LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Madam Speaker: Please be seated.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister for Education that Bill 14, The Public Sector Compensation Disclosure Amendment Act, be now read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Friesen: Madam Speaker, as part of our new government's agenda we are improving transparency of the monies spent on staffing especially of technical officers. We committed to be transparent with respect to employment contracts, secondments and severance payouts of senior staff, and that is precisely what this ill accomplishes.
Taxpayers want and should have accountability for the dollars that they provide to government. We believe that the people of Manitoba deserve to know what is being paid out to technical officers. This amendment will reveal those payments. It requires the employment documents and severance payments of technical officers to be made public within 30 days of signature or payout. This change provides disclosure for Manitobans in the online reporting and disclosure of orders-in-council.
Madam Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]
Madam Speaker: The required 90 minute's notice prior to routine proceedings was provided in accordance with rule 26(2). Would the honourable minister proceed with her statement.
Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Madam Speaker, today we celebrate a momentous occasion for girls across the globe, the International Day of the Girl. In 2012, the United Nations declared October 11th as the International Day of the Girl.
The purpose of this day is to highlight the role girls play as powerful voices of change in their families, their communities and their nations.
I am proud to be joined today by some of these powerful voices who are in the gallery right now: Brianna Jonnie, Rebecca Mandámin and Linda Osmani.
Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues here to reflect on the important contribution all girls make in our communities, in our families and in our province. We should also consider these contributions in light of the many challenges facing young women and girls today.
Madam Speaker, it is critically important to continue opening doors for girls because we know that gender-based discrimination, harassment and assault continue to occur in our society to this very day. We see girls dropping out of high school sports, not wanting to continue in activities and not wanting to speak up in class.
So, while there are some who believe that the glass ceiling has been shattered, I ask the House to take this day to commit to supporting girls and continuing our work in advancing opportunities for them. Let us all help them achieve their dreams to participate fully in their communities.
We need to do more to empower girls to lead in non-traditional roles, and in the corporate and political realm. I am proud many colleagues from across Canada in accepting Plan Canada's challenge to give up our decision-making seat to the girls.
The Canadian hashtag #GirlsBelongHere initiative is part of a global movement in celebration on International Day of the Girl. This initiative reminds us how important it is for young women to be encouraged to be visible and to be proud. It also reminds us how important it is for all of us to see and hear what young women have to say.
Madam Speaker, I would like the House now to acknowledge Brianna, Rebecca and Linda who are in the gallery today.
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): October 11th marks the International Day of the Girl. Today we recognize the marginalization, discrimination and systemic persecution of girls that are faced here in Manitoba and around the globe.
Globally, some 62 million girls are deliberately deprived of education; girls and young women continue to suffer from systemic violence, forced marriages, rapes, genital mutilation and health complications resulting from early pregnancies, as young as 10 years old. Over 1 billion girls will be victims of sexual and physical violence in their lifetime, and Canada is no exception.
Girls in Canada face inequality, discrimination and violence, and, on any given night, thousands of young girls and their mothers are sleeping in shelters because of physical and sexual violence at home. There is much work to be done in protecting and supporting girls. This includes eliminating violence, promoting gender equality and creating allies among boys and men.
I'm proud our NDP team worked hard to protect children from sexual exploitation by strengthening legislation that protects the rights of children.
When we invest in the safety, education and rights of girls, we can ensure equality and create a future where they can thrive here in Canada and across the globe.
Miigwech.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): I'd like to ask for leave to speak in response to the ministerial statement.
Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to respond to the ministerial statement? [Agreed]
Ms. Lamoureux: The International Day of the Girl was first recognized in 2011 when the United Nations General Assembly voted to set aside October 11 as a day to honour girls and work to improve their lives.
This year's celebration centres on the theme "Girls' Progress Equals Goals' Progress: What Counts for Girls." This is a call for action for increase investment in collecting data affecting girls. Improving data on girls and addressing the issues that are holding them back is critical for fulfilling the 2030 UN platform for sustainable development goals.
Madam Speaker, in the world today, there are over 1.1 billion girls; these girls all possess talent, passion, intelligence and creativity. They have dreams and potential that are too often thwarted by discrimination, violence and lack of equal opportunities. In the world today, there are 31 million school-aged girls without the opportunity to attend elementary school.
More than 90 per cent of teenaged girls said that they wished they could alter the way they looked, which is all too often the leading cause to eating disorders, low self-esteem and self-harm. In Canada, we strive to improve the situation.
When girls are educated, healthy and empowered, they pull themselves, their children and their communities out of poverty. We need to be aware of the effect that our societal influences are having on girls. Their rights, their dreams, they need to be supported so that they not only can but will grow into the empowered leaders and role models of tomorrow.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Brad Michaleski (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, October is Women's History Month, a time for Canadians to celebrate the achievements of women and girls as trailblazers throughout our history, and it's also a time to learn about the contributions women have made that have shaped our lives.
Madam Speaker, this summer I was honoured to attend the unveiling of the Statue of the Ukrainian Woman Pioneer during Canada's National Ukrainian Festival in Dauphin. This unveiling coincides with the 125th-year anniversary of Ukrainian settlement in Manitoba.
We can only imagine the challenges these women endured, coming to a strange land of prairie wilderness, facing the isolation and the hardships of homesteading, along with the hostilities of the host society in those early years.
* (13:40)
The role of the pioneer woman was that of wife, mother and worker, rarely working outside the home because she helped clear homesteads, worked in the fields, tended to the all-important garden and food stores required for her family, watered and fed cattle while their husbands worked away from home to make money. It was also her responsibility to rear the children, which I believe to be her most lasting and significant contribution.
Madam Speaker, like a drop in a still lake, the positive legacy of pioneer women's strength and courage, their perseverance and determination, their pride, faith and values continue to ripple through society today and throughout Manitoba. While passing on her traditions, customs and values to her children, pioneer women worked tirelessly to help provide opportunity for her children and the community–for placing a high value on education as a means to improve their lives, to improve their social and economic status, to provide for opportunity that she would never have.
Madam Speaker, we owe a debt of gratitude to all the pioneer women of this province. The Dauphin region is considered one of the largest block–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Further members' statements?
Mr. Dennis Smook (La Verendrye): I rise in the House today to recognize the Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or as most of southeastern Manitoba calls it, Sopiwnyks Church, which recently celebrated its 100th anniversary.
The land on which the church stands was donated by Dmytro and Tatiana Sopiwnyk. They provided three acres of their farmland for the church site, and four generations of Sopiwnyks have been involved in the care of the property.
It was over a century ago that thousands of people from Western Ukraine made the long journey to Canada. Southeastern Manitoba was one of the first places to see substantial Ukrainian settlement. Ukrainian immigrants who settled across the prairies could not imagine a life without prayer, god and a church. Caliento, like the rest of small communities in the area, needed a church.
The first parish register dates from 1915, and their fundraising plans were shown in detail. Construction of the new church began in 1918 and was completed in 1923. Tragically, the building was destroyed by fire in 1924, but the community immediately sprang into action to get it rebuilt. The new building, which stands to this day, was built within the year. A hall was added in 1938 and would rapidly become the social centre of the community.
On September 18th, I was proud to be part of the 100th anniversary celebration as the church recognized all the founding members who laboured and sacrificed so much for the establishment of the parish and all the individuals who have donated hours of labour towards the maintenance of the church, the cemetery and the hall over the years.
I would like to thank all of those who travelled many miles to come home and be part of this historic event and all those that distributed–or contributed financially to make this event possible. I wish the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary Ukrainian Catholic Church, in Caliento, many more services under its roof. Thank you.
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): I'm pleased to announce that the West Broadway Youth Outreach program has found a new home. On September 20th, I was thrilled to join hundreds of others as we walked through the doors of their new space at 646 Portage Ave. for the very first time.
The goal of this program is simple: empower children to meet their infinite potential. West Broadway Youth Outreach began in the 1980s, and today offers kids aged 4 to 12 free after-school and summer programming. Youth who once upon a time needed help with their math, reading or other homework have gone on to become doctors, lawyers and other successful members of our community because of West Broadway Youth Outreach.
About 115 students use the centre each week for a total of 800 different faces each year. West Broadway Youth Outreach has used multiple community spaces in the past at Crossways in Common on Furby Street and elsewhere, but, remarkably, the entire effort has been headquartered from a tiny office only 28 by 18 feet in size. Their new centre, in contrast, has two full floors with areas for science, music, eating, homework and reading as well as an open space for a variety of programming. I got a sneak peek when I brought refreshments to the staff and volunteers during renovations, but the final results of their efforts are simply inspiring.
None of this would have been possible without the combined support of the volunteer board, staff, participants and donors to the cause. They are all to be commended for their important contributions to our community and the bright futures that they make possible.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Arthur-Virden): Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a constituent from Arthur-Virden that made a positive impact on her community.
Virden teen Jane Harkness has always had a passion for history. In March 2016, Jane took an incentive to follow her passion and apply for the Beaverbrook Vimy Prize through the Vimy Foundation. This was a prestigious summer scholarship offered by–to youths 15 to 17 years of age.
Given the opportunity to study the interwoven history of Canada, Jane submitted a five-part application, including a short story analyzing World War I paintings, reference letters, a resume and motivation letters in hopes to be able to get the opportunity to take part in the intense scholarship program in Europe, participating in educational seminars and museum events.
On April 8, 2016, Jane got the news. Out of over 200 applicants, she was one of 16 students chosen. Jane travelled to Europe where the real excitement began. Her hard work and dedication had paid off. The experience that Jane gained getting to meet the veterans, historians, scholars, specialists on the ground, visiting Vimy Ridge, diverse cemeteries and studying battlefields–one can only imagine.
Following Jane's scholarship, she became an ambassador for the Vimy Ridge Foundation, and she continues to work hard, sharing her knowledge and perspective on World War I with her peers, schools and her community.
Jane continues a positive influence on those around her. Jane has pledged to take every soldier's name from the local cenotaph in Virden, research their background and create a book for our local museum to let other future generations know what people in her community fought and died for.
She is currently creating a Remembrance Day Challenge for Girl Guides of Canada and continues to–presentation for Legions, school groups and surrounding communities. She is a junior curator and a tour guide at her local museum, the Virden pioneer museum and says that she loves being able to tell people her story, creating an immerse experience from the museum guests.
It's dedicated and committed people like Jane Harkness–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): Madam Speaker, in memory of my grandparents, Cornelius and Veronique Wood.
After our medicines had long been forced away, my grandparents took their 10-year-old son, John Joseph, to the missionaries for medical help. My dad was about 10. Without permission, John Joseph was flown out of St. Theresa Point.
Day after day they waited, but not one word, my grandmother hoping her little boy would be returned.
Finally, a letter indicating John Joseph had passed away–no words of how, why or when. My dad recalls Quebec. What was a Quebec?
John Joseph's body was never returned; my uncle never came home. My dad never forgot the nightly sounds of his parents crying into the night.
As an adult, he promised his parents that he would find his little brother. They endured 20 years of unanswered letters to government departments, Christian organizations and hospitals.
One day my dad remembered that Quebec word. Again, the letters went out, this time to Quebec. An envelope postmarked Magog, Quebec, came. It contained John Joseph's death certificate.
Magog is over 2,900 kilometres away from our reserve. We have no idea as to how John Joseph ended up there.
Two years after the letter, my dad happened to go to a meeting in Ottawa. He confided his brother's story to someone there. That wonderful person drove my dad to Magog immediately. Within hours my dad was standing at the entrance of a cemetery. He started shouting, John Joseph, I am here. Where are you?
An elderly caretaker appeared, hearing the distraught calls. Miracle upon miracle, this gentleman knew where the hospital had buried all the Indian children. He brought my dad to an ancient part: They didn't mark their graves, but this is the area where your brother lies.
My dad fell to his knees. After 24 years of searching, he had found his little brother.
I honour John Joseph today. My family's hope is that children such as John Joseph, taken away, are remembered. And it is my goal to ensure that this government remains accountable to other families who are waiting for their own lost members to get the answers and the closure. These lives are not in vain.
Miigwech.
* (13:50)
Introduction of Guests
Madam Speaker: Prior to oral questions, we have some guests in the gallery. We have seated in the public gallery, from Manitoba Parents for Ukrainian Education, 62 grade 5 students from East Selkirk Middle School, RF Morrison School, Ralph Brown School, Bernie Wolfe school, and Smith-Jackson school, under the direction of Joseyf Mudryj, Michael Ilyniak, Susan Christiuk, Halyna Drahun and Jennifer Chetrybok, and they are the guests of the honourable Minister of Crown Services (Mr. Schuler).
I would also like to draw attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today girls from the 31st and 82nd Pathfinder units, who are my guests in celebration of International Day of the Girl, and I would ask that you hold your applause until they've all been introduced.
They are Alexina Nault, Emma Beckstead, Isra Inam, Larissa Braid, Riley McLeod, Sylvia Docker, and joining them are also in the public gallery, our leaders from their units.
On behalf of all honourable members here, we welcome you here today.
Government Intention
Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, according to Manitoba Civil Service Commission's annual reports, the size of the civil service has not materially increased for the last 10 years.
Last week, the minister attacked the civil service, saying they would eliminate 112 positions on top of the 80 already fired at the East Side Road Authority.
Will the Premier admit, that despite his protests to the contrary, he is set on austerity, cutting civil service, despite a growing economy and the fastest population growth in modern Manitoba history?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): I thank my colleague for the question, Madam Speaker, and I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving weekend, an opportunity to share the blessings of Manitoba with family and friends.
I appreciate the question because it allows me to state again that we are dedicated, on this side of the House, to making Manitoba the most improved province in Canada. One aspect of improving the province is to improve the quality of the workplace here. We have made some progress in that respect. At the end of the last session, in fact, the Opposition House Leader commented this was his best session, and he is the dean of our Legislature, so he should know.
But last Thursday we took a major step backward and I appreciate and thank those members who engaged in inappropriate behaviour. I appreciate their apology and accept it on behalf of the government. But I also have to remark that the cover-up that was orchestrated after these comments were made was one orchestrated by the opposition, and so I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to rise in her place and apologize to all concerned in respect of this behaviour today.
Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question.
Ms. Marcelino: I apologize for what happened last Thursday morning, and my colleagues have apologized as well, and my female colleague did apologize to the female colleagues on the other side of the House. It was unfortunate and we will live and learn from that experience.
Madam Speaker, this government has been under fire for the numbers they have presented for their own reports and purposes. They misrepresented the deficit number; they misrepresented their so-called budget savings, and now the numbers they are presenting regarding the civil service are under fire. As the Premier knows, the size of the civil service has not increased in over 10 years. Will the Premier stop politicizing the civil service for his own partisan purposes?
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
I just want to caution the House that once a matter has been taken under–a matter of privilege has been taken under review, that that issue is not to be discussed any further inside the Chamber or outside the Chamber until a ruling has come forward. So I would ask all of you to please reference this caution very carefully. We do accept the apologies that have come forward today, and they have been–come forward in an appropriate way. But making any reference to the issue itself as a matter of privilege is not allowed by our rules.
Mr. Pallister: I appreciate the apology of the Leader of the Official Opposition, and we thank her for that apology. I believe it to be sincere.
I am not aware of any of my colleagues having received an apology, however, from the member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine), and I would say that the only thing worse than the wrongdoing is the denial subsequently made and repeated of the wrongdoing by a member who was in the House at the time. That is not acceptable. That is not right. Aiding and abetting such conduct allows it to continue.
Bullies may be bullies, it is said, but they should not be allowed to be bullies, and they should not be aided and abetted in that behaviour by their colleagues, regardless of any motivations the member may have.
So I would urge the member for St. Johns to apologize, rise in her place–
Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Order.
I would just urge caution by all members that this particular issue is under review by myself, and I would just urge that we refrain from any further comments regarding the particular issue that happened Thursday morning.
Thank you.
Mr. Pallister: To be clear, Madam Speaker, I am not referring to the issue before you, and I await your judgment on that issue. I'm referring to behaviour which happened subsequent to that, and I am referring to totally different events which happened subsequent to the ruling and the point of privilege being brought to your attention. I want to make that very clear.
I would also point out to members opposite that the behaviour that occurred, which members have admitted they regret, occurred as a consequence of voting. We have before us a bill, Bill 7, which would give back to Manitoba workers the right to a secret ballot that would protect them against intimidation, that would protect Manitoba men and women against harassment or belittlement as a consequence of being forced to express what is rightfully their possession: their right to vote.
And so I would ask members to reflect on that reality as we debate this bill and understand that bullies should not be allowed to be bullies, whether employer, union boss or anyone else and that aiding and abetting that and allowing harassment or intimidation or shaming to occur in the setting of a union certification or decertification vote is totally inappropriate in our province and will be made such by this bill.
Last week's behaviour should demonstrate to all thoughtful members that such is true and the case and that this bill deserves to be supported by all members of this House.
Ms. Marcelino: Since day one of this session this month, we've been waiting for Bill 7 to be taken.
Madam Speaker, the Finance Minister put out a press release last week that claims this government can define what a senior administrative position is within the civil service. The Premier has repeatedly insisted that his government will protect workers on the front line, but he and his government have refused to define who is a front-line worker.
If the Premier's able to define one class of workers, why can't he tell Manitobans who a front‑line worker is? Or is he intent on keeping his austerity agenda secret from Manitobans?
Mr. Pallister: Well, Madam Speaker, actually, transparency we find to be a redeeming quality of good governments, and we intend to demonstrate transparency in our dealings, something the previous administration failed to do when they ran on a promise made to all Manitobans they would not raise the PST and then subsequently took away the right of Manitobans to even vote on it as guaranteed by legislation they said they would uphold. Then, in a desperate act, they went to court to fight for the right to do this even against the promises that they had previously made.
* (14:00)
So I don't think that the previous government could lay claim to any particular degree of transparency in that issue or in most others, for example covering up sole-source contracts to pals of their party, something they did repeatedly.
So, Madam Speaker, we will pursue transparency in every way possible. And we will encourage all members of this House to engage in healthy debate around the issues that will add to that transparency, making Manitoba the most improved province in Canada in respect of open and transparent government.
Government Plan
Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Leader of the Official Opposition, on a second question.
Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): Last we heard, the government of the day, too, promised not to privatize MTS, but they did.
Madam Speaker, the Premier bills himself as a champion of free enterprise, yet nearly 4,000 private sector jobs have been lost since he took power. The Premier doesn't have a plan but instead seeks to settle old political scores. It's not good enough for the people of Manitoba. His approach to the North is threatening good jobs. Without a plan, Manitoba is seeing significant private sector job losses.
Will the Premier put away his partisan agenda, come to the table with the private sector and labour and find a way to grow the economy and keep Manitobans working?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member raising a question about the private sector, something foreign to most members opposite entirely.
I would say, though, that their record as a government speaks very well to their inability as a government to improve the circumstances for Manitobans in terms of finding jobs and gaining long-term employment here in their home province, given the fact that our ranking over the period of service of the previous administration fell to ninth in the country, only slightly ahead of New Brunswick, in terms of economic growth. In fact, in terms of attracting investment capital to our province, their ranking was 10th in the last two years of their service. They finished behind PEI, which I believe attracted less than $50,000 of investment.
So that tells you that they couldn't run a lemonade stand over there. They tried to Americanize Manitoba Hydro. They tried to embark Manitoba's public insurance corporation on a speed bump and sign campaign. And their idea of economic growth was putting up signs that said they were growing the province when that wasn't really true.
Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question.
Ms. Marcelino: Madam Speaker, when the new government came in, Manitoba has the second lowest unemployment rate and second best economy in the country.
Madam Speaker, according to–Manitoba has lost 10,800 full-time jobs since May, when this government was sworn in. But the Premier's priorities are an austerity agenda of cuts, freezing the minimum wage and picking a fight with organized labour. We have seen a government spending its time to settle old political scores rather than doing the hard work needed to retain jobs and grow the economy.
Will the Premier today lay out his plan and get on with the work of creating good jobs for all Manitobans?
Mr. Pallister: I'm tremendously excited, as are my colleagues, about that project, Madam Speaker. And we will pursue, with great enthusiasm, growth for this province that is real and not simply advertised.
I would also mention that as far as the settling scores, that was done on April 19th, and that was done by Manitobans, not by me.
Madam Speaker, we're enthusiastic about the prospects of rebuilding the province. After a decade of debt, we are going to fix the finances of this province. After a decade of decay, we are going to repair the services of this province. And, frankly, after a decade of decline, we are going to work with Manitobans, in partnership with Manitobans, for the best interests of today and tomorrow to rebuild our economy here. We have an onerous task. It takes a while to turn the ship, and the ship was desperately out of course for a long time under the previous administration. But we have taken positive steps, working as a genuine team, to move ourselves back into a positive direction, and we'll continue to.
Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary.
Ms. Marcelino: The last decade saw the province at the top of the pack amongst provinces with strong economic growth and low unemployment. Yet since the Premier has taken office, Manitoba has headed into tenuous economic waters. The North is in crisis, and Manitobans are losing jobs.
But the Premier has no plan. He has many platitudes, but he has nothing to offer Manitobans except a pledge to future action. It's not good enough, Madam Speaker.
When will the Premier show his plan for job creation and keep Manitobans working in the North and across all of Manitoba?
Mr. Pallister: I thank my colleague for the question.
After 17 years of failed government, all that that particular political organization had to offer was chequebook politics and identity politics. At the tail end of that 17 years, we had the longest wait times for health care of any Canadian province. We had the lowest rankings in educational outcomes for student testing, some of the longest waits for child care in the country of Canada, some of the worst unaddressed poverty in the country and the most children in care. This was the record–17-year record–of the members opposite.
I would encourage them to get out of the denial mode, to get away from the inability to address the grief of the reckoning that Manitobans made on April 19th and get with the program. Start by making this place a better and safer place to work in without the harassment, without the badgering, without the intimidation from the member for Minto (Mr. Swan). Instead of those things, why not get with the program and make this place a place that children can come and visit–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
The honourable interim leader of the Official Opposition, on a third set of questions.
Ms. Marcelino: The Premier bills himself as the champion of free enterprise, yet nearly 4,000 private sector jobs have been lost since he took power.
The Premier doesn't have a plan. It's not good enough for the people of Manitoba. His approach to the North is threatening good jobs. Without a plan, Manitoba is seeing significant private sector job losses.
Will the Premier put away his partisan agenda, come to the table with the private sector and labour and find a way to grow the economy and keep Manitobans working?
Mr. Pallister: Well, again, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about job creation because as opposed to members opposite, I and many of my colleagues here have actually done that. We've actually done that. We've created jobs in this province.
In 2003, with some borrowed money and good intentions, I decided that I couldn't keep doing all the red tape the government was sending me myself, and I actually created a job, and my reward for doing that was a letter in the mail from the NDP administration of the day. And this letter wasn't a letter of congratulations, Madam Speaker, no. It wasn't a letter of encouragement to embolden me in my efforts to try to create more jobs. It was actually a payroll tax bill.
And that's the philosophy of members opposite. If they can tax it, they'll tax it. And they proved that in the last administration when they promised they wouldn't raise taxes, and they raised taxes on a broad range of things for Manitobans right from cottages to cars to home insurance to haircuts, and then they raised the PST as well, Madam Speaker.
If they can mine revenue dollars from Manitobans, they'll do it, and that pushes our economic performance down, and–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Timeline for Second Reading
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz stated that we created inequality, chose it, really, with laws that weakened unions.
Why is this government continuing to try and weaken unions? When will they call Bill 7 so we can debate this important bill?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Well, I appreciate the member's comment, though, of course, he fails to cite experts in the field.
* (14:10)
Let's talk about secret ballots for a second. Let's talk about this gentleman's quote: Our members prefer a secret ballot vote to a card-check system for the purpose of determining if a union is to become a certified bargaining agent for employees. A secret ballot vote is the essence of a true democratic choice and is entirely consistent with Canadian democratic principles. That's John P. Farrell, executive director of the Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications, December last year.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Lindsey: The Premier and his minister are stalling their own legislation to limit the time that the public and members of this Legislative Assembly have to voice their concerns about it. They seem to be afraid to call it. The minister is understandably sensitive about limiting the opportunity of Manitobans to express their views on this bill and on Bill 8.
I will ask him now: When will this government call second reading on Bill 7?
Mr. Pallister: We're excited to debate the bill, Madam Speaker, but I invite the member, though I know he's a rookie here, to do a minimal amount of research and understand that it was his own party who circumvented the regulatory and legislative process to deny Manitobans the right to even debate the idea of them taking away the right for Manitobans to vote on the PST. We're going to have a hearing.
And to equip the members for somewhat more fulfilling intellectual debate on the topic of secret ballot, let me–and their continued references to picking fights–hardly as a former union rep would I pick fights with my friends in the union movement. Here's another expert in the field. Quote: The secret ballot vote provides, essentially, a moment of truth for an individual who wants to express his or her opinion in a totally confidential way. That's from Chris Aylward, the national executive vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Get with the program. Union leaders are telling us the secret ballot is the way to go.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Lindsey: It certainly appears that the Premier does not want to call Bill 7. It appears they do not want to debate a bill which will lead to lower unionization and will hurt workers in this province. Lower union rates lead to higher inequality, and that's been shown.
When will this Premier call second reading on Bill 7?
Mr. Pallister: Well, I appreciate the fact the member wants to engage in debate on a bill he has done inadequate research on, Madam Speaker, but I'm doing him a favour here. He should get the information before the debate begins.
Let me give him a little more information so he can actually get with the program and support a thoughtful, well-reasoned bill that positions Manitoban men and women to be–to have the same rights that are enjoyed by a majority of other provinces and by a vast majority of Canadian workers.
Here's another quote in respect to secret ballot, says: I read into the record earlier when he pursued this question that members make their own decisions. The secret ballot's the best protection of that. Well, that was said just last year by the former leader of the NDP.
Understand that many Manitobans are on side with this legislation. Do some research and make it happen.
Meeting with Stakeholders
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the tragic deaths this past Saturday of Sarah Sanderson, 36, who leaves behind seven children ages five to 18, and Janne Lahteenmaki, 35, both killed in a car crash this past Saturday.
Janne was the brother of Alinda Lahteenmaki, who was murdered in 2009 after being pushed out of an 11th storey building of an apartment building in downtown Winnipeg. Janne, along with his mother Darlina, attended many of the MMIWG events and gatherings we hosted and was illustrative of a supportive, humble and loving son, brother and indigenous man who stood alongside indigenous women, supporting the fight against violence.
Has the Province held any meetings with the–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Hon. Eileen Clarke (Minister of Indigenous and Municipal Relations): I'm pleased to respond to the member opposite in regards to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity this summer to meet with many families who've experienced tragedy similar to the families that she's just spoke about. I also had the opportunity to participate in many events that have been held this past summer and talk to families; these will continue. And, as you know, we have signed on to the inquiry. The commission has made it very clear that they are working on it, and they have not contacted us at this point.
Support Services Funding
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a supplementary question.
Ms. Fontaine: At the official launch of the national inquiry in August, the federal government announced an additional $16 million for the creation of family information liaison units in province and territories and to increase victim services funding. These funds are meant to provide invaluable and much needed culturally appropriate support for MMIWG families as they navigate through an emotionally and spiritually difficult process.
Can the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) advise whether her department or her government has yet to submit a proposal to access this funding, and what work has been done to establish these liaison units?
Ms. Clarke: I thank the member opposite for her question. Our government would like to extend condolences first and foremost to the family most recent–leaving a family of seven children behind. I read the story, and it certainly places a lot of responsibility on the older children in the family, and they have a tough road ahead. We certainly acknowledge that.
In regards to the commission and money coming forward, we have not received any of that money, and we will be working with our federal counterparts as well as the commission and doing everything possible, at a local level within our government, and with other groups and organizations that already have done a lot work in regards to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.
Special Adviser Appointment
Madam Speaker: The member for St. Johns, on a final supplementary.
Ms. Fontaine: This past June, during Estimates, the minister of Indigenous and Municipal affairs was asked whether or not she planned to appoint a special adviser on indigenous women's issues. The minister advised her department was looking to appoint a staff person as the lead on this file in addition to also working on the truth and reconciliation calls to actions.
The minister–can the minister advise whether or not this position has been filled and, if so, was it filled with an existing departmental staff or with a new hire? As well, has the position been filled with a person with significant experience working with MMIWG families?
Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Madam Speaker, our government is committed to standing up for all women in the province of Manitoba, and we're very pleased to sign on with the national inquiry and be supporting our federal and provincial counterparts to improve the lives of women and girls across this province.
And, as we saw last June, when members of Unifor came into this House and threatened, bullied and intimidated, we know that there are some men in this country and this province and in this very House that are not too afraid to intimidate and harass women. And, when a man points his finger at me, by the way, and says watch your back, I call that misogyny.
And, as we also saw last week in the hallway, that there's members of society who are still willing to engage in the cover-up when gender-based discrimination occurs in this province. And so I would encourage all members of this House to take a stand against gender-based discrimination and to support women and help us do our job and–
Madam Speaker: The member's time is expired.
Performance Record
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): Madam Speaker, on September 21st, 2016, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute's report ranked Manitoba's criminal justice system as the worst compared to all provinces here in Canada. It reads: Manitoba has among the highest violent and non-violent crime rates per capita in any province.
Now, here in Manitoba, we have extremely skilled law enforcement. So my question is to the government: Why are we viewed as having the worst criminal justice system?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Acting Minister of Justice): I thank my friend for the question. It is a good question. I would concur with her when she says we have wonderful people who are working within law enforcement who each and every day leave their homes to protect all of us, not knowing what situations they might go into and the dangers they might face when they leave their homes and go do the work to protect us.
* (14:20)
But she is correct. The justice system in Manitoba over the last decade has not performed well. Like many other areas within the government under the NDP, it has declined. The performance has declined. It has not met the expectation that all Manitobans would expect, and that's why I'm proud that our Attorney General is working even today and every day to try to improve the system, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, on a supplementary question.
Ms. Lamoureux: According to the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, our criminal justice system is the worst of all provinces because of our crime rates, our substantial costs and our significant inefficiencies. This is alarming.
Can the government tell us why the performances are so bad and what the government is going to do to urgently address this? Thank you.
Mr. Goertzen: The performances are so bad, Madam Speaker, because the NDP were in government for the past 16 years.
Ms. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it's time for a new answer. I want to hear desire to develop a plan given the comments made and the importance of safety.
I am asking the government to provide something tangible by telling us when the Justice department is going to provide an action plan to address these alarming concerns.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Goertzen: Madam Speaker, I am proud of my colleague, the member for Tuxedo, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General (Mrs. Stefanson), who spent the summer visiting men and women on the front lines of justice, visiting many of the facilities within Manitoba that house those who have been sentenced, visiting with many individuals who each and every day put themselves into harm's way. She was collecting ideas and suggestions from them. She didn't wait to try to get those ideas. She immediately went out and tried to reach out to them and that's the first step of ensuring that a system improves. Any system within a government is meeting and talking to those in the front lines. That's exactly what she is doing.
Severance Disclosure Bill
Mr. Nic Curry (Kildonan): Unlike the members opposite, Manitoba's new government believes in open and transparent ways of doing business.
When it comes to disclosing severance payouts for political staff, can the Minister of Finance tell the House how the bill he introduced earlier today will ensure more accountability for the taxpayers, my constituency of Kildonan, and all of Manitoba?
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for Kildonan for that question.
Madam Speaker, we are proud to introduce Bill 14, which will compel government to disclose promptly salaries, severance payments to technical officers, unlike the previous NDP government that took and paid out $700,000 of politically motivated payments–payoffs, rather than payments, to former staffers, but then they hid it from Manitobans.
The Auditor General said this was not business as usual, as claimed by the member for Fort-Garry Riverview (Mr. Allum). He said it amounted to an internal labour dispute and that it was done to send people out the door. Manitobans care about transparency; they care about fairness; they care about openness, and we assure them so does their new government.
Government Intention
Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Madam Speaker, last week this minister refused to come clean with Manitobans about exactly what he has up his sleeve when it comes to his health-care review.
Not only would he not tell us what the American consultants are–which American consultants are bidding on this RFP, but he refused to talk about the, quote, numerous and diverse groups working within and across the health-care system that will be impacted by the recommendations made. End quote.
With the news that almost 11,000 jobs have been lost in this province under their watch, Manitobans are concerned this government won't stand up for the dedicated health-care professionals who work on the front lines every day.
Will the Health minister tell the House exactly which front-line workers he expects will bear the brunts of his costs–of his cuts, and will he admit that this review is just an excuse to lay off crucial front‑line–
Madam Speaker: The honourable member's time has expired.
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): Madam Speaker, the health-care sustainability and innovation review is intended to do exactly that. It is intended to ensure that there is innovation being driven within the health-care system.
Now, the member for Concordia might not feel that innovation is important, and given that the NDP's record over the past 16 years within health care, where there was virtually no innovation, that might actually be true. He may not think that innovation is important.
I can tell him that all Health ministers across Canada are struggling with the issue of sustainability. And one of the ways to deal with that and to ensure that care is actually being improved is to have innovation. And that is one of the things we'll be looking for as an outcome from the review. I wish he would just support that, because front-line workers do support that, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Wiebe: Madam Speaker, it doesn't surprise me that this minister is unwilling to answer the question. When pressed again last week, both himself and the Premier (Mr. Pallister) wouldn't explain who they think a front-line worker in health care is.
Manitobans are particularly concerned because the RFP itself instructs the proponent to engage with stakeholders but doesn't clarify who gets a voice and who doesn't.
Will the minister make room at the table for labour? Will he include all unions in this discussion and all those that are going to be impacted in this engagement strategy to ensure that the rights and interests of front-line workers will be represented in this review?
Mr. Goertzen: Well, Madam Speaker, the issue here is that the member opposite is unwilling to accept the answer. We've made it very clear that we are looking from ideas from all Manitobans. We've said that from our very first day in government. We've said that across government. There's no greater example than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen), who launched the most comprehensive and inclusive prebudget consultation meeting in the history of Manitoba.
Any Manitoban anywhere in Manitoba can now participate in that process. We're looking for ideas in terms of how to make the health-care system more innovative and more sustainable from all Manitobans–actually, even including the member for Concordia. If he has any good ideas, I'd love to hear them, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Wiebe: Day after day in this House, Madam Speaker, we have asked to debate Bill 7. We've asked to listen to Manitobans, and this government has refused to call the bill. Now, when I ask a question about who's going to be listened to, who's going to be at the table, this minister refuses to explicitly state that labour has a place at that table.
The RFP itself has no requirement to report whether the review's recommendations or the spending formula. Any changes to the health-care system brought about by this review will be done behind closed doors. Most worrisome of all, Madam Speaker, the RFP makes it obvious that this government will be looking to the private American health-care system for inspiration, a fact that the Minister of Health has refused to deny.
Will the Minister of Health–
Madam Speaker: Member's time has expired.
Mr. Goertzen: Well, Madam Speaker, there was about five different questions that were contained in the member's diatribe. Certainly one of them–
An Honourable Member: Pick one.
Mr. Goertzen: Well, I will pick one. One of them certainly had to do with the ability to–from people to bring their ideas here to the Legislature. We have reached out and we've said we want to hear from Manitobans, whether it's on finance, whether it's on health care, whether it's on the environment. We are an open and transparent government that wants to hear from Manitobans.
And that's in stark contrast to the former government that not only tried to have hearings on the PST, which the former premier wouldn't actually attend and where they wouldn't really allow Manitobans to give a full disclosure. And then when we actually tried to ensure that Manitobans had a voice by going to court, they tried to shut that down too.
Madam Speaker, this is the most transparent government in the history of Manitoba–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Correction Facility Contract
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Madam Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) about a Texas-based prison telephone company that'll be operating the phone system at Milner Ridge Correctional Centre and charging sentenced inmates $3 for a single call to their families.
The Premier (Mr. Pallister) seems to think he has lots of answers today, so can he confirm this company, Synergy Inmate Phones, Inc., has a contract giving access to all jails in Manitoba?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Acting Minister of Justice): Well, Madam Speaker, we certainly know, and the Minister of Justice knows, that the work that happens within our jail system is important. It's important to those who work there, and it's also important, of course, to those who are sentenced there. We are always looking to ensure that that's as safe of an environment as possible, but also an environment that will ensure that those who are sentenced within the jail system have an opportunity for rehabilitation and to try to ensure that when they leave the prison system that they are better equipped.
* (14:30)
So, Madam Speaker, we don't make apologies for the fact that we are trying to better our jail system. That member, as the Attorney General for five years, had that opportunity. All he decided to do was go back to his office and delete warrants from his computer at the middle of the night.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Minto, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Swan: Madam Speaker, the company the minister is allowing into Manitoba jails has also been given access to Saskatchewan jails. Sue Delanoy, executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society in Saskatchewan, stated concerns about this company and its fees, saying: These fees create a significant barrier for people in prison who are trying to maintain contact with families, and they have a disproportionate effect on incarcerated women and their children.
Like Saskatchewan, Manitoba only has one women's jail. Many inmates are far from their family, and, for many, phone calls are the only way to stay in touch with family.
Why has this government ignored the impact of these new phone fees on women, particularly indigenous women, in the Women's Correctional Centre?
Mr. Goertzen: Madam Speaker, there are many within the jail system that need to have protection, that need to ensure that they are working and being in an environment that is safe and that is as good as it can possibly be. That, of course, includes those who are working within our jail system. That includes those who are sentenced within the jail system.
The Attorney General and others within the justice system are always trying to make improvements to ensure that those who are within the confines of our jails, either as employees or as staff or those who have been sentenced, have the best environment that is possible, Madam Speaker.
That is in stark contrast to the member opposite who allowed overcrowding within our jail systems to explode during his time as Attorney General and through the entire time that the NDP were in government.
Madam Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.
Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
And the background to this petition is as follows:
Health care should be accessible for all Manitobans, and the New Democratic Party caucus believes in a health-care system that helps those based on their medical need and not the size of their wallet.
(2) Patients and families who visit hospitals often do not do so by choice.
(3) Patients and families who travel great distances to receive care or visit loved ones incur expenses related to transportation and food costs.
And (4) parking fees at Manitoba hospitals can run up to $17 per day and cause a significant financial burden on families already under stress.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to work with hospital foundations to eliminate or reduce parking fees at all Manitoba hospitals.
And this petition is signed by many, many Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: In accordance with our rule 133(6), when petitions are read, they are deemed to be received by the House.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background of the petition is as follows:
The Manitoba telephone system is currently a fourth cellular carrier used by Manitobans along with the big national three carriers: Telus, Rogers and Bell.
In Toronto, with only the big three national companies controlling the market, the average five‑gigabyte unlimited monthly cellular package is $117 as compared to Winnipeg where MTS charges $66 for the same package.
Losing MTS will mean less competition and will result in higher costs for all cellphone packages in the province.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to do all that is possible to prevent the Bell takeover of MTS and preserve a more competitive cellphone market so that cellular bills for Manitobans do not increase unnecessarily.
And this petition is signed by many fine Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: Orders of the day. Government business.
Oh, grievances?
House Business
Hon. Andrew Micklefield (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, pursuant to rule 33(7), I'm announcing that the private member's resolution to be considered next Tuesday will be one put forward by the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Wharton). The title of the resolution is Support for Manitoba Fishers.
Madam Speaker: It has been announced by the honourable Government House Leader that pursuant to rule 33(7), the private member's resolution to be considered next Tuesday will be one put forward by the honourable member for Gimli. The title of the resolution is Support for Manitoba Fishers.
Mr. Micklefield: Madam Speaker, on House business, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will meet on Tuesday, October 18th, 2016, at 6 p.m., to consider Bill 2, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, and also Bill 4, The Elections Amendment Act.
Madam Speaker: It has been announced by the honourable Government House Leader that the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will meet on Tuesday, October 18th, 2016, at 6 p.m., to consider Bill 2, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, and Bill 4, The Elections Amendment Act.
Mr. Micklefield: Madam Speaker, on House business, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet on Tuesday, October 18th, 2016, at 6 p.m., to consider Bill 6, The Financial Administration Amendment Act, and also Bill 10, The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Repeal and Consequential Amendments Act.
Madam Speaker: It has been announced by the honourable Government House Leader that the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet on Tuesday, October 18th, 2016, at 6 p.m., to consider Bill 6, The Financial Administration Amendment Act, and Bill 10, The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Repeal and Consequential Amendments Act.
* * *
Mr. Micklefield: Madam Speaker, I'd like to call Bill 8 for debate and second reading.
Madam Speaker: It has been announced by the honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Micklefield) that this House will consider Bill 8 this afternoon–Bill 8, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act.
Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Families): And it gives me good pleasure–great pleasure to introduce Bill 8.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage (Ms. Squires), that the bill be read a second time.
The protecting–the bill–Bill 8–I move, seconded by the Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage, that Bill 8, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act–I'm sorry, my French–sur la protection des enfants–I'm sorry, my French–will now be read a second time and referred to a committee of the House.
Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Families, seconded by the honourable Minister for Sport, Culture and Heritage, that Bill 8, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Mr. Fielding: And I'd like to say it truly is a pleasure to stand here today before the House, my colleagues, to speak of this, in my opinion and I think the House's opinion, a very important bill.
Bill 8, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act, represents a significant shift in how we support children serving–or support child-serving professionals that are an effort to serve children in a better or more effective way.
Over the years, we have seen the tragic consequences that arise when we fail to intervene early, we fail to intervene in an effective way to protect children to ensure that they don't endanger their safety.
We received numerous pivotal reports over the last number of years, including the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, including such things as Justice Hughes' report, also reports from the Children's Advocate, another in terms of the Truth and Reconciliation, that talk about the importance of sharing–the critical importance of sharing information amongst a whole bunch of service providers that–to work to protect children.
Integrity and integration of collaboration with key stakeholders is extremely important in terms of this process, in terms of the better protecting of children. As communities, we all need–essentially need to work together to provide and ensure that children are protected in the most effective way.
The Protecting Children Act recognizes that timely sharing information among sectors plays a very critical role to protecting the safety of at-risk children. For example, the legislation will allow teachers–a child's teacher to share information on behavioural assessment for the purpose of working 'collaborately' with other professionals who provide service to this–children.
* (14:40)
We know this is something that is very much supported by organizations such as the Canadian or–such as the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, which has sent a letter to endorse this.
The collaborative approach can really differentiate ourselves between–ensure that children, which is the most important thing, aren't falling between the cracks and getting the services that they need in a 'cohesint' and collective way.
Co-ordinating service provisions can also result in better care and better outcomes for Manitoba children, which our government, and I know everyone in this Chamber, wants to see happen. This bill realizes a promise made by our government to introduce legislation within the first 100 days of coming to office and also allow service providers to share that critical information with children in a more effective way.
It also authorizes organizations and others who provide services to children to collect, use and disclose personal information and personal health information about the children. The bill allows information to be shared about children who receive vital government supports, supported children, including children in care who receive voluntary child and family services, schoolchildren who need an individual education plan, children who receive disability services or mental health services, addiction services, as well as victim support services for children involved in the criminal justice system. Information may also be disclosed about the parents or the guardians of the disclosed child that it's made sure that it's in the best interest of the children.
The bill also uses the term service provider to describe organizations and others who are authorized to share information. Government departments also included are child and family service agencies, authorities, foster parents, schools, police and other organizations and agencies that get government funding to provide services for supported children.
The authority of sharing information introduced in The Protecting Children Act–the information sharing act is in–in is–is in addition to the information and the approach that is already taken within current freedom information–or the freedom of information and protection of children act as well as The Personal Health Information Act.
Madam Speaker, this bill values the individual privacy while recognizing that there are circumstances that warrant greater flexibilities in terms of the ability of a service provider to share information. Really, this is about a balancing act between protecting children and ensuring they have appropriate privacy rights.
In drafting this legislation, we also introduced specific clauses in our bill, a more made-in-Manitoba approach that specifies addresses and some of the privacy-related issues that have been addressed in similar legislation in Alberta.
As mentioned, our previous–or our proposed bill narrows the scope of the legislation to children who need identified supports in opposition of the children including limits of exclosure and the limits of this exclosure is important because it limits the ability or enhances the privacy. We've limited it to enhance that ensuring the disclosure can only occur what's in the best interest of the child.
We're also ensuring that a minimum amount of information is necessarily–is enclosed within the legislation. We're also ensuring that only information that is necessary for the purposes of providing planned services is disclosed.
Madam Speaker, we value Manitoba's privacy legislation. We also recognize that we must allow for greater information sharing when it's provided or guided for that are in the best rights of the children. We must achieve an appropriate balance, as mentioned, between the privacy rights and the needs that enable service providers and exercise professional judgment, while making waking decisions in terms of sharing this personal health information about children.
We'll use this opportunity to ensure that service providers are well informed of their obligations under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and The Personal Health Information Act. We will consult and have been consulting with stakeholders and groups to get feedback on the development of the policies, the procedures, the protocols that are vital for the successful implementation of the new law.
What is also important is ensure that we have appropriate amounts of training as well as education for people as–that will be involved in the system. We are also going to work with community partners, front-line service providers to ensure that the knowledge and expertise to require the implementation of this knowledge is supported by families and supported by service providers, people that are involved in this process.
Through this act, we're playing–we're really essentially putting trust in the service provider across all sectors to share information when it is in the best interests of the child. We believe that the best way to ensure successful outcomes for children and families in Manitoba is to provide programs and services through a collaborative, multidiscipline approach, and this bill, we think, is a step in the right direction. We look forward to the collaborative work that we'll be undertaking to develop consistent, clear, guided information-sharing practices across sectors to provide the vital services for vulnerable children.
The bill responds to key recommendations, as mentioned, from Ted Hughes's inquiry in terms of the Phoenix Sinclair Inquiry. It also demonstrates strength and support for Manitoba children and is extremely important to address some of these issues. We're pleased to be taking the first step to moving towards a system that work together to better protect our children. I know that we're more work to be done, and I'm confident that protecting children act will be a first start in terms of this approach.
I can say, Madam Speaker, before I do step down, I had the pleasure of being able to go out to Alberta and see this–portions of this legislation in action in Alberta in itself, visiting the Sheldon Kennedy centre. It showed what this–work can be done, and if you talk to stakeholders that are there, they're telling you that this is important. They wouldn't take a step back.
So we truly think this is legislation that needs to be supported. We've reached out; we've consulted with a number of groups. That consultation process will continue to go on. We look forward to having opposition members, whether the Liberal caucus or–as well as the NDP caucus to supporting us, to support this recommendation that was brought forth from the Phoenix Sinclair Inquiry, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and a number other child-welfare issues and reports that have come out over the last number of years.
With that, Madam Speaker, thank you very much, and I'll take some questions.
Madam Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any member in the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate, subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recognized opposition parties, subsequent questions asked by each independent member, remaining questions asked by any opposition members and no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.
Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): I would like to ask the minister to please explain how this bill will help children remain with their families and avoid encounters with the child-welfare system in the first place.
Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Families): I can say with, I think, inclusion, that everyone in this House would like to see the amount of children that are in care dramatically reduced. We know similar jurisdictions, whether it be Saskatchewan, similar populations to us, has close to 4,000 kids in care. We have over 10,000 kids in care. We know that number has increased substantially. Even since 2002 alone, you've seen about a 87 per cent increase in the amount of kids in care. Even since 2008, you've seen enhancement in terms of the kids in care. What we truly think, what this information does, it breaks down the silos. There's a number of service agencies and organizations, some that I've mentioned here, that have information but aren't able to share the–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Ms. Marcelino: I would like to ask the minister: What safeguards does this bill put in place to ensure that information is properly shared between different service providers?
Mr. Fielding: Well, thank you for the question, and this legislation is loosely based off the Alberta model. There was some criticism in terms of the privacy. I can–with the Alberta legislation, I can tell you it's always a balancing act between protecting our children and the privacy that are there. To answer your specific question, first of all, we've ensured the disclosure can only occur that's in the best interest of the children. We also want to ensure that a minimum amount of information necessary is disclosed, and that's part of the legislation in 'perms'–terms of piecing of it. We've also ensured the information that is necessary for the purpose of providing planning is a part of this and that any further disclosures beyond the purposes outlined in the bill is appropriate.
I'd also like to add, Madam Speaker, that–
Madam Speaker: The minister's time has expired.
* (14:50)
Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): I'd like to ask, you know, whether the minister could explain why children with individual education plans are included under the scope of this bill.
Mr. Fielding: This includes supported children. This is based similar to what the–Alberta's legislation. There was some criticism in terms of exclusion: was it too broad or was it not just including children? So we identified supported children, which identifies all children that are provided services. In terms of the individual education or the education plans that are in place, there's somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 6,000 or so that are a part of that. There's an assessment piece that's a part of it. And, as mentioned in my preamble to the speech, it's able to allow not just educators but everyone else that's a part of it to include this.
This is something that's represented by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees in a letter of support for this legislation where they believe it's a very–crucial to the needs for children and youth.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): My concern is that–in regards to training the service providers. Many of them will know what they can and cannot do. Will social workers or justice officials, health‑care staff, be receiving comprehensive training to understand the type and amount of information they're allowed to disclose and who they are allowed to disclose to?
Mr. Fielding: Thank you for the question. And the answer is absolutely. Essential–education and training is essential to this. That will be part of the bill as we go forward, ensuring that people are educated, they have the training to ensure this. This is something I've seen front hand, first-hand, when I visited Calgary, the Sheldon Kennedy centre. This is where silos are broken down. And I heard from all different sectors: people from police, people from health, people from education. Whole bunch of factors that said they wouldn't go back.
But you're absolutely right. Education and training is essential to this, and that will be part of the implementation plan going forward. We won't proclaim the bill until we have that education and training 'pliece' enhanced and put forward.
Mr. Kinew: Individualized education plans are educational supports for children in schools. So you could be a wealthy family living in a bedroom community of Winnipeg who takes your child to Sylvan on the weekend, and you might have an IEP. Can the minister explain the rationale for why such a child would need protection under this bill?
Mr. Fielding: Well, thank you for the question. I can tell you, and I've–do have a letter which I will table for the House, Madam Speaker, in terms of the school boards, that talk about the critical needs. And I will quote some of it: On behalf of the public school boards of Manitoba, our association would like to confirm full support for the provincial legislation–that's a part of it. In terms of categories, students, in terms of the individual education plans, there's, of course, a number of reasons why people would be involved in that.
As mentioned, there's in the tunes of 6,000 or so kids that would be involved in the education plans. And I can tell you that it's important that the information is shared. The teachers believe that it's critical and the educators believe it's critical in terms of the approaches, sharing this information. When you're able to share information, you're able to break down the silos–
Madam Speaker: The minister's time has expired. [interjection] The minister's time has expired.
Ms. Klassen: There was a case of a Canadian Forces veteran, Jason May, who has launched a civil suit against the police in the province, claiming undisclosed police records wrongfully linked him to an outlaw motorcycle gang. This caused his foster parent's licence to be revoked. How does the Province plan on dealing with similar issues?
Mr. Fielding: Well, first of all, obviously, there's remedies that are part of that. The Ombudsman one is obviously one area that can be talked about and is a source for things. Things where there's children who receive services for CFS can obviously approach the Children's Advocate in terms of the information that's being shared. There's also things that–within the government body or people that report into it. There's legislation that they have to follow in terms of how they share and distribute information. There's also other service providers that receive services or they receive maybe a special purchasing agreement where they're providing services on behalf of the government.
As the government, let's give a couple examples. No. 1, a foster parent–foster parent is licensed, obviously, through the government, so you–
Madam Speaker: The minister's time has expired.
Mr. Kinew: Does the minister think that there should be a mechanism for parents or guardians to challenge information about their children being shared?
Mr. Fielding: A part of this legislation–this was based a little bit off the Alberta model, we want to ensure openness and transparency. A part of that–adults and parents or guardians will be provided the information if information is shared. There is some certain cases, for instance where there's cases where there's abuse, that could impact the children's well-being, that are concerns with it. So, from our point of view, providing that information, it's something that we've heard from indigenous communities all over, that they don't have all the information what's going on the child. We think the safeguards are built into the legislation.
Ms. Klassen: There have been several well-publicized cases of Ontario people losing their jobs or being denied necessary security clearance because of non-conviction records, prompting proposed legislation that would limit Ontario police force's disclosure of non-conviction. What are we doing to address that?
Mr. Fielding: Well, I think it was a similar question that was asked prior in terms of ensuring the right information is shared. There is parameters in current privacy legislation, where it be FIPPA or PHIA, that is the ability to correct the record, I guess, if you will. That's something that was brought up by the family advocate for Manitoba assembly of–Manitoba assembly. And so, that parameters already exist within the current–in current privacy legislation, where there is an ability to correct.
But once again, the sharing information, we think that there's safeguards that's in there to provide–and there is for recourse for people that, if information is shared inappropriately, that can be done. Education and training is key to this. There is a bit of discretion between having–giving professionals the right of passage in terms of making professional decisions on things.
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Will there be a central record kept of privacy breaches in order to ensure the children's information is properly handled in the future?
Mr. Fielding: Great question. There is–through regulation, there will be an ability to provide information on retention, any information that is stored that's a part of it. We see that as a regulatory piece that obviously will be a part of the legislation going forth. So absolutely that's important and that will be part of the regulation to follow the legislation that's a part of it.
Mr. Lindsey: Will the government commit to ensuring that any agency which handles sensitive information regarding children be subject to the relevant provincial privacy legislation?
Mr. Fielding: Again, in terms of ensuring–I think where the member's going is ensuring that a proper information is shared, there is professional standards that are there. If there's agencies and organizations that don't fall under FIPPA or PHIA, that's a part of it. What the Ombudsman has advised us to do is ensure that through the special purchasing agreement with these organizations and agencies, safeguards are built in. Education and training, of course, would be a key component to this. And as mentioned, for other groups and agencies that fall outside of FIPPA, we control the licensing for things like foster care, for things like early learning and child care. We believe that there's safeguards built in. That's information–that's a suggestion from the Ombudsman that we built into the legislation.
Ms. Klassen: We've seen it recently, just now, in fact, wrong information being shared. I heard the First Minister say that there was no apology, but I heard through other sources that on Thursday, in fact, our colleague, the MLA for St. Johns had in fact apologized. I went directly to the source to confirm. This cannot–this might not be available to these organizations to just go directly to the other person and confirm. What happens if the information shared is wrong?
Thank you.
* (15:00)
Mr. Fielding: Well, first of all, we built into the legislation a little bit more safeguards than what the Alberta legislation had. Again, we ensured part of the legislation was that children's best interests information is only shared. Also, a minimum amount of information is shared for purposes of planning for the children's future, also that no further information is distributed that jeopardizes, that goes beyond the safe and well-being of the individuals that's a part of it.
So we think that there is safeguards. That's built into the sharing piece of it. As mentioned, education and training is going to be key to this. You have to have some professional opinions. I will give you one example. A foster care provider would–going to a doctor would have an ability to say we think that, you know, our child suffers from–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Kinew: In a previous question, I asked about individual education plans, and the minister tabled this document, but there is no mention of individual education plans in the letter from the school boards. So can the minister explain to us why he tabled this in response to a question about individual education plans, as it doesn't appear to be germane.
Mr. Fielding: Yes. The reason why I tabled this is that the people that are in the school system that know it best, the people that are elected, the school board trustees, without prompting from us, came and endorsed the legislation. They feel so powerful of this legislation, the fact that you can break down silos, you're able to have information being shared, silos are broken down, that they truly believe that this is the best course and will provide, you know, early intervention and prevention in terms of a better way. So the reason why I tabled this is to show that there's broad base of support within the education community. The trustees are supporting this with their letter of endorsement.
Mr. Kinew: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I'd also like to thank the minister for acknowledging that the letter he tabled is not germane to the question that was asked of him.
The Manitoba School Boards Association cites the rationale for their support of this bill as being real instances of child abuse or neglect. However, children with individualized education plans are children who may have problems with reading or problems with numeracy. So I would like to ask, with that information as background, whether the minister would consider amendments to the bill that would remove that provision.
Mr. Fielding: You know, I said right from the beginning that we're always interested in tweaks to the bill. I mean, the overall premise of it, pretty straightforward from the Hughes inquiry, the talk about information sharing, Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. If there's an ability to make this bill even stronger that will allow people to support it, absolutely we'll look at it. There's obviously going to be some public hearings that will happen fairly soon on this, so there is absolutely an ability to make some amendments to make the bill even stronger.
Madam Speaker: The time for this question period has ended.
Madam Speaker: The floor is open for debate.
Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas): As the minister across reminded me of my education I received at the University of Manitoba in regards studying the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and the TRC recommendations, it reminded me of how we've come a long way in regards to our recommendations finally being realized in today's society.
With that, it also feeds on my personal experience that I'm going through right now and probably for the rest of my life through my grandchildren as well is that I'm a foster parent myself. I'm raising four girls: one daughter, three nieces. They're all sisters. I became a foster parent in order for them to come home from Winnipeg and live with me in my hometown community of The Pas, OCN.
So with that, I have a lot of experience in dealing with our service providers. This bill uses the term service provider to describe those organizations and others who are authorized to share information. Government departments are included as are Child and Family Services agencies and authorities, schools, police and others who receive government funding to provide services to supported children.
Madam Speaker, I have–currently in my household I have three daughters who do receive support from these agencies. But the thing is, as I attend our Kelsey School Division meetings, one of the concerns that came up with them in regards to be categorized as a service provider is lack of resources. The concern I heard from our teachers within our school division is that the role of teacher has expanded even to a mental health worker or to a–even a social worker if–at times, if you will.
So, with that–with–my concern is with this bill, how would this be promoted, educated within our school divisions that will also include the families, including myself, because I am affected by these service providers within my family.
And also, too, with the customary care as well, that was something that I was truly excited for. When we were the former government, I had hopes and dreams that this would be implemented within our indigenous communities for many, many, many reasons. I come from three generations of residential school survivors, and a lot of the recommendations coming from the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that I can relate to almost single–every one of them, being an indigenous person coming from these generations. And I, too, at one time in my lifetime, I was placed in foster care for a moment. And so I can relate. My mother was a foster mother herself, and so, if you will, I'm following my dad's footsteps and my late mom's footsteps as well in regard to foster care.
So with customary care, I find that's kind of being hidden, disappearing within our reach for indigenous communities. I find that it's important that we should concentrate on customary care, especially with our indigenous communities, in order to follow through and truly honour the recommendations have come, especially from the three generations of women that I come from. And I'm certainly living with those intergenerational effects, and my mother's–my late mother's grandchildren, who I'm raising.
So, with that, you know, the previous NDP government was strengthing–strengthening the child-welfare system by introducing the customary care, a change for indigenous communities and families have been calling for, and we've listened. I could tell you for a fact that our CFS agencies within my own community have discussed and came together as a group with our elders to discuss the importance of customary care. And this would allow our indigenous communities to provide care for our own children, with more children staying in the communities they grew up in. Again, Madam Speaker, my three nieces are within our community. I'm–I would be considered kinship, if you will. Kinship, customary care with indigenous communities go very well together.
And also, too, how would this educate our indigenous communities? Because I can tell you as an indigenous person, and I'm sure my colleague from Kewatinook can agree, that there's a stigma in regards to indigenous communities and social workers. In fact, I've showed up at homes mistaken as a social worker, and there's fear that comes within the families, thinking they're in trouble because just of that stigma. So, with that, how would this bill work with our communities to start realizing that these services, especially in the form of customary care, would benefit our communities?
Mr. Dennis Smook, Acting Speaker, in the Chair
Now, as a parent, I'm concerned that the definition who counts as a supported child is too broad. This legislation would include children who currently have or are even just eligible for an individual education plan. Hundreds of children in Manitoba have EIPs but aren't necessarily in care. Students who have attention deficit disorders have EIPs. Students with disabilities have EIPs. Students who have exhibited behavioural difficulties have EIP–sorry, IEPs. Sorry. I want that corrected, please. We are concerned the information of these students will be shared with no benefit to them and that they or their parents may not even know that the information is being shared. So, again, that's my concern as a parent.
Also, too, there's no mechanism in place for parent, guardian to argue that a disclosure in information was not necessary. Again, as a parent, that is a concern of mine, especially when I have three children in care. Indeed, the parents may not be informed that their child's information was shared. But if a family is receiving support for domestic violence, then a child's information may be shared without their parents' knowledge. This may be inappropriate and not a proper use of information sharing. This is another reason why the definition of supported child is too broad.
* (15:10)
And other concerns about consultation with this bill is that it seems to have been copied from a piece of legislation in Alberta which received much in the way of criticism. We are concerned that there is not much consultation with Manitoba stakeholders when this bill was prepared. Also, too, discerns about–with discretion. As the Children's Advocate noted, children and families receiving Child and Family Services include some of the most vulnerable and marginalized citizens of–in this province. This act provides a great deal of discretion to service providers who may share very personal information, including views, opinions about children and their legal guardians such as myself. This was in the Winnipeg Free Press, dated June 17, 2016.
So, with that, there is little way of guidance to avoid improper use of discretion of–on the part of the service providers, nor it is clear that the remedial action would be taken if a service provider did improperly share information. There is no guarantee of informed consent on the part of children or guardians regarding the sharing of information.
So, with that, as a legal guardian and as a parent, I'm concerned about the consultation regarding this bill. And I just want to make sure that questions from my behalf, such as did the minister not provide more time for consultation with the Children's Advocate. Will the minister ensure that education regarding the importance of privacy will be communicated not only to government departments but also to non‑profit agencies that provide important services to children? And, lastly, will there be a central record of kept privacy breaches in order to ensure that children's information is properly handled in the future?
Thank you very much.
Mr. Nic Curry (Kildonan): It's a pleasure to speak on behalf of this bill. Like to thank my colleague, the minister for family services, who some people say that we look alike, as if the older brother speaks first and the younger brother speaks separate. As many members can see, I am not wearing glasses, and the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Fielding) often does wear glasses. We are not that look-alike.
But it's an important bill that we're here on the table today speaking about. Something that a lot of people came to me, again, during our recent election–a very good friend of mine is an educator for many years. He's an educator in Portage la Prairie. And some may–people might have guessed I also know him from my regiment, the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada. And on one of our many convoy trips from CFB Shilo, near Brandon, to Winnipeg, I happened to be seated with him. We drive in pairs. And on those two-hour drives, you spend a lot of time talking.
And, sure enough, this was when I was getting involved in politics, and I told him, well, you know, I'm going to run for election, and he looked at me and said, buddy, we've got to get something working on with CFS. Things are not going well. This friend is one of my many friends who tore aside political affiliations; he may have supported the NDP in the past, but this time he fervently was in support of myself. And the important thing that he noticed right away–and when we run in elections, people come from every direction with many of their concerns; some might say that there really isn't a wind that won't blow a new concern in.
But this one struck home because we had such a long time to talk about the issues that he had seen as an educator in Portage la Prairie, that there are many children of disadvantaged backgrounds, many children who came from northern reserves who would be placed in foster care in Portage la Prairie, and there was a breakdown in communication between himself and workers with CFS. This is something that was not uncommon, and the way he expressed the emotion, as a young educator–he's just a few years younger than myself, so still in his 20s–that he, before his first child was born, would see the burden placed on his colleagues in the education field, on his teacher assistants, on himself as an educator, that these children would come to school with either no food, they'd have issues with their hygiene, their deportment, where the teachers would know something was up, is what he would say. He just repeatedly would tell us, tell me, that is, that something wasn't going right in this kid's home.
And as we know, any of us who've, of course, gone to school and maybe perhaps even have worked through education–myself as an instructor, through the Canadian Armed Forces, we could just tell when we'd have a student not performing well and there was something at home. I myself would have a student–well, a candidate–their family was leaving, and this is something where it broke the person down emotionally. They had lived away from their parents for a few years but their parents were leaving the province.
Immediately what I did is I communicated with my superiors, communicated with our training school administrators, and we found ways to help this candidate cope with this change. In fact, the easy solution was simply that they had had time taken away on one training weekend and then we provided the training on alternative days.
This was an easy fix in the military. We communicate about problems we have. There are many layers. One might argue that there's no other bureaucracy that can find more paperwork than the Canadian Armed Forces, but this is something where my friend, who is a teacher and a soldier–the contrast that he would have when working with CFS members, quite different from Canadian bureaucracy–Canadian Forces bureaucracy.
Something where we often may disparage in the military until you finally get some bureaucratic problems that affect a young child's life where sometimes he would have CFS workers tell him that, unfortunately, the child doesn't sound like they're abused enough yet, and something where the CFS worker could not come to the school because of scheduling, because of whatever.
There were always some problems that the teachers in my friend's school would have, where they're there only so much of this child's day. Sometimes it feels as if your entire life revolves around school, but in fact, a lot of your life revolves outside of school. And if you do not have those supports at home–and especially if you're in, say, a foster home, if you're moving between homes as often children under CFS care do, then your education lacks. This is what teachers–not just my friend and a nice personal story where it's demonstrated and almost–not to tears, but as a friend where we've, you know, been able to have harsh conditions hit at us during training; we've been able to go without sleep, go without seeing our family when we were floodfighting in 2011.
But this–telling the story shook him. It caused an emotional outbreak to my friend where–I've known him since we were polishing boots on basic, and this is maybe the most vulnerable I've seen him, because he saw when a bureaucratic system affects our most vulnerable. And that system unfortunately is in dire need of repair. Something where I'm very confident that this is a bill where it's the beginning.
When we talk about what we're trying to do in our government, this is something that came up in the first 100 days of our mandate. We knew right away that finding better ways to protect for children who are most vulnerable is an essential part of why we're going to show the tempo of our new government, why we're going to try to bring change forward for people who are most vulnerable.
Of course children are the ones that sometimes have the least voice in our society. As someone who studied history, we often talk about the forgotten people in history. For many years, women were absent from history in the respects that many historians were men, and we often only study, as it's called, great men history, and a great revolution happened when the idea of studying women came forward in the field of history. It was wonderful. Myself, I was quite passionate. The idea of small business owners of women who revolutionized things.
But also who are absent from history are children, because often children, say, do not write things down. Sometimes they're spoken for by guardians, and sometimes, simply, they lose their lives too early to be able to have a lasting impact on the ability to talk to someone. And it's this frustration where often children in care of CFS do not have that voice. Perhaps it's not going to be solved immediately in the near future. Perhaps children will still remain unheard.
However, this is legislation which will allow people to better communicate how children's voices, if sometimes spoken only by a look in their eye when they go to their teacher, that look that a teacher knows something isn't right at home; something is up. As my friend would say, something's up buddy; something's up. And we know that better communication for people who provide, say, services for placement in foster homes, who provide services in monitoring care in those homes, provide the services of working with children who have suffered deepest traumas.
* (15:20)
Unfortunately, our society maybe can see these children go through perhaps sometimes the worst of our society, and they are cared for by workers who work diligently. However, sometimes these workers cannot work with some of our other great, you know, social beacons of society and our educators, the people who sometimes we feel are our second sets of parents in some ways. It's our teachers. And this is a frustration amongst all sides. Everyone is uncomfortable with how the lack of an effective means of communication affects so many people across so many lines of our bureaucracy in our society. A frustration that with work, and we are looking forward to work with this in the matter of this bill, will be affected.
One thing in particular that always is necessary is to hear from people who've been in CFS care. Again, to perhaps no surprise, my colleagues in this Chamber, a friend of mine from my regiment, was a foster child. He is someone who went through the system and with great happiness. He had a lovely foster family that cared for him deeply. He was able to find his birth family. He was able to have a reunion with many members where he was not able to see, because he was removed from his home and luckily, he was able to find some family members from his birth parents where they had a small business and he always spoke well of working with his uncle in his small business and often at times where he wasn't working through the military.
And one thing, when–on the campaign, we talked about pleasures we're looking forward to, and on the many nights we'd be out walking the streets, of course, my friends who would help me campaigning often had the most access to me, even more so, maybe sometimes my own constituents because we would spend so many hours walking the streets. And there was one time he looked down at–of course, the material we're handing out and just remarked, hey Nic, what is this? You know, greater transparency you guys are talking about, what is this open government? Like, really, what are you guys getting down to? I mean, there's some details here and there, but, you know, what are you talking about? And I mentioned a few things, and when I struck upon the idea that we need better communication for CFS workers and other bureaucracies, he stopped me, we were walking, and he stopped me. He's like, you mean that isn't fixed yet? And I said, no, well, what do you mean it isn't fixed yet? Like, and this is a person who–he's always expressed to me–he had a great experience with his foster family, but he was happy when he found his birth family. And you share stories when you're in close contact, when you're in a, you know, trench or a tent, or whatever, when you're working on a campaign.
But this is a man now who–he saw first and foremost, the problems that were happening in some of the child care that we have here in Manitoba. He is someone where, he told me, that he'd always saw a breakdown where he would communicate things to, say, his foster family, and then for whatever reason, that information would not find its way to schools. Let's say they had a–you know, missed something, and for some reason, information would get stalled at the CFS level. Say we'd go up the chain, as we say in the military, and wouldn't come down.
And this is a frustration where–not an emotional attachment; he just commented like, oh, I thought they would have fixed that years ago. Why is it that there are barriers to sharing information for the better safety and protection of children under the care of our government? One might imagine, children who are the most vulnerable that we can ever conceive in our society, ones that are–need the most focus for care in our society. Why is it that they can't have their needs and concerns met to better satisfaction? Why isn't that done yet?
We joke a lot about things here and there, but communication is the most important thing we can have in our society. Some people say the first invention mankind ever made was communication, was being able to express a thought; feel whatever noise or hand gesture to a fellow person. And this is the first invention, the first thing that we ever did, was to be able to communicate. However, in our modern society, we sometimes feel that we have too much information bombarding us from every area.
Children, of course, under CFS care, sometimes the most vulnerable to bullying both in their schools and online. We have this endless piece of information through the Internet where every thought, every idea can be transcribed into the palm of your hand via whatever technology of the day, whether it be phones, tablets, laptops. But at the same time, when we live in this era of ultra-communication through the fastest methods possible, somehow our bureaucracies still move a bit slower with the times. Sometimes this is good; sometimes we want change to be methodical.
In our own democracy, we have checks and balances where things do not happen instantaneously as if in feudal times where the whims of one person would decide the fates of all. We have a necessary need to slow certain processes to be thorough. Bureaucratic redundancy has–is not an accident; it has a purpose. But that does not necessarily mean that it cannot be changed, it cannot be repaired. I think the most valuable thing we can do as a government is find ways that–there's a constant need to check how our bureaucracy is doing. Our society in many respects needs a healthy and vibrant bureaucracy, and one that is hampered by a breakdown in communication just doesn't work.
When we talk about that, from my past profession in the military, you can't go two steps without being able to say something to someone else. We spent days, if not hours, practising how to communicate with each other. We spent days and months after events to communicate what went well, what went wrong. And when I hear from teachers that they don't even have a five-minute sit-down with a CFS worker about what went well and what went poorly with the handling of a child's case, I wonder what else are they doing for that five minutes. Why couldn't they have done it? We're not talking about boardrooms; we're not talking about endless study after meeting, after a proposal here and there. We have many of those done.
We have many horrible situations that have happened in this province. The unfortunate matter of Phoenix Sinclair's death that shocked many people, that frustrated more, and galvanized, I think, a need to improve things. It reinvigorated many people, and something especially in this side of the aisle where we're dedicated that we cannot let that be the end of things. We have to continue to work forward on how we can make things better; better communication is a part of that.
When we have a situation where we cannot send things from one bureaucracy to the other, then how good can your bureaucracies be? You could have the greatest streamlined system of filing paperwork, of filing human resources development. You can find the best staff, the best CEOs, the best everything, and you can have the greatest police service; you can have the greatest child family services; you can have the greatest education system; and if none of them can speak the same language or read the same text, then how can they ever work together? And we essentially in some respects have a system such as that, as if one side is speaking one language and one side is working in hand language, in sign language. This is uncomfortable for many. Many people, say, would give up on this issue; many people would say you're never going to be able to work it out between these groups. Why even bother trying to fix our bureaucracies?
Well, this is what happened on April the 19th. We were told by a lot of people: Can you guys get to work and start fixing things? The common refrain we constantly heard: Start fixing it. And to my friends in the education system, my friends who have been through Child and Family Services who ask: Is that not done yet? Or, you know, what's up, there's something up, there's something up.
I can say with sincerity that this is a wonderful first step; it is not the last step, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is something that, along with my colleagues here, along with the minister for family services, we are going to work tirelessly to continue to communicate with our friends in education, with our friends in Child and Family Services, our friends in various policing agencies; we're going to work with them.
We're going to work with all of them because we are bringing everyone to the table to find out how we can get things on track, how we can get things better, how we can make our province the most improved province in Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): My niece, Maddy [phonetic], could only speak about the abuse she and her infant brother endured after a year and a half of living with her foster parents. She had to wait until she was 12 to get access to the advocate. What about younger ones? These children unfortunately are wise beyond their years. I have a girl, the same age as Maddy [phonetic], but Maddy [phonetic] knows far more than any child should at her age. This is what happens to our CFS children.
The MLA for The Pas is correct. As an indigenous person we're engrained to fear authority figures such as the police, the RCMP, or any other type of agency.
In very small communities of less than 500 members, the sharing of information should be greatly considered because as in any community, there might be strife among families. And so, if one family happens to hold all the political will, the political strength, the other family may be unfairly disadvantaged. I need to caution this disclosure as we don't want fishing expeditions that has the goal of willingly trying to discredit parents.
* (15:30)
We heard–I had mentioned a couple of cases where some people were unfairly victimized as a result of sharing information. There was another woman who we know of that had misinformation on her file for a mental health issue. It was incorrectly put on her file and it took the–for her to use the courts to gain access to her children once again. And that story can be repeated several times in my own riding. Unfortunately, there are not many people that know that they have the right to access courts, never mind trying to pay for all those fees.
I just also wanted to mention that this is a good step. I'm very grateful that this government recognizes that there needs to be change to the system, and I appreciate them bringing this bill forward. I see it as a great step, but I am also waiting for committees to happen so that we are opening this up to more public consultations.
I am convinced that this bill is critical for the protection of our children and we don't want to make this a political issue.
Thank you.
Mr. Scott Johnston (St. James): First and foremost, let me indicate that I hope that you and your family had a very enjoyable Thanksgiving, Madam Speaker, as well as the rest of the members in the House.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to Bill 8, the protection children information sharing act. It is truly a privilege to stand here before my honourable colleagues to speak to this bill. My compliments to the minister for bringing forward such important legislation.
Bill 8, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act, represents a significant shift in how we support child-serving professionals in their efforts to provide critical services to Manitoba children. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 8 authorizes organizations and others who provide services to at-risk and vulnerable children to collect, use and disclose personal information or personal health information about these children. Bill 8 would apply not only to children in care of Child and Family Services or those involved in criminal justice system, but also to those who require disability services, mental health services, addiction services, victim services and to school children with special needs who require an individual education plan.
Over the years, we have seen tragic consequences that arise when we fail to intervene early and effectively to protect endangered children. We have reviewed numerous pivotal 'resports'–reports, including recommendations by Commissioner Ted Hughes following the commission of inquiry into the death of Phoenix Sinclair. These reports have report–repeatedly called for greater information sharing and collaboration in the provisional–provision of services to children.
Programs and services for children are most effective when they are provided through a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach. As communities, we must work together to provide services and supports that are responsive to the needs of our children, our most vulnerable children. Children who are in danger of falling through the cracks of the existing system will benefit from a change in legislation. Bill 8 will assist the hard‑working professionals and service providers who work diligently to ensure that our children receive the support services they need and enhance their protection.
The members opposite had 17 years to bring forward more effective legislation for children protection and did not. Our government has begun to work hard, required to repair the damage, correct the course and to move toward balance in a sustainable way. We are focused on fixing the finances, repairing our services and rebuilding our economy.
Bill 8 is legislation that allows service providers such as those with Child and Family Services, police and schools, to better share information when it is in the best interests of the child.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am happy to put on record that the minister responsible for this portfolio understands the significant task he's been given and is more than capable of facing these head on.
In sitting with the Minister of Families (Mr. Fielding), it is clear he is committed to the tasks he's been assigned. I have known the minister for many years, and I am proud of him as a new Progressive Conservative government's minister responsible for the safety of our children.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the minister has always been a hard work–hard worker and a community-minded individual. He has demonstrated many admirable character traits as a former councillor in the City of Winnipeg. In short, our minister has a long track record of exceptional commitment to the goals and delivery of service and promises to the community.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 8 is an election pledge by our PC team made to the children of this province. It's part of a better plan for our Manitoba. Bill 8 realizes a promise made by our government to introduce legislation within the first hundred days of being in office and will allow service providers to share critical information about our children. It will authorize organizations and others who provide services to children to collect, use and disclose personal information and personal health information about them.
Bill 8 allows information to be shared about our children who receive vital government supports. Supporting children include–supporting children in care who are receiving voluntary child and family services, schoolchildren who need an additional education plan, children who require disability services, mental health services, addiction services or victim support services, and children involved in the youth criminal justice system.
Bill 8 also allows information to be disclosed about their parents or guardians if the disclosure is required to provide or plan services for the child, and if it is in the child's best interest to share that information. That's fundamental to this legislation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, elections are about making promises, but good government is about keeping those promises. Part of my election pledge to the residents of St. James was a promise to keep the commitments I made on the campaign trail. I am proud to support Bill 8 because we have a responsibility to see our election promises through and to make good on our election promises.
This represents a commitment to the–to further and address the security of our children. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 8 is fundamental to what we do as elected representatives. Society needs to be safe, and society demands government protects its children, particularly its most vulnerable.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, during my 26 years as a school trustee, I've spoken to many teachers, principals, superintendents and other trustees who support these initiatives, people who feel sometimes their hands were tied. I support these initiatives because it's the right thing to do.
The minister indicated that Manitoba Association of School Trustees support this legislation, and these are the people that deal with kids; they know kids and they understand the principle of this legislation.
Parents–you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, parents, when you're chatting with parent councils, when you're chatting with parents on the playground, et cetera, they understand the principles of protecting the security of our children, especially the most vulnerable. Sometimes they're appalled at the fact that the system can't do more because their hands are tied. This is a step to untying hands.
* (15:40)
Real problems grow in the absence of real solutions, real leadership and real accountability. Manitobans endured no solutions and no accountability under 17 years of the previous government. The fact of the matter, quite simply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the previous government refused to make the tough decision necessary in this area. We will.
Manitoba held the title of having the highest rate of kids in care in Canada with a rate of almost double the nearest province. Previous governments failed to make changes when those changes needed to be made. According to Stats Canada, 2.5 per cent of kids under the age of 14 are in the foster system in Manitoba, the highest proportion in Canada and nearly double the next highest province. Seventy-six children died in care of the child-welfare system or while involved in CFS between 2009 and 2013. Eleven of those children tragically died as a result of suicide. And I don't believe that any of the members opposite and in the previous government in any way, shape or form wanted to see that. But the reality is, the system let the children down, and that has to be corrected.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, 44.3 per cent of all food bank users are children. Quite frankly, this trend is unacceptable. Our government was elected with the largest majority in 100 years with a clear mandate from the people of this province to do better and to be the most improved province by the end of the first term. And we are committed to that, and this is an example of legislation where we are trying to achieve those goals. Bill 8 is a step in the right direction, and it is a step of ending the–of ending a dysfunctional trend in the province we have been experiencing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the task of most improved province won't be an easy one. However, we have a duty to ensure we as the–we as a province don't step backwards. Our government is going forward. Our government will not shirk its responsibility to consider all aspects of child safety by enhancing communication between government agencies and increase service in the best interests of the at-risk children of our province. Everyone has to be involved in helping address society problems that affect the most vulnerable.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we value Manitoba's privacy legislation. We also recognize we must allow for greater information sharing when it is guided for what–by what is right for the child. We will consult with stakeholders to get their feedback on the development of policies, procedures and protocols that are vital to the successful implementation of this new law. We will work with our community partners, with front-line workers, to ensure that they have the knowledge and expertise required to implement appropriate information-sharing practices in this–in their work to support children across Manitoba.
I look forward to the collaborative work that will be undertaken to develop consistent, clear and guided information-sharing practices across sections that provide vital services to our vulnerable children. This bill responds to the key recommendation made by Commissioner Ted Hughes. It also demonstrates a commitment to strengthening supports for Manitoba children.
We are pleased to be taking the first step in moving towards a system that works together to better protect our children. Protecting at-risk youth and bringing their offenders to justice is something our government is also committed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to put on record our Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) addresses those needs head on. In our first 100 days in office, our Justice Minister has handled some of our–excuse me–new government's toughest files. We are all in good hands as the Justice Minister works with the department of family services to enhance the security of our province's most vulnerable.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I mentioned before, our new Progressive Conservative government is committed to being the most improved province in the country. We are proactive rather than reactive. This means a major change for Manitobans. We are taking a proactive approach. We have to–we have more work to do, but I am confident that The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act will allow us to start down the right road together.
Our new Progressive Conservative government has consulted with the Ombudsman, the Children's Advocate, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the General Authority, the Metis authority and many others.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, every member of our new Progressive Conservative government now use the privacy principle that individuals should be informed when service providers intend to disclose their personal information.
With that, I'd like to formally conclude, and I thank you.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I want to put a few comments on the record here.
There tends to be an assumption that information that is in the record, whether it's Child and Family Services or whether it's in the health record or whether it's in another record on another service, is, No. 1, accurate and, No. 2, balanced. And sadly, I have seen too many cases where I have pretty good evidence that the information was not accurate, and certainly, I have seen instances where the information was not balanced. In fact, I think that's a major problem.
First of all, from the accuracy of the information, the problem is if that information is not accurate, you can do a tremendous amount of damage.
I know of a woman who was in hospital who was breastfeeding who, on day four, had her child taken away from her by Child and Family Services in error, and it took weeks for that error to be proved and accepted in court that that child should never have been taken away in the first place. There was a lot of damage done; fortunately, in that instance, the woman had a good lawyer and managed to have the error corrected and have her child returned to her.
But I suspect, sadly, that there are other instances where that doesn't happen, where you don't have as good a lawyer, where you have circumstances–particularly vulnerable parents where they don't have the resources, the ability to counteract what is wrong information being put on the record.
Second problem is balance in information. I have seen on numerous occasions records which highlight the problems with the family, go down the list of issues that there have been in the family but never talk about the strengths of the family. And that becomes a big problem, because if you don't have a balanced record which talks about not only the weaknesses in the family but the strengths, you don't have an accurate picture.
There is from approaches, which have been developed, for example, in Australia, called Signs of Safety which have been adopted but not as well used here by agencies and authorities, that you are to build on the strengths of the family if you're to have the best success.
* (15:50)
It is not just about tearing apart and exposing the weaknesses of the family and taking the child away. It is building upon the strengths of the family so that you can find in the signs-of-safety approach a way to keep the child safe with the family by building on those families' strengths, and sometimes it's an extended family as they tend to emphasize in New Zealand. And so it is fundamentally really important that if there is information, that it not only be that information about weakness and problems but it be information about strengths.
Now, in theory and in general, when health practitioners–and being a physician I can talk to this–we go through a list of history and physical and try to document what is going well as what is a problem, right? Because if you only see the problem, you don't have the ability to build on the strengths. You have much less ability to keep families together instead of having them torn apart.
And this combination of sometimes having wrong information and of building and understanding the strengths of the family–I give you an example. A family that I worked with, the child in question was in high school. She said, I don't want to go home. And what happened was that the child was apprehended because it wasn't a question of abuse; it was a question that the family had said, well, you have some chores to do, this is a farm family, and this is a normal expectation.
Madam Speaker in the Chair
But because the child said, well, I don't want to go home, she was apprehended and taken into care. And part of the problem was that there was no look at the strengths of that family as well as what was perceived at that moment, from the statement of the child, to be the weakness in the family.
And so I worked with this family, and they were able to present–they had three other children. They'd done a remarkable job of raising these kids, two of whom had some behavioural issues, and it was possible to document the effort that they have taken, the remarkable job, the positive things, the strengths in this family, and they got their daughter back. Now, this is the sort of thing that has happened in the last 15 years, that a lot of children have been taken away too quickly without there being adequate checks and balances.
I tell you another story of a child, complicated, who was taken away from two parents, and the information, based on what happened subsequently and a good description and interview and understanding from the parents, the information was wrong. And before that child was returned to the father, what had happened was that the father and mother had broken up. There was a lot more damage caused to the child and tremendous amount of difficulties to the mother and the father.
And, again, it was not somebody who was a professional who was deliberately making this mistake. It was in this case a professional who I would regard as very knowledgeable and experienced. All of us make mistakes from time to time. None of us is perfect, and there needs to be ways to look at this information so we can be more sure that it is accurate and more sure that is balanced.
Now, in terms of one of the questions here, there are quite a number of circumstances this can happen in your health record, you have access to your personal health-care record within 24 hours now thanks to a bill that Manitobans, and an effort that Manitobans made to get that change. If you find something in your health record that is inaccurate, you can bring that up, and there's a good chance that you can either get it changed or put your comments or your view into that health-care record.
There needs to be an ability here, I would suggest, if you're collecting information on a family, and children, there's–should be an opportunity for the parents to review that information, and if they believe it's wrong, either that correction can be accepted and put into the record, or the parents' views shouldn't be put in the record as part of presenting a balanced record of what happened.
I worked with a family where there was a burn, and the question came down to whether this was the result of an accident or whether this was a deliberate abuse. And, in point of fact, there was a lot of good evidence on both sides, so I looked at the all the evidence from the various people. It seemed to me that the weight of that evidence was that there had been an accident and the child had upset a saucepan of boiling water, right, and it had caused the burn on her leg.
But, because the record was not balanced, because a decision was made to put into the record that this was child abuse, the child was taken away, and the family was put in a lot of turmoil–I don't need to go into that–but there was a lot of damage done over what probably was a mistake in judgment. Again, I don't think the health-care professional who made that call–actually in opposition to another health professional who was saying the opposite–that this was abuse, the health professional, I don't think it was an intent to do something that would cause damage; I think he was trying to help, you know. He was saying this in the best interests of the child, seeing this as child abuse when, in fact, the evidence, as I reviewed this in some detail, looked to me like it was probably an accident.
If we're going to have sharing, and I believe we need to, I think it will be healthy to have records more ready to be shared, but we need to take some steps, and they need to be in this legislation with amendments which will provide greater certainty that the information is accurate and that the information is balanced, because if we don't have that, this legislation could cause a lot of damage because you get wrong information used to make poor decisions and cause a lot of harm to families.
And the problem is that it is families who are less well off, it is families who are indigenous, families who are struggling, families who are having difficulty, families who are less able to defend themselves, who are disproportionately affected.
* (16:00)
Do you know that if you live in an area of Winnipeg where the average incomes are lower and compare that to an area of Winnipeg where the average incomes are higher, in the area of Winnipeg where your average incomes are lower, your child is 50 times–50 times–more likely to be apprehended and put in care than a child where the incomes in Winnipeg are higher. And I don't believe it's because the children in the areas where incomes are lower have less loving parents, have less–fewer parents who are trying hard. They may be dealing with more difficult circumstances, but it's a lot easier to have a child taken away in an area that's poor or a child that's disadvantaged where the parents can't defend themselves, for the family to be disrupted and for problems to result because there are mistakes or because a record is not balanced. And it is in those areas where it's harder to get the positive things put on the record.
So this concept of sharing is, yes, something that we need, but we need to make sure that we have figured out a way to make sure the information is accurate or–and balanced. Accurate to the extent that we can make it and is balanced that where there are differences of opinion, those are there. I think that what we need–and I–is the ability of when you're going to have information shared for there be an opportunity to that information to be accessible, in the case of Child and Family Services, to the parents, so that they can review it and, you know, they can dispute it, they can challenge it, and they can have their point of view put on the record if their view of it is not accepted.
We need to be able to support families. I think it's widely agreed we've got far too many kids in care. We need to be able to support families in a way that is going to mean that we're not taking so many kids into care. And we need to understand some of the reasons why kids are taking into care. And we need to be able to support families a whole lot better than we're doing now.
So we need to ask the question: If you're sharing information, who is giving permission for that sharing? How is that permission to be obtained? What is the possibility, and what is the mechanism that information–that if balancing can be put on the record and that information that can be mutually agreed on is wrong–can be corrected? This effort can do a lot of good, and people like Sheldon Kennedy have been at the forefront of advocating this sort of change, and bringing together in an integrated fashion different organizations, as has happened in Calgary, can be a part of providing a better answer for how we approach child and family services.
In Nelson House, for example, they have brought a whole series of organizations together: Child and Family Services, public health, counselling services which really deals with a lot of mental health issues but is broader, FASD, maternal and child health, child care and a number of others. And their goal is to build a circle of care around that family and that child. And they have strikingly been able to reduce the incidence of crime in the community by about 50 per cent from the discussions I've had, and they have been able to 'weduce' the incident–reduce the incidence of addictions in the community by about half. And that is from careful documented work done by the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy.
And so this approach of bringing organizations together is a useful one, and it can be of significant benefit. In Nelson House, the police are not part of this integrated organization, but the Child and Family Services works closely with the police in the community and make sure that things are done in a way that is supportive of families. You know, there is a big difference in how the children and the families in Nelson House are approached as a result of the integration of services. You have, as a result, I would call it, eyes on the community, because you've got all these organizations working together.
And so, as a group, they are early on able to see where there are problems in families. And they have changed from the–what happened before. The have changed from what happened before when Child and Family Services workers were alone in one organization; they didn't have much options if they saw a problem in the family but to go in and take the kids away.
And when they put these organizations together, the whole approach of the social worker–and I talked to one, Barb Moore [phonetic], and she told me, we used to go into a home where there was a problem with authority; we knew exactly what was wrong and we were going to take the child away and that was going to solve it.
She said, now what's happened is when there's a situation which arises and there's a concern with what's happening in the family, she said, I go in as a social worker and I say to the family, you know, I understand that there's been some problems here and I want to sit down with you so that we can work together in how we can use the combined resources and find a solution, solution that's going to be safe for the child and a solution which is going to be workable in terms of what's possible for the family. And a lot of time it is possible to keep the family together.
Sometimes, interestingly enough, you know, on a weekend, on a Saturday night, there would be a–parents, right, who've been drinking and who may have left a child alone at home, and this comes to the attention of Child and Family Services. Well, the old approach was to go in and yank the child. But now what they're doing is they go into the home and they say to the parents, you've been drinking, you're not fit right now to be looking after your kids, so we're going to put a worker, or a grandmother, somebody in the home, look after the kids, and you find somewhere else to stay until Monday morning. And then you come back Monday morning and we'll sit down and we'll talk over the situation and we'll see what we can do to resolve these issues and to deal with the problems. And sometimes it is something that can be worked out on a Monday and the parents can go back and be with their kids.
But sometimes what happens is that the issue needs a little bit more time, that the parents need a little bit more counselling. And so they will keep the parents out for a few days, or a week, or three weeks, or sometimes even four weeks and rarely longer. But in that time they're able to provide the help with the parents and find a way that they can get the support and that they can be back looking after their kids. Or sometimes you have extended family members ending up looking after the kids. But you've got a solution which doesn't always mean that you're bringing kids into care and you're increasing the number of kids in care.
* (16:10)
It is, where we can, and where we can do this safely, it's a lot better keeping the kids with the family or the extended family than taking into care, partly because as hard as, you know, we try as a province, when kids are taken into care, to make sure they're well looked after–and some find wonderful people, foster parents, who will do a phenomenal job.
But it is not a perfect system and there are times when foster parents abuse kids. There are times when there are problems, right, which, you know, result in the child being moved from one foster home to another, and you lose the attachment of a child to caregiver. And that becomes a real problem, because we know that where a child doesn't have that attachment to people who are parents or mentors, then that's a setup for that child getting into problems as they get into adolescence and for sometimes getting into the criminal justice system.
So there are clearly things that we can do. This bill can help, but we need to make sure that we are doing what we can to improve the accuracy of the information, to get parents' ability to see the information and provide comment if they believe it is wrong. We need to be able to be sure that that information is balanced, because the best in Child and Family Services care now looks at the–building on the strengths in the families and using that as a window to work and improve the situation.
There are–I think those aspects as I've covered them are important ones to consider as we move forward, because as much as this approach to bring organizations together to have an integrated service is a good one, and to share information, we need to have some care in the ability to make sure that the information is good information, is accurate information and is balanced information, or we can end up causing more problems than we're trying to solve.
So I speak to the minister and urge you, as we move forward with this legislation, to look at, you know, how we can ensure in a better way that there has been that accuracy in the balance so that we don't make–end up making more mistakes in some circumstances. We need to make sure that we're building on the strengths of families, we're doing the best we can for kids, but recognizing that a lot of the time when we're doing the best for kids is often doing the best for families as well.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Miigwech.
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Arthur-Virden): Madam Speaker, I hope everyone here had a nice Thanksgiving weekend. Hopefully, you had a restful weekend, because I know myself I decided to take my family out to Calgary, Alberta, and we found that the weather was not as co-operative as it here this fall, and so we had probably just as much bad weather driving this past weekend than I had all last winter because we had such a great winter here.
But I'm so honoured here to put a few words on the record here about this bill that my colleague the Minister of Families (Mr. Fielding) has presented to the Chamber.
Bill 8, the protection children information sharing act, represents a significant shift of how we support child serving professionals in their efforts to provide critical service to Manitoba children.
Over the years, we have been in tragic consequences with the rise when it failed to intervene early and effectively to protect endangered children. We have reviewed numerous pivotal reports including the recommendations made by Commissioner Ted Hughes following the commission of the inquiry of–into the death of Phoenix Sinclair. These pivotal reports have repeatedly called for greater information sharing in collaboration with the provision of services to children. And it's so important to share that information.
I'm a proponent for this bill here, Bill 8. I really believe that it's–any industry you're in, it's important to share information with your colleagues, say, if you're in a department, for instance, with the employees that are working on a case. I know myself when I came in from the financial world one of the biggest things I had to do as a financial planner is collect as much information on a family as possible in order for me to give the right recommendations and the right–to solve some of the issues that they were facing in a financial situation.
But with the situation, when it comes to children in care, much is the same when it comes to professionals who are working in the industry. It's so important that if information is brought, you know, it's in a file and someone's working on that case, it's probably important–very important that the information, if they're working with doctors or medical advisers, that this information gets shared. But also at the same time we have to respect the person's–The Privacy Act that we have to work with, and we've actually addressed that in this bill.
For so long, you know, for the 16 years this whole thing with Child and Family Services was in crisis and with this previous government with debt, decay and decline, one of the biggest departments in crisis was Child and Family Services at the time when they were in government, so many children in care.
We did a FIPPA report not that long ago when they–when we were in opposition, and over 10,000 kids were in care, and you can compare that to a province–our counterparts in Saskatchewan where I'm neighbouring with my constituency of Arthur-Virden, we have the same demographics as a province. We have major–well, they have a couple of major centres but we have one major centre, but they have a number of them throughout the province, but the demographics are basically the same.
You know, they have–the First Nation people they have the same amount of individuals as we do in our province, and the thing was in Saskatchewan their children in care were–was only 4,500, less than half were in child care–Child and Family Services in Saskatchewan. It shows that there was something that has been done wrong in the last 16 years.
And as myself experiencing with my communities–small-town communities, you know, we see different situations where, you know, foster parents come to me and they would like to share, you know, some of the positive things about children or, you know, maybe the parents that these children were coming from have also had problems with things.
Just like the member from River Heights had said, you know, we do share information, yes, it's–we share negative and positive information within the department, within professionals because, again, the more information you can make the better decisions we can–the department can make and make sure that these children can stay with their parents. And maybe the information that we can get based on the parents, maybe there's a little bit of help we can do.
Maybe we can do some assistance that would save a lot of money just like when we come to health care. If we can keep that patient in their own home, and we could give as much aids and stuff that helps that person to stay in their community in their own home. It's a lot cheaper in the long run when it comes to health-care costs, much like the child and family service cost, it's ballooning. In the last 16 years it's ballooned so much that it's one of the biggest departments when it comes to funding, and what we can see is that we want to see results.
With our government, you know, we took power back in April, and we want to do everything we can do to fix this whole situation. We have so many departments that we need to fix, and this is one of them that is in crisis.
And by the information and the–working with the professionals and showing that, hey, we're in the government of support, and also if we can actually keep less children in care that makes it–a world of difference when it comes to the total cost when it comes to supporting this–these initiatives.
Madam Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, 2.5 of kids under the age of 14 are in the foster system in Manitoba. The highest proportion in Canada, nearly double in the next highest province, 76 children died in care in the children welfare system or while involved with CFS from 2009 to 2013.
This is something that we need to address and we need to fix. Eleven of those children tragically died as a result of suicide. Again, if the proper information, the proper help was given to these children, we would–these children would be here today, and it's important that information gets circulated.
* (16:20)
The NDP took Manitoba's most vulnerable youth and often from isolated and northern reserves and placed them in unfamiliar urban hotels with the least unqualified staff. Under the NDP, 44.3 per cent of the food banks were–are used by children. Manitoba had the highest rates of children use of food banks than any province in Canada, 43 per cent, Madam Speaker, of the 61,000 people using food banks in Manitoba are children. The national average is 36 per cent. Under the NDP government, had the highest children poverty rate in Canada. And here we–we're here to make sure that we change that. We're going to be the most improved province in Canada. We're going to change those statistics and we're going to go forward on this with talented people like our Minister of Families (Mr. Fielding). He has a good handle on what we need to go forward here, and our Premier–prime–Premier (Mr. Pallister) also is important that what direction we want to go too.
And, Madam Speaker, you know, we want to make sure that this government has a vision, and the vision is to make sure that the more children are in their own homes, the more education that we provide for those children and the greater that–the workforce that we have and also the business world that these kids–children can educate themselves and become. And I believe that if we can improve all these departments when it comes to health care and–sorry. I'm–should know better.
And, like I said, I have an aunt who had–who looked after First Nations foster children, and over the years she had many kids going in and out of her home, and she was always there dedicated to help these children. And many of them, as the parents got on the right track, she–they were moved out of their home and she was ready–the children were ready to go back to their parents. And I believe that the information sharing, even from the foster parents to the department, a positive–like, with the member from River Heights has said, we have to also share the positive information as well as the negative information, because, again, at the same times, if that–some of that positive information is shared, with the negative information, we can then work on that and improve it so that these parents of these children can get those children back and be able to maintain a family unit.
And it's so important that we look at that direction and look at everything. We are–we, as a party, we are focused on fixing the finances, repairing our services and rebuilding the economy. I know there's a few other members of our side that want to give–also want to speak on this bill too, and I want to thank, Madam Speaker, for your time.
Ms. Janice Morley-Lecomte (Seine River): It is an honour and privilege to stand here before my honourable colleagues and speak to this bill. Bill 8, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act represents a significant move towards supporting professionals and service providers who provide services to at-risk and vulnerable children. The bill authorizes service providers who work in organizations inclusive to but not excluding government departments, Child and Family Service agencies and authorities, school, police and others who receive government funding to provide services to supported children.
Bill 8, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act, will support the needs of children who are supported by the aforementioned agencies. The ability to transfer information in an efficient and timely manner is very important to children, their families and supporting agencies. There is no support service, family member nor community resource in place which would not want a child to be safe. The fluidness of information sharing within relevant support services will ensure these children are receiving the best services available.
One can only look at their own family and network of friends to see the importance of information sharing, be it at more grassroots, yet nonetheless important, levels. Children in neighbourhoods have family and friends who watch out for the neighbouring children and friends of their own children. Social media offers families access to others within their community through group chats and information sharing with regards to activities, changes in the neighbourhood, upcoming events or the questionable activities of individuals foreign to the area.
People network to support each other, and in this network of public sharing, children are the most vulnerable and in most need of protection. It is everyone's responsibility to seek the safest supports and to ensure the child's home, play and learning environments are protected from individuals who could threaten their safety.
Over the years, society has heard of or learned about incidents in which failure to become involved or intervene to assist the youth in our community has ended in tragic consequences. Children have been left to defend for themselves, often at an early age, and all too often, the immediate circle of family and friends are unaware of the situations or living conditions inside the home. Children who live in an environment which includes addictions, opportunities for criminal acts and negligent caregivers are not being protected and are at the most risk of having an incident occur. Children are often too young to speak out and be validated for what they are seeing in their immediate living environment. Some children will see, hear and feel fear in their own home, incidents which put them in danger many times in their young lives.
As service providers, professionals in the community, it is imperative that we who are in the position to keep the children protected don't undermine nor downplay the impact or effect of these environments on the mental health and physical well-being of our youth. Poverty, poor housing conditions and the absence of resources and/or role models in the immediate home environment of these most vulnerable, our youth, can have a negative impact on the future of our youth. Who knows the truth to the activities and what is occurring in the home? Who can relate to what is happening in the immediate community? In most instances, it is the family and friends of the youth who have an idea of what may be occurring in the home. It is the same family and friends who are not feeling comfortable enough to approach service providers with information which would bring assistance to the family in question.
Families struggle for many reasons. It is through information sharing, service providers can begin to build a network or bridge between the community and service providers which removes the fear and isolation individuals experience and replace with the–or, sorry, replace the insecurities with direction and support. Supported individuals are more likely to bring incidents forward, knowing the support needed will be provided to the family. Support offered to the family works against the slow erosion of what remains of the family dynamics. Families see the positive interactions, support being offered and the networking which starts to strengthen the community, and fear and isolation start to be replaced with encouragement and support. It is the beginning of a community healing. It is the exchange of information between the many social services involved at all levels that the healing with continue and support the family as they are empowered, not enabled.
Community networking through the police, service providers and local stakeholders removes the gaps so the youth are seen and heard. Becoming visible makes children safer and less likely to be in a position where they could fall under the radar for assistance or help and, ultimately, through the cracks and possibly become lost, injured or worse. There are many community programs which offer supports to family and children through an educational format. Families learn to network with the resources. Through the network, there is a building of trust and respect. Both are key in providing families with the independence needed to ensure they are able to share, engage and have input into the direction for future programming.
The Manitoba Parent Zone offers programming for families with children of different ages. FASD family support, education and counselling and Healthy Baby are a few. Other community supports available to families include Youville Clinic, which offers assistance through Health.
* (16:30)
Family dynamics offers many outreach supports to communities through their resource centres, some of which are located within the community housing sites throughout the city. Klinic, which offers support through a one-on-one basis or through a province-wide phone number also supports these families. Programs offer families a non-intrusive, yet supportive venue to connect and seek support while removing the isolation and fear felt by some.
As with the previously mentioned agencies, Bill 8 will authorize organizations and others who provide services to children to collect, use and disclose personal information and personal health information. This flow of information will allow children who are receiving vital government supports to receive the best of the best with respect to resources available and family supports and education.
The removal of an independent and separate system of information in gathering resources–oops, sorry, gathering resources will create an open and inclusive approach to the much-needed information sharing which is critical in ensuring that all children are able to access the resources they need.
Children at risk of falling into the gaps and not getting the much-needed resources or supports available will be flagged through previous interactions within the social support services. The vulnerable children will be identified and the network of supports will connect to prevent any child from becoming invisible. Again, it is only the children who have been identified as needing supports; the children will have information shared or disclosed to other agencies if it is in the child's best interests which will ensure that the minimal amount of necessary information is disclosed and that only information necessary for the purpose of providing or planning services is disclosed.
Madam Speaker, this bill values individual privacy rights while recognizing that there are circumstances that warrant greater flexibility in terms of the ability of service providers to share key information about the children whom they work to support. Unfortunately, one does not have to venture too far to see how a lack of communication with respect to greater information sharing and collaboration failed.
The death of Phoenix Sinclair, a five-year-old girl, is one such example. Phoenix had spent much of her life in foster care or with family and/or friends before being returned into her mom's care. Phoenix died from the abuse she had received after being returned to her mom's care by her mother's partner. Reports have stated social workers were sometimes unaware of who was caring for Phoenix and that her mother had begun a relationship with a man who had a history of aggressive acts, domestic violence.
To quote Commission Counsel Sherri Walsh in her powerful opening statement: One of the central themes in this inquiry, quite plainly, she said, is to consider how it is that in our society, a small child can become so invisible to an entire community, one which includes social service agencies, schools, neighbours, friends and family; so invisible as to literally disappear. This statement in itself directs the need for a collaborative and multi-disciplinary approach, an approach which will ensure programs and services offered for children are most efficient and effective.
I ask, if it is not our responsibility to ensure safety measures are in place and all possible resources are utilized to ensure children's welfare, safety, their future is protected, who is responsible? There is a saying that it takes a community, a village, to raise a child. Let us begin to prove how strong and effective this village is in ensuring the youth the safety needed so they can grow up to become strong adults.
Going forward we must achieve an appropriate balance between privacy rights and the need to enable service providers to do their job with professional judgment while making decisions about sharing personal and personal health information. Furthermore, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act must be accompanied by a framework which outlines appropriate guidelines for sharing the information between the various social service providers. The framework will provide the professionals guidance in making their decisions while being in accordance with the legislation and respecting the rights of the individuals involved.
The success of the legislation will be as a result of consultations that will include stakeholders who will provide input on the development of the policies, procedures and protocols to be followed. The inclusion of community partners and front-line workers is required. The individuals who are working closely with the youth most affected by the new legislation will provide insight and knowledge through their work experiences in the community with the youth, their family and their friends. The expertise brought forth by the front-line workers will ensure all children across Manitoba are represented and supported.
I look forward to the collaboration between the front-line workers, stakeholders and all service providers. Working together will aid in developing the right legislation to put a balance between the privacy rights of clients while still enabling service providers when making their decisions on what personal information can be shared with other professionals.
The development of a consistent, clear and guided information-sharing practice will provide vital supports to vulnerable children. Through consultations with the Ombudsman, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the general authority and the Metis authority, we have begun the necessary steps needed to work together to better protect our children. It demonstrates our commitment to strengthening our supports to Manitoba's children.
Finally, this bill responds to recommendations made by Commissioner Ted Hughes; the inclusive information sharing with a defined framework will support the needs of all children who need our support.
I support this bill and the ability for service sectors to work together to support our youth.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Blair Yakimoski (Transcona): Madam Speaker, it is truly my privilege to stand here before my colleagues.
And I thank the Minister of Families (Mr. Fielding) for bringing forth this bill, Bill 8, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act.
I believe, moving forward, as recommended in the Hughes report, it's essential that services, support services that serve children in care communicate with each other and are able to communicate with each other on issues that relate to the safety of children. Over the years we've seen the tragic consequences that arise when we fail to intervene in children's lives, when we fail to step forward and protect those children.
This past weekend was Thanksgiving and, myself, I'm thankful for my life, my wife, my children, my country and the province I live in and serve. I'm also thankful for this job, this place where I–we–can strive to improve the lives of all and, hopefully, at this point, the children of Manitoba.
Thanksgiving dinner, with its turkey and its relaxing and visiting and caring and visiting with family, the love we share amongst our family, it's a part of our lives that we look forward to on several occasions throughout the year. I enjoyed it very much with my family, my wife's side and my side, getting together for dinners. But this wonderful weekend came to an abrupt end as work brought me back to reality. My life and my children's life have very little in common with the children in care, with the close to 11,000 children in care.
* (16:40)
But reading about the reasoning for Bill 8–again, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act–may not be pleasant reading. The Ted Hughes report, the 62 recommendations, help address what Mr. Hughes referred to as a national embarrassment.
We must refine our support and protection to children in care. We know that these children, more often than we care to admit it, end up on the mean streets of Winnipeg. We know that they may end up at Agape Table, those wonderful people that help there, or Siloam Mission or–Thanksgiving, so many of the different groups that reach out.
My personal connection is to a few groups in Transcona, and Transcona, even though it is the suburbs, is not immune to children in care and aspects of poverty. There is a group that I've often helped when I had my previous store, referred to as Gifts of Grace, which would often go and help those less fortunate; or Feed my Lambs, a woman, Hilde, who I know well, who would come see me regularly for either space to be making her sandwiches or the bread which I happily donated to feed people on the street; as well as Transcona Food Bank, which regularly is helping people there. We know that these children sometimes, often, end up on those streets.
Our child-welfare system is quite complex. It is challenging. It's historically painful and continues to be excruciating, hard on everybody.
Phoenix Victoria Hope Sinclair: This little girl, this precious angel, in her short, tragic life, is so intertwined with Child and Family Services, CFS, but may end up saving so many more children than we could imagine. I hope because of the tragedy of her life that some light may shine and some lives be saved.
But who hasn't seen the news stories? Children, families struggle. Workers have to navigate all sorts of bureaucratic political issues of trying to co‑ordinate with different departments, trying to get the information, try to work towards the best outcome for a child.
And we probably heard the stories of them being stymied. We know that we have 11,000–close to 11,000 children in care. We know that a lot of people like to criticize CFS. Some people think that perhaps they have nothing better to do with than come swooping in into someone's home and take their children. But that's not what they want to do.
We need to ensure the agencies can work together for the best interest of the children while protecting the privacy issues that may come up when children are at risk, perhaps even my children.
My kids have a right to privacy in their room. They have a right to their own mail, their own stuff. But when Mom and Dad feel that they've gone astray, Mom and Dad need to step forward. We need to do a little bit more research. We need to make sure that we're communicating on all levels with their siblings, perhaps, or their teachers, and all communicating for the best interest of that child.
There are so many issues contributing to the growing number of children in care, and hopefully sitting down between different agencies and talking, but we have to continue to talk and work towards resolving these issues. Obviously, we must consult and talk with the front-line workers that are stressed and overworked, we know; talk with the leaders in the communities, the Aboriginal communities, the northern communities, all of our communities. Talk with the families. We have to discuss with the children–the children who perhaps end up in the group homes or the shelters. We've heard stories of the previous government where children were shuttled from place to place.
I was fortunate when I was younger to have the time to coach soccer, and I had–even though I haven't had a lot of instance to connect with children who were in the care of child and family in my life, there was a young girl that I was able to coach. And this girl had been through a tragedy that many of us would find difficult to relate to.
One day, after a soccer game, when we were playing in North Kildonan, she came to us. And it was very strange, but she pointed over to the field, to the cemetery: That's where my parents are. This girl, I knew, was in foster care, and she was wonderful and bright, was able to play the piano and was a star player on our soccer team, but I knew that she had been to a few different foster homes. And I think of her now, and I hope that as we move forward, we can get this right; we can get the different departments working together to help her.
I also have other friends of mine that have several children that they take care of as foster parents, and we know the love that they have for those children. Those are their children. There are so many–the system is far from perfect, but for now it's necessary, and hopefully, we can improve on it.
There are many multi-problem families out there. Alcohol, perhaps drugs, mental health, or perhaps just lack of parenting knowledge, which you learn from your parents. We know some of the reasons for those, the residential schools. We know the list of contributing factors is long, with so many areas that need attention. Early intervention can be truly effective, even with high-risk families. The key is trust. Families and communities must have confidence to ask for help before situations deteriorate, and workers have no choice but to take kids into care.
Children need safe, lifelong caregivers to–and families to support them throughout their childhood years and beyond.
I hope that we can have safe birth or extended family members, adoptive families, guardianship applicants or someone who's willing to make a permanent lifetime commitment to support the well‑being of a child even after they leave foster care or care of child and family.
We, our new government, are committed to making Manitoba Canada's most improved province, making Manitoban families safer and stronger.
We wish to improve the lives of all Manitobans, and especially those most vulnerable. I look forward to the passage of The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act.
I am proud that our present new Progressive Conservative government is fulfilling a campaign promise and moving forward and protecting Manitoba's children in care.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader.
* (16:50)
Hon. Andrew Micklefield (Government House Leader): I'd like to have a recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: I must first ask the question.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 8, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Micklefield: I'd like to have a recorded vote, please.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
The question before the House is second reading Bill 8, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allum, Altemeyer, Bindle, Chief, Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Kinew, Klassen, Lagimodiere, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Martin, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Piwniuk, Reyes, Saran, Schuler, Selinger, Smith, Swan, Teitsma, Wharton, Wiebe, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): Yeas 44, Nays 0.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The hour being 5 p.m., the House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
CONTENTS