Manitoba Committee Hansard — 7 July 1993 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 6, 35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-la6

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on LAW AMENDMENTS 42 Elizabeth II Chairperson Mr. Bob Rose Constituency of Turtle Mountain VOL. XLII No.6· 7 p.m., WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1993 ISSN 0713-9586

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCH ARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-L EIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant Vacant Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson Kildonan Ste.

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

Johns Swan River Rossmere Rupertsland The Maples PARTY Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

79 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Wednesday, July 7, 1993 TIME-7p.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAI RPERSON - Mr. Bob Rose (Turtle Mountain) ATTENDANCE -10- QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Downey, McCrae, Hon. Mrs. Vodrey Messrs. Ashton, Gaudry, Reimer, Rose, Mrs. Render, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis Substitutions: Mr. Pallister for Hon. Mr. Praznik

(2050) APPEARING: George Hickes, MLA for Point Douglas Doug Martindale, MLA for Burrows WITNESSES: Bill 29- The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act Peter Sim, Ma nitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Barry Hammond, Private Citizen Debi Spence, Norquay Parent Council Wayne Helgason, Private Citizen Bill Rumley, Private Citizen Jack Eyer, Private Citizen John Rodgers, Main Street Project James Boyd, Pritchard Place Drop In Centre Tim Henderson, Private Citizen Donna Gl over, Ab original Counc il of Winnipeg Inc. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: lan Goldstine, Manitoba Medical Association William W.

Draper, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 3-The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act Bill 20- The Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act Bill 29- The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act *** Mr. Chai rperson: Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendme nts please come to order? This evening the committee will be considering the fo llo wing bil ls: Bill 3, The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendment Act; Bill 20, The Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act; and Bill 29, The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act.

For the information of the committee, copies of the bills are available on the table behind me. As is our custom, we will be hearing public pre sent ations before we go in to detaile d considerations of the bills.

I have before me a list of person's names registered to speak to Bill 29: Peter Sim, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties; Barry Hammond, Private Citizen; Debbie Spence, Nor q uay Paren t Co un cil; Wayne Helg ason, Private Citizen; Bill Rumley, Private Citizen; Jack Eyer, Private Citizen; John Rodgers, Main Street Project; Judy Moar, Private Citizen; and James Boyd, Pritchard Place Drop In Centre. At this time I would canvass the audience and ask if there are any other people present that wish to make presentations to any of the three bills before us.

If so, would you identify yourself to staff at the back of the room and your name will be added to the list. The com mi ttee has received two written submissions for Bill 29 and one for Bill 3. Copies have been made available for committee members and were distributed at the start of the meeting. Copies of written submissions appear at the back of tlie transcript of the committee's meeting. Does the committee wish to put a time limit on presentations? No. No time limit.

80 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 7, 1993 It has been our practice to hear from out-of-town presenters first. Is there any presenter here who is from out of town? Would you please iden tify yourself? Hearing none, we will proceed then to follow the list in numerical order. Bill 29- The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act Mr. Chairpers on: I woul d call then for presentation on Bill 29, Peter Sim, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties. Mr. Sim, you may proceed when you are ready. Did you have a copy of your brief to distribute? Mr.

Peter Slm (Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties): Yes, I do. I believe there is a written presentation circulated in the form of a letter which was addressed to the Honourable James C. McCrae from the president of MARL. That letter summarizes MARL's concerns with this legislation. When MARL analyzed this bill, we started from the premise that the primary solution to the problem of sniffing does not lie in penal legislation. The basic problem is that solvents which can be inhaled are too readily available in our society to make it feasible to control access to them in any significant way by criminal law.

Put plainly, if people of any age are desperate enough to sniff, they are going to find something to sniff. It is available in every gas tank on every street. The long-term solution to sniffing is to provide adequate treatment programs for sniffers and to elimi nate the social conditions that make people want to sniff. That said, we have to look at what can be done by legislation and consider whether this legislation will, on balance, do more harm than good.

MARL's position is that for the most part, this legislation would do harm, and where it might do some good, it is inferior to the legislation that was enacted a numb er of year s ago as The Public Healt h Amendment Act. Now the most significant and controversial part of this bill is the provision which makes it an offence for people under the age of 18 to inhale solvents. In other words, the police can arrest sniffers. MARL submits that this is simply not an appropriate response to the problem. Solvent sniffing is an illness. People who are suffering an illness should not be treated as criminals.

That is a fundamental principle. If the police feel that they need additional powers to deal with people who are sniffing and who are not able to look after themselves or who are a threat to themselves or society, there are other ways of dealing with it. We can make amendments to The Intoxicated Persons Detention Act, or we can, if long-term detention is necessary, that can be done by way of a committal under The Mental Health Act. The point is that the problem of sniffing should be treated as what it is, a health problem, and sniffers shoul d be dealt with in tha t way.

In all circumstances, detention should be coupled with the availability of adequately funded and effective treatment programs so that sniffers are not put in physica l danger by being arrested and then deprived of access to the medical care they may desperately need. So that

section of the bill, I would suggest, should simply be discarded immediately and replaced by a more effective and humane response. The other aspect of the bill is the provisions which make it an offence to sell solvents to young people if the seller has reason to believe that they may be used for sniffing purposes. This, once again, is a rela tively lim ited response to the problem. In most cases, young people who cannot buy sniff over the counter are going to be able to get it one way or another. They will steal it; they will get it under the counter.

Because the substances are so readily available, in a lot of cases, the police are not going to be able to catch the sellers at the source. The point is, MARL's concern is that, even when you can catch somebody, this bill is a less effective response to the problem and a response that is more difficult to enforce than the existing legislation that was enacted but never proclaimed. I think the argument here-1 would read from the written presentation.

The main weakness of the present bill is that it provides a defence to the seller where the seller took reasonable steps to ascertain that a minor would not inhale the substance. This creates two difficulties. On the one hand, responsible sellers can never be certain what amounts to reasonable steps. It may often be very difficult for somebody who is running a convenience store and whose staff are often young people themselves, to set out a meaningful set of guidelines that you can use to determine whether somebody who is asking you for

July 7, 1993 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 81 some hair spray or nail polish or glue is, first of all, under 18 , and secondly, is or is not going to be using it for inhaling. It is simply that you are asking people to make a wild guess and putting a very severe penalty for guessing wrong. On the other hand, there is an equally serious danger that irresponsible sellers will simply make some token compliance with the bill and then say: Well, I took reasonable steps; I did not know that they were going to inhale it.

There is a risk that, becaus e of the vagueness of the law, these answers may be accepted, and it will be difficult to enforce the bill in the court except against the most blatant of street sellers. The point is that both of these problems do not arise under the existing provisions of The Public Health Amendmen t Act; that

section does not require any reasonable knowledge. There is an absolute prohibition against selling sniff with certain narrowly defined and very clear exceptions. In those circumstances, there can be very little doubt to that. You know, if you are selling model glue and you cannot either say, well, I sold it along with the model kit, or produce a consent form from the minor's parents, you are guilty of an offence .

Retailers know what they have to do to comply with the law; and, when they do not comply with the law, the pol ice should have no di fficulty getting evidence, assuming that they can prove the actual sale. On both counts, I would submit that the existing legislation presents very few difficu lties. If legal counsel, who are more learned in these matters than I am , can ide ntify any problems, I would suggest that they can be addressed by technical amendments; and, with those amendments, should they be necessary, the bill can be proclaimed and enforced . This present le gisla tion should be dropped entirely.

Thank you. •

(1910) Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Sim. Are you prepared to respond to questions or comments from committee members? Mr. Slm: Yes, I am. Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Thank you, Mr. Sim, for that presentation on behalf of the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties. It would seem from your presentation that you have thoroughly studied both the present bill before us, Bill 29, and the bill that had been proclaimed in the Legislature three years ago, Bill 91 . Is that a fair assumption? Mr. Slm : Yes, it is. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to ask Mr.

Sim if he could give us some indication or some understanding of why the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and this government have for a number of years now suggested that they did not proclaim Bill 91 because it was not enforceable. We have never been given anything more specific than that; we have just been told that there were some provisions that were not enforceable. Based on your review of Bill 91 and your perusal of this matter in general, can you give us any indication of how Bill 91 may not have been enforceable? Mr. Slm: There is only one aspect of Bill 91 that I think could create a difficul ty.

That is the question of knowledge of the age of the purchaser. One of the elements of an offence that the Crown must prove is that the seller knew that the person purchasing the solvent was under the age of 18.

That, in many cases, will be diff icult or impossible for the Crown to prove without more, but that can be corrected by simply putting a provision in Bill 91 , which would be to lift it partially from the present legislation, that it is not a defence that the seller did not know the person was under the age of 18 ; however, further, that it is a defence if the seller took reasonable steps to determine whether the purchaser was over the age of 18. That would put an onus on se ll ers to establish a pattern of requesting identification from people and not selling without requesting a driver's license.

So there it would be possible for police at least to deal with this qu estion of du e dil ige nce and knowledge of the age of a person by requiring sellers to, you know, put forward evidence that they took reasonable care to determine a person's age. That may be difficult when you are dealing with people who are 15 or 16, but it should present no difficulties in getting convictions when you are selling to people of 11 or 12 or younger. Other than that, I cannot see any problems with Bill 91 . Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr.

Chairperson, is that the kind of problem that could have been identified if this legislation had been proclaimed three years ago, and, in fact, had been up and running and we had a chance to see what kind of impact the law would hav e had in te rms of av ailabi li ty of intoxicating substances to young people?

82 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA July 7, 1993 Mr. Slm: I think it would have been. It would probably have been identified in the first test case that went to court, and if it proved to be a problem, you could have brought in a very simple amending bill and you would have a workable piece of legislation now. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I would like to pursue the two key points in your prese ntation and your concerns with the present bill before us, Bill 29.

I would like to start with the question of the advisability of making a major change from the previous legislation by including provision in this bill to ch arge the user. You have outl ined your concerns, generally. The Minister of Justice (Mr. McC rae) has suggested that this provision will allow for rehabilitation of young people. What is your understanding of the impact of this kind of a provision? Will it mean, in fact, that we can get at the roots of the problem in a more effective way? Mr.

Slm: We ll, the bill will onl y allow for rehabil itation if rehabil itation progra ms are available, and if young people can be got into those programs. It assumes, first of all, that young people are going to actually be taken to court, that the court will make an order on conviction that will require some form of rehabilitation and that these rehabilitation programs will be available. It further assumes that rehabilita tion, under threat of criminal penalty, is the best way of dealing with a drug pro blem . Tha t is, in itself, a questionable assumption.

I think that if young people require rehabilitation, it can be provided in other ways, often voluntarily through the school system, through the child welfare system, through the committal to a mental institution under The Mental Health Act. All of these options ar e avai lable if the government is willing to provide the rehabilitation services themselves. The point is, the legal means of getting people into rehabilitation is less important than having the services there.

Once they are there, then, I am sure, you will have no difficulty getting as many people into the programs as you can find as there are places for them without this kind of legislation. In other cases, if young people are refused to go for rehabilitation and are acting as threats to the public because of their conduct, they will probably be violating other laws where they can be put into custody without the need for this specific legislation directed to somebody whose only crime is being a sniffer. Ms.

Wasylyci•Lels: Well, that really leads into my next question which is, do we not now have legislation in Manitoba that would make it possible for young people who are intoxicated as a result of snif fing or other use of solvents to put them in custody, to provide a safe place to get them off the streets. Do we not now have legislation to do that without going the route of charging individuals and giving them a record? Mr. Slm: I think we do. First of all, there is The Intoxicated Persons Detention Act, which was initially enacted to elimin ate the need for the offense of drunk and disorderly.

People who are drunk can now be ar rest ed and held in a detoxification centre for up to 48 hours or until they are capable of looking after themselves or can be released to the custody of somebody who can look after them. That means that in tox ic ated people are protected, and they are not burdened with a criminal record in addition to all of their other problems. I see no reason why this particular bill, that is The Intoxicated Persons Detention Act, could not also be applied to people who are intoxicated with solvents. If it cannot be, it should be amended forthwith.

For longer-term detention, if that is necessary, it is possible to obtain an order for committal under The Mental Health Act which allows the magistrate or judge to make an order that a person be held in a mental institution for treatment. The advantage of this legislation is, once again, there is no criminal charge involved and because of the nature of the order, you ensure that the detention will be coupled with treatment. It is not simp ly going to be a question of warehousing somebody for six months and turning them out into the street no better than they were before. * (1 920) Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: It has been suggested that this provision of charging the user or the victim is necess ary in or der to help gather evidenc e necessary for being able to fay charges against retailers illegally selling solvents to minors. In fact, this has been stated in a letter dated May 3, signed by Stu Whitley, who is the Assistant Depu ty Attorney Gener al , and I will quote a

July 7, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA 83 paragraph from that letter and ask you for your comment. He writes: The social purpose behind this part of the legislation is to permit an intervention by police which will principally allow detention for other than chil d welfare pur poses and pe rmit a polic e investigation which will, hopefully, lead to the arrest of the supplier. I will leave my quote at that, and maybe quote later from this letter. But I would like Mr.

Sim to give a comment on that kind of statement, and indicate whether or not he can make any sense out of that kind of statement, if, in fact, charging the young person is necessary in order to be able to effectively go after the retailers. Mr. Slm : It may be, in some circumstances, but I would submit that it is not acceptable. What Mr. Whitley is suggesting is that young people will be threatened with charges and that will then be used as a lever in order to obtain their evidence to be used later on in charges against a retailer. First of all, I would find that objectionable on two accounts.

First of all , I think it is completely unacceptable in a dem ocratic society to use criminal charges as a way of coercing evidence. The purpose of a criminal charge ought to be to punish the person who committed the offense. I think it is really outrageous to threaten criminal charges against one person solely for the purpose of obtaining evidence against some other person. Secondly, I would doubt whether this would really accomplish its purpose.

I think if I were acting for a retailer who was being charged largely on the evidence of a minor who was giving this evidence in return for immunity from prosecution, 1 would have very good grounds to possibly claim abusive process, certainly to very vigorously challenge the credibility of the minor when he or she is giving evidence. I think the net result might be to put the already troubled minor through a traumatic experience for no good purpose since their evidence would in all likelihood be rejected. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: I will just proceed to the second part of your brief which has to do with the ability of this legislation to actually ensure that convictions are possible of retailers who actually sell, deliberately sell or perhaps unconsciously sell to people under the age of 18 . You have talked about the vagueness of the legislation. You have referenced the words, took reasonable steps to ascertain that the minor would not inhale the substance.

That concern has been reiterated by others and in particular, according to at least one media report, Inspector Lou Spado who said I do not know how enforceable it is going to be. I do not know. It looks like there might be some loopholes in it. He goes on to say it looks like we are going to have to prove that it was, that it was purchased for the purpose of sniffing it, and if the seller says that he thought it was not going to be purchased for that purpose, then he has got an out.

To me, with your brief and your comments and those comments from the police force, it would seem to me that it is hard to imagine that we are going to get any convictions out of this legislation. What would be your assessment of that and whether or not a conviction could be possible? Mr. Slm: I think it is very unlikely that you will get convictions. Rrst of all, it is not enough simply that the seller says, well, I did not know that they were going to sniff. The legislation says that the seller has to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether it is going to be used for sniffing.

Bu t the qu estion is: What am ount s to reasonable steps? If the seller says, well, you know, I did not know what he was going to do with it. He said, well, I am making models, or my mother wants it to polish her nails. The kid looked honest; I took him at his word. What more can you say? Would that be enough, or will reasonable steps mean that you need a note from your parents, or you have to be running a hobby store and selling to somebody who you know is also purchasing hobby supplies? We do not know. Probably there are very few hobby shops that are bona fide hobby shops that would be convicted.

On the other hand, you would probably find it fairly easy to get a conviction to somebody who is selling glue, not accompanied by plastic models but by little plastic bags. Those are, I would say, the two extremes of the scale, but ther!" is a whole series of middle ground. Somebody comes to a gas station and asks for a can of gas. How do you know whether he is going to sniff it or if it for his father's lawn mower? You do not. So this bill, I think, creates a whole series of gray areas that do not exist under the existing legislation. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: So, therefore, looking at the major issue at hand, at least in our estimation which is how does one control and curb the sale of

84 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA July 7, 1993 solvents to young people, could you again give us your best assessment about which of these two pieces of legislation, Bill 91 , which was proclaimed three years ago, or Bill 29, which we have before us today, is more enf.orceable and more likely to lead to convictions of those who sell solvents to minors? Mr. Slm: I would say Bill 91 , provided that there is an amendment to make it clear that the seller must use due dili gence to determine the age of the purchaser. In all other respects, I think that Bill 91 is clearly superior to Bill 29. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: Would it be fair to conclude then that we have in effect wasted three years when we could have been at least attempting to get at this problem by the fact that Bill 91 sat and gathered dust without being proclaimed, and in fact was a workable piece of legislation all along? Mr. Slm: I would say so. Mr. Chai rperson: There are no other questions or comments from committee members. I thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Sim. Mr. Slm : Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: I will now call Barry Hammond, private citizen. You may proceed, Mr. Hammond, when you are ready. Mr.

Barry Hammond (Private Citizen): Okay, my name is Barry Hammond, and I live in the Point Douglas area of Winnipeg, an area known really for sniffing concerns. So my brief tonight comes partly from my awareness of situations in my community, but also partly from working with police officers and so on who frequent this community. Let me just read my brief because I think I have tried to capture in it most of the essence of my concerns about the bill. The sniffing of products like airplane glue, paint thinner and gasoline is a major problem for children and adults in Manitoba.

Anything that is effective in reducing the abuse of these substances is to be welcomed in the province. Unfortunately, this bill appears to do little to reduce the problem of sniffing, hence its effectiveness in dealing with the issue is weak or nonexistent. Let me suggest how Bill 29 could be made effective. I think that we can maybe amend it, and if the amen dm ents tha t I propose are pe rhaps considered and inclu ded, then it could become effective, but otherwise, I think it is not. I think we should remove the word "minor" from the bill wherever it appears.

Many minors get sniff products from adults who purchase these products in Manitoba or who bring in these intoxicants from out of the province. If the police stop an automobile bringing in a trunk load of airplane glue from Kenora, this bill will not help them to thwart glue sniffing in Mani toba. The police tell me that children acquire most of their sniff products from adult pedophiles who trade sniff products for sex. Because this bi ll refers only to minors, those supplying the minors with sniff products remain untouched. • (1 930) The bill is unenforceable.

The hope is that by arresting the sniffer, the police will learn the source of the sniff products. However, if an offender states to police that he bought his sniff product at, say, hardware X, and the offender is taken to the store, the owner can either deny selling the product or state that he or she believed that the offender only wanted the product to be used as intended. Either explanation will be believed before a sniffed-up offender's word is taken. Also, the police cannot hire a minor to go in and make a purchase at hardware X since they cannot hire a minor.

The only hope is to frighten the owners of stores who knowingly sell sniff products by making the fine so stiff that the owners think serio usly before sellin g snif f pr oducts to questionable customers. I suggest that a minimum fine for an individual defined in

Section 6(a)(

i) be $20,000 and that the minimum fine for a corporation as in 6(a)(ii) be $30 ,000. Fines for second and subsequent offences, as in 6(b)(

i) and (ii), should be a minimum of $40,000 and $60,000 respectively. This is the only hope because the police tell me that they cannot enforce this bill as it is in its present form. Now, no doubt, their advice to the committee is better than mine, but the foot patrols tell me that it is impossible for them because they will not be believed if they find a sniffer who says that he bought the stuff at hardware X. We have had lots of experience with Lysol, and we find that this is true. In fact, you have to go into a store and say that I want some Lysol to drink before it becomes an offence.

The only people that go in and say they want Lysol to drink, of course, are people who are und e rcove r age nts; conseq uently, they do not get sold the stuff.

July 7, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA 85 Therefore , the bill is really unenforceable, and probably, unless that has changed significantly, it will be useless.

Section 7(1) of the bill states that only a person who is under 18 years of age is guilty. Under this classification, most of those apprehended will be young offe nders, and the police in Winnipeg will have no choice but to take such persons to the Youth Centre. If the police are effective, this facility will be filled to the brim in about two months, or else the youths will be returned to the streets without any reduction in the problem which caused the person to sniff in the first place.

Unl ess rehabil itation services are planned , taking young snif fe rs to the Youth Centre is a complete waste of police time and will not help society. This reaffirms my original statement that Bill 29 is not effective in dealing with the sniff problem unless major amendments are made. The amendments I have in mind, of course, are things like charging the sellers, because we have to have a way to do that. This is the problem.

The newspapers and the chief medical officer are reporting a phenomena called "sudden sniff dea th syndr ome." This phenomenon was discovered when several individuals in Manitoba died after being apprehended for sniffing. If one result of Bill 29 is to arrest sniffers, then it would ap pear that a prerequi site is that police and wo rke rs at the Youth Centre be gi ve n the opportunity to learn how to treat sniffers who are put in their care. Without such training, those who arrest and house young offenders are endangering the lives of young people, and they are subjecting themselves to dangerous practices.

Now this is information from the chief medical officer and so on about the sudden sniff death syndrome.

Section 3(3) makes an exception of duly qualified medical practitioners or dentists. If a person under 18 years of age has a written prescription from such per sons, they may pur chase sni ff products , although I do not know why they would want to. I recommend that Bill 29 be amended to read that any person who desires to purchase sniff products be required to have a written prescription from a duly identified authority. Such a prescription must carry the name of the prescriber and a phone number where they may be reached.

Without the amendments suggested above, Bill 29 will have no effect on the sniffing problem in Manitoba. If it is the government's wish to address this sniffing problem, then Bill 29 must be seriously altered. Mr. Chai rperson : Thank you very much, Mr. Hamm ond . Are you prepared to respon d to comments or questions from the committee? Mr. Hammond: Yes, I am. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: First of all, thank you, Mr. Hammond, for your presentation. I would like to ask some questions first about the significance of the problem in the Point Douglas community.

Have you any understanding or any numbers to-a nd I know this is hard-indicate the depth of the problem in :;our community? Mr. Hammond: No. I see people on the street, and there are about 35 regulars; but, as I say, sniff largely goes along with substance abuses, and so I am not sure whether everybody who is in this group of people is sniffed up as well as substance abuse disabled. I am unable to tell what the coincidence of those two intoxicants is. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Could you give us some understanding of the root causes of why people turn to sniffing and substance- Mr.

Hammond: I think the root causes are very clear, and I have chatted with some of these individuals. Most of them are unemployed; in fact, I would say all of them are unemployed. When I ask if people would like jobs, they tell me that they would very much like jobs, but they do not know how to go about finding them, and they do not know how to do the preparation, I guess, that is needed in order to get jobs.

So there is a terrible hopel�ssness, I think, that comes from the whole busi ness of being unemployed, unable to feed your family, unable to kind of provide food and so on, and unable to kind of find the paths that one needs to take in order to become employable. I think that it is really this hopelessness that is the root cause of the whole thing, and, of course, that is the root that has to be dealt with if we are going to deal with the problem at all.

86 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA July 7, 19 93 Ms. Wasylycla-Le ls : Can you think of any benefits to having this provision in the bill that actually makes it possible to charge the user? In this case it would be those under 18 . Can you think of any help that th�t would provide, either in terms of helping the individual who is addicted or helping the law enforcement agencies identify the retailers? Can you point to anything that would help us understand why this provision has to be here? Mr.

Hammond: I also sit on the board of the North West district for Child and Family Services, and we have in the North West district about 400 children who are in care, because of being on sniff products. Now, I really sense that one result of the bill will be that Chi ld and Family Services will not be so burdened with these people, because they will be sent to the Youth Centre. Sending people to the Youth Centre, as I have stated, and as the previous speaker stated, will do nothing because unless there are rehabil itation facilities built in-and I have not heard of those as yet.

I am suggesting training for the workers, but the training I have for the workers has merely to do with how to deal with people, one or two hours after incarceration so that they do not meet with this sudden sniff death syndrome that I referred to. The training is not rehabil itation that I am recommending here , but unless there is some rehabilitation built in, there is absolutely no value in sending children to the Youth Centre. They will be off the streets, probably only temporarily.

I know that when the police take people back to their homes after there are severe problems, enough for them to be apprehen ded by Child and Family Services, they find that, say, prostitutes are back on the street before they get back ther e. So, obviously, this is not going to solve the problems. We need to change the context of people's lives in some sense so that they can find ways out of these hopeless ends. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Is it not the case that our youth centres are normally overflowing as it is? That is a question.

I am not sure, I have heard that, but I am not sure, so I would like to find out your opinion. Secondly, what, then, will happen with this in the bill? Where will kids go and what will police do with them? Mr. Hammond: The police will take them to the Youth Centre. I think that is the only option unless they take them back to the families. I think the Youth Centre will be clogged in about two months, as I have stated on the bill, with sniffers.

I mean, if the 400 people we have in the North West district is any indication, if that number was to shift over to the Youth Centre, for example, it would be clogged in no time. Without any rehabilitation program, I see no choice, then, for the police but to not do that, because if the Youth Centre is full and there is no other place to put the people, what will be the point? Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Well, one of the arguments that the Minister of Justice (Mr.

McCrae) has used in introducing this bill and debating this bill has been that making it illegal will make young people turn away from sniffing or using solvents. Do you have any evidence or reason to believe that that would be the case, just by knowing it is illegal, that it would actually be a deterrent? Mr. Hammond: No, there is no evidence to that, no. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I would like to ask a couple of questions about your suggestion which we had never contemplated, which was to make this bill or law apply across the board regardless of age.

You are suggesting that perhaps one way to actually get at the problem of retailers selling the stuff would be to take off the age restriction. How would that work, and what would it accomplish? * (1 940) Mr. Hammond: I think it would allow the police, for example, when they catch a pedophile who has a houseful of young people who are there simply because of the access of the sniff products, to apprehend the provider of the sniff products. The presen t bill says that they can arrest all the children, but not the supplier of the sniff products.

So I see real ly no point in arresting all of the children and leaving the pedo phile, who has provided them with all the sniff, free to collect a whole new houseful of children. So consequently, I am suggesting that if we remove any mention of the word "minor," then the police will have the opportunity of arresting the pedophile, and not just sort of saying, oh, well, we will come back when the house is full again of children. Ms. Wasylycla- Lels: You also mak e an interesting suggestion about-and I think it is tied to your concerns about whether or not this bill is

July 7, 19 93 LEG ISlATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 87 enforceable or not-your suggestion being that we dramatically increase the fines for the retailers who sell these products. What is the basis for that kind of a suggestion? Have- Mr. Hammond: As I mentioned in the brief, the only basis for that is to frighten the sellers, because the police at the moment, and I know the problems the police have had in trying to convict people on Lysol charges, and they have had a very, very difficult time, and I have cited the problem. The problem is that the law is very specific about this, and the sellers know this.

The sellers know that they can sell Lysol to anybody but a police officer, and there is no problem. We know that this is going on in our community all the time, and the police are powerless, and I guess the lawmakers are powerless, to find a way to deal with this. To suggest that the same thing might hold for a sniff bill is, in my mind, very parallel. In other words, if we cannot enforce the Lysol bill unless an undercover agent goes in and makes a purchase, if the bill refers only to minors, and the police cannot hire a minor to go in, the seller can say that I sold it to an adult.

If the police dress up somebody as an adolescent, I think that the sellers know very well how to get around these laws, and particularly in the Lysol bill, it is almost unenforceable even though it allows us to arrest adults. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: Yet this government has suggested that this three-year delay in any kind of legislation and that the changes that have been brought in under Bill 29 happened because they had to work on enforceability, and in fact have led us to believe that Bill 29 will be that much more enforceable and they will be able to get at the problem in a more effective way than was the case under Bill 91. Is there something in Bill 29 that is going to make it possible for the police to be able to go after these retailers? Mr.

Hammond: Well, my consultation with, again, rank and file police officers is that the bill, as it stands, is totally unenforceable. Now, I think the hope was that maybe by interviewing the arrested sniffers, we would find out where they purchased it. As I am saying, we mainly know where it comes from already. The sellers know that they are immune from many types of things, and I think they know that Bill29 will add nothing to this immunity or it will not in any sense thwart the immunity that they now have from selling sniff products to whomever they wish. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: So what you are suggesting, Mr.

Hammond, is that if we cannot convince this government to accept some amendments and make the bill more enforceable, we should then, perhaps, look at amendments dealing with the fine structure and recommend some very stiff fines with the hope that that will be an incentive for retailers not to get into selling these products at all? Mr. Hammond: Yes, the only hope is to frighten the seller since we cannot enforce the bill. Therefore, I think that by putting a very stiff fine, and maybe I have recommended low, but notice I put minimum, and the bill states not more than.

I think the bill, as such, will not frighten anybody because we know the fines that people have gotten when these bills stated the same thing for Lysol. People get the minimum fine in each case, and the minimum fine b about a half a day's take in selling Lysol. So why would I stop selling Lysol or why would I stop selling sniff products if I am making so much money? Ms. Wasyl ycla-L els: I believe that your recommendations for the fines would, in fact, and I do not know all the legislation in this province, but comparing it to The Liquor Control Act, exceed the fines in The Liquor Control Act.

Do you think that will work, will wash? Mr. Hammond: I recommended them as low as I did because I felt that this would wash. Now, I believe that people are making much more money selling these products than they are selling liquor products. Therefore, I think the fine ought to be higher because I really believe that the take-1 know the markup on a bottle of Lysol, for example, is over $5. So you only have to sell a few of those before you have made $500. You only have to sell 1 00 of those cans and that is sometimes one day's sales.

Therefore, I really think that a $500 fine is meaningless or is kind of unworkable in the sense of deterring anybody from a crime. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: What is the substance of choice these days in your community among sniffers? Mr. Hammond: It depe nds on where it is purchased. I mean, hardware stores are selling lots of paint thinners. I understand that airplane glue, wherever it is available, is a very big seller.

88 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 7, 19 93 But as I say, if somebody comes in with a whole trunk load of airplane glue from Kenora, the bill, as stated, does not allow the police to do anything about this. In fact, even if .we made it an adult bill, it still would not allow the police to do anything with a trunk load of airplane glue. The person can simply say I am bringing this airplane glue in to sell it to people who are making model airplanes and the police have nothing to say. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: Are there places in your community where they are selling products for sniff purposes, where they would not normally sell those kinds of products? How can I phrase that? Are there busin esses- [i nterjection] No, I mean businesses that are not normally in the business of selling products that are offering-suddenly, you see them offering products because they are catering to a particular- Mr. Hammond: No, I know of none who are specialty shops in selling sniffs. They are mainly hardware stores in our neighbourhood.

Again, they have been observed on numerous occasions selling these products out the back of the store, but again, there is absolutely nothing that the police can do about this except take note of the fact that this is happening. It is not illegal to sell paint thinner out the back of your hardware store. This bill will not change that in any sense. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr. Hammond, you have been working in this field on these issues for a long time, lobbying and taking a lot of community action, trying to stop the sale of certain solvents in local corner stores.

I would like to ask you, just as a final question, what your advice would be with respect to this legislation. I gather you are suggesting certain amendments. If you could just once more go over what you think should be our priorities for-give us your couple of top priorities in terms of amendments. Then, secondly, indicate if the amendments are not possible, if the government refuses to accept any amendments, what would be your advice with respect to the bill? Is something better than nothing? How should we proceed? Mr.

Hammond: Well, I think that there are three amendments that are almost crucial to making the bill, in any sense, effective. One is changing the fine structure the way I have suggested. I think the only hope the bill has of thwarting anybody from selling sniff products is to frighten them. I believe that if we put a high enough fine on the whole business, we will be able to frighten some sellers into thinking twice about selling them, particularly the questionable individuals who come to the back door. *

(1950) I think the second thing that is absolutely crucial is that we remove the whole mention of minors, because it seems to me that the children are mainly not getting this stuff from stores. The children are mainly getting it from other adults who have purchase d it from stores. So, therefore, by allowing adults to go free and only arresting the children, as I am saying with the pedophiles, for example, you can arrest a houseful of children and take them off to the Youth Centre, but you leave the person who supplied them with all the sniff scot-free.

I think the third thing that is probably absolutely crucial here is that maybe we have this whole business of, I would call it a prescription. At the moment, the whole idea of prescription is very enforceable by the police. If somebody goes to the drugstore to buy narcotics, they need a prescription or they need a note from some person in authority who says that he has authorized this to happen. I have called it a written prescription from a duly identified authority. Now this could be the parent of the child.

It could be some other authority, maybe the teacher or others, but I would see that, unless there is the opportunity for the police to follow up or for maybe even the seller to follow up, there is no way in which the seller can know whether he is selling it to a sniffer or to somebody who wants to build a model airplane. So I think those three are crucial. Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): I just have a few questions I would like to ask you, Mr. Hammond. I enjoyed your brief. I think you have put a lot of thought into it, and you have some excellent recommendations.

As you are aware, in the past in Point Douglas there has always been a problem with abuse of Lysol and hair spray- Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Hickes. Could you bring your microphone a little closer, please. Mr. Hlckes: And tying that into your fine system to-what I like about your brief is that you state a minimum fine. If you look at the bill, there is

July 7, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 89 Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Hickes. Could you bring your microphone a little closer, please. Mr. Hlckes: And tying that into your fine system to-what I like about your brief is that you state a minimum fine. If you look at the bill, there is absolutely nothing in the bill that states what a minimum fine shall be.

When I say that, I know how hard you and the citizens in Point Douglas have worked to try and alleviate the problem of Lysol and hair spray and the frustrations I have heard from the community in numerous occasions when they were able to finally find an unscrupulous corner store, they had the full evidence, and they go to court and they are fined $500. The frustrations that I got back was just within that couple of days that business was back to selling those abusive products, because there was no minimum fine and it was $500 and within a couple of mornings they got the money all back again.

This business I have seen and I know is back in that type of a business. So I really appreciate your idea and your recommendations to at least put a heavy minimum fine to discourage some of these individuals. The other thing that I have great concern about, and I hope you will share them a little further with us, is the whole aspect of the letter that was written by Mr. Whitley pertaining to the fact that a young minor from 12 to 18 years old, whatever tactics they use, will tell the law enforcement officer where they purchased the product.

I do not know how you feel, but I feel very concerned that by doing that we are putting these youth into further dangerous situations, because if they find out which youth told on them, surely to God they will try and go after those youth, and anything can happen. I would like your reaction to that. Mr. Hammond: We consulted Stu Whitley on whether this was workable and, again, that was where this information came that the hope was that the children would tell the source.

I think the thing that worries me most is the fact that even if the children say where they got it, this is not enough evidence for the police to make any kind of arrests in the situation. True, I think the child is putting himself in danger, but I think maybe a sniffed-up child probably would be maybe overlooked by a hardware owner who he told on in some sense, because there will be no sanctions to a hardware owner anyway.

He does not have to slow down his selling in any sense if a youth comes and tells the police in front of him or in his presence that he purchases his glue there because the owner can say one of two things. He can say, no, he did not sell it, and that would be believed by the police, or he coula say that he sold it in good faith, and that would be believed by the police. So in no sense will his business be at all hurt by this disclosure. Mr. Hlckes: Mr.

Chairperson, the other follow-up on that is what concerns me, and I would like you to be free to share your response to this, is that if the only evidence that the police are able to obtain is from the youth stating that so-and-so sold me this product just to get away from charges or just to get away from whatever the offence could be, is a lot of innocent people could be hurt over this. One youth could say, well, Mr. Hammond is the one who sold it to me. How would you respond to something like that, because a lot of the kids will say anything to get away from being charged? Mr.

Hammond: I would not be worried because I know that the police could do nothing with that type of information, so therefore I might be embarrassed by this information, but there is nothing that the police or any law official could do with that information. Therefore, I think it is meaningless. Mr. Hlckes: Mr. Hammond, you stated that you are on a board of a Family Services agency? Mr. Hammond: Yes, the Northwest Child and Family Services agency. Mr.

Hlckes: I would just like to ask you if your agency, because agencies do work with a lot of the youth as you stated earli er, was there any consultation done with the board or anyone from the agency pertaining to this bill? Mr. Hammond: Not to my knowledge, no. I work only in the Northwest area, so therefore communications could have taken place with the central office and I would not know about them. There was no information presented to our council in the Northwest area.

I asked them how many children they had apprehended because of sniff-related issues, and they were the ones who told me that it was over 400 people who were apprehended, 400 children in the northwest area of the province who were-well, mainly Winnipeg who were apprehended for sniff-related charges. This is a very costly system, as you know.

90 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 7, 19 93 Mr. Hammond: No, I know of none. Now, I hope the police were consulted, and I hope that my information from the police that the bill is totally unenforceable is wrong. However, I have no information that e-ven the police were consulted about this. Mr. Hlckes : Looking at this bill with your experience and knowledge of substance abusers, does this problem seem to disappear when a person reaches 18 years old, because this bill seems to just deal with 12 to 18 years old? Mr.

Hammond: No, of course it does not, and in fact, as I have stated in my presentation, probably the people who are under 18 do not make the purchases. They are mainly made by adults, as I understand it. Mr. Hlckes: So if I could get this right in my own mind, what I hear from the first two presenters was that we need to look at a workable bill but also to look at a form of treatment for the individuals versus incarceration. Mr. Hammond: Yes. Rehabilitation is absolutely vital, because I think there is lots of evidence that rehabilitative services are not really effective.

What is known though is that if you take a child out of the context in which they have learned to be a sniffer, put them in an incarcerated situation or even into a rehabilitative situation, and then put them back straight into the same context in which they started sniffing, they will likely pick it up again. Therefore, I am suggesting that we need to deal dually with this problem.

We need rehabilitative services to help the children get off the sniff products, but we also need to change the context in which the child is living that leads to this type of thing. * (2 000) Some of the front-line workers who work with these children will be able to tell you more specifically th& problem of poverty, but people in Norquay catchment area for the Norquay School have a per-family income of under $8,000 a year. When I tell people this, most people do not believe it.

They say it cannot be true, but these are statistics from the Winnipeg school division who said that families in Norquay School catchment area have a per-family income of less than $8,000 a year. I really think that is one of the root context causes and, therefore, a mere rehabilitation project, while a big help, is not the only solution. Hon. Jame s Downey (Min ister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Chairpers on, just a coup le of questions for Mr. Hammond. You have covered a lot of areas here.

One that, I guess, directly relates to individuals supplying sniff product or intoxicating product to individuals, you have indicated to this committee that there is no charge or no clause in the act that would allow the law enforcement officers to charge an individual that either had a houseful of individuals providing them with product and/or selling the product to them and, also, that there is no fine or any penalty that would apply. Have you read

Section 3(1) of the act and also

Section 6 of the act? Mr. Hammond: Yes, I have read it all. Mr. Downey: You are not satisfied that 3(1) would in fact allow the law enforcement people to go in and charge an individual who is providing product to people under age? Mr. Hammond: Well, it says in 3(1) give, sell or offer to sell. Again, it is the police that tell me that this is very hard to enforce. It is very hard to know whether it was given or whether it was sold or whether it was offered for sale, especially if it is a pedophile. I mean, suppose it is a trade. Is that covered by the bill? Mr.

Downey: So, in other words, do you have a recommendation that we could put an additional word in there that would help enforce it, because my understanding and my reading of it would be that we have in fact the ability to charge an individual of 18 who has provided sniff or intoxicant to an individual under 18 years of age. Have you got another word you would like to see added in that portion, because it is definitely there that if an individual provides in any way an intoxicating product to a person under 18, they can be charged. Then you go to

Section 6 which spells out the charges that can be applied. So with respect, sir, I do not follow your argument. Mr. Hammond: I really believe that if the word "trade" was to be added, you might be able to catch the pedophile. I think it is really the police who say that this is unenforceable. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Just to pursue this point a bit further, because I think there have been some concerns expressed here this evening about just how en forceable this bill will be, and the government has suggested that this three-year delay in having any kind of legislation up and

July 7, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 91 running is justifiable on the basis that this bill is more enforceable, yet we have heard nothing from presenters this evening or from reports of experts in the field that this bill is any more enforceable. One of the sections they cite is

Section 3(1 ), and specific reference is made to the wording where there is reasonable basis to believe that the person will use the substance or cause or permit the substance to be used as an intox icant, and that they say, combined with

Section 8, which allows the accused the defence of proving on a balance of probabilities that before the accused gave, sold, offered or delivered possession of the intoxicating substance to the person, the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain that the person was 18 years of age or older or that the person would not use the substance or cause or permit the substance to be used as an intoxicant. I think that is where I need to ask you a follow-up question, Mr. Hammond.

Would it make sense to have a pro vision in this bill that specifically prohibited the sale or trade or offer or giving of any kind of substance as an outright prohibition, as opposed to a clause that left it very vague, very open, very subjective? Mr. Hammond: I think 3(1) and 8 had in mind hardware sellers or grocery store sellers. I am not thinking of them at all because apparently they are not-well, they can go in and buy according to the bill because they are not minors. Therefore, they can go in and buy the stuff from the hardware store with absolute impunity, but then they can take it out.

Then, if it is sitting on the table, I guess, in the house and the children use it, it could be maybe suggested that it was given to the children, but I think that unless there is a much stronger statement made in 3(1 ), it is meanin gless in its present form. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr. Hammond, you have mentioned that as far as you were able to ascertain, the police were not consulted in terms of this bill, Bill 29. That certainly seems to have been the case based on media reports. I reported earlier on the comments by Inspector Lou Spado from the Winnipeg police force.

There have also been media reports pertaining to comments by police in Thompson and in Portage Ia Prairie where members of those police forces also suggested that this bill was questi onable in terms of enforceability and missed the mark. Have you heard anything more from the police in your community around enforceab ility and anything to add to that, or do these comments generally reflect the thinking and feeling in the polic e generally? Mr. Hammond: Those commen� reflect exactly my perception of what has happened.

In fact, this is why it was really the police's suggestion that we beef up the fine because of its unenforce ability. So we are hoping that if the fine can be amended that it might have the effect of frightening people, but that is the only possible enforcing that could happen from the bill. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I just wanted to come back to your three priorities that you gave us for amendments. I understand your recommendations with respect to the fine structure, and I think my colleagues and I will certainly give that some consideration.

The second one you mentioned about making this a law applicable to all people regardless of age is going to be more problematic for us in the sense that it had not been the basis for our legislation previously, Bill 91, and is not the framework or the basis from which this bill, Bill 29, has been written. So I am not sure how we are going to be able to get at that this evening.

You raise another whole broad question, and I think we, as legislators, have to take that seriously and determine ways and work on solutions for getting at the problem, which you are suggesting is not so much decent law-abiding retailers in our commu nitie s, but these behin d-the-sce nes , back-alley dealers who really are living off the vulnerabilities of young people, or people generally, taking advantage of people's in security and vulnerability.

I guess my final question-! know I have talked a lot this evening, and I should pass the mike over to someone-is should we be looking at another type of legislation, looking at starting from scratch with a bill that gets at this problem pertaining to adults generally? Mr. Hammond: I do not think we can solve all the problems at once.

I think if we make those two major amendments about the change in the fine structure, whic h is really a punitive measure against the retailers who maybe do not wish to be law abiding, and secondly the whole business of the written prescription, which was No. 3, so that the retailer who wishes to be above board and wishes to check with the parents or with the

92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 7, 1993 significant adult in a child's life can in fact go over to the telephone and make a phone call just like the druggist can do. So I really think that both of those things are workable and that. would be a big step alon g the way. Now I do not think that without, as I say, major change s we can solve the whole problem because I have cited it as being more deep-seated than just legislative. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: Just a question on that last point about the idea of a written prescription, would it go some distance to meeting that objective if we attempted to return Bill29 to the way that had been outlined in Bill 91 , where it was indicated that, first of all, there was an absolute prohibition in terms of selling substances to young people, and then outlined a number of conditi ons which were exceptions to the rule, one of them being a written note from parent or guardian? Would that go some distance to meeting your concern? • (2 01 0) Mr.

Hammond: Sure it would, because this would protect the retailer who wishes to be honest. When somebody comes in and says, hey, I want to buy some glue to fix my model airplane, he can say, well, just a second, I will just phone and check and see if you have been sent for that, or if, you know, this is something that has just happened because you were in the neighbourhood and needed this stuff desperately. So I really think that it would protect the responsible retailer who wishes to be as certain as possible that he is not violating the spirit of Bill 29. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Just a final thank you to Mr.

Hammond for his very excellent brief and for taking all this time to answer our questions. Thank you. Mr. Chair person : Thank you very much. Mr. Hammond. I w ill now call Debi Spence, Norquay Parent Council. Ms. Deb l Spence (Norquay Parent Council): Good evening. I hope you do not mind but my approach to this is on a more personal level, and it is due to having to two older siblings who were sniffers and solvent abusers. One is now on the methadone treatment program, and the other is on the streets in B.C., and we have not heard from him for about five years.

So if I get a little, I guess, quiet at times, it is because of the deep thoughts that I have on this issue. Through Barr y's presentation he br iefly introduced the area where I am from, Norquay Point Douglas, and the solvent problem which is very evident on our streets on a daily basis does have an impact. I really felt, although this is a real nervous experience right now, that from a parent's perspective and a person who has lived in the inner city and who is raising her five children, I needed to bring across my point of view.

Sniffing-a look at the historical background of sniffing from the urban perspective. Again, too, this is more or less my own personal observation through the years. In the mid-'60 s kids were already sniffing on the street corners and in the back lanes of Jarvis and Andrews, Jarvis and McGregor and under the Salter Street bridge. I know it has been renamed since. The many who were not treated progressed into harder drugs or were killed off by the streets. Some sniffers stated that the system, which did not help them, had in fact killed them .

I take that quote from Ken Lavallee [ph onetic] who was a friend of my oldest brother who was killed on Maryland Street. He was one of the two who were burnt in the house. In the '70s, as an outreach worker at the Main Street Project, I had witnessed the trend of prescription drug trading. Double doctoring was practised by the more coherent population. Those people who were not presentable enough to even enter a doctor's office continued abusing attainable products bought over the counter at stores. We used to dub this as the Manwin wine years.

As a young worker, I was 18 at the time, I was re-educated on what people would be pushed to drink when the liquor stores were not open. This is when I started seeing people drinking after shave lotion, rubbing alcohol, liquid paper, and this was the years when Lysol drinking first started. The end result was people falling into convulsions and seizures. Ambulances were frequent at the Main Street Project. Those who I knew that felt a sense of hopelessness with these addicting substances pur posely continued on their road of self-destruction.

I remember many of the streeters were warned that if they continued to sniff and to drink the substances that were destroying their livers, that they may just die the next time. Many just continued and did die.

July 7, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 93 Also at this time appeared the first baby hookers, as they were dubbed by the older workers on the street. They accepted sniff in trade for sex. Again, too, on a personal note, I remember the older street workers were telling me that they literally chased these young kids off the street, but there was just so many that they just could not chase them anymore. In the '80s there appeared a lethal liquid called liquid heat or canned heat. This was a mixture that contained lighter fluid as well as other substances. It was distributed by a store on Main Street.

This deadly mixture contributed to the death of a woman whose body was found in a dumpster right behind the building. Since there was no inquest, just the word of street people, the death and a few more were just passed over perhaps because they were only street people. In the '90 s I now see fami lies who are third-generation sniffers and substance abusers. If the children of these families are normal, they are usually removed permanently. On occasion the family is given a few chances to keep their children.

The end result of this action is that many other agencies, child welfare, Health and Justice, for example, are affected. The costs skyrocket. For example, to place a child with deformities in an institution costs more than $1 ,000 per month just for daily mainte nance, yet nowhere in this bill is treatment and preven tion mentioned. These should be prerequisites for any action. Again, the reason why I went into talking about the different substances is because in

Section 2, it just touches on the known substances that are publicized, but there were many others. Again, too, in the 70s there was a drug called rush that gave a quick high, and it was reported that it did damage to the brain because it was so quick, and the high was so short that people kept using it. It was literally frying the brain. Pro hibit ion on Cons umpt ion. When I read

Section 3(2), the question that first came to my mind was what about the unborn children carried by mothers who are solvent abusers and sniffers? I remember a case I had as a support worker in the '80 s where a juvenile mom was placed under house arrest at the Seven Oaks Youth Centre since she was a known solvent abuser. There should be written provisions to place this order on moms who cannot make responsible decisions so that workers at such institutions know what to expect. We were told at that time that we would be violating a person's rights, but what about the rights of the unborn?

This needs to be addressed in the legislatio n. Again, too, I mentioned previously about St. Amant, and a friend of mine who is a worker at one of the native agencies was saying that although there have been no studies, you just need to walk in there and see the amount of native kids that are coming into care and the number of children that are just written off because no one did any type of prevention or controlled the mothers who were solvent and sniff abusers. As an end result, these are lost children again. Blaming the Victim Approach - Charges Versus Treatment.

Section 7(2) focuses only on minors. Why focus on just a small age group of offenders? Age of recognition is too late for many. By 12 years old many children are already addicted. It is estimated 400 children are under Child and Family Services care for sniffing in Winnipeg, and count another 200 from the native agencies, Southeast Tribal Council, Awasis, Dakota Ojibway Child & Family and Anishinaabe. Many of the adults are known to have childlike behaviour, and those who serve this population are aware that such people do not have the skills to help themselves or to make decisions.

Therefore, they have to be looked after and cared for in the same manner as children. If sniff researchers were to follow cases of solvent abusers, they would find out that the judgments in cases of all involving such intoxicants are always "not guiltyw due to the accused not being responsible because of immaturity and not knowing what they are doing. Again, too, on a personal note, not too long ago I was involved with a mother whose children were abused by an uncle, but because he was a solvent abuser, a sniffer, he was found not responsible for his actions, so he was let go.

That has happened in several other cases. So again, too, they state, on one hand a person over 18 is an adult and has rights, but again, too, if you look at the native population, they have been treated under the colonial system where they have been taken care of. The persons that come in from a reserve expect handouts and expect you to treat them in a manner that you are looking after them, because that is the way they have been treated the past 500 years. Well, why not go a step further and help them through their addictions and help them so that they can become more responsible for their own lives.

94 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 7, 19 93 • (2 020) Again, too, when I was an outreach worker with the Main Street Project and I used to go into the welfare offices to try to ask for assistance for some of the people, they used to always ask me, well, why are you holding onto their hand, why are you here, why are you with them? I had to explain this is very intimidating for them. They have been used to a system where they just automatically get help. When they come to the city they are lost. They do not understand the process.

They do not understand they have to come out and fill out forms and request help and follow rules, because they have never followed that type of process before, and it has continued on. Programs for prevention must be explored. At Norquay School in 1991 , we had an eight-year-old and a nine-year-old who were already seasoned sniffers. We found there were no programs or treatment for these boys. It was two years ago when Winnipeg No. 1 did have a liaison worker. All she had time to do was just a brief counselling session and meet with the family.

There were just too many cases, and there were just no programs out there as follow-up. Since that time, that worker has gone, and there is no money to continue on with any type of counselling or any kind of support or treatment. In 1986, a street parent who lived a block away from myself had a six-year-old whom we believed to be only four years old since, due to the sniffing, he was developmentally behind. The boy could not talk and was-1 hope you do not mind the way I worded this-j umping around like a monkey. Bill 29 does not recognize these victims.

What happens to the young children who social servic:es does not come in contact with? This little boy was not in daycare. He was too young for school. No one would have found out about him. It was just that one time there was a big party, the police went in there and tfiey just could not believe this little boy, the way that he was acting. How many more kids are out there? Living in the Norquay area I see some of the families who once were on the street. They have moved up one step and are on assistance and have families.

At Norquay we find that we are almost like a second parent to these kids, because the parents continue on with their bad habits but to a degree that they are able to mai ntain their children and maintain a household, but the kids are lacking in so many other areas. Overall, this bill falls short in many places. I would recommend that the people who researched this bill should come to my community and watch the corner store sell intoxicants to the street people. They might also watch the zombie-like people who wander the streets. Children, of course, do this and in turn follow these models.

The researchers might also go to the St. Amant Centre and observe the alarming rates of aboriginal children born with abnormalit ies. These abnormalities are brought on by moms who are solvent abusers during pregnancies. Perhaps then this bill would be a bit more humanitarian if it looks at all of these concerns . After all, it has only been 30 years that solvent abuse has been destroying communities such as mine. As an urban native, I consider the Point Douglas area as my community.

I continually believe that I want to stay there, although there are many problems, and try to get across to the many other native moms and families in our area that we have to work together with many issues. This is just one. Mr. Chai rperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Spence, for a very excellent presentation. Would you be prepared to enter into dialogue or questions with the committee? Ms. Spence: Yes. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Thank you, Ms. Spence, for your presentation. I know it must have been difficult to give us a bit of the personal experience and the insights that you have had.

I would like to know, since you have worked so long in different capacities in this community of Point Douglas and you see on a regular basis people with serious addiction problems, addicted to different solvents and sniff products, where can you now refer those individuals? Where can you try to get them help in terms of treatment and rehabilitation and just helping them overcome this difficulty? Ms.

Spence: At one time, again, too, when I was at the Main Street Project, we used to talk to the people about giving their bodies a rest and at least going to the detox for a few days and then try to think out whether the y wanted to get into a treatment program. That was over 20 years ago. Now, that is not even an option for them to even straighten out their thoughts, because now the

July 7, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 95 detox unit, the beds are closed. Most of the programs that follow under AFM, the procedure is for a person to be toxified before they are into a treatment program. How can they be detoxified when there are no programs? So there is nothing. Again, looking at this bill, I thought at one point it looked like the adults had more services and more rights because at least they were picked up and put into a safe place. Now this bill does look like it is starting to follow that approach, but there is really no local treatment programs for them. Some will say St.

Norbert Foundation, but I really still believe their main focus is on alcohol abuse. They are still not really developed at the area with solvent and sniff abuse, so again, too, there is really nothing in the system. Ms. Wasylycla- Lels: You mention that with adults, at least they can be apprehended, or at least adults who are intoxicated can be apprehended and locked up in a detox centre. You say nothing like that is available for young people, although perhaps this bill might lead in that direction.

Is it not the case now that in fact, if services were available throug h Child and Family, there is provision in law for children who are intoxicated on whatever to be apprehended and put in a centre or a safe place for a time being? Ms. Spence: Again, too, you need a place for them to be detoxified at so that they can hear options once they get their thoughts together, because any time a person is withdrawing from drugs or alcohol, that is the last thing they want to do is start talking about treatment, because everybody knows that they are going to be sick.

They are going to be going through the shakes, withdrawal. How can you talk to them about what their plans are when they are sick? There has to be a whole plan of action in place for the youth to realize that there is something available for them. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: So your real concern is that they need a place for detoxification, they need a place for rehabilitation, they need a place for treatment, but do they need to be charged under the Young Offenders Act in order to get that place? Ms. Spence: No, again too, you look at the model that is in place for adults.

They have The Intoxicated Persons Detention Act. It would have to follow a similar type of process where they are in a lockup until they are sober enough and coherent enough so that they would not be doing any harm to themselves or out in the community, because that is the purpose of The Intoxicated Persons Detention Act, that a person is locked up until they are safe in the community and to themselves. There are still a lot of gaps.

I might mention, when I was an emergency worker with Child and Family, when we used to pick up adolescents, it was a frustrating thing for the emergency workers and for the police to be tied up picking up these kids, trying to find a place for them, and then on the other end, at the Youth Centre, they were annoyed. Once an adolescent was straightened up in their minds just from drinking, they wanted those kids picked up right away. They wanted them either returned to their legal guardian or placed in a foster home. So that is another thing that is going to have to be looked at.

If a child is picked up and once they are straightened out, the workers will be calling up and saying, where does this kid go? Again, too, there has to be a follow-up, more treatment or safe houses or some kind of system set up where the youths are sent to after they are withdrawn from the sniff or any type of solvents. • (2030 ) Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: If this bill, as it is written, passes and police then have the ability to pick up young people and charge them, what happens to them?

You have mentioned there are no places now, so what is going to happen to these kids who are suddenly charged with an offence which is sniffing or inhaling an intoxicating substance? Ms. Spence: For a youth versus an adult, they would say an adult can make that decision to go home, but again too, under The Child and Family Services Act, a child has to have a place to go to. Many of these kids do not have a place to go to. In the community where I am from, we are in the process of looking at two safe houses for children. Also, there is Pritchard Place Drop In, and there is Rossbrook House.

If something is set up where some kind of arrangements are made where these kids go into these places for the purpose of follow-up to deal with their addictions, this may be a route to dealing with the whole issue of helping these chi ldren make decisions about their addictions. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Just dealing now specifically with young people or minors, people under the age

96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 7, 19 93 of 18, if now they can be charged under this proposed legislation, there is really no place to go. As previous presenters said, probably that means they will go to the Youth Centre for a short period of time, because ther.e is no help there, and they will be out in a short while. So they go back to where they were, having had no help, no treatment, no whatever, but they have this charge. They have this record. What is that going to do to the person? Is it going to make that person say, gee, this is wrong, I am going to stop doing this?

Some have suggested, it is only going to add to their feeling of being a victim and just bury them deeper into escaping their problems. I am just wondering, what would your assessment be of provision in this bill that is going to charge these kids? There is no place to go, no place to get help, but they are left with this record on their name. Ms. Spence: Okay, I see your point now.

Basically, thinking over that and comparing it to the prostitution issue, it is another prevalent problem in our area, and also being on the advisory group of POWER and hearing from the women and just what charges mean to them, I think this is where a local advisory group could help out in either saying the child or adolescent has to do something in the community to contribute back, if it is a charge, if that is the way they have to carry it, or continue on with the bill, trying to see-okay, forward the case to a local justice advisory group such as what Anishanaabe RESPECT has in The Maples and seeing that they contribute something in their community or it is a prerequisite that they do something about the problem.

It is the same thing with AFM. A person with an alcoholic problem who wants assistance from welfare, they have to go through a process where they deal with the problem. The same thing with youth maybe; if they want a place to stay, if they want direction in their lives, then it would have to be required that they have to deal with their solvent and addiction ptoblem. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: Just on this whole issue, as you may know, when the previous legislation was drafted and presented to the Legislature and then passed three years ago, there was a deliberate effort made, after consulting with the community, not to include any provision to go after the user or the victim. The advice we were getting from people who worked in the community was, as long as there were no prevention programs, no treat ments programs, no rehabilitation programs, it would only make matters worse. Would it be your advice that we try to amend this bill before us, Bill 29, and try to delete the

section that charges the user? If that is your advice, do you have any words of wisdom that we can use to convince this Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and this government to go along with that kind of suggestion? Ms. Spence: I always make a parallel with other issues, and again, with the prostitution issue, when you see that they charge women and not the johns, it just seems so unfair. The same thing with the kids. You are blaming the victim. You may be charging the kids and letting the people who are selling the stuff get away with it.

Just this morning-! am helping with the summer program--at our corner, there were four, the kids call them, "rubbies" standing across from the store. One of the kids was asked what was in his bag, and he had his lunch because the kids were going on a field trip this morning. That kid turned white as a ghost, and he ran down the street.

This was what we were kind of fearing and watching, just to see if they were going to be approaching the kids, and trying to explain to the kids, because my kids being native and the people on the street were native, and explaining to him why native people have so many addiction probl ems, why the majority are living the lives that they do, and try to give them an understanding that they are not to blame. The ones who I really see to blame are the ones who are giving them the substances. Again, too, it goes back to the people who make money off of and use the people just for a few dollars.

I cannot get over that part of it. I still really feel strongly that it is the people who sell and use-1 hate to say my people, but that is what gets to me and keeps me involved. Ms.

Wasy lycla-L els : The government, in accounting for the delay in proclaiming the previous legislation and in justifying Bill 29 as being a more effective way to go, has said that this legislation is basically a compromise between going after all products, which is going to make life difficult for retailers and still getting at those individuals who deliberately buy the stuff in bulk and repackage it and sell it to people who are vulnerable. Is this bill going to make it possible to get at those corner stores and back-room dealers in your

July 7, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANI TOBA 97 community who are in the market, who are making a profit off of other people's weaknesses? * (2 040) Ms. Spence: Going by the information from Barry, because Barry and I are both with the Point Douglas Residents Association- and he is on the nonpotable drinking committee. Basically this was repor ted, and Barry rep orted at one of our committee meetings that it was reported and they were able to detect that the corner store was really buying a lot of Lysol.

The distributor in the States was able to also report back that, yes, Winnipeg is a high purchaser in their product. I guess they just, I do not know, at one point felt maybe we just like your product, but they realized it was a problem. I think too, just by knowing that there should be a way to monitor the selling of such products that people purchase just to abuse and to use and to get high on, I am just thinking, with our modern technology, there is way that purchasers and people who sell the products, there is more of a mechanism to monitor all of this.

So somewhere along the line, too, I think that it has to be followed up by the provinc e, just to be able to be a watchdog. Our local group, just by publicizing that we are taking a stand on it-1 had just heard that a new business on Isabel, a car wash, right by another school, is selling hairspray through the back door-this information is shared because they know that our group is taking a stand on this. What irritates me is, it is almost like a new business feels that this is a profit area to sell another substance to poor people and knowing that they can make money off of it, and that is the end goal.

What I am getting at is that word gets out, and I think that there is a mechanism of keeping a watch on what is being sold. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I would like to just follow up that point for a moment. That was the essence of my question earlier to Mr. Hammond, if he knew of any outlets, business places, in your community that were selling stuff that they would not normally sell, and you are telling me, in fact, you know of a car wash that is selling hair spray.

Now, hair spray would have nothing to do with the business of that car wash, but it is clearly taking advantage of a market opportunity and selling the stuff. Is there anything being done about that right now? Have the police looked into? Is there any action that can be taken with or without this legislation? Ms. Spence: At the local level, all we could do at this point was inform the residents of that area, if they could monitor this until we see what happens in this bill and see if, okay, once it is passed, what this person can be charged with.

At this point, too, as stated earlier by Barry, is that the police feel their hands are tied. I mean, what are you going to do? In our area, the police are just great. They were the ones who were staking out the store and went in a couple of times and were sold the Lysol. So they do what they can do, but the whole thing is, there are so many businesses. There are four up along the Main Street strip. Now, there are other areas. There is the Broadway area. There is the west-end area. There is the downtown area, the Central Park area. You know, there are pockets all over the city.

So, again, too, with the small fines that these stores have to keep it, I guess it does not justify the police manpower. But, again, too, it is because we have been so involved with this at our local level, that the police are doing what they can, even though the fines have been petty and has not deterred the business from stopping. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: It would, in fact, seem that the only action in terms of this very difficult issue has co me, not from government, but from community groups like your own, who have decided to take the matter into your own hands in a way and try to educate the public, try to spread the word about some of these questionable retailers and do whatever you can. You may reca ll, about three years ago, the government made a big to-do about its war on drugs, in fact, the start of a major task force headed up by the Minister of Education who is with us tonight.

In fact, maybe your group even presented and made a presen tation to that war on drugs task force or whatever it was called. Have you seen anything changed as a result of that big war on drugs, any new programs, any new approaches, any action coming from government that is making a difference in terms of your community and the problems you see with respect to drugs and alcohol and solvents? Ms. Spence: Again, too, I really feel it falls on the community and the local parent councils. Late into the school year, it was found out that some older

98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July ?, 1993 adolescents were selling alcohol to 1 0- year-olds. So when we found that out, we asked representa tives from St. Norbert Foundation to come out to our school. It was after that, that four more girls went to the school counsellor. We have had group sessions for two years now to talk on drug and alcohol abuse, because it has been realized that already in Grade 6, there are a few of the kids who are already telling you about hot knifing. It is not just our school. It is Machray. Also, I heard of another case in DL.

It was not anything from any action taken on the government level. It was the parent councils that had requested services, because they were aware that kids in elementary schools were already getting involved. So I really feel, at the larger level, we would be left out, because we are in the inner city. Again, too, hearings like that, we are so busy with dealing with the street drugs that we do not have time to go out an make briefs. So I did not even hear about it. I apologize, because I would have a lot to say on that issue also. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: You do not have to apologize.

I am sure your concerns were presented to this war on drugs task force. There were hundreds of presentations and hundreds of groups and individuals who appeared before this committee hoping for some action from the government. We have yet to see any sign of this war on drugs translating into anything real and meaningful.

Just in terms of your experience in the school in your area, in the education system, are there any new resources, new aids, new programs that have come forth from the Department of Education to help in terms of the prevention, on the prevention side of the equation, in terms of helping kids stay away from solvents and drugs and alcohol? Ms.

Spence: Again, too, being aware of the curriculum that is presented in the school, I still think that they have really limited elementary schools, because they do not believe that it is a concern at that level, which it is because a kid does not enter junior high and just get into abusing drugs. It has been developing slowly because they are all around it. We had a parenting group, well, it has been ongoing for two years. Moms were asking to be re-educated and find out what is happening within the community, through child welfare, through the police , et cetera, what they had to offer on drug awareness.

It was overall interesting that parents wanted to know because they knew their kids were getting in volved. Again, this is in elementary school, and they did not know how to talk to their kids about prevention. As I said, they were aware their kids were already dabbling in drugs. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I want to thank Ms. Spence for her very informative presentation and for taking the time to answer all of my questions. Thank you very much. Ms. Spence: Thank you. Mr. Chai rperso n: Thanks ver y much, Ms. Spence. Wayne Helgason, private citizen. * (2 050) Comm ittee Substitution Mr.

Jack Reimer (Niakwa): I wonder if there is leave for me to make a committee change, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chairp erson: Is the committee agreed to a committee change? [agreed] Mr. Reimer: I move, with the leave of the commi ttee, that the honourable member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Pall ister) replace the honou rab le member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) as a member of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, effective 8: 50, with the understanding that the same substitution will also be moved in the House at the appropriate recording in the official records of the House. Motion agreed to. * * * Mr.

Chairperson: I am sorry, Mr. Helgason. Do you have a written presentation? Mr. Wayne Helgeson (Private Citizen): No, I am presenting tonight as a private citizen. Mr. Chairperson: That is fine. You may proceed. Mr. Helgeson: I just want to, first of all, introduce myself quickly. My name is Wayne Helgason. I am currently the di rector at the Ma Mawa Wi Centre. I am chairperson of the Aboriginal Centre of Winnipeg Inc., the collection of groups who have purchased the CP station and who know that in the next few years, we really need to attend to this issue of solvent abuse. (Mr.

Jack Reimer, Acting Chairper son, in the Chair)

July 7, 19 93 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 99 I guess I became increasingly concerned over the presentations this evening, because I think the previous speakers have gone over the area very well in terms of the legislation. I suppose I would just like to share some thoughts in terms of the concerns I have about the fact that as a member of the aboriginal community and having worked in the inner city a long time with this issue, I believe we have already some of the statutory mechanisms in place. I believe we have an awful lot.

I think what we do not need are more children incarcerated within a system that does not understand sufficiently to respond to the nature and degree of problems they will be dealing with. We do not need any more young children in the Manitoba Youth Centre, with a Crown attorney shaking his head in the morning around what to do. We do not need any more children in the Child and Family Services system. With all due respect, it has not been effective. In fact, we have been hopeful that any form of response with respect to this issue might have been generated out of the health community. It is a health issue.

It is a poison. Having worked with many people who have been intoxicated or are part of tha t along the contin uum, it is absolutel y debilitating. It is the most scariest substance to have some body ingest, and the outcome is absolutely tragic and long lasting at tremendous costs to our social system but partic ularly our health system. So I am really concerned about this particular response and even some of the other considerations, because we do not need more systematized responses.

It is a health issue, and in this context of health reform, healthy public policy, the advent of the aboriginal community taking more responsibility and ownership, I think I am a little saddened we have not been brought into the discussions a little earlier. I think we have some interesting ideas, the health and wellness clinic that we are working on at the CP station. I have had personal experience, and let me just share that with you. I, about eight years ago, worked with a family, and sniffing was a component of the problem. The 12-year-old girl was not a sniffer, but her older brothers were.

I will suggest to you that for the most part, sniffing begins at a point in time as a group activity, and there are usually, in fact almost always, concerned people in that person's environment. I do not care if they are single parents or they are on welfare, or aboriginal or not aboriginal, in the inner city, there are concerned parents. They may not have all the tools to effectively respond, they may not be able to reach out effectively, but the resources that are there can and should be more effective. I would suggest that the Child and Family Service system and the Justice system has not met that challenge.

But there are people in the lives of these children that are concerned and, with the appropriate amount of support and education and encourage ment, would respond. I took a mother down to the, actually, at the time, Public Safety Building. She swore out a mental health warrant, and on the basis of a professional and a parent or a family member, that person was taken to the psychiatric unit of the Health Sciences Centre, and we had an opportunity at that point.

Unfortunately, much like the referrals I have made to the Alcohol Foundation of Manitoba, again the similar circumstance, the system at that point did not know what to do with this person who had been sniffing to the point that they were relatively incoherent, intoxified to the point where they were very debilitated. In the case of the AFM, they phoned me and said, well, I do not think we can deal with this person in group because we have to repeat everything so many times.

The other groups members, they had been charged with marijuana offences or something, but in contrast to the absolute damage that solvent abuse-you know, it is a terrible outcome for somebody who has submitted themself to that. It is a social and economic problem, and it is my feeling that the real solutions lie in that area in the context of a health and wellness approach rather than a punitive or judicial or even a social, a Child and Family response. I really suggest that strongly, having been in the system, worked in the Child and Family Service system.

At the Ma Mawa Wi centre, we have a bail supervision program which has been reduced as the minister knows, this year, but we also have services-and not just our centre, not just the Ma Mawa Wi centre . The friendship centre had that capacity as well at the community level. So I really caution against more development of more government responses because: (

a) for our community, it has not proven effective; (

b) I think there are solutions that exist at the community

10 0 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA July 7, 19 93 level, like some of the former presenters, but I mean some organizations that both understand some of the root causes, the social and economic, the hopelessness that some families and young people find themselves in, that drive themselves to this state of self-an n ihilation, and it is nothing more. In 1983 there was a documentary done by Jim Compton, aired on CBC, and it won an ACTRA award actually. But it had the chief medical officer indicating-and it did point, it was very clear, this is a health problem.

You know, I do not think we are going to deal effectively with it through Justice at all, and I do not think through Child and Family. It really needs to be integrated, as far as we are concerned, on the part of an integrated approach driven by Health . You know, this is a poison; people are ingesting it. There are community mental health and wellness issues attached. I believe that there is a beginn ing of an infrastructure in the inner city community. I think Debbie referred to some. There are others.

The Native Women's Transition Centre is in the process of developing the Ni Tin Away safe house, an alternative for the community to interact with those children and those families with the hopes that these children stay in the families they are in. It is really concerning that in the last eight years, the number of children in the care of Child and Family Servic es has more than doubled , permanently. The numbers of children in the Manitoba Youth Centre are still in excess of 80 percent who are aboriginal.

We are not getting anywhere, an d I do not see this le gislation, unfortunately, as being progressive and as really capitalizing on the capacity of the community to take responsibility to deal with so many of these issues in the holistic way it really needs to happen. Now it does not mean that in every case, every solution, and a partnership does not need to exist with respect to the police who can perform an important role as they do.

We have a Bear Clan Patrol operating out of the CP station who are young people who work in concert with the police, who I believe would be as effective as a middle-class social worker in Child and Family or a Crown attorney or a defence attorney in trying to deal with this. That is where we should put our resources and support, with people who know the problem, care about the problem, are in a position to do something about the problem, and we should do it with haste. You know, we have limited time for some of these children. (Mr.

Chairperson in the Chair) The development of a sports and recreation program in the inner city, as much as that might seem sort of off to the side-in fact, many of finest people in our community say that if it was not for involvement in sports and recreation in a positive way, they may be left to those other group activities and those other designs. I guess what I said when I was concerned, I was concerned about the whole context of this discussion, is thinking government can solve this problem by what government will do all by itself.

The Justice Department will not be able to solve this problem; Family Services will not be able to. The community, in partnership with those departments and the Health Department, may have a chance, in fact, not only in dealing in a treatment perspective, but putting in place some of those preventative infrastructures that are really important. * (2 1 00) I would just like to caution you that I know, from working in long standing in the community, not all children who are sniffing are from families whose parents do not care. They do. They care greatly. I have seen tears over the circumstance.

But what do they do with their 12-year-old who is hanging about? There is no other sort of opportunity for activity. It is really tragic, and I do not think I can contribute very well to comments upon the current legislation as proposed or even the former one, because I think we have a much broader problem to deal with in terms of this issue and the real difficulties so many of our children find themselves in. This was just a personal presentation.

I did not go through a process of consultation, although I know, and I think, that those from our centre at Ma Mawa Wi, those from the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg and those from the Indian and Metis friendship centre would share my thoughts in a general way. I am cognizant of the time. You have heard some excellent commentary previously, but I appreciate the opportunity just to share those thoughts and those cautions with you.

July 7, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 101 Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr. Chairperson, first of all, I wanted to thank Mr. Helgason for taking the time and presenting such a thoughtful presentation on this whole issue of solvent abuse. Just as a footnote, you should not worry about the time. We are prepared to be here all night. We think this is a topic that deserves serious consideration. We have waited a long time for the opportunity to have this dialogue, and we would like to give it the treatment it deserves.

What you said in your remarks really, in a way, touches on the dilemma that we are facing with this bill before us. Three years ago, after consulting with some of the people involved in the antisniff coalition and then people in the organization who became people against solvent abuse and others in the community, our intention was to try to address one part of the pr oble m.

Fully acknowledging that it was only a small piece of the whole issue, and not being able to really bring forwar d legislation that demanded government expenditure or government action in terms of health, education and social policies, we were limited to focusing on the legal side of the issue and so felt that in consultation with community people, we would try our best to at least restrict the sale of solvents to young people. That was the intention of Bill 91 , knowing it was not a perfect bill and that it was only a small part of the problem.

However, that bill, as you know, was not proclaimed, and we have waited three years to be able to address it again. Now we have been faced with a terrible predicament. A piece of legislation-it is almost like we have created a monster because, in fact, we are now dealing with a piece of legislation that does everything we tried to avoid, which was charging the victim. Now we are faced with this decision about what to do with this piece of legislation that really victimizes people twice.

It takes people who are victims of pover ty, homelessness and unemployment and has a potential of making them wards of the juvenile justice system without any promise of prevention, treatment, rehabilitation programs in place. I am wondering if you can give us any advice at this stage in the bill. I think the government is intent on pushing it through quickly. I am not sure how receptive the minister and his colleagues will be to amendments. We are certainly going to do our best. I am wondering if you could give us some advice dealing with this piece of legislation.

Our thoughts were th at we should perhaps at least tr y to convince the government to eliminate the

section that charges the user. I am wondering if you could advise on that and any other suggestions with respect to this bill. Mr. Helgeson: It has been our experience that it is regressive at this point to charge and put into a criminal justice system such an activity for youth, because it simply further complicates or substantiates the labelling process and the involvement, in a systemic sort of way, young people who begin to self-define. They understand who they are. They know when they are apprehended by the police and they are locked up. They begin to identify in a certain way.

That can play itself out in a very negative way. Rather, I really think that under the health approach, the health and well ness approach, which can be triggered by family and community people together and the Youth Centre, of course-we ran a bail supervision program for a while. What we were doing for the most part was supporting or assisting parents in meeting the standards of the court in terms of a release, whether it is a Crown, and we found that first of all, due to the location of the Youth Centre, the nature of the families with larger families often, it is very difficult to get out there.

It is really not a useful response to the circumstance. I will predict that it will have a very negative long-term implication for those young people becoming involved in the criminal justice system. No, it is regressive. I am surprised this justice system would want to do that yet again. I mean, the Youth Centre is often overcrowded, and they have difficulty dealing with the circumstances with which they are familiar, let alone having on their steps young people intoxicated or involved in sniffing. It is quite unique. Really, it.is unlike somebody involved in other form of substance abuse.

These people are very disoriented. They need medical attention. They need mental health support in a reasonable and an effective way, and I do not see why, in a period of what we call health care reform, this should not be a priority. So have I answered your question? Mr. Chairperson: Before we proceed, I would like to point out to the committee members that two

10 2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA July 7, 1993 more names have been added to the list of presenters. This is just in the general sense. I think it was the will of the committee at the beginning to put no time limit on the presentations. As the member ju�t pointed out a moment ago, we will certainly make available all the time that is necessary.

I would suggest to the committee members that considering the number of names that we have listed as presenters, it might be a courtesy to those presenters at the bottom of the list if we keep our questions and comments to the presenters at a minimum and allow the presenters to react. I would appreciate it if the committee members would co-operate. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Just on a point of procedure, I am wondering, after we finish questioning the current presenter, it has been pointed out that, for example, on Bill 3, there are no presenters, and rather than have staff remain he re for clause by clause that might perhaps not even take place, depending on when we adjourn the committee, I was going to suggest that after the presenter, we go into Bill 3 very briefly, deal with the clause by clause and go back into the current bill, because as I said, given the number of presenters, I am not sure when or even if we will get the clause by clause on the current bill, Bill 29.

But I was going to suggest that we deal with Bill 3 in clause by clause in the next couple of minutes. Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, with the suggestion of Clause 3, I was wondering if there are presenters for Bill 20 also. Mr. Chai rperson : Curren tly, there are no presenters for either Bill 30 or Bill 20. It is our common procedure, for the information of the committee members, I am sure you are all aware that as a courtesy to the public, when we do have presenters here, willing and able to present, that we hear them first before we move into the clause-by -cl ause consideration of the bills.

However, it is very much at the direction of the committee , if they wish to diverge from that procedure at the end of this presentation and deal with the other two bills. Do we have unanimous agreement for that? (agreed) * (211 0) Ms. Wesylycle-Lels: To Mr. Helgason, yes, you answered my question. It does not make it any easier. I know what lies ahead and the work that has to happen on the health care front.

I am wondering in that regard if you could tell us what proposals are at work in the community for providing programs and centres for individuals who need help with their addiction problems, their problems particularly relating to sniff and other solvents? Mr. Helgeson: Well, the approach by the aboriginal community and certainly the service organizations has always tended to take a holistic nature in terms of its description.

So rather than reinforce the labelling process, where we have a sniffing group, or we deal with any one particular problem and label it as such and therefore impart upon those involved a label, we usually take, to the extent possible, sort of a holistic approach. There are several proposals which have been submitted, both to the federal government, to the National Drug Strategy, in relation to dealing with individuals who are either involved in or predisposed to being involved in this kind of activity, the New Directions: Flying on Your Own training program.

We have taken over 400 youth through it, many of whom were referred due to the problem of involvement in sniffing. We find it works very strongly on the self-identity aspect. I still believe that the reversal through this will com e from the individual in the context of a supportive family, in the context of a caring and supportive community, and the institutionalized systems will have a more limited role than is being proposed through this legislation. So there are proposals of that nature to the United Way, to the National Drug Strategy, to the province itself. Ms. Wesylycle-Lels: I would like to know from Mr.

Helgason what kind of response he is getting from the Province of Manitoba to proposals for any kind of substance abuse prevention/treatment program. Mr. Helgeson: We are not altogether successful in relation to the adolescent prevention program submitted both to the Victims' Assistance Committee in the past and to the Family Services department more recently. Ms. Wesylycla-Lels: Mr. Chairperson, I thir.k that is an important issue to take note of. I am glad to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) is here to particularly take note of the proposals that have been submitted to government, even in his own

July 7, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 10 3 department, for youth treatment and prevention programs-- Mr. Helges on: Which includes the bail supervision program which, should this legislation come into effect, would be even more important to have in exi stence. But this ye ar, despite a proposal having gone forward to the Department of Justice, to enhance, as per the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry's specific recommendation which was that the Ma Mawi Centre's bail supervision program be expanded province-wide. I can report to you today that the bail supervision program does not exist.

It was cut last year in the cuts. It sort of flies in the face of the Aboriginal Ju stice Inquiry's very well-rationalized recommendations. Ms. Wesylycle-Lels: Could you tell us why the government cut the bail supervision program? Did they give any reasons? Is there an alternative they are suggesting? What is the rationale? Mr. Helegeson: Basically, the bail supervision program was an agreement between community & youth corrections, the inquiry initiative, and the Ma Mawi Centre. The department, through the senior, Mr. Thiessen and Mr.

Demers, did not feel they could-- there were cuts in their own department they did not feel they could extend it this year. Although we provide a very scale d-dow n supervision program, we no longer attend in the bail supervision capacity that we were able to do for three years with the support of the Core Area Initiative as a partner.

So, although the program was recommended by the department, and I know that, and that last year Treasury Board did make up some costs in relation to that program, we were instru cted by the department that we should discontinue it this year beginning April 1, '93, which has happened. Ms. Wesylycle-Lels: Yet, is it your estimation that programs like the bail supervision program actually make a difference in terms of breaking the cycle of addiction and difficulty? Mr.

Helgeson: What it would do is it would put an aboriginal worker onsite, and we dealt with over 50 young people who were incarcerated in the Youth Centre, back into contact in the community with a community-support plan involving the parents, involving a response from our centre. It may be New Directions, it may be other forms of treatment, but it was a very important mechanism, we feel, in diverting children, young people, from a potential for a life of institut ionalization, and certainly expediting them from being incarcerated in the Youth Centre for extended periods of time.

So I am sure that-it was a cost-benefit-it just was not, I guess, understood or appreciated by the department. Ms. Wesylycle-Lels: You mentioned also that you had presented a proposal for a youth substance abuse prevention program to the Victims' Assistance program, but you were turned down. Can you give us any indication why you were turned down? * (212 0) Mr. Helgeson: It was refused in 1990, 1991, and there was no rationale around it.

The Victims' Assistance Committee had looked at it, I believe recommended it, and I am advised that Treasury Board had decided that all projects that had been approved by the previous--there was a change in the terms of the membe rship of the Victims' Assistance Committee at that time. Ms. Wesylycle-Lels: Is Ma Mawa Wi Centre keeping that proposal before government and still looking for a response from government? Mr. Helgeson: Yes, we are. We are there and attentive to issues within not only Child and Family Services but the justice issues as well, as well as issues of education. Ms.

Wesylycla-Lels: So what you are saying Mr. Helgason is that if we are serious about doing something about the problem of substance abuse, then we should be putting a lot of our energy into convincing the government to support some of the programs you have mentioned like the bai l supervision program and the proposal for a youth substance abuse treatment centre. Mr. Helgeson: Absolutely. I know I might sound like I am speaking out of self-interest, but really I am totally convinced of the applicability and the effectiveness of those kinds of services.

Whether they are run by the Native Women's Transition Centre, the friendship centre, community groups, they really have the capacity to be effective when compared to some of the institutionalized models of service delivery. It will be illustrated over time, I have no doubt about that. It is just that who has the current vision and appreciation I am uncertain, but over time it has to be the only way to go because it is quite cost-effective.

10 4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA July 7, 1993 We are entering an era, I know, when I think we have reached a threshold in terms of what we can maintain in terms of the cost factor. There are 2,800 children in care in the city of Winnipeg; there were only 1,200 in 1983. Those are wards of the province. Our concern is, of course, the social costs and the personal and human costs. I know there is a dollar figure attached too, so we are watching the situation closely.

We have capacity at the community level through the groups, particularly the aboriginal groups that have established themselves, and we are moving into a framework now in the next few years through the Aboriginal Centre to really develop and deliver capacity in terms of health care, training and education and a legitimate response to reversing some of these social conditions. I assure you it is beginning. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I just wanted to thank Mr. Helgason for his presentation and say we appreciate what he and other members of Ma Mawa Wi Centre and the Aboriginal Centre of Winnipeg are doing.

We will try our best to keep our energies focused on the real issues at hand which are really health and well-being for all members in our community. Thank you. Mr. Hlckes: I just have a couple of questions for Mr. Helgason. One brief I was reading was from the Chamber of Commerce and in there they stated that they were not consulted at all and they were wondering why. As a lot of the newspapers when they report their stories and stuff involving people who have solvent abuse problems, a lot of the pictures and stories involve aboriginal individuals.

I would like to ask you, as your involvement with Ma Mawa Wi and the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, were your organizations consulted by the government pertaining to Bill 29? Mr. Helgeson: Not whatsoever. Mr. Hlckes: Do you know if any other aboriginal organizations were consulted by the government? Mr. Helgeson: I do not know if they have or have n ot. I really cannot comment. Mr.

Hlckes: I was very in terested in a new problem that you pointed out where a lot of the youth would, after being charged, more than likely be put into youth centres, and the reference you made to staff's ability to cope with a new problem. I am sure if they are going to do any justice to their centres there would have to be a ma ssive undertaking of appropriate training programs for the existing workers because they will be dealing with a whole new concept and a whole new issue. Without adequate training, I do not know how they

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-la6
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf la6.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ce44458e3f0138f6855997ebe4128058d61b52d2

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