve which you had initially created and we will keep you advised of our progress throughout this matter." I kept Autopac advised of the progress by writing them letters from time to time and they obviously were receiving my letters, although not always replying to them. I did get one reply, from Assistant General Counsel, W.S.

Saranchuk, on October 16, after I had written a letter just keeping Autopac informed of every development, so that the day would come in which there would be no suggestion at all of any prejudice to Autopac. The letter that I received says: "Re Hawes vs. Szewczyk: Your recent letters were referred to the writer for a reply, although quite frankly, no reply is warranted, for reasons of which you are well aware. Lest you have forgotten, the Corporation has no further involvement here and our file is closed. " This letter is attached to the petition.

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 We have continued to keep the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation fully advised of every step along the way so that there would be no prejudice to the Corporation. I would make this statement at this time, that we have provided the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation with every document that we have in our possession, every medical repo rt, every bit of information that we have. Now, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation will have more information on this accident than we have. They were probably there with photographs, diagrams, interviews and adjusters' reports.

I think you could walk into the office of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation today and pick up a more complete file on this matter than I have with me here today on behalf of the Hawes, and I'm sure that the Corporation makes their own private investigations as well and, as I said at one point, there is in this case no prejudice whatsoever to the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

Unfortunately, as is set out in the petition, that insurance which is usually available to a lawyer who makes a mistakes, as provided by the Law Society of Manitoba, is not available in this case due to the circumstances that I set out in the petition. I don't know if the Chairman wants me to go into the details of why it is not available, but it is not available. lt is set out in the petition and I can deal with it if anyone wishes me to do so.

There is no insurance available from the Manitoba Law Society to cover the negligence of Robert Szewczyk, and the Law Society passed a resolution - a request was made to them, I understand - and they don't recognize any liability for the error and negligence of Robert Szewczyk. There are many good reasons to pass this bill and I would like to just simply enumerate a few of them. First of all, we have here a woman who, at all times, dealt with a barrister of Manitoba in good faith, and her conduct throughout has been open and in good faith.

Another reason is that this is a case of hardship, perhaps even extreme hardship. This lady, a mother of many children, whose husband is not working, has been the sole source of support for her family and, as of July of this month, she has received her last pay cheque. She is no longer able to work at all, as a result of complications which have presently arisen in her physical condition. She is 54 years old; she was the breadwinner in this family; she is now not going to be able to work. So this is a situation where there is hardship that begs to be relieved.

Another reason why this bill should be passed is that there is no prejudice here. This isn't going to come as any surprise to Autopac that there is a claim. They have a contingency fund set up. I have been writing to them for years now, keeping them advised of every step that we have taken. They know it is coming. They have been in touch with our offices rece ntly, as within the last week, asking for information. This isn't going to come like a satellite falling from the sky and hitting their office. They know that there is a claim.

The only reason that they are not paying it is because there is a technical defence, the statute of limitations was passed. This is a case in which the adjuster from Autopac has met personally with Mr. and Mrs. Hawes. He met personally with them in the offices of the lawyer. This 14 is a case in which Autopac has already made its payments, its initial payments, after making its investigation. There is another reason why I suggest it is necessary to pass this bill. There has been a contingent liability fund set up by Autopac, in the year 1974.

That is one of the requirements that they have in their method of practice. When they know of an accident, it is up to their counsel to assess what the likely damages will be and a contingency fund is set aside and, in the following year, when premiums were set for the payment of Autopac insurance, this ,. claim must have been taken into account. Therefore, there has been a contingency fund sitting on the books of Autopac since 1975 and it would amount to not only a windfall gain to Autopac to be relieved of having to pay out that fund that was set up for Mrs. Hawes, it would be a grave injustice, I submit.

This fund has already been reflected in the insurance rates that have been charged by Autopac in the years 1975 and following. lt would not be fitting, I submit, for a public corporation to gain a windfall in such a way. Those funds are available to meet the claim and I submit that a bill should go through the Legislature which would allow Mrs. Hawes and her husband to proceed against Burns and Goodman, the original defendants, who are covered by Autopac, for the damages that have been sustained.

I would also suggest, as well, that it is not appropriate in a case like this, in the light of all the dealings between Autopac and the plaintiffs, to allow Autopac to avoid such a claim. If you will look at the petition you will see, starting at Page 7, or even at Page 5, the amount of information that was provided to Autopac by the plaintiffs through the lawyer, Robert Szewczyk, from the very first. From January 2nd, 1975, there was a whole page of documents that was provided to Autopac by Robert Szewczyk; Page 7 gives another whole page of documents; Page 8, all kinds of medical reports, Dr. Mayba, Dr.

Mills, Dr. Robertson, Dr. Glenville, Dr. Reid, Dr. Bayme, Dr. Tauthezis, Dr. Saunders, Dr. Cyric, Dr. Mazer and on and on. They all send their medical reports to Dr. Stevens and many many reports from Dr. Reid. Autopac has them all, there is no surprise here. And on August 29, 1975, Autopac asked for the following document to be signed and it was signed. The document says, signed by Alda Hawes and her husband, "I hereby authorize the release to my insurer of any information requested in support of my claim.

" She gave Autopac carte blanche authority in that document referred to on Page 8 to investigate, to write to her doctors, to any of those doctors, ask what they like, whatever is necessary to satisfy them, the doors were always open. Then the adjuster came out and met with them. The adjuster could have gone back to Autopac and recommended to Autopac an amount of money which he thought Autopac should have paid to the Haweses. That money could have been tendered, but Autopac did nothing once the two-year limitation period had passed.

So, in the light of all of these dealings, it would be grossly unfair, I submit to allow this lady to go unrelieved from this enormous hardship that she now bears. When I talked to her today and I asked her if she would be able to come

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 ' down to the committee hearing tonight, and she told me that she just wasn't able to. She was in pain; she has been under psychiatric care, as a result of the aggravation of this case, as a result of what has happened with her lawyer, and coming to the Legislature and having to go back again unsuccessfully. The news media have been down to her home and interviewing her and it's a tension and a strain that is absolutely foreign to her life. In addition to that, she has had to quit her work now because of tremendous pain that she is suffering in her right leg and hip and in her back.

She was working as a nurses aide, like a practical nurse, in the Selkirk General Hospital, usually the night shift. She would look after her family during that part of the day when she wasn't sleeping and she would work all night. Her husband is in very poor health and is unable to work. Their sources of income to this family are very precarious at this time. This is a case of great hardship that begs for relief, and that's why I said at the outset, of all the cases that this Legislature, over the years, has granted relief in, I don't think there are any more worthy than this one for consideration.

Now, if I might just say one, this is not the time to speak on the amendment . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment hasn't been presented. Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I would, in asking Mr. Walker some question, indicate the nature of the amendment that I would be proposing and ask him to respond to that. In that way, I think he could deal with it, but I don't know that all members of the committee themselves are really aware of what the amendment purports to be and possibly it would be better to explain it before Mr. Walker responds. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cherniack, Mr. Slake caught my eye earlier. MR.

DAVID BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, if I might just add at the outset that I find myself in a bit of an awkward position. This is my bill and unfortunately, as the members of the committee know, I'm a member of the Board of the Directors of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. I was absent from the Legislature today attending a meeting of the board. The bill was called; I understand there were two or three speakers on it. I haven't had a chance to see Hansard; I don't know what was said.

I understand that it's been indicated that I may have a conflict of interest presenting this bill and being a member of the board of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. That I can't confirm because, as I say, I haven't had an opportunity to see Hansard and see what was said by the two or three people that spoke on the bill. But, regardless of that, I have only seen the amendment just now and I don't know how long it might take me to make up my mind whether it's a good amendment or not. Since the bill was presented, as Mr. Walker has indicated, Mrs.

Hawes has experienced other complications and the award that was originally given to her may now seem somewhat inadequate. If it were awarded and charged against the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, it would only amount 15 to a few cents for each motorist in the province. But besides that, before the amendment is proposed which is going to, I understand, suggest that some of the claim be provided by the Law Society of Manitoba, I just wanted to ask Mr.

Walker, in view of what he has revealed to us in the certificate of charges against the lawyer, I understand that it is customary with trust accounts, common to real estate people and whatever, that there is an accountability certificate required. I wonder if Mr. Walker could tell us when this particular lawyer had his last certificate of accountability filed with the Law Society? Was he allowed to practise without having a certificate accountability, or is this necessary each year, or when is this required? MR.

WALKER: I, of course, must be perfectly candid with you and indicate that I have heard a certain explanation given to me from some members of the Law Society. I am not a member of the Law Society and that, of course, is a proper question to direct to the Law Society. MR. CHERNIACK: Maybe you're not a bencher. MR. WALKER: I'm not a bencher. I'm a member of the Law Society, but I'm not a bencher in the Law Society. MR. BLAKE: You had me worried there. I thought we had two of you practising . . . MR. WALKER: For good reason. Okay. I don't think there's any secret.

My information is that this member had, for about 10 years - this is second hand information - but that he had no accountant and no accountant's report, and none was submitted to the Law Society. Now, I don't know, that's really a question that should be directed to the Law Society. I understand that there was a period of at least three years in which this member did not submit a statement to the Law Society and he had probably not had a certificate issued to him. MR. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder how many lawyers are practising throughout the province of Manitoba without this certificate.

Would their insurance be valid in the case of a similar occurrence, whereby there was malpractice or negligence? MR. WALKER: That is a subject that I have heard argued, as to whether or not the insurance would have any responsibility due to the lawyer not having a certificate issued to him, but right now it is an academic point. I don't know. This is a question that I think should be directed to the Law Society. The President of the Law Society is here and he can answer for the Law Society.

I might just say one thing, legally we've given a lot of consideration to the liability of the Law Society and we wonder whether there is, legally , any liability because of the remoteness of the whole thing. Even a good lawyer could accidentally make a mistake that could result in failing to file in time, and the Law Society, of course, would have no control over that, whether he had his practising certificate or not. Legally, to attach liability to the Law Society is something which may

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 falter because of the remoteness of such a consequence or unforeseeability of damages against the Law Society for such

an act of negligence, if it were negligence. MR. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, possibly, when we get into the amendment, we may be able to have some comment from someone in the Law Society on this particular matter. I don't want to get caught up in the emotion of the case because I know the family and I brought the case forward in 1978. The bill was defeated in the Legislature on the reasons as Mr.

Walker as stated, sue the lawyer, which we did and it was a useful operation, as I was well aware of at the time, but we went through that particular motion and now here we are back at the Legislature trying to get some justice and compensation for Mrs. Hawes, where there has been no question of liability throughout the whole piece.

After we have sued the lawyer and got absolutely nowhere, I wouldn't want to mention any names but another member of the legal profession, a learned member of the Law Society, when we finished suing the lawyer, he said, well now sue the Law Society, which we have not done, of course, because we're back with the bill, praying for the relief of Mrs. Hawes through the only other channel that I feel is open to anyone who wants to see justice and compensation provided to Mrs. Hawes. So, Mr.

Chairman, I would pass to any other members of the committee who may wish to question the witness without getting caught up in the drama and the emotion of this particular case. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Walker, are you faulting the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for not paying the claim, which I understand they are no longer legally liable to pay? Do you say they ought to be paying it, and ignore the limitation, and may they pay it, do they have a right to pay it, in view of the fact that the limitation period did expire? MR. WALKER: Legally, they are not obliged to pay.

My argument is that morally the money has been set aside in a special fund; the money has been raised by additional premiums throughout Manitoba; the money is available. The only thing that prevents the sum being paid today is a technical, legal limitation period, and the Legislature in the past has relieved against such technicalities.

Other insurance companies have been required to pay in the past because those technicalities have been relieved against, and I don't think the Manitoba Insurance Corporation is in any different position that other insurers; in fact, being a public insurer, perhaps it could be argued that it even has more of a public responsibility not to take advantage of technicalities. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Walker, when you sued Szewczyk, you obtained judgments of 63,703.53 and 1, 100 for the wife and husband respectively.

That was adjudicated by the court as being the damages which the court felt were suffered by these two people; is that correct? 16 MR. WALKER: On that point, and you must remember I was operating under two premises: One, I was satisfied and I expressed the view that suing Bob Szewczyk was probably going to be a waste of time because he'd probably go bankrupt; in fact his lawyers had at some point indicated that a bankruptcy was pending at any moment, so that the whole thing could hav<'l all come to garbage, at any moment.

So I was rushing to get the thing through, simply to be able to come back here the next year and be able to say, okay, now I've done what you have said, I've taken this other course, and it has still got us nowhere, we still need relief. Now we pushed that case through the courts within the year and we were back here, and at the time, just let me say this, Mr. Justice Hewak, who wrote the judgment in the Szewczyk case, had these facts before him.

He said, on Page 8 of his judgment, it's just a very brief assessment, Page 8, "I should point out that I did not form the impression, and this was conceded by counsel for the defendant, that the female plaintiff was a chronic complainer. As a matter of fact, I found it to be quite the opposite in that I felt she maintained a rather stoic posture at a time when she could have had just cause to complain " and then the judge went on to say, "and once again the plaintiff felt that it would be wise for her to attempt to return to work, and she did so on May 16, 1979. She has been working since that time ".

Now those were the facts that Mr. Justice Hewak had before him, that this stoic lady went back to work on May 16, and was working continuously and is still working. The truth of the matter is that we went back to court as quickly as we could. Even when the doctors were asking for time to give their final assessment, we were rushing to get that Szewczyk case out of our hair, so we could come back and ask you for relief against Burns and Goodman. Those were the actions that we wanted to pursue. We picked up a judgment along the way but based on the fact that she would have still been working.

The truth of the matter is that now she can't work and she's only 54 years of age. She's the breadwinner in her household and she had at least another 10 years of employment ahead of her, and she was entitled to make a claim for loss of wages, which is a direct result of this accident, which claim was not made, simply because it has only come to light now before we were granted a bill which would allow us to take an action. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Walker, had Mr.

Szewczyk carried out his responsibilities properly and commenced the action prior to December 15, 1976, have you any reason to believe that the judgment of the court against the insurer would have been greater than the amount which was awarded by the court against the lawyer? MR. WALKER: I don't know that it would have been greater or not. lt could have been more; it could have been less.

As the member knows, being a very experienced counsel, and a trial counsel from time to time as well, he will have known that no two judges would have granted the same award and who knows what the award would have been if Bob Szewczyk would have brought it to trial back in 1976 or 1977.

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 lut the matter is now clearly before us. We know hat there are more extensive damages, damages thich arise from the injury, which are justly related o it and should be the subject of consideration by he court. The bill that we ask for here is the right to ;ue the defendants, who are insured by Autopac. �R. CHERNIACK: I'm pointing out to Mr.

Walker hat what he's asking for is the right to commence 1n actil)n from the very beginning, all over again, 1gainst the two people Burns and Goodman and >ecome involved in an entire action involving the rial, pre-trial hearings, subject to appeal and all of hat.

And instead of that, the discussion that took >lace very briefly this morning, where three of us ;poke, resulted in my preparing an amendment which has the effect of accepting the amounts ldjudicated upon by Judge Hewak against Szewczyk md saying that amount is settled and rather than �oing through any more trials, the amounts so 1ssessed against Szewczyk should be shared equally Jetween the MPIC and the Law Society. We could 1rgue later as to why the proposal was to bring in he Law Society, when you did not ask for the right o go after them.

But what this proposal is and I 1ave no idea whether the committee would accept it >r not but that is the principle, that we accept the :�mount of the judgment awarded by Judge Hewak :�gainst the lawyer, determine that that amount shall :>e paid, half by the Manitoba Public Insurance ::: orporation and the other half by the Law Society, md providing that the judgment obtained against the awyer should then be assigned to payors - that is the insurance company and the Law Society - so that they would still have the right to attempt to reimburse themselves from the lawyer eventually.

That is the import of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, which Mr. Uruski and I requested Mr. rallin to prepare this afternoon and which is now before us. Mr. Slake has a copy and the Law Society people have a copy. We phoned them as well this afternoon to tell them what we were proposing to do, so that they would be forewarned and now I'm asking you, Mr.

Walker, whether you would really opt to go with the original bill, which involves a brand rtew action, all the hearings, all the trials, all the frustrations for your clients, in the expectation of receiving a greater sum of money, and going through all the hardships and duress that you're aware of - and I'm building up the case obviously, in support of the amendment - or to receive the actual amount of the judgment that you have obtained and receive it from the two bodies that we sort of feel should share the responsibility.

One because its the lawyer that was at fault and that the Law Society should stand behind, backing up his negligence, and the other for the insurer which, frankly, I can't fault them for going by the law which says there is a limitation period, you're not bound to pay if you haven't had action commenced ahead of that. You're now faced with this dilemma that I'm presenting to you and that is would you want to make a choice or would you rather not comment? MR . WALKER: No, I don't hesitate to comment. I think that I have a duty on behalf of Mrs.

Hawes and her husband to ask for justice for them and what they would be fairly entitled to. And if you just read 17 this one paragraph of Mr. Justice Hewak, where he clearly bases his judgment on the fact that she has been working since that time, May 16, 1979, the facts of the matter are and the facts as we have them today is that Mrs. Hawes will probably never work again, and she's the main breadwinner in the family; she's 54 years of age, there's at least 10 years of income that she is being deprived of, if that amendment were allowed to go through the way it is.

I appreciate the fact that there is an attempt to relieve Mrs. Hawes in that amendment. I didn't ask that the Law Society be joined as a defendant; I asked as a payer. I would let the chips fall where they may. I would prefer, myself, to have the bill and, once the bill was there and the action in the courts, I think that Mrs. Hawes is entitled to a better judgment for what she has truly lost and that that is fair and that this amendment here, well motivated though it might be, is directed at the Law Society paying something toward it; whatever its purpose, it has the effect of defeating Mrs.

Hawes of some part of her claim that I think she's justly and truly and fairly entitled to. And if that amendment were worked on a little more to take that into account, it would be fair. But what is being said here is that Mrs. Hawes should suffer another injustice. She's suffered injustice now year after year after year and now we go back and tell her that because the Law Society is being brought in, for whatever reasons there are there, valid as they may be or not, she's being asked to accept a sum of money which another court would not award.

If this thing went to trial right now, the court would have to take into account the fact that the breadwinner in this family can no longer work. That's a serious serious claim and I'm asking for the right to be able to present this claim in court, in the same way that these claims have been granted for dozens and dozens of years by the Legislature, ever since there's been a statute of limitations in Manitoba. I'm asking for just what other people received for Mrs. Hawes. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Walker, would you agree that if Mr.

Szewczyk had the assets to pay this judgment that you would have enforced the judgment against Szewczyk, you would have received your 63,000, or approximately 65,000 and that would have ended the case entirely, wouldn't it? MR. WALKER: We can speculate if he had assets. We knew from the beginning he didn't. The whole thing was academic; the whole thing was just an exercise to satisfy an objection. I would really urge each member to strive for nothing less than justice and nothing less than fairness.

Here is our claim before the court, before the highest court in the land, the Legislature, and here the lady has a just claim. She's got 10 years of lost income that Mr. Justice Hewak did not consider. Those are the way the facts fall. We're asking for a bill now. We're not asking for a bill to pay Bob Szewczyk. You see, whatever claim there is against Szewczyk can be assigned onto the insurers and they can try to collect from him, but they'll get nothing from Bob Szewczyk because there will be a bankruptcy before there is a penny out of that. That's the likelihood of it.

So, it's academic, it's a judgment that was never thought it would collect

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 anything, it never will collect anything and why should that now become the criteria for Mrs. Hawes' damages when we know that her damages are broader than that. Fortunately, with God's will or whatever, perhaps it is that now you have an opportunity to fairly do justice to her as she deserves justice and that this delay has only served to allow the injustice to appear. I suppose the delay has served some purpose by not having it passed last year. lt turns out that the damages are more serious than were even realized by the doctors at that time.

The court has to adjudicate on that and I don't fear or back down from having to issue a statement of claim and go through the procedure of collecting it for her. But there is the paragraph that cannot stand today. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions of Mr. Walker? If not, thank you, Mr. Walker. I'd like to call Mr. Keith Turner. MR. KEITH TURNER: Mr.

Chairman, the proposed amendments only came to my attention while in this room and the Law Society is not in a position, of course, at this time to really enter into any intelligent discussion, pro or con the proposed amendments offered by the honourable member, Mr. Cherniack. Nor am I in a position to discuss the facts of the matter in any way, shape or form, I am simply not familiar with them.

I would, however, if it's the wish of the committee to take the proposed amendments to a meeting of the, at least, Executive and Finance Committee of the Law Society to apprise them of the fact that the proposed amendments have been offered and obtain instructions as to what position the Law Society wishes to take, if any, with respect to them.

So, I think I could say, notwithstanding that many members are on vacation at the present time, that I could make the undertaking to submit the proposed amendments to a body of the benchers and be back to you within a week or, say, one week from today, if that is of any assistance. I have no idea at all what the reaction or response would be and I am not, of course, authorized to make any statements but I will give the undertaking to bring it to the attention of the appropriate officers of the society. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions of Mr. Turner? Mr. Slake. MR. BLAKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Turner, I assume, represents the Law Society. I would ask him, at what stage is the certificate allowing a lawyer to practise in the province, at what stage of financial responsibility or irrespon sibility is his licence to practise lifted by the Law Society, or is he requested not to practise, or put under some restriction to practise by the society? MR.

TURNER: Every member - I don't like to go by recollection, I prefer to have the Act and regulations before me - is required to file in the spring of each year, I believe, March 30th, or there abouts, an accountant certificate as to state of his trust account, which would not be his assets, assets which he is administering on behalf of clients, as to his own personal financial position. There is no 18 obligation - I think of myself, for instance - for me to disclose to the Law Society at any time what my financial position, good, bad or indi fferent, is.

However, I think if there is a judgment given against me, other than for cost, which remains unsatisfied, there is a provision in the regulations. And, again, I'd like to try and quote it, "Whereby the Law Society " - and I'm looking at the secretary and the immediate past president - "if they are aware of such a judgment or perhaps

an act of bankruptcy might decline to issue a practising certificate. " How that relates to this case, I'm really not prepared to say because I don't know. MR. BLAKE: I understand the trust fund, the application to the trust funds, if a demand on third party, such as is issued by the Income Tax Department, for example, does that come to the attention of the society if one were issued against a lawyer? Because in this particular case, there must have been several issued. I mean they threaten to issue them on me once in a while. MR. TURNER: I don't think I know the answer to that question off the top of my head.

MR. BLAKE: This would just be a personal financial arrangement. lt would have nothing to do with . . . MR. TURNER: If a lawyer received a notice of assessment, as about this time of year they come in - hopefully, nil - July, I'm waiting for mine. That would not necessarily and I see no reason why it would come to the attention of the Law Society unless the Department of Justice or the Income Tax Department saw fit to bring it to their attention. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. MR. ADAM: Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Turner. The reason for the suspension as it applied to Mr.

Szewczyk was because of his failing to file certain documents with the Law Society, or was it the manner in which he mishandled his clients or his law operation? What was the reason for the suspension? MR. TURNER: I think I know the answer to that, but before I state what I think the answer is, I'd like to check it with Mr. Farwell, the deputy secretary of the Law Society, who is present, and come back and answer it. My understanding was and it's now been confirmed by Mr. Farwell, the deputy secretary and Mr.

Schulman, the immediate past president, that it was because of the conviction for failure to file income tax returns by Mr. Szewczyk for many many years, characterized in the charge and certificate of conviction as evasion of income tax. MR. ADAM: In other words, his suspension didn't come about because of his failure to deal properly with Mrs. Hawes? MR. TURNER: My answer to that would have to be no, to my knowledge, and having checked with the other two officers. MR. ADAM: Mr. Turner, you've mentioned that your personal assets are of no interest to the Law Society when you file, is that correct?

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 MR. TURNER: Yes, I'm not required to disclose my assets, the mortgage on my home or what I own or don't own. MR. ADAM: You are required to obtain insurance with the Law Society? MR. TURNER: Yes, I am required to pay an assessment each year along with my assessment for the annual practising fee, a certain amount which is for insurance coverage. MR. ADAM: If you fail to file the proper papers or whatever is required under that contractual arrangement, then you are liable not to receive your permit, is that correct? MR. TURNER: I would say, you are liable not to receive it. MR.

ADAM: What has happened then, Mr. Chairman, between Mr. Szewczyk and the Law Society is that he has not lived up to his contractual arrangements with the Law Society, and as a result of this, Mrs. Hawes is made to suffer the injustice tl:!at she has been put through. MR. TURNER: lt is my understanding, but again, I would have to obtain confirmation of this that that is not the reason; but rather the reason was Mr.

Szewczyk's failure to report, and I can't quote the language of the insurance policy, but it goes as it does under most liablility insurance policy, a failure to report an occurrence which may give rise to a claim in damages against the insured. That is my understanding of the reason why the professional liability insurance does not attach in this case. There is a provision in the policy, which Mr. Walker was kind enough to place before me and I won't, of course, bore you with it all, "Notice of claim must be given in writing by the member to " - in this case, it was P.J.

Scott and Company Limited, Smith Street, marked to the attention of Mr. So-and-so. There is a reporting provision as there is under your automobile insurance policy or any other insurance policy. My understanding is that the factor resulting in no liability insurance for Mr. Szewczyk was due to his failure to report an occurrence to wit the expiration of the limitation period, and not the reason which you put forth, sir. MR. ADAM: Mr. Turner, then could you tell the committee or advise the committee how many years or how far was he behind in his reports? How long was he delinquent in not reporting this to you?

MR. TURNER: With respect to each incident, and so far as I know there is only this one incident. If an incident occurred - if you were involved in a motor accident - as you know, you have to report it within a reasonable period of time or whatever the policy says. Similarily with this liability insurance. So far as I know, there is the one incident, the Hawes case, and he apparently failed to report that he had allowed the limitation period to expire. That, therefore, voided his insurance. MR. ADAM: Mr. Turner, that

section of the contractual agreement between Mr. Szewczyk and 19 the Law Society gets the Law Society off the hook insofar as paying the claim. MR. TURNER: Not the Law Society , sir, the insurance company. The society's carrier. MR. ADAM: Yes, that's what I meant. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Blake. MR. BLAKE: Yes, I just wondered Mr. Turner, before you leave, would it be unreasonable to ask if the Law Society might provide to this committee the dates that Mr.

Szewczyk filed his accountability certificate, or whatever is required of the society, in each of the years for the last three or four years or would that be an unreasonable request? MR. TURNER: I would certainly report your request, sir, to the Executive and Finance Committee and undertake to get back to the committee. What their answer will be I wouldn't purport to say, but I will certainly undertake to see that that request is forwarded. MR. CHERNIACK: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Turner, I was informed today, and I didn't know until then, that when you say that failure to report to the insurer made the insured not liable, rather than the Law Society not liable, I wonder if you could clarify by understanding, as I say, when I was informed to day, and that is when a claim is filed for negligence the lawyer himself is expected to pay, or liable to pay the first 2,000 of a claim, the Law Society, the next 23,000 of the claim and the insurer only the excess over that 25,000.00. MR. TURNER: That is my understanding, sir. MR. CHERNIACK: Which means, to me, that if Mr.

Szewczyk has complied with that limitation period - we're dealing with two limitation periods, one to MPIC and one with Szewczyk's insurer, that had he done it in proper time, in accordance with the requirements, then it would have cost the Law Society 23,000 and his insurer the excess over 25,000.00. MR. TURNER: If the insurance otherwise attached in all respects, yes. MR. CHERNIACK: Yes. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Turner. We'll now deal with Bill No. 65, The Registered Nurses Act and I'd like to call on the person representing the Manitoba Health Organizations.

Can we have your name please? BIU 65 - THE REGISTERED NURSES ACT MR. HERMAN CREWSON: My name is Herman Crewson, Executive Director of Manitoba Health Organizations Incorporated. As you are aware the Manitoba Health Organizations Incorporated represents the owners and operators of health facilities in the province of Manitoba, namely, the

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 hospitals and the non-proprietary or non-profit personal care homes. You will also recognize that in so doing our membership are the employer of the large majority of the nurses.

We have had the opportunity to review what is being proposed, have had the opportunity to converse with the profes sion, to converse with government and so on, and find that our concerns ess entially have been allayed, except for one, that one has to do with the question of what occurs when there is to be a regulation initiated in which, either by virtue of standards of practice or by virtue of educational standards, implicates our employing facilities, and the vehicle is not very clear, in respect to the bill.

We would like to think, and would like to expect, that in some fashion we would be informed so that we can react accordingly, whether that reaction be positive or negative. In general terms we are in support of the bills, but this , Mr. Chairman, and members, represents our one remai ning concern. We would hope that we would not have to rely solely upon the pipeline when it comes to a change or a revision, by way of regulation requiring order-in-council to make it effective, that has impl ications for all of our facilities. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crewso n. Are there are questions? The Honourable Minister.

HON. L. R. (Bud) SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'd li ke to thank Mr. Crewson for his presenta tion and just ask him, with respect to the point that he has just made, if he has any proposals in any refined form, as to how he would see our being able to guarantee that kind of communication. I presume Mr. Crewson that you're talking about the consultative process. Certainly every effort can be made to, and I'm sure will be made, to observe a proper consultative process but human frailties being what they are some times unfortunate omissions of communication occur.

Do you have any proposals you would like to leave with the mover of the bill, the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Filmon, the Member for River Heights, who is not here at the present but to whom I will certainly communicate your concerns. MR . CREWSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have given consideration to the avenues that might be appropriate. One that strikes us as being a fairly obvious and simple one, which may or may not gain the support to make it happen, is that the bill provides for lay repres entation on the board.

This is a mino rity represe ntat ion and by no means dominates, vetoes or anything else, but it is lay repres entation and were it to occur that emplo yers would have the opportunity of repres entation through that avenue, then I would see no difficulty because they would know what had been initiated and we would know what had been initiated and be able to react accordingly. That's one avenue. A second avenue would have to be somewhere between the presenta tion of a proposed regulation change and its approval by the Lieutenant-Governor in-Council.

Whether that be in the way of an appeal mechanism or whatever, that would be another avenue. 20 MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask Mr. Crewson whether he would accept, in good faith, the view of the government that the lay membership named to the board should include an appointment or appointments from the emplo yer sector would satisfy him, or whether he feels, and I wouldn't criticize him for feeling this way because guarantees are only as good sd their guarantors, I know that, whether he feels that that sort of assurance should, in fact, be written into the statute? MR. CREWSON: Well, I think, Mr.

Chairman, that our preference would have been that it be written in but we recognize the lateness of the hour, as it were, with these bills and we would be prepared to take the good faith of the government to recognize the interest of employers in respect to th:s matter, and we would be most upset if it were not recognized. Let 's put it that way. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, your point is recog nized and noted and thank you very much for the proposal. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Crewson, were you deploring the fact that your organization did not have sufficient notice or information about the petitions being brought here to the Legislature for these various profes sional Acts to be enacted? MR. CREWSON: No, Mr. Cherniack, we have had the opportunity, as I indicated earlier, a number of reviews and have researched it well and have had many concerns. However, one by one these concerns have been relieved, by virtue of the way ·the bill is now presented, so that we had only really the one remai ning. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, Mr.

Crew son, so your only remaining concern, having read all of these three bills, is that ther e should be representation by emp loyers on the boards of the three proposed bodies? MR. CREWSON: That being one avenue by which we would know when there was the initiation of changes in standards, either of education or practice or both, which has implications for the employing agencies we represe nt. MR. CHERNIACK: You say, one of the aven ues? What else? MR. CREWSON: The other avenue that mentioned, Mr.

Cherniack, was the level between that of the presentation for the purpose of a new regulation or a revision and that of approval by the Lieutenant-Gover nor-in-Council by an appeal or something of that nature which would allow us to make repres entation and react if we wished to. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Crewson, you represent, assume, all of the hospitals in Manitoba? MR. CREWSON: Yes. MR. CHERNIACK: All of the - what?

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 MR. CREWSON: Non-p roprietary personal care homes. MR. CHERNIACK: No n-proprietary. You don't repres ent an proprietary? MR. CREWSON: No. MR. CHERNIACK: Who sets the standards of the health services provided in your hospitals? MR. CREWSON: Well, each of the facilities has an operating board which, most of the time, is both owner as well as operator or manager, although management can sometimes be contracted by the owner.

But generally speaking it's both, and as such the boards are legally and morally responsible for the standards of service that are provided within the four walls of the facility. MR. CHE RNIACK: Mr. Crewson, is there any legislation that requi res you to employ RNs, LPNs, RPMs? MR. CREWSON: No, not in specific terms. There is the requirement obviously to hire competent people and in so doing to deli neate that which they will do within their competency. But as to numbers and mix of various types of profes sional people, that is a discretion that is used on the part of the management of the facility.

At the same time, however, I wish to indicate that there is a set of standards, while they are voluntary, do exist, and are ascribed to by our facili ties that are national standards, and which indeed do establish, under those standards, that which they believe to be a level of standard to be achieved through emplo yment of registered nurses, for certain job functions and other categ ories of health profes sional people. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, Mr.

Crewso n, let's set up a, the word I' ve learned is scenario, where you are employing registered nurse, John Smith, to do certain work; and that registered nurse, John Smith, for some reason, such as non-payment of dues, loses his membership in MARN, the RN association, is there anything, in any legislation, including this proposed legislation, that would deny you the right to employ no longer registered nurse, John Smith, in the capacity that he held until then? MR. CREWSON: Well, we can employ him certainly, but not as a registered nurse per se.

And we, as emplo yers, I think have to honour the fact that there is a level of standard that has been achieved over the course of time, and recognized as being that which pertains to a particular level of competency achieved through a basic standard of educa tion, and certainly a monitoring of the members having achieved that level of education and cer tainly, from our point of view and employer's point of view, we ascribe to that kind of a reco gnition. We don't, in the scenario that you have painted, it's speculation as to what the employer might do in that case because I think it would vary.

There are those who might continue to employ him, whether it is doing the same things as he was doing before or changing it, but they would certainly be unhappy with that condition. 21 They would be unhappy that he is no longer able to hold himself out as being registered. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: All three bills as I read them and I want to be corrected if I am wrong - only refer to reserve of title; all they do is say that a person may not hold himself or herself out to be, in this case, an R.N., unless they are members of the R.N.

Association, but that there is nothing in the legislation which denies you or me the rights to do all those things that an R.N. is qualified to do, as long as we don't say we're R.N .s. Is that not correct? MR.

CREWSON: That's basically true, but I think that there is great jeopardy, grave jeopardy, in our proce eding in that fashion, in the event that there were some incident which might be seen to be negligence within the institution, we would be walking we believe on very delic ate ground by suggesting that here was something that, in terms of practice in, not only Manitoba insitutions, but other Canadian institutions, as usually done by a registered nurse and we had someone other than a registered nurse doing it.

I think our position would be very weak and there are some legal precedents where that has come to light and it's made us belie ve that as emp loyers we should not be going in that direction. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Crewso n, you are saying that regardless of the reason that person is no longer an R.N., and my suggestion was failure to pay the annual dues and no other rea son, you think that your position would be jeopardized vis-a-vis the public if you continue to employ that person? MR . CREWSON: Yes. MR.

CHERNIACK: Do you think you would have a right to discharge that person if only for the reason of non-payment of dues, he or she is no longer . . . ? MR. CREWSON: No, I don't think, Mr. Cherniack, that we would anticipate an action of discharging him for non-payment of dues.

I think any emplo yer would be most anxious to try to re-est ablish the registration of that individual in whatever form they might so that he could be a member in good standing with the profes sion, but to think in terms of discharge only tor that purpose is also rather shaky and it would require a rather delic ate decision on the part of the employer, it that were the only reaso n. MR. CHERNIACK: You perforce listened to what went on in the case of a lawyer who was negligent in his activity, but that lawyer was self-em ployed.

Had he been employed by a law firm, let us say, then the law firm would have been liable for negligence. MR. CREWSON: Yes. MR. CHERNIACK: I assume in the same way that if you employ an R.N. who is negligent the R.N. might be liable, but the hospital certai nly would be liable. MR. CREWSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, precedent is such that you would find only with very rare exception that it was not automatic, that the hospital

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 would �m to be liable under the master-servant relat ionship. MR. CHERNIACK: That's really the area that I'm most interested in because, frankly, Mr. Crewson, I don't think that your organization has any right in the world to say we want representation on a board of directors which is . . . MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mr. McGill on a point of order. HON. EDWARD McGILL: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I find the line of qu es tioning of Mr.

Cherniack quite interesting but we are here to hear the briefs and to ask questions that will enable the committee to fully understand them, but I don't think we should have a debate with the witnesses on these subjects, Mr. Chairman, and I would suggest that the statements that are now being made by Mr. Cherniack are tending to debate with Mr. Crewson the position taken by MHO. I think we should in fairness limit the questions merely to making sure that we understand the submission that was made by Mr. Crewso n. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order. I think if Mr.

McGill had conducted his usual manner of courteous listening he would have heard the conclusion of my question and learned that there was a very direct question to which I was hoping to get a direct reply. I wonder if he would permit me to complete it or whether he wants to stand on the point of order, I don't know. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, it's not my position to say whether Mr. Cherniack can continue in this line or not. The Chair should rule whether or not the exchange between Mr. Cherniack and Mr. Crewson is tending to be a debate, rather than a seeking of further explanations on his position. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cherniack, we'll try and ask you to stick to the bill then. You may continue. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tact. I am dealing now with the RN. Bill, which I believe is the bill before us. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Crew son, you suggested that you would like it in the legislation but, at least, you would like an undertaking by the government that the employer would be represented on the Board of the Registered Nurses. Is that correct , do I interpret correctly what you said? MR. CREWSON: That's basically true, Mr. Chairm�n- MR.

CHERNIACK: The Board of the R.N.s would have the right to deal with a number of members of the board, the manner of election, the place of calling annual meetings, the organization of regional - and you know, the whole list of what the board would h§ve a right to do by by-law. Do you believe that any of this is a matter in which the employer should have a say? 22 MR . CREWSON: Mr.

Chairman, we are looking at the bill and, as I mentioned earlier, noting that there is provision already for non-nurses to be members of the board for what we would anticipate a variety of reasons, but nevertheless that lay representation exists. I want to rem ind, perhaps, Mr. Cherniack, that the people who serve on the boards of health facilit ies and sho ulde r that legal and moral responsibility are lay people from various walks of life who are not paid. They are not in it for profit; they are people who are trying to do a job.

I simply am repres enting them, and there are some 1,800 of them in the province, represe nting their concern here that they would not wish to be in a position to have something that comes upon them by way of a change in, say, the standard that is to be maintained, that is going to implicate their situation. I'm not suggesting that they might oppose it because often they are initiators of changes to improve standards. But they would like to at least be informed when this comes about. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Crewso n, and with every intent not to debate but rather to enquire whether you bel ieve it is the right of an employer to participate in meetings wherein it may well be a matter of discussion as to whether the standards of the emplo yers' institution measure up to the standards of MARN and whether the emplo yer should then have an opportunity to sit in on the inner councils of the emplo yees deal ing with the emplo yers' standards. MR.

CREWSON: No, although I would assume that those items which would represent the points of interest for the members of, lets say, the MARN, at least 90 percent of them, will indeed have impact on that which applies to the environment in which they work, namely, the institutions. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, what I'm really concerned about is the provisions towards the end of the bill that deal with the advisory council and with the certification - I don't know if that's the word that's used - of educational programs. lt seems to me that there would be a matter that you would have wished to be involved in, and that is educational programs, academic. But would that not suffice or do you interpr et Mr. Sherman's indication of intent to be to make you members of the board itself? MR.

CREWSON: I interpreted his statement to mean that within the provision of these bills for lay representation that some vehicle would be found under which representat ion from the emplo yer level, and I speak collectively rather than singularly, would be made. That would have been my understan ding, but I must also say that on the educ�tion side of it we have had in the past rf:le resentat ion in respect to what precedes these advisory council provisions. We have had that repres entation both in the case of the registered nurses as well as the licensed practical nurses.

This does not suggest that it is going to be �. removed because we were there on invitation, more or less, at the outset and then it became formalized after that. But that, I don't think, is really the best avenue because it deals only with education. I

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 MR. CHERNIACK: One other aspect of the education, Mr. Crewson, do you have an interest in attempting to structure an educational course which would provide with ease a career ladder which would take persons, employed by you with lesser training, to work his or her way up to a higher qualified training as part of the career and, therefore, move from one degree to another, rather than having to take a fresh course all over again. Is part of what you would consider your concern? MR.

CREWSON: As a part of our concern, not our jurisdiction but, yes, our concern in working with others who are responsible and do have jurisdiction over these matters. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Crewson. MR. CHAIRMAN: Have any other members of the committee any more questions? Thank you, Mr. Crewson. Now, I'd to call on the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, Miss L. Tod. MISS MARGUERITE BICKN ELL: Mr.

Chairman, and members of the committee, I'm Marguerite Bicknell, President of the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, and I would like to just introduce our brief tonight by speaking on behalf of the executive and the board of directors and the membership of the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses and to thank the gover nment of Ma ni toba for the opportunity to interpr et to this Committee on Private Bills the rationale for Bill 65.

With the permission of the board, I would ask that our exec utive director, Louise Tod, whom I think many of you have come to know over the past while will present our brief. If I may ask a question, is it permissible for more than one person to respond to the questions asked? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MISS BICKNELL: Then, with the permiSSIOn, Mr. Michael Sinclair, our legal counsel and myself would also be prepared to reply to questions. Thank you. Miss Louise Tod. MISS LOUISE TOD: Mr. Chairman, I have some briefs here that I'm prepared to circulate. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Could I get you to present your name before you start your presentation just for the record. MISS M. LOUISE TOD: I'm Louise Tod , the Executive Director of the MARN and would reiterate what our President has said and thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. Before speaking directly to the brief, I would like to establish a framework in which to present our brief to support Bill 65, The Registered Nurses' Act. First of all, we are pl eased to appear as representatives of a profession, the profession of nursing.

Man itoba nu rses are proud of the longstanding record of recognition by the public in this regard. The nurses of Manitoba were recognized as a profess ion by

an Act of the Manitoba Legislature in 19 13, the first nursing professional association in Canada to receive such recognition. 23 We have a proud heritage of nursing in this province which dates back to the days of the Grey Nuns, who were first to deliver nursing care in this province. Those of you who read the Free Press, there was quite a lengthy

article on nursing in the July 5th issue, 1980. As I say, we appear before you as representatives of a profession. To be sure we are speaking from a mutually understood meaning of the profession, I will list the main and commonly recognized criteria of a profession. 1. lt provides a service to society involving specialized knowledge and skills. 2. lt possesses a unique body of knowledge which it constantly seeks to extend in order to improve its service. The committee members will be interested to know that the numbers of nurses academically prepared to carry out research in Mani toba is incr easi ng.

The government has been very supportive in this regard. We are very pleased to report that the University of Manitoba has launched a Masters Program in Nursing. Such a program will give many nurses in Manitoba the opportunity to pursue graduate study in nursing without leaving the province. This will pave the way for providing the basis for increased activity in research and add to the base of knowledge und erlying nursing practice and towards specializing in nursing. 3. lt sets standards of nursing education and practice.

We believe that those who have the expertise and knowledge are best prepared to establish standards of education and practice. The traditional justification for giving this role and responsibility to the professional body is that its membes are best qualified to ensure that proper standards of competence and ethnics are maintained. This is of clear public int erest in the creation and observation of such standards, but there must be adequate safeguards to ensure that injury to the public interest does not arise.

Such safeguards are contained in Bill 65 with lay representation on the Board of Directors, Complaints Committee, Disciplin es Committee and Advisory Council. 4. lt accepts responsibility for safeguarding the public it serves. The MARN recognizes that there is a return obligation for the rights and privilege given in the setting of standards, and this is outlined in Parts IV to VII in Bill 65. 5. lt adapts to services to meet changing needs.

Nursing is responding, for instance, to the major thrust of provincial and federal governments in the shifting emphasis on health care delivery, to illn ess prevention and health promotion. Nursing is responding by new and inno vative approaches to delivery of nursing care, such as primary nursing care, and incorpora ting these concepts into educational programs. 6. lt adheres to a code of conduct based on ethical principles. Such a code of ethics spells out expected behaviour of nurses in their relationship to clients, colleagues and to the public.

The International Congress of Nursing Code of Ethics was adopted by the MARN in May of 1975.

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 To proceed with the document that is in front of you, Bill 65, The Registered Nurses' Act, is submitted tor the following reasons: 1. To update the provisions of the current Act to reflect current values and needs of society in the 19 80s. And you will see that the inclusion or provision tor lay respresentation is one example. 2. To remove inconsis tencies and lack of clarity which exists in the wording of the present Act. 3.

To maintain the right and responsibili ties currently assumed by the Ma ni toba Association of Registered Nur ses, the objectives of which are to serve the best interest of the public. The proposed draft Act conforms to the Manitoba Government Guidel ines tor the Development of Legislation for the Health Professions and to a standardi zed format as required by Legislative Council. To highlight the Act, we have included: 1. A definition of Nursing Practise or the Practise of Nursing. The current Act does not contain a defi nition.

The defi nition, as contained in this Act, is stated in general terms. lt was done deli berately so to provide or allow for the expanded role of the nurse as changes take place du e to the scientific medical mushrooming of knowledge. Certainly nurses respond to these changes. 2. Lay representation on the board, as I have previously referred to. 3. By-laws contain provision for all matters that relate to the admin istration of day-to-day operation of the corporation or the association 4.

Regulations, all of which are subject to the Lieutenant-Governor -in-Counci l's approval, refer to those activities which affect the welfare of the public, namely: Admi ssion, registration, renewal of registra tion, susp ension, expu lsion, reinstatement - I could stop there and say that the MARN has been carrying out those respons ibili ties to date - and conditional registration of members, which is a new provision that we are asking to have included. provide for standards of practise; standards of education; standards of continued education and standards of specialization. .

Further, we have included the establishment of rosters, in addition to a register. 6. An appeal mechanism upon refusal of registration. 7. Unauthorized practise prohibited. 8. Employers are req uir ed to ensure that persons they employ are in fact registered. 9. Employers are requir ed to report to the MARN the termination of nurses for reasons of professional misconduct, incomp etency or incapacity. 10. Discipline procedures are described in detail in this Act. An appeal mechanism for the complaina nt or person against whom the complaint is lodged is provided at each step of the discipline procedure. 11.

The Accred iting Commit tee, more appropria tely named the Advisory Council, is 24 clearly identified as a committee of the board, and mem bership is defined. 12. The Act, we believe, is written so as to be understandable to the public. In summa ry, the members of the Mani toba Association of Registered Nurses recognize this opportunity to appear before - at one time we thoug ht we were coming before the Law Amendments Committee, and that has not been corrected - to be unique and appreciate being able to answer questions dir ectly.

We reiterate the purpose of the proposed legislation to be: 1. to remove current in consistencies and contradicting clauses; 2. to upda te the provisions of the Registered Nurses' Act to reflect the needs of society in 1980; and 3. to continue to protect the public as the legislated registering body for Registered Nurses in Manitoba. Before we go any further, I want to draw to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, that there is either a typographical error or a mistake and that is un der De fini tions 1( g)(ii) .

That should read "interpreting data and identifying health problems." I would be happy to answer questions or refer them to my colleagues. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Miss Tod for your presentation, the presentation of the Ma nitoba Association of Registered Nurses. I would just like to say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that my office is certainly grateful, and the government is certainly grateful, for the work that has been done by the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, in consultation with the sponsor of the bill, Mr.

Filmon, and officials of the department, over many many months, indeed one might almost I think, without fear of contradiction, say years, towards the production of the proposed legislation that is now before us. I do want the MARN's co-operati on, counsel and assistance formally recognized for the record. Miss Tod the bill proposes, with respect to the Board of Directors, that four members of the Board of Directors Shall be persons who are not members of the Associat ion, in other words, shall be lay members.

I want to ask you, for the purposes of refining and shaping the final form of the bill, and that's what we're here for, whether the MARN would consider that two of those lay members should be appointe es by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The reason I ask that question is because, as you know, the proposed Medical Act, which is not in front of us and has been deferred for lntersessional committee, which is not a fate to which The Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses' Act has been consigned, proposes that the council of the college include the appointment of four lay members, two of whom shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. Would the MARN consider that to be a reasonable approach with respect to its board?

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 ' MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Tod. MISS TOO: The Board of Directors wou ld not object to that provision, if two were named by the Minister. In fact, if this remained as currently written, I am very sure that they would have been approaching you to name at least two. MR. SHERMAN: Thank you. Miss Tod, could I ask you, on the same point, arising out of the presentation made by Mr.

Crewson, the Executive Director of the Manitoba Health Organizations, and you don't need to answer this question, obviously, if you don't want to but if you care to I would appreciate your counsel, as to whether you think that the consultative mechanism with respect to proposed regulations, described and propo sed by Mr. Crewson, should go so far as to call for the appointment of emplo yer representatives in that category of lay appoi ntees to the board? MISS TOO: The representatives of the MARN have discussed this with representatives of the Manitoba Health Organiza tion.

The Ma ni toba Health Organiza tion, although representating a large number of emp loyers of nu rses, do not represent all employers. Nurses are employed in community health centres, public health units, occupational health, doctors' offices, and so on. lt is the belief of the MARN that we must stand accountable to the public, rather than one particular in terest group, and therefore, I think I am safe in saying that they would lean to having representation from the general public than a specific organization within that public.

I might draw to your attention that there is no other Act that applies to Registered Nur ses in Canada that has that specific provision, i.e. the health organization or the hospital association being represented. MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you envision an appointment, say a single appointment, in that category of lay appoi ntees and could you live with a single appointment in that category, that did ind eed fall into the classification of employer representation but did not come from the Manitoba Health Organ izations?

You have cited, for example, a number of emplo yers of registered nurses, they're not necessarily members of the MHO. MISS TOO: I think that would be acceptable. I think what we would react to is havi ng one single organization spelled out and referred to within the Act. MR.

SHERMA N: But, if we were to ident ify a person, a man or woman, whom we thought was exceptionally well qualified to serve the MARN and to serve the people of Manitoba, through a lay appointment to this board, and that man or woman happened to be a member of a board of directors of a general hospital, that would not necessarily be unacceptable to you, or represent an overt move on the part of the government to achie ve MHO representation. Am I safe in assuming that?

MISS TOO: Well, having ind icated to you that we would accept two of the four being appointed by the Min ister, and the Minis ter chose to make such an appointment, it would follow that we would accept your nomination. 25 MR. SHERMAN: Thank you Miss Tod. One more question, Mr. Chairman, I need your guidance Miss Tod on the qu est ion of portabil ity of nursing qualif ications. As you well know, having been through the process for many months, the new Act makes no reference to the extenuating circu mstances for admission to membership in the MARN which were recognized under

Section 14. (1) and (2) of the old Act. lt simp ly says that the board may make regulations to regulate the admission, registration, expulsion, reinstatement of members etc. and to prescribe the conditions precedent to membership of persons applying therefore.

The old Act, as you'll rec all, said that notwiths tanding any thing herein before, etc. etc. etc. the board may dispense with compliance with the requirements for admission to membership in the associa tion, up on being satisfied that the person etc. etc. etc. has acquired the same benefit, knowledge and experience as if the foregoing provisions of this Act had been strictly complied with.

In other words, it could be argued that under the old Act it would be easier for a nurse to come in from Queb ec or Alberta or B.C., or indeed anywhere in the world, and gain admission to the MARN, than will be the case under the new Act. This is an area that some of us are continuing to wrestle with and certainly would like to have finali zed in these cli mactic hours of consideration of Bill 65. I'd appreciate your opinion on that.

MISS TOO: This provision has not been included in the body of the Act but the MARN has approached seeking changes in the Act, with a positive attitude, and we have developed a regulation which will be submitted immediately to Lieutenant-Governor-in Council as soon as this Act is passed. And in that regulation we have provided a

section entitled, discretion of the board and covers what you are referring to. MR. SHERMAN: Well, thank you very much Miss Tod. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other members of committee have questions? Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHE RNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dealing with represe ntation on the board. What prerequisites does the board consider it would apply in selecting the lay people on the board?

MISS TOO: In discussions with the Legislation Committee and board of directors, it is antici pated we would be approach ing such organizations as the Consumer Association, or people in the community who are known for their service to the communities or past experience of serving on voluntary boards, etc. MR . CHERNIACK: Would you consi der such professionals as social workers, doctors, other people that relate to the health professions and to the nursing professional service?

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 ' MISS TOOO: I think they would be judged on an individual basis. MR. CHERNIACK: Dealing with Mr. Sherman 's suggestion regar ding the appoi ntment of an employer, does the MARN have representation on the Manitoba Health Organizati on? MISS TOO: No, they do not. MR. CHERNIACK: The board of di rectors, according to your bill, says that you will decide - I don't mean you, Miss Tod, I trust it would be the board - would decide the number of members of the board, the manner of election or appointment of the board.

You do say that there shall be four lay people but that's all you say in your legislation. Would you have any objection to putting into the legislation the number of members of the board, the term of the board. I have in mind the desirability of making sure that there are frequent elections; that there is movement within the board ; change of personnel, would there be any objection to your putting it into the legislation, rather than leaving it entirely to the board to decide?

MISS TOO: In participating in the drafting of this legislation we did not want to be so specific that we would be requir ed to open the Act at frequent intervals. We were looking at increasing numbers of membership over the years and the board in 19 80 might determine that there would be a simi lar number on the board as there is at the moment, but if we increased our population 10 or 20 percent, then we would not be restricted from increasing the membership on the board if it was not spelled out specifically in the Act. MR. CHERNIACK: How large is your board?

MISS TOO: We have 17 members at the moment and that's 17 members on the board of directors and a total population of approximately 8,000. If we went to 10,0 00 members, if we had an influx of nurses who had an overwhelming desire to work in Manitoba, then I would anticipa te that we would increase that number. To go further, if I have the time, what the association is looking at is establishing regions, similar to the regions of the Department of Health, and so representation would be determined based on the regions and populations within each region. MR.

CHERNIACK: I believe the Law Society has, I don't know, 1, 000, 1, 200 members and it has about 40 benchers, I believe, and regionally represented, would that seem to be an unwieldly number of people? MISS TOO: I would express my own opinion and say yes; for our association. MR. CHERNIACK: One other question, relating to the representation on the board.

Some of us have received a petition re changes to the LPNs where there is a suggested change - it doesn't say who di stributed this. lt does say though that it is recommended that on the advisory council there shall be one person who shall be a member of the 26 MARN and appointed by the MARN. We will deal with that when we deal with LPNs but would you see any advantage that an RPN should be on the advisory council of the RNs or an LPN be on the advisory council of the RNs? MISS TOO: Again I would say we would have to look at it on an individual basis.

I think what the MARN is looking at is having representation on the board that reflects the representation of members, plus the lay representatives who represent the interests of the public, and so we would look at those who are best able to serve the association on the board of directors, as determined by members through election. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, of course, you're only now talking about two members of the board of directors to be appointed from the lay persons, that's all you're involved in in selecting, right? Is this an RN petition? A MARN petition I mean.

MISS TOO: I believe I know which one you are speak ing to and it was submitted by registered nurses. Not MARN, not a MARN representation. MR. CHERNIACK: Dealing with the question of portability, where you say that you are not yet ready to indic ate but would want to thr ough your regul at ions, did you hear my ques tion to Mr. Crewson, dealing with upward mobility or career ladders and how the RN association,would be able to accommodate to people who are in the same service of health service , being able to become RNs without going through the regular or recognized channels but rather move from another group.

Like the LPNs who I believe have lesser training than the RNs. MISS TOO: The Manitoba Association of Registered Nu rses for some years has been on record as approving the principle of providing upward mobility to all health workers. At the moment there is one program, the Red River Community College, that provides a program for licenced practical nurses and provides a one year program for that.

They may exit, take lic enced practical nurse examinations and qualify as a licenced practical nurse; or they may exit for a period of time and then return, enter into the second year program and obtain qualifi cations to make them eligible for registration as a registered nur se. In addition, the Assi niboine Commu nity College and the Brandon General Hospital have an articulation program which provides for opportunities for li cenced practical nu rses to challenge examinations and enter the diploma program.

In addition, all schools of nursing provide for entrance of mature students, recognizing their life experiences and past work experiences and so on. Again giving them opportun ity to challe nge exams, and if successful enter the progrAm- So that concept has been approved by the I\II ARN and is encouraged in all the programs. MR. CHE RNIACK: Now the nursing education programs which have been approved are apparently being continued. Deemed to have been approved until the approval is withdrawn. So that you are really not starting afresh, you are starting with existing by- I

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 laws, which according to your proposal shall continue until changed, and you're continuing with existing educational recognition, which would continue until changed, but it seems to me that the provisions dealing with regula tions must be put in place immediately in order to be effective. And when I say immediately, it seems to me almost concurrent with the proclamation of this bill. Do I misread that point?

MISS TOD: Those regulations rela ting to the standards of education will be ready to submit to the Lieutenant-Governor -in-Cou ncil, prior to the evaluation of schools of nursing which is due early in 19 81. In the meantime the schools will continue as approved schools of nursing in the province. MR. CHERNIACK: I was also dealing with 5(a), regulate the admission, registration, renewal of registration, suspension etc. of members. Now that would seem to me to be an immediate necessity.

MISS TOD: And Regulation 1, which we have already drafted, will be submitted to Lieutenant Governor-in-Council as soon as this Act is passed and provide for the same conditions and requirements as are presently in effect. MR. CHERNIACK: Are they available for review now? I don't mean this minute but I mean can they be given to us whilst we are studying this? MISS TOD: I see no reason why not. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, may I di rect a question to the Mini ster. I will have a number of matters to raise as we go through the bill.

I don't whether he thinks that there will be someone who will be able to speak on behalf of MARN to react to these. I certainly don't want to deal with them item by item in this portion of the program. I assume that some way or other we'll be able to deal with it when we'r e deal ing

section by

section and obtain reactions. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Min ister. MR. SHERMAN: I would think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be highly desirable, with respect to these three bills that are in front of us now, 65, 66 and 87, that for clause by clause study by the committee it would be highly desirable to have a knowledgeable representative and spokesman for the registered nurses, the psychiatric nur ses and the lic ensed practical nurses to assist in that process.

That would not require, except of course, voluntary attendance by any members of those associations would be most welcome, but it would not require a mass attendance. If we had one knowledgeable spokesman in each case I think it would be very useful in that process and I will have my office speak to the relevant associations about that. MA. CHERNIACK: I appreciate that statement, Mr. Chairman, On that basis, I think we could conduct our business much more intelligently, if I may use that word and I did. Thank you. 27 MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you complete your questioning, Mr. Cherniack?

Does that complete your questioning? MA. CHEANIACK: Yes, thanks. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions members of the board? Yes, Miss Tod. MISS TOD: Mr. Chairman, could I just enlarge on the question that Mr. Sherman addressed to me? MA. CHAIRMAN: Yes, by all means.

MISS TOD: In responding to a question about the MARN's willin gness to have representation from an employer group on the MARN Board of Directors and having listened to the debate in the Assembly, I would certainly suggest that if that principle is going to apply to the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, it should apply to all health workers or health professionals. So, if that appears in our Act I would expect to see it in The Medica l Act , The Phar maceutical Act, as well as all other health occupational Acts, so it would be consistent throughout. MA. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Miss Tod.

Miss Bicknell. Mr. Taylor. The Honourable Mini ster. MA. SHEAMAN: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ray Taylor has offered a submission addressed to the chairman of the committee on Bill 65 and pointed out that he had hoped to appear before the committee to deliver it, but personal matters have prevented him from being here this evening. He has gone to the trouble of preparing a five-page submission which is certainly a responsible submission, and I would ask that the Clerk have it printed and distributed to all members of the committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Copies available to members of the committee. Fine. Thank you, Mr. Min ister.

We have now the University of Ma nitoba School of Nursing, Professor Cynthia Cameron. MS CYNTHIA CAMEAON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here to speak on behalf of Bill 65 and with your permission I would like to circulate copies of the brief from the University School of Nursing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, fine, the Clerk will distribute them. MS CAMEAON: I'd like to thank the committee again, as others before me, for the opportunity of presenting before the committee this evening and I would like to follow along largely from the brief that you have, or will have soon, in front of you.

As I've outli ned before, I am here on behalf of the Faculty of the University of Manitoba School of Nursing to speak in sup port of the proposed revisions, that is, Bill 65 of The Registered Nurses Act. This has received approval and support of the general membership of the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, as perhaps the committee members are aware, in 1978. The registered nurses of Mani toba have been self-governing through

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 legislation since 191 3. The intent of this legislation has beE!n to protect the public by monitoring the quality of nursing in Manitoba. In order for the Association to continue to carry out this intent, the proposed Act deli neates more specifically the profess ion's rights and responsibili tieS. The Act now includes a definition of the practise of nursing and those who are qualified to represent themselves as registered nurses. The Act also protects the public by setting standards for educa tion and practise.

We believe that the professional association has the knowledge and expertise and, therefore, is best qualified to maintain these standards. The public is assured that it's in terests are represented by pro viding for lay membership on the board of directors and on major committees of the Association. The Act further ensure§ t!le protection of the public by clearly delineating the procedures for disciplining members of the Association and incl udes appropria te procedures for appeal.

The Univ ersity of Manitoba School of Nursing supports the principles contained in the proposed Registered Nur ses Act, and in continuation we recognize that nursing represents greater than 50 percent of the health care providers in Manitoba. As responsible health care professionals we feel that comprehensive legislation is essential to protect the interest of the public and we urge the Standing Committee on Private Bills to accept the proposed Act. We thank you again for your attention to this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to questions. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Professor Cameron. If any members of the committee have any questions? If not, I' d like to thank you, Professor Cameron, for putting your remarks before the committee. MS CAMERON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Barbara Bradley. MRS. BARBARA BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, I have copies of my brief which I would like to circulate, with your permission. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MRS. BRADLEY: Thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm Barbara Bradley; I'm the Director of Nursing at Winni peg Muni cipal Hospital.

I am here tonight to represent other directors of nursing within the province and other nursing admin istrators within the province. I am a member of a group and we call ourselves Directors of Care, but we leave the word "nursing" out of our title. The Pirectors of Care Interest Group is composed of Dire�tors of Nursing from the city of Winn ipeg Health Department, the Victorian Order of Nurses, from large and small rural and urban acute care and extended care facil ities, from Deer Lodge Hospital, as we ll as Stony Mou ntain Penitentiary.

These facilities are located in Teulon, Winn ipeg, Stonewall, Brandon, Altona, Minn edosa, Selkirk and Morden, to name a few of the towns and cities represented in 28 our group. I do not have the mailing list attached, as it says, but I have it in my papers with me if anybody would like to see it. Our group meets bi-monthly to advance the quality of patient care in Manitoba through the exchange of ideas, the development of adminis trative knowledge and skills, discussion of mutual problems and the planning and sponsoring of educational workshops.

Directors of Care are professionally and legally accountable for the quality of nursing care del ivered by nur ses to patients/clients in their indi vidual agencies. Mem bers of the interest group unanimously support Bill 65, the revised Registered Nurses Act, as published, for the following reasons:

(1) Nursing is a profession in its own right. lt has officially been recognized as such in Ma nitoba si nce 191 3, when the first Registered Nurses Act in Canada was proclaimed. The Registered Nurses Act (19 80) maintains this recognition of nu rsing's professional status.

(2) Minor revisions to the Registered Nurses' Act of Manitoba have been made in the past 67 years, but a major revision is a pri ority now due to changes in society, expectations for health care, changes in health care delivery and an in creasing awareness within the nursing profession of its public accountability.

(3) A profession is, first of all, accountable to the public and must function in the public interest. One method by which Directors of Care demonstrate their accountability to the public is by ascertaining the competency and safety to practise of those registered nurses they employ. The revised Act, in legislating the responsibility of both employer and employee to identi fy and report to the professional association un safe and/or incomp etent practitioners, will prevent such a registered nurse moving from employer to employer. lt will both safeguard the public and facilitate the role of the nursing director.

(4) The revised Act clearly outli nes public input into the affairs of the professional association in the composition of the Board of Directors, the Complaints Comm ittee, the Discipline Committee and the Advisory Council. Public input into the affairs of the professional association actions which affect the public must now be defined in regulations which req uir e the consent of the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. These modifica tions clarify and facili tate MARN's public and professional roles.

(5) Those in nursing leadership positions rely on the profess ional association to develop Standards of Professional Practice against which the actual practice of registered nurses can be measured. They also rely on their professional association to set Standards for Basic and Conti nuin Q Educa tion, which underlie the practice of nursing. Without these standards, there can be no assurance of quality in the nursing care delivered to the people of Manitoba. Using these education and practice standards, the Dir ector of Nursing is more readily able to implement a Quality Assurance Program, maintain safe and

Wednesday, 16 July, 1980 effective patient care, and ident ify the learning needs and expectations of staff members. These standards facil itate the role of adminis trators and senior nursing personnel in the delivery of nursing care. In conclusion, as Di rectors of Nur sing, our concerns focus on the health care needs of the publ ic. The revised Act, Bill 65, developed to demonstrate plublic accountabili ty and in accordance with the government's guideli nes for Professional Acts, will assist Directors of Nursing to function effectively, to better meet the public's health care needs.

We believe that the principles of a profession - self-governance, autonomy, public accountabil ity, service to the publi c and expertise are clearly defined in this revised Registered Nurses Act. We respectively request that the Law Amendments Committee approve the Act as presented. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Bradley. Do any members of the committee have any questions? Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Bradley, your signature would ind icate that you are - is it a Bachelor of Science in Nursing? MRS. BRADLEY: Yes. MR.

CHERNIACK: I'm surpris ed to note that this legislation that you are approving, as presented, gives to the board of MARN the right to deny the Un iversity the cond uct of a nur sing education program or the government, in doing that, through the Red River College or any other communi ty centre. Is that the intent with which you agree? MRS. BRADLEY: I'm not sure I understand your question when you say "conduct". MR.

CHERNIACK: The section, I read, "No person shall, alone or in concert with others, establish, maintain, conduct or participa te directly or ind irectly, in the ownership or operation of a nursing education program without the authority and consent in writing of the board; and any person who contravenes the provisio

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-pb2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf pb2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5bc065d58b58a671fdd0ec8b910c57997f1528b1

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