LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, June 2, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker,
I beg to present the petition of Sara Dyck, Ken Reynolds, Elizabeth A. Smith
and others requesting the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the
Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to prevent the release of
individuals where there is substantial likelihood of further family violence.
Mr.
Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies
with the rules. Is it the will of the
House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned
THAT
your petitioner desires that The Winnipeg Bible College and Theological
Seminary Incorporation Act L.R.M., 1990 c. 217 be amended to change the name of
the Corporation to Providence College and Theological Seminary. The petitioner has changed its name from
WHEREFORE
your petitioner humbly prays that the Legislature of the
And
is in duty bound your petitioner will ever pray.
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr.
Leonard Evans), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House
and complies with the rules. Is it the
will of the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
The
The
citizens of
The
The
administration of the hospital has been forced to take drastic measures
including the elimination of the Palliative Care Unit and gynecological wards, along
with the layoff of over 30 staff, mainly licensed practical nurses, to cope
with a funding shortfall of over $1.3 million; and
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr.
Harper), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and
complies with the rules. Is it the will
of the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an
examination of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal
people; and
The
AJI delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the justice
system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and
The
AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self‑government and
the right of aboriginal communities to establish an aboriginal justice system;
and
The
Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of Canada, among many
others, also recommend both aboriginal self‑government and a separate and
parallel justice system; and
On
January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report, the provincial
government announced it was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the
recommendations; and
Despite
the All‑Party Task Force Report which endorsed aboriginal self‑government,
the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system,
an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are
solely within provincial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar),
and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies
with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition
read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
the Human Resources Opportunity Office has operated in Selkirk for over 21
years providing training for the unemployed and people re‑entering the
labour force; and
WHEREAS
during the past 10 years alone over 1,000 trainees have gone through the
program gaining valuable skills and training; and
WHEREAS
upwards of 80 percent of the training centre's recent graduates have found
employment; and
WHEREAS
without consultation the program was cut in the 1992 provincial budget forcing
the centre to close; and
WHEREAS
there is a growing need for this program in Selkirk and the program has the
support of the town of
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING
AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee
of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and
asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Mr.
Jack Reimer (Chairperson of Standing Committee on Private Bills): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to present the Second Report on the Standing Committee on
Private Bills.
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Private Bills
presents the following as their Second Report.
Your
committee met on Monday, June 1, 1992, at 3 p.m., in Room 254 of the
Your
committee has considered:
Bill
52, The Pas Health Complex Incorporation Amendment Act;Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation "The PasHealth Complex"
Bill
90, The Seven Oaks General Hospital IncorporationAmendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi constituant encorporation le "Seven Oaks General Hospital"
and has agreed to report the same without
amendment.
Your
committee recommends that the fees paid with respect to;
Bill
39, The Salvation Army Grace General HospitalIncorporation Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi constituanten corporation "The Salvation Army Grace
General Hospital"
which was considered on May 12, 1992, be
refunded less the cost of printing.
Your
committee also recommends that the fees paid with respect to the following
private bill be refunded, less the cost of printing:
Bill
90, The Seven Oaks General Hospital IncorporationAmendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi constituant encorporation le "Seven Oaks General Hospital"
All
of which is respectfully submitted.
* (1335)
Mr.
Reimer: I move, seconded by the honourable member for
St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I would like to table the '92‑93
Departmental Expenditure Estimates for the Department of Justice Supplementary
Information for Legislative Review.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 94‑The Statute Law Amendment
(Taxation) Act, 1992
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 94, The Statute Law Amendment
(Taxation) Act, 1992 (Loi de 1992 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives
en matiere de fiscalite), be introduced and that the same be now received and
read a first time.
His
Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been advised of the contents of
this bill, recommends it to the House, and I would like to table that message.
Motion
agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the loge to my right, where we have with us
this afternoon the Honourable Dr. David Carter, the Speaker of the Alberta
Legislative Assembly.
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon, Sir.
Also
with us this afternoon we have, from the
Also
this afternoon, from the Leaf Rapids Education Centre, we have thirty Grade 8
students, and they are under the direction of Suzanne Billing. This school is located in the constituency of
the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Constitutional Proposal
Delegation of Powers
Mr. Gary
Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Premier.
After
the Beaudoin‑Dobbie report was made public on March 1, 1992, the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) of this province stated unequivocally on national TV and in all of
the media of this province that he was absolutely opposed to the delegation of
powers in the federal government, and he went on further to describe the powers
that were being changed to the provinces that would reduce the federal
government to the status of a post office.
In
light of the material contained within the rolling draft and the other material
that is now in the public arena about the proposed constitutional amendments,
can the Deputy Premier explain to the people of Manitoba how the province feels
about the six proposed exclusive areas of jurisdiction to be moved over to the
provinces in an exclusive way, Mr. Speaker, and how that fits with the task
force report on the Constitution in calling for a strong national government
with a maintenance of strong national programs for the people of Canada and the
people of Manitoba?
Hon.
James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I do not
have to explain the process to the Leader of the Opposition.
There
are a number of processes and proposals that are on the table as it relates to
the whole constitutional package that has been discussed over the past many
weeks by my colleague, the Attorney General (Mr. McCrae). Many statements have been made. There have
been no final conclusions reached, and I would not expect to have to deal with
those until there is a final conclusion reached to which this Assembly and the
people of Manitoba will have the opportunity to make comment.
* (1340)
Mr.
Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister says wait until we
see it, but I think it is our responsibility to raise some of the issues out of
the public task force reports to ensure and to prevent material being contained
within the final proposal that is inconsistent with the public hearings in
Manitoba and inconsistent with the long‑term vision that Manitoba has
always maintained in terms of a strong national government.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) went on to say that if larger provinces take
over many services now offered by the federal government,
In
light of these statements from the Premier, in light of what is contained now
in the rolling draft, and in light of the fact that Manitobans want a strong
national government and do not want to see the massive delegation of powers to
the provinces, what is the position that this government is taking at the
ministers' meeting, and are they opposing this delegation of power as the
Premier indicated when the Beaudoin‑Dobbie report was released publicly some
two and‑a‑half months ago?
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into the
accepting of or the commenting on specific details relating to a rolling draft
that the member refers to.
We
are in a constitutional process which has been going on for a long time, Mr.
Speaker, and I can assure the member, I believe that the people of
I,
Mr. Speaker, would hope, and I say this genuinely, that as the process develops
over the next few weeks, that we can see a conclusion to these constitutional
discussions. I think the nation is constitutionally
fatigued, and I think we all should work to try to accomplish a successful
conclusion to those negotiations.
Spending Power Provisions
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I find it
rather ironic that the government is willing to comment on the various
components of the package and not comment about their position on the most
important issue in the constitutional proposal.
More
Manitobans in the Meech Lake process and more Manitobans in the all‑party
task force dealing with the Constitution raised the vision of a strong national
government with the ability to redistribute wealth and income across the
regions and across to individual Canadians.
Yes, we want a united
I
have a final question to the Deputy Premier, because the government is making
comments on parts of the paper and, obviously, today, will not make comments on
this part of the proposal. During the
I
would ask the Deputy Premier: In light
of the fact that they have stated publicly their position on certain areas of
the Constitution, what is their position on the spending power provisions? We would like to know and adjust our position
before we go into the ministers' meetings next week, rather than waiting and
reacting after.
Hon.
James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I believe
strongly, and I think the people of
Let
me tell you, I think it is unfair to ask today for comments specifically
dealing with certain parts of a process. We believe strongly and have
confidence in the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) who has been carrying the
provincial government's position forward, the task force's position forward,
into a process which I believe will work.
Mr.
Speaker, let us give it time to do that.
We are having some 10 days of ministers not getting together for, call
it whatever you like, a cooling‑off period or a time to reflect on what
has in fact taken place. I think when
they go back to the table after the officials have worked, we will then have
the opportunity to see what is accomplishable and what is not.
Communications Industry
Employment Statistics
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, while the Constitution is on the
minds of many Canadians, the issue of jobs and jobs for their brothers and
sisters and their families are on the minds of every Canadian. The communications industry is one of the
industries in
Today,
we have learned of another 50 or more people being laid off in the
communications industry. Television
stations have laid off people.
Throughout the industry, we are losing jobs.
Can
the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism or the Deputy Premier
perhaps tell this House how many jobs have been lost in this industry and when
this government is going to change course so that Manitobans can have jobs in
their own province?
Hon.
Jim Ernst (Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson), and he will report back to the House.
Mr.
Storie: Well, Mr. Speaker, the only good thing about
that answer is it is not the normal rhetoric we get from the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Question.
* (1345)
Economic Growth
Employment Creation Statistics
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same
minister or perhaps, preferably, to the Deputy Premier. The largest temporary services organization
in
Mr.
Speaker, when is this government going to change its economic course so that we
are creating jobs in
Hon.
James Downey (Deputy Premier): The member fails to
recognize that we have been in and have seen an international recession which
has caused, Mr. Speaker, a lot of restructuring, a lot of rethinking. In fact, we had to make some tough decisions
within the government process. Some
close to 1,000 positions‑‑and I say positions‑‑had to
be dealt with as it related to the cost imposed on the taxpayers to continue to
carry the size of Civil Service that we had.
But it is not all doom and gloom, as the member for Flin Flon should
note. In his community alone, there is
some $185 million being spent to upgrade the smelter, which is part of a
restructuring because of an environmental licensing which will create some 485
jobs at peak in his community this fall.
I
would appreciate at some point that he would come forward and acknowledge that
work that is being done, where in fact it is of a positive nature.
Tourism Industry
Government Initiatives
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier should know
there has been a 17 percent decrease in employment in the mining industry in
the last year.
Mr.
Speaker, my final question to the Deputy Premier: When we learned today that the Convention
Centre has a deficit of some $650,000 directly related to this government's
failed tourism strategy, can the minister explain what the government is going
to do to correct that strategy and to create opportunities for the people in
tourism industry who are also losing their jobs?
Hon.
James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member
refers to a drop in the numbers of individuals who are working in the mining
industry. There is no secret that we
were in the worst taxing position. We
had the highest taxes imposed on those people who were trying to carry out a
mining activity in
Number
two, Mr. Speaker, what we have done is, over the last five budgets, we have
frozen the personal income taxes. In
fact, we lowered the personal income tax and froze taxes on the business
community, which allows them to carry out a more competitive business in this
country.
Constitutional Proposal
Provincial Referendum
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier.
n his statement to the House yesterday, the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) acknowledged that the current talks have
become all too reminiscent of the entire
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Premier if his government will now
reflect on its position further and consider giving its support to our call for
a referendum, which would give the people of this province the final
straightforward say on a yes‑no proposition of the proposals when they
are in final form.
Hon.
James
We
have a process, Mr. Speaker, which was embarked upon and agreed upon by this
Legislative Assembly, to have a resolution of such a nature brought back,
debated, and then referred to the public for a public hearing process at which
everyone and anyone can proceed to bring their comments and their positions
forward. In fact, I would say it is national leadership as it refers to the
input of a constitutional change.
At
this point, that is a process that is in place.
I would be prepared to discuss further with my colleague who is in
charge of the discussions and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) as to any change in
that. But, Mr. Speaker, that is the
process which has been accepted by this Legislature and I think by the people
of
* (1350)
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, we have a million people in the
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Speaker, the member of the Liberal Party
may not understand how decisions are made and as leader of her caucus may take
an independent and individualistic role in the leadership of her party.
Mr.
Speaker, this government does not operate in that manner. It operates on a consensus of government, and
rules and policies have been established.
To change that takes a considerable amount of time, effort, input and
justification. I am sure that would be
an appropriate question, when the Premier returns, to put to him as to whether
or not he plans to direct and lead that kind of a process.
Mrs.
Carstairs: Unlike the Deputy Premier, I was at the last
Earlier
this afternoon, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), the Deputy
Premier, indicated that people were constitutionally fatigued. Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree. They are constitutionally fatigued, and
perhaps one of the reasons they are constitutionally fatigued is because they
know that they are going to have no final say in what their Constitution
says. The only way to ensure that they
will get over their fatigue is to give them a role.
Will
the Deputy Premier tell this House why the people of
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe for one minute
that this government plans to impose something on the people of
I
believe the process that has been carried out so far is one that has been
responsible, as it has been directed by this Premier (Mr. Filmon) and by our
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae). There
is not a proposal at this point, Mr. Speaker, that has not been proposed or
tabled before this Assembly or the people of
Lindenview Residence
Funding Decrease
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
The
Lindenview Residence, an agency run by the Salvation Army, provides programs
for teenaged mothers and their babies, which helps strengthen their chance of
success, to help strengthen the chance of those families who are among the most
vulnerable in our province becoming strong and being successful.
Will
the Minister of Family Services confirm today that he has decreased the per
diem to Lindenview Residence by 50 percent and he has eliminated entirely the
per diem to the babies who are in Lindenview Residence? There is no per diem‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Question has been put.
* (1355)
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, we fund quite a number of external agencies. I am going to have to take the question as
notice. I do not have that detail with
me. I do not believe we talked about
that in the Estimates process when we spent some time together, but I will get
the details for the member and report back to the House.
Ms.
Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we did discuss this in
Estimates.
Is
the Minister of Family Services aware that Lindenview Residence now has a
$50,000 deficit and is forced, because of the cutbacks by the provincial
government, to appeal to the Manitoba Milk Marketing Board and to private
diaper services to provide free milk and diapers for the babies in Lindenview
Residence?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we fund hundreds
and hundreds of agencies throughout the province. I will have to get the details on that
particular agency for the member. I
would say to the member, it is not unusual for many of the agencies in the
province to access funding from a number of levels of government, whether it is
municipal or federal or provincial.
This
afternoon, I was at the
Ms.
Barrett: Mr. Speaker, given that the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey), in a recent answer this afternoon, said, and I quote, tough
decisions need to be made within the government process, can the Minister of
Family Services state that a cutback to per diems‑‑the elimination
of per diems for babies at Lindenview Residence and the concomitant need to go
out and ask for free milk and diapers is part of that tough decision that this
government has made?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the member's
preamble, I have indicated that I would look at the situation and bring an
answer back to the House.
City of
Community Committee Role
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Urban Affairs.
Residents
in my community are quite concerned about the issues of video arcade and adult
video proliferation. Why has this
government consistently amended The City of Winnipeg Act so that community
committees which contain councillors who represent local interests are excluded
from input on decisions of this kind on video arcades, adult videos and other
matters of this kind surrounding variances?
Hon.
Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in the
session before this one, The City of Winnipeg Act was amended to have the first
judgment made on a variance or conditional use to be made by an appointed board
of the members of City Council. That is the only change that has been made. Currently, the appeal process from that is to
the elected representatives at City Hall.
This matter is entirely within the hands of the City Council.
Mr.
Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the same
minister.
The
minister is aware that amendments before this Legislature will now ensure that
there is no input whatsoever from community committees. Why is this government opposed to local
representatives having input on matters of this kind?
Mr.
Ernst: Mr. Speaker, there is no change having taken
place in Bill 78 than has happened for the past 20 years since The City of
Winnipeg Act was implemented. The same
appeal process is in place under whatever name you wish to call it. It is a committee of the central council that
hears the appeals. It was heard by the
committee of environment when it was called that. It was heard by the variance and conditional
use appeal committee when it was called that, and it will be heard by a
standing committee of council following the passage of amendments under Bill 78‑‑no
change in the past 20 years.
* (1400)
Mr.
Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
same minister.
Will
the minister not agree that at one time the initial applications were heard by community
committees and this bill will prohibit forever any input by local community
committees because of the wording of this legislation? It will not be allowed, and City Council has
passed a resolution opposing that.
Mr.
Ernst: Mr. Speaker, in the session of 1991, because
of amendments made to the act in 1991, the original application will be heard
by a board of adjustment. That was
supported by the City of
Conawapa Pamphlet Review
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
responsible for Manitoba Hydro.
This
morning in committee, I questioned the minister about a propaganda piece that
was put out by Manitoba Hydro with their April billings, the sole purpose of
which was to propagate the Conawapa project.
The title of the pamphlet was Conawapa and the Ontario Hydro Sale: A Good Deal for Manitobans. The minister said he would review the
pamphlet in order to assist this review.
I am going to table a copy of that pamphlet today.
This
morning, the minister set down two criteria for the acceptability of Manitoba
Hydro's use of its monopoly to propagate anything. He said:
Firstly the information has to be for the purpose of telling Manitobans
what they are doing; secondly, it has to be fact.
My
question for the minister is: Given that
this pamphlet meets neither of those criteria in its statement that the
environmental impacts from the project are minimal, will the minister now
acknowledge that statement of opinion by Manitoba Hydro succeeds on neither of
those fronts, and that Manitoba Hydro should be advised of that?
Hon.
James Downey (Minister responsible for The
On
the whole point of whether or not Conawapa is a good deal for Manitoba, we
believe that it has gone through the proper process, determining the financial
side of it, Mr. Speaker, as being a very viable project, and something that has
never happened before, there is a complete environmental review taking place of
both the Conawapa dam structure itself and the Bipole III, which will carry the
power south to Ontario.
Mr.
Edwards: I remind the minister that this government
gives Manitoba Hydro a monopoly.
On
what basis does this minister defend a statement twice in this pamphlet, that
the environmental impacts of Conawapa are minimal as fact‑‑purporting
to be fact‑‑when the environmental impact review has not even
begun? Why will he not give his words
about‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Downey: Mr.
Speaker, unlike all previous activities carried out by Manitoba Hydro on
northern development, we are going through a complete environmental review
process for licensing of the work that is being proposed by Manitoba Hydro,
something that has never happened before.
As
it relates to the expression of what the Hydro management feel in the document
which has been circulated, Mr. Speaker, I said I would refer to it. I would see if it is in fact in any way
inappropriate and improper.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Speaker, when the minister concludes, as
he no doubt will when he reviews the pamphlet, that Manitoba Hydro has
improperly set out to undercut the environmental review process, will he ensure
that in the next monthly billing of Manitoba Hydro a similar piece from the
environmental perspective be sent, giving the other opinion to set the record
straight, that not all Manitobans are‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr.
Downey: What I have the biggest disappointment in is
the Liberal Party in this Legislature, in this province, solidly opposed to a
project that will provide some $700 million in bottom‑line profits to
Manitoba Hydro, the creation of some 22,600 person years of jobs to build and
develop the project, after it has gone through a complete and total review,
both on the financial side and the environmental side, Mr. Speaker. I am extremely disappointed.
I
am sure that the previous forerunners of this Liberal Party, who were
responsible for rural electrification that drove this rural economy, that made
Manitoba what it is today‑‑I think they should be extremely
disappointed and would be extremely disappointed in the approach taken by this
current Liberal Party.
Crop Insurance
Big Game/Waterfowl Damage
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
Can
the minister give this House his assurance that the same adjustments will be
made so that farmers' averages will not be dragged down because of wildlife,
big game or waterfowl damage?
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, we
discussed this question in Estimates, and I assured the member that we were going
to take that question forward to the national signatories committee for a
ruling on it Canada‑wide as to how we can deal with those particular
situations that are to the betterment of the producer. That process is underway.
Ms.
Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the minister says it is before
the signatories committee. Can he
intervene on behalf of these farmers since he was able to intervene for lentils
when there was a mistake by government, and there was too much coverage? Can he intervene for these farmers who have
no consequence, no control over the damages?
Mr.
Findlay: Mr. Speaker, in both the case of waterfowl
and large animal damage, compensation is paid in the year that the damage
occurs. That rule still applies, and the
member is talking about the impact on long‑term yields that apply to the
producer. All that I can assure the
member is that I will ask the signatories committee for a ruling on it as we
asked the signatories committee for a ruling on the lentil question.
Ms.
Wowchuk: There are other people in crop insurance who
are having problems and there are those who are not in crop insurance before
GRIP came in. Will the minister give
these people a chance to prove their case if they have records of their good
crop rather than doubting that their records are accurate? These people have sound records and the
minister is‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr.
Findlay: Mr. Speaker, with regard to that question,
there is a province‑wide crop insurance review ongoing with 10 members
appointed from all over the province. A
member from her area is on that, and they will be reporting and making
recommendations plus many, many questions that are being brought forward by the
producers across this province in the numerous hearings held by the committee.
Federal Trade Tribunal
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker‑‑[interjection!
Tempted as I am to ask why and sit down, I think I will preface it with a
question.
Mr.
Speaker, some time ago I brought before this House a case of three Manitoba
cabinetmakers who have, as a result of an inequitable application of tax law
federally, been denied some $500,000 in rebates. When I raised this question with the Premier
(Mr. Filmon), he said the Department of Finance was looking into it and would
act to assist these three cabinetmakers.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance: What action he has taken on
their behalf?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the three cabinetmakers, or at least the person who is representing the
group, we have engaged in some discussion with federal revenue
individuals. We have also sent a
strongly worded letter of request that the federal government reconsider its
decision, and we are awaiting a reply from that letter.
Mr.
Alcock: I am wondering if the Minister of Finance can
table the letter he sent to the Minister of Revenue federally.
* (1410)
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I will look at the letter. On the surface, I have no problem with
providing it, although I will have to look into the advisability of doing that,
of tabling that one.
Mr.
Alcock: I am wondering if the Minister of Finance can
explain to us why it has taken some nearly four months to respond to this
concern.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the
representative of the cabinetmakers, there were certain allegations that had
been made, and when allegations are made, one has to determine the substance
behind them. We had to, obviously, look
into the history of the case. We also
had to apprise ourselves of a decision that supposedly had been made, a
favourable decision, for cabinetmakers in other parts of the country. We had to look into all of that to determine
whether or not we had a legitimate request to the federal government.
We
have done that, and that has taken some considerable time. I can assure the member that we are not going
to act unilaterally on our own, outside of the federal government, taking the
positive action that he and indeed the government of
Social Assistance
Food Allowance
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): This government and their philosophy of
"prosperity is just right around the corner," is repeating the same
mistakes of the Liberal and Conservative governments during the Great
Depression that had no money for human need but found great sums of money to
fight a war. We now have a new food bank
in Ile des Chenes and Lorette, and in September there will be a food bank in
I
would ask the Minister of Family Services:
What is his government doing‑‑
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Mr.
Martindale: Can the Minister of Family Services tell the
House and the thousands of Manitobans who are forced to go to beg to food banks
to survive what he is doing to make sure that they have an adequate amount of
assistance so they are not forced to go to food banks?
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): We
have had a chance to talk about the many reform procedures that we have
embarked on in social allowances this past year, and I am pleased to review
them with the member. While other
provinces have not been able to increase social allowance benefits, we have
increased our benefits by 3.6 percent.
We created a new program this year for the disabled at a cost of some $8
million to the government of
We
have also‑‑and I recall the member's hardy support for changing the
tax credits to allow them to flow on a monthly basis. We have also increased the liquid assets
exemptions to put us in line with what other provinces are doing. There has been a considerable amount of work
done in the whole area of social allowances this year to provide more income
for those unfortunate people who are on social allowances.
As
well, we have passed through the system the GST rebate, and I remind the member
that the federal government has recently come out with some new programs to
revise the family allowance situation for families in Manitoba.
Bill 70
Justification
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, there is one area where the
government is not bringing in improvement but is actually bringing in something
that is regressive, and that is Bill 70.
Why
is this minister going ahead with Bill 70 when the City of
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):
Well, the member chooses to misrepresent Bill 70 here in the
Legislature. The bill does two
things. It sets a standardized rate
across the province, and it provides equal access to the program for all of
I
would remind the member that the report brought to government by the SARC
committee was made up of Councillor Gilroy from the City of
The
member chooses to talk about rates in the city of
Mr.
Martindale: Why is the Minister of Family Services going
against the advice of the SARC committee which recommended municipalities be
allowed to exceed the minimum provincial rates, instead refusing to cost‑share
anything above those new rates which are already inadequate? In the case of the city of
Why
is this minister forcing the city to choose between punishing recipients or
punishing property taxpayers?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Again, the member is misrepresenting Bill 70.
The legislation that is proposed does not have to do with rates at all.
I
would remind the member that the City of
The
City of
Mammography/Chemotherapy Services
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Some two weeks ago, our Health critic raised
the concern in this House about the status of chemotherapy, mammography and the
specialists' clinic at the
Mr.
Speaker, these are all valuable northern community services, and the hospital
has indicated that unless it receives word soon from the provincial government
it will have to cease the operation of those services within the next month and
a half.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs whether he has discussed
this matter with the Health minister and whether he can now announce a
commitment on behalf of the provincial government to maintain those valuable
services right in northern
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, unlike the
previous administration, this Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), whether it is
the provision of dialysis machines in Thompson, the provision of specialists in
Thompson from some less than a dozen to some 20 doctors in Thompson in our term
of office, we are committed to providing services in the North.
As
far as the direct question is concerned, I will take it as notice for the
Minister of Health.
Mr.
Ashton: Well, in fact, Mr. Speaker, will the
government be doing what it did in the case of kidney dialysis where the Kidney
Foundation provided a dialysis machine, and they provided the funding that
helps provide the operating of it‑‑will they do the same now for
chemotherapy and for the mammography unit, which was the result of fundraising
efforts by the community of Thompson which raised more than $300,000 for that
badly needed medical equipment in Thompson?
Will they support the community of Thompson?
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Speaker, we have demonstrated our support
for the city of
As
far as the question specifically is concerned, I will take it as notice for the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
Highway Construction Program
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Finally, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of
Northern Affairs also be relating concerns of many northerners to the Minister
of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) about inadequacies in terms of
highways construction, most particularly the horrendous situation with 391,
where there are almost daily accidents on that highway, while the minister has
budgeted highways construction budgets for virtually everywhere else in the
province, except that particular area?
Will
he intervene on behalf of northern Manitobans in that area?
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I can
assure the member that this government, whether it is highways, whether it is
hydro provision for our northern communities, whatever areas, has carried out
with limited income, in fact revenues that have been flat, programs in a very responsible
manner and will continue to do so.
Mr.
Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
* (1420)
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before we
move into Committee of Supply, I wonder whether or not you would determine
whether there is a will to waive private members' hour.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour? No, leave is denied.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous
consent of the House to waive the Estimates order. What I propose today, after consultations
with the opposition House leaders, is that the Estimates of the Department of
Justice and the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry be considered next in sequence after
Education and before Urban Affairs.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave of the House to alter the
sequence to bring Justice and the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry forward? [Agreed!
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House
resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her
Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Northern Affairs, and for Seniors Directorate; and the
honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department
of Justice.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
NORTHERN AFFAIRS
* (1440)
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This afternoon this section of
the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the
Estimates of Northern Affairs.
When
the committee last sat, it had been considering item 4.(c) Aboriginal
Development Programs on page 136 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass‑‑pass.
[interjection! That is Resolution 112.
Resolution
112: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,956,600 for Northern Affairs, Native Affairs
Secretariat, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993. Shall the resolution pass?
Mr.
Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Yes, I think we stopped
here last night to further consider the Estimates in this regard and the Native
Secretariat.
I
wanted to ask some questions on the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, because it is
part of the Native Secretariat. I think
those issues are being discussed today in the Chamber. I think it would probably be more appropriate
to discuss those with the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae).
But
I would ask the minister to consider the direction that we are heading in terms
of aboriginal people getting the recognition of the inherent right to self‑government. As you know, the all‑party task force
on the Constitution has recommended that the inherent right to self‑government
be recognized in the Canadian Constitution.
I would ask the Minister of Native Affairs to support that direction in
terms of recognizing that aboriginal people do have the right to self‑government.
We
have asked continually of the government to pursue that and also to establish a
separate or parallel justice system for aboriginal people. I would ask the minister to support that
direction. I would welcome his comments
on that. I know that this process is
going to take some time, but I think that is a goal that we are trying to
achieve.
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
I will be brief.
Our
government's position has been put forward through the task force report to the
constitutional series of meetings that are taking place, that being the
inherent right to self‑government for aboriginal people within the
Canadian Constitution.
Number
2, our position has well been stated as it relates to a separate justice
system, one which would take the support and move by the federal government to
accomplish. At this point we have not
got that agreement to, in fact, establish, and so it is not being proceeded
with.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Shall the resolution pass? Pass.
Page
137, item 5. Expenditures Related to Capital (a) Northern Communities
$2,379,600.
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one of your
objectives is to provide funding for the departmental capital infrastructure
program. Can the minister tell us what
capital infrastructure programs are in place and what are the amounts for each
program?
Mr.
Downey: It has been the responsibility of Northern
Affairs over the past number of years and the member for Rupertsland would be
familiar with this. In our nonstatus
communities, we have carried out the responsibility to upgrade, to continue to
upgrade the water supply systems, the sewage systems where capable, fire system
supports, generally infrastructure in the broad sense of the word, to generally
improve the quality of living conditions in many of our communities.
We
currently have approximately $95 million invested in our Northern Affairs
communities. This further is an
appropriation to continue to both upgrade and to complement that which is
already out there.
Mr.
Gaudry: You also say to transfer the responsibility
of project delivery of infrastructure to the community. What communities have been passed on the
responsibility of project delivery?
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, all communities have
that capability, and we, quite frankly, encourage it.
Mr.
Gaudry: I know that all communities have the
capabilities, but what communities have been given the responsibility to look
after the delivery of their own infrastructures?
Mr.
Downey: They all have the ability to carry it out,
and as far as those that have been given that, they have all been given
it. It is a matter of some maybe not
wanting to carry out the delivery themselves.
So we start from a basis of 56 communities have the capabilities. How many have not participated in wanting to
do that? I will get the number for the
member.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, to further complete that answer: Out of 94 projects that were delivered this
year, 58 were delivered by the communities participating, or 62 percent.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Item 5.(a) Northern Communities.
Mr.
Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I only had a couple
of questions on Capital, and I was interested in getting information from the
minister on capital projects. I know, I
am sorry I was a little bit late for the meeting. I think he may have explained it already, and
if he has, I apologize.
But
I would still like to have the minister explain to the committee the budget
allocation: how it is carried out; what
is the criteria that is being used by the department when allocating capital
funds to the communities; and also, what autonomy the local communities have in
the administration of capital projects?
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the budget process is
the department meets with the communities to determine the kinds of projects
that they want to carry out. The level
of service is based on population plus upgrading in a responsible way the level
of service that each community has. We have
different levels of service to different levels for different communities based
on basically population.
We,
as I said, meet with the communities on an annual basis to go over their
requests and determine the availability of funds to, in a balanced way, bring
the services up to certain standards.
Mr.
Lathlin: Let us take
That
is to say that when, for example, work is going to be tendered out, practically
everything is done by the department, although I guess the community council,
mayor and council have some sort of input into the decision making as to who is
going to get the contract.
Perhaps
I could ask the minister to explain to the committee how that process works‑‑the
invitation of bids and how the contracts are decided, like who should get it, et
cetera.
* (1450)
Mr.
Downey: I could get a little political on this, but I
normally do not with my colleague. I
guess when he refers to Moose Lake, under the previous government very little
had been carried out on behalf of the community of Moose Lake, and there was a
tremendous need there. We have responded
to that need, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Again, I am pleased that we have.
Last
year there was some $300,000 spent on sewer and water. The community was in
discussion with the department as to the selection of the people to
tender. Apparently the community wanted
someone different, but at the end analysis the lowest tender was the one that
was accepted, which we think is appropriate and proper.
This
year, again, remember the party and the government that are doing this, one
that he decides to sit in opposition to and by the way voted against when it
came to the budget, we are spending some $275,000 on a continuation on Phase II
of the upgrade for
Last
year the council was not in agreement, because we accepted the lowest tender
and they wanted someone else. This year
we still accepted the lowest tender and it was in agreement with the community
council. So, I do not mind admitting
that there have been some differences.
The point is, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, where would they have been if we
had not been in government and proceeded with this project? Would they have still been sitting there without
the supports as they sat for so many years under the New Democratic Party?
Mr.
Lathlin: The minister can get political whenever he
wants; nobody can stop him. All I am
interested in doing in this committee is to get information and relay some of the
concerns that were passed on to me by those constituents. So it is my responsibility to ask questions
of the minister and, hopefully, get answers.
If he wants to get political, I mean that is his prerogative.
Getting
back to the capital process, the infrastructure that is being installed, I
understand that is only the base infrastructure, meaning that only the main
lines are installed and any links to individual homeowners are left up to the
individual homeowners. But if there are
any government buildings within a community, those are linked up to the main
line. Is that right?
Mr.
Downey: Yes.
Mr.
Lathlin: Then why install a line in a community when
individual homeowners are not able to link up to the main line? I mean, that
was the question that they put to me.
They said, you know, Oscar, this line is no good to us because we cannot
afford to hook our homes to the main line.
The only buildings that are hooked up to that line are those government
buildings.
Mr.
Downey: I guess if the member is advocating this,
does he want me to stop Phase II and not proceed with the main line. Is that what he is recommending to this
committee, that I not proceed with this project?
Mr.
Lathlin: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I am asking
is: Are there any plans to hook up
individual houses to the main line? Why install a line there if nobody can
afford to hook up to it other than those government buildings that are there?
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I want the
member to say is that he supports the installation of this project. If he does, then I am prepared to
proceed. Is he saying that he does not
want us to do it?
Mr.
Lathlin: I am asking the minister some questions and
then he comes back with a question. I
think the minister has a responsibility to answer the questions that I am
asking instead of trying to be cheeky about it and turning around and asking me
questions.
He
knows darn well that I support whatever development that will enhance the
aboriginal communities in the North or any community, whether they are
aboriginal or nonaboriginal. He has seen
me speak out when I was a chief. I spoke
for my constituents when I was a chief.
I negotiated with governments. He has seen me here in the Legislature
for almost two years now, and I have never been shy to speak up for my
constituents.
Of
course, I will support whatever development that is being planned that will
enhance the lives and the well‑being of those people who live in the
North. I just do not appreciate the
minister's cheeky attitude, you know, when I ask these questions. Maybe he should answer my questions now.
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I apologize. I certainly did not intend to be cheeky. I was trying to get information from the
member. I am pleased that he does
support it because development is important, and it is important to the long‑term
living conditions of the community that he speaks.
We
are working out with the CMHC as to how we might be able to support, in some
way, the hookups of some of the houses, because I do not disagree with
them. It would not make a lot of sense
to put in the central line infrastructure and then have no one hook up to
it. We are trying to work that out, but
one has to be aware of the fact that there are additional dollars that have to
be put in either through CMHC and/or from government. If you do it in one community, you have to be
prepared to do it in others.
I
guess what I am telling the member is, I hope to be able to see an agreement
worked out so that the majority of people, particularly the elders and most
people whom we expect to live in those areas, have a lifestyle and a quality of
life that is acceptable. That, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, again is why this government has spent some $575,000 in the
Mr.
Lathlin: I think it was an opportune time for this
government to take advantage of the Department of Indian Affairs going into
But,
as I said, the minister can get political all he wants whenever he wants to,
but I think if I were in his shoes at the time that the federal dollars were
rolling into
My
last question, I guess, to the minister is:
When does he see or is planning at what stage in the future would we see
the community of Moose Lake, after arrangements have been worked out with CMHC
for those individual homeowners, to be hooked up to the main lines?
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can make no
commitment on that. I guess it is still
being worked on. Again, the member
refers to the federal monies flowing in.
We did take advantage of that opportunity to go to the Metis community
with the sewer and water, and that is what this is part of is a federal‑provincial
agreement with both the band and the community.
I will pass on the compliments to the Prime Minister that he is happy
with the federal Conservatives for their support of
* (1500)
Mr.
Lathlin: That is all.
Mr.
Gaudry: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I see there is a
decrease of $100,000 in the Community Access and Resource Roads. Could the minister tell us why?
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it was the deferral
of a resource road for this year.
Mr.
Gaudry: Which one?
Mr.
Downey: The one that is not going to be built this
year.
Mr.
Gaudry: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is like his vacant
position. He is going to skate around
the issue again and not answer the question, like the member for The Pas says.
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is the one at
Peonan Point.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Item 5.(a) Northern Communities $2,379,600‑‑pass.
5.(b)
Community Access and Resource Roads $235,000‑‑pass.
Resolution
113: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,614,600 for Northern Affairs, Expenditures
Related to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993.
Mr.
Gaudry: Just in closing, I would like to thank the
minister and we are looking forward to the information that we have asked in
the last few hours of Estimates that they will be provided within the next 24
hours. I would like to thank the staff
for their co‑operation and appreciate what has been accomplished in these
Estimates.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Is the resolution passed? The resolution is accordingly passed.
The
last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Northern
Affairs is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary. At this point, we request that the
minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.
Item
1.(a) Minister's Salary $10,300‑‑pass.
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just again, I want to
acknowledge the work of the staff and the committee in the Estimates
today. I put it on the record last
night, but I will do it again. I want to
thank the work and effort of Brenda Kustra who is leaving the Department of
Northern Affairs to go to the Director General's job with Indian Affairs
Canada, and we wish her well in her future endeavours. Thank you.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Resolution 109: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $3,077,800 for Northern Affairs, Administration and
Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
This
completes the Estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs. The next set of Estimates that will be
considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates for
Seniors Directorate.
Shall
we briefly recess to allow the minister and the critics the opportunity to
prepare for the commencement of the next set of Estimates? Recess 10 minutes.
SENIORS DIRECTORATE
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): We are now commencing
consideration of the Estimates for the Seniors Directorate. Does the minister responsible have an opening
statement?
Hon.
Gerald Ducharme (Minister responsible for Seniors):
Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
It
is my pleasure at this time to discuss the activities of the Seniors
Directorate over the past year and present a brief overview of their coming
year.
It
has been my first complete year as minister responsible for Seniors, and I am
endeavouring, with the assistance of the Seniors Directorate, to continue
enhancing the quality of life for
Studies
show us this growth will continue, and by the 21st Century seniors will comprise
a majority of the population. The fact
supports my belief that we must continue our efforts in exploring and
addressing the existing issues and needs of senior citizens in our society and
anticipating the changing needs and expectations in coming years.
Through
the Seniors Directorate and its outreach offices in The Pas and in
Our
Seniors Information Line, which commenced operation in September of '89, has
seen a steady response from the public.
It receives approximately, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 150 calls a month
from seniors in all parts of the province.
The aim of our information line has been to minimize the number of calls
that seniors are required to make to access information. This often necessitates staff making a number
of calls to find the solutions. The
difference is that the calls are made by staff rather than by seniors. During the past year, the directorate has
investigated a wide range of issues at the request of these seniors, such as
housing, health, transportation and finances.
In
our efforts to identify and meet the needs of Manitoba's seniors, the
directorate staff has been consulting with groups and organizations such as the
CPR retired employees association, Canadian veterans association, Manitoba
Society of Seniors, Age and Opportunity and the St. James Seniors group, to
just name a few.
They
have also been strengthening their contact within the multicultural community
through working with organizations such as Ethos Multicultural Seniors
Coalition of Manitoba, Hindu Seniors society, the Filipino seniors and the
Franco‑Manitoban seniors. This
effort has been carried out on a province‑wide basis, as evidenced by
their meetings with rural groups such as Brandon Seniors for Seniors Co‑op,
Interlake regional seniors council, Gimli seniors, Steinbach New Horizon
seniors and the Flin Flon seniors.
The
directorate is working with the native seniors groups such as Opasquiak Reserve
seniors and the Ke Ki Nan seniors project as part of their effort to ensure
that voices of all Manitoba's seniors are heard.
These
are only examples of the various seniors organizations and groups that my staff
and I have met with over this past year in our efforts to interact effectively
with our seniors.
The
directorate has been actively maintaining and expanding its contact within the
government. As a member of various
committees, it has been working with the Departments of Health, Housing,
Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Justice, Family Services, Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship and Education on special seniors‑orientated projects. For example, as a member of the steering
committee with Health in the assessment of services to seniors, we have been
working to ensure health care issues are being addressed adequately.
My
staff has been working with the Multiculturalism Secretariat and Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship on multicultural seniors issues. The directorate is chairing a committee
comprised of representatives from seniors, community and government, which
looks at transportation proposals.
* (1520)
The
directorate meets with federal, provincial and territorial counterparts on a
regular basis and has ongoing dialogue concerning new initiatives taking place
in the provinces.
The
directorate has planned, organized and facilitated two conferences on elder
abuse in the past year. These
conferences were our response to requests received from seniors and service
providers for more education. The first
conference in
At
this conference, the director began working on a crucial area of elderly abuse
protocols. They will be working with
seniors, service providers and government representatives over the coming year
to develop protocols for use throughout the province.
Our
major initiative over the past year was the production and promotion of an
information package on financial elderly abuse.
This package was produced by working in partnership with the federal
government and with the Canadian Bankers' Association.
In
these years of restraint, it is vital that we, as a government, work closely
with other levels of government and with the corporate sector on mutual
concerns.
I
am proud to say that this video, which was named Standing Up for Yourself, has
been very well received across
I
must say that it was done in both Canadian languages. I know my member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry)
appreciates the "francais" and I did too. I think the actors and actresses who were
involved in it were from, I know, an area quite dear to the St. Boniface
member's heart, who did a very, very good job and ought to be commended on it.
This
video package has indeed proven to be a valuable tool in assisting seniors in
recognizing and preventing financial elder abuse. The four scenarios in the video present
seniors in a positive take‑charge style which seniors can relate to. It reinforces the belief that seniors can
indeed have control over their own lives.
This
past year has been, in fact, an extremely busy one for the directorate and its
staff. This list of activities is only
the briefest listing of some of its highlights.
With the budget being presented to this committee, the directorate will
continue to build on these actions, as well as undertake some new initiatives.
The
highly successful Seniors Information Line will continue its operation as one of
the most direct vehicles for interaction with seniors and the general
public. The directorate will continue to
interact with other government departments in identification, exploration, and
resolution of issues of concern to all our seniors.
A
specific initiative being undertaken in this area concerns working with
government departments and seniors to ensure emergency measures information is
readily available to the seniors community.
The forest fires several years ago indicated to us that more information
and education for seniors in this area is needed. Seniors should have the security of knowing
how to be prepared should the need arise.
In
our attempt to reach all sectors of the seniors community, we will be producing
and distributing two of the directorate's most successful publications,
Questions to Ask Your Doctor and Pharmacist on Taking Medication; and our
Manitoba Seniors Directorate Information Guide into the Cree and Saulteaux
languages. These brochures, How to
Recognize and Avoid Financial Abuse; and also What is Power of Attorney; and
Home Repair and Door‑to‑Door Sales, will also be produced and
distributed in the same two languages, as well as French and English languages.
The
directorate will be working to establish co‑operative partnerships with
the private sector in the development of informational materials and the
provision of services specifically designed to meet senior needs.
We
believe that with these partnerships, we can be more fiscally responsible and
provide better services. This will
include liaising with business, the corporate community, and professional
groups to become familiar with services and products currently available to
seniors, and to explore the possible development of new and innovative services
for seniors. The directorate will begin
to work with service providers, law enforcement agencies, and senior
organizations to develop effective protocols concerning elderly abuse.
It
will also continue its efforts to distribute the educational and informational
video package on financial abuse of the elderly in order to increase public
awareness of this problem. The staff has
also been actively engaged in a partnership with community groups, in co‑ordinating
special seniors events in
It
is a fact that as our population ages in the coming decades, seniors' issues
and concerns will gain in importance and public awareness. The successful resolution of elderly abuse,
housing, health, financial stability, transportation and other social issues
impacting directly on our seniors will be essential to the future well‑being
of our province, its economy and the quality of life we can offer.
I
am confident, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Seniors Directorate will succeed in
meeting these challenges, and we will accomplish it through the strategies and
policies developed in co‑operation between the seniors' community, the
corporate sector and the government.
The
Seniors Directorate has been and will continue to work with our most important
partners, the seniors of
I
thank you for the time, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister for those remarks. Does the critic from the official opposition
party, the honourable member for Broadway, have an opening statement?
Mr.
Conrad Santos (Broadway): I appreciate the honourable minister's
opening statement, and in reply, I would like to say that everybody, including
us here at this table, will sooner or later, if we live long enough, become
senior citizens. We do not grow old
simply by living, we grow old by losing interest in living. If we have enough interest in all the
activities in life, maybe we could postpone that aging process, despite our
physical appearance.
The
seniors needs can be summarized in the needs of any human being. In my estimation, there are certain ranges of
values, of human needs, value preferences and in my order of priority the
highest value of needs will be the need for the quality of life. That is the
highest‑‑life itself, not only in terms of its duration, because
you can have a long life but full of pain and misery, but in its quality as
well.
The
quality of life of a person‑‑we have five fingers, and I will use
my five fingers to identify the aspects of a good quality of life for anyone,
including senior citizens. One of my,
what do you call this finger, the thumb‑‑to me that is the
spiritual needs of any human being. If
your heart is pure, your mind is clean, you have good virtues, that is the best
foundation of any kind of life. It is
the inner righteousness of the inner being in us that we should guard against,
so we should stick to what is true and abide by faithfulness in all our
relationships.
The
index finger to me stands for physiological health needs, because all through
life we have need for health and this means taking care of our body and
mind. The physiological needs of human
beings implies that only the negative aspects, protecting us from certain
vicissitudes of life‑‑in the case of senior citizens, this will include
protection, for example, from all kinds of abuses, physical; physiological;
financial; protection of over‑medication, sometimes indulged in by some
of our medical practitioners; protection against ignorance about how to live
our retirement life in terms of advance planning for such an eventuality. On the positive side, it means some knowledge
about diets, nutrients and requirements for our physical body, that we should
not only know what to eat but we should be selective in those things that we
should eat. In addition, the physical
body will also need rest, exercise, sleep and leisure activities.
* (1530)
The
next finger to me stands for the mental aspect of our life, the intellectual
capabilities that need to be challenged all the time. Even senior citizens‑‑they may be
aging physically, but their mind may stay alert if they know how. There are
many challenging opportunities that they could engage, like enrolling in some
evening classes, educational opportunities in schools, and they should be engaged
in some sport activities if their physical body will permit it, and also in
some leisure and recreational activities.
Then
there is the emotional safety needs of a human being. He must be under the
close protection of the network of family relationships around him. This means that he must be in familiar
surroundings where he or she can feel safe at home and live life to the
fullest, that he may live life more abundantly.
Another
finger will be the social needs of the human being. The social aspects of a
human being have two faces: how we
regard ourselves, our inner estimation of our own self. This is what they call self‑esteem,
self‑respect, how you regard yourself.
There are people who have no respect for themselves because of certain
adverse experiences in their childhood.
That is our own self‑estimation, our self‑esteem.
The
other aspect is how other people regard us because in other societies, some
seniors, some elderly people are respected members of society. They are the ones who assume positions of
leadership in their communities, in their government, in their structure. On the other hand, in some societies they
feel they are surpluses; they are not needed; they are not welcome. It is a stigma to be old and to be helpless
as if they were useless in life. This is
the worst that could happen if we have such an attitude towards our elders.
Finally,
the last finger is the financial adequacy.
This means that you must have adequate income sources. If you have worked through your life, you must
have some private pension income. If you
have not, there is the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security, and of
course our financial supplement provided by the provincial government, the 55
Plus program benefit to those who have no other source of income.
Aside
from these spiritual and physiological needs there is also what we call safety
needs of people. They must have the
proper environmental setting in which they live. The living condition of their own home, the
living arrangements must be a very familiar setting to them, and the most
familiar setting that any senior can have is the home for the children, the
home they had reared and taken care of, where the children had grown up. That
family home to them is part of themselves.
In the absence of the ability, financially or physically, to take care
of that home, there must be assistance from the government so that they could,
as long as they can endure, as long as they can withstand, stay in their own
home.
This
is only possible by government‑provided, adequate home care assistance
programs. There must be support coming
from the government in that they will provide information. For example, if I am an old senior citizen
and I am staying in my little shack, I need some yard work to be done, I can
call someone and pay someone and he will do the yard work. He will shovel the snow and I can pay
him. Then I can stay in my home. These are the kinds of support that our
senior citizens need. If I get sick, I
can phone someone and somebody will come to help me, to carry me up to my bed,
like a home care worker who should be available even on call duty, like a
nurse, on call. If I have a leaking
faucet and if I have a plumbing problem, then I can call someone, then the
plumber will come and help me fix my home. This will be information as well as
services provided not only by government, but also by some voluntary groups in
the community who want to do good work for the rest of humanity. These are the safety needs.
Finally,
there are the mobility needs: if you are
stuck in your home, you are physically disabled, you are in a wheelchair. I
have seen a constituent of mine who is in a wheelchair, and he is living in a
basement and the basement is down below and he cannot‑‑without the
assistance of anybody carrying him up from that basement, he can only move
around the hallway and his room. This is like being in prison. Mobility needs are important. Facilities
should be provided in the form of transportation services for senior citizens
even inside the city. Those who are
living in apartments and in condominiums by themselves should have necessary
facilities to move themselves around in the community.
There
should also be large signs in the roads, as the Manitoba Society of Seniors
have indicated in their concerned position paper 1992, and large signs that
they can see for those seniors who still are able to drive motor vehicles. That could be risky for some people. There should be barrier‑free entrances
in all buildings, an elevator where they can lift themselves up rather than
climb the stairways, and handrails. When
they go to the bank, they can go inside and do their business. In other words, we facilitate mobility; we
facilitate safety; we facilitate their physiological and health needs; we facilitate
their peak physical needs.
These
are all the concerns of senior citizens.
We are here in order to assess how we can help our senior citizens live
a full life, satisfying to themselves and to their own community. We have
known, and this is statistically proven, in Canada, for example, out of
approximately 24,343,000 people there are at least 2,360,000 approximately
senior citizens. That is approximately
10 or 11 percent all across
I
will stop on that and give the opportunity to our third party to give some kind
of opening remarks.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: We thank the honourable member for those
comments.
Does
the critic for the second opposition party, the honourable member for St.
Boniface, have an opening statement?
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first, I would
like to say thank you to the minister for supplying us with his notes here and
his opening statements. Also, at this time, I would like to say thank you to
the minister for asking us to attend certain functions with him when we are
available to do so.
I
think this morning was an indication of a good day with the seniors in
* (1540)
I
think my involvement started with the senior home that we built in St.
Boniface. It is probably one of the
nicest in
At
that point, there were six of us and we decided we were going to go ahead with
the building. The money had been
authorized by CMHC for the financing, and six of us decided we were going to go
ahead without the approval of the provincial government and mortgaged our homes
to do the financing of the block. It was
an $8‑million project.
We
took a chance, but we had faith in the people who were involved. It was fun doing it. Like I say, in '82 I guess was the sod
turning, and the official opening was on April 25, 1984. I had been president
of the organization from that day on until 1987 when finally I said I had
enough, give a chance to somebody else, in the interests of the seniors.
I
have been involved also with other organizations like Sister Clermont clinic,
for example, and I think the minister is well aware of that organization. It was an organization that I was on the
board of. It had a lot of seniors involved
as volunteers and a couple of nurses who visited seniors in their own
homes. A lot of times these seniors, all
they needed was company or to reassure them that all they needed was a checkup
from a nurse maybe, rather than run to the doctor on a weekly basis, reassure
them that their blood pressure was okay, and what they needed was reassurance.
I
think that is why when we talk about volunteers today with the seniors, and we
see all these organizations now of seniors‑‑and today the picnic in
Souris again, like I say, was a success I am sure.
Unfortunately,
we had to come back. We could have spent
the day there. We could have gone
golfing, and we could have played ball with the seniors. We looked at the golf course. The minister and I did go look at the golf
course, but we did not want the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) being jealous
that we golfed all day or something like that. [interjection! No.
We
look forward to working with the minister‑‑and I think with the
aging population that we have not only in
I
think another positive thing that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has
brought forward is the reform of the health care system. I think we look at it with a positive outlook
on those issues, because we know that we cannot go on spending monies without
looking at it being reformed to care for not only our seniors but our sick
people.
We
visit the hospitals where we have people who have been there for two or three
years, waiting for a bed into a personal care home. It costs a lot more to have them in the
hospital. I say that from experience,
because my mother was in the St. Boniface Hospital for two years where‑‑it
is not their fault‑‑there are no activities. But if they are placed in a place like Tache
home or other personal care homes, we can see that they have activities. You keep them active and they will be looked
after and not see them deteriorate mentally or physically.
Like
I say, I speak from experience. I go to
Tache probably six or seven times a week visiting my mother and other friends
who are there and giving a hand as a volunteer.
I think it is important. I think
this is where we should encourage more people to do so.
I
think our younger generation have to be made aware that our seniors are the
people who have made this province. You
look at what
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: We thank the honourable member for those
brief remarks.
At
this time we would like to invite the honourable minister's staff to come
forward and have the minister please introduce them.
Mr.
Ducharme: As the members are aware, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, we do not have a large staff at the Seniors Directorate, but we
are like the seniors in this province, we do with what we have.
I
would like to introduce my Executive Director of Seniors, Kathy Yurkowski.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister. We will move on. We are going to be dealing with page 144.
Item
1. Seniors Directorate (a) Salaries $132,300.
Mr.
Santos: I have some questions on Salaries. I am referring to the Supplementary
Information for Legislative Review, Appendix 1, the historical pattern. It is page 14. The way I read this is that the legislation
was approved in '88, the directorate was actually established in '89‑90,
and the initial allocation was $209,400.
I use that as the base line.
Then
the following year, 1990‑91, this becomes $277,000. That is an addition
of $67,600. That is an increase of 32.28
percent, right? Up to this time is there
only one staff?
Mr.
Ducharme: No, there are two, and then we went to three
in 1991.
Mr.
Santos: Then, in 1991‑92 there is an additional
increase of $25,500, that makes it $302,500, but according to the adjustment
here, the way I read it, there was a transfer here in that year on page 6. What does that mean, transfer of functions
from Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, $5,000; transfer of functions from
Fitness and Sport $5,000?
Mr.
Ducharme: That is a consolidated grant from Sport and
from Culture. That is what that is.
Mr.
Santos: . . . the money is coming in.
Mr.
Ducharme: That is correct.
Mr.
Santos: Not in a personal‑‑it was moved
from Sport. Okay.
Mr.
Ducharme: We used to have the grants come in to the
Seniors Directorate. There was one grant
from Culture and one grant from Sport.
Mr.
Santos: So in the following year, because of that
infusion, that money came from other departments. Actually then, in reality, that $25,500
increase is less. That is only a $5,000
increase because the other $20,000 came from the other department.
Mr.
Ducharme: Yes, he is going to have to be more clear
than what he is asking. He is going from
one year to the other. He is probably
going to have to get a little more clear as long as he wants us to explain to
him the changes in those two years. I
could certainly clarify to him what went on, but I would like him to be a
little more specific in what year he is referring to.
* (1550)
Mr.
Santos: A jump from $277,000 fiscal year 1990 to '91,
and the Adjusted Vote in 1991‑92, that raises up to $302,500, because if
the $50,000 came from Fitness and Sport and $5,000 came from Culture, Heritage
and Citizenship, then the actual increase per se for Seniors Directorate‑‑these
are allocated by cabinet, by the Treasury Board, and do not come from any other
department‑‑is actually $4,500 only, which is only a 1.62 percent
increase.
Mr.
Ducharme: The reason for it is because the Seniors
Directorate does not do any funding other than the video that you will notice
that we did in '91‑92, that jumped it up in '91‑92. The rest is
just salary increases, just increments.
We have not hired or changed our staff in that year.
The
only thing we had in '91‑92, if you will notice the big change, and you
will notice a big drop down from '92‑93, we had a video which was for
$50,000. We did not produce that video.
Mr.
Santos: I am coming to that, because that $302,500
the pattern so far is an increase from one fiscal year to another fiscal year,
a 32.28 percent increase going up.
If
I draw the graph here, it is going up, and then it goes just a little bit
inclined, because that is up to the grant from Fitness and Sport and
Citizenship, and the actual increase is $4,500.
So it has hardly moved. Then in
the fiscal year 1992‑93 there is a decrease of $38,600; that is an actual
12.76 percent decrease, reducing $302,500 to $263,900.
Mr.
Ducharme: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, the
Seniors Directorate is not a funding position.
We have kept our staff the same in '91‑92, and as he knows, there
was an zero increase for all staff. So
we kept our staff for that particular year, and then the next year, the big
difference would be the video. We did not do a video the next year.
Of
course, we did not increase our Seniors Directorate unless we increased our
staff, and there was no increases in that year. The feds gave us a grant for
the video, and it was a one‑time grant that is also built in there, and
they did not give it to us the next year.
Mr.
Santos: Going now to the actual positions, I am not
referring to persons sitting; I am referring to the positions. So you started
with a managerial position, and what‑‑administrative support or a
professional/technical?
Mr. Ducharme: PM
2.
Mr.
Santos: So you have a managerial and a
professional. That is the initial year
in 1989‑90. Was that increased to
three positions in 1990‑91?
Mr.
Ducharme: When we got going in the first year, we
decided that we needed a secretary, so that was the third position.
Mr.
Santos: My information in 1991, I did some research
on this; I can identify who are sitting in those positions and what their
salaries are. The managerial position
was Katherine. She had been all along
the managerial person; $51,160 is what you make in 1990‑1991. The professional/technical person was Leanne
Rowat; she makes $39,927.
Mr.
Ducharme: She is no longer with us.
Mr.
Santos: Okay, but that was the initial occupant. Later on when you added someone, Jeannine
Carriere, she makes $25,233. The following year, this is where my question will
come in, because that administrative support position's occupant salary
increased by $1,167. That is 4.62
percent the following year, fiscal year 1991‑1992. A jump, in other words, from $25,233 to
$26,400, that is a 4.62 percent increase.
Mr.
Ducharme: Yes, remember under the bill there are
increment changes.
Mr.
Santos: The managerial position increased by $2,740,
which in present day is a 5.36 percent increase, to $53,900 in the fiscal year
1991‑92. The real thing that
concerns me is the professional/technical position at a decrease of $1,227 so
that the salary that was $39,927 becomes $38,700, and that was a decrease of
3.7 percent. Why?
Mr.
Ducharme: You have to be a little more specific on what
years you are applying to. I mean, give
us, first of all, what year you are applying to. You are talking about '90‑91, '91‑92‑‑be
a little more specific because we are trying to follow a line on here and I
want you to be more specific.
Mr.
Santos: During the fiscal year 1990‑91 one of
the two positions in the Seniors Directorate is professional/technical.
Attached to that position is a salary of $39,927. On the records during the fiscal year 1991‑1992‑‑
Mr.
Ducharme: Well, you notice he has gone three years now.
Mr.
Santos: Well, 1990‑1991, what will be the next
fiscal year?‑‑'91‑92.
Because our fiscal year ends‑‑
Mr.
Ducharme: Oh, I know what he is getting to.
Mr.
Santos: ‑‑March 31, and then it begins
again and it straddles the next calendar year.
Mr.
Ducharme: I know what the member is talking about
now. He is talking about the actual
money paid to that position for that year.
That is the amount paid for that position for the whole year. We did not have the person for the whole
year. We started with a new person part
way through the year, and we had a space where we did not have anybody
there. So that is why when you look at
the position you are looking at the total amount for that year. We did not have a person for the total
year. That is why it is down on that
particular position.
Mr.
Santos: For how many months did that person occupy
the position?
Mr.
Ducharme: November to March. It was vacant November to March.
Mr.
Santos: Vacant.
All right, and it was not filled until when?
Mr.
Ducharme: The person started last week.
Mr.
Santos: So it is in the current fiscal year.
Now,
focusing on that position alone‑‑
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Could I ask the honourable member to bring
his mike up and make it a little easier for Hansard to pick it up?
Mr.
Santos: Okay.
Suddenly, there was a jump in salary compared to the other two, the
managerial and the administrative support position, so that the increase in
dollar terms is $7,400 from the initial base.
That, in my computation, amounted to 19.12 percent increase because that
position now, professional/technical, attached to it is $46,100.
Mr.
Ducharme: I am informed that, first of all, when you
hire somebody‑‑and we told you there was never a ceiling in that
position, and the ceiling in that position was $46,000.
I
was informed it was brought up to that maximum ceiling position by Treasury
during that course of the year, and that is why that amount was brought up to
that.
Mr.
Santos: Is the honourable minister telling me that
someone who is new in the position is started at the ceiling rather than at the
lower of the ranges?
Mr.
Ducharme: No, I am not telling you that.
* (1600)
Mr.
Santos: What is the minister then telling me? How can he explain this 19.12 percent
increase from the original salary of the position that was vacated from
November to March, and then when it is filled up, the salary jumps 19.12
percent?
Mr.
Ducharme: First of all, if I am not being clear,
remember I was not there during that particular year, so I will give you the
information I have. When Leanne, you
mentioned her, was in, we were never allotted enough for her salary. We always had to borrow from the
Operating. Treasury Board, when they saw
that they did not allow us enough for that position, brought in enough to bring
it up to that level, and that is why that increased. We were taking the difference always from the
Operating to pay her salary. However,
during that year, I am informed, Treasury Board authorized the department to
show the salary at that high level that we were paying her at, instead of
taking it out of the Operating.
Mr.
Santos: Can I have the name of the person who took
the position that was vacated by Leanne?
Mr.
Ducharme: The personnel in that position is Sharron
Wilford. She went through the
competition of the Civil Service Commission and she was brought over from
Health.
Mr.
Santos: Is that spelled W‑i‑l‑‑
Mr.
Ducharme: W‑i‑l‑f‑o‑r‑d.
Mr. Santos:
Sharron, with a double "r," from Health.
Mr.
Ducharme: Yes.
Mr.
Santos: She must have some seniority with the
government or something. What was her
salary that she vacated in Health?
Mr.
Ducharme: First of all, Personnel tells us what we hire
them at, according to their qualifications.
We do not set that; the minister or the staff do not set that. I think her previous salary was in the '40s
and that is what we paid her.
Mr. Santos:
I am just disturbed with this, because while one person was occupying
the position, the salary increased by 3.7 percent, and when another person
occupied this same position, the salary jumped 19.12 percent. What is so special about the circumstances?
(Mr.
Gerry McAlpine, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr.
Ducharme: No, I explained to the member that they paid
the difference in the salary out of the Operating. The salary was always paid and it was brought
up to the PM 2 level that is instructed by the Civil Service Commission. So what we did was, apparently, and I can
only give you the information I have, they always had to borrow from the
Operating to pay that salary, but the person in that position was always paid
at that level. However, a portion was taken out of the Operating to make up the
difference. Apparently, the department
went back to Treasury Board, and Treasury Board authorized that the salary be
established without taking it out of the Operating.
Mr.
Santos: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not
asking how they come up with the money.
I am just questioning the variation in the salary attached to the
position, from a very static, stationary salary level and then suddenly
promotion salary‑wise in terms of salary increase.
Mr.
Ducharme: I do not know what I have to do to get it
clear, but the salary was always paid, except that a portion of it came from
the Operating. There was no increase in
the salary, and I want that on the record.
The salary was a combination of the salary and taking out of the
Operating. When it was originally set up
they did not know what classification they would have to get approval from
Treasury Board on, so what they did was they paid some out of the Operating and
they paid a salary. The person who came
in in the position maintained the same type of salary.
Mr.
Santos: The honourable minister then can tell me the
salary that was attached to the same professional/technical position during the
fiscal year 1991‑92, regardless of whether the position was occupied or
vacant. How much was the salary attached
to that position?
Mr.
Ducharme: We do not have that salary in our
records. I can get that for the member,
but I can say to the member that the same PM 2 level was maintained, combining
the operating amount you took from the operating and salaries. So I will get that for the member. What I will do for the member is I will get
who the person was in that year, I will get what we paid them, what we paid
them out of the operating, and what we paid for the salary for all the years
for that particular person.
Mr.
Santos: I am not concerned who is occupying it; I am
concerned about the relationship between the position and the salary attached
to the position, and the relationship between those two relationships from one
fiscal year to another fiscal year.
Mr.
Ducharme: I am advised that the level of salary was the
same, if you take any consideration that you used money out of the operating to
cap it. Then they went to Treasury Board
and got the Treasury Board approval.
Mr.
Santos: The information out of my research and study
is that during fiscal year 1991‑1992, the administrative support position
has a salary of $26,400. The
professional/technical position has a salary of $38,700 paid. The managerial position has a salary of $53,900
during the fiscal year 1991‑1992.
Is this correct? So that the total is $119,000.
Mr.
Ducharme: Okay, to get it correct again, he specifies a
lower salary. To go back and make it
very, very slow now, the amount to bring it up to the $38,000 of what was paid
the second year was taken out of the operating costs on the lower year, and you
added that. Then the next year, after
Treasury Board approved the top salary, then you did not have to take any money
out of the operating.
Mr.
Santos: What was then the base, even if we absorb the
money from the operating, what was the basis of the salary, in your estimation,
honourable minister, for that position, the one that was actually attached to
it? Not the money that was actually
paid, because it was vacant during November to March, what was the official
salary level of that position during fiscal year 1991‑1992?
Mr.
Ducharme: I will have to get that for the member. I will have to get that broken down for
him. But, basically, the same salary is
maintained for that position combination approved by the government over those
three years.
Mr.
Santos: I am now trying to study the pattern of
salary in these three positions. The
following year, and this is the present year, the administrative support
position has not changed, the same person?
Okay, that same salary that was $26,400 in 1991‑1992 is now
$28,300. That is an increase of $1,800.
Mr.
Ducharme: Are you talking about '91‑92, or are
you talking about '90‑91, or are you talking about '91‑92? I am not quite getting clear, are you saying
the year '91‑92?
Mr.
Santos: Fiscal year is operating two years; 1990‑1991
is one fiscal year.
Mr.
Ducharme: '90‑91.
Mr.
Santos: Okay, 1991‑1992 that is another fiscal
year; 1992 to 1993 is another fiscal year. [interjection! This is the third
fiscal year.
I
am saying that according to Schedule 4, page 8, that salary now is $28,200,
administrative. That is on the record.
[interjection! Right. All I am trying to
say, what the raise means. It is a raise
of $1,800, which is 6.82 percent increase.
Mr.
Ducharme: The step plus the 3 percent that we
authorized under the agreement.
* (1610)
Mr.
Santos: Correct.
You jump from one range to another range as you have your maturity. Normally in the Civil Service position, you
start with a lower range, the entrance level.
Then as years roll by, you go from range to range in addition to
increases, right?
Mr.
Ducharme: But this is the same person who we are
talking about.
Mr.
Santos: It does not matter whether it is the same
person.
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. I would remind honourable members to, when
they are making their remarks, to address their remarks through the Chair,
please.
Mr.
Santos: I am just going towards the facts themselves,
the statistical data here. Last year
that was $26,400. This year, fiscal year
1992‑1993, it is $28,200. Correct?
Mr.
Ducharme: The Civil Service and Treasury Board
authorize the salaries for what we pay those positions.
Mr.
Santos: Correct.
Mr.
Ducharme: That is all arranged through the Civil
Service Commission.
Mr.
Santos: All I did was subtract $26,400 from
$28,200. Take the difference, divide the
difference by the base, which was last year's position, and that gives me the
percentage increase.
Mr.
Ducharme: What is mathematical about that? The person got an increase.
Mr.
Santos: Nothing, it is just a statement of fact, 6.82
percent increase. That is the
administrative support position.
Now,
the managerial position‑‑of course, that is Kathy's position‑‑last
year, it was $53,900; this year, it is $58,000. If I subtract $53,900 from
$58,000, I get $4,100. I am explaining
to you how I arrive at these percentages.
If I divide $4,100 by its base of last year's salary, the increase is
7.61 percent.
Mr.
Ducharme: Remember, Kathy has not just started with
Seniors Directorate. Kathy was in
government before. She is entitled to
her increment and the 3 percent raise.
She is entitled to both.
Mr.
Santos: You are not answering my question‑‑
Mr.
Ducharme: Oh, you wanted to know‑‑
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please.
Mr.
Ducharme: Just let me explain. Just let me finish.
She
is entitled, like every other employee, when her increment change comes up, she
gets her increment plus the 3 percent that was agreed to by MGEA.
Mr.
Santos: The honourable minister should not be very
defensive. I am not questioning
anything. I am just stating the
computation of these percentages, how it came to be. I thought I had made it quite clear.
Now,
this is where my trouble comes in. When
I look at the professional/technical position, from a base, whatever it is,
which must be in the $40,000s or so, it jumped, as to the data that I have, from
$38,700 to $46,100. There was a
change. They have no qualifications and
maybe seniority in other departments of government.
But
to me, that jump from $38,700 to $46,100 means $7,400 which, if I compute again
in percentage form, is 19.12 percent. This is just a computation. I am not questioning anything. These are the
facts.
In
other words, if you take all three positions together and lump them in one
jump, what was $119,000 salary last fiscal year, this year becomes
$132,300. These are on your data. That alone is an overall increase of 11.18
percent.
Mr.
Ducharme: You have to remember, we have calculated in
there what we are going to have to pay at top position for a person we just
hired. She comes from another
department. You do not reduce their
salary if they have the experience.
Remember, you are paying position.
That
is not an actual expenditure. That is
only the estimated expenditure, because, as you remember, we have just hired
that person, we just hired her last week.
So we have to put in there what the maximum amount is in that
position. We have done that. Then next year, what will work out will be
the actual position that we spend.
That
position you are talking about, there is no one there. There has not been
anybody there since November. So when
the Estimates are done up, you put in the maximum amount in that position, so
that when you do hire and people compete for that job, there could be‑‑I
do not know, how many people did we have? We had 80‑some applicants for
that job. You have to have your level at
the top so that when you fill it, then next year it will show up as the actual
amount that you fill. But you have to
anticipate paying the top dollar on that position because it was vacant at the
time of the Estimates.
Mr. Santos: Of
course, I do not know if I have the authority to ask for the documentation of
that hiring.
Mr.
Ducharme: The documentation that you can have is‑‑I
am not quite clear what the Civil Service Commission will release, but I will
release any documentation that the Civil Service Commission will allow me to
release to you.
Mr.
Santos: I would like to know, for example, her
category, where she came from, what salary range she was, from the initial
entrance level, whether she had reached the ceiling yet, and I would like to
know the change from the old position. I
am not talking about the present; the present to me is irrelevant. It is the position, to this present position.
Mr.
Ducharme: I can tell you that they usually go up one
increment, so there would automatically be an increase to what she is
doing. However, I will give you as much
information on the categories the Civil Service Commission will allow, because
in this particular case we went out to all the employees and advertised. As a matter of fact, as I say to you, we had
86 applicants and the best qualified one was a position of a person coming over
from Health, who was interviewed by the Civil Service Commission and they came
down to four, and when the names were shown to me, they had picked No. 1, the
Civil Service Commission picked No. 1, and that is the one that I wholly
recommended.
Mr.
Santos: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, and to have a
comparative perspective, I would like to have also the relevant documentation
for the previous occupant with respect to her background, how long she had been
in the Civil Service and so on, what range and what position she had
occupied. Otherwise it will be
meaningless to me.
Mr.
Ducharme: Yes, we will give you the job description and
we will give you as much as we can that Civil Service Commission will give us,
because our staff left it completely up to the Civil Service Commission.
Mr.
Santos: All I am trying to establish here is that
there should be some kind of equity when people move from one department to
another department, so that no one is in a disadvantageous position. I do not know where the previous occupant
went when she left the position. She
might still be with some government unit or department, I do not know.
Mr.
Ducharme: The Civil Service Commission recommends what
we pay them. They recommend the
categories that are hired, and that is all done when they do their interviews,
and so if they say that I can release that for the person we hired recently, I
will give that to you.
Mr.
Santos: So what we have established here is that
there is in the overall‑‑I am now talking three fiscal years‑‑$116,320
total salaries in the fiscal year where it started, 1990‑91; then the
following fiscal year, 1991‑92, that $116,320 jumped to $119,000. That is a jump in total‑‑I am now
talking of the global figure‑‑of $13,300.
* (1620)
Mr.
Ducharme: First of all, the only thing I can explain to
the member, the information I have received is that there was a time when we
did not have anybody, so we did not pay the money. So he is comparing actual to this year's
anticipated salary that we had not filled at the time of the Estimates, and at
that time we allowed for the maximum amount.
All that is in calculation in there so the member cannot compare actual
to anticipated, because when we filled that position we were anticipating what
to fill it at and we used the maximum amount.
Mr.
Santos: I like to compare that pattern, which is
$116,320 to $119,000 to $132,000, an increase initially of 2.3 percent, and
then an increase of 11.18 percent global, total for all the three
positions. So there is a pattern here of
increases in salaries. Okay, that is unavoidable given the structure of the
salary and seniority system and other rules in the Civil Service.
If
we look at page 12, the activity component, the Other Expenditures,
Grant/Transfer Payments other than Salaries is the second category there. If I look at the figure from '91‑92 to
year ending '93, the first one, Managerial, $53,900 to $58,000, that is an
increase of 7.61 percent. The
Professional/Technical, it is right there, from $38,700 to $46,100. That is 19.12 percent, and you have explained
as best you could. The other one is‑‑
Mr.
Ducharme: Just while we are on that line because I have
given the member the opportunity of jumping back and forth, I think that now we
are on that line to clarify for the record the $46,100 is estimated. At the time we had not filled the position so
we had to allow the maximum amount in that position. Now we have filled that position, but that
was an estimated amount only at $46,100.
I want to be very, very clear on that.
Mr.
Santos: That position is filled at the initial month
of the fiscal year, is that correct?
Mr.
Ducharme: No, that position is not completed at that
time of the year. We were doing without
that position from November to March so that $46,000 is not spent yet. It is estimated that that is what that
position would be.
Mr.
Santos: The position now is filled beginning this
current fiscal year?
Mr.
Ducharme: The position was filled a week ago.
Mr.
Santos: So this is within April 1, 1992, the current
fiscal year that is running now, right?
Mr.
Ducharme: Right on, except that it was filled at the
end of May. Of that $46,000, the actual
will probably be less for that year because we will not have to pay the whole
$46,000 because the person we have hired was not here from April 1 to the end
of May so you have to take out two months.
Mr.
Santos: Okay, whatever is two months equivalent in
proportion to the total, that you will take out. How much will that be? You can compute it.
Mr.
Ducharme: For sure there will be two months but I have
not got the stats of what salary they paid that person from the Civil Service
Commission but it would be roughly two months off of there.
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. I have recognized the member for
Broadway. Do you have any further
questions for the minister?
Mr.
Santos: Yes, I have.
The Other Expenditures there, now, this is the Other Expenditures other
than Salaries, right? There is no change
in the Grants/Transfer Payments so it is stationary. I have no question on that.
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. Are you
ready to move on to the next line?
Mr. Santos:
I will not start if we are moving because there might be some question
that I may be precluded to ask. I do not
think that we should be very strict about this.
(Mr.
Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: I would just like to ask the honourable
member if he was finished with the Salaries line at this time because the
honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) has some questions he wants to
ask on this line?
Mr.
Santos: If he has some questions on Salaries, I am
yielding to the honourable member for St. Boniface.
Mr.
Gaudry: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on Salaries, I am
ready to pass the line. I think the
minister has said he will supply us with further information, and I am sure he
will pass it on to both critics. I think
it is quite clear and laid out. I feel
comfortable with the information that he has given us so far, and that he is
going to supply for the last three years.
I have other questions that I would like to deal with before five
o'clock today.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: We thank the honourable member for that. Is the honourable member for Broadway
completed with the (a) line, Salaries?
Mr.
Santos: To facilitate the procedure, I think we
should pass the Salaries.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(a) Salaries $132,300‑‑pass.
We
will now move on to (b) Other Expenditures $131,600.
Mr.
Gaudry: I think, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to speed up
things here, we should deal with the questions that we have prepared.
I
received a call from a Mrs. Jones voicing her frustration and concerns with the
moving of the 55 Plus office to Carberry. Mrs. Jones was quite upset about the
fact that seniors receiving the services were not made aware of this move and
the fact that it was in the MSOS offices.
Not made aware of this move, she happened to find out by going to the
Mrs.
Jones would like to know how much it is costing government in long distance
calls with the toll‑free number that seniors are asked to call for
information. Also, she was quite upset
with the services of the Carberry office.
She would like to see the office returned to
Could
the minister supply us with the statistics indicating why such a move was
warranted?
Mr.
Ducharme: First of all, I can understand the member for
St. Boniface's concerns, because when you are readjusting where seniors move
after a time like they are used to going, I think we all get that way with our
habits and seniors are more habit forming than anybody else. We have inquired and our staff is trying to
monitor that right now. We know that you
did inquire and had asked MSOS to help individuals who had difficulty in
completing the forms.
First
of all, the 55 office is attempting to gather stats regarding the number of individuals
who require help in completing forms. We
have asked them to supply us with that information. The program has the 800 number which is
accessible by phone. So it is not as a
result of phoning in, it is the actual people going there.
I
am informed that there was a staff person available directing these people, and
they are still conducting that. I am
told that there was upwards as many as maybe 14 people who came to that office
a day during that adjustment period.
They are trying to encourage them to use the toll‑free number.
First
of all, the forms‑‑all that is required is a signature and then
they send a copy with their income tax form. Apparently, the form that they are
using is not a tough form to use.
However, our department will continue to work with them and monitor that
because of the interest that you showed.
* (1630)
Mr.
Gaudry: The seniors did express concern to see the
office move out of
Mr.
Ducharme: Yes, we approached Age and
Mr.
Gaudry: Can the minister tell us what has happened to
the Piney area congregate meals that they had requested? Has anything further been followed up or been
done with the project?
Mr.
Ducharme: First of all, I am informed that Health has
$300,000 towards these types of projects, and they were out evaluating where they
were going to‑‑make sure that they were viable and evaluate them
all. So I do not have any more update on
Piney.
Mr.
Gaudry: When will this report be ready in regard to
our evaluation of these requests for meals?
Mr.
Ducharme: We asked for it quite some time ago, so I
will make the inquiry, but I am advised that it will be quite soon.
We
are anticipating or hoping that the amount that was allotted would look after
the list that we have. However, we will
contact Health and make sure. I am informed
that it probably will look after the list.
Mr.
Gaudry: In the annual report a transportation
committee composed of representatives of various government departments and
seniors organizations was active in looking at options for seniors. Could the minister indicate, which community
groups did the transportation committee meet with?
Mr.
Ducharme: First of all, remember that the group‑‑I
know they met with a north end group.
They met some private people. I
cannot give you the names, but I can give you maybe some of the people‑‑are
you familiar with who is on it, because a lot of those people are directly
involved in that transportation anyway?
We have the Department of Health, the Departments of Highways and
Transportation, Family Services, Culture, Heritage, Urban Affairs are on it and
Rural Development. Then we have seniors
organizations involved in that. We have
MSOS, Age and Opportunity, Council on Aging and Ethos are also on that
committee, and also the City of
They
are presently working, as you know, with the
You
go to
So
that committee is still working. We are
still hoping that they come up with something that probably is going to be
better than the existing program, but the existing program is handling a lot of
seniors. I know when I was Urban Affairs
minister‑‑it is handling a lot of seniors throughout the city.
Mr.
Gaudry: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is a three‑phase
project that we are talking about, eh?
Mr.
Ducharme: I understand, yes, it is, and the first
phases will get in in July.
Mr.
Gaudry: The first phase will be done in July, and
when can we expect the second and third phases of the project?
Mr.
Ducharme: I imagine that when we get the first phase we
will get a recommendation from the committee on how the schedule will appear
for the next two.
Mr.
Gaudry: As far as home care is concerned, will the
minister be involved with the reform of the home care services that will be
provided to seniors with the Health minister?
Mr.
Ducharme: Our directorate is always involved with
Health and remember that Health really has a connection through Betty Havens,
who is your geriatric expert on that.
Also, I am fortunately Seniors minister on a committee with Health and
Family Services because of our connection, and so anything coming forward, I am
on that committee. Also, our directorate
is usually advised and we are consulted with.
Mr.
Gaudry: Why I am asking about home care is the fact
that since the minister has announced the reform of health care, there have
been a lot of calls coming from the seniors in St. Boniface, due to the fact
that there have been some pamphlets delivered, anonymous pamphlets, where they
have said they are closing beds and so forth.
Of course, the discussion of home care comes about. Like last week, for example, on Friday I met
about 10 seniors together, and I think they understood the fact that there
needs to be reform done in the health care department.
In
discussing home care, what they were looking at was the fact that they feel
there should be some training maybe given to the home care.
I
got another call, the same lady that lives not too far from the
She
said, well, I understood when I was going to get home care that I would get at
least a meal. She said, no, you should
give me a cup of tea. She said she told
the lady to go home and that she could make her own cup of tea. She got into trouble with Home Care. I have not returned the call, but I am sure
it is probably the fact that she is looking at home care.
My
recommendation is that, I know there are a lot of ladies out there who give
home care and they are very great persons.
I know for a fact that L'Accueil Colombien there in St. Boniface where
there is a lot of home care service, and her recommendation is some of them
maybe should be trained or have a job description when they go out and be given
exactly‑‑I think the people that are receiving the care also should
be told what these people will be doing.
Some say, well, I want my balcony swept, and she says, well, I am not
here to sweep your balcony. I can maybe
sweep the kitchen floor, but no more‑‑and the vacuum is too heavy,
I cannot lift the vacuum. I think there
should be a job description to these people.
It is just the thoughts that have come out with the people that I have
met last week. I think it is important,
and I would like to see the minister's response to these recommendations.
Mr.
Ducharme: I am looking forward to participating, as you
know. The same as you, I have been
involved in personal care homes, in establishing them, and I know that some of
the senior homes and find out where the home care is lacking and to get away
from that fear that I know that you people have not used, that‑‑I
met people just yesterday at the Winnipeg Centennial Library where we talked
about closing down beds. They were quite
understanding that, just because you are closing down beds, if you could save
$800 a day, that means you can provide a lot more home care and lot more
personal care homes. They understand
that. All they are concerned about is to
make sure that they are well looked after.
I
think you understand that situation. I
know you talk about home care and volunteer people working and nurses working
with the seniors. You know my mother‑in‑law
very well‑‑
Mr.
Gaudry: Yes.
Mr.
Ducharme: ‑‑and she has worked a lot in St.
Boniface with them. She stresses the
same thing you are stressing, that a lot of them do not understand. What you said, a job description‑‑I
guess we do not call it job description, but where the detail is of what they
will do for them. Some of them demand
something that they cannot do, and some people demand that it could be done
cheaper somewhere else. I think that is
what you are referring to. So I look
forward to that participating. I can
assure you then the committee that I am on, that I will have that opportunity.
* (1640)
Mr.
Gaudry: The other thing, if we are going to finish by
five o'clock‑‑my colleague spent 40 minutes on one item‑‑but
anyway I would like to pass on to him after.
But that video, I will have to congratulate the minister for bringing
out the video. He is well aware that I
have requested a number of them for seniors and others. As a matter of fact, the nurse in the St.
Boniface who is teaching gerontology requested them, and I passed them on. She
felt they were very useful for her course, and she requested them both in
French and in English. What was the
total cost of the video?
Mr.
Ducharme: Just to clarify the amount, remember I am
talking to produce, to manufacture, to do the video, all the paper material,
was in the vicinity of $100,000. That
was shared by the federal government.
Remember that is everything. That
is all the pamphlets and all the paper that we are using. That included about 25,000 of each brochure
and 700 of the videos. Remember all the languages, both languages, that is
25,000 of each one.
Mr.
Gaudry: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before I pass the
mike over to my colleague here, I would like to say thank you to the staff and
the courtesy they extend every time we phone your office.
Mr.
Ducharme: Just some more information is we are working‑‑and
we are hoping not to stop with one video.
We are hoping to work with a bank association, whoever. They have really shown an interest, but they
have not shown a little bit of this nice stuff yet, but we are hoping that
maybe they will help us in our next one, and we are going to carry on with
that.
Mr.
Santos: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the first line on
page 12 under Other Expenditures is Grant/Transfer Payments, but on page 17
there is a distinction made under that category, under the Object Codes: discretionary grant, nondiscretionary
grant. Can somebody help me, what is the
difference between discretionary grant and nondiscretionary grant?
Mr.
Ducharme: What I believe it to mean is it is not
guaranteed every year, and that is the difference. One is, and you commit yourself.
An
Honourable Member: Which one is that?
Mr.
Ducharme: The nondiscretionary grant is guaranteed.
Mr.
Santos: Whose discretion is being exercised whether
it will be guaranteed or not?
Mr.
Ducharme: I guess, government.
Mr.
Santos: That line on Transportation on page 12 is a
decrease of $700, from $10,300 to $9,600, and that is in percentage terms, 6.8
percent. What does that entail in terms
of activities reduced?
Mr.
Ducharme: I guess it depends on where they would hold
the conferences for the staff. Remember
all that is in there, the conferences, costs and everything, so we could
actually have a reduction because maybe the conferences are closer, or whoever
goes or whatever. That is the discretion
that we use. In other words, it could be
lower because the conference is not as far away or the expenses to go to those
conferences, or maybe we did not go to one conference over another. That is basically where all the costs are all
under, under Transportation.
Mr.
Santos: Anyway, $700 is a minimal decrease, but the
next one is a large decrease, from $98,200 Communication/Advertising to
$52,000. That is a decrease of $46,200,
amounting to 47 percent, almost one half.
Why?
Mr.
Ducharme: The video.
The video we produced the year before was $100,000 and the costs were
shared by the province and the feds, and that is where the difference is. We did not produce a video in the year ending
March 1993. The video was produced the
year before and that was $50,000.
Mr.
Santos: The contribution by the federal government?
Mr.
Ducharme: The federal government was $50,000 and ours
was $50,000, so only $50,000 would show on ours, so that is where the reduction
is.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Can I ask the members to try and come through
the Chair? It will make it much easier
for Hansard to keep this on the rail. It
will keep Hansard a lot clearer for the future.
Mr.
Santos: That happened to me, too, when I was
chairing, and I always intervened. So be
alert, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. Vigilance is the price of freedom.
In
the expenditures, that is the same, $10,000, no increase?
Mr.
Ducharme: It would be the same; we have not changed
where we are doing business out of our office, we have not changed our
staff. It is still the same as it was
the year before.
Mr.
Santos: On Professional Services, from $10,600 to
$5,000. That is a $5,600 decrease and that is greater than one half, 52.83
percent decrease. Why? What professional services are discarded?
Mr.
Ducharme: Before we produced the video we had to hire
someone to help us‑‑consultants to find out where the best people
were to use for the video, who the best people were in the city. We had to hire
consultants to get a cost on our video and that was in the professional services.
I
also mention in there, I guess, some of the costs would be the art work for all
the pamphlets that are in there. I would
like at this time to thank the person who was involved in the video at the
start of it. He donated his time and
that is "Let's Make a Deal" Monty Hall, who is from
He
did not charge us for his time, but he charged us, for instance, to send our
material there and back. So that was
included in there. For the consultants,
it was mostly preparation, that different preparation for the video.
Mr.
Santos: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in total then, this
preparatory work before the actual filming itself, how much did it entail when
you were spending for professional services?
Mr.
Ducharme: Approximately $4,000‑$5,000.
Mr.
Santos: Going now to page 11. The objective of the Seniors Directorate is
"to provide a central source of contact for seniors, seniors organizations
and government." The second one:
"To promote the interests of seniors and to ensure programs and policies
are sensitive to their needs and concerns."
How
does the Seniors Directorate ensure that the programs and policies are
sensitive to the concerns and needs of senior citizens?
Mr.
Ducharme: First of all, to the member, my staff, myself
and the organizations that we have a network with, sit down with these groups
continually; we work with these groups continually. We get numerous phone calls
from concerns in regard to health programs, to family services; they express
their concerns to us. We take those forward through the committee process that
has been established by this government.
I
sit with the two major departments, that is Family Services and Health, I
express those concerns to them, and they are brought forward from my
staff. I also meet with the directors of
MSOS, and with the directors of Age and
I
started a small group where I bring forward the presidents of all the seniors
organizations. I meet with them in my
office. I try to do that three or four
times a year and I will continue to do that.
That is how you relate and that is how you get these programs. No matter what government you are in, that is
the whole basis of getting information across, to get these people in.
* (1650)
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): I just have one
question. I would like to ask the
minister if he has had any contact with the residents of 425
There
were some concerns raised to me about the whole security measure in the
area. They were supposed to have been
setting up a meeting with SAM (Management) Inc.
I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of any meetings, or if
there has been anything brought to his attention.
Mr.
Ducharme: Not specifically to that, to the member. They probably have talked to Housing. We have had several concerns in regard, not
just to that one but, to other buildings in regards to security. I know when I was Housing minister, from my
senior groups, I was the one that brought forward to utilize the senior alert
program. I brought that into regional
housing because we used the same one that was used for our alarms.
So
we will attempt to work with the senior groups because no one should have to
worry about protection. We will continue
to work, and I have taken note of the
Mr.
Hickes: That was the question I was going to
ask: Would the minister be willing to
get in touch with the management team?‑‑and he has already
committed that, so that is good.
Mr.
Santos: This is one of the best ministers I know.
An
Honourable Member: He must want something, Gerry.
Mr.
Ducharme: I do not know what he is after.
Mr.
Santos: I am not after anything.
Mr.
Ducharme: I am just kidding you.
Mr.
Santos: In fact, I have something to say. I asked for that video, I never got it.
Mr.
Ducharme: Yes, your caucus got one.
Mr.
Santos: I never received it.
Mr.
Ducharme: I will get you another one, but your caucus
did get one.
Mr.
Santos: Page 11, under Activity
Identification/Operational Overview, it says:
"Facilitates and implements new initiatives to benefit Seniors in
Mr.
Ducharme: First of all, I guess the initiative from our
first year was to work on the video, because that was a result of the
hearings. The second would be to get the
brochures that we have now established.
We have several brochures established in many languages, and we are
devising these brochures. We are trying
to concentrate on specifics, like I mentioned in my opening remarks about
Pharmacare and my opening remarks about trust.
We
are trying to develop‑‑because the seniors like the small
pamphlets, they do not like the big books.
Also, we can get them in many languages.
I know the member is quite aware that we have two native languages we
have developed in some of these brochures:
When you are dealing with Pharmacare, and When you are dealing with
problems. That is our initiative right
now, to try to get that information across.
Mr.
Santos: The only two languages you mention are Cree
and Salteaux, whatever that native language is, Ojibway. Are there some other translations in other
languages that you have done, other than these two?
Mr.
Ducharme: Not for all our brochures. We have done Ukrainian, German, French and
English to some of our other ones.
Mr. Santos:
What about new immigrants?
Mr.
Ducharme: The ones who have actually talked about it
would be Ethos‑‑that is a multicultural group‑‑have
asked us to prepare, and we have asked them to give us our information on what
they would require and what they need for their groups. Ethos has been very
helpful in telling us what other languages. We have to go by what is in demand,
and if we get a demand for the languages we will certainly produce them.
Mr.
Santos: There is the distribution of these videos,
how many of those videos have been distributed so far?
Mr.
Ducharme: The initial amount we made up was 750. We distributed the 750 in
Just
to add to it, the feds have now started to pay for‑‑they paid for
the 500 that we distributed across
Mr.
Santos: Under Expected Results, also, in the second
line: Interaction with government departments on behalf of concerns expressed
by senior citizens. Do you have any
record of the instances or number of interactions you had with other government
departments on behalf of senior citizens?
Mr.
Ducharme: Most of our interaction is with our own
departments, and we have phone calls continually from them, we do have letters
and memos back and forth to the other departments. We have some information of
interaction. We do get calls from the
City of
Mr.
Santos: Under Activity Identification, also, the
second to the last line under the category:
"Liaises with community groups on seniors issues." I know you have some interactions with what
you mentioned in your opening remarks, Manitoba Society of Seniors.
Other
than those, do you have any interaction with new seniors groups among
immigrants, other than Ethos?
Mr.
Ducharme: Yes, Ethos, as you mentioned, and also Age
and
Mr.
Santos: On page 10, the last line: The Seniors Directorate "Evaluates
programs, policies and legislation to ensure that seniors' concerns are
reflected." Who is doing this
evaluation?
Mr.
Ducharme: My staff will do the evaluation, but also we
could, if we have not time, hire someone to do the evaluation of a
project. The transportation committee we
hired, for instance, that we have ongoing will evaluate the
transportation. We will hire someone to
look at different programs and evaluate them.
Usually
a lot of our evaluations, fortunately we are only a directorate, we do not have
a lot of funding to evaluate, so a lot of times the departments will do
evaluation, and they will include our staff with them. They will supply the evaluation for us.
Mr.
Santos: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the last few minutes,
will the minister ensure that he get enough funding source of his own, rather
than depend on other departments?
Mr.
Ducharme: Well, the only trouble is that, remember, it
is intermingled. There is no use
duplicating the people that are evaluating.
So my people can look from the Seniors Directorate portion, and let the
other departments‑‑it is all government money. Let the other departments do the evaluation
for us.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(b) Other Expenditures $131,600‑‑pass.
Resolution
122: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $263,900 for Seniors Directorate, Seniors
Directorate, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
This
completes the Estimates of the Department of Seniors Directorate. The next set of Estimates that will be
considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates for
Labour.
The
time being 5 p.m., and time for private members' hour, committee rise. JUSTICE
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of
Supply please come to order. This
section of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with the Estimates of the
Department of Justice.
We
will begin with a statement from the honourable minister responsible.
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Chairperson, I would like to thank
the committee for coming to an understanding about considering the Estimates of
Manitoba Justice in the order that we are dealing with them. I think this will make it easier for me and
may help opposition members as well. It
should make it easier for me to fit in the Estimates with the successive rounds
of constitutional conferences and will perhaps facilitate other business of the
Legislature as well.
Manitoba
Justice is asking for spending authority for $165.9 million in the 1992 fiscal
year, an increase of about $6.8 million over last year's Adjusted Vote. Most of the increase can be attributed to a
few areas. There will be an increase in
the Policing budget of about $1.9 million, most of which arises from higher
costs
At
this point I would like to move into brief discussion of some individual
highlights of the operations of Manitoba Justice, at the same time introducing
the relevant budget items associated with them.
As honourable members will know, Legal Aid has been an interesting
subject of discussion this year. The
tariff of fees paid private lawyers doing legal aid work was reduced, effective
last April 1. The regulation affected
various block‑fee criminal items in the tariff. The overall impact was a 12 percent
reduction, often referred to as 25 percent reduction, but the overall impact
was a 12 percent reduction projected to save $255,000 this fiscal year and
$510,000 in 1993‑94.
Many
private lawyers were understandably unhappy, and service was withdrawn in some
parts of the province. I am pleased to
say that reasoned discussion with the defence lawyers association and others
resulted in restoration of service and a solution for this year. The association proposed reducing the
criminal tariff reductions with a 12 percent holdback on criminal cases. We agreed to this effective May 18,
1992. The effect is that 12 percent of
the fees normally paid out in criminal cases is being held back by Legal Aid. If money is left over, that holdback will be
paid back on a pro rata basis.
I
want to stress to all honourable members that the Legal Aid budget has not been
reduced by this government. Quite the
opposite is true. The
I
am pleased to note that service is indeed in place and was not adversely
affected during some of the discussions and service withdrawals that took
place. Our goal is to ensure that this
continues to be the case.
One
of the highlights of the past year was the successful negotiation, in
association with our colleagues in seven other provinces, of a new and historic
policing contract with the federal government covering the costs of the RCMP as
We
were also able to achieve assumption by both levels of government of a fair
share of the cost‑base items respecting policing services. Other major achievements were inclusion of
important provisions for both financial and program accountability, as well as
procedures for resolving issues and differences.
We
were very happy to reach this agreement.
It removes the RCMP, which is universally honoured and respected in our
province, from being tarred by intergovernmental disagreements. Indeed, we were
proud yesterday and note that there will be the RCMP patrolling the grounds of
this fine institution.
It
will also make possible a variety of consultations on current program and financial
matters respecting police services. At a
time when policing is a profession and the place of policing in our society
faces major changes, this will make it easier to make adjustments as they
become necessary.
We
are making other changes in those areas in and associated with the department
that relate to policing services.
Briefly, the Manitoba Police Commission is being abolished, and the Law
Enforcement Review Agency's judicial responsibilities are being removed. LERA will continue to exercise its
investigatory role, but the judicial responsibility for appeals now exercised
by LERA and the Police Commission will be vested in
Some
of the administrative responsibilities of LERA and the responsibilities of the
Police Commission for promoting crime prevention, efficiency of policing
services and good police‑community relations will be assumed by the Law
Enforcement Services branch of my department.
Two
types of results are expected from these changes. We expect to achieve more administrative
efficiency and better service to the public and the policing community. We expect, as well, to achieve better
handling of appeals from LERA decisions respecting police conduct, since they
will now be heard by judges who are experienced both in the law and in
adjudicating disputes. This will produce
a more efficient process of reviewing policing practices.
On
behalf of the government, I would like to draw the attention of the committee
to one important change in administrative practice which will be reflected in
the operations of the Civil Legal Services branch of the department.
Starting
with the current fiscal year, legal services to government departments and some
Crown agencies will be operated on a charge‑back basis. By making the cost of these legal services
more visible, the change will make government process and administration more
accountable to the Legislature and to Manitobans.
One
area where much progress has been achieved is in fighting domestic violence.
From
the start, the court was well received and its operations have increased. This was reflected in the number of Crown
attorneys prosecuting cases and the number of hours of court time scheduled for
hearing the cases. The trend appears to
be increasingly heavy use of the court.
This results from several factors, among them increased awareness of
rights, the increased effectiveness of this specialized court and our policy of
no tolerance of partner abuse. We have
provided for the higher demand for the courts services in the 1992‑93
Justice budget. We have projected and
provided for increases of $376,400 in expenditures, and they are adding six
staff years in Public Prosecutions to strengthen the court's operations.
In
the Courts division, a new and successful service called computer‑assisted
transcription or CAT was introduced last year in the Transcription Services
unit to handle the production of court transcripts. The new system, approved by the government,
allowed for a mix of court reporters and CAT clerk monitors.
Judges,
in consultation with court staff, determine the appropriate method of recording
evidence. Priority is given to criminal,
civil jury trials‑‑I am not sure we have many civil jury trials,
but that is where the priority is, as well as the criminal ones‑‑and
legally complex civil cases and matters involving litigants or witnesses with
language problems.
So
far, I am pleased to report that the scheduling and use of CAT reporters is
consistent with the principles and protocol approved by the court's executive
board. Another one of a kind system in
this country for administering the court system. A blend of CAT reporters and court clerk
monitors allows us flexibility in customer services. CAT reporters are very beneficial in legally
complex cases or in matters involving language problems since their training
makes possible the smooth, professional conduct of a court hearing.
In
addition, CAT technology can be used in specialized cases. The judges are pleased with the blend of
services. The system gives judges
flexibility in determining the appropriate way to record evidence based on the
type of case. Moreover, since the
service began, the number of pages produced per day has increased but the
percentage of outstanding transcripts to be done has decreased.
I
would like to speak briefly about our continuing tough policy concerning
drinking and driving. We continue to
crack down on people who insist on drinking and driving and on those who drive
while suspended. We are happier with the
tougher measures against repeat offenders that came into force with the support
of honourable members of this House last year.
The message will not be changed:
You must not drink and drive.
The
measures
In
Corrections, as I mentioned earlier, most of the increase in budget relates to
the opening of the Remand Centre, where we hope to start transferring inmates
by September. We have earmarked 20
additional staff years for the centre's operations‑‑20‑‑reflecting
the larger capacity of the new building and its facilities.
In
addition, there will be one‑year transitional costs associated with the
change from the outmoded
Finally,
a brief point of information for honourable members about matters arising from
the Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry:
Since the report was issued, we have been in touch with leaders and
representative organizations in the aboriginal community to invite their
participation on a number of working groups that would plan specific
initiatives respecting Aboriginal Justice Inquiry recommendations. We are awaiting their responses and we hope
they will accept our invitation in the near future.
* (1440)
With
this, I will conclude this part of my introduction and await the comments from
my opposition critics. I have to tell
you, Madam Chairperson, as in the rest of the government, in the rest of this
country, it has been a difficult year financially speaking, a difficult year in
other ways as well, as the daily news will attest. But I am very proud of the progress we, as a
department, have made, and I am very challenged by the work ahead of us, always
acknowledging and recognizing much could, will and should still be done.
I
would like to thank the very, very valued people we have working in the
Department of Justice publicly for the fine, fine support they give this
minister, this government and the people of this province each and every
working day of the year. There is a high
level of commitment in our department. I
think there is a fairly high level of pride amongst the people who work for the
Department of Justice. It is a very
special department dealing with some very special problems and needs in our
communities and in our province, and it sure is nice to have dedicated people
to work with. Thank you, Madam
Chairperson.
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My opening comments will be very brief. I would just like to commence by reflecting
as well, the comments of the minister with respect to the dedication,
professionalism and activity of the staff of the Department of Justice. I know, personally, many of those individuals
and while at times during Question Period we may appear to reflect perhaps on
their professionalism, it is certainly not intended. It is not my intention, and I am sure the
critic for the Liberal Party as well. We
certainly recognize the very difficult task that has been placed in front of
them and certainly join with the minister in his comments with respect to all
of those individuals who work in the department.
I
can indicate, at least for our party, the approach is going to be a little bit
different with respect to our dealing with the Estimates. I am just going to outline briefly for the
minister how we intend to approach it, for two reasons. First off, because we are expediting these
matters because of the very lengthy and difficult negotiations that the
minister is involved in, and consequently I just want to advise him generally
what my plan is in this regard, and secondly, because of the time restraints on
the Estimates process, we feel we cannot necessarily fully deal with all
aspects of Estimates this period of time as we might hope to.
I
personally hope to touch on matters this Estimates process perhaps that I did
not have an opportunity to touch on the last Estimates process, and to expedite
matters as best that I can. It is also, at least, my intention to try to deal
with matters concerning the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry when we next meet on
Thursday, as opposed to today's session of the Estimates process.
With
those brief comments, I can indicate that I am prepared to proceed to deal with
the Supplementary Estimates.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Madam Chairperson, I want to start by recognizing
that both the minister and the government House leader, and my friend, the
member for Kildonan, and his House leader have attempted to be accommodating in
a co‑operative fashion of the very difficult schedule the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) has had, and will continue to have no doubt, in the
ensuing weeks as the constitutional discussions go forward. We are pleased to be able to participate in
this time frame, and I do not intend to be lengthy in our discussions because I
know time is short.
Other
years we have gone many, many hours and I think both myself and the member for
Kildonan have, to the minister's credit, had access to him and been able to
discuss issues as they have arisen from time to time, and that we appreciate.
As
a result, we will be restricting questions at this point in these Estimates
unlike past years, and perhaps unlike future years, but we will be doing that
in these Estimates.
I
took note of the comments of the minister.
In the course of the Estimates, he will see that we, of course, take
issue with some of his statements therein, but I do not intend to make a
lengthy statement at this point and I look forward to going through the
Estimates clause by clause. Thank you,
Madam Chairperson.
Madam
Chairperson: At this time I would request that the
minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
I
would remind all members of the committee that item 1.(a) Minister's Salary
will be deferred and dealt with after all other resolutions have been passed.
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I am pleased to introduce
people who are probably already known to honourable members. The first is Shirley Strutt who is our Acting
Deputy Attorney General for the
Mr.
Chomiak: I wonder if the minister can indicate for me
where he anticipates we should deal with the Pedlar report, under which
appropriation?
Mr.
McCrae: Since Public Prosecutions is basically
chairing the government's working group respecting our responses to the Pedlar
review, I should think that Public Prosecutions lines in the Estimates would be
the appropriate time to discuss those issues.
Mr.
Chomiak: I am wondering if the minister can outline
for me, there are eight staff years in Executive Support this year as was the
same last year, can the minister just perhaps table at some point a list of who
those eight individuals are?
Mr.
McCrae: At some point in the future I would be happy
to do that for the honourable member.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, my final question in this
area is: I note that the managerial
salary level is $102,100; can the minister indicate that more or less reflects
the salary of the deputy minister?
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the figure referred to by
the honourable member would be a reference to the Deputy Attorney General, but
as the honourable member knows we have changes going on in that area. For the moment we are well served, indeed, by
Shirley Strutt as Acting Deputy Attorney General. This number reflects what would have been the
case if there had been no change.
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, just on that point, can
the minister indicate what the process is with respect to securing a permanent
deputy minister, when he expects that decision might be made, and how he is
going about finding a new deputy minister?
Mr.
McCrae: As the honourable member knows, there are a
number of ways to choose a senior executive like a deputy minister. None of
those things are done without the knowledge and consultation of the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) of the province, who has the job of appointing ministers and
appointing deputy ministers.
With
that in the background, I say to you that at the present time we are well
served by the services of the present acting deputy minister, but we do have to
take a longer‑term look at the future of the department. To be quite frank with the honourable member,
we have today not made long‑term arrangements. We expect to turn our attention to those long‑term
arrangements shortly after the return of the Premier from
* (1450)
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I just wanted to query the
minister to clarify where, perhaps, I should ask this question, so I am asking
under this category. I, at some point,
would like a list tabled of the outside counsel, the occasions when the
I
wondering if this is the appropriate place to ask for it or some other place,
or maybe the minister can take notice of that now, and we can proceed on to
other matters.
Mr.
McCrae: I believe, in the past, when this request has
been made, the response has been to provide that information, and I see no
reason to change that way of doing it.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1.(b) Executive Support: (1) Salaries $334,400‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $92,900‑‑pass.
1.(c)
Policy, Planning and Special Projects:
(1) Salaries.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, the minister, on previous
occasions, provided us with a two‑page handout entitled Policy, Planning
and Communication project listing. I am
wondering if the minister would be prepared to also table that document at this
time?
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I think I can provide to
the honourable member a list of the items that the Policy, Planning and Special
Projects people are working on. I do not
think it will take two pages this year.
As
the honourable member would understand, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and
domestic violence has really captured the attention of our policy and planning
branch this year. I will give the
honourable member a list of the projects that the branch is working on but I do
not think it will take two pages this year.
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, we would appreciate
receiving that list as well and we have received it in prior years; it is
useful.
I
wonder if the minister is prepared to table to members a copy of the 1988 Law
Enforcement Review study which was completed in the department.
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I will just ask Mr.
Sinnott to bring Mr. Yost in, who is, I understand, not far away and he can
help me get through some of these questions.
I
said to the honourable member, and agreed that I would make available a list of
the projects that the branch has been working on, but it has not been customary
for the branch to make available the contents of its work. It comes under the heading of policy advice
to the government, so I would have to decline the honourable member's request.
Mr.
Edwards: Is the minister prepared to indicate then
whether or not his recent changes to the Law Enforcement Review Agency were in
compliance with the study and the recommendations which were found in the 1988
report?
Mr.
McCrae: As with any comprehensive work, the things
that flow from them do not always reflect all the items in the study, so from
some aspects of that study would flow the legislative changes that are proposed
in this session and the changes may not reflect all the matters dealt with in
the study or indeed all the recommendations.
It is, though, an internal and it is a government document that is for
the use of developing policy, and we have developed a policy with the use of
that study and other resources.
Mr.
Edwards: Can the minister indicate whether or not
there has been a study done, or is being done now, on the issue of Police
Commission vis‑a‑vis the City of Winnipeg Police, or are there
discussions ongoing with the City of Winnipeg about what body might be put in
place to deal with the allegations which come forward from time to time which
we all know about of police abuse, in which it is not necessarily victim
driven, through a process like LERA or other processes in place, but rather
there is a public concern about the police activity and there is a great need
for a swift and credible review?
Of
course, we have many experiences. This
minister has personally met experiences where that has got out of hand and
eventually we have had to bring in others to do these reviews in a costly and,
I think, less than perfect way.
Have
there been any discussions with the City of
Mr.
McCrae: The questions the honourable member raises
are sort of a multidisciplinary kind of thing, policy and planning has an
involvement, Public Prosecutions has an involvement. There is a review going on of civilian and
other forms of authority over police agencies across the country, so in terms
of a project along this line by the policy branch, I do not think it could be described
in that way, but Prosecutions is also part of that.
I
have not personally had a lot of‑‑how would I put it‑‑substantial
discussion with Winnipeg Police authorities about a police commission there for
the future. We have our plans, as the
honourable member will see on his review of the legislation coming forward at
this session for how the province will play its role in dealing with public
complaints against the police, and how we deal with policy matters and crime
prevention matters as traditionally carried by out the Manitoba Police
Commission.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, last year we were advised
that there was an experimental two‑year project consisting of five
magistrates at the Provincial Remand Centre to deal with bail hearings and the
like. That was a two‑year pilot
project according to the department last year, and as I understand it, the
project would be reviewed after May, 1993.
My question for the minister is, has this pilot project been expanded in
any way, shape or form outside of the five new magistrates at the PRC?
* (1500)
Mr.
McCrae: The answer is no, there has not been the
expansion implicit in the honourable member's question.
I
am just having a wee problem, Madam Chairperson, I do not know how long we are
going to be doing this, how long these Estimates are going to last, and I am
just saying to the honourable member, sometimes it is good for me to get some
departmental advice and the question about the Remand Centre Hearing Officer
Program is really better asked under either Prosecutions or Courts I would
think than under this particular heading.
I
am not trying to be difficult. I do not
know how long you want to spend. If you
want to talk about a lot of general things, we can do that, and then if there
are specifics, we do have people here to help us through these things. That question, I might be able to give you a
better, more detailed answer on some of these things if they were asked at the
time when Courts or Prosecutions are with me.
Mr.
Chomiak: That is fine and I will endeavour to do
that. I was just simply reflecting the
questions that were contained in the pilot study that was provided by the
minister last year, which is why I asked it under this particular appropriation.
That is fine, certainly I want to expedite matters as best as I can under the
circumstances.
I
do not think that I personally will have any more questions in this area,
subject to the fact that when the minister tables this, if he tables the list
of projects and studies under this appropriation when we next meet, I may want
to come back to ask a couple of questions on that tabled document the next time
we meet here, Thursday.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1.(c) Policy, Planning and Special
Projects: (1) Salaries $288,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $144,900‑‑pass.
1.(d)
Financial and Administrative Services:
(1) Salaries $989,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $124,100‑‑pass.
1.(e)
Human Resource Services: (1) Salaries
$649,400.
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate‑‑I
know there has been some recent resolution of salaries with the Public
Prosecutions Branch‑‑is this the group in the department that
negotiates with the union for Crown attorneys in this province?
Mr.
McCrae: My department is involved in those negotiations
as a resource to the Civil Service Commission which is in charge of the
bargaining.
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate
what, and the specifics of, the pay increases were in the last resolution? We had press reports, but can the minister
give us a brief summary of what the results were with the negotiations, which I
believe concluded about a month ago, and also indicate where that ranks our
Crown attorneys in terms of pay in this country?
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, there are a number of
elements to the agreement. It has been,
I understand, ratified by the ranks of the Crown Attorneys Association of
Manitoba, but not yet by the government.
Other
than the general kind of thing you will hear publicly about percentages and so
on, there is not much light I can shed on this contract at this point until
ratification happens. It is safe to say
that I think the percentage increases are in line with percentage increases for
other public servants in
Mr.
Edwards: Can the minister answer the second part of
the question as to where our Crown attorneys rank in
Mr.
McCrae: That information, would, I assume, be
available from the Civil Service Commission, but the honourable member gives me
more powers than I have. I am not the
one who would take the issue of a collective agreement with the prosecutors to
the government, but the Civil Service Commission minister, I presume would be
the one to do that.
Mr.
Edwards: Is the minister saying, and I do not mean to
belabour the point, but that he is simply not aware of the answer to that, of
where they rank in
Mr. McCrae:
Until I look at the package in detailed form, I will have to reserve on
answering that question for the honourable member. I do not know today where they were, or where
they will be. We value their service, we
have negotiated with them an agreement which they apparently have ratified, and
that is where it stands today.
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, just in conclusion, would
the minister undertake, once he has done that, to inform us of the results of
that. I raise that because others have
raised with me rankings which I would like verified before I was to take them
as fact. I would be interested to know
if the minister comes to the same conclusion that I have been advised of when
he has done his review, and would appreciate him advising me of the results of
his review.
Mr.
McCrae: The information will be public information
and if there is any way I can help get the information to the honourable
member, I would be pleased to do so.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1.(e) Human Resource Services: (1) Salaries $649,400‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $33,200‑‑pass.
1.(f)
Computer Services: (1) Salaries $664,000‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $393,900‑‑pass.
1.(g)
Public Inquiry into the Administration of Justice and Aboriginal People.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I note the overwhelming
appropriation this fiscal year for this category, but my question at this point
to the minister is, we have discussed informally, and I just want to clarify,
we did discuss informally, again, for purposes of expediting this process, that
we would try to deal with as much of the Justice Estimates today and perhaps
the beginning of Thursday when we next meet as possible, and leave the AJI for
the latter part of Thursday.
Does
that meet with the basic understanding and approval of the minister, because I
believe the critic for the Liberal Party is in concurrence with that?
Mr.
McCrae: I just have been given a hint by the
honourable member that we are not going to finish today, so that being the
case, unless we finish up and can deal with that matter later today, I expect
to be present, available and willing to discuss the matter on Thursday.
* (1510)
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1.(g)(1) Salaries $0.
Mr.
Edwards: Just to clarify, I think the suggestion was that,
like the Minister's Salary, we would set this appropriation aside. I realize it is zero, but we would just not
deal with it until Thursday, and that we would continue through Justice and try
to get it done today, other than this.
We may or may not be able to do that, but definitely, we would leave
this until Thursday. I wonder if there
is agreement from the minister. There is certainly agreement from the member
for Kildonan and I to do that.
Mr.
McCrae: Actually, there is no harm in passing this
nonappropriation here. It says zero at
the bottom. There is an appropriation
for Aboriginal Justice Inquiry measures or initiatives, which is in another
place altogether in the Estimates book.
It is not listed in my department, but I think we all understand that I
am saying we can discuss that line in the Estimates book even though it is not
part of the Justice ones, whenever it is convenient for honourable members to
do so.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1.(g)(1) Salaries $0‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $0‑‑pass.
Item
2. Public Prosecutions (a) Public Prosecutions:
(1) Salaries.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I have a number of
questions in this area. Firstly, it is
in relation to‑‑in the Shaver case‑‑the use of an independent
special prosecutor by the Department of Justice.
I
am wondering if the minister can briefly outline for me the circumstances
surrounding the use of a special prosecutor in that instance, and what the
departmental policy is with respect to the use of special prosecutors, as well
as other instances, if the minister can outline for me when special prosecutors
are being utilized at present?
Mr.
McCrae: I will talk for just a minute while Mr.
Whitley, the assistant deputy minister responsible for this branch, finds his
place and his page number.
In
general terms, the policy is that sensible and appropriate decisions should be
taken in prosecutorial matters to ensure that there is no hint of conflict in
any given situation. Honourable members
will recall cases where we have engaged the services of prosecutors other than
those employed in the
The
honourable member asks a question about a specific case, which always gives me
some concern when the case is not completed.
Perhaps the honourable member can ask me another question. While he is asking me that one, I will get
some specific advice with respect to the Shaver case.
We
have explicit policy, Madam Chairperson, written, dated and part of our
operational policy in the Prosecutions Branch.
With
regard though to the case referred to by the honourable member, since there are
allegations in the case that deal with discussions between an informant and
prosecutors within my department, it is felt that the best thing to do is to
engage the services of someone outside the Prosecutions office altogether. It
is extremely complex and expected to be a very long case. We felt that engaging someone outside the
office was the best thing to do in this case because of the nature of the case.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, how was the process made
to determine who the special prosecutor would be in an instance such as
this? How was the individual determined?
Mr.
McCrae: I am sorry for the pause, but the honourable
member will know that these decisions were made some months ago, and with the
relatively brief notice I had that we were going to be discussing these things
today, I think it is wise to have my memory up to date.
The
Deputy Minister of Justice at that time was given a list of private
practitioners in the
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I can indicate that coming
from the Department of Education Estimates, the minister's pause amounts to a
mere ripple in terms of time. I can
certainly assure the minister of that.
With
respect to the Hughes report recommendation, the province set up a liaison
committee. I am wondering if the
minister can indicate for me how the liaison committee is functioning, when it
last met, and generally what is on its agenda.
Mr.
McCrae: Senior officials of my department, of the
Prosecutions Branch, the acting chiefs and deputies of the City of
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, as a result of the
recommendation of the Hughes report, the department indicated that new charging
and arrest policies in Crown opinions in complex cases will be developed and
implemented by the liaison committee.
Can the minister outline if in fact this has happened? Can he table what those new procedures are?
Mr.
McCrae: Out of the process I referred to in the last
answer, and a relationship that our department has with the RCMP, the policy
referred to has been developed. It is in
written form and can be shared with honourable members. If they would like that to happen, I will
make the policy available to them.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I certainly would
appreciate it, and I am certain the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) as well
would appreciate copies of those particular policies.
* (1520)
Finally,
with respect to the Hughes commission, the Justice Department worked with the
city police to develop educational upgrading.
I am wondering if the minister can outline specifically for me what that
educational upgrading entailed.
Mr.
McCrae: I think it is fair to say that extremely
significant progress has been made in this area. The honourable member will be aware that like
one or two other notable police departments in this country, the City of
Winnipeg Police has involved itself in an accreditation program which requires,
in order for this accreditation to happen, that the City of Winnipeg Police
meet certain standards and, if they do not, to find ways to upgrade themselves
to those standards.
This
process requires the assistance of our department. Our department is there and willing, and is
providing the assistance that is needed in these matters. They are meeting, as a matter of fact, this
week with City of
I
think it would be a good thing to say, too, that the government of
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I do not mean to belabour
this point, but the press release on the Hughes inquiry did indicate the
Justice Department is already co‑operating with the
Mr.
McCrae: What we have is an ongoing process of working
together, Prosecutions Branch and Winnipeg Police. Our prosecutors take an active role in working
with Winnipeg Police in their training division. Now, that includes special advice from the
Prosecutions Branch on issues related to the breathalyzer, issues related to
arresting and charging, which goes directly to the Hughes recommendations. A review has just been completed.
We
are also involved in giving advice to the police department with respect to
materials used in their training programs.
I think that contrary to a lot of people's opinions, there has been a
longstanding relationship with the
I
think there has been a tendency on the part of some to overstate some of the
difficulties. I am always the first one
there, if there is a difficulty, to acknowledge that, because to pretend that
difficulties do not exist is a very dangerous thing, especially in policing
matters. There were; no one is denying
that. Ted Hughes made it very clear that
in one particular case, there was an extreme problem.
I
believe that even prior to the presentation and release of the Hughes report,
much work had already been done or was still underway in regard to that
relationship that we used to talk about that is so important for the proper
administration of justice and for the perception of the proper administration
of justice. Much has been done. We have talked at previous Estimates reviews
about a number of working operating policies between Crown and police and for
prosecutors, too.
(Mr.
Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
If
prosecutors are bound by certain policy rules, then obviously police
authorities have to be as well, because while we all recognize the right of the
police authority to lay charges, ultimately how they are disposed of has a lot
to do with the role that the Crown plays.
The police are aware of that, and things have improved quite
significantly over the last few years.
Mr.
Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister
outline for us what the final costs were with respect to the Hughes inquiry?
Mr.
McCrae: Mr. Acting Chairperson, as soon as I can get
that information, I will share it with the honourable member.
Mr.
Chomiak: Just returning momentarily back to the issue
of education in the police department, the minister will recall recently the
recommendation of the provincial judge following the inquest dealing with the
McKay suicide, which conveniently allows me to do a mea culpa with respect to
my question in Question Period, in which I said that the judge had indicated in
his report that it could have been prevented perhaps by education. The judge in
fact did not say that, and I was wrong.
Having
said that‑‑[interjection! It will not be the first and certainly
not the last time that I have been wrong.
Nonetheless, the judge did indicate at that time that more attention
should be paid to education on domestic violence matters for police
departments. I am wondering, since we
are into the education matter, whether the Department of Justice has
implemented any processes in that regard?
Mr.
McCrae: Mr. Acting Chairperson, as a result of the
Pedlar review into domestic violence, the RCMP, the Brandon City Police and the
Winnipeg Police all have working committees to respond to the Pedlar
review. All those working committees are
working in co‑operation with our department and the community advisory
group that has been set up, with whom I had the opportunity to meet this
morning.
We
can already say that dispatch instructions for police authorities have been
improved and the options available to officers have been tightened up, reduced
so that procedures are more clear.
Previous to Pedlar, no report was required in what used to be called
"routine domestic call," now a report is required in each and every
one.
I
think that piece of change in policy may go some way to responding to domestic
violence review, as well as the recommendations made after the McKay inquest.
Mr.
Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I have an extensive
list of questions with respect to Pedlar, which I will proceed to shortly.
I
want to turn to the matter of the department's wrestling with the issue of
determining what constitutes degrading material with respect to the recent
Supreme Court decision dealing with pornography. I am wondering if the minister might outline
for us in the House here what the Crown has concluded in regard to this matter?
* (1530)
Mr.
McCrae: As the honourable member will have heard
recently, the department has given to police authorities the preliminary
definition, if you like, that they should use in dealing with these kinds of
cases. It has also been made known that
the department is utilizing the services of experts in this area. I understand that the advice has been
received from the expert‑‑I do not know if it is a criminologist,
sociologist, whatever, psychologist.
That advice has been received as recently as today, and I understand
that we can go further and make our preliminary advice to the police agencies a
more permanent kind of advice very, very shortly.
Mr.
Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, is the minister
prepared to outline for us today, at least, the tentative direction of the
advice that is being provided to the police department since they have already
received it in a preliminary sense?
Mr.
McCrae: The honourable member will understand that I
can only comment on this in general terms and make as much reference to the
Supreme Court decision in
I
guess the problem that we have been having has been with that last category‑‑the
degrading and dehumanizing situation. The honourable member knows and will
agree that the Crown is not a censor in these matters. If you look at a piece of video or any other
kind of material that has large segments of it that are degrading and
dehumanizing, and the work, if you want to call it that, is devoid of any
particular artistic merit, then I guess the advice that flows from the Supreme
Court and through our department to police authorities is that then is
something that is obscene and therefore against the law as it is set out in the
Criminal Code.
I
do not know if it is ever going to be easy to define obscenity. Pornography is easy to define. Obscenity is not so easy. That is why we have these difficult cases and
arguments made. I am very pleased though
that the province is taking the position it has when you go right back to the
decision made in the Court of Queen's Bench here in Manitoba, the decision that
resulted because this government appealed that initial decision, took it to the
Manitoba Court of Appeal. Then it was
appealed again to the Supreme Court.
We
argued strenuously and extremely well, as it turns out, in favour of the court
finding that obscenity is dangerous.
That part of the argument turns out to be an extremely important part of
it, because you are not entitled to go around doing things that are dangerous
to other people, no matter what the Charter of Rights says.
So,
as a layman, that is how I see what the court's decision is. It does not take away all the legal jargon
and interpretations that must flow from that.
I suspect that all the jurisdictions that are taking strong positions on
obscenity are having the same problem we are.
In our case, we did make preliminary advice available to the police, but
dealing with that third heading, it seems it was a little more troublesome in
making it really clear.
So
we have, as I say, enlisted the help of a psychologist from
The
honourable member might be interested to know that of all of the issues that I
have dealt with in the last four years, no issue has generated more mail and
more expression of public support for this government's position on pornography
than this particular issue.
Mr.
Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, once it is finalized,
will that opinion be made public so that we are privy to the information under
which the province would consider and not consider laying charges?
Mr.
McCrae: The problem is that the interpretation of
what the Supreme Court said and what the law says is an interpretation for
courts to make. If it is necessary, the
type of testimony, if you like, that the honourable member is talking about,
will be made public in a public courtroom and will be adjudicated on by a
judge.
I
do not think it is right for us to make our opinion, of what the Supreme Court
judgment says, available because there might be those in society who would
think that that then is their guideline.
We do not know if this is going to be the right one. It will be decided
ultimately by a court of law. So it is
not for any wish to be unco‑operative or anything like that, but our view
on this matter will, no doubt, at some point come forward in a courtroom. Then whatever the judge says about it will
end up being what the real view is.
Mr.
Chomiak: The province employs either full time, or on
a part‑time basis, a prosecutor who looks after environmental
concerns. I am wondering if the minister
would be in a position to table for us the statistics or any kind of detail
which would outline for us the status of environmental prosecutions from the
Prosecutions Branch with respect to that environmental prosecutor.
* (1540)
Mr.
McCrae: The cases that can be identified as purely
environmental cases, we can make the information the honourable member is asking
for available to him. We have a person
who specializes in this field but does not do this work exclusively. There is
other work in his portfolio as well.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, just to be clear and
follow up on some of the questions of my friend with respect to education and
training, I note that under the Programs and Grants line, and I am looking at
the No. 4, it talks about crime prevention funding grant provisions as a result
of new community participation focus.
There is a $100,000 decrease. Has
that $100,000 been transferred in its entirety to some other provision in the
department?
The
second question on note No. 3 is with respect to the "increase due to
education and training in Family Violence issues." Can the minister indicate what specifically
that increase went towards and what the education and training constituted for
the prosecuting attorneys?
Mr.
McCrae: With respect to crime prevention, due to our
fiscal problems, the budget for crime prevention programs has been
reduced. There is no transfer. You cannot find that $100,000 somewhere
else. It is not there, and that is the
case. We have in the last four years,
with that budget, been able to do some significant things, and we hope that we
will be able to carry on this year with a much‑reduced budget in that
area. That is as best as I can put it,
Mr. Acting Chairperson.
With
respect to education, we have specialists operating in the area of family
violence in our
Mr.
Edwards: Just on the training issue then, so there was
not a concerted program developed for all Crown attorneys to do. It was rather, I take it, Crown attorneys who
were involved in those issues would go to specific events.
I
just want to clarify that there was no concerted effort to educate or train in
the area of family violence or at least raise the educational level on those
issues of all Crown attorneys.
Mr.
McCrae: It is the view of the Women's Directorate of
Manitoba, shared by the federal, provincial and Territorial Working Group on
Gender Bias in the Courts, that a concentration of the training, when there are
finite dollars available, in those areas where it is going to do the most good
is the right approach, so we have adopted that approach. The other one is, spread it thin. You do not get the same result. It is not as positive as we are achieving in
Obviously,
we want all of our prosecutors to be trained in the dynamics of domestic
violence and the protocols and all of those things referred to in the Pedlar
review. Those are our goals, but
certainly, for the shorter term, we need to concentrate the training and
confine it to those‑‑confine is the wrong word, but make sure those
who were directly involved, for example, in our
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, on the other point,
that of crime prevention, what is left of a specific budget dedicated to crime
prevention?
Mr.
McCrae: The particular line the honourable member is
referring to is what used to be $200,000, is now $100,000, but crime prevention
is implicit in a whole lot of other lines in these Estimates. When you look at our department's budget
increasing by the amount I referred to in my opening comments and the whole
picture, you are not getting the whole picture by looking at the cut in that
particular line from $200,000 to $100,000.
I would like that to be $200,000, but I am sorry it cannot be this year,
and we will have to use that $100,000 as well as we can.
Mr.
Edwards: So there still is a $100,000 on this line
dedicated amount to crime prevention? I
see the minister nodding in agreement, so I do not need him to specifically
answer that. I take that as a positive
response.
With
respect to the City of
I
realize that the monies from those accrue to the city. I realize that there is a prosecutor, I
believe, paid for by the City of
Mr.
McCrae: I am going to say something about the
honourable member's last question, and then I will get onto this one.
That
$100,000, the kinds of things we financed through that program are things like
the accreditation for the City of
The
Citizens For Crime Awareness received $83,000 under that fund to set up some co‑ordinators
for their extremely successful neighbourhood work that they do in involving the
citizens, not only of
Through
that fund, we purchased for the City of
It
was used to buy a telephone dialing machine, a $15,000 item, for the city of
* (1550)
Those
are kind of things that we cover out of that grant, and we will have to be
extra careful this year that we spend the $100,000 as wisely as we can.
With
respect to the honourable member's question about outstanding traffic tickets,
he will know that it is a municipal responsibility. The honourable member, however, joined with
us and the New Democratic Party last session, I believe it was, to pass amendments
to The Summary Convictions Act to tighten up the loopholes, but the only answer
I can give you is that the enforcement is a civic matter.
Mr.
Edwards: You said that courts are a provincial matter,
and I know that there is one prosecutor employed by the City of
Mr.
McCrae: The answer is, yes, eight by the city, and I
guess the arrangement is that he operates‑‑she, sorry‑‑she
operates as part of our team but does that work for the city and is paid by the
city.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I received a concern
expressed by an individual‑‑who I note also wrote the minister‑‑a
gentleman by the name of Mr. Barber. He
raised an issue dealing with what he called a loophole in the drinking and
driving legislation. I raise it in this
context because it does have something to do with the prosecution of those
offences under the Criminal Code dealing with drinking and driving.
His
concern was that someone involved in a motor vehicle accident could leave the
scene of an accident when the police were wanting to ask that person to blow
or, of course, the penalty is the same for refusal to blow, and that by leaving
the scene of the accident, face a much less serious charge of leaving the scene
of an accident as opposed to failure to blow or being impaired.
He
raised that with the minister in respect of a specific incident in which he was
involved. It did cause me some
concern. I had not thought of that
scenario previously. I wonder if the
minister can indicate what response he has to that letter, and if he does not
have it at his fingertips, perhaps he could provide me with one. It is a correspondence from Mr. Barber, which
was to him, and is dated February 19 of this year.
Mr.
McCrae: I will be sharing with the honourable member
my response to the letter written to me by the person in question.
It
is clearly against the law to leave the scene of an accident. I guess it depends on the circumstances and
the penalties that are set out in the statute and depending on whether it is
the Criminal Code or The Highway Traffic Act.
I take it, to leave the scene is a Highway Traffic Act matter; it can be
a Criminal Code matter as well.
So
depending on how you proceed would have some effect on the outcome of the
matter. I will be sharing with the
honourable member my response to the gentleman in question.
Mr.
Edwards: That would be appreciated. Just on the, finally, issue that the minister
referenced. We have sort of gone back
and forth on crime prevention here, but what specifically did the accreditation
program for the Winnipeg Police and the Brandon Police have to do with crime
prevention?
I
do not say that is not a very, very valuable, worthy purpose. It is something ongoing. Upgrading and training of police is something
which goes on, one hopes, all the time.
The accreditation program, I am sure, covers many aspects of police
services. Police services in their
entirety could be cast as crime prevention.
Police are out trying to stop crime and to deal with those who do commit
crime.
I
wonder if the minister can tie specifically these grants to a more identifiable
crime prevention purpose?
Mr.
McCrae: The whole purpose of having police officers
is to enforce the law and to prevent crime.
The whole purpose of having an improved police agency is to improve the
enforcement of the law and to improve crime prevention.
I
do not have much trouble linking the two.
If the honourable member has problems, maybe he could tell me what they
are.
Mr.
Edwards: My only problem is this, that based on that
definition, all expenditures by police forces to the extent that they are
dedicated to improving the quality of policing, qualify for funds from the
crime prevention funds. Crime prevention
is a more limited, I believe, a more identifiable, definable goal.
My
definition perhaps differs from that of the minister, but if one takes that
very broad definition, one could see any and all crime prevention funds being
spent on the operating costs of police forces.
I do not think that was their intended purpose.
Maybe
the minister could enlighten me as to whether or not he would agree then that
all funds going to police forces to improve the efficiency of the police force
would qualify in his definition as crime prevention funding for the purposes of
this fund.
Mr.
McCrae: I think we have come to a point where our
opinions go separate ways on this. I think
I heard the honourable member say that these kinds of grants and these kinds of
expenditures of public money really ought not to be spent out of this
appropriation.
I
believe, that if through this accreditation process‑‑and I know
that it can be done through this process‑‑we can make police
agencies more proactive in their approach than reactive, then we are achieving
in a very, very real sense an improvement on the crime prevention fund.
The
honourable member has heard me make my speeches about crime prevention before,
and I do not need to go through all of that.
I guess it is just a plain question of disagreement that‑‑I
think I know what the honourable member is saying, and that is that we should
be spending whatever scarce dollars in this appropriation there are for
something other than police agencies‑‑perhaps something more
community based and so on.
What
is more community based than spending $15,000 in the city of Brandon to buy a
telephone dialer for the police department so they can phone hundreds and
hundreds of people who live in the community who are involved in crime
prevention programs? [interjection!
Well,
the honourable member says that is not what he is talking about, but I will get
back to a more general statement then and say that if we, through things like
accreditation, make police authorities more proactive than reactive, then we
are solving a lot of criminal activity upfront.
It is not happening, and then we do not have to go through all the other
costs that flow from crime in our society.
So
while it is an honest disagreement, I believe I appreciate what the honourable
member is saying, but I believe it is money well spent.
Mr.
Edwards: Perhaps, certainly, if the accreditation
program is entirely directive towards police being more proactive and
preventative, I would agree. I have
nothing per se against spending funds on police to enhance their sensitivity to
crime prevention initiatives on how those can best be done on the streets, and
I agree.
Perhaps
to resolve this, the minister would be prepared to table the document from the
* (1600)
Mr.
McCrae: Mr. Acting Chairperson, before I make a
commitment to release all of those documents, I would want to contact the Chief
of Police of the City of
Let
me tell you, we use this particular appropriation for things besides just
police‑driven crime prevention ideas.
If you look at the amount spent on these accreditation programs and
compare it with the other programs that we finance through this appropriation,
I think the honourable member would be persuaded before too long that some of
the things we have done have been the right things to do.
For
example, the John Howard Society of Brandon in southwestern Manitoba is being
served by the John Howard Society there in education programs for school
children to deal with vandalism and with shoplifting, two of the areas of crime
that young people‑‑if they are going to get involved in crime‑‑those
seem to be the ones that they sort of try out first, if the statistics are
true, which I believe they are.
That
kind of program is not a bad idea. It is
an education program and it is a crime prevention program. So basically, you know, other than maybe a
little disagreement about accreditation, the honourable member and I do see
things eye to eye, but when it comes to the information leading to those
accreditation grants, I would like very much to provide the honourable member
with the information, but I would like to touch bases with the chief first.
Mr.
Edwards: I look forward to that. I sense by the minister's throwing the light
onto the other programs which are funded under this line, which of course are
legitimately more easily identifiable as crime prevention programs, he is
backing away a bit from the accreditation programs as being supportable as
entirely crime prevention initiatives, which really they should be to qualify
for these grants. So I look forward to
seeing the supporting documents from those police forces.
I
understand that those chiefs may want to be consulted. I would be very disturbed if they would not
agree to their release. Clearly, they
will want to support and have Manitobans know that they are embarking on this
accreditation program to improve their police performance. They have supplied it to the government in
support of grant‑‑public monies.
I would think that they‑‑[interjection! He says it is a
courtesy and I appreciate that. I am
simply saying that in the event that they did decline I would be concerned, and
I look forward to a positive response.
The
minister has in his Expected Results under this appropriation the
Victim/Witness Assistance Program, and the Child Abuse Witness Program and the
Expected Results there under, which of course we are all aware of, I wonder if
the minister can indicate specific to the Victim Witness Assistance program
whether or not there is any decision to deal with the victim impact statement
program which has been cut, whether there is any move or any desire on the part
of the government to reinstate that, or whether that has been cut permanently
from the budget?
Mr.
McCrae: Through the vehicle of the probation or
predisposition report, there is room for a victim impact statement, Mr. Acting
Chairperson.
Here
again, although we are making some real strides in the area of rights for
victims in our court system, in our justice system, this is one program that
does require further funding if it is going to amount to a major improvement in
the program and with the money that we have in these Estimates we are not able
to do that at this time. But through
that vehicle that is possible and available to judges who ask for
predisposition reports.
Mr.
Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I have several
questions with respect to the Pedlar report and I cannot recall now whether we
agreed that this would be the most appropriate appropriation to deal with the
Pedlar report, or whether we should do it under the
Mr.
McCrae: I think when we have the chair of the working
group on the government side which has the most to do with the Community
Advisory group available to us, this is probably the right place and time to
talk about Pedlar.
Mr.
Chomiak: I have a general question, and then I intend
to turn right to the Pedlar report with some specific questions contained in
the report. So I am just advising the
minister and staff.
My
first question, the general question is, what is the status of the violence
review committee? Have recommendations
been made to the government with respect to prioritizing the implementation of
the report and, if so, what are those priorities?
(Madam
Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr.
McCrae: Upon receipt of the Pedlar review, our
government got busy canvassing the various departments to see which areas of
recommendation in the Pedlar review we had already made significant progress on
or had completed, to see what we planned in terms of recommendations we could
accept, and not just relating to the recommendations comprehensive though they
are, there are other areas as well, and thirdly, long term. What do the various departments see as being
possible or advisable to do in the long term to promote a safer community for
women in our society?
The
advisory committee was struck, and that advisory committee is composed of
extremely knowledgeable people in the area of providing shelter to abused women
and their children. They are also knowledgeable in the systems that work and do
not work sometimes, and do not work well enough in other areas, to provide protection
for mostly women, but also children‑‑anyone who is a victim of
domestic violence.
So
the government put together this compendium, if you like, of measures either
done, planned, or planned for the long term, to put before the Community
Advisory Committee. I, myself, met this
morning with the members of the Community Advisory Committee to ask them for
their input now that they have that in front of them. What is wrong with what we are proposing or
what we are doing? How can we improve
what we are proposing or what we are doing?
Does this go far enough? Should
there be other things?
In
fact, they expressly asked that they not necessarily be confined only to the
recommendations in the Pedlar review. I
readily agreed that if the Pedlar review could be improved on, or if a more
comprehensive approach is going to be necessary, then why would we want to rule
it out? There is no question everybody
around the table has the same result in mind, and that is a safer environment
for people in
* (1610)
So
I believe that, while it is true, I think for the first time that I know of,
the government has taken this extraordinary step of asking for this kind of
structured process to happen. We have
the Community Advisory Group on the one side and the government working group
on the other. It is certainly an
approach that is new to me at least. We
are going to have a few patches along the way where we are getting a process
started and we have to iron out some wrinkles.
So
today was a day like that for me and the advisory group. We chatted frankly
about the problems that we have, the approach that we are taking, and I think
resolved together to work together to achieve some real results which will
result in a safer and more civilized society.
So
I can say that I am well pleased at this stage, but there is still plenty of
work to do. All of that is said in the
light of the fact that plenty has been done.
I think there is general acknowledgment that in the last four years in
this province,
When
you get other provinces sending their Attorneys General or their delegations of
senior officials to your province to see what we are doing here and wanting to
use that as an example, it feels good, but it also reminds me always of the
remaining challenges.
Mr.
Chomiak: Candice Minch, who is a policy analyst with
Manitoba Justice, as I understand it, acts as a liaison between the two groups
and was responsible for putting together a work plan for the community
committee. I am wondering if the
minister would be prepared to table that work plan just so we have some ideas
as to the status and where they are going and how fast they are going.
Mr.
McCrae: Candice Minch works as a linchpin, if you
like, between the advisory committee and the government for which she
works. Candice Minch indeed is well
qualified to do that work, I suggest, because she worked so closely with
Dorothy Pedlar in her work in all of the consultations that took place and in
the preparation of the report.
If
it is appropriate to make that work plan available to the honourable member
after discussing this with the chairperson of the advisory group, then I will
do that. If the chairperson of the
advisory group has some difficulty with that proposal, then I will let the
honourable member know about it.
Mr.
Chomiak: I appreciate that response from the
minister. I have a number of questions
with respect to the Pedlar report itself and some of the specific
recommendations. I suppose there are
three ways of doing it.
Firstly,
I could go through them point by point and the minister could respond. Secondly, I could just outline the page
numbers that the recommendations were on, and at some future point, the
minister could advise whether or not those recommendations have been
implemented yet or are still pending to be implemented, or thirdly, perhaps the
minister has a rolling draft of implementation of the various recommendations
in the Pedlar report. So I am inquiring
of the minister how he best feels we should proceed.
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, now I have the honourable
member using this new language that we have in this country: rolling drafts, rolling work. There is another one, you know, the word
"justiciable," just to get off the topic for a minute.
Premier
Ghiz tells me that he had trained in law school and practised law for about a
dozen years and then got into politics and has served there with some
distinction for some time, but he tells me, only in the context of these latest
constitutional talks has he ever used or even heard the word
"justiciable." So we are not
only building a Constitution, but we are building on our language as well.
The
honourable member can do it any way he likes, but you know, if he is worried
about saving time and he wants to get information, I am content to have our
officials here take notes as he speaks of each individual question and, depending
on what it is, to answer each one in writing for the honourable member if he
wants.
I
will tell you what. If he asks his
questions and I have a problem with any of them, then I would let him know at
the end if that would be satisfactory to him.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, yes, there were just a
number of recommendations that I have highlighted in the book, recommendations
of Dorothy Pedlar, that I wanted a response to as to the status of those
particular recommendations.
They
start with the recommendation on page 13 dealing with an educational program
for men who abuse their partners; a recommendation on page 18 dealing with, and
I think the minister alluded to, a dispatch response at police departments; a
recommendation on page 20 of the police protocol; page 32, policy directives
and protocols for the prosecution of cases, and that is the training inherent
in there; Recommendation 33, a clarification of the prosecution protocol; page
40, implementation of that recommendation regarding notifying victims; page 49,
probation orders, specifically the offenders attending, participating and
completing domestic violence programming as directed by probation services;
page 57, during postsentence phase, whether a system is now in place to allow
for a victim to contact the probation officers; page 60, whether in fact the
charges of breach of probation are being implemented; page 70, whether the
recording of all information on CPIC is actually taking place and whether that
includes victims; finally, what is happening with respect to the recommendation
vis‑a‑vis peace bonds on page 74.
I
would be quite content to receive a response at any time from the minister with
respect to these matters.
* (1620)
Mr.
McCrae: We will give the honourable member a response
to each and every reference that he has made in his question.
In
fact, sometimes, when you are in the middle of a project, you wonder yourself
how you are doing and how you are progressing.
I hear the honourable member list off all of these, and I identified
three here that I think we may not be able to give a complete answer on, but
then I look at all the ones that are remaining and I say, hey, you know, we are
making progress here.
Always
ready to listen to the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) complain
that it is not enough progress or that we should have done something some other
way, but as I sat here listening to the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak) asking his question and itemizing all the various areas of concern and
I quickly consult with the Assistant Deputy Minister for Public Prosecutions
here, I have to say that we have come a long way, even in a relatively short
period of time, given the history of this particular problem.
I
am one of those people who believes it is a long history and that we certainly
still have the problem with us, but I could not help but think that we are
making some progress. I will make the
commitment to answer each and every question raised by the honourable member.
Mr.
Chomiak: I thank the minister for that response and
the fact that he is undertaking to provide me with those responses. My only hope is, and I am sure it is the hope
of all of us in this Chamber, that as soon as we can eliminate, do as much as
we can to eliminate, this difficulty or at least to reduce it, we will all be a
much more content and fairer and happier society.
My
final question on this area is: Does the
minister have, can he provide us with, information as to how much the Pedlar
commission report has cost and specifically how much has been paid to Dorothy
Pedlar?
Mr.
McCrae: That too will be replied to specifically to
the honourable member.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 2. Public Prosecutions (a)(1) Salaries.
Mr.
McCrae: I cut my answer a little too short. I do not remember exactly those numbers, but
they were a darn good investment, the dollars spent on the Pedlar review.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 2.(a) Public Prosecutions: (1) Salaries $5,513,700‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $631,400‑‑pass; (3) Programs and Grants
$466,800‑‑pass.
2.(b)
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner:
(1) Salaries $350,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $775,200‑‑pass.
2.(c)
Board of Review: (1) Salaries $35,600.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, some time ago, I queried
the minister in the House with respect to notification provisions of this area
of government vis‑a‑vis victims, and the minister indicated that he
would take that query under consideration.
I am wondering if the minister might have a response for me at this
time, if he recalls the specific area, which was whether or not a policy would
be implemented to develop so that when a review is taking place under this
area, even though it is under the Criminal Code, perhaps consideration can be
given to notifying all interested parties, including victims and victims'
relatives, of the hearing that is taking place.
Mr.
McCrae: The honourable member's point is extremely
well taken, and using what little authority I have over this particular
operation, I will be making the honourable member's views known to the Board of
Review about that.
You
know, before the Board of Review recently changed, I remember one of my
colleagues and a conversation I had with Howard Pawley, who was then the
Premier of Manitoba. The issue arose in
a very meaningful way, not about victims, but about families of victims and
stuff like that. The then Premier of
Manitoba was extremely sensitive to the issue that was being raised, and the
then Premier and his colleagues reported that concern to the Board of
Review. Alternate arrangements resulted,
which were fair to the subject of the matter and fair to the family of the
victim who had extreme concerns. Only after
a decision had been made though did that concern become known by the Premier,
and thanks to having a Premier who was sensitive to the issue, we were able to
resolve that.
I
do not know if it will work that way under the present system because of the
new independence of the Board of Review, which may not always be such a good thing,
I suggest. I have made it known to the
federal Minister of Justice that I want to ensure that the new rules are being
carefully monitored and that there will be an opportunity for discussion of the
new rules amongst Attorneys General in this country about that because not in
every case‑‑there is nothing wrong with independence, but there is
a good reason to use common sense. All
parties who have an interest in these things ought somehow to be involved at
least by way of notification. I will
pass on the honourable member's concern in the appropriate way, if there is
one, to the Board of Review.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister for
those comments. Just a final question in
this area, board fees have gone up substantially. Is that because the department is
anticipating more meetings of the board or can the minister just briefly
outline what the reason is for that?
Mr.
McCrae: Because of the new legislation, Madam
Chairperson, we need more board members, we need more hearings, we need to
record all the hearings. We have to pay
for the court reporter, and all of those things are the reason for the increase
in the board fees and other expenses.
* (1630)
Mr.
Edwards: How many members of the Board of Review are
there?
Mr. McCrae:
There were four, now there are five.
They are Caroline Cramer, Q.C., Chairman; Dr. Fred Shane, member; Dr.
Marilyn MacKay, member; Patricia Desjardins, member; Rod Stephenson, Q.C.
member.
Mr.
Edwards: I have never had experience attending one of
these. How do they work? I realize that it has recently changed but is
there, and I am sure counsel are allowed to be involved on behalf of the
person, the offender, the person who was actually the subject of the hearing,
but does the criminal prosecutions branch send someone or is someone seconded
to the review board to present the case for the Crown? How does evidence get gathered and presented
to the board?
Mr.
McCrae: Even though the hearings are recorded, they
are relatively informal, and the Crown represents the public interest before
the board. What were formally referred
to as LGWs, those people whose interests are at issue, are represented by their
counsel.
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, with what frequency do
those who are the subject of these hearings appear with counsel or advocates?
Mr.
McCrae: The procedures are all new, as the honourable
member has acknowledged. Each‑‑I
am trying to get the right word‑‑mentally disordered offender is
entitled to have his or her matter reviewed every six months, and the procedure
is new, so it is hard to say how many of them appear with counsel, but so far
each and every one who has appeared before the board has appeared with counsel.
Mr.
Edwards: Can the minister indicate whether Legal Aid considers
and honours applications for counsel from offenders appearing in front of this
board?
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I understand that Legal
Aid applies in these cases. If I am
wrong, I will make that known to the honourable member, but I believe that
Legal Aid applies.
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Just one question, I gather we are at the
Legal Aid portion of this debate?
Mr.
McCrae: No.
Mr.
Storie: Can I throw in a question?
Mr.
McCrae: I do not mind.
Mr.
Storie: I had a chance to speak to a lawyer from
northern
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, even if I have been out of
town quite a bit, I am up to date on my mail except for today's, and unless
there is something in today's mail, I have not seen anything yet about an
alternate resolution. Members of the
northern bar took an early and fairly strong position respecting legal fees for
lawyers in
I
understand that not all members of the northern bar took part in the withdrawal
of services from their clients in this latest dispute. I do not mean to say that all members of the
northern bar were prepared to do that or indeed did that. There were one or two though who spoke out
relatively strongly and clearly in favour of their particular point of view
which I did not necessarily share. But I
do not think that anybody wants for a long period of time to turn their backs
on their clients, and I hope that is the case with members of the northern bar
as well as elsewhere in this province.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 2.(c) Board of Review: (1) Salaries $35,600‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $60,200‑‑pass.
2.(d)
Provincial Policing $47,745,800.
Mr.
Edwards: I appreciate the comments of the minister in
his opening comments about the policing contract, the new policing arrangement
with the RCMP. It is certainly an
improvement on the past and positive in that sense.
I
have received correspondence from the town of
Perhaps
the minister can indicate what the date that the new policing contract came
into effect was, and whether or not since that time he has had the opportunity
to meet with representatives of the UMM and MAUM with respect to this, and what
the status is on their discussions with him, whether or not this is acceptable
or whether or not they are still seeking some improvement.
Mr.
McCrae: The contract is effective April 1, 1992. It is for 20 years. I think the honourable member is familiar
with some of its terms. It turns out to
be an excellent arrangement for future policing in
It
is sort of evidence of what can happen when the Liberal Attorney General of
Newfoundland, the Conservative Attorney General of Manitoba, and whatever the
Attorney General is in the Northwest Territories, they do not have parties
there, and the New Democratic Attorney General for Yukon, when people stand up
for something and stand up for something right.
I am very proud, as the honourable member must appreciate, of the
agreement we reached with the federal government after a long period of negotiation
to provide services to the people of this country and most of its provinces.
I
share that pride with some of the people, who are sitting with me here today
who work so hard to make it happen, and with other attorneys general, as I
said, from across this country in policing ministers.
I
was very happy the day that Mr. Lewis came to town to actually sign the deal in
a formal kind of way because, to me, I call it a historic agreement. Some people wonder about my calling it that,
but 20 years in the life of a country is a long time, and if you can ensure the
delivery of quality police services in a consistent way for so many Canadians
for 20 years, then you can take a lot of pride in that, and I do.
So
enough of the commercial, Madam Chairperson.
There remain, of course, issues to be resolved as we make this contract
work. Issues will arise, and under the
terms of the agreement, we are going to be able to deal with those issues. We are going to be able to take a bigger part
in making that contract work to the benefit of Manitobans and all Canadian
taxpayers. We are going to be working
under terms that make more sense than some of the other things that have been
suggested.
* (1640)
The
honourable member's question near the end refers to a remaining issue, and that
has to do with the costs for policing paid by people who live in the country
and people who live in the towns. Since
the signing of the agreement, or since the agreement in principle, members of
my staff and myself have spent a fair amount of time meeting with
representatives of the urban municipalities and the rural municipalities to
talk about the contract that has been negotiated.
Some
of these municipalities contract directly, as the honourable member knows, but
on how to make the contracts work for them, because obviously they were not as
closely involved with all the discussions as my staff. My staff have been going about and making
sure the municipalities involved have a good working understanding of what is
in the contract and how the contract can work better for them.
I
think it is safe to say that MAUM and UMM‑‑well, they have said
they appreciated our approach. They gave
us lots of support in arriving at the contract.
We worked closely with them as we worked through the difficult negotiations,
and so we have established a bit of a tradition of co‑operation and
working together. They have helped us
get the achievement of the deal, and we have helped them, and we will continue
to help them in making the deal work for them.
There
is an issue, and that is the issue of paying for the services, and it is an
issue that the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) is grappling with,
not the Minister of Justice, although the Minister of Justice is aware of the
issue and our staff and former staff have played a role in trying to resolve
this issue. You will know that Charlie
Hill, the former director of Law Enforcement Services, played a role in working
with MAUM and the UMM to talk about proposals for resolving a long‑standing
problem.
The
problem still is not resolved in a final way, but the Minister of Rural
Development advises me that the discussions are going forward, and there may
indeed be some other things going on that I am at this moment not up to date
on, but I know that there is a will. The
municipalities and the government want to see this matter resolved. It is a question of how much is policing
worth to the taxpayer depending on where that taxpayer lives.
Those
arrangements are not easy, because for many years, it was felt by one side that
the other side had been receiving a benefit that they had not been paying their
fair share for, and that is put about as simply as I can make it, but that
seems to be the issue. The Canadian way
and the
It
would be sad if the minister was the one who had to impose some kind of
solution when there may well be room for compromise and room for a satisfactory
resolution of it in some other way. So sometimes it is the right thing to do to
give these issues a little bit of time.
I know on the other hand, resolution is also very important, so proper
balance again has to be drawn.
Mr.
Edwards: Indeed, this issue has been around for some
time. It has been around as long as I have been around here, maybe even as long
as the minister has been around. I know
the department, actually Rural Development and Justice and Mr. Hill, came up
with a proposal. I think they had a
committee which included a MAUM member and a UMM member. I thought they had a proposal at one point
which they put to the convention in
I
guess that has gone off the table at this point, but I do hope some resolution
can be secured because I know it is a constant source of aggravation and
division between parts of rural Manitoba, those in the towns and villages and
cities and those living in the country.
I know it continues to aggravate. I do not think they are easy answers,
but there certainly must be answers, and I hope that those can be found. It is unfortunate to see the rural community
divided in that way on any issue but particularly this one of long standing.
I
have one other question on provincial policing.
I received a specific concern some time ago about the police's training,
and this was within the city of Winnipeg, I acknowledge, to know physical
illnesses and their ability to deal with people and recognize illnesses that
people are suffering from, which can often be mistaken for signs of violent
behaviour directed toward police when in fact it is an illness.
The
particular circumstance that I am aware of involved in fact a former member of
this House. I am not going to put his
name on the record, but it involved the police handling of his son who had
Tourette's syndrome. He was very upset
about the handling.
I
wonder if the minister can, for his benefit, and I will pass it on to him, but
also for ours, indicate whether or not there is training in place for
constables to recognize Tourette's syndrome or other such illnesses which might
be mistaken for violent behaviour, when in fact it is just a physical illness.
Mr.
McCrae: That is an extremely caring kind of question,
I suggest, but it is also an extremely difficult kind of area. There will be
those who would respond by saying that the training required may be to such an
extent that maybe you should be training to be something that goes even beyond
policing.
There
has to be though, I suggest to the honourable member, some kind of sensitivity
training. We are trying to do that in so
many other areas that it is certainly worth mentioning to police here in
Manitoba that, you know, someone is claiming‑‑I do not know the
circumstances offhand of the case the honourable member is referring to‑‑that
an illness is causing him or her, or someone in the vicinity is claiming that
an illness is causing the subject person, to be behaving in a certain way. There ought not to be an immediate dismissal
of that particular suggestion.
So
I am happy if the honourable member wants me to do this, to take this up with
police authorities in
Mr.
Edwards: Certainly nobody expects police to be doctors
or nurses, but there are particular illnesses which lend themselves to
manifesting themselves in contortions and excessive nervousness and what appear
to be perhaps violent proclivity which in fact are not. My only question is‑‑perhaps we
can leave it at this‑‑if the minister would undertake to find out
for me or question as to whether or not in the training programs in the City of
Winnipeg police, specifically, there is any mention in the training program or
any information at all about the symptoms of some illnesses.
Nobody
expects police to be infallible in detecting them, but just some awareness that
sometimes this can be a factor and that it should be taken into account. Of course, Tourette's syndrome is in
particular an illness which results in contortions‑‑it is a form of
epilepsy‑‑nervousness which come out in abusive and violent
symptoms.
* (1650)
I
do not suggest that police should be infallible in predicting it, but perhaps
we can leave it at that. If the minister
would undertake to find out whether or not there is any discussion at all, even
in the most superficial level of that illness in the academy program, in the
training program, if he would check that out for me so that I could it pass on,
I would appreciate that.
Mr.
McCrae: I will do that, Madam Chairperson. There always seems to be the case of someone
who is falling through the cracks, does there not? Police officers are trained to recognize
symptoms of impairment, for example, so that they can form reasonable and
probable impressions about a person's ability to operate a motor vehicle. I know for a fact also that they are sometimes
trained to look at potential signs of impairment as potentially being signs of
something else, too. That is in that
particular area.
Police
officers are always asking subjects:
What is your health? Are you in
good shape? Are you such and such?
Maybe
one or two situations crop up that demonstrate that we have not covered every
possible situation, but I certainly will indeed follow through with what the
honourable member has said.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, just two questions in this
area. Under Expected Results, the
Supplementary Estimates indicate:
"Increased monitoring and analysis of RCMP expenditures with
regards to escalating costs of policing."
Is there a specific program or programs being undertaken by the
department or any agencies to monitor those costs? I mean, does that refer to a specific
program?
Mr.
McCrae: The issue of monitoring our RCMP arrangements
was central to our contract discussions.
That is one of the features of the new agreement that is the most
important when you remember that we are talking about 20 years. It is extremely important, as we have learned
to our extreme pleasure, where we have been overcharged in some cases and
perhaps the accounting has not been just right.
This contract makes it very possible for us to insist on a proper level
of accountability from the RCMP. It
makes it possible for us to be involved in program accountability and to be
involved in consultation in respect to the evolution of new policing
programs. That is an extremely important
part, and the mechanism that we have in government is our department, our
branch that deals with law enforcement services which has proven to be so
watchful in recent years, and we are very pleased about that.
There
are monthly meetings with the RCMP to deal with all of the financial aspects of
their operations and how that impacts on the public purse from the provincial
government's point of view. So we are really delighted about that aspect of the
contract, and we are very delighted also at the level of co‑operation and
just a sense of working together that we have in our relationship with the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police in
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, in the minister's
September 12 press release regarding the cost‑sharing agreement, the
minister indicated that municipalities would only face an increase of 6.8
percent in terms of costs. I wonder if
the minister might outline for me where that 6.8 percent increase is seen to be
entailed. What constitutes that 6.8
percent increase?
Mr.
McCrae: That number was probably put in the press
release to show what indeed will happen, but it was probably put also there to
show what could have happened if we had decided just to sign up earlier on. I do not have the press release in front of
me, so I do not know, but these increases in indirect costs, these increases in
the cost base items, which was the second major feature, that was the area
where there were compromises or deals made.
It was in that area.
They
dealt with pensions, they dealt with recruit training, they dealt with
unemployment insurance contributions, the cost of running the external review
and public complaints commission‑‑there is a cost to that, and the
provinces and the federal government have to share appropriately in those costs‑‑the
costs of accommodations, that is, the buildings out of which the RCMP operate‑‑that
is basically what accommodations is, and I did not relate it to amortization
and capital. All of those things come
together to form the increases that you see in the cost base, which is the
subject of the 70‑30 ratio or whatever ratio you happen to be operating
under, but there are only two now. There
is 70 percent and‑‑[interjection! Oh, I just received some good
news‑‑70 percent.
Mr.
Chomiak: The minister used the words "indirect
costs." Those strike me as direct costs, so now I am confused. I am wondering if the minister can clarify
for me what he is referring to, because I believe he said indirect costs. I wonder if he could outline for me the difference
between the indirect and direct costs in this regard.
Mr.
McCrae: I used the word "indirect" to
differentiate between direct costs such as salary costs. That is the context in which I used the word
"indirect."
Mr.
Chomiak: Perhaps it has been done, but will the
minister table the agreement with us for our review?
Mr.
McCrae: Yes, I would like to publish it in the
newspapers, pass it out door to door in my constituency. The honourable member probably will not want
to do that though because‑‑you bet, I will make that agreement
available to the honourable member.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 2.(d) Provincial Policing $47,745,800‑‑pass.
2.(e)
Law Enforcement Administration: (1)
Salaries $428,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $102,200‑‑pass;
(3) Grants $150,000‑‑pass.
2.(f)
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board $2,738,600‑‑pass.
Resolution
96: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $58,998,400 for Justice, Public Prosecutions,
$58,998,400, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
Order,
please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time
for private members' hour, committee rise.
Call
in the Speaker.
* (1700)
IN SESSION
Mr.
Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for Private
Members' Business.
Committee Report
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the
Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the
same and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC
BILLS
Bill 16‑The Health Care Directives
Act
Mr. Speaker: On
the proposed motion of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill
16, The Health Care Directives Act; Loi sur les directives en matiere de soins
de sante, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed!
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): I have wanted to speak for some time on Bill
16.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill I think is a challenge to all members of this Chamber,
because it raises one of the moral issues of our time. We in this country have actually come very
late to addressing the issue of the rights of individuals to make health care
decisions on their own.
Mr.
Speaker, the case of Nancy B., the woman in Quebec who had to ask the court to
determine whether in fact she had the right to have medical treatment, medical
services, discontinued in compliance with her wishes, wishes which would
ultimately lead to her death. I believe
in a courageous move, the judge in this case, visited with this particular
woman, looked at the circumstances, weighed the question of whether the
individual should have this right and ultimately determined that, yes, the
individual does have that right.
I
do not know how many members have actually read Bill 16. I would be willing to bet that the member for
St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) has not read this bill. Mr. Speaker, there will be many members who
have not, not only the member for St. Norbert. The member for St. Norbert has
not spoken to the bill. However, I hope
that some members will have the courage to speak and to put their thoughts on
record.
Mr.
Speaker, the issues here go beyond those raised initially by the member for The
Maples (Mr. Cheema) when he introduced the legislation‑‑the
WHEREASes, I think again, which are part of legislation now that are becoming
more important and that is the preamble, setting the tone for the legislation.
The
preamble says, WHEREAS Manitoba law recognizes the right of every competent person
to refuse consent or withdraw consent to his or his health care, and whereas
this right should also be respected after individuals are no longer able to
participate in their health care decisions, therefore‑‑it goes on
to recommend that the following bill would give people who do not have the
competency to make those decisions, to allow others to make them on their
behalf.
Mr.
Speaker, this legislation I think begs the first question, the primary question
of whether in fact we should be encouraging individual health care givers,
institutions, to allow people, to inform people first of all that they have the
right, informed right to make decisions about whether their life will be
maintained in certain circumstances, whether institutions or health care givers
should use extraordinary methods to prolong life and whether in fact
individuals should be given the right to determine how and when their
particular time of death will occur.
Mr.
Speaker, this debate, I expect, will rage in
Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that literally thousands of people in
I,
for one, believe that the individual should have the right to choose and that
the circumstances that go into making that decision really depend on the
conscience of the individual. The bill
that we are dealing with today I think takes that concept one step
further. So when I say that this bill
really begs the question, I think we have to consider that, because what we are
asking people to do now is not to make the right decision for themselves, not
giving people the right to decide for themselves, whether it is the right
decision or not from someone else's perspective, but we are asking a third
party to have that right. I think that is somehow putting the cart before the
horse.
It
seems to me that in the province, we should address the question of whether
individuals have that right first. I do
not think that this has been addressed in our province. I do not think the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) has made any kind of declaration.
I do not think the
Mr.
Speaker, I think we should try and decide whether in fact we want people to
have that right and how that right will be implemented in the province before
we take the next step of saying, well, a third party should have the right to
choose, not that I am opposed to that right being delegated. The bill makes it very clear under what
circumstances that would be allowed and under what circumstances that would not
be allowed, but I hope that as we debate this legislation, we will be raising
the larger question of the right to choose in the matter of our death,
generally.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, when I was reading the remarks of the member for The Maples (Mr.
Cheema) when he introduced this legislation, I am reminded that he talked
extensively about the need for education.
This is, I think, an important role of this debate. There are very few people, very few medical
professionals, doctors, nurses, who have addressed this moral dilemma in any
kind of professional way, either through their professional associations or at
their workplace. I know of no hospital
in the province that has a policy with respect to either the question of a
person's own death or the delegated power that this bill suggests should be
available with respect to the refusal of treatment.
* (1710)
So
I think that we can serve a purpose in debating this legislation, in talking
about it and putting our thoughts on the record, because there are many other
people who should be thinking about these issues and raising these issues in
the context of their own workplace, within their own families perhaps, as they
come ultimately to having to make some of the same decisions.
Mr.
Speaker, this is not some sort of esoteric bill that very few people in this
Chamber will ever have to deal with. The
fact of the matter is, this is a frequent and persistent occurrence in our society,
and as medical technology extends the life expectancy, artificially in some
cases, of individuals, more and more people are going to have to face this
dilemma. They will be assigned
responsibility for deciding should medical treatment be given, what kind of
medical treatment, should medical treatment be discontinued.
I
expect that most people in this Chamber, at one time or another, will be faced
with those decisions whether it be with grandparents, or parents, loved ones of
one kind or another, friends or family.
It is certainly possible that individuals in this Chamber already, or
will be, in the future, assigned responsibility for making decisions, life‑and‑death
decisions, about the treatment that is given or is not given as the case may
be. I think it is an important first
step to begin the dialogue to flush out our own feelings on this legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, referring back again to the question of education. It is not just the education of people who
are directly involved in health care, it is the education of the public. Again, I mentioned that people here are
likely to deal with the problem. Well,
anyone in our society is likely to have to face these kinds of dilemmas, these
kinds of questions, certainly if we pass this bill, sooner rather than later,
but they are going to face these kinds of questions for themselves. I think it
is important that they understand the context in which the debate occurs, that
this is no longer the 1900s where nature takes its course because man, rightly
or wrongly, certainly in the area of medicine, has interfered‑‑some
people would say‑‑unmercifully.
We
can prolong life artificially; we can sustain life artificially. We can have people on respirators for years
and years and years, living a quality of life that perhaps they nor their
family really understands or comprehends.
So it is I think a very timely issue.
The member for the Maples (Mr. Cheema), I think, has done us all a
service by offering us an opportunity to debate this, and I hope that members
will take the opportunity and deal with the underlying question as well as the
question that is raised by the bill itself.
Mr.
Speaker, the member for the Maples, when he spoke, also referenced the Nancy B.
situation in
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) who adjourned debate on this bill
has yet to enlighten us with his perspective.
I would hope that the Minister of Health would have some information
that he could provide the Chamber.
Certainly I would like to think that medical thinking, thinking on
behalf of the Medical Association, perhaps the Manitoba Organization of Nurses
have had some discussions, some preliminary policies developed in regard to
this bill. It would be interesting to
know, it would be informative, if the minister could share with us, perhaps,
contemporary thinking on this issue.
Before
members begin to formulate where they stand on this piece of legislation, I
feel quite confident in saying that my constituents, many of whom are seniors
particularly in the community of Flin Flon, would be quite supportive of this legislation.
(Mrs.
Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I think, particularly as you get older and as you enter those
years where you are approaching the average life expectancy of a Canadian,
these kinds of issues are much more of a concern. I can only say that I believe my constituents
would, in all likelihood, want me to support this legislation.
If
we get to the point where this legislation is passed through to second reading,
I will be doing a lot more to consult with my constituents, to determine their
wishes, to see whether in fact they want us to take this a step further and to
do as the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) suggests, and that is improve on
the legislation, make it more relevant, identify, I guess, more circumstances
under which this kind of legislation would apply and give us some additional
insights into what is an important moral question for this Legislature. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me pleasure
today to stand to speak to Bill 16, a very important piece of legislation, one
which we certainly support, having come forward from the member for The Maples
(Mr. Cheema) and an important one for this province to address at this time.
I
recognize some of the comments of the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) that
this is an area that is growing, it is an area which is new. The medical legal issues generally are often
perplexing to the courts and the legal professions, and I think it is often
unfortunate that the courts are left to deal with the pressing medical legal
issues. Why? Because politicians shy away from them.
They
often are issues that draw out intense passions in the community as to when
life begins and when individuals have a right to end their lives; in what
circumstances do parents have the right to deny medical assistance to their
children. These issues are extremely
pressing, because the medical profession is ahead of what society is willing to
deal with.
The
medical profession is always pushing back the frontier of what they can do in
terms of preserving life, in terms of determining when life begins. Madam Deputy Speaker, the issues, the moral
social issues, which have to be addressed and should be addressed in the political
chambers are not addressed in a timely fashion to keep up with the medical
advances that are made.
That
is unfortunate, and that is primarily not because the legal profession or the
politicians of the day do not recognize that these are issues. They do recognize that they are issues. They
just do not want to deal with them because they perceive them to be
controversial. So you let the courts
take a crack at them at the first instance, see what their decision is, see
what their reaction is in the public and then you can react. That is generally the pattern of political
behaviour on medical legal issues like this.
This
has now come to the point, I think, in our society where we as politicians have
an obligation to come forward with some leadership, some legislation, on the
living‑will concept. When a person
of sane mind, of competent mind, can set down on paper what they desire to
constitute acceptable medical treatment to them and what they do not, that is a
right that each one of us has in this Chamber today, and every citizen in this
province has, the right to decline medical treatment. We always have that right. We can say no to medical treatment, and Madam
Deputy Speaker, that is a fundamental right which each of us as citizens
carries in this country.
* (1720)
What
we in effect will be trying to do through this legislation is provide to
Manitobans the ability to say in certain circumstances, and define those
circumstances, I do not want this treatment.
That is essentially carrying forward to a day when the patient may not
be mentally competent to make that decision, a decision which they made earlier
when they were of competent mind.
It
is the same principle which applies to our disposition of our assets as
citizens, and consider the relative importance of dealing with one's assets as
opposed to dealing with one's own life, one's own ability to determine when
further medical treatment should be given and when it should not.
Surely,
in our right to deal with our own lives, that is a more important issue than
dealing with our assets, yet we recognize, with respect to assets, that you
indeed can at any time in your life set down on paper in a will what you want
done after your death. We have yet to recognize
the right of individuals of sane, competent mind to deal with the level of
medical treatment that would be given to them when they lose their competence
or their sanity. [interjection!
I
am sorry, I am missing the member for
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the point is this. The
point is that we have come to the stage in our society, I believe‑‑and
I look forward to the member for
I
believe that this is an essential right that every citizen has, to decline
medical treatment. No one has the right
to enforce and inflict medical treatment on any of us. That is as old as our common law itself, that
principle, and yet we lose it as citizens when we go into delirium, when we go
into unconsciousness, and we then are subject to what? We are subject to doctors who are, in turn,
subject to courts. The doctors are very
afraid of the courts, so they will throw all resources, they will open all
doors necessary to keep life going. They
will say, look‑‑[interjection! Well, the member says they are
afraid of lawyers. I hate to enlighten
him, but most courts are ruled by judges who are also lawyers. Courts and lawyers, you know, it tends to be
interchangeable.
But
in any event, Madam Deputy Speaker, the point is, we all want protection from
negligence in the medical profession, and certain standards have been set. They are not unreasonably high
standards. They are standards set, based
upon a reasonable level of competence of a doctor. Doctors are susceptible to that and because
we live in a litigious society, they come to the point where, when the patient
cannot give advice, they are going to err on the side of caution. That is what happens, and you certainly
cannot blame the doctors for doing that.
They
then bring in all the technology. They
bring in everything that they have at their disposal, all of the benefits of
our technology to keep life going. They
do that because they do not ever want to be put in a position where they are
making a decision as to the level of treatment or the qualify of life of the
patient who in fact may, when they were of sane, competent mind, have never
conceived that they would want to go to that degree of treatment, but would
rather die a death of dignity, recognizing that the quality of life was gone.
That
is a right which we should all have, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Law Reform
Commission in our province has led the way.
I want to put on the record my thanks to the commission for giving us
some guidance and recommending some tenets for legislation which the member for
The Maples (Mr. Cheema) has drawn upon extensively in coming up with this bill.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to belabour my support of this bill. It is an appropriate time to do this. We have seen incidents around the world, even
in this country, where families have been torn apart in cases where they are
not sure whether or not they should be making the decision to pull the plug, as
it were, or to stop treatment, to let the person die a dignified death. It is an extremely destructive time for many
families in those situations. Sometimes
the treatment‑‑of course it is expensive for society‑‑but
it goes on and on and on and families are anguished over these decisions, to
give an individual the right to release society and to release his or her own
family in certain circumstances and to say that, yes, I am willing to go a
natural death in these circumstances.
That
is an important right, not just for those who are ultimately going to be let go
to the other world, but it is an important right for those who live on, for the
families that live on to be able to look to a document and say, yes, this is
what this individual wanted and I am doing the right thing for this
individual. It is a process of healing
that is allowed to happen at an earlier stage, and we do not have the ongoing
anguish which we see so often in our society.
So
I fully support the concept behind this bill.
It is a bill which recognizes our rights as individuals to determine the
level of medical care that we want and the medical care that we do not want,
and adults of competent mind have that right, have always had that right and
should continue to have that right as enshrined in this legislation. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
Bill 18‑The Franchises Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 18
(The Franchises Act; Loi sur les concessions) on the proposed motion of the
honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [Agreed!
Madam
Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 25
(The University of Manitoba Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'Universite du Manitoba), on the proposed motion of the honourable member for
Osborne (Mr. Alcock), standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa
(Mr. Reimer).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [Agreed!
Bill 27‑The Business Practices
Amendment Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Bill 27 (The Business Practices Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les pratiques commerciales), on the proposed
motion of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), standing in the
name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [Agreed!
Mr.
Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I am very pleased to rise today to speak to
Bill 27, The Business Practices Amendment Act, introduced by the member for The
Maples.
At
the outset I wanted to make some comments about the Liberal Party's role as far
as business practices legislation is concerned in this province. Before any member of the Liberal Party gets
too upset here, I might say at the outset that I have looked at Bill 32 which
was also introduced by one of the Liberal members, The Immigration Consultants
Registry Act, and from the looks of that particular bill, I think it is not
only appropriate, but probably a necessary and timely bill at this point to be
introduced. I say that only because I
have some unflattering comments to make about the Liberal Party's lack of
presence in the whole area of the business practices legislation.
To
be fair to them, I might say at the outset that no one party or one member can
be expected to be up to speed on every issue in this House, and I think that
this is a case where the Liberal Party was really not involved in this
particular area and is essentially trying to play some catchup here by
introducing an amendment which coincidentally was an amendment that they
introduced last year when the bill was passed.
It was defeated at that time.
I
must say that the business practices legislation that I did not expect from
this government, I did not expect from a Conservative government. To give the former minister, the member for
Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery) credit, he managed to get his caucus and he
managed to get his cabinet to agree to the passage and implementation of a
business practices act which is something that has never ceased to amaze us on
this side of the House given where the Conservatives normally stand
historically on business practices legislation.
We
chalk this up to a fluke that he managed to get it passed. We have said many, many times that we felt
that the bill was withdrawn due to pressure by the business community. I think that was fairly obvious at the time,
and the bill was watered down in that the "unconscionable act"
section was deleted.
* (1730)
The
fact of the matter is, though, that through all this very lengthy process of
The Business Practices Act, the Liberals have been playing a negligible if
nonexistent role. In fact, their
previous critic, the member, I believe, for Niakwa more often than not sided
with the Conservatives on any question dealing with The Business Practices Act
or any consumer protection amendment that was introduced in the last
Legislature by our party. So this
Liberal caucus has a very sorry record in regards to any type of progressive
consumer legislation.
We
look forward to them changing their views a bit and becoming a little more
aggressive in the area of consumer protection.
We expect more from the Liberal caucus than some minor amendment to The
Business Practices Act such as we see here.
We would like to know where the Liberal Party stands in the whole area
of the manufacturers suggested retail price sticker on cars. When this became an issue, three, four, five
years ago, the Liberal caucus of 20 sided with the Conservative caucus of the
day. The Liberal caucus of the day was
sat down by the car dealers and was read the riot act and went along with what
the car dealers wanted in terms of manufacturers suggested retail price.
I
believe that the Liberal caucus of the day really did not understand the issue,
did not realize that the sticker price issue in cars is something that has been
in Ontario for a number of years, that Manitoba consumers need only go across
the Ontario border to Kenora to find the manufacturers suggested retail price
stickers on the windshield of the cars, and that it would cost the dealers
nothing.
In
fact, the stickers come on the cars from the factory, and it is the car dealers
of this province who hire staff and pay staff money to remove the stickers from
the windshields of the cars. For some
reason the Liberal caucus went along with this. No one in the Liberal caucus,
at least publicly, has taken issue with the caucus stand on this, and, of
course, the Conservative caucus, it goes without saying that they fall in lock
step with what the Motor Dealers Association of this province want. That has been the historical position of the
Conservative caucus and the Conservative Party, and once again we are not
dealing here with a controversial issue.
We are not dealing with a cost issue that would cost the government
anything. We are not dealing with an
issue that would actually cost the car dealers anything, because it is actually
costing the car dealers money to have these stickers removed.
Why
are they doing it? They are doing it
because they find it more convenient.
They find that they are able to give people what they want on a trade‑in,
and typically what we found was that people were paying $2,000 more in
So
that is something that the Consumers' Association of this province and
consumers of this province have desired and wanted, something that was fair to
the people of this province and the consumers of this province and even the car
dealers themselves.
When
they were on a radio show with me a couple of years ago and were asked, why
they would not leave the manufacturers suggested retail price sticker on the
cars, the president of the dealers association of the day said, no. He could not disagree with that. If the government required the dealers to
keep the sticker prices on the cars that they would gladly comply with it.
But
that is what the dealers association president said on CBC Radio, because it is
the political thing to do and the smart thing for him to do. But privately they sit down with the
Conservative caucus and dress them down and let them know who the boss is. They let them know who is paying those
election bills, paying for those election signs.
So
an issue that seems on the surface to be a sensible, logical inexpensive cost‑free
idea, something that would benefit the consumers of this province, is something
that this government resists and will continue resistance as long as they are
associated so closely with the auto dealers.
The
Liberals have no excuse whatsoever here.
Because when given the opportunity, when they had 20 members, they chose
to ignore the desires of the consumers.
They chose to ignore the Consumers' Association and other consumer
groups' positions on the matter. They
chose to listen to the car dealers association who met with them, certainly
within a day or two of meeting with the Conservative caucus.
They
were whipped into line by the car dealers and they stayed in line. They have stayed there since. We see nothing from the Liberal Party in the
area of consumer legislation or consumer initiatives or even speeches on that
matter that would indicate that they have any desire to be supporting consumers
in the province.
So
the sticker price issue, they are lock step with the car dealers and the
Conservatives. The area of the
documentation fees, which is a fee that can amount anywhere from $40 to $140,
is a voluntary thing that car dealers charge for typing up the sales
contract. That is what the documentation
fee is for. Every time a person buys a new car in this province, they are being
hit by this fee of $40 to $140.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Most
dealerships have it printed right on the contract, and when you ask the dealer
what it is all about, they tell you it is for typing up the contract. As if they do not make enough money already
on the transaction that they have to charge a documentation fee.
There
are one or two dealers in town who do not charge a documentation fee, but most
of the dealers have it printed right on their contracts. Now where is the Liberal Party on this issue? I have heard not a peep out of the Liberal
Party over the last few years on documentation fees.
* (1740)
Now
I expect it from the Conservatives.
There are no surprises coming from the Conservative caucus on this
issue, because I expect that they will not bite the hand that feeds them.
But
the Liberal Party had nothing to lose and everything to gain by supporting the
abolition, the banishment of this unfair, essentially a tax on every car
transaction in this province. I do not
know why the Liberals are so reluctant to take a position, but that is a
problem with the Liberal Party, not knowing what side of the fence it is on, on
any issue. It wanders back and forth
between the right and left and, as a result, provides a very confusing image
for people in the province.
The
area of octane levels in gasoline, in the United States, at least in the
American states close to the border, we have a situation where octane levels
are put right on the gasoline pumps. We
feel that would make sense. It would
cost this government absolutely nothing.
It would cost the gas producers a few cents to produce these stickers,
and so the public would know what the octane level is on the gasoline that they
buy.
Last
year, there was a major expose by one of our national TV programs, which
indicated that the gas companies managed to change the octane levels and
thereby fool the consumers of the country, because, in fact, this is a national
issue. They were able to change the
grade of the gasoline and leave the price the same.
The
result is that people who one day of the week thought they were buying a
certain octane level and a certain quality of gasoline for their cars for a
certain price, were, the next day in fact, for the same price, getting what was
an inferior quality gasoline which was causing problems in the performance of
their cars. This was all done by sleight
of hand by the big oil companies in this country, and it was the national TV
program which did the research and made this public.
Well,
the government has done nothing over the past year to legislate and require
octane levels to be published, and the Liberal Party has sat silently and
likewise gone lock step with the Conservatives on this issue. I have heard not a word, not a question, on
octane levels from this Liberal Party.
So much for the Liberal Party being friends of the consumer.
I
have been spending some time in Crescentwood in the last while, and I tell you,
the Liberal Party is going down fast. I
do not see the Liberal Party holding its own in the least. People realize‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: J'aimerais attirer l'attention des deputes a
la tribune a ma gauche ou nous avons parmi nous cet apres‑midi, vingt‑quatre
eleves de la 6ieme annee de Notre Dame de Lourdes. Nous avons aussi vingt et un
eleves de Saint‑Basil de Portneuf du
[Translation!
I would like to draw the attention of the members to the gallery on my left where we have with
us this afternoon, twenty‑four Grade 6 students from Notre Dame de
Lourdes. We also have with us 21
exchange students from St. Basil,
* * *
Mr.
Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
Bill 31‑The Municipal Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), Bill 31, The Municipal Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed!
Bill 32‑The Immigration Consultants
Registry Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), Bill 32, The Immigration Consultants
Registry Act; Loi sur l'inscription des conseillers en immigration, standing in
the name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed!
Bill 36‑The Health Care Records Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 36, The Health Care Records
Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed!
Bill 50‑The Beverage Container Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Leader of the Second Opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs), Bill 50, The Beverage
Container Act; Loi sur les contenants de boisson, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed!
Bill 51‑The Health Services Insurance
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill 51, The Health Services Insurance
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie, standing in
the name of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed!
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): I would like to speak briefly on this
particular bill, and in fact I will be the first member of our caucus speaking
on it. It is a brief bill, but it
relates to some very significant issues in terms of health care brought in by
the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), and basically introduces an amendment
that would establish within The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act the
basic principles of the Canada Health Act, the basic principles of our medicare
system.
I
think that is something that we should be looking at quite seriously in terms
of this particular session, because we are at something of a crossroads in
terms of the health care system. We are
seeing an increased amount of pressure on the health care system because of a
number of factors.
One
of those factors is in terms of the reduction and the share of health care
costs that we are seeing from the federal government‑‑very
significant reductions. It is not a new
matter. It has been predicted for many
years in this Legislature. In fact, the
previous New Democratic Party government was one of the first governments in
We
remember very well the comments of the then Finance critic, the current Finance
minister in the mid‑1980s, who was critical of the NDP government for
being too critical of the federal government, was critical of the analysis at
the time, which said that the previous 50‑50 funding was being eroded on
a yearly basis.
We
have seen how those predictions in the mid‑1980s have come to bear in
1992. We are seeing significant
reductions in the percentage of medicare funding provided by the federal
government, so that is one of the factors.
We see other factors as well.
Demographics‑‑we
have an aging population and because of that aging population there are
increased demands on our health care system.
There is a third factor and that is to change in terms of technology,
change in terms of the efficacy of treatments.
We
are now in the position where we have far more technology available for the
treatment of illnesses. We see that we
face increased decisions to be made in terms of whether to purchase that type
of technology, whether we can afford it in terms of the health care system and
that is a continuing pressure on our health care system.
I
would say there is a fourth factor that is important and particularly important
in terms of this country and this province and that is in terms of
socioeconomic factors.
The
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), in his own health care reform document,
pointed to the fact that countries such as
In
the case of
Further
to that‑‑
An Honourable Member: . . . light beer.
Mr.
Ashton: Well, there have been changes in terms of
some consumption patterns as the member opposite points to, Mr. Speaker. But we also have continuing problems on the
socioeconomic side. In
* (1750)
Mr.
Speaker, we have seen various responses to that. The provincial government has brought in its
own particular response. I want to say
that what is important here is not so much the words, because it is interesting
to see in Canada, how, in a few short decades, what was very controversial in
the 1940s when the CCF was elected in Saskatchewan, the 1950s, 1960s, during
which medicare was brought in in this country, and what continued to be
somewhat controversial in the 1960s when debates continued across the country
in terms of what form of medicare would take place under the then Liberal
government and the pressure from the then NDP government in Saskatchewan and
the pressure nationally for medicare.
What
is interesting is that we now, at least verbally, ascribe to the same
principles: a universal, accessible
health care system, Mr. Speaker. But I would
suggest that it is not strictly the words that are going to matter in this
decade and into the next century, it is going to be the actions. Are we going to mouth the support for
medicare that we are seeing on a regular basis?
Are we going to deal with the need for health care reform? Because I think to deal with those factors I
mentioned earlier we must recognize the need to change our medical system. But I ask the question, are we going to be
doing it in a way that is consistent with the true principles of medicare?
Mr.
Speaker, I would suggest that there are disturbing signs in
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Much more. Decisive
action.
Mr.
Ashton: Well, the Minister of Natural Resources says
much more, Mr. Speaker. Decisive action
for what?
It
is one thing to talk about reducing hospital beds, as they are doing in
Just
this day in Question Period I raised the concern on behalf of my own community
hospital, the Thompson General Hospital, providing community‑based
services in terms of chemotherapy, in terms of mammography, in terms of a
specialist clinic. Incidentally, the
mammography unit was purchased due to the fundraising efforts of the Thompson
Hospital Foundation, which has raised more than $300,000 in the last couple of
years alone, from citizens of Thompson who are willing to put their own money,
over and above the tax dollars that are spent in health care, to provide the
facilities that are put in place. They
are now fighting with a two‑month time frame to keep that open.
I
say I hope and I expect the government will provide the funding, because it
makes sense to provide that kind of service in the North, Mr. Speaker. But if the government feels that it has a
real commitment to health care reform, I think it has to go beyond the kind of
rhetoric we have seen in that blue paper and go further.
I
want to just mention, very briefly, some specific proposals I would make to the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). Let us
start on the preventative health care side, Mr. Speaker. We have problems, as I said before, in terms
of lifestyle. We have problems in terms
of the continued problems of poverty. We
have problems in many aboriginal communities of continued lack of even the most
basic sanitary conditions. Let us talk
about putting some resources and some effort in terms of that. Let us dedicate ourselves to making every
community accessible in terms of sewer and water, because not every community
is.
Let
us go beyond that, and let us look at improving health care, Mr. Speaker,
through preventative health care. We are
talking about community health care. I
say to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), let us establish true
community‑based health care through the kind of community clinics that
were given the kind of support that was required by previous New Democratic
Party administrations, the kind of community clinics which have pioneered that
kind of medicine in Saskatchewan, which have shown that they are far more cost
effective than the normal institutional care, because it can provide
everything, from preventative care through to counselling, through to
treatment, can provide the kind of resources that walk‑in clinics in
Winnipeg are providing at a very expensive cost to the taxpayer, right in a
community‑based and community‑controlled environment, where the
people in the neighbourhood, the people in the community, the people in the
region have a say over what kind of health care they would receive.
I
think, Mr. Speaker, the key to health care reform is empowerment. That is what medicare was all about. It was democratizing the health care system,
taking away the disgusting situations that existed whereby people had to give
up their children because they could not afford medical care. I still see, in the
I
was just reading recently a case of someone in the 1950s who had to give up
their children for adoption because they could not afford the medical costs
involved with a very basic health care condition.
So
let us recognize, Mr. Speaker, the importance of moving ahead with our health
care system, providing that community‑based health care, dealing with the
kind of problems I mentioned in terms of Thompson or Brandon, making sure it is
democratized. Let us empower the people, and that is why I wanted to speak on
this particular bill, because it talks about implementing the principles of the
Canada Health Act within the Health Insurance Services Act. Let us put that into place in this province
and see true health care reform, not rhetoric but action that will ensure further
democratization of the health care system.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst).
Is
it the will of the House to call it six o'clock?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No.
Okay.
Bill 54‑The Consumer Protection
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), Bill 54 (The Consumer Protection Amendment
Act; Loi sur la protection du consommateur), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave? [Agreed!
Bill 56‑The Public Health Amendment
Act (2)
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed!
Bill 66‑The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act (2)
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Leader of the Second Opposition party, Bill 66, The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a
la famille, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is
there leave that this matter remain standing? [Agreed!
Bill 77‑The Liquor Control Amendment
Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), Bill 77 (The Liquor Control Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la reglementation des alcools), standing in the
name of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave? [Agreed!
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 83‑The Highway Traffic Amendment
Act (3)
Mr.
Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that Bill 83, The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act (3); Loi no 3 modifiant le Code de la route, be
now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr.
Laurendeau: It gives me great pleasure to rise today, Mr.
Speaker, with the last two minutes to click away on the clock, but I do
understand that the next time that this bill is before the House, I know I will
have more time because I am sure the honourable members will not put their
stall tactics to work the next time.
Mr.
Speaker, I know that the honourable members in this House on the opposite side
will agree with this bill wholeheartedly when they see that what it is after is
consumer protection and safety.
Mr.
Speaker, explaining this bill I do not think can be properly done in one
minute, but I am going to attempt to explain why it is being brought
forward. Before that happens I would
like to thank the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) and this government
for giving me the opportunity to bring forward a private member's bill that has
actually got some feeling to it.
Mr.
Speaker, I have been working on this for five years‑‑five
years. Before I even came to this
government I was working on this bill because this bill will put in place what
has been necessary in this province for many years. It will prevent people from getting ripped
off, ripped off by not only the back yarders and the curbers but unscrupulous
dealers, and if that is who those members want to protect, let them, but I will
not. I will not stand here and‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House
the honourable member for St. Norbert will have 13 minutes remaining.
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House now adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.
tomorrow (Wednesday).