LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
June 30, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Ashton). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. 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 there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I have the Supplementary Information
for Legislative Review for 1993‑94 for
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to file Supplementary Information for Department of
Government Services for '93‑94.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to revert to Presenting
Reports by Standing and Special Committees? (agreed)
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Edward Helwer (Acting
Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Second
Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee
on Privileges and Elections presents the following as its Second Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, June 22 at
7 p.m. in Room 255 and Tuesday, June 29, 1993, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 254 of the
At the June 29, 1993, 2:30 p.m. meeting,
your committee elected Mr. Penner as Chairperson.
Your committee heard representation as
follows:
Rod Lauder ‑ Private CitizenSherry
Wiebe ‑ Liberal Research OfficeRussell Wychreschuk ‑ Private
CitizenEric Marshall and Rick Walker ‑
Written Submissions:
Ken Rubin ‑ Private CitizenDave
Taylor ‑ Concerned Citizens of
Your committee reports that it has
concluded the public hearing process for the review of The Freedom of
Information Act.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Helwer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the report of the committee
be received.
Motion agreed to.
*
(1005)
Introduction
of Guests
. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
morning from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would
like to welcome you here this morning.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Environmental
Review
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy
Premier.
For the last three years, we have been
asking the Deputy Premier and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) questions about the lack
of data on the
We further asked on April 29 to postpone
the hearings, Mr. Speaker, because not enough data was available. Again, the government said, oh, they are
ready to go. We asked again on May 21,
1993. We quoted the Shellmouth Dam
report, which stated that it is difficult for water managers to make informed
operating decisions or to develop rational water management plans because there
is not enough factual data on the overall water usage on the diversion. The federal government said the same thing
just recently in a report. The City of
I would like to ask the Deputy
Premier: Given that a former
Conservative cabinet minister says that the project will go ahead because of
the political will in the cabinet and with the federal Conservative government,
what action will this government take to ensure that finally the information
will be proper and adequate and be basin wide so that the decisions made can be
fair and thorough in terms of this major project?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, when the
Leader of the Opposition talks about former ministers, I want to remind the people
of
Mr. Speaker, as far as our Premier's
comments, let me refer to what he said in Hansard on May 21, and I will read it
for the member so that he knows. This is
the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the province speaking very straightforwardly: "If there is not sufficient data, then
the Clean Environment Commission will make that judgment as to whether or not
they have sufficient data upon which to make a decision.
"That is the way the process is. That is the way that it was put forward in
the legislation that was passed by the New Democratic government, and we are
following the process."
That is what the process is, something
that he never understood as a member who went ahead boldly, trampled over the
rights of the people of this province as a New Democratic government.
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the Opposition has
the floor.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I guess I should not expect an
answer from the Deputy Premier about government matters. He cannot answer any questions dealing with
his own specific department.
I asked him what action would they take to
ensure that the information is basin wide and thorough. The Deputy Premier did not answer that
question today, and obviously they do not have a strategy to deal with that
issue.
I want to ask‑‑I know they are
touchy over there. Just relax. The warm and cuddly Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) perhaps could keep his comments till we ask some Health questions
later on in Question Period.
Mr. Speaker, the proponents of the Pembina
diversion project have predicted that the population in the area will grow from
39,000 to 109,000 people by the year 2040.
How will the government ensure that we are
dealing in this project, in terms of the economic side of this project, with
accurate demographic statistics and projections and not figures that are wildly
inaccurate in terms of the projections for population in that area?
*
(1010)
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, let me just at the outset try to
muster all the rationale I can to try to respond to the Leader of the
Opposition. First of all, the member
stands up and he wants growth, and now he is standing up saying he does not
want growth.
Next, he is asking this Legislature to
answer questions that there is a process in place under the Clean Environment
legislation that is being handled.
Thirdly, one has to really look at the sincerity of the Leader of the
New Democratic Party.
I am not sure whether it took place under
the former Conservative government or under the New Democratic government, but
this is not the first diversion that is being talked about. There is a
So here we have the Leader of the
Opposition playing politics, rather than leaving the process that has been
established by legislation to handle the kinds of answers that he is looking
for from this Legislature.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, again, when we consider the fact
that Ed Connery has said today, from a perspective of straight politics, great
support from the Conservative Party in the
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier did not
answer that question. You have one
department of government saying that the population will grow by 4,800. You have another proponent, through the
Department of Natural Resources, saying it is going to grow wildly more than
that. I just ask the Deputy Premier: How
are you going to resolve that?
Another question, Mr. Speaker, a question
we have raised before in this House. The
upper Assiniboine has an entitlement for the
A question we have asked before and I
think is appropriate now: How will the
government determine the proper water flow impacts, and will they consider the
worst‑case scenario with the
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, there is a process in place to
answer the questions to which the member refers, but let me respond to the
earlier preamble and question which was how we were going to square with
different departments of our government.
There is a process in place which all the
information from government departments‑‑unlike the New Democratic
Party, when he has the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and her group strongly
opposed to the development of Conawapa, he has his former member who quit on
him from Churchill, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie) strongly supporting Conawapa.
How is he going to square with the public
where he stands on the development of hydro in northern
*
(1015)
Home Care
Program
Housekeeping
Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, when I arrived this morning at
the office I had a letter on my desk.
This letter was not from the NDP.
It was not from the media. It was
not from everyone else that the Minister of Health views as opposed to his
plan. It was from someone who is an
occupational therapist.
This person said the government's decision
to take away the equipment supplies from people and to take away the Home Care
support program will be the difference, quote, between time and discharge home
and ability to remain independent in the community for thousands of Manitobans.
This is from an occupational therapist who
works in the field.
My question for the minister is: How could he make such a decision, which goes
totally contrary to his own health care reform, that could result in people
staying in hospitals longer or going sooner to nursing home beds?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, no doubt my
honourable friend will share that letter and we can provide the information to
the writer, because I am quite sure that we can answer the concerns that my
honourable friend is stating are part of that letter.
Mr. Speaker, let me just correct my honourable
friend slightly when he is talking about and alleging that the Continuing Care
program is being cancelled, as he would leave the impression in his preamble.
The Continuing Care program has increased
in budget from the defeated budget of the NDP in 1988, increased in the
reintroduced budget in 1988 from a figure of $34 million in 1988 to $68 million
today. Inclusive in that program have
been successive years of increase in more intensive medically required services
in the Continuing Care program to maintain independent living of seniors in
their homes and in their apartments for far longer period of times than ever
before in the history of the Continuing Care program, Sir, because of a
doubling of the expenditures in the Continuing Care program, not its
cancellation and discontinuation as my honourable friend the New Democrat‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, how can this minister stand here
and say the program is being expanded when he has closed hundreds and hundreds
of hospital beds? The minister has laid
off hundreds of health care workers, and now he has taken away the supports
that are provided in the community to help keep the people in the community and
out of those hospital beds.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, you know, my honourable friend
simply does not provide accurate information when my honourable friend says we
are taking away services in the Continuing Care program.
Let me indicate to my honourable friend,
the increase in home care services in 1992 over 1991. It was, Sir, in home care attendant services,
up by 7.2 percent. In registered
nursing, 1992 over 1991, it was up by 15.5 percent. Licensed practical nurses increased by 20.7
percent, 1992 over 1991. Victorian Order
of Nurses services was up by 4.7 percent, 1992 over 1991.
This year, we expect home care attendant
services to increase by 11 percent, registered nursing by 9.5 percent, VON by
3.6 percent‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, of course the minister forgot to
say if you need crutches and wheelchairs and if you need home care equipment,
you have to pay. If you need those
services in your home, you have to pay.
My final supplementary to the
minister: The minister is now charging
people for those homemaking services.
People will now have to go out and hire these services. We phoned the We Care service, and they said
they will do it at $10.75 per hour, minimum two hours. It is going to cost someone $22.50, some on
fixed or low income, to receive the same service that was provided before.
What is the minister's solution to that?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, obviously, if the cost is that
high from a provider, that provider does not have to be hired, does it? Is that not the case?
Now, Mr. Speaker, for my honourable
friend, the solution is in the program, and I reiterate this for my honourable
friends the New Democrats who want to attempt to rewrite history. In 1985, New Democrats in government, under
Howard Pawley as Premier, Larry Desjardins as Minister of Health, created Support
Services to Seniors Program, the purpose of which was to provide in the
community housekeeping services, meal preparation services, laundry services at
a cost to the consumer so that the Home Care Program on behalf of taxpayers
would no longer provide them.
That alternative was created by the NDP,
was advanced by the NDP and is being continued by this government because it
makes sense, because, Sir, it allows us to make that investment into more
medical needs provided in the home, as has been done up to 20 percent‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
*
(1020)
Child
Protection Centre
Budget
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): We have had read to
us this morning a copy of a letter which was hand‑delivered to the Minister
of Family Services by Dr. Charlie
Mr. Speaker, that letter indicates its
Child Protection Centre clawback and reads that the potential human cost and
long‑term dangers are such that the very survival of the centre is at
stake. The letter goes on to
indicate: The way I see it we were
relieved of $417,000 of our surplus funds virtually overnight by the Treasury
Board.
It goes on to say that this was in spite
of agreements and commitments that they had for its partial use, mainly in
training projects for native workers and health nurses. It goes on to conclude that Dr. Ferguson interprets
these swift and serious incursions on our staffing as a significant vote of
nonconfidence in our unit, now accomplished and complete, that it has been an
extremely disillusioning experience, and that with all due respect, Dr.
Ferguson indicates that the continuance of his association with the centre must
now come under close review.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my question for the
minister: Why is this government totally
unable to do anything in our health care, in our child protection system, but
alienate the best and the brightest and those who are contributing the most to
our system?
Dr.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): We have
brought a variety of reforms to the child welfare system that the system has
been crying out for for a number of years.
We have put in the Child Advocate.
We have put in a Quality Assurance Program. We have implemented the high‑risk
indicators.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we are
working with the Child Protection Centre over some budget issues. We met with the administration and staff
there last week to discuss budget. Our
commitment is to maintain our budgeted amount for the Child Protection
Centre. There are some issues regarding
the surplus from previous years. We are
working with the centre and we will fulfill our commitment to them.
Mr. Edwards: I will choose my words carefully. This minister has been dishonest to the best
and the brightest people working in our system in this province, and the result
is, Mr. Speaker, that we will lose their services and we are going to lose them
again and again and again.
My question for the minister: Two weeks ago he told me in this House that,
we are working on many fronts to improve the abilities of child welfare
agencies.
How does this improve the ability of the
Child Protection Centre to deal with child abuse in this province, which this
government has waxed eloquent on time and time again, and this is the result of
their actions?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that we have
worked on a number of fronts. We have
brought in an information system that the child welfare system has for many
years been crying out for, at a cost of millions of dollars to government. We
have put in place a Child Advocate that was first brought forward in the early
1980s.
We have made other important changes. We also have a Native Affairs task force
working on them.
We do have some funding issues with the
Child Protection Centre. We have
indicated that there are some discussions going on about the level of the
surplus they have. Our commitment to the
Child Protection Centre is in our budget, and we will live up to that
commitment.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, millions of dollars the
government is spending on American experts to tell us how to run the system,
and they cannot afford to allow a surplus to cover a $120,000 deficit which
that centre had been told would be covered out of their surplus funds. They have dealt, in Dr. Ferguson's words,
with a heavy hand.
My final question for the minister: What is he going to do now to deal with the
loss of this world‑renowned expert to our community? How is he going to give any confidence to the
people of this province, the people working in this sector that he can
adequately deal with child abuse in our province, which is an extremely serious
problem? He has acknowledged that. What is he going to do?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party
has not listened to the answer. I have
indicated that we have been in discussions with the Child Protection Centre
over the surpluses that they have had over the last few years. There are some discussions about the level of
that surplus. We have made a budget
commitment that we will live up to.
*
(1025)
Home Care
Program
Housekeeping
Services
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
I want to ask the Minister of Health if
this will mean, as one of his own advisers has suggested, one of the members of
the
I want to ask the Minister of Health if
this will be the impact of his cutback of the home support services.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, no, it will
not be. Nor was it when the NDP and my
honourable friend the questioner sat around the cabinet table and approved a
program called Support Services to Seniors in 1985 that would establish those
housekeeping, those laundry and those meal preparation services for seniors,
for seniors to pay for them and not receive them free of charge as part of the
Home Care Program.
That was a policy my honourable friend thought
was good for seniors in 1985 when my honourable friend sat around the cabinet
table approving that policy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the ability to access
the Continuing Care program is the same today as it was in 1985, and the
circumstances my honourable friend lays out about denial of service will not
exist today, nor did it exist in 1985 when the NDP brought in this change in
policy and approach and program. The assessment will be made
professionally. The individuals
referenced to by my honourable friend, should they have those needs, will
receive those services.
Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed in the
approach of Support Services to Seniors, the 1985 policy of the New Democrats,
except now they are in opposition and they want to manipulate the decisions
they made in 1985. That is the only
thing that has changed.
In the meantime, Sir, since we came to
government, the budget has increased by 100 percent. It has doubled in Home Care from $34 million
in the defeated NDP budget of 1988 to $68 million today, hardly the cutback my
honourable friend continually harps on.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to put
misleading information on the record. I
would like to table a letter that went to the minister's department in 1989
from McBeth House indicating quite clearly that the home maintenance program
was undertaken as a supplementary program for Home Care, and the minister knows
that.
Let me ask the minister if he will follow
the advice of a reputable organization, the Manitoba Association on Gerontology
who indicated some time ago that housecleaning is a basic service and necessary
to maintain a clean and safe environment.
Will he do as they recommend and provide
these services and ensure that all clients are professionally assessed and the
services are used judiciously based on those assessments?
*
(1030)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is
correct. The Support Services to Seniors
Program that she was part of at the cabinet table to pass, to bring into
reality in 1985, was to supplement the Home Care Program. What my honourable friend also should have
said was that the seniors who were being so supplemented would pay for it.
Will my honourable friend have the honesty
to say that to the people of
Point of
Order
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable Minister of
Health that we refer to all honourable members as honourable members. He is the honourable Leader of the
Opposition.
The honourable Minister of Health, to
withdraw that remark.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for calling the
Leader of the Opposition Mr. Slick.
I want to indicate to my honourable friend
that my area, the constituency of Pembina that I represented in 1985, was one
of the first constituencies to start Support Services to Seniors, and it was
through that process that a number of seniors in my constituency in 1986 and
1987 had their homecleaning, the household cleaning service, removed from them
that was paid for by Home Care, and they were referred over to pay for the
service as provided by the Support Services to Seniors Program, exactly in compliance
with the policy that my honourable friend the New Democrat sat in cabinet and
approved.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in 1986, '87, '88, I
could have raised that as a cutback, but I agree with it because even then the
New Democrats reinvested those dollars into more intensive care for seniors to
live independently, just as we are doing today, Sir.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, let it be clear. This is a fundamental shift in policy‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have been extremely lenient with the honourable
member for
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I would like to now direct my final question to
the Minister responsible for the Status of Women since almost 70 percent of
home care clients are women and since women still maintain major responsibility
for caring for their elderly family members and who will now have to pick up
the pieces from this government's cutbacks.
I would like to ask the Minister
responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) if she will step in,
review this matter and try to stop this grave injustice against the women of
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to try and provide some
fact to my honourable friend the member for
In terms of registered nursing, in 1992
they were able to access 15.5 percent more services from registered
nurses. This year it will be 9.5 percent
more services to those very same women on Continuing Care Programs. In 1992 they were able to access 20 percent
more LPN services in the Home Care Program.
In 1992 they were able to access 4.7 percent more services from
VON. This year the increase will be 3.6
percent‑‑more services to those very people my honourable friend
advocates for, rather than less.
Free Trade
Agreement
Impact on
Agricultural Industry
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture
if he will admit finally that the Free Trade Agreement that he supports is
failing farmers and what steps he is taking to assure farmers and workers in
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the member
does not do her homework on agriculture and where
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Mr. Findlay Mr. Speaker, I want the member to listen very
carefully. In 1988, 14 percent of our
global exports went to the
Before the Free Trade Agreement was in
place, we had no way to argue disputes.
Now we have. In the hog industry,
we won the first four disputes that were brought before that panel. We lost the fifth one.
On the sugar industry, it is a very
serious issue. I want the member to know
that the
We will continue to use the trade channels
and the Ministers of Agriculture channel to put our point of view across that
fair trade across that border is important, and over 90 percent of what we
trade across that border is handled in a fair trade relationship.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister is talking about how much our
trade has increased, but he is saying nothing about what has increased of the
American products into
I want to ask him if he is going to
continue to support the Free Trade Agreement.
When is he going to stand up for
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her
question. One question at a time.
Mr. Findlay Mr. Speaker, I can tell that member we have
communicated to the federal government exactly what I have just said, verbally,
by letter to at least two different ministers.
At a Ministers of Agriculture meeting next
week it will be a major issue on the agenda.
We stand up for
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that the
policies he is supporting are failing?
Moving toward a contract system that the Wheat Board has been forced to
move toward is only going to hurt Canadian farmers, and the barley producers in
this province are going to lose by moving to a continental market. He has done nothing to support
Mr. Findlay Mr. Speaker, I am just surprised that member
would put that comment on the record, saying that the Wheat Board is forced to
move to contracts.
Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board voluntarily
introduced contracts in the mid‑1980s for barley, and for the last two
years they have had six contract series for barley. The Wheat Board did that voluntarily, because
they know that if they are going to sell a product they have to know what they
have in the system that they can have access to sell. They have done that for farmers on a
continuous basis. More and more, they have
done it in several varieties of wheat also as they access this market.
That is the way the industry has gone, and
farmers like the choice of being able to do that. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that
farmers want the choice and they support the process. This started in 1985. The member is totally wrong in her statement
this morning.
Environmental
Review
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Environment.
Mr. Speaker, the Clean Environment Commission
has now been forced to recognize the fact that there has never been a full‑basin
study of the Assiniboine River‑‑(interjection) The same thing I am
saying now.
Mr. Speaker, back when this government was
content to sell us down the river on Rafferty‑Alameda, and again today,
what the province needs, what the people who live in this province in that
water basin need is to know what the consequences of drawing water from that
river will bring.
Will the minister make a commitment today
to doing a full‑basin review of that waterway, given that the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is not sure whether or not this province‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, what I
find so disturbing about questions from the Leader of the Second Opposition is
that this is the gentleman who questioned the very veracity of the Clean
Environment Commission. Now that the
Clean Environment Commission has demonstrated its independence and it is
prepared to seek answers to all questions that they believe are relevant, all
of a sudden now he wants to tell them how they should do their work.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is tell
the minister how to do his job. What is
also disturbing about this decision is why it took so long to make this
decision.
My question for the minister: Is he prepared to do a full‑basin
review of this waterway? Is he prepared
to do that, given that we have now had two major projects come forward which
have shown that we simply do not know, the minister certainly does not know,
the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) does not know, the people involved
do not know what the consequences of drawing‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, he totally ignores the fact that
we have said continually that this process will be clean, unfettered, and the
commission will be able to determine any facts that they consider relevant to
making a decision.
If he now wants to interfere in that
process, let him stand up and say so.
*
(1040)
Mr. Edwards: What the minister fails to recognize is that
the Clean Environment Commission said it was the government itself that did not
come forward with sufficient information.
It was the Department of Natural Resources itself that did not have the
facts before it, despite the fact the minister stands up and tells us how this
is going to be so wonderful.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my question for the
minister: When is he, when is this
government going to recognize that it is important to think first and act
second, and do a full‑basin review of the
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the commission has not yet
released the questions that it wants additional information on.
Mr. Edwards: I am asking you, Glen.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, well, the Leader of the Second
Opposition says he is asking me. Does he
want me to take over the work of the commission, and politically direct the
decision? That is the kind of foolishness he is asking for. The commission will have access to any
information that it needs, and it will make the decision in an unfettered way
when it is satisfied with that information. (interjection)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the Second
Opposition party, you had an opportunity to put your questions. I believe you
have your answer. Now, we are going
straight to the honourable member for Transcona.
Vehicle
Inspections Fee Schedule
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of Bill 36,
this government has shifted policy away from mandatory, publicly operated
vehicle inspection programs to private for‑profit vehicle inspections.
Since the Minister of Highways and
Transportation is setting the user fee on this for‑profit program, what
will be the maximum allowable charge that Manitobans will have to pay for
vehicle inspections, resulting from Bill 36?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, the
opportunity has been there to debate and hear the member's comments on the
record during the bill process, but the member is raising the question, and I
thought I had supplied all the information with my spreadsheets, exactly as to
what was going to happen.
In the case of the mandatory vehicle
inspection, the vehicles would have to be safety inspected before they can be
registered. Under the regulations, it is our intention to take and put a
maximum that can be charged‑‑not a fee‑‑just a maximum
that can be charged. We have not
established that. It will be done under
regulation. We are looking at between
$35 and $40 as a maximum.
Bill 36
Regulations
Tabling Request
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Since the minister has indicated that the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation vehicle inspection program will be eliminated
with the passage of Bill 36, have the regulations been drafted for this bill,
and will the minister table a copy?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): No, Mr. Speaker, we have not finished
drafting the regulations yet. Once the
regulations are drafted, I am prepared to make them public.
Vehicle
Inspections
Employee
Status
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Since there are 23 jobs at stake currently in
the MPIC inspection program, will the Minister responsible for MPIC indicate if
these employees will be redeployed within government departments, or will they
be laid off?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, the member is making some rather
sweeping assumptions.
First of all, he has forgotten to look at
the fact that MPIC, because of the wearing out of some large portion of its
equipment, has been forced to run their program at a slightly reduced
rate. He should not assume that anything
is going to occur overnight as a result of these changes.
The movement to a different system, which
will catch many more vehicles‑‑and I think the member should be
supportive of the fact that a far larger number of vehicles will, in fact, be
inspected for road safety. This system
will provide a lot more assurance to the public, and he should not be getting
ahead of himself in terms of where the MPIC process will go.
Human
Resources
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, today is a dark day for Dauphin
and the
I want to ask the Minister of Education
whether she will now travel to Dauphin, meet with the people and explain to the
people of Dauphin and justify the decision that she made to close the Parkland
Human Resources
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, we have discussed this issue for a number of hours in the Estimates
process. I explained to the member the
difficult decisions government had to make.
I also discussed with him the alternate way in which services will be
provided to the
In addition, I also have spoken to the
member and explained to him that we have retained the Single Parent Job Access
Program in the Parkland area to assist those individuals, and we will be making
alternate arrangements from the Westman area to also assist the people of the
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I am asking for leave of the House to revert
to Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports. Is there leave to table a report? (agreed)
TABLING OF
REPORTS (continued)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): I am sorry, Mr.
Speaker, and to the members of the House, I inadvertently forgot to table
something that members would want.
I am required, under The Legislative
Assembly Act, to report yearly on the amounts paid to members of the
Legislative Assembly. I am tabling that
schedule right now.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENT
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for St. Vital, does she
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mrs. Shirley Render (St.
Vital): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to draw
attention to a teacher at Glenlawn Collegiate.
He is Robert Cordingley, an industrial arts supervisor, who was just
awarded the very coveted Dr. D.W. Penner Award.
Robert Cordingley has contributed to the
enrichment of both students and teachers in a variety of ways. Among other things, he co‑ordinates the
division's Partners in Education program, which provides students with work
experience. He is also involved with the
Gordon Foundation, which is a new student program that is going to be brought
in at Glenlawn Collegiate.
St. Vital, indeed,
Committee
Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
I move, seconded by the member for
Motions agreed to.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments
be amended as follows: the member for
I move, seconded by the member for St.
Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic
Development be amended as follows: the
member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) for the member for Arthur‑Virden
(Mr.
I move, seconded by the member for St.
Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic
Development for Monday, July 5, 1993, at 9 a.m., be amended as follows: the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the
member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey)
for the member for
Motions agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to announce that the Standing Committee on Economic Development will sit
today at 4 p.m. and Friday at 9 a.m., if necessary, to consider Bill 22.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, Report Stage, would you call the
bills as shown on the Order Paper.
REPORT
STAGE
Bill 4‑The
Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping
(Temporary Amendments) Act
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 4, The Retail
Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act (Loi sur l'ouverture des
commerces de detail les jours feries‑‑modifications temporaires),
reported from the Standing Committee on Economic Development, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 5‑The
Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that
Bill 5, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
affaires du Nord), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be
concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
*
(1050)
Bill 6‑The
Real Property Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 6, The Real Property
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les bien reels), as amended and
reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 7‑The
Builders' Liens Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 7, The Builders' Liens
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le privilege du constructeur), reported
from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 8‑The
Insurance Amendment Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I
move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 8, The
Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances, as amended
and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 11‑The
Regional Waste Management Authorities,
The
Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 11, The
Regional Waste Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion
des deschets, modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autre lois), as amended and reported from the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
I move on behalf of the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach).
Motion agreed to.
Bill 12‑The
International Trusts Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 12, The International
Trusts Act (Loi sur les fiducies internationales), reported from the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Attorney
General, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance, that Bill 12, The
International Trusts Act; Loi sur les fiducies internationales, reported from
the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Agreed?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
The question before the House is that Bill 12, The International Trusts
Act; Loi sur les fiducies internationales, reported from the Standing Committee
on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
All those in favour of the motion, 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. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Yeas and
Nays, Mr. Speaker.
*
(1100)
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
*
(1200)
The question before the House is that Bill
12, The International Trusts Act; Loi sur les fiducies internationales,
reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett,
Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Cummings, Dacquay, Dewar, Doer,
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 50, Nays 0.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I may
have risen too early. Did you want to
officially declare that bill‑‑
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. Manness: Okay, thank you.
I am sorry.
Would you continue then Report Stage, Bill
13.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to calling Bill 13, I would like to
draw the attention of honourable members to the loge to my right, where we have
with us this afternoon Mr. George Henderson, the former MLA for Pembina.
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this morning.
Bill 13‑The
Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund
Corporation Amendment Act
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 13, The
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), seconded by the honourable
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 13, The Manitoba Employee
Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en
corporation le Fonds de participation des travailleurs du
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
All those in favour of the motion, 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. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Yeas and
Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
The question before the House is that Bill
13, The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi constituant en corporation le Fonds de participation des travailleurs du
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result
being as follows:
Yeas
Alcock,
Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach,
Dewar, Doer,
Madam Deputy Clerk (Beverley
Bosiak): Yeas 52; Nays 0.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the
House agreed yesterday to sit special hours today, and we are infringing upon
that time; however, I am wondering whether or not I might ask leave of the
House to consider a particularly important bill that needs some attention
before the end of June.
I think the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.
Ernst) has had discussion with the various opposition critics, and I would
therefore ask whether or not there is leave of the House that we can do report
stage on Bill 38 and also third reading.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to do report
stage on Bill 38, and also leave would be granted for third reading? Is there leave of the House?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: Leave is denied. Okay, leave has been denied.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that leave would be
granted if in fact the minister is quite prepared to say that we will be
receiving Royal Assent on this particular bill today. Then we would be more
than happy to give it leave.
Mr. Speaker: Well, leave has been denied. Okay, let us try again. Do you want me to ask for leave again?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the member is saying that
Royal Assent has to be a condition‑‑gladly. As long as we can find Lieutenant‑Governor
Dumont, we certainly will do Royal Assent.
Mr. Speaker: His Honour is ready.
Is there leave of the House now? We need unanimous consent for report stage,
and also we need unanimous consent for third reading of Bill 38. Is there leave on both occasions? (agreed)
Planning
Amendment and Summary Convictions Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), (by leave) that Bill 38, The City of
Winnipeg Amendment, Municipal Amendment, Planning Amendment and Summary
Convictions Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, la
Loi sur les municipalites, la Loi sur l'amenagement du territoire et la Loi sur
les poursuites sommaires), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee
on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
THIRD
READINGS‑AMENDED BILLS
Planning
Amendment and Summary Convictions Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I move (by leave), seconded by the
Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 38, The City of
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, can the
Lieutenant‑Governor be summoned?
I would like then to make one announcement
of House business.
House
Business
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that it is my
understanding that we probably will not require the sitting of the Standing
Committee on Economic Development to deal with Bill 22 on Friday. I will though call that committee to begin
clause by clause on Monday morning at 9 a.m.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
While we are waiting for His Honour I
believe the honourable member for Gimli wants committee changes. We will do your committee changes.
*
(1310)
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
Motions agreed to.
ROYAL
ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am advised that His Honour is about to
enter the Chamber. All members, please
rise.
His Honour Yvon Dumont, Lieutenant‑Governor
of the Provinceof
May it please Your Honour:
The Legislative Assembly, at its present
session, passed a bill, which in the name of the Assembly I present to Your
Honour, and to which bill I respectfully request Your Honour's assent:
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): In Her Majesty's name,
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor doth assent to this bill.
(His Honour was then pleased to retire.)
Mr. Speaker: Please be seated.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, as
agreed to by the House yesterday, I will be moving the motion to go into
Supply. The two sections of Supply will
convene and will stay in session until four o'clock this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and
the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be
granted to Her Majesty.
Motion presented.
MATTER OF
GRIEVANCE
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
Mr. Speaker, in my seven years in this
Legislature I have used my grievance very rarely. Having had a fall yesterday in the
Legislature which has left me bruised from my neck down to my feet, I can tell
you that the last thing I needed to do today was to stand up and grieve.
I am standing on a grievance today on an
issue that concerns me deeply.
In the Estimates process of Family
Services, I specifically asked the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) about the cutbacks to the Child Protection Centre. I was assured by the minister that the Child
Protection Centre at the Health Sciences Centre would not receive any more
cutback than the 3.8 percent that has been afforded to every other branch of
government.
I took the minister at his word. I believed, because every member of this
House knows how passionately I am concerned about child protection, that the
minister would not betray the members of this House. I have to assure this House today that I feel
betrayed. I feel betrayed on behalf of
every child who has ever been abused in this nation. I feel betrayed because children are not
going to get the kind of protection they deserve, because this government has
chosen to cut back well beyond the 3.8 percent that this minister assured me in
Estimates would be the bottom line.
Well, it is not the bottom line.
I do not know how members of this House
feel about child abuse, but I know how I feel about it. I know how I felt as a child when someone
close to my family chose to take me into his bed. I know how it felt to be betrayed by an adult
that I had trusted and had faith in as a child.
I know what it has felt like to live with that abuse all of my life.
I was one of the lucky ones. My abuse was not severe and my abuse was not
long term. I was not beaten to a
pulp. I did not have my hands put on
stoves. I was not hit with belt
buckles. I was sexually assaulted. Yes, it affected my entire life and still
affects my life. As I write in my book,
I still have flashbacks. I remember when
I least expect to remember the betrayal that I felt as a child.
We had an individual at the Health
Sciences Centre, Dr. Charlie Ferguson, who spent his life advocating on behalf
of children, children who were abused to a far greater degree than I was ever
abused.
*
(1320)
This man has an international reputation for
identifying, for advocating and for working on behalf of children who have been
betrayed. This doctor has now told the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) that he will no longer serve on
an advisory committee because he feels such a sense of betrayal for the work
that he has done on behalf of children in this province.
This is a man who, to my knowledge, is not
a member of any political party, who has attacked the New Democratic Party when
he was in that position, when he felt that they were not representing children
adequately, who has attacked the Conservative Party when he felt that they were
responding inadequately. I have every
confidence would have attacked the Liberal Party if we had had the power and we
had been behaving inadequately. More
power to him, because it was by his remaining above the political mainstream
that we was unquestionable in his role of advocate on behalf of children.
That is where he felt that he could make
his contribution to society. So what has
happened? Well, if facts are to be
believed, the situation was that when we saw the Estimates line for the Child
Protection Centre, it had an enormous decrease. When I looked at the grants to
external agencies as part of my function as the critic, I targeted in on that
one, because it was very quickly obvious it was not 3.8 percent.
So I asked the minister, and the minister
said they had a surplus. I checked with
the Child Protection Centre, and I was assured by the Child Protection Centre
that they indeed did have a surplus.
So knowing they had a surplus, I
specifically said to the government, if you took that surplus and the decrease
in your funding, can I be assured that there will be no less than the 3.8
percent that has been afforded to every single other agency? The minister assured me that that is what the
case was, that it would 3.8 percent and no more. Well, it is more. It is significantly more, and we are, as a
result, jeopardizing those who need the greatest amount of protection in our
society. Those who are betrayed by
adults when they are their most vulnerable.
I cannot, Mr. Speaker, justify under any
circumstances that kind of betrayal. I
did not like the 3.8 percent, but I accepted that that is what the government
was doing with every department, and they were going to do it with this one,
and they were going to do it with that external agency. I could not stop that.
But I can assure you that if I had known
it was more than that amount of money, we would still be in Child and Family
Service Estimates, because I could not have lived with that kind of betrayal.
I think it is important, on the record, to
read exactly what Dr. Charles Ferguson has had to say to the minister:
Dear Mr. Gilleshammer:
Re:
Child Protection Centre Financial Clawback.
I hesitate to write this letter, but feel
compelled to inform you directly of what has transpired, the potential human
costs and long‑term dangers for the very survival of the centre. The numbers are very confusing and have been
related to you by Dr. Agnes Bishop. The
way I see it, we were relieved of $417,000 of our surplus funds virtually
overnight by the Treasury Board, or so your Support branch claims, this in
spite of agreements and commitments we had for its partial use mainly in
training projects for native workers and health nurses.
Once this retrieval of funds got underway,
an additional 4 percent was sliced off making a total of 8 percent, resulting
in a serious deficit forcing us at the hospital's direction to choose to delete
$120,000 of staff. As a result of this
maneuver, we have now lost our nurse co‑ordinator, our nurse in charge of
education and training, as well as over half of one physician's time. I interpret these swift and serious
incursions on our staffing as a significant vote of nonconfidence in our unit
now accomplished and complete.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
This has been an extremely disillusioning
experience, distracting us from our work and demoralizing the entire
hospital. Please be informed, and with
all due respect, that my association with the centre and members of the Support
branch has to come under close review as to its continuance. The heavy hand of government has fallen. I state this with great sadness and concern
given the cause we are all attempting to serve.
Yours truly, Charles Ferguson, M.D., C.M.
At the same time, he sent a letter to Mr.
Ron Fenwick, Executive Director: For
several months now, well before the current series of profoundly disturbing
events, I have contemplated resigning from the provincial advisory committee.
Please accept this letter as notice of resignation as of August 31, 1993. As you are aware, I have at least two areas
of interest remaining relevant to this body, both of which I will attempt to
discharge. You will receive
communications on these in the near future.
Mr. Acting Speaker, we are as a result of
this action not just losing Dr. Charles Ferguson from the advisory
committee. We are, if his letter to the
minister dated June 18, 1993, is to be believed, and I have no reason to not
believe it, seriously jeopardizing the strength, the very existence of the
Child Protection Centre.
Mr. Acting Speaker, just who goes to the
Child Protection Centre? Children who
have been abused, that is who goes. They
are referred from the Child and Family Services agencies. They are taken there by police. The pictures that they have in their files
are not to be believed by human beings who care about children. We simply reject what they show us, because
we do not want to see examples of that kind of physical abuse. We do not want to hear that three‑month‑old
babies have been sexually assaulted. We
do not want to hear that kind of thing.
Dr. Charles
Who is going to provide the support to
families, because often the abuse is not apparent? It can be a babysitter, it can be a friend,
it can be a relative. Can you imagine
the agony of knowing that your child has been abused? Almost everyone in this House has children. Can you imagine what it feels like to
discover that your child has been abused, and that you want to get support and
you want to make sure that support is the correct support, that you get that
child into appropriate counselling? The family learns what techniques they have
to use to make that child feel like a worthwhile human being.
*
(1330)
Because abuse is not a momentary
thing. It does not happen and then is
forgotten from the consciousness of the individual. It rests with that
individual forever, and unless that person has the strength and is given the
support to obtain that strength to help them overcome that abuse, then we can
see a negative effect upon them for their lifetime. It is not a short‑term thing, and that
is what Dr. Charles Ferguson and his staff provided for these people.
Why would the government have acted this way? Well, I have to say that in the first
instance the information I was given was that it was a mistake, that they had
not meant to claw back at all, that they had only meant to claw back the
reserve above what was necessary for the functioning of a Child Protection
Centre, and somebody made a mistake and they clawed back too much. So they met with the minister. I understand the meeting was sometime on the
24th of June in order to‑‑
An Honourable
Member: No.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, if it was not the 24th of June then I am
incorrect about that date. Maybe it is
another date. I do not care what the
date was. It is irrelevant.
An Honourable
Member: It is next week.
Mrs. Carstairs: The date was supposed to have been, according
to the information I was given, the 24th of June.
There is only one way for the minister to
deal with this matter. If, in fact, Mr.
Acting Speaker, it was a mistake and it was meant with no desire to in any way
impact upon the Child Protection Centre beyond the cut afforded to every single
other agency, then the minister has a very simple chore to do. He simply has to admit the mistake and
restore the funding immediately.
But the reality is, these people have
already been given their layoff notices.
So why was the mistake not corrected, if indeed that is what it
was. And if it was not just a simple
mistake, Mr. Acting Speaker, then it is even more serious because it means that
this government, with intention, has betrayed the children of this province.
I would prefer to think that is not the
case. I would prefer to believe that it
has been a simple mistake and that it will be rectified by this government and
that the Child Protection Centre will indeed be able to continue to
function. Obviously Dr.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Why else would he have done this, because
I do not think I am betraying his confidence when I tell you that it was Dr.
Ferguson himself who told me he honestly believed it was a simple mistake and
that it would be rectified. He did not
want to believe the government was acting in such a manifestation of lack of
concern for children who had been abused.
He did not want to believe that, but I can only believe, since his
resignation has been sent on the 27th of June, that between the time I spoke
with him earlier and the 27th of June he now does believe that, for whatever
reason.
It is true. The Child Protection Centre has been a thorn
in the side for every government, every single one of them. That is exactly what they should be, a thorn
in the side. No government, no matter
how well intentioned, is probably ever going to be able to deal with every
single abuse that is out there. I do not
have unrealistic expectations for governments.
I know they work within the confines that they are allowed to do, and
that is exactly why you have a centre like the Child Protection Centre that
says you are still not doing enough.
They say it over and over again, so that we continue to make strides, so
every time we make a little bit more effort.
That is what they should be doing, Mr. Speaker. We should not take offence as politicians
because they criticize us in that way, but that is what we have done.
Mr. Speaker, I think all of us wanted to
go into Estimates today. All of us
wanted to pass some bills today. All of
us, I think, with perhaps some exceptions, would like to start winding down
this session. I, for one, would like to
wind down this session. I have moved on
to another stage of my life, and I have made it very clear that one of the
things I want to do is to advocate on behalf of children. I want to do it in a nonpolitical way. I do not want to do it as a Liberal any more
than I would want to do it as a Tory or as a member of the NDP. I want to do it
as somebody who has suffered abuse and who has something to offer.
In my years in politics, I have acquired a
certain amount of skill. I, for example,
learned how to raise money, and that was one of the issues that I felt that I
would be able to do, that I would be able to put together a foundation for
which I was prepared to give a considerable amount of proceeds of my own book
to prevent child abuse, because governments unfortunately tend to put very
little money into protection.
They are forced‑‑this is not
an attack on this government‑‑governments are forced to address
things that happen. They are forced to
look after people who have been hurt, but when governments have to cut back, it
is traditional that they cut back on prevention programs because it is hard to
prove any tangible benefit from a protection program.
This applies to all governments of all
political stripes no matter where they are located. When you sit at Treasury Board and you say,
well, I cannot cut this program because it delivers a specific service and I
serve 1,000 people and this is what happens when I serve those 1,000 people, it
is very hard to cut that program. When
you look at prevention programs and you say, well, I think it serves this many
people, and I think it has this result, and I think maybe it will have this
benefit, but you can never prove the effectiveness of a prevention program.
*
(1340)
As a result, prevention programs are
almost always the first to be cut. Yet,
until we get to the root cause of abuse and until we start dealing with those
things which can prevent that root cause of abuse, i.e., through prevention,
then we will never stop the scourge of abuse within our society.
The Child Protection Centre, indeed, does
have a mandate for prevention, but what has happened as a result are those programs
which might be considered in any way, shape or form to be prevention programs
are now all going to be eliminated. They
are no longer going to exist. So how are
we ever going to deal with the perpetuity of this abuse? How are we going to teach our young people
that not only should they not be abused, that it is their right as a citizen
living in this country not to be abused, mentally, physically or sexually? How are we going to prevent those children
once they have been abused from abusing their own children?
Unfortunately, that is the tragic
cycle. A child who has been hit,
demeaned, beaten and assaulted sexually all too often ends up as an adult who
assaults and beats physically, sexually and mentally. That is the pattern. We know that is the case. Here we had a
centre, a centre where people from all over the world came to say, show us your
methodology, show us your treatment modality, show us your prevention programs,
because Dr.
Now we are in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy at the present moment from
losing him from an advisory committee.
But is that a first step? I do
not know. It is part of what he does. Does he now back off of other activities as
well? I hope not. I hope that this minister will act in such a
way that we will not lose either the centre or the incredible capacity of Dr.
Charles
When you are a child, you sometimes
exaggerate the things that happen to you.
Shortly after my birth, my mother was very ill, and so my 12‑year‑old
sister‑‑I was born the day after her birthday‑‑became
my substitute mother. I had in those
days extremely thick hair. I still have
a pretty good head of hair on me, a little grayer. But she used to stand me every night between
her legs, and she used to put my hair in ringlets. I had big fat ringlets, if the pictures are
to be believed. I do remember standing
there and having her whip them around her finger and putting rags to tie them
together.
I am convinced that that was the reason,
as a child, that I was chosen at the age of four to present flowers to the
princess royal, because I probably had fatter ringlets than anybody else, and
ringlets were the thing in that particular day.
When I was in Grade 2, I remember leading the first holy communicants in
as the angel because, again, I am sure, of my ringlets.
When she was married when I was only seven
years old, my mother had my hair all cut off.
I thought as a child that was the worst thing that had ever happened to
me. Here my beautiful hair had been, in
one fell swoop, all cut off. I thought
they had cut my hair to look like a boy's.
Now that I look at the haircut in pictures, it really did not look like
a boy's, but I was convinced it looked like a boy's because I had had such
wonderful ringlets before.
So to me, this was the worst thing that
had ever happened to me. My sister got
married, she deserted me, and all of my ringlets were cut off. Two years later, when I was the target of an
abuse, I could not believe that I had worried about my ringlets, because no
child ever thinks that is ever going to happen to them. When you are raised, as I was raised, in a
family with love and support, you do not think somebody is going to betray you
like that. That happens every single
day, every single hour, every single minute in this country of ours.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply
disturbed. I have a personal sense of
betrayal. I feel betrayed by this
minister and by this government, not only as the member for
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), that this House instruct the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to restore full funding, including returning
the accumulated surplus, to the Child Protection Centre.
*
(1350)
Speaker's
Ruling
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, with respect, I must challenge the ruling.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair having been
challenged, all those in favour of sustaining the Chair 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.
*
(1450)
Order, please. 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
Dacquay,
Derkach,
Nays
Alcock,
Ashton, Carstairs, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans
(Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway,
Martindale, Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 27, Nays 19.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.
* * *
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): I would
like to rise on a matter of grievance.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe the member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes) would like to make a committee change, a quick one, and then I will
recognize the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) on his
grievance.
Committee
Change
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I wish to rescind St. James (Mr. Edwards) for
Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and change it to
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
MATTER OF
GRIEVANCE
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): It is
very important for me to rise today to give some greater clarity to this issue,
set the record straight regarding our funding relationship with the Child
Protection Centre and, I think, in my remarks give some comfort to the member
for
But, Mr. Speaker, the Child Protection
Centre is recognized by myself, this department, and this government as
providing an extremely valuable service in the continuum of care of child
welfare in
In the Estimates discussion, we talked
about the fact that an accumulated surplus that the centre had of $200,000 was
going to be used as part of our funding agreement with the centre in this
current budget year. That was a figure
that was presented to us prior to the Estimates process and a figure that we
used as an accurate one in our deliberations over budget.
Subsequent to that and in the last few weeks,
it has been reported to us by the centre that part of that surplus of $200,000
in the last number of months of the last year had been spent on some other
activities by the centre. As a result,
there is somewhat of a shortfall in that $200,000. It was first reported to us that it was in
the neighbourhood of $30,000. Now it is
reported to be in the neighbourhood of $40,000 to 41,000.
Mr. Speaker, my officials met on June 23
with officials from the Child Protection Centre to review what has happened with
our funding, to review this surplus, and those discussions were very valuable.
It appears‑‑and the Child
Protection Centre has indicated that this was a mistake, and probably that is
not an inaccurate way of portraying this‑‑that we were using information
that was provided to us by the Child Protection Centre, and now they are
indicating that because of the time lapse this funding figure is not accurate.
I make the commitment today to the House
that my comments in Estimates were accurate.
They will have a funding reduction of 3.8 percent, and we will work to
establish the exact amount of the differential in that surplus and make the
commitment today that those resources will be found for the Child Protection
Centre. I would hope that is the comfort
that the member is looking for. It is
the information we gave in Estimates, and I reaffirm that today.
The member made some other comments. I know members of this House are well aware
of her commitment and her understanding of child welfare issues, and I know
that she also is aware that others of us in the House have a similar commitment
and an understanding. A number of the
initiatives that we have taken with the service information system, with the
quality assurance program, with the Child Advocate, with the high‑risk
indicators, I think is a clear demonstration of the commitment of this
government to enhance the delivery of child welfare in this province.
The member referenced that I met with Dr.
Ferguson last week, and that is correct, but it was over a completely different
issue. It was an issue to do with the
Anne Ross day care and the Mount
I have had a letter from Dr. Agnes Bishop
who was asked to meet with me. I
received that letter in the last few days, and we have made arrangements to
meet with Dr. Bishop next week to discuss the funding for the Child Protection
Centre. I will indicate to her the same
information I have given to the House today.
Once we establish the exact amount of the shortfall in their accumulated
surplus, we will identify funds to make up that shortfall, and the centre will
be able to continue with their budgeting based on the information that was
given to them when our budget was released.
So I say to the member that these
discussions have taken place at the officials' level, and they are ongoing to
establish an exact number. Our
commitment is to remedy that problem as soon as we can, and we will be
communicating that to the Child Protection Centre as soon as we possibly
can. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is on the
motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) that Mr. Speaker do
now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider
of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, okay.
All those in favour of the motion, 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. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Yeas and
Nays, Mr. Speaker.
*
(1500)
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
*
(1600)
The question before the House is on the
motion of the honourable government House leader, that Mr. Speaker do now leave
the Chair and the House resolve into a committee to consider of the Supply to be
granted to Her Majesty.
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result
being as follows:
Yeas
Ashton, Barrett,
Cerilli, Dacquay, Dewar, Doer,
Nays
Alcock, Carstairs,
Gaudry, Gray, Lamoureux.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 38, Nays 5.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
The hour being after 4 p.m., this House is
now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday next.