LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
March 15, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Nelia Irvine, John Raposo, Maria Raposo and others, requesting the government
of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Ashton). 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? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the state of Highway 391 is becoming
increasingly unsafe; and
WHEREAS due to the poor condition of the road
there have been numerous accidents; and
WHEREAS the condition of the road between
Thompson and Nelson House is not only making travel dangerous but costly due to
frequent damage to vehicles; and
WHEREAS this road is of vital importance to
residents who must use the road.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislature of the
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table to the House the Detailed Estimates of Expenditure for the
Departments of
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the
Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Highways and Transportation for
the year 1993‑94.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to table Supplementary Information for the Department of Family
Services.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have with us this afternoon,
from the
* (1335)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
We
have some difficult choices always in a government budget to be made, but what
we have been concerned about throughout the last number of months, in terms of
this Conservative budget's agenda, is that people that are most vulnerable and
people that require a voice in terms of their vulnerability are the ones that
are being sacrificed in terms of the government decision making.
We
have had lots of questions and answers in this Chamber on child poverty and
poverty. The Premier has answered a
number of times that he will do everything possible to work co‑operatively
to eradicate poverty in our society. In
spite of that commitment, child poverty and poverty itself have risen in
Today, we are absolutely shocked to see in the
list of grants the Manitoba Anti-Poverty Organization, a group that is in the
grassroots working with some of the most vulnerable people in our society, has
had its grant withdrawn from the provincial Conservative government under the
stewardship of the Premier.
Mr.
Speaker, this group and all governments from all political stripes do not
always agree with what they say, but this group has represented the most
vulnerable people, no matter who the government is of the day.
I
would like to ask this Premier how he can justify withdrawing that grant for
the groups of people working at the grassroots of poverty in our communities,
how they could justify withdrawing that grant for the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization at the same time they are looking at other grants to other
organizations, other consultant contracts for health care, et cetera, in the
levels of millions of dollars, how they can justify the choices they are making
today on behalf of people in
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, what this
government is doing is something that is being done by governments right across
the country, including those of New Democratic stripes. It is only when in opposition that New
Democrats can afford to be irresponsible and make demands that every single
grant and every single payment that has ever been made before has to continue.
The
budget of the New Democratic government of Saskatchewan will be out this week,
and the member opposite can look at the difficult, difficult choices that are
having to be made‑‑[interjection] No, I am not talking about the
New Democratic organization knows as Choices, Mr. Speaker, that gimme group
that wants to have everything for themselves and their own self‑interest
at the expense of the taxpayer. I am not
talking about that.
I
am talking about ensuring that we can protect the vital services that people
depend upon. What we have to do is use
every scarce and every hard‑earned tax dollar to the maximum and not pay
for organizations that deliver no services to the most vulnerable, to the
people who need it.
To
continue to deliver those services, we had to make choices. Those choices were that we would use the
funding for the delivery of services, not everything because it is not possible
to deliver and to do everything.
It
is possible for us to protect health care, to protect social safety nets and to
protect education in this province, but only by conserving every possible
dollar available to us.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to
visit that community group, and for the Premier to say that organization does
not deliver services means that the Premier has not visited there or, if he did
visit there, he does not know what is going on in that organization.
I
saw families with children getting help, getting assistance, getting aid to get
back on their feet. I saw people getting
aided in terms of getting economic opportunities. I saw people that were hungry get sent to places
where there were food banks, Mr. Speaker.
So for the Premier to say that this organization does not provide
services means the Premier is absolutely out of touch with the reality of the
poor people of this province.
Mr.
Speaker, I would ask the Premier today to cancel the $4‑million‑plus
contract that his government is entering with American consultants because they
did not have a health care plan, cancel that contract and reinstate the funding
for the community‑based groups that are providing services to the most
vulnerable people in
Mr. Filmon: There are many organizations that are
providing services to people. The very
things that the member said were being provided are being provided by other
organizations. We cannot fund everybody
to do the same thing, Mr. Speaker. The
reality is that we have to make these difficult choices.
I
will say to the member opposite that the contract that he has spoken of is not
a contract that has been awarded, so I cannot cancel a contract that has not been
awarded, Mr. Speaker.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, a list of between $5‑million
and $6‑million grants to groups of people or corporations was in the 1991
budget‑‑up to $7 million.
Now these might be nice grants for training. They might be nice forgivable programs for
the payroll health and post‑secondary tax. They all may be valid. But, when you put
these organizations against Palliser Furniture and a number of others‑‑good
organizations that hire people‑‑but when you put those
corporations, many of which are having profitable results, when you put that
against cutting money for the poorest people and the most vulnerable people,
will the Premier take the tough choice and put that money back for the
antipoverty organizations, for the poor people in our province, rather than
giving it to many of his friends in the corporate community in terms of these
grants?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is
confused and all over the map.
The
fact of the matter is that consistently they are saying, put more money into
educating and training our people in this province. So what we have done, Mr. Speaker, is say to
those organizations that you can in fact get a portion of the cost of training
your people based on the investment in training, upgrading and providing skills
and knowledge for your people.
We
have done exactly what New Democrats have advocated, and now they are telling
us to cancel the training programs for all of those thousands of people who
have benefited by it. It is irresponsible,
and it is absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
Aboriginal
Self-Government
Government
Commitment
Mr. George Hickes (Point
I
want to ask the Premier how eliminating funding to these organizations fits in
with the government's commitment to aboriginal self‑government.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for Native Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, the member refers to specific grants. At this particular time, this government has
made moves as it relates to the providing of resource‑raising
capabilities through the Lotteries program on individual reserves. It has made moves on taxation of tobacco and
gasoline taxes and does in fact provide them now an opportunity to raise money
on their own to support their own central political organization if those bands
desire to do so.
Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry Report
Implementation
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Why is the government choosing to cut funding
to these organizations when it has not implemented a fraction of the Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry recommendations? Has
this government‑‑to the AJI recommendations‑‑it is
eliminating this funding to the group it is supposed to work with?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for Native Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, this government offered the opportunity for all
organizations that he refers to, the Assembly of Chiefs, to sit on a working
group to implement some of the recommendations and to pay them a per diem for
their participation. So far they have
denied that opportunity which was offered to them.
Aboriginal
Friendship Centres Funding
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, again, the member has to be aware
of the fact that last year the federal government reduced by some several
millions of dollars the funds that are paid to support many of the aboriginal
people who are now not living on reserves.
I think it is in the neighbourhood of some $17 million to $20 million
that the provincial government had to pick up in responsibility. To maintain the essential service that the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) talked about for those individuals, these tough decisions
had to be made.
* (1345)
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased that the minister referred to essential services. I would like to take the Premier across his own
press release issued today, or his government's press release, in which they
say: but we have tried our best to be
fair.
They then go on to say that they want to
protect services like education. The
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member is starting to take
liberties with the truth. The payments
for the care of those children are made directly to the foster parents. That is where the money comes from. It does not come from the foster parents'
association. They are an advocacy
group. The funding continues to go
through the Department of Family Services directly to the parents for the care
and the nurturing of those children.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, let me speak directly from the information I was given by the Minister
of Family Services last year. In this
information it shows very clearly that the Manitoba Foster Family Association
gets $373,400 and then it says these amounts reflect grants only and do not
include per diem payments. This is a
payment to this organization to in turn provide the very training that is
necessary for foster parents in order to do their job effectively.
Is
this First Minister (Mr. Filmon) suggesting that he wants foster parents to
have no training, to have no expertise in dealing with the children who are at
risk who are going to be found in their foster parents' homes?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, in the past years the Foster Family Association as part of their
budget was responsible for training of foster parents. In the coming year, we
are going to call on the agencies, the Child and Family Services agencies, to
provide that training to the foster parents.
These are the people who are responsible for recruiting those foster
families. They will now have to use some
resources for the training of those parents as well.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, these are the very agencies that
this government has been cutting year after year. Where are they going to find new dollars, new
money to provide the kind of training that has been provided by this
association? Where are they going to
find the expertise that has already been providing that training within these
agencies that are already overworked, understaffed and underfinanced?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The Leader of the Liberal Party has indicated
that we have cut funding to agencies and groups that come under the auspices of
the Department of Family Services. I
would ask her to look at the Estimates for the last number of years to see the
dramatic increases that have taken place in the Department of Family Services.
The
member also criticizes the agencies as not having the resources to do the
training. Well, I have a lot more
confidence in those Child and Family Services agencies, that they do have the
resources to train those foster parents.
They have that expertise and have been working with the foster families
over the last number of years.
Child Care
Associations Funding
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Over the last few years, the number of child
care spaces has been increasing while the Child Day Care office has remained
relatively static in terms of staffing.
At the same time, parents, staff, social workers and even Child and
Family Services agency staff have increasingly relied for advice, support and
resources on the Manitoba Child Care Association and the Family Day Care
Association. How can the Minister of
Family Services justify cutting the grant to MCCA and the Family Day Care
Association?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, as the member's Leader said a few minutes ago, there are difficult
choices facing government and, I would suggest, all governments across this
land, including municipal governments.
During the 1970s and '80s, we saw tremendous resources
coming to government, an expansion of programs throughout
All
governments are faced with these difficult choices, and we have made some of
those choices that were announced this morning.
Mr. Martindale: The problem we have is that government is
making the wrong choices.
Family Day
Care Association
Consultations
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Did the minister consult with the board of
the Family Day Care Association as to the effect of withdrawing their
grant? Does he realize that by
withdrawing their grant, he is putting the Family Day Care Association out of
business? Does he realize that they may
be‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): The
member has asked if I have met with members of the Family Day Care
Association. The answer is yes. We met in my office last week, and also with
the MCCA at that time.
* (1350)
Federal
Training
Project
Status
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Does the Minister of Family Services realize,
and did he realize when he met with them, that the decision to eliminate the
grant to the Family Day Care Association, that he was putting in jeopardy and
probably losing the funding for a training project of federal government
dollars of $361,000? Why would the
minister eliminate a $20,000 grant and jeopardize $361,000 in federal funds for
a training project?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): There is
no line in our department and probably no line in government which has
increased as dramatically as the day care line.
We have virtually doubled the amount of funding that we have given to
day care over the last four or five budgets, particularly the funding that goes
to individual citizens through the funding that we provide for subsidies.
I
met with both the MCCA and the Family Day Care Association last week. We discussed a number of the difficult
choices, and we look forward to continuing to work with them in the near future.
Ducks
Unlimited Complex
Funding
Justification
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, we know that this government
only listens to whom and what they want to hear. That is so clearly reflected in these cuts
that I think everyone in
Today the federal court is going to hear an
appeal regarding the Ducks Unlimited office complex at Oak Hammock Marsh. My question is for the Premier. What principle of sustainable development has
guided this government to spend more than a million dollars of taxpayers' money
to put concrete and sewage at Oak Hammock Marsh, which is a wildlife protection
area? At the same time, they are cutting
organizations that do environmental education, like the Boy Scouts, the Girl
Guides and the minister's own environment advisory council, to name a few.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, one of the foremost principles of
sustainable development is the education of people about the environment, about
conservation and about ensuring that we protect our waterfowl population.
The
money that the
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Premier to tell
the House, with all the cuts to education, with cuts to the Boy Scouts and the
Girl Guides, which young people in the province are going to be able to afford
to go and visit the Minister of Natural Resources' (Mr. Enns) palace at Oak
Hammock Marsh?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I would dare say that almost all of
them. In fact, it has never taken
government funding in the past to have parents take their children to the
* (1355)
Ms. Cerilli: It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that this
project at Oak Hammock Marsh is not even in the government's Interlake tourism
guide, so that shows you where they are at.
Can
the Premier confirm that a half million more dollars is going to be coming from
organizations like Boy Scouts and Girl Guides to pay for more farmland that is
going to be used to extend the road and parking lot at Oak Hammock Marsh so
that the ministers and their friends can park their cars there?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, every year, millions of dollars
of private money are raised by Ducks Unlimited to preserve‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the member for Radisson
obviously does not listen. I answered her
last question, that our money is going to ensure that school children and many
others in this province will be educated in wetland development and protection,
the preservation of our waterfowl and the enhancement of the habitat for our
waterfowl.
Mr.
Speaker, the member for Radisson sits there with her empty sloganeering,
looking for an issue to try and drum up when‑‑
Point of
Order
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I would just ask, on a point of
order, that the minister stick to the facts and answer my questions, please.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is a dispute over the facts.
The
honourable First Minister, to finish his response.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I am, despite her attempts to
shout me down, sticking to the facts.
The problem is that when the member is confronted with the facts, then
she does not know what to say. I will
continue to answer with the facts, no matter how loudly she shouts, no matter
how upset she becomes, because she does not have an issue here.
The
fact is that the people of this province want to have their wetlands developed
and protected. The people of this
province want to have the enhancement of the waterfowl in this province. The people of this province want to have more
educational opportunities for their children, Mr. Speaker.
Flin
Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre Inc. Funding
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard a lot of lip service from this government about zero
tolerance. We have also learned in the
last week of people getting out of Headingley Correctional Institution having
served six days of a 90‑day sentence, for abuse.
Now
we learn today that the Minister of Family Services is going to cut the grant
for the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre Inc., some $90,000.
Can
the Minister of Family Services tell us how he and his government can support
zero tolerance and then cut the funding for an organization that helps to
promote the safe and secure environment for children and their mothers?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated in my answer to a previous question, there are many
difficult decisions and choices we have to make as we are faced with declining
revenue in putting together our budget.
We
are seeing here some rationalization of the services that are offered through
the shelter system. In the Westman area,
for instance, we have one shelter in
* (1400)
Mrs. Carstairs: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, this
is not a region that is well represented proportionately by crisis
centres. This is an area of the province
that is in desperate need.
Can
the Minister of Family Services tell this House today why it is the only crisis
centre in the province that has been cut, that has been eliminated from the
face of the Earth in terms of its funding?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Over the last number of budgets we have seen
the increased funding and stabilization of all of the shelters in
Association
for Community Living Funding
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we have been informed today that women who have been the victims of violence
in the Flin Flon area will not get service, that
Can
the Minister of Family Services tell this House today how the cut to the
Association for Community Living and this so‑called plan of community
service jive?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the member is asking about the grant for the Manitoba Association for
Community Living. This is an umbrella
organization. The service delivery is
provided by the 26 local ACL organizations within the province and they will
continue to provide that service.
Flin
Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre Inc. Funding
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, we have seen on many occasions
how ill informed this government is when it comes to issues in rural and
northern
I
do not know how the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) can stand in his place and talk
about protecting vital services when he knows that his Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) has just cut the funding for a crisis centre in a community where
there are limited services at best and now no services for families and
children who are being abused in a community that is undergoing its own trying
times.
Mr.
Speaker, I want the First Minister to tell this House: What is a vital service
if it is not protecting the children and the families and the women who are
victims of abuse in communities like Flin Flon and Creighton?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated in a previous answer, clients will have access for
service through the shelter that exists in The Pas that we will be continuing
the funding with.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous.
Women in crisis need a place they can go to
right now. They need to protect their
families and themselves. They do not
have access to vehicles necessarily. Mr.
Speaker, this is a kind of cruel, thoughtless and careless cut that northerners
should not have to put up with.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Storie: My question is to the First Minister. How is this protecting vital services? How is this cut protecting vital services?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Flin
Flon will acknowledge that we do not have shelters in each and every community,
that we have to have shelters that are in various centres where individuals,
where women and families in those areas can access those shelters.
I
indicated before, the entire Westman area is serviced by a shelter out of the
Social
Service Cutbacks
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I am
paranoid, but the services have also been cut.
Funding has been cut to the Flin Flon Friendship Centre, the
My
question is: Where are the people in
crisis, the families in crisis, the children in crisis supposed to go in Flin
Flon and the surrounding area after these cuts?
Are they supposed to come to your office?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the member is aware that there are regional offices located through
the North which provide a lot of the services that the member is
referencing. Specifically with the
shelter, I have indicated that the services will be accessed through the
shelter at The Pas.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I
have a question to the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism that deals not
only with a cut but with a process.
Mr.
Speaker, the Blair Report on the future of the Manitoba Intercultural Council
recommended either the abolition of MIC through legislation or amending
Manitoba Intercultural Council.
Can
the minister today tell this House why, through a cut in the budget she has
eliminated, not through legislation and not through community hearings, the
entire Manitoba Intercultural Council?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept any of the preamble of the question that
was just posed, because the Manitoba Intercultural Council can and will survive
if in fact the community deems that it is the organization that should speak on
their behalf.
We
commissioned the Blair Report, and we do know that the Manitoba Intercultural
Council has a surplus of over $100,000 that they will be able to utilize while
they are going through their restructuring program and becoming completely
community based. They have every
opportunity to set up an extremely viable organization that will, in fact,
serve members of the multicultural community.
Multicultural
Organizations
Funding
Justification
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the preamble in
the second question which in fact is not supposed to have a preamble.
We
fund through government support to the Manitoba Multicultural Resources Centre,
to the Folk Arts Council of
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question
again. Maybe, I will rephrase it so that
it will be clearer.
Can
the minister explain why, given the fact that there were government staff
people staffing the Manitoba Intercultural Council through Civil Service
appointees, the regular process, why those monies have been cut and the only
people who are funded directly to provide information or some assistance to the
minister and the community are from the Multiculturalism Secretariat and the
Multicultural Grants Advisory Council, all of whom are political‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I have heard both opposition
parties many, many times in this House tell this government that government
should not have any control over the hiring of the staff of the Manitoba
Intercultural Council. I can read quotes
from Hansard that have indicated that there should be no control by
government. We accepted‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, both opposition parties, as I
have indicated, have many times in this House indicated there should be no
government control over the Manitoba Intercultural Council. Indeed, we have handed the Manitoba
Intercultural Council over to the community, and they can determine the kind of
structure, the type of staff they would like to hire and their role and mandate.
* (1410)
Committee
on Unplanned Pregnancy Funding
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
How
can this government justify eliminating total funding for the Committee on
Unplanned Pregnancy which has been recognized nationally and has played a
critical role in encouraging young people to be realistic about their lifestyle
choices and to take responsibility for their actions?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend poses a very important question, and if that source of
information was the sole source of information for children, students, the
youth across
But
that organization has been one of several groups that have provided those kinds
of services, part of an available program throughout many ministries, mine not
being the exclusive one, not to mention the least of which is that most, if not
all, school divisions offer some direct support to students in the classroom,
Sir.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: How can the minister justify that kind of
argument when, in fact, it is the schools that rely on the materials produced
by the Committee on Unplanned Pregnancy?
Who will fill the gap for an organization that has put out leaflets
entitled Respect Yourself, Protect Yourself, or provides information to parents
and has tips on talking with your kids about sex?
Mr. Orchard: There are a number of opportunities in which
that kind of supportive material can and will continue to be available. For instance, my ministry has a certain
provision of information and role to fill there.
I
would say in this very, very important area that many of our churches and the
organizations involving churches across
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: How can the minister make that kind of case
today when, in fact, reports show, particularly the federal report on
sexuality, that media campaigns in terms of sexuality and family planning are
the most successful way for getting through to young people? How can he justify cutting the only program
in
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend makes a
quantum leap in faith that because one organization receives less funding that
the whole initiative of education, promotion, et cetera, will be absent and
will not be available to students, to youth across the province.
That assumes that the only time there is
anything good happening in society is if government provides a grant to make it
happen. That is possibly the way my
honourable friend grew up and currently believes, but there are many other
organizations, there are many other groups, there are many volunteer organizations. There are many groups that will fill the
void, the gap, the opportunity to help youth in making appropriate choices.
Aboriginal
Friendship Centres Funding
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Friendship centres in this province provide
educational, social, athletic and cultural services to native and non‑native
Manitobans.
My
question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is:
How does he justify this blatant attack on aboriginal and Metis people
in this province?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for Native Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, I disagree totally with the question and the preamble of
the member for Selkirk.
When one looks at the track record of the
supports and the work that this government has done with the aboriginal
community, whether it is Northern Flood, whether it is the provision of funding
through the Lotteries program, as it relates to north central hydro providing
electricity that he and his constituents have taken for granted for many years‑‑it
is finally on the path to completion.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Speaker's
Ruling
Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.
On
March 9, 1993, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the official
opposition party House leader, raised a point of order questioning whether
unanimous consent or leave was required by a member, in this case the
honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), to pose questions to a minister,
in this case the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey). After the minister had concluded her remarks
at second reading of Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur les ecoles publiques, the Deputy Speaker took the matter under
advisement.
In
making his point of order, the opposition House leader argued that leave was
not required for a member to ask questions of a minister at second
reading. The government House leader
claimed that while ministers in the past had accepted questions, they had done
so "in essence granting leave" and that it was "fully within the
purview of the minister to grant leave or to accept a question."
In
my time as Speaker, I recall that there have been instances where ministers
have accepted questions after concluding their remarks at second reading. However, I am not convinced that this is a
long‑standing practice or tradition of this House.
I
also note that in the case of this particular point of order, the honourable
member for Dauphin had at the outset requested leave to pose a question. Therefore, in my opinion, the point of order
was not over whether leave was required to ask questions; it was over the fact
that the minister chose not to accept the questions.
Our
Rule 46 states that no member may speak twice to a question. The rule is based on wide‑held
parliamentary practice throughout the Commonwealth. Therefore, in order for a member to
participate twice in a debate, in this case once to ask questions of a member
and later to participate in debate of the bill, leave would be required for the
member to do so. This, however, assumes
that the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), as opposition critic for Education,
will be speaking later in debate on Bill 16.
In
conclusion, then, I do not believe a member has, in essence, a right to pose
questions to a minister at the conclusion of a minister's speech at second reading,
and I am ruling that the honourable member for Dauphin would have required
leave of the House to do so on March 9, 1993.
Having said that, I fail to see what harm
there would have been in granting leave to the member for Dauphin to ask the
questions. The minister could have taken
them under advisement if she did not wish to answer the questions at that
time. This sort of incident does nothing
to improve the harmonious workings of this House, and I encourage members to
make every effort to expedite business by a more liberal use of courtesy and
consideration.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call the government motion dealing with the introduction of Estimates?
Point of
Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, we cannot take lightly any decision to ignore the
established practices of this House.
This motion would serve to create a precedent, a very dangerous
precedent.
I
stand on this point of order with the following arguments. The motion, as it
reads, would have the Legislature act in a way in which, as the motion itself
admits, is contrary to the established practices of this House. In any instance where we, as a Legislature,
propose to change the rules and practices by which we are governed, we must
seriously reflect on what we propose to do and the impact it will have on the
future deliberations.
As
Erskine May 21st edition, page 2, defines it, parliamentary "practice is
that part of procedure which developed spontaneously in the course of the
transaction of business in each House.
The authority for many of the old‑established forms and rules of
practice is unrecorded. Some of them
were no doubt invented in Parliament itself, but others have been traced to
analogies in medieval courts of law and in the councils of the Church."
Mr.
Speaker, as parliament matured, some of the practices were confided into what
has now become a standing orders. However, a large part of the tradition of
parliamentary practice has remained unwritten.
* (1420)
I
quote from Erskine May, which reads on page 1:
"Many Parliamentary procedures originated in the period when the
Commons, at least, regarded themselves as in opposition to the Crown and devised
ways of checking and controlling the actions of Ministers. Today, by contrast, the Crown's Ministers are
entitled to assume that they enjoy the general support of a majority of the
House of Commons, and the purpose of many of the rules is to safeguard the
rights of a minority of the House; to guard against the development of an
'elective dictatorship' which some have predicted."
Mr.
Speaker, the democratic process is such that we are, as members of the
legislative body, bound to safeguard the interests of the people. The protection of minority rights is
fundamental to our democratic system.
The purpose of the rules and of these practices is to safeguard these
rights of the minority. These practices
evolved over time. They were designed to
aid government in carrying out its duties and to also ensure fair debate. We cannot ignore them, without first
seriously considering their impact.
Again, I would quote from Erskine May, pages 2
and 3: "The principle common
characteristic of rules of practice was to provide ample opportunity for debate
and for initiative in choosing subjects for debate, and ample safeguards
against business being taken without due notice so that decisions could not be
reached without opportunities for full consideration being given."
Mr.
Speaker, this is in fact where the government is taking a very dangerous
precedent here. This motion will not
allow for due consideration of the Estimates as a whole, as it deals with the
two departments in isolation from the rest.
That is why it is important that we consider the propriety of this
motion very carefully.
It
would be irresponsible of us to pass a motion such as this without serious
consideration of the implications that it will have. It is a very dangerous precedent that we are
dealing with here. Although, it is the
prerogative of the government to formulate financial policy, it is the duty of
this House as a whole to assure that the financial procedures are followed. It is also the duty of this House as the
whole to approve, at least in principle, public expenditure.
The
role of government in terms of financial controls is twofold and, again, I
would go to Erskine May on page 684:
"The financial control of the House of Commons is exercised at two
different levels. As an agent in the
formation of policy, it authorizes the several objects of expenditure and the
sums to be spent on each; it also authorizes the levying of taxes. On the level of administration, it satisfies
itself that its expenditures, decisions are duly carried out‑‑in
other words, that the sums it has granted, and no more, are spent for the
purposes for which they were granted, and for no other purposes. For both sets
of functions the House of Commons has, partly through its own procedure, and
partly through legislation and administrative practice, secured appropriate
machinery."
The
practices regarding the introducing and tabling and consideration of Estimates
are well established. They were
developed over time to allow for the fullest opportunity for debate and to
ensure that the rights of the minority were protected. As Erskine May states on pages 692, 693: "The rules of financial procedure,
whether based on practice or upon the standing orders, are strictly observed by
the House of Commons; and any disregard of them would now only be due to
misunderstanding of their applicability in a particular case, or to
inadvertence."
Never has it been so important that we fulfill
our responsibility to Manitobans, Mr. Speaker.
It would be irresponsible on the part of this House and on the part of
government if we took lightly our role in overseeing the spending of taxpayers'
money. It is expected that this
government's budget will introduce serious changes in the funding of many of
its major programs. The budget will have
a serious impact on many of the fundamental institutions.
To
that end, we as the Legislature need to view all of the Main Estimates in order
to make the informed decisions that are necessary, Mr. Speaker. It is incredible that we are being asked to
believe that the system of communication is so terrible between the minister
and his colleagues in
It
is the duty of the government to formulate financial policy. It is the duty of the opposition to ensure
that the rules and practices of the House are being followed and that the
government is held accountable. It is
the duty of the whole House to consider and approve the public spending.
Mr.
Speaker, the Speaker's role and, again, what I want to emphasize is something
from Erskine May on pages 1 and 2 in dealing with the Speaker's role and the
role that you have in the Chamber:
"Above all, the balance between the right of Governments to obtain
their business and the right of the House as a whole to examine it, and to
require the opportunity to amend it and propose alternatives before ultimately
approving it, is maintained through the discretionary powers given to the
Speaker. By calling to its Chair a
member who thereupon permanently distances himself from his former political
background, the House of Commons has evolved a method of entrusting to a
colleague the oversight of 'fair play'.
This has enabled the Speaker to be given power to select which
amendments will be debated; to decide whether or not he will allow the Closure
of Debate, or a dilatory motion to be moved and from day to day to decide which
members should be called into debate so as to provide representative expression
of the House's opinions. Such authority which is also reflective in powers and
conduct of the chairman of committees is the principal defence against the
arbitrary use of the executive majority position."
I
say to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), Mr. Speaker, he should read‑‑this
is actually a quote that is definitely relevant. It is imperative that the Premier know what
he is actually asking his government House leader to do. It is unprecedented. It has to be acted upon. You cannot justify doing this.
Mr.
Speaker, having said that, I would ask that we recess, you give the point of
order some consideration, and then we come back to hear your decision on it.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I admire your tolerance.
Mr.
Speaker, what the member is trying to do now, under the guise of a point of
order, like you rightly pointed out on Friday last‑‑that is really
what he should have used. He is
reflecting totally on the decision you made on Friday.
You
ruled on this issue. You ruled on this
issue in its entirety on Friday, and I say to you, I am not going to prolong my
statement again with respect to you and your office. Sir, you have ruled. You heard the representations made by all three
parties. The members of the Liberal
Party challenged your ruling. They had
an opportunity to vote against that ruling. They have done so.
I
find it absolutely unacceptable that today, Monday, the next business day of
this House, that they would rise in their place and again attempt to challenge
your ruling.
Mr.
Speaker, nowhere in my reading have I seen a rule requiring the tabling of the
entire Estimates package‑‑nowhere. That is what is at issue
here. I say also, if one wants to look
at Beauchesne 318(3). It says: "One cannot rise on a point of order to
deter or impede the progress of one's own motion . . . ."
The
member moved a motion on Friday that was spoken to, ruled out of order and
voted on. His issue has been dealt
with. I call upon you, as the government
has asked, Mr. Speaker, given the business of the House, to let the motion,
dealing with respect to the introduction of what members opposite call the
unprecedented motion dealing with Estimates, come forward at this time.
* (1430)
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, first of
all I would like to deal on this point of order with a question of whether this
is a legitimate point of order in the context raised by the government House
leader.
With all due respect, I reject the argument
made by the government House leader, because in fact in your ruling on Friday
on the matter of privilege you specifically pointed out and quoted Maingot from
page 190: "A breach of the Standing
Orders or a failure to follow an established practice would invoke a 'point of
order' rather than a 'question of privilege'."
Mr.
Speaker, whether or not the government House leader agrees with the proposed
point of order in this case, to my mind it is legitimate and in fact follows
from your ruling on Friday in which you indicated there was no prima‑facie
case of privilege on the matter raised by the Liberal House leader. So indeed we are dealing with a question of
order in this particular case.
The
Liberal House leader is correct in that our parliamentary procedures are a
combination of established practices which go back to the Mother of
Parliaments, the House of Commons in
I
would like to point out that the principle of amending the order for discussion
of Estimates is not clear in our rules.
I think there is clear precedent for separation of Estimates and
budgets. That, I do not think, can be
disputed, but there is not clearly a consideration in the rules in the current
circumstances of the particular type of motion moved by the government House
leader.
Mr.
Speaker, I would point out that there are a couple of principles that are
established in terms of dealing with Estimates.
One is a prescribed order that is established by the government House
leader and the opposition House leader.
I consider it unfortunate in this particular case that there was an
inability to achieve consensus on the matter of proceeding from the Liberal
House leader, but that indeed is his option, although consensus is not required
under our rules.
I
would point out that one other fact that is in our rules is a clear indication
that changes to sequence, Mr. Speaker, can be made in this House either by
unanimous consent or by a substantive motion with a required notice given. Now some might argue that we do not have the
prescribed order at this particular point in time. That may be a matter for a separate ruling as
to whether announcing two particular departments would activate our rules. By the way, I am quoting specifically from
our rules page 42 (6.3) which does indicate that changes can be made by a
required notice.
I
would suspect that as is the case with the rest of our rules, Mr. Speaker,
where we often run into problems, some cases with contradictions in our rules
and other cases with circumstances, such as in this particular case, not
considered, I think the principle is clearly established for the establishment
of the order. I can indicate that the
two departments that are specifically referenced in this motion from the
government represent a consensus both of the government and the official
opposition. I can also indicate that I
would anticipate that within the next 24 hours, perhaps 48 hours, I would hope,
there would be an agreement by both parties, following the normal process and
hopefully with consultation with the Liberals, of a complete schedule. But, I think the principle is clearly
established of amending the order by motion.
I
do want to indicate that we are prepared to support discussion of Estimates in
terms of the Department of Highways and Transportation. We are not, Mr. Speaker, prepared to discuss
the Department of Family Services, because we did not receive any detailed
information until just a very short time ago.
So I want to indicate that qualification, and I would hope that the
government House leader would accept that if we do proceed with this particular
motion, it would essentially be Highways and Transportation and then perhaps at
another sitting, our normal sitting on Wednesday or perhaps some other date
through negotiation, we might get into Family Services.
Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect to the Liberal House leader, while it is
legitimate for him to be raising this matter as a point of order, I would
suggest we have a very clearly established set of rules that are not
particularly clear on the particular circumstance of this case but make it very
clear on the rights of the official opposition and government to set the order
for Estimates and to be able to amend that by motion, and essentially that is
the type of principle that is involved in this particular motion. So with all due respect, I believe the member
does not have a point of order, and we should proceed with the motion which is
indeed debatable.
I
am sure the Liberal House leader can also make those points on that, perhaps
his third try, in terms of raising it the appropriate way. Thank you.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
On the point of order raised by the honourable member for
I
also quote from my ruling on Friday:
"As Maingot points out, on page 190: 'A breach of the Standing Orders or a failure
to follow an established practice would invoke a 'point of order' rather than a
'question of privilege'.'
"Furthermore, there are several, several
precedents of similar occurrences in the Canadian House, . . . . Clearly, then, both the authorities and our
practices allow for standing orders to be suspended or amended by motion on
notice."
If
memory serves me correctly, I believe this was on notice on Wednesday. The honourable government House leader
attempted to deal with it on Friday, at which time I ruled the honourable
member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I challenge your
ruling.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair having been challenged,
the question before the House is, shall the ruling of the Chair be
sustained? All those in favour, please
say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
* (1440)
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is, shall the
ruling of the Chair be sustained?
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows:
Yeas
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Cummings,
Dacquay, Derkach, Dewar, Doer, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon,
Gilleshammer, Helwer, Hickes, Lathlin, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh,
Maloway, Manness, Martindale, Mitchelson, Neufeld, Orchard, Pallister, Penner,
Plohman, Praznik, Reid, Reimer, Render, Santos, Stefanson, Storie, Sveinson,
Vodrey, Wasylycia‑Leis, Wowchuk.
Nays
Alcock, Carstairs, Cheema, Edwards, Gaudry,
Gray, Lamoureux.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 43, Nays 7.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): I move, seconded by
the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger), that debate be adjourned.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Environment has
attempted to adjourn debate, but I must remind the honourable minister that it
has not been moved, seconded by anybody at this point in time.
* (1540)
Point of
Order
Mr. Manness: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, I moved and seconded the
motion duly on Friday. It was moved and
seconded.
The
House leader of the Liberal Party stood on a matter of privilege, but that
motion was moved and seconded. Now
whether or not you accepted it or not, I will let you decide, but it was
certainly duly moved and seconded on Friday.
* * *
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, rather than go through this
series of different maneuvering back and forth, I would suggest perhaps that
the House leaders sit down and try and deal with this matter in terms of
Estimates. Perhaps the government House
leader may wish to call some other business and give us an opportunity to try
and deal with this matter rather than bringing these various spiralling levels
of disputes into the House.
Point of
Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, if I may be of some
assistance. I understand that the government
House leader did introduce the motion on Friday, but because the motion was not
read back into the record from yourself, it was in fact not tabled. Again, according to the rules, the government
House leader has to reintroduce the motion, and then after he reintroduces the
motion and you read it back in, then it is open to debate.
At
that point in time I would love the opportunity to be able to debate that
particular motion. So if the minister
does not have the motion on his table, I would be more than happy to recess for
a few minutes so that he can get his act in order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I do not believe the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) rose on a point of order, but the honourable member's recommendations
as to House business, I will leave that with House leaders.
On
the point of order raised by the honourable member for
As
indeed it indicates on the Order Paper, it is not standing in anybody's name;
therefore, the House is still in possession with it. At this time I will now read off the motion.
It
has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), seconded by
the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings),
THAT notwithstanding Rules 65(6.1) and (6.2)
and the established practices of this House respecting the introduction and referral
of the government's expenditure Estimates, the Estimates of the Department of
Highways and Transportation shall be tabled, referred to the Committee of
Supply and considered by the section of that committee meeting in the Assembly
Chamber; and that the Estimates of the Department of Family Services shall be
tabled, referred to the Committee of Supply and considered by the section of
that committee meeting outside the Assembly Chamber prior to the tabling and
referral to the Committee of Supply of the Main Estimates book containing the
expenditure Estimates of all government departments.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that debate be adjourned.
Motion presented.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, we will put the question to the House
first. Order, please. It has been moved
by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), seconded by the
honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation, that debate be
adjourned. Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Point of
Order
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. For clarification, the honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I
would ask yours and the Clerk's guidance as to when I can actually stand up,
the earliest possible moment, to speak on this motion. I was informed from the Clerk's Office that
it is in fact a debatable motion. I am
prepared to debate the motion as of right now if the government is in fact to
listen to the debate.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On that point of order raised by the
honourable member for
The
question before the House is, shall debate be adjourned? All those in favour,
please say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I call for Yeas and Nays.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in
the members.
* (1550)
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is, shall
debate be adjourned?
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows:
Yeas
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Cummings, Dacquay,
Derkach, Dewar, Doer,
Nays
Alcock, Carstairs, Cheema, Edwards, Gaudry,
Gray, Lamoureux.
Mr. Clerk: Yeas 43, Nays 7.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, would you call it five o'clock?
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it five
o'clock?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Leave has been denied.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable government House leader, what
are your intentions, sir?
* (1650)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, would you call the bills in the
order as shown on the Order Paper, Debate on Second Readings?
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 2‑The
Endangered Species Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 2, The Endangered Species Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes en voie de disparition, standing in
the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I think before I begin talking
about the specifics of the bill, I should perhaps make a comment about the
tactics that have been used in the Chamber for the last several hours.
Natural history has shown that those groups
and individuals who stick their head in the sand the longest tend not to
survive and so perhaps this Endangered Species Act is referring to my
colleagues on my left. I do not
understand what games the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) thinks he is
playing here, but I think someone tried to explain to him once that the fact of
the matter is that if we do not begin the Estimates debate now, we will have to
begin it later and the amount of time we are going to consume is the same
amount of time whether we start now or later.
The
member may be disappointed because he is not getting his opportunity to
filibuster on some meaningless Liberal motion, but the fact of the matter is
there are some other things that we should be debating. This act is one of those things, and I was
getting to that very point.
Mr.
Speaker, this is one of those acts where I think most members on both sides of
the House, including my colleagues from the Liberal Party, are likely to
agree. I was perhaps inadvertently
making light of the Liberal position on some of the procedural issues that have‑‑I
was going to say, plagued the House, but I will not use that word‑‑but
the fact of the matter is that the agenda, unfortunately, at this point for the
Legislature, is to put it mildly, light.
I think that reflects badly on all of us, and I think it reflects
particularly badly on the government, who have had many months to put together
an agenda that would have been substantive and attempted to deal with some of
the issues that face Manitobans.
The
relatively minor amendments that are a part of The Endangered Species Act,
while they may be important and they may be significant in terms of this act, I
do not think they represent, Mr. Speaker, the real issues that confront most
Manitobans. The announcement by the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) earlier today about cuts to agencies that
provide vital social services is an example of the kind of thing that we need
to be addressing in this session.
Instead, we are making some minor amendments to The Endangered Species
Amendment Act, an act which everyone in this Chamber knows was first introduced
by the New Democratic Party government back in 1988 and subsequently introduced
and passed in subsequent sessions under the stewardship of this government and
the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns).
Mr.
Speaker, the amendments here are, I think, supported by many groups in the
province, particularly those involved with the preservation of wildlife. However, there are a number of groups that I
think have legitimate concerns generally with the government's, I guess, stated
position on the protection of endangered species in the province and on their
action. It is not always easy to see any
consistency between the government's stated intentions and their actions. We have seen many examples of that in the
past several months, and those issues have been referenced in the Chamber on
many, many occasions.
Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to say to begin with that over the past several months I,
like probably a lot of members, have been reading and following the debates
that are emanating from just south of us, the environmental debate, I think, is
heating up across
Mr.
Speaker, we on this side, while we support I guess the government's intention,
are not at all supportive of the government's actions when it comes to
environmental protection. I referenced in my remarks earlier the fact that the
government has done some damage to the fabric, the network of social services
that are available in communities like Flin Flon. At the same time, in the same announcement,
we saw cuts in funding to the Manitoba Environmental Council, a group which
would have, if the government would have wanted, provided support and advice to
the government on issues like Bill 2, The Endangered Species Amendment Act.
Mr.
Speaker, we cannot do without the expertise of people like those who are
representatives on the Manitoba Environmental Council. We need those kinds of people. We need that kind of expertise if we are
going to balance the interests of other groups like Ducks Unlimited or any
other group when it comes to not only protecting endangered species, but
protecting our natural habitat, protecting our game and protecting our natural
resources.
So
there are a lot of us who sit here and look at this piece of legislation with
some mixed emotions, because it is not clear at all that the government has any
internal agenda in terms of conservation, in terms of environmental protection
nor in terms of the protection of endangered species. It is not clear at all that the government is
not using focus groups to test its environmental message, rather than doing something
that is substantive, principled and that has been vetted in one way or another
through the many groups which are interested in environmental protection, which
are interested in the preservation of species of wildlife, of flora and fauna
in the province of Manitoba.
Mr.
Speaker, that is something that we need to know from the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns). It is not clear
how thoroughly the Minister of Natural Resources consulted with the various
interest groups across the province which may be interested in the government's
amendments, in the implications of those amendments and the need for those
amendments at this time.
The
government often, in its remarks, whether it is the throne speech or public
remarks of the front bench, talks about the consultation the government is
doing. Well, this is one of those areas
where, even though it is a fairly minor bill that deals with a couple of
issues, it is not at all clear from the minister's remarks in second reading
that this bill has received the kind of review, discussion and consultation
that perhaps is warranted.
I
would hazard to guess that if the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) were
to take this legislation and sit down and talk to Eco‑Network or the
Environmental Council or any of the other myriad of environmental groups who
have organized across the province, he would find that they have a list of
concerns about the actions of this government that he himself as a Minister of
Natural Resources should be aware of.
We
sometimes and ministers sometimes get caught up in their own administrative
work when it comes to bills like this and forget that the environmental issues
are not simply the purview of the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that
they cross over virtually every department.
This is also true, I suppose, of some aspects of The Endangered Species
Act, Mr. Speaker.
* (1700)
The
fact is that the Minister of Environment‑‑the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) is perhaps a good example of having a conflicting
interest in this particular legislation, the right to set aside preserves, the
right to set aside‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) will have 31 minutes remaining.
The
hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before
we go into private members' hour, I would like to rise on House business.
The
Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on
Tuesday, March 16, tomorrow, at 7:30 p.m. to continue to consider the 1992
Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro‑Electric Board.
Also, the Standing Committee on Economic
Development will meet on Thursday, March 18, 1993, at 8 p.m. to consider the
1992 Annual Report of A.E. McKenzie Seeds.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 6‑Confronting
Elder Abuse
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Leader
of the Second Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs),
WHEREAS many seniors in
WHEREAS
the majority of elder abuse is perpetrated by family members or friends of the
victim, thereby making seniors reluctant to report their abusers to
authorities; and
WHEREAS abused elders must often leave a
domestic situation and therefore require shelter which accommodates their
particular needs; and
WHEREAS abused women seniors are sometimes
placed in women's shelters, which are not adequately equipped to care for the
particular needs of the elderly; and
WHEREAS seniors are often faced with mobility,
hearing and sight impairments which present special accommodation difficulties
which are not addressed in existing facilities; and
WHEREAS the Elder Abuse Resource Centre, a
demonstration project funded by federal and provincial governments, is not
guaranteed funding beyond the three‑year life of the project which ends
in 1993; and
WHEREAS the Seniors Directorate has not
received significant funding or responsibilities; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS seniors are a vital part of the
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba urge the government to consider urgently ways to better
meet the need for safe houses for abused elders; and
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the government to reflect the
seriousness with which Manitobans regard the problem of elder abuse by
considering support of the Elder Abuse Resource Centre beyond its three‑year
deadline.
Mr. Speaker: Prior to putting the question back to the
House, I would like to remind the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr.
Gaudry) that in his opening remarks, he has indicated that‑‑seconded
by the honourable member for River Heights‑‑we do not respond to
the member by name.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on
this resolution. The Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer) just mentioned it was a good resolution, but I have to
say, one day last week, I was sitting in my office downstairs, and I was told
to rush to the Chamber to come and speak on my resolution, because they were trying
to hijack it to the end of the list. So
it shows their hypocrisy in regard to the elders when they want to do that.
Point of
Order
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): On a point of order, and I think it is a very valid
point the member for St. Boniface raises, but if he will recall the
conversation, we had proposed that if the member was unavailable, we would be
willing to switch the elder abuse resolution with NAFTA, but not put it to the
bottom of the list. If we were trying to
do that, the member would have been incorrect.
I just want the record to show that we think this is a good
resolution. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
On the point of order raised, the honourable Leader does not have a
point of order. It is clearly a dispute
over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Gaudry: No, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear. I walked in the Chamber here, and they said,
there he is. Then they started to debate
the bills the second time around on the bills of the day. [interjection] Yes, I
do. I was there.
Mr.
Speaker, it is quite important, as far as I am concerned, to introduce a
resolution for elder abuse. We know, we
are talking about it. It happens on our
streets and in our families, and it exists in all of our lives. We know of that.
Just last week, again, we read in the paper
the abuse that is going on financially with people who are so vulnerable in
regard to finances. They are taking
advantage, like contractors, fly‑by‑night outfits that do take
advantage of our seniors.
Maybe I should reflect here on a little
incident last week again that happened in the constituency of St. Vital and St.
Boniface. Two older ladies phoned the
Minister responsible for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme) and requested his assistance to
see what was going to happen here with the furniture that they had taken to
some refinishing, manufacturing business.
They were told that the Minister of Seniors did not refinish furniture,
so they did not know where to turn.
They called backed there and they said, well,
is there somebody who we can talk to?
They said, who is the member for St. Boniface, and they gave my
name. They called, and I listened to
them for half an hour. My nature is to
listen to the people who phone me.
Anyway, I did meet with them.
They are members of the St. Vital constituency. I had never met these two fine ladies.
I
took them down to this business and rectified the problem with them. It came out that nothing was wrong, but they
were pleased to get their furniture back, regardless that it was not
finished. But they had given a fair
amount of money to this man. They could
not get their money back, because he had no money to refund to these two
ladies.
I
said, can we have a portion of the deposit that was given to them, and he said,
well, I will give you a postdated cheque. So I took the cheque and gave it to
the lady. The lady said, well, we will
tear it up because he probably needs it.
I said, no, it is the principle of the thing. You can give them whatever they want after a
later date. That is just an
example. I think we have to listen to
the seniors when they phone our offices.
A lot of times it takes them time to explain what their problems are.
Mr.
Speaker, we look, for example, at the 55 Plus program. It is very seldom that I
would like to congratulate the government.
Today I will, because I have received a 55 Plus program form and they
are bilingual. We asked for them to be
bilingual, and today they are bilingual.
So I congratulate the minister for doing that, because it is important
to my community, to the Francophones in
The
NDP said that they have been talking about 55 Plus. Well, in the eight years
that they were in government how many times did they increase the 55 Plus
program?
An Honourable Member: We introduced it.
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, but how many times did you increase
it? Last year you tried to say that the
government‑‑sure. I do not
approve that they did not‑‑
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
An Honourable Member: The Liberals did not do it. The NDP did.
* (1710)
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, but they criticize about the fact that
it should be increased, but they did not do it while they were in government.
We
must affirm that the seniors have the right to maintain their dignity and their
integrity. They are people who are
vulnerable to society, because they are taken advantage of at all times. There are steps that should be taken by the
government to protect our seniors. I
have been involved with the seniors a lot, not only in St. Boniface but in
other communities, and I enjoy working with them. There are steps to be taken to have trained
people to recognize where we can intervene to protect the seniors. There is a lot that can be done.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the dignity and the
integrity of our seniors‑‑it is becoming very sensitized to the
issue of elder abuse and advocating with and on behalf of the seniors. One must not lose sight of one's
reality. The approaches we use must
affirm that seniors have the right to maintain their dignity. Seniors have the
right of access to comprehensive information, and people can assist them with
services and counselling. I think the
minister has tried to do so, but I think he has failed in some instances. I have phoned the minister, he has provided
me with information, and I have taken it to the seniors. I hope he will continue to do so, because it
is important.
Shelters for elderly people who are abused
financially, physically‑‑and we see that every day. We hear about it. We know of instances. I hope the minister will consider all the
proposals that we bring forward to protect our seniors‑‑shelters
and the education. I think it is not
only for the seniors, but for the people who look after the seniors.
I
know he has produced a video. He passed
it on, and I have used it a lot. I have
sent it to organizations in St. Boniface. Again, it was bilingual, which I
think was appreciated. I have had calls
by members from the hospital, nurses who have used it for presentations.
I
think it is sad to say that in our day and age we have to defend this kind of
thing going on towards our seniors. It
is very important that we continue to fight this abuse that is going on in our
society towards our seniors.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will end my remarks in
hoping that the minister will consider this resolution in regard to helping our
seniors of
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister responsible for Seniors): Madam Deputy
Speaker, in regard to the previous remarks from the member for St. Boniface
(Mr. Gaudry), I appreciate‑‑and I always appreciate his comments on
the record. I doubt very much whether
someone phoned my Seniors Directorate and was ignored. I am very proud of the work that our Seniors
Directorate does. They continue to
receive hundreds and hundreds of calls from seniors throughout
To
the member, I want him to know that probably this province has been recognized
nationally as the people who are the front runners in dealing with the senior
elderly abuse question. As a matter of
fact, I was invited to give a talk in
Madam Deputy Speaker, he did mention that the
NDP usually puts things at the bottom of the list dealing with seniors. They proved that while they were in power. They put all seniors issues at the bottom of
the list.
The
other thing I would like to remark on and before I get into my presentation is
that I could probably speak on this issue for the next two hours, of all the
things that the Manitoba government and this government has done for the
seniors of this province. During the
speeches that I will make on seniors throughout the next upcoming months, in
the time we are given on bills, et cetera, and giving a speech on the budget,
et cetera, I will give up‑to‑date information on the process that
we have done.
We
also, just to align the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) and the other
members of the House, is that we did start this process back in 1988. Our Premier at the time derived the Seniors
Directorate. I notice the member for St.
Boniface refers to things that he would like the Seniors Directorate to fund.
Unfortunately, the budget, it is only a Seniors Directorate; it is not a budget
to fund different things. We try to do
the important part of the Seniors Directorate, and that is the awareness
question and the awareness question dealing with all levels of government and
all the ministers whom we deal with from day to day. That is the job of the Seniors Directorate.
First of all, when we established the first
document on elder abuse to increase public awareness, we produced a discussion
paper that I know the member‑‑and this was initiated by the
province. A wide consultation with
seniors and of course service providers was carried out in the province. I believe there were 63 consultation meetings
throughout the province conducted over a period of five months. The meetings were attended by approximately
1,000 Manitobans.
These consultations were intended to act as a
catalyst for development of policies and programs reflecting the concerns of
the seniors. The other provinces
throughout
I
have been proud to be the Minister responsible for Seniors the last couple of
years. The Seniors Directorate, also
after consultation, had two wide scope meetings, the first one to look after
the people who are the caregivers in the province, attended by 325 people. It was in
As
a result of this consultation and during these meetings, we did make the
announcement, as mentioned by the member from across the way. He did mention our video, and yes, we are
very proud of the video. The video is a
very good, nonconfrontational type of focus that people can use, and yes, it is
in both Canadian languages. As a matter
of fact, the
This is just a start of the many things that I
can go on and on with. We must remember
also that we have been articled in magazines of the Bankers' Association. As a matter of fact, we are involved in a
copy that the minister wrote in The Canadian Banker, trying to point out
problems that people can have with their monies at the banks. The Bankers' Association called me to
Madam Deputy Speaker, can you tell me how much
time I have? [interjection] Okay.
They also like to focus in on‑‑as
you know, most of the financial abuse that does occur occurs between
families. A lot of times the reporting
issue that is very, very important between families is probably the key to
financial abuse. As you know, most
families believe that mother and father's money is theirs, and unfortunately
that is what they believe. A lot of
times mother and father do not even realize that they get pension cheques. We first discovered that during the postal
strike. Children would phone and say, Mom and Dad will not come down to sign
the cheques off at the post office. We
say, well, why do you not bring them down and sign off? I think a lot of them never received their
money or maybe got half the cheques after they were cashed.
So
there are many things that can be developed over the financial abuse question
that is happening. Seniors have to learn
that, when they give power of attorney, they can limit those powers of
attorney. They can actually list in
those powers of attorney what rules to follow so that they are not abused; they
say they have given power of attorney, and then, all of the sudden, large sums
of money are transferred over or overdrafts are accumulated, signing over power
of attorney to families, where they can turn around and sell different
products.
* (1720)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I could go on and on in
regard to the process, the consultation, the remarks made by the member for St.
Boniface (Mr. Gaudry). What I will do at
the time, though, so I make sure that I get my resolution before the House, I
move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that Resolution 6 be
amended by deleting all words following the first WHEREAS and replacing them
with the following:
WHEREAS financial abuse of seniors is one of
the biggest forms of abuse that seniors in
WHEREAS seniors in
WHEREAS the government of
WHEREAS with the support of the government of
Manitoba, the Seniors Directorate has been able to co‑ordinate two
conferences on elder abuse in the past year that were attended by service providers
from all over the province in addition to several seniors organizations; and
WHEREAS the Seniors Directorate is developing
protocols that will be appropriate for use in all parts in
WHEREAS the government of
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the government of
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba created the
Family Violence Court in September 1990 to deal with family violence cases such
as those of elderly abuse in a more specialized and expeditious manner.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba continue to support the government for its ongoing
commitment to meeting the needs of seniors in
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly support the continuing efforts of the
government to seek solutions that will meet the needs of the abused older
members of our province today and the future.
Motion presented.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order.
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): If the amended motion is in order, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I would like to speak on‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, the honourable member for Broadway, the
amendment is indeed in order.
Mr. Santos: The amendment says that this government has an
ongoing commitment to meeting the needs of seniors in
There is no such commitment to senior citizens
on the part of this government as proven by their behaviour as government. All of us in our materialistic society are
potential victims of abuses and scams and fraudulent schemes but, among all the
segments of the population, the senior citizens group are the most particularly
vulnerable to all these scams and fraudulent schemes.
Why? Madam Deputy Speaker, the explanation is that
the senior citizens as a group tend to be more trusting of other people than
other groups, and they assume the same sincerity in return from other people
with whom they deal but, because they are very trusting of other people, they
become vulnerable and particularly subject to this elder abuse.
* (1730)
I
would like to talk about these different kinds of situational schemes which the
senior citizens should be worried about before they react to all these schemes. In general, there will be different types,
general types of these manipulations and arrangements that take advantage of
senior citizens.
Generally they fall into three
categories: frauds which are done on the
telephone; the second type will be frauds that are done at the doorstep face to
face; and a third type, a general type will be fraudulent schemes that are done
through the mail.
Of
course, let us investigate each one of these different types. What would possibly happen through the use of
the telephone? If you are a senior
citizen and you receive a postcard or any written communication or any
telephone call saying you have won a prize‑‑you know that you have
not entered any contest, but you will get a telephone call saying that you have
won a prize. Of course you are
excited. As a senior citizen the senior
citizen should investigate, because the same telephone call that they will get
will be asking their credit card number in order to verify the so‑called
identity of the winner of the prize or the contest.
If
they fall into that scam they will give their credit card number to the one who
is phoning them, and of course there will be pressure tactics there on the
phone that they should buy certain merchandise or certain services‑‑high‑pressure
tactics. If they do give their credit card numbers on the phone, that credit
card number can be used by the caller on the telephone to make purchases
without any authority from the owner of the card. Indeed, they may not receive
the merchandise that was purchased by the use of the credit card number. If they do receive such merchandise, usually
such merchandise is not worth the money that is paid for it through the use of
the credit card system.
So
what does a senior need to do in order to protect herself or himself from this
kind of fraudulent scheme through the use of the phone? The first thing they should do is ask for the
name and address of the company that is supposed to be selling them the
merchandise through the phone. If they
are selling subscriptions to some magazine or some other travel offer at a
bargain discount, they should ask for the details. They should not easily reveal their credit
card numbers. The con artist will use
those credit card numbers to make fake orders and fake transactions and charge
their account without their saying anything or having any say about it. This is one form of scam that they should be
worried about.
Another situation using the phone number is
the so‑called pseudo bank examiner kind of set up. Here somebody will phone the senior citizen
and say that they need the co‑operation of the senior citizen because
they are investigating some kind of a bank disbursement of funds that is
unauthorized, that they want to check the honesty of the teller of the bank, so
they will ask the co‑operation of the senior citizen, if they could
withdraw some cash money from their bank account and entrust the cash money to
some representative of the bank examiner, so that the representative can
deposit it again to the account of the senior citizen in order to investigate
the honesty of the teller, the employee of the bank.
If
they fall for this kind of scam, and they say, you have to make the deposit in
cash so that we can check the serial numbers of the bills that will be deposited
to your account, the same amount of money that they will withdraw from the
senior's account, guess what? You will
never see this money again that you lent to the so‑called representative
of the bank examiner in order to deposit to your account, because they will
take this money. You will never see or
hear again about this so‑called bank examiner.
The
lesson‑‑never turn any cash or any amount of money into the hands
of a stranger, particularly one you do not know or you are not familiar with.
Of course,
when you get telephone calls like that and there are some doubts in your heart,
the best thing you can do is hang up the phone.
Another thing you can do is call the police or call the bank, verify
whether such as a thing is really happening or not.
They will even ask you to make investments of
your money. This happens when someone, for example, stops at your door and
talks about some kind of legitimate investment that will bring instant profit. Here they are appealing to the sense of a
quick‑rich kind of scheme, and they will say, well, give us a handful of
money, some cash to prove your good faith that you want to enter into this kind
of investment transaction. Somebody will
hold that amount of money as a good‑faith deposit in order to check the
validity and the reliability of the investment scheme.
If
you get such a phone call like that, asking you to make an investment on
anything, try to ask for specifics. Let
the company send you their name, address and their telephone number, ask for
some written materials, report the situation to the Better Business Bureau or
let the police check about these things, otherwise, you will fall for a thing
like that, I will say, a fly‑by‑night kind of opportunity for
investment.
The
honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) has already talked about the
quick home‑repair kind of scheme situation. Here, some stranger will go to your doorstep
and will look at your house and see that there is something wrong with your
roofing or your electrical circuit or your driveway or your pavement,
whatever. They offer to fix whatever
they notice as needing some repair, and they will ask, of course, for some
reasonable amount. You being the
homeowner, will easily say, oh, this is convenient, I can have it repaired without
going to lots of trouble.
What will happen is when they do start working
on the thing to be repaired, suddenly serious difficulties begin to crop up.
More expensive problems will be conjured up by the repairman, the fly‑by‑night
opportunist, who says you will need much more money to fix this one and there
are much more serious defects in the home.
In such a situation the so‑called experts are themselves creating
the damage probably, and the poor senior citizens fall for this and they end up
spending a lot of money rather than being conveniently situated in order to fix
their home. If you are confronted with
such a situation like that, try to ask for more than one estimate from other
builders and other repairers in the community.
Of course, there is the cooling‑off period statutes that you can
take advantage of. Before you sign
anything, try to investigate all possibilities and make comparative estimates
of how much it really costs to fix that roofing.
Then there is the situation called the funeral
chaser situation. These are the people
who suddenly drop by the family circle of someone where the senior has just
passed away, and they say that the deceased has made advance payment on a
certain merchandise but that there is a balance owing. Usually the family will be easily
persuaded. They will pay off the balance
right away, and, of course there is no such thing. This is just a make‑up kind of a
transaction.
What do they need to know? They will mention something about the
deceased, which, of course, they pick up from the obituary columns, as if they
really know the senior citizen who just died.
The deceased owed them some money in a kind of transaction that was
completed, and there is a balance remaining and they want to collect from the
family circle. The family circle, of
course, will easily pay without thinking, because they are in such a stressful
situation. In such a case like that,
take your time, think, ask for a receipt, or ask for proof of the transaction,
for the contract, before you pay out anything, because if you usually pay the
balance right away, of course, you fall into such a scam.
* (1740)
We
have heard about the fact of social security cheques in the mail, especially in
those communities where more senior citizens are congregated, in senior homes
or complexes. There are very
unscrupulous persons who will know when the cheques will be coming in the
mail. They know how to pick them up, and
they know what to do in order to pass these cheques and negotiate these
cheques. I think the one great advice we
can give to senior citizens in this regard is for them to make arrangements
with a bank or with a financial institution for automatic deposit of their
cheque to their account. This deposit is
electronically done. There is no need
for a cheque to go through the mail system; and, if they are willing to make
that arrangement, then they eliminate that risk of the cheque being stolen.
The
fake contests kind of scheme also through the mail‑‑they will get a
notice saying they have won a TV or they have won a car, and that they are
entitled to a trip to the Bahamas or some place for a very low cost, but they
say that they need to send a certain amount of money to pay for these winnings
and send the money to a certain place.
Watch out for all these kinds of scams where you have to pay for prizes
that supposedly you have won. You carefully examine all those letters and then
report them to the police if it looks suspicious.
There are many, many such schemes where we can
foul up, and the best thing is, we think twice, ask for written evidence before
we commit ourselves or pay out any money.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendment which I think is indeed
regrettable. I have heard the Family
Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer), I have heard the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), I have heard the Premier (Mr. Filmon) saying you cannot do everything,
and we recognize that there are failings and that there are weaknesses and
there are new things that we need to address.
The
Minister for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme) would have us believe there is nothing in
his department that needs to be addressed‑‑everything is perfect‑‑but
it is not perfect, and all we were doing in this resolution was urging the
government to pay close attention to the needs of the seniors in our society.
This is the ongoing, quite frankly, tragedy of
this House, that when you put forward legitimate positions based on
parliamentary practice, based on parliamentary tradition, then you are accused
of posturing, of playing politics, of doing all kinds of things and, yet, the
resolution which the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) put
forward today is not highly critical of the government. It urged them to do more investigation, to do
more analysis, more detailed study, to work urgently on the problem of senior
abuse, because everyone recognizes that there is senior abuse going on within
our society.
In
a recent study which has just been prepared at the
They define physical abuse as the willful
infliction of physical pain or injury and/or sexual assault, rough handling,
shoving, slapping, pinching, kicking and restriction of movement. This is happening to our senior
citizens. It is not the greatest form of
abuse but it is one of the forms of abuse and it is one of the reasons why
seniors are asking for some form of safe housing that they know that they can
go to when such incidents occur to them.
We
made a proposal several years ago that there were, in fact, vacant suites in
one of the main senior blocks downtown. It would have been very inexpensive to
have established one of those units as a safe house. There was already administration there, there
was already maintenance there. All that
would have had to have been put in place was a liaison perhaps with one of the
shelters so that support could be given in terms of counselling and economic
support.
It
was not going to be a costly measure, but the government, to the best of our
knowledge, did not even examine the option to see whether it was a realistic
way of dealing with elder abuse.
One
of the major aspects of abuse affecting seniors is, of course, financial abuse,
and I think, quite frankly, that many of our banking institutions should be
congratulated for the fact that they have been monitoring very carefully the
withdrawals of large sums of money by older citizens and, in many cases, they
have been questioning the senior citizens as to what that expenditure is to be
made on and, in most cases, it has been welcomed by the senior.
If,
obviously, the senior does not want that kind of counselling, the bank and the
bank employee can go no further. But at least they have become sensitized that
when a senior citizen goes in and wants a withdrawal, particularly if that
withdrawal is in large cash amounts, something may be suspicious, and that
someone should call it to the individual senior's attention because we know
that there are scams out there. There
are individuals who would prey on seniors and who would take advantage of the
fact that they do not always understand the evaluations that are being done on
their homes.
Somebody knocks on the door. He says, I think your roof is damaged, climbs
up onto the roof, comes down to the senior citizen and says, you need a new
roof. Now, many 75‑year‑olds
would find it a little difficult to climb up the ladder and examine the roof
for themselves and, yet, they are taken advantage of. We have seen exposes on television in which
people have spent $30,000 and $40,000 on renovations which were absolutely
unnecessary.
Family members also financially abuse seniors
and, unfortunately, it is often seniors who are first‑generation
immigrants to this country and who are not necessarily familiar with all the
social safety net programs for which they are eligible. It is often because they have language
barriers because, in the past, we have failed them by not providing them with
the kind of English as a second language program that is so essential for them
to function adequately in our society, and so they are able to be taken
advantage of, because they do not always know their rights. They do not always know what it is they need
to sign, or whether they should sign, or whether they can refuse to sign a
whole array of documents that are sometimes placed before them.
This study very carefully shows that the
greatest form of abuse in our society directed toward seniors is neglect,
neglect which is both passive and active, neglect which is in fact a failure or
a refusal to fulfill a care‑giving role to provide for the necessities of
life.
I
am always shocked when I learn of the diets of many of our senior citizens,
diets not often based on their inability to buy the food, but based on their
inability to get the food into their homes or to prepare the food. That kind of neglect in a society which is
becoming increasingly aged is difficult, I think, for many of us to understand.
There have been some wonderful programs that
have been put into place that try to alleviate some of these problems, but
there are many senior citizens who are not even aware of Meals on Wheels, so
that they can access the programs.
* (1750)
In
other communities, because of a lack of a transportation budget, they cannot
get the meals to seniors. In other
instances they are, in fact, setting up settings within communities‑‑I
know
But
it is not just food that they find they have inadequate protection of, it is
also health problems. That is one of the
reasons why we are so supportive to the reform agenda which talks about making
sure that there is more and more support in the community, so that seniors can
access it.
None of us want to put our senior citizens in
institutions if they can possibly live within the community and that they can
live enriched and fulfilling lives within that community. That requires, however, the constant
vigilance not just by, I would suggest, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
but also the Minister responsible for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme). Because seniors, knowing that they have a
particular minister upon whom they can call, are more likely indeed to go to
the Minister responsible for Seniors than they are to the Minister of Health.
So there has to be clear liaison between those two departments, and we know
that clear liaison does not exist. We
know that the information is not moving back and forth between these two
ministries with respect to the very essential needs of our seniors with respect
to health.
We
also know that neglect can actually occur when senior citizens do not obtain
the kinds of medications that they require, and that their health can be
severely jeopardized sometimes, again actively by a caregiver refusing to give
the medication, but much more frequently passively because the caregiver often
does not understand the importance of that senior citizen taking that
medication. Sometimes there are serious
side effects to medications not always recognized by the caregiver. There is
also, Madam Deputy Speaker, the psychological abuse to which seniors are often
subjected to. In some cases that kind of
psychological abuse comes from people who really do not mean to inflict it.
Before my mother died she had congestive heart
failure. She found it very difficult to
walk. When she would try to cross a
street the lights would go on for her to walk, but she would only be 10 feet
into the crosswalk before the other light would go on and there would be a
honking of horns and a beeping in order to get this quite frail lady‑‑although
not old but frail‑‑across the street, as if she were deliberately
walking that slowly because she wanted to abuse the driver who wanted to get on
his or her own way. That is not why they
walk slowly. They walk slowly because
they cannot walk any faster. It is as
simple as that. That is a form of psychological abuse, and it is a form of
psychological abuse that most people do not recognize even of themselves
because they are busy and they want to get through the light. They want to get on their way. These are some of the things that we are
going to have to change.
I
was quite amused the other day watching a mother with about a three‑and‑a‑half‑year‑old. She had obviously told this little boy in
very clear terms that he was not to cross the street if the white walk light
was not on. They walked across the
street and in the middle of the intersection the white light went off. The
little boy started to cry. He stopped
his mother and held her hand and he said, Mommy, you cannot go, you cannot
go. The mother was trying to drag this
child across the rest of this intersection because she knew they had to get to
the other side while the little boy was digging in his heels and was not
prepared to move. I just jokingly said
to her when she got to the other side, Mom, you have taught him too well. That is your problem here. She tried valiantly to explain to him that
the light could change in the middle. He
was not allowed to start before the white light was on, but he might not get
all the way over.
Can
you imagine the fear of a senior citizen when that happens? You sometimes see them running across the
last twenty or thirty feet. I always sit
there and think, my goodness, they are going to fall in the middle of this
intersection, and we are going to have major health care costs because we have
not adjusted yet to the fact that there are many in our society that need
additional services and need additional help.
That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is why we wanted
to alert the Minister for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme) that there is still much work
to be done, that it is not complete. By the
very amendment that he has introduced to this resolution, what he is saying is,
the work is finished. I do not have to
do any more. I am complete and absolute
100 percent perfect in the running and the operation of the Seniors department.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
That is simply not true. It is not perfect. There is still work to be done, and the fact
that he would not even allow a resolution in this House which stated, be it
resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the government to
consider‑‑that is all we asked them to do, to consider ways to
better meet the need for safe houses for abused elders, that is all we
asked. We said, that the Assembly urge
the government to reflect the seriousness with which Manitobans regard the problem
of elder abuse by considering support of the Elder Abuse Resource Centre beyond
its three‑year deadline.
Did
we tell him he was incompetent? No. Did we tell him he was doing a terrible
job? No.
We said, it is not perfect, Mr. Minister, and we would like you to look
at these critical areas, but no, they were not content to accept that
resolution. They had to once again pat
themselves on the back and leave the impression that everything was perfect.
Well, it is not perfect, Mr. Speaker, and I am
deeply unhappy and dissatisfied with this minister that he would have to do
this kind of self‑aggrandizement in this Chamber today.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): No, they made him do it. It would not be like Gerry just to do it.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, it may not have been. You could be quite right, the honourable
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). It
may be that classic a situation where they made him do it. He did not really want to, but they made him
do it.
I
would suggest to the minister that he be a little stronger and a little bit
more persevering, a little bit more co‑operative, a little bit more
willing to accept guidance from others than just the members of his particular
government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): I appreciate the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie). I have been wanting to put some
remarks on the record regarding this bill.
I
would agree that what the government does with private members' resolutions is
quite pathetic, and I think their performance on areas like violence is quite
pathetic.
The
Minister responsible for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme) might do well to listen to some
of my response because one of the things I will just frame is that I would like
to define the legal and the social definition of abuse. I would like to frame this into some context
of what is societal abuse of seniors, and I would like to talk a little bit
about population demographics and the reality that is going to create for the
generation that is growing up now.
With that, when we come back to this station
the next time, we can continue‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) will have 14 minutes remaining.
The
hour being 6 p.m., I am leaving the Chair with the understanding that I will
return at 8 p.m.