Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second readings, Bill 4 (The Child and Family Services Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille et modifications corrélatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), standing in the name, firstly, of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave? [agreed]
Secondly, standing in the name of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) who has 36 minutes remaining. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave? [agreed]
Thirdly, standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to conclude my remarks on Bill 4, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act, as it relates to the office and duties of the Children's Advocate. I spoke last week about the concerns that we have with some of the provisions in the legislation, that while they move forward, may not move forward far enough. Although we do appreciate the legislation being changed to acknowledge the unanimous recommendations of everyone who has spoken on the idea of the Children's Advocate since its inception here in Manitoba, and that is that the Children's Advocate report to the Legislature rather than to the minister directly. We applaud the government for that change. We think it will be a very positive move and one that the Children's Advocate has recommended as well.
There are, however, some other concerns that we have with this legislation, and we hope that in discussion in committee perhaps we can come to some agreement with the government on some changes. The Children's Advocate has, under this legislation, the authority to investigate, review and report on any matter given to it by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections that relates to children under The Child and Family Services Act. Now we have said in the House in debate under the original legislation and are saying here today, as well as the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) having said, we think it is very essential for the Children's Advocate to have as broad as possible a mandate in order to effectively deal with the issues that face children in Manitoba. The element of this bill that continues to allow it only to deal with issues that are raised that deal with services provided to children under The Child and Family Services Act does not go nearly far enough.
Madam Speaker, these are not just our concerns that are raised on this issue. Our voices are raised in chorus with hundreds of other people and many organizations in the province of Manitoba and frankly throughout the world when it comes to dealing with issues concerning children. It is kind of interesting because the government itself in a way recognizes this when it has brought into being the Children and Youth Secretariat, when it has a number of ministries, a number of government departments that respond to and report to the Children and Youth Secretariat or that deal with the Children and Youth Secretariat.
* (1450)
There is a recognition on the part of the government that children and youth have issues that range across the spectrum. They have family services issues, definitely, but not every child that has a problem in this province is under the purview of The Child and Family Services Act. If that were the case the Child and Family Services budget for the province of Manitoba would have to be quadrupled if not increased 10 times, because there are many children in this province, in every single section of this province who have problems that should be addressed by the Children's Advocate. Many organizations throughout the province have said that. As I have said, the government has in a way understood this concept by the creation of the Children and Youth Secretariat, although in the implementation of what the Children and Youth Secretariat is actually doing, I think the government is falling far short of the potential.
So we suggest very strongly that the Children's Advocate, in the course of his or her investigative and preventive work, which, we hope, is a major part of his or her job, investigating issues and preventing their recurrence, can and must review the responses of government and agencies to recommendations in reports such as the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, the Health of Manitoba Children, and the Children and Youth Secretariat reports. It is essential that the Children's Advocate be able to respond as broadly as possible to the issues that face children, and there are many. These reports are only three of many that this government has.
One could suggest that the children-at-risk report that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) is currently dealing or not dealing with has in it elements that the Children's Advocate should be looking at, issues that affect many children throughout the province, children who never have and never will be under the purview of Child and Family Services.
I think we do children in this province a major disservice when we say that only issues arising as a result of services provided by Child and Family Services agencies are worthy of or can be addressed by the Children's Advocate. We do a huge disservice, because the vast majority of the children in this province do not come under Child and Family Services. We should be working towards reducing the number of children that come into care. One of the best ways we can do that is to actually put forward programs and policies that implement some of the recommendations out of a number of reports that this government has.
One of the best ways to do that is to enable and require of the Children's Advocate that he or she respond to those recommendations as part of his or her mandate. Narrowing it down to only Child and Family Services is the wrong way to attack the problems facing children in Manitoba today.
We also believe that another major problem, if not the major problem facing children in Manitoba today in a broad sense, is the fact that they do not have access to services. I will be speaking about some of those instances later in my remarks. It is clear from everyone we have talked to as members of the Legislative Assembly, in our own constituencies throughout the province of Manitoba, be they parents, people who work in the school system, people who work in the health care system, people who work in the justice system, people who work in the family services system, people who work in sports and recreation, people who are parents, children, everyone.
We all know children. We all relate, to one extent or another, with children. Everyone says one of the major problems facing our children today is that they do not have access to the services they need in order to become productive, functioning citizens of the province of Manitoba who are able to reach their full potential. These problems and this lack of services crosses the gamut, runs the gamut. As I said, we would be speaking about some of those situations in a few moments.
So we also believe that the Children's Advocate must have the authority to ensure greater access to services for children and families across the province by providing services in rural and northern Manitoba, also with attention to the diversity of cultures in Manitoba. So we not only need to look at kids in the city of Winnipeg and around the Capital Region, where, granted, 70 to 75 percent of the people of Manitoba currently live, but we must take into account the geography and the demography of the province of Manitoba.
It is very interesting, Madam Speaker, that this government in the almost eight years that I have been a member of the Legislature, this government time and time again tells us and the opposition not to have a Perimeter mentality, to look at what happens outside the city of Winnipeg. I think they do that because, when you look at where the representation comes from, it is true that more of our members perhaps represent the city of Winnipeg than their members do, and their members--
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): They do not represent the city either.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, my colleague the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) reminds me of a very important thing. They may on paper represent parts of the city of Winnipeg, but they do not truly represent the city of Winnipeg. That is another issue.
But the government benches do have more members that are representative of constituencies outside the city of Winnipeg, south of the northern four seats. So, technically, they do represent probably a higher percentage of the exurban population than the members of the opposition do, but we are much more balanced in our representation. We have members from the inner city, we have members from the suburbs, we have members from the rural communities, and we have all of the representatives of the North of the province. The rural constituencies are Dauphin and Swan River, and Interlake and Selkirk have rural components to them. [interjection]
Oh, this is very interesting. The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) is suggesting that Dauphin and Swan River are not rural constituencies. I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that is part of the problem. There is rural activity north of No.1. It is very interesting that in relation to services for children--
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, I think there is a real point of order here and a case of misrepresentation when the honourable member gets up and absolutely misquotes what was mentioned in this House. There needs to be a correction made on the record. My reference was to Dauphin and Swan River, that they were northern communities, and I did not mention the word rural Manitoba. I asked the question whether they represented what part of Manitoba, and I said they represent the rural communities of northern Manitoba.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Emerson did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, I will not take any more of my time reflecting on the member for Emerson's comments, but I think he made my point.
It is essential that children throughout the province--whether they are in the care of Child and Family Services, whether they are in the care of a health care system, whether they are in the tender hands of the justice system, whether they are in school, out of school, or preschool--all children in the province of Manitoba have the right to a full range of services to enable them to live the best lives they can live. If we do not protect our children, we have destroyed our future. Our suggestions in the legislation before us today is that the changes to the Children's Advocate office do not go far enough in providing those services throughout the province of Manitoba that are essential for children to live healthy, productive, happy lives.
I would suggest that in many cases, and I will share with the members some of these situation in many, many, many parts of our community throughout the province of Manitoba, children are worse off than they were 10 years ago. They are worse off. In the face of trying to eradicate child poverty, every government in North America and many governments across the world said in 1989 sign the declaration to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000.
* (1500)
In many of our communities and in many sections of our communities, we are further behind in the eradication of child poverty, and we all know the end results of that. We see it every day. We see it in the problems in our school system, we see it in the problems in our health care system, we see it in our justice system. We see it in the hopelessness that children throughout the province of Manitoba feel today as a result of 10 years of government neglect. The Children's Advocate should be, and must be, a positive, effective force for change in the province of Manitoba, and the elements in Bill 4, we feel, do not go far enough towards enabling that to happen.
Madam Speaker, the government cannot say that it does not have information to put children first. It cannot say that there is not a plentitude of information, recommendations and programs available for children throughout the province of Manitoba. They are not available enough, but we cannot, as a society, say that we do not know what to do for kids. We know exactly what to do for kids. We are choosing not to do it. The Children's Advocate could be a marvellous resource for enabling our children--as I have said, to put our children first.
I am just going to put into the record a couple of those suggestions. One is, in 1994--and this comes from, and I am the first to admit it, and proudly admit it--the New Democratic Party in Manitoba released a plan for providing services for children entitled putting Children First. It formed the basis of our platform for children in the 1995 general election. The government cannot say that we do not provide positive alternatives.
I would like to share with the government today some of the alternatives we put forward first in 1994 that, should the Children's Advocate have enough authority, could be implemented tomorrow. A healthy start program for kids with three components: a targeted, province-wide, prenatal nutrition program. What did this government do instead of targeting prenatal assistance and postnatal assistance? They cut services to pregnant women. They cut services to pregnant women, poor pregnant women. What kind of prenatal care is that? What kind of nutrition is that?
Secondly, a province-wide school nutrition program. The one area where virtually all children congregate is the school system. That is one of the reasons why there is so much pressure on the school system today, that virtually every child connects with the school system if they connect with nothing else. Far too many children connect with nothing else positive in their lives. The schools are an ideal place, if they were well resourced, to provide programming. We suggested a province-wide school nutrition program, a very positive, preventive measure that would have excellent results down the way. If the Children's Advocate had enough authority, the Children's Advocate could implement these kinds of things, or ensure that the government implemented them.
Thirdly, in the healthy start program was a recognition of schools and a public, nonprofit day care system as integral components of community-based child health programs. Many, many children in this province connect not only with the school system but with the child care system. If there were enough spaces, many more would--another area where good programming could take place.
We need as well an intensive family life component as part of the health curriculum, recreation initiatives such as physical education as part of the core curriculum for all students throughout their public education system. We are becoming a nation of overweight people who do not exercise well enough, who do not exercise long enough, who do not understand the importance of physical education, physical exercise, a physical lifestyle. This, again, has huge consequences further down the road. An expanded campaign to combat fetal alcohol syndrome, and I would add today fetal alcohol effects. I will say that the Children and Youth Secretariat is making some progress in this regard. It is just starting. We put this out in 1994. Dr. Brian Postl had recommended this prior to 1994 as well. We are now in 1998. Four years have gone by, three years since the last provincial election.
How many kids in the province of Manitoba in virtually every single constituency in the province of Manitoba are now suffering from FAS and FAE that would not have had to be suffering under these terrible scourges had some of these initiatives been in place? The answer is far too many. One would be too many.
Adequate resources for speech and language therapy leading to early detection and intervention of potential communication problems: We have heard throughout this province time and time again of the desperate need for speech therapists. This is an issue that absolutely drives me crazy, absolutely drives me crazy, because this is a real case where we know what to do. We train speech therapists to provide good and effective programming and therapy for kids. [interjection]
The Province of Manitoba does not train them anymore, but they are trained. This government eliminated that program. There are still speech therapists in this province who are prepared to work with kids, and in a few moments, I will share some stories about speech therapy problems with the House. But this is one of those problems that should never be a problem. Virtually every kid, if they are caught early enough, can overcome virtually every speech therapy problem. We do not need to have kids who cannot read and kids who cannot hear and kids who cannot talk in the schools. Virtually all of them could be helped if we had the resources.
We need an aboriginal youth health care strategy developed in co-operation with the aboriginal community. What is our aboriginal youth strategy in this province as a result of this government's cutbacks? No more North Y, which helped a lot of aboriginal kids. No more friendship centres, because they were, quote, advocacy organizations rather than service providers, one of the worst things this government has ever done. Cutbacks to social assistance, cutbacks to nutrition programs, lack of FAS/FAE programming--the list goes on and on. We have an aboriginal strategy. It is a strategy to decimate our aboriginal community rather than to help it be a strong vibrant part of our society.
We need a rural and northern strategy where governments co-ordinate their efforts to identify and address specific health and social difficulties in each region. We need an interdepartmental co-ordination for all of the government departments, as I have spoken about earlier, to keep children at the forefront rather than each individual department looking at one particular segment of a kid or a child.
We need expanded children's safety programs looking at safety issues such as child restraints, health care issues and particularly farm safety awareness. This is a government that represents the majority of the farming community in this province, and they do not take it upon themselves to deal effectively with a horrible farm safety record, and one of the reasons the kids are faced with safety issues on the farms is because there is not an adequate child care strategy that takes into account the needs of farm families, most particularly during seeding and harvesting, where families are faced with a very difficult choice between leaving their children alone in their homes or taking them with them when they operate very dangerous farm machinery.
* (1510)
So these are just some of the things that this party put out four years ago and that the government has not dealt with in any real way in the last four years. I think it is not just my words, Madam Speaker, that give the lie to this government's concern about children and speak to the need for the Children's Advocate to have more authority and more impact in this province.
I am quoting--I am a member of the New Democratic Party child task force which has been going throughout the province the last few months meeting with individuals, anyone who wants to meet with us, and we met with a large variety of individuals. We have met in the North, in the rural communities, and in the city of Winnipeg. Some themes come through loud and clear. People have been very eloquent in their comments, and it has been quite a learning experience to listen to them and to hear what they have to say and the frustration that they are feeling.
I do not have much time left, Madam Speaker, so I will just briefly talk about some of the things that people have said. One person in Winnipeg said the effects of child poverty are pernicious and debilitating and that we should not be satisfied with before-school breadlines, talking about the abject poverty of children in our society today, and the fact that we even need to talk about breakfast programs in schools says volumes about what we are doing.
A young man in The Pas came and spoke with us as part of a group. They have a volunteer group that is trying to put together a community centre in The Pas, something that should be there as a matter of course. He wants a community centre to learn things that he does not know. For example, he had one brief experience with a community centre concept--he is a First Nation young man--and he learned how to make canoes out of birch bark. This may be a very small thing, but it had a huge impact on him because it is going back to his roots. If he had a community centre in that community that provided culturally appropriate activities, this young man and many like him, not only in The Pas but throughout the province, who are flirting with gangs would not. It was clear. He said it is something that he would not do if he had an opportunity.
Another person in Swan River said if youth do not find a good place to belong, they will find a bad place to belong, and that is the genesis that, in a nutshell, says why kids join gangs, because they do not have a good place to belong. They do not have recreation activities. They do not have bands in schools anymore, because the schools have had to cut back those programs. They do not have art activities in school, because the schools have had to cut back on those programs. We talked to several young people who really like art, who enjoy art and drama and music.
The member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) spoke yesterday about some of these young people. All of them were leaving their rural community, not because they want to but because there is nothing there for them, and they do not expect to come back because there is no hope for them if they did come back. One of the things we could do is provide them with the recreation and community solidarity activities that we need to have.
We need to open our eyes and see, open our ears and hear. We need to look at the whole issue of foster care. We need to look at recreation. We need to look at nutrition. We need to look at services like speech therapists. We need to look at the whole child. Madam Speaker, we as a government--and I speak of us as a government, as all 57 members--as a group have not done that, and it has not been because the opposition has not raised the issues, has not raised the concerns and has not raised many, many positive alternatives.
I know the Children's Advocate would be delighted to work on these issues, work on these concerns, work on implementing these programs that we know exist and that just need a political will to implement.
Bill 4 is a good bill, basically, but there are some changes we would like to see. We are hoping that the government will listen to our concerns, will listen to the concerns of the people of Manitoba, and will make some minor adjustments to Bill 4 that will enable it to be a truly effective piece of legislation and will give the Children's Advocate the resources the Children's Advocate needs in order to work for all of our children. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I am pleased to rise today to speak and put a few of my comments on record on Bill 4, which is The Child and Family Services Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act dealing with the Child Advocate. I think it is a great step forward. We all here know and I hope we all appreciate the work of the Child Advocate Wayne Govereau, who, I am sure, has endured many sleepless nights with some of the tough tasks that he has to endure and some of the sad situations that he has had to deal with families. So I think that the Child Advocate warrants all of our support and our encouragement, and I am glad to see where the responsibility is extended to the Legislative Assembly instead of just reporting to the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson).
I would like to make a few comments on the all-party task force that went around to hear some of the submissions that were presented across Manitoba. There was a subcommittee report to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for the review of the Children's Advocate. I was glad to see that members of all parties were travelling around, and from the reports that we got from our caucus from our member who travelled with that task force, there were many submissions that were submitted by Manitobans, and were very well thought out and were submitted by very committed individuals. I think, as far as I can remember, this is the only all-party task force that I could think of besides the all-party committee on the constitution change or the one on Canadian unity. I think it is encouraging to see that, and I hope that other issues that pertain to our citizens of the province and any other situations that arise that deal with our children will be done in an all-party, nonpolitical way.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
Also the Fourth Annual Report of the Children's Advocate, I read through it and the Children's Advocate had many very interesting comments. You could see by reading the report that the Children's Advocate was standing up for children of this province and had the best interests of children of Manitoba when he wrote his report. It was not a report that was written just for government but for all Manitobans, and in some cases if it meant or seemed appropriate to condemn the government, the Children's Advocate did so. I think that is an appropriate role for the Children's Advocate to make.
One of the comments that the Children's Advocate made was pertaining to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is also significant that children have rights in Manitoba and hopefully all across all provinces of Canada, because we know in other countries that children--in many countries they do not have children's rights, and a lot of their children are exploited in various ways. You hear of child labour in some countries. I am glad that we have children's rights in Canada so that we do not see our children having to be forced to go into labour when they are a very young age.
* (1520)
Because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and because of provincial statutes such as human rights legislation, and in several other provinces Children's Advocate legislation of children, our children do have rights. That really distinguishes us from other countries around the world where children do not have rights and where, as a result, they are subject to exploitation and oppression of many different kinds. I just gave you an example of some children in other countries where they are forced to, because of their small hands and stuff, do labour, manual labour tasks. A lot of them, because the countries do not have the programs that we have, are forced to help put food on the table and help support their families at a very young age. It is too bad because when they are put to work at a very young age, they miss education opportunities and because of some of the countries' systems they do not have education opportunities as our children are entitled to. That is something that we as Canadians hopefully all treasure and will always stand up for our children to get the best possible education that he or she could attain. I think that is so important and crucial for the children when they grow up to help fulfill their chosen careers and to fulfill their goals that they have in life.
Also, the Children's Advocate goes on to say, the quality of care of children in some instances is very punitive in nature as opposed to offering guidance, nurturing and development. Then he says I do not believe the whole system is all doom and gloom as there are many dedicated, committed and caring workers attempting to promote positive and lasting well-being for children and their families. As workers, they are also confronted with many restrictions and limitations as to what they can offer. So we know that in many cases workers have many, many clients or children in their care, and even though they would like to provide more service to them, such as home visits and counselling and linking them up with resources, the workers on the front line are overburdened as they have pointed out in their briefs to the government.
It is no surprise because of some of the cutbacks that we have seen in the area of our dedicated social workers. Sometimes some of the social workers are carrying so many cases that they are spread so thinly that it is hard for them to give adequate care to their clients. A lot of times it is the children that are impacted negatively. It is not because of uncaring or unskilled social workers, it is just that they have been cut back so much that their workload is greatly increased and it is too hard for them to deliver the services that some families require, and the services that some families require to progress to the next level from where they are at.
So we are not faulting the social workers or laying blame on the social workers. They are trying their best with the means that are provided to them by the government of the day and in some cases it is inadequate and in a lot of cases there needs to be more qualified social workers there for the people that need the assistance.
In the constituency that I represent, Point Douglas, I deal with many, many cases and many issues that pertain to the area of social services on a daily basis. I deal with that on an ongoing base, and it is very hard for a lot of the individuals and residents of Point Douglas sometimes to get the assistance that is required because of some of the barriers that are there now where the social workers are spread so thinly that they are out there trying to assist as many people as they can. When someone needs their immediate attention, they are so hard to reach.
Sometimes you will phone Family Services to get some information or assistance, and a lot of times the lines are so tied up that it takes you forever to get through to even talk to someone.
I called the minister's office, it would be about three months ago. I phoned the minister's office. Then I was given the name of the director, and I had made a phone call for assistance for one of the constituents in Point Douglas. I sat on that phone for 35 minutes, 35 minutes, without talking to a human voice. First of all, I was put on an answering machine and listening to music, and I told the supervisor and director at that time: I hope this is not a normal practice, that is, services that are generated through Family Services today, because that is totally unacceptable, and I explained why. If you are a young mother or a young parent, whether you are a mother or a father, and there are individuals who are on social assistance who do not have access to telephones in their own homes, and if it is January or February and you are trying to hold a bundled-up child in your hands and you are standing at a payphone in January and February and you are listening to recorded music for half an hour, I do not think that says much for our system.
The supervisor assured me that they would check into it. He said: that is not our normal response time. I really hope that the situation has been addressed, and I hope it was only a one-time incident, because it would be totally unfair to the most vulnerable people that we should be there to assist and give a helping hand up when the need arises.
I wanted to share that because I think that we have a good system here in Manitoba, but we could even have a better one if we all work towards that, strive towards that same goal. If it means putting more resources in, I think we have to look at that. We have to ensure that we do have the resources to provide the services for people when they most need it.
I wanted to talk about the services that are provided. Like I said, I have been in contact with the helping agencies. I have been in contact with the minister of staff. I have to commend her staff, her office for the assistance that they have been providing when I have raised the issue for the constituents of Point Douglas. They have acted very quickly, and they have been most positive in their assistance. I know that the people I have called on their behalf greatly appreciate that but, if it means a review of the whole system to look at where the shortfalls are, where we could maybe move resources around. I say that in the most positive sense., I am not saying this in a negative sense. I am saying this in the most positive sense, if we could look at moving resources to maybe shore up some areas that need more assistance than others.
When I say that you have offices throughout the province, and there are certain pockets in certain areas of the province that require more services than families from Family Services than other areas of the city and other areas of the province, we might just look at reallocating resources to meet the needs that are greatly needed in certain pockets of the province.
I think I would encourage the minister to look at that. I hope the Child Advocate in his role today would look at some of those and make those kinds of recommendations, because the Child Advocate deals with a cross-reference of individuals and I am sure hears a lot of the same stories that I hear from constituents of Point Douglas. I hope that we will continue to offer the best and do the best we can as the government of Manitoba and as the province and concerned citizens.
Manitoba may have the legislative framework which supports the rights and interests of children and their families as envisioned by the UN convention. Much work has yet to be done on the actual implementation of changes to the practice of child welfare in this province.
* (1530)
Then he goes on to say: government must remain committed to making a social investment on behalf of our children and their families. Sole reliance on the good will of neighbours, social agencies, and the communities is not enough as we prepare for the second millennium. The needs of children and families involved in the Child and Family Services system cannot be isolated from the broader social problems of poverty, unemployment, and family violence.
We all know that all has a connecting link, and it is all intertwined where, if you have high poverty, more than likely you are going to have--and it is not because of uncaring parents or stuff like this, because they do not have the means to provide the care that young babies and children need. All you have to do is just look at some of the remote communities in northern Manitoba. Go up there and visit some of those families that are living in, say, Tadoule Lake or Shamattawa or isolated communities, and just walk into the stores that are in those communities and you will see. We all talk about good nutrition is a healthy body, and that is true, but if you are looking at the prices of baby foods, baby formula, the price of milk that babies need and compare it to what we pay down here, in a lot of cases, it is almost next to impossible for a lot of those families to purchase that on a daily basis.
So we should really look at that, seriously look at addressing that, and look at where maybe more funds are needed for families with young children or babies having increased funding allocated to those families in need to make sure that we raise healthy children, because to me that is a preventative measure that is possible by any government of the day. If we do not do it, then we are going to pay a lot more in the end. As the babies grow and they have poor nutrition, a lot of the babies will be unhealthy children and unhealthy adults with unhealthy lifestyles.
I think if you even want to look at that just on a dollar-for-dollar basis, it makes the most sense to put the money upfront and have healthy babies and have access to nutrition that should be given to all babies whether they live in southern Manitoba or northern Manitoba or remote or urban communities. I think that is one area that we have to seriously look at addressing.
There have been other examples and other comments that the Children's Advocate has made. One of the areas that he has highlighted as problems in the system, for example, is it seems to be getting harder for this government to adequately acquire or go into negotiations with foster parents, because we are seeing where there seems to be more children, new young children, living in hotels. I saw on TV not too long ago, and I am sure a lot of the members in here saw, some of the children who were being placed in hotels. They had a worker or a guidance counsellor come in and check on them once in a while or even there with them overnight and stuff, but that is not a family setting.
We hear members on this side, on the other side, and all members talk about the importance of family. If we only even just think back in our youth, there is not one of us in this Chamber today who could not immediately draw upon an individual of the family who helped each of us through a crisis at one time or another in our life that we almost hold as our role model. Whether it is an uncle, an aunt or a mother or father or grandparent, that is what family is all about. When you put children in a hotel setting, you are really, really removing totally the whole family atmosphere. Whether it is in the family setting with foster parents or other families where they are staying, it is still a family setting.
I totally disagree with putting children in hotels, because I know that if the work is done on behalf of governments to deal with the issues that are preventing families from becoming foster parents or parents for children who are removed from their immediate family, for whatever reason, and who look at being put into foster homes, like the temporary housing situation, hopefully we could always look at trying to find families first.
I think that is one example that the Children's Advocate has brought to our attention, and I hope that government will view that as a person standing up and putting up a red flag and look at it and maybe look at addressing it. It will not be easy to solve; nothing is that easy to solve. We all understand that. It takes a commitment and a lot of times it takes dollars, but that is the kind of stuff that we have to look at.
When I heard about the all-party task force that was going around the province and hearing from workers, hearing from foster parents, hearing from parents, hearing from grandparents, I thought that was a very encouraging opportunity for government and for all citizens of Manitoba to hear from the people of Manitoba and get their views and some of their recommendations that they would bring forward. It was good to see that happen, and the report that came out of it, there are good recommendations in it.
One of the recommendations that came forward was that the Child Advocate report, like I said earlier, to the Legislative Assembly and not directly to the Minister of Family Services, because if that was the immediate employer, sometimes an individual would think twice about making recommendations or making comments that might not be in line with the immediate employer, but with the Child Advocate reporting to the Legislative Assembly and needing, if I remember reading it correctly, a two-thirds majority to be removed, I think that gives the individual a lot more freedom to really express what is happening and to really express recommendations to the Chamber and to the government for improvements to our system.
We have to grow with the times and no matter what the system, it could be the best system in the world, but, eventually, somewhere along the line there is room for improvement. I think that is why the Child Advocate would need the freedom to express and make recommendations of the problems that he or she sees and hears from--sometimes it is the children who would give the direct information to the Child Advocate. It could be the parents, it could be social workers, and I think that it is crucial to making sure that we have the best services and best support systems out there for our children of Manitoba. I think that is important and crucial.
* (1540)
When that task force was travelling around, I was really pleased to see that they went to a community in northern Manitoba, because a lot of times you will see where there are good intentions and because of the costs of travelling to the North and back and hotels and meals, a lot of times the North is excluded from activities and committees that could benefit and could give another meaning to whatever the issue of the day is, because the issues are not always the same in southern Manitoba as they are in northern Manitoba because it is totally, totally a different lifestyle. You have other costs that are there that are not there if you live in southern Manitoba. If you look at the resource bases, a lot of times you do not have the resources for families or agencies that you have in southern Manitoba. A lot of those communities, well, you could not provide all the services to each and every small community in northern Manitoba, but a lot of those services are available here in Winnipeg because it is a big centre, and the majority of your staff and your directors, supervisors are here in the city. People have a lot easier access compared to some of the small and remote communities in rural and northern Manitoba.
So I was glad to see that the task force took the time, and I was very pleased. I applaud the members of that task force for going to Thompson to hear the submissions that were presented to them. I think more of that could be done. When I mentioned where the Children's Advocate now reports to the Legislative Assembly instead of directly to the minister, I am sure that this will protect the Children's Advocate to speak out and speak up where necessary and to make recommendations where necessary on behalf of children.
The first recommendation of the subcommittee is one that I know that I can totally support because of that, where the first recommendation is that the Child Advocate report to the Legislative Assembly instead of directly. I support that wholeheartedly, because it gives that flexibility.
It goes on to say that, reading from the brief, some of the presenters stressed the need to have the Children's Advocate appointed for a specific term of office in a manner similar to that of Provincial Ombudsman. The legislation addresses that, but it does not go far enough. The legislation recommends a term of three years, once renewable. I know that we believe that this should be increased to five years, once renewable. The reason for that is that we need to attract the best possible candidates, and if someone is only guaranteed three years or a possibility of six years, we may not get the best possible candidate. It would be much easier to attract someone who is suitable for the job and someone who would have excellent qualifications if they knew that they were going to have the job for a minimum of five years or a maximum of 10 years.
So, if the Children's Advocate that we have today, Wayne Govereau, for whatever reason decides to move on or to cease being the Child Advocate tomorrow, and if I remember correctly he originally, I think, came from Alberta, and that we would have the opportunity to advertise right across Canada and, in that fashion, if we advertise it where you move your family and everything for, it could possibly be three years, where the other way, and a maximum of six years, but if we advertise where the employment opportunity could be for a minimum of five years and possibly a maximum of 10 years, I think we would have an opportunity to attract the most skilled applicant that we would be able to find. A lot of really skilled people, I think, would apply for the position of Child Advocate if they had more of a sense of residency in our province. If you are asking to move your family and everything to Manitoba, say, from another province, and if we said compared from minimum three to maximum six or if we compared it from minimum five, maximum of 10--if we increase it to those higher numbers, I think we would have a better chance to attract very high-quality applicants if and whenever Wayne Govereau ever left his position as the Child Advocate for the province.
Also, it goes on, where there was a failure to agree on the part of the Children's Advocate and a child welfare agency, that the use of mediation, conciliation or other culturally appropriate dispute resolution services be provided; in another area where the government did not go far enough, that there should be some sort of compliance mechanism. I agree with that, because what that means is that it is no secret that a lot of the children who are in care are aboriginal children, and where appropriate, if it is culturally appropriate to bring in elders and mediators to help the child go back and integrate into the family and come back again as one with the family, I think we should be pursuing that, and we should be encouraging that.
I really believe that a lot of our elders could play a very important role in those mediations and working with the families to overcome whatever the problem was at that time, the reason for their children being taken away by Family Services. A lot of times, it only takes one instance of that happening for families to make that transition and that change of lifestyle or what have you. Sometimes it takes two or three, sometimes four or five, but if you have the elders and a lot of the communities working with the family and the child, a lot of times you are able to bring the child back into the family so that way they can be one.
When I say that, I say that from some of my experiences that I have seen, a lot of the friends that I have who have gone through the foster care system. Some of them were able to get back and live with their families again after their families changed their lifestyles. That is why we can never, ever abandon our treatment programs that we have for addictions. A lot of times the individuals who go through addiction programs are doing it when they are at a relatively younger age, and when they see and are able to work with the programs and the counsellors that are there, you see a whole change in the individual and the families of more responsibility and of more caring. A lot of times the children can be moved back into the families, and they do very well, very, very well. I have seen that many times.
That is why when we stand and we talk about different programs, I have raised the issue of solvent abuse many times in this Chamber, many, many times. I will continue to, because that is a situation that is really, really serious where if we do not put the support systems in place and if we do not treat the individuals who are exposed to solvent abuse through peer pressure or what have you, if we do not curb that practice, because that is not something that is reversible, because once you kill off your brain cells you do not grow new ones. It is as simple as that. You do not grow new ones.
* (1550)
So what you have to do is you have to try and help, and if they choose to change that, then you have to try and give the best tools then as possible. But a lot of the children do that just through curiosity, will do it through curiosity or through peer pressure. So if we can catch the children at a very early age, that is the time to do it. But to catch them at that early age and have no resources for the treatment, then we are just going around in circles.
In Manitoba right now, as far as I know, there are only two solvent abuse treatment centres in Manitoba. There is St. Norbert centre, and there is the Sagkeeng centre. Those are the only two. Cross Lake has been trying to get one, and I do not know if it is still off the ground or not, I have not heard yet. Cross Lake has been fighting for one, and I think it is warranted that we do have one in northern Manitoba. I think it is so important and crucial that we have a solvent abuse centre.
We have addiction for alcohol abuse, and there is a program that is funded through various governments. It was called the NNADAP program. A lot of the counsellors were trained. The NNADAP counsellors were trained under the New Careers program. What they did was they had two weeks in training and two weeks on the job, two weeks in training and two weeks on the job. It was ongoing for two years.
So, upon graduation, a lot of the counsellors were taken right on full time with a NNADAP program. The counsellors were situated in mostly northern communities. I know and I have spoken to and have seen many, many of the NNADAP counsellors in my travels. I have discussed with them the impact and the effects it has had in those communities. It has been very positive, because it gives an opportunity for an individual when the time comes for you to seek treatment and do something about your life and you want to change your lifestyle. You have someone that you can go and speak to on a one-to-one personal basis.
In most cases, it was the trainees that graduated who were hired and employed as NNADAP counsellors and who are people from the communities. So a lot of the people already knew the individuals, felt comfortable, and also they had the resources to recommend or to make arrangements to go to treatment centres. Like a lot of the treatment centres, you go for 28 days. You go for seven days first to what they call--in some cases, it is kind of like a dry-out period. After that you start your 28-day program. It is a hard program. It is a very, very hard program, especially when you first walk in the door. You almost see everyone. You can go to a total, total strange community, but it is like everyone knows that--well, a lot of cases the way you walk in there, you label yourself as a loser. That is how you see yourself. Then, when you go in there and you have about five meetings a day, you are all given responsibilities, because you need to rebuild that sense of responsibility. In a lot of cases, you are given tasks either in the kitchen, or you are given tasks cleaning and mopping certain areas of the building, or you are helping make beds and cleaning rooms. Then, on top of that, you are responsible for a schedule, and that is your responsibility.
That responsibility involves groups and also one on one with counsellors. It gives you a new meaning of life and it gives you a new sense of responsibility, but it teaches you a whole different way of living. It teaches you a whole different lifestyle. I tell you it is much rewarding and a lifestyle change that I would recommend to anyone. The reason I say that is--I will share with you very personally--that in 1976, the exact thing happened to me. I went to the treatment centre at Ste. Rose du Lac, so I know what I am talking about when I say the seven-day dry-out period and the 28-day treatment, and the sessions that we all go through. It teaches you a different lifestyle. I am proud to recommend to anyone who has a problem, do not be ashamed because it not only helps you but it helps your family, and it helps anyone who ever comes in contact with you.
I have had people that have come to me that I have known personally in my life that have called me and said: Could you help me because I know that you went through it? What did you do? I know where to recommend. At first I was very ashamed of it. I would not be standing here today to say this years ago, but now I am thankful for the program that was there for me when I needed it. I am thankful for the counsellors who were there to give me the assistance and to teach me to live a different way than I lived in my previous life before I went to Ste. Rose du Lac.
I know I am running out of time, but those are the programs that we have to be passionate about, and we have to make sure that we encourage it because if we have those support systems in place so that maybe the Children's Advocate can give the recommendations for heads of families or family members who need that guidance and that assistance, that the door will always be open and available for individuals who are at the right time of their life to make positive changes that will benefit their families and will make a contribution to the province of Manitoba, because when you make your lifestyle change, you are a contributing member of the province because you are employable and you pay your taxes, buy your groceries, and so I hope that we can all continue to support this bill, and I think it is a good bill. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) and the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), The Public Trustee Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le curateur public et modifications corrélatives, standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 19 which I believe is The Public Trustee Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act, and I guess at the outset I would like to say that we on this side of the House are somewhat disappointed that the government has chosen to turn the Public Trustee into a special operating agency and thereby institute a profit motive which otherwise would not or should not be there.
It is a little over a year now, I believe, April 1, 1997, that the Public Trustee became an SOA, and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that when the government set up the SOAs that it has in Fleet Vehicles and a number of other areas, we on this side of the House have basically held judgment on it and have said that we could agree that perhaps some of the SOAs may, in fact, in retrospect, have been a good idea and appear to be operating well.
* (1600)
But when it came to the Public Trustee's office, we really could not see why that particular agency should be turned into a special operating agency because the function and duty of the special operating agency, the Public Trustee, is to look after the affairs and settle the estates of people who died without a will, and it seems to us that the government is essentially trying to make a profit on the estates of deceased Manitobans, and that, fundamentally, is a wrong approach for this government to take.
Having said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can tell you that constituents of mine a number of months ago brought to my attention a case where they felt that, in fact, this profit motive may have come into play in the settlement of the case of their relative, and among other things they had the feeling that the house that belonged to the aunt, I believe, who died was, in fact, sold and disposed of by the Public Trustee's office at a much lower price than what it should have sold for. So they are not happy about that. In fact, their lawyer also is not happy about that situation.
They were also required, before receiving the proceeds of the estate, to sign a release, and the release also required a provision in it for the payment of a fee to the Public Trustee's office for their services. There is some concern about that whole arrangement. In fact, I would like to read the release that was given and that was required to be signed by my constituents in this case, but it was in the matter of the estate of this person, late of the city of Winnipeg.
It says that I--the person to receive the money, my constituent--of the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba, do hereby acknowledge that I have this day received from the Public Trustee the sum of $70,181.14, being in full satisfaction and payment of all monies due to me to which I am entitled after I have agreed to allow to the said Public Trustee the sum of $9,491.83 as her compensation for her care, pains and trouble and her time expended in and about the estate of the said deceased, as such committee to the 24th of July, 1997.
What we have here is a case of this estate having to pay to the Public Trustee the sum of $9,000 for the administration of this estate. You know, I think an average individual would consider this to be wrong. How would you like to be in a situation where one of your loved ones died without a will and the Public Trustee's office moves in, and because it is now set up in a situation where it is supposed to be making a profit, it now has incentive to essentially gouge these estates? What they have done in a case of an estate of $70,000 is they have managed to extract $9,000 for their use for the supposed administration of this estate. That is a fee that my constituent takes issue with. In fact, I believe she had no knowledge that they would in fact be charging fees.
Now, whether or not these fees were charged before--and I do not know whether they were or they were not--the point is that because it is now an SOA and because its mandate is now to make a profit, certainly that is going to enter into the equation. If your goal is to show a profit at the end of the year, then of course you are going to tend to maximize your fees at the expense of people who are least vulnerable.
Now, when you look into who is covered by the Public Trustee's office, you will find I believe that most of the estates are quite small, so we are not talking about a whole lot of money here. If they are talking about pain and suffering and amounts spent on an individual's case, it is conceivable, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they could charge a $9,000 administration fee for an estate of $20,000, assuming that is the way they work it. I do not know that it is a percentage of what the estate is, but nevertheless that is a bone of contention with my constituents.
Another area of concern was the sale of the house. If I might, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would endeavour to determine what the selling price of the house was, but it seems to me that the house was sold for, I believe, $12,000, when in fact there were appraisals--and I have pictures of the house here, but the appraisals on the house were around $25,000, $35,000. The city assessment shows that the property was appraised for--or its value was supposed to be around $30,000, but they did some appraising and the appraisers did indicate around $25,000. So you can imagine the shock and horror when the estate finds out that this house was sold for, I believe, $12,000.
I am just going to read from a letter that I sent on December 1, last year, 1997, on behalf of my constituents to the Provincial Auditor. I was writing to request him to review the circumstances surrounding the sale of, in this case, 552 Aberdeen Avenue, by the Public Trustee over the objections of my constituent, who was the beneficiary. The house was appraised at $25,000 on September 28, 1995, by a professional appraiser who would be licensed to do business here in Manitoba and was sold by the Public Trustee for just $13,612, just this past January. I also asked him to look into the charge to the estate of $9,000 as their compensation for her care, pains and trouble and her time expended in and about the estate of the said diseased.
Now, in addition to the first two concerns that my constituents had, in addition to the elements, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my colleague the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), in addition to the fact that this government turned the Public Trustee into an SOA, thereby turning it into a profit centre for the government, thereby in a way taking advantage of diseased persons' estates--in addition to that, we have a case where a constituent is disputing the price at which the house was sold, is disputing the charge to the estate for the administration, and I know the member for Thompson is taking notes on this matter. Finally, this constituent is very concerned about some of the expenses that were charged in her case. I was given a copy of--well, I think it is 71 pages of charges that the office of the Public Trustee expended in the case of this individual, and I think the beneficiary would suggest that a lot of the money may, in fact, have been misspent.
It is interesting to note that in the Public Trustee's report that came out October 27, 1997, their annual report, they do make reference, page 31 of the report indicates section 16, under Subsequent event--it is sort of buried in the report. You have to do a very careful read of it to pick this part up, but what you have here is a statement by the Auditor and in the public report saying: "The Public Trustee has arranged for a special audit of the administration of certain client files. The costs of the audit are estimated to be $75.0 [in thousands] and will be incurred in the next fiscal year." As the audit is still in progress, an estimate of the resulting findings cannot be reasonably made.
* (1610)
So now, subsequent to this report coming out, being released, we found that--I believe a Free Press article dealt with this issue, and the reporter was able to determine that, in fact, there is a broad investigation going on in the operations of the Public Trustee's office into a number of the estates that the Public Trustee is administering. So whether or not my constituents' case is a part of this audit is something that neither I nor they know about at this point.
Madam Speaker in the Chair
We do not know if the case that I am talking about may, in fact, be part of this audit, but certainly my constituents, having read the Free Press article, having read the copy of the annual report, are certainly unclear in their own mind and perhaps very suspicious about whether or not their estates have been misused by people providing services to the Public Trustee's office.
So I would hope that the Provincial Auditor does investigate this whole area within a reasonable time and certainly put my constituents' concerns at ease one way or the other, either determine whether or not there was a misappropriation of funds, a misexpenditure of funds in this particular case, and let my constituents know, or if, in fact, there was no misappropriation of funds, then I think it is incumbent on them to inform her as soon as possible that, in fact, that is the case, that they have found nothing wrong with the administration of her account, and in that case, Madam Speaker, if that is the case, if we find that the expenditures in her case were not out of line, we still have not got to the bottom of the house sale and whether it was sold grossly undervalued.
We have not got to the bottom of that yet, and we certainly have not got to the bottom of the fee that is being charged for the Trustee's pains and trouble and time expended in the estate. That, I guess, ultimately ends in a political debate. It ends in a political debate as to whether or not the Trustee's office should have been made into a special operating agency in the first place. Perhaps that question can only be resolved over time and, in fact, maybe over time with a change in government.
I know the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) wishes to make a few comments on this very important bill before the House, but I did want to quickly consult the report and indicate that, as with the other numerous SOAs that this government has set up over the last few years, it is very interesting. Each and every one of them project fairly substantial retained earnings over a three- or four-year period, and I wonder whether this will be just another campaign maneuver, campaign tactic by this government to get re-elected. In that next year, when the election is upon us, what we will find is that, coupled with the expected tax reductions that this government will be bringing in just before the Pan Am Games election next summer, we will see a big reduction in fees charged by all these SOAs. In fact, we may see the Vital Statistics reducing their charges on death certificates and other certificates that they handle, when in fact they increased them by enormous amounts in the last couple of years to build up the retained earnings in that particular SOA. So I think this is just another slush fund of the government. In fact, I guess it is slush funds because we have all these myriad funds of slush sort of to put at the disposal of this government--[interjection]--in fact, at this temperature, that is right--for this government to dole out in advance of the next election.
I would hope that is not what is happening, but we have been watching this government. We have had an opportunity now for 10 long years to watch this government in action, and that is what their normal pattern of operation is. In fact, what you are likely to see now, probably in June of this year, is a request for a reduction in the Autopac rates to take effect next April 1 or, pardon me, March 1, just in the runup to the election. You know, that is exactly what they did last time. That is exactly the procedure that they followed the last time around, and I guess, you know, you cannot fault them for it. I mean, if it works once, I guess you should try it again, but--
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): How are they going to promise to save the Jets this time?
Mr. Maloway: That is right. The member for Thompson asks how they will promise to save the Jets again when it worked so well for them last time. But I think they will try something else this time. It will be promising not to sell Hydro, and they are going to have a hard time saying that one with a straight face. I think the believability of the government is open to a big question. You know, they got away with it the last time, and they probably feel that what worked in '95 may work in 1999, but I do not know that it will work this time. I would think that people are probably catching on to the way this government operates. Not only that, I think there is probably a sense that the government has been around too long, that they look a little tired over there; they certainly look a little old.
Yes, they are at their high today when they managed to squeak through a victory yesterday in the Charleswood by-election. I believe 41 percent of the people actually even showed up to vote. Now that is hardly a ringing endorsement of this government's policies, when 60 percent of the people in Charleswood stayed home yesterday and did not even bother, did not even vote.
So, Madam Speaker, this government's general strategy is, I believe, to build up retained earnings in these SOAs through user fees, through excessive, exorbitant, highly increased fees since they became SOAs with the basic intention of rewarding the public in the election year with reduced fees for those particular services. Once again, this is just another shell game that this provincial government and this Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) have perfected over time. As I said, so far he has been moving those peas around rather effectively, but sooner or later one of them is going to get out of order and he is going to drop the whole ball game.
* (1620)
So, Madam Speaker, it is with great regret that I defer to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for him to put a few words on the record on this bill, The Public Trustee Amendment Act, because I know he is extremely concerned about the idea that this government would turn the Public Trustee over to a private special operating agency, turning it over so that now it has a profit motive, exactly the kind of activity it should not be involved in.
The Public Trustee has no role, should not have any role, making a profit on people's estates. That is absolutely wrong; a wrong role for this government. Whoever came up with the idea that Public Trustee should become a special operating agency should definitely be asked to rethink their analysis in that regard.
Anyway, thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Ashton: I thank the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) for his comments. I think the member for Elmwood has pointed to some important questions. I think it is important to note on the record that the office of the Public Trustee is often one that can lead to some controversy.
There have been a number of cases in which friends and family of particular individuals affected by the Public Trustee have been concerned about the operation of the office. That is not to question the office itself. I would stress that obviously there is a place for the Public Trustee, and I think we all recognize that, but there is enough controversy to begin with related to specific cases, and I think that is something that should be noted and on the record.
Obviously, we are concerned with any suggestion that we see, as the member for Elmwood pointed out, the extension of the concept of the SOAs, special operating agencies, into this area. I think this makes sense. I think one has to look at the origin of SOAs, what the government is attempting to achieve through SOAs, and what the extension of SOAs into areas such as this could mean in terms of the operation of government.
I say to members opposite, if one looks at the concept of SOAs, it is obviously an attempt to internally structure a quasi market in which agencies of government are structured as if they are private agencies, external agencies, even though obviously they are not. The theory behind is that you end up with greater efficiency and allocation of resources by having something of a proxy to the market take place internally within government.
Now a good example would be with the use of vehicles. What you do is instead of having it provided as a service at a cost, you bill government departments and agencies. I think in Fleet Vehicles, the current cost is something like 20 cents a kilometre. It is done as if you are renting from a particular company. The theory then again is that you will have greater allocation of resources on efficient basis because you have costs attached, you have essentially quasi-market transactions.
That argument perhaps could be applicable in certain cases; obviously, with Fleet Vehicles that is a case in point. We have had for many years the use of internal billings when it comes to the use of government aircraft. That is, I think, something that is needed whenever you have a transaction. I guess, speaking as an economist in this particular case, you obviously do not have a free resource. I mean, that is the essence of economics, the essence of our economy, to have scarce resources.
One of the advantages of applying a particular cost in this case is that you end up with a very clear need for all departments and agencies to act with prudence and care and make sure that they are not over-consuming a particular resource because that is one of the difficulties. If one looks at the classic analysis in any economic situation, if you have a good that is provided free, the consumption of that good will be excessive. If you attach some sort of a cost to it, obviously you end up with less consumption of that particular good.
One only has to go to any of the buffets in the city where you pay a certain cost and then you can consume all you want after a certain point to see that there is a significantly different consumption pattern than when you pay by each portion of the meal in a normal situation. It is just standard economics.
Now, the real problem is if you extend that into areas where you should not be working on a basis where you are going to have a profit. Let us look at the Public Trustee, as the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) pointed out. Is that the kind of a situation that you should be in, in the Public Trustee, where you are providing a service? The difficulty, again, is the Public Trustee has direct ability as an agency of government to basically through statute be able to direct the activities of individuals to the degree in which essentially they can take basically complete control of those individuals' livelihoods. If one looks at it, that is something that perhaps is supposed to be a key part of the concept, but, you know, we are currently looking at 6,000 accounts. Assets under the administration of the Public Trustee are $139.7 million. That is fairly significant.
I want to stress the role of the Public Trustee, and that is to protect the interests of Manitobans by providing professional and cost-effective trustee services of last resort that meet the needs of its clients. The clients, by the way, could be mentally incompetent persons under the provisions of The Mental Health Act, various other individuals. In fact, there are a number of agencies that work fairly closely with the Public Trustee. By the way, the chair of the Public Trustee Advisory Board is the deputy minister of Justice. We have the Public Trustee, of course, the ADM of Justice, various other individuals from Home Care, from CIBC Trust, the Department of Family Services, various government agencies and private individuals.
The following organizations--I would like to put this on the record--are some of the kinds of organizations that work very closely with the Public Trustee's office: the Independent Living Resource Centre, various groups in Winnipeg, including the community mental health workers, the Law Society of Manitoba, the Manitoba Schizophrenia Society. There are a number of people who work very closely.
I want to stress, though, the point of the mandate, the essence, and that is cost-effective and professional services. That should be defined very clearly as cost-effective in the sense of being cost-effective to the clients, not to the government but to the clients, the individuals that the Public Trustee has control over in terms of the operation of their accounts and their estates. That is essential.
I want to put that in context for a second because if you have too much of an extension of the mandate of SOAs, Madam Speaker, into the position of making profits internally, what you do is you end up with a distortion. You end up moving away from the mission of the Public Trustee which is to provide cost-effective trustee services to meet the needs of its clients. That is what the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) was talking about earlier. That should be the fundamental role. This is one of the difficulties, again, when you attempt, I believe, to take a certain analysis too far.
* (1630)
You know, the market system works very well in certain circumstances. It works very well in certain circumstances, but we have seen recognized over the last hundred years or so that there are certain areas where the market system can lead to distortions or to internal failures. That is why, for example, we have public utilities under public control either via regulation in terms of monopolies or through direct public ownership, such as Manitoba Hydro.
The bottom line is we have recognized that increasingly over the last 100 years, and I find it interesting that this government in a way with its philosophy the last number of years has really been moving back to what we used to see in the 1890s, Madam Speaker.
You know, it is interesting. A lot of times they talk about change and moving ahead. We have seen that for example with MTS taking it into the private sector. Well, there is living proof of the fact that what you are really doing is going back to a situation that occurred prior to public ownership. There is very little difference, Madam Speaker, the situation we were into in 1898 as compared to 1998. That is the Tory vision.
The difficulty again, though, is if you start adding the motive of direct private profit in a sector that is essentially still a public utility, you end up with the kind of distortions we have seen in the last little period of time. MTS is a good example. We now see the ratepayers of Manitoba, the people that pay the phone bills, and the shareholders paying for the stock option program that the management group basically recommended to itself got proxies for it at the last meeting, voted itself--and by the way, all 11 of that management group, the board, were appointed by this government. Not one of them changed at the board meeting last year.
So what we end up having is, in the name of the interest of the company, that management group now will be getting $3.5-million stock option program. One individual is well known to the government, who spent most of his tenure at MTS, one Tom Stefanson. He spent most of his tenure at MTS pushing for the privatization of MTS. We wonder why, Madam Speaker, because in the end result we learn that--in fact, I think it is ironic that it used to be the Manitoba Telephone System. They changed it to the Manitoba Telecom Services System, the name of it once they privatized it. They should have said, millionaire Tom Stefanson, MTS. Same difference.
The end result was this individual and other individuals, the senior management group, yes, they were pushing for privatization. Why would they not? They were going to reward themselves first and foremost. We saw proof earlier in Question Period of the fact that this government undersold the shares. The market value of the shares was higher than what they listed the shares at, $13. It is currently selling for $21.
We saw the absurdity of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) saying that we do not understand the stock market. I would invite the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay) and the Premier to go back to the debate at the time, and I will show him time and time again where I predicted, and our caucus predicted, that the government would undersell the shares. You know, even Brian Cole, the editorial writer who has not been supportive of our position, stated a few weeks ago that he believes that the shares were undersold. He stated that in an article in the Free Press. That is the reality, Madam Speaker, where you get the profit motive driving the entire debate.
I would point out, by the way, the absurdity of the fact that we saw with MTS that the people they hired to recommend, whether it should be sold or not, were then the ones that ended up not only benefiting from the sale but were telling their clients that the shares were under value. You know, for the minister to stand up today and suggest that they were just getting professional advice--professional advice from whom? Professional advice from the people that were paid to recommend the sale, that then went out and sold the shares and told their clients, hey, this is a good deal. Why do they think so many shares were flipped within the first 24 hours? Because everybody out there was being told the same thing by the brokers: the shares were undersold. That is what happens when you have the profit motive, in this case, for a few individuals being put ahead of the public good.
Now who pays for that? We all do. You know, I would suggest to the government that if they really want to be upfront and honest with people, what they should do is through their influence on the board--and by the way, they have a special share. They appoint four members of the board directly. All 11 of the board members currently in place at MTS are their original appointments of January 7 last year. I would suggest what they do is they put on their bill--you know how it lists your basic local rate and then your long distance charges--they should have a separate item, and they should list it as Tom Stefanson's stock option program. They should list it for Bill Fraser's stock option program to catch a corporate--[interjection] Oh, yes, the CA Magazine. They should list it separately because every time you pick up the phone in this province--guess what? You are paying for that stock option program and the increased salary.
By the way, we still do not even know what Tom Stefanson gets in the way of a salary. That is the great thing about this new structure. [interjection] Well, the minister responsible for I, T and T says what have I got against Tom Stefanson? I have got a lot against an individual being able to benefit from the underpricing of the shares, through him doing nothing productive for MTS or the people of Manitoba. All he has to do is call in his options this year and the following year for the next five years at $14.63 a share and cash out at the $21 market price that we see in place today. The price does not have to go up one more cent and that individual is going to be a millionaire. I have got something against that because I can tell you it is not in the interest of anyone except Tom Stefanson, not in the interest, Madam Speaker, of anyone. This is private greed.
It is interesting because I would recommend to the Conservative members a book that is written--I am just reading it--it is called Beyond Greed. It is written by Hugh Segal, who is apparently running for the Conservative Party, Beyond Greed. I would suggest that we buy a copy for all the members of the Conservative caucus and for Tom Stefanson and the rest of the management group at MTS because they can learn from this. The public interest is not driven by private greed. That is what I have got against him. I am glad the minister responsible asked that question.
I also have something against the government, a government that shows great complicity with this whole process. You know, I believe they are having a fundraising dinner, a 10th anniversary. [interjection] Well, the minister asks me if I want a ticket. I can guarantee you one thing: the list of people buying tickets is going to be a Who's Who of the people that have benefited from the greed and, I would say, the unethical actions and the corruption that we have seen over the last 10 years. It will be the Who's Who. It will be like last time when MTS went and bought tickets.
It is another thing, you know, when you pay your phone bill in Manitoba now, a portion of that goes in the form of kickbacks to the Conservative Party. It goes directly back to the Conservative Party. They could not do that. Well, I was going to say they could not do that under public ownership. One of the heads of MTS, one of the presidents, did try to donate to the Conservative Party. Yes, indeed, Mr. Fitzgerald from Mobility.
Madam Speaker, they do not see anything wrong with it. I guess after 10 years of shady, inside dealing with their friends, they do not see any problem. I guess after you have done it for a hundred thousand at a go, what is a million? What is 10 million? I think they are the true heirs to C.D. Howe. What is a million? Tom Stefanson is the C.D. Howe of the 1990s. What is a million? The bottom line, that is what happens when you allow that kind of agenda to be foremost in public policy. I notice that I have got the attention of members opposite. I am asked by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) something about Bugsy Siegel. Bugsy Siegel, well, that is an interesting approach.
I would recommend this book Beyond Greed: A Traditional Conservative Confronts Neoconservative Excess. I get the feeling that he was probably looking at this government, this neoconservative excess we are seeing over there. I think it is very much part of their philosophy. There may be a few traditional Conservatives, but believe you me, they do not see anything wrong with it. I wonder, by the way, how many of them bought shares. We still do not know that. We do not know how many Conservatives MLAs bought shares; we do not know.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) says did I? The answer is no. On principle I would not buy it because it was a fix right from day one; it was an attempt to rip off the people of Manitoba by undervaluing the shares. I knew the shares were going to go up. I knew that money could be made by buying shares, but principle comes ahead of private greed. I believed that, and every single member of our caucus believed that. That is why even though this government would not even put in an amendment to prevent their own members from benefiting from that underpricing, I did not buy a single share. I am proud to be part of a party that did not do what I assume Conservative members did.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Ashton: Well, some say no. I notice others are less vocal on that. I would like to see each and every Conservative member sign a statement saying they did not benefit from the sale of MTS, because I remember when we brought in that motion to say that no MLAs should be able to buy shares, do you know how absurd it is, Madam Speaker? I will tell how absurd it is. The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), his wife worked at MTS. He abstained from the vote on the sale of MTS.
* (1640)
But we have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), who does not see any problem with being minister responsible for MTS, appointing a board that ends up with his brother now over the next five years being able to pocket a million dollars on a stock option program that is based on a deflated price of $14.63 when the current market price is $21.
You know, ask any Manitoban on the street: here is a deal for you, you can buy the shares at the low price and you get to sell them at the high market price. [interjection] Oh, and the Minister of Justice says yeah. He sits there and he says yeah but, you know, the problem is Manitobans cannot do that, only the select group that awarded themselves that increase.
Do you know what the absurdity was? This is the same group. They are all hired under the old salary schedule, no stock options, and then all of a sudden we hear this, you know, people wringing their hands and saying, well, we have got to attract people, we have got to attract people. They came here to work in this province at the salary that was being offered at the time. You know, to then turn around and say that you want more and you want stock options where you get the artificially low price, what are we rewarding here? What is MTS rewarding? There is a shareholders meeting apparently tomorrow. What is the reward for these people? Are they improving the earnings of the company? No, they are sitting there. The only thing they are rewarding themselves on is the fact that this government sold it off at a deflated price.
You know, this, Madam Speaker, and I look at this building that was built on that kind of ethical underpinnings. You know, we had a government of 15 years, the Roblin government. They saw nothing wrong with taking building stones that were supposed to be put in this Legislature and using it to construct their own houses. Many of the mansions that we see to the west of us were built at indirect public expense. Now, there was a fair amount of corruption in those days. People think that, for example, Nova Scotia, where up until even recently highways crews would be replaced by the supporters of the incoming party when a government was defeated. You just have to look at the corruption that existed in Manitoba. I would invite people to look back on that historically.
But, you know, while we think we have progressed, how much have we really progressed? You know, when we have a situation, and I say to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), who I mentioned earlier, where he abstained from the vote, withdrew on the vote on MTS on a matter of principle because his wife was an employee of MTS, I think that was a very appropriate decision to make.
We saw in this government no problem. You know, your brother is in the position to benefit greatly and you do not do anything about it.
By the way, I still remember when Mr. Tom Stefanson, in the committee I think in '96 proudly said how he had spent several years pushing for the privatization of MTS, how he thought this was going to be a great thing. I still remember when Bill Fraser signed that letter that was sent around throughout the province, the president of MTS. You know what, Madam Speaker? They both said, oh, how this was in the public interest. I say if they really believed that, they would voluntarily say no to this outrageous stock option program that they now are the main beneficiaries of.
The president of MTS, a number of the other presidents of the different divisions, and I would note for the record that of the 11 board members, Mr. Tom Stefanson, we still do not know what he gets paid. MTS will not tell you that anymore, and we are hoping to get an answer from this government but, you know, the other members of the board I believe are allowed to access 7,000 shares. They can benefit I think at the current market price it would be about $60,000 over that period of time. Mr. Stefanson manages to get the maximum benefit, and that is wrong.
I have been asked this question as well. I remember the Free Press contacted me and asked me: was it wrong to have stock option programs? I can tell you, Madam Speaker, the abuse of stock option programs right now is rampant. The abuse of executive payment is rampant. Repap, you know, Repap. People remember Repap, the company that ran the pulp and paper mill in The Pas recently. The chief executive officer--[interjection] Well, the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) remembers the original CFI fiasco.
But, you know, Repap which has been losing money, Repap--you know, it is interesting because you know why it is called Repap? It is called Repap because that is the reverse of paper. That is appropriate because Repap was a paper company. It is funny, members opposite talk about running government like a business. I will tell you how Repap ran its business. It had virtually no equity financing, virtually all debt financing and ran into some difficulties. You know what the head of Repap did? He recently pocketed $5 million, the recent changes at that company, at a time when the company was losing money.
There was an interesting article in The Globe and Mail just a short time ago. There are numerous examples. We have people now making $5 million, $10 million, $15 million, $20 million a year on stock option programs. What is particularly bizarre is even some analysts are now starting to say it has gotten way out of hand, because what you are doing, a lot of the people are benefiting even though the company is losing money. I mean, what a system. You succeed, you make money; you fail, you make money. A lot of analysts are saying it is ridiculous now to have those kinds of stock option programs, because, Madam Speaker, what you do is you end up with no correlation, no responsibility to the shareholders or the stakeholders or people in society. It is totally undemocratic.
You know what happens at these meetings? The management group has already solicited proxies, has control of the meeting before it starts, and then they award themselves whatever they have control of. You know, when they went into that meeting the last time, we had this fictional picture painted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) of all the little Manitoba shareholders all going in there and saying this is a great idea. You know what? The minute the meeting started last year, the die was cast; the fix was in.
I remember the movie The Sting. It sort of reminded me of that. They had control by proxy of that meeting. They had to have that to get it through. They had already solicited those proxies April 14. That is how they had to actually say they were having this compensation package. You know, Madam Speaker, the end result is there is an excess that is going on right now that does not in any way, shape or form, I say, reflect on the public interest. The bottom line is that is unacceptable.
I say to members opposite, I find it interesting that they really do not see any ethical problem with this. I would ask them to go out on the street. I would ask them to go out on the street, Madam Speaker, because the bottom line is they will find a lot of Manitobans who do not think it makes sense. They did not want to see MTS sold off in the first place, but they do not think it makes sense to have this ridiculous stock option program. Most Manitobans do not make a million dollars in their lifetime. Tom Stefanson is going to make a million dollars because of an artificially low price that he can access that only the chief people at MTS can do, nobody else. No other Manitoban can walk into MTS today and say I want shares at $14.63, and I say to members opposite, come on. I mean, what does it take for people to realize that is the problem?
That is the problem again, Madam Speaker. I would say I do not trust this government at all when it comes to the operation of public services. I think what we should do, looking at the last 10 years of this government--it is interesting because I was expecting they might come in here, and the minister responsible for I, T and T might get up and do his sort of Ed McMahon imitation and get all the members opposite applauding each other over the anniversary.
* (1650)
But I understand why they do not want to do it. I mean, I must admit I did say across the way, Madam Speaker, can anybody across the way spell McKenna? You know, Frank McKenna had the sense to understand that 10 years in government, time to move on. But, you know, they will not admit that. They do not have the common sense to understand after 10 years that time is catching up on them, and the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) I think pointed to it. What is their legacy? I would be interested to know what the Conservatives say their legacy is. I mean, we know what they promised over the years. They were going to save the Jets, they were not going to sell off MTS. What are they going to run on in the next election? We are going to save the Jets again; that will not work. We are not going to sell MTS. Oh, they have a real good one. It is going to be we are not going to sell Hydro; you can trust us. That will go down real well.
You know, I think what they are relying on, they are relying on the fact that unfortunately a lot of people out there are cynical about politics and politicians. They are hoping that the people out there will say they are all liars, so why do we not just re-elect the current bunch? That is part of their political philosophy, the current bunch. It is kind of like the big lie sort of thing. After awhile you have heard so many lies, it does not matter anymore.
I suggest to members opposite that you are starting to show more and more your real Achilles' heel, and that is that you do not understand, first of all, that your philosophy is not working; second of all, it is out of step with a lot of changes that are going on internationally. It is funny, they came in and they said, oh, we have to move ahead, selling off MTS, this is the global situation.
Look at what is happening. You know, this last couple of years the Conservatives have been defeated in France; they have been defeated in Britain. Right now I think in the European union, 13, if not 14 out of 15 governments are social democratic, democratic socialists, just like the NDP basically, for members opposite who sometimes get confused over that. You know, you look at it, Madam Speaker, you can go even one step further. Germany, I mean, Helmut Kohl is on his last legs there. There has been this move in that direction. We are seeing increasingly that people are starting to see the need for a balance that moves away from--and I quote Hugh Segal again--neoconservative excess. Hugh Segal, boy, I never thought I would be quoting Hugh Segal in this House. But you know, it is a very interesting book.
We are moving away from that, and even I think it was Peter Holle, that great ideological inspiration for the members opposite, now says with privatization that they do not necessarily want privatization, but it should be considered. You know, Peter Holle, I think, has seen from examples particularly what has happened in New Zealand, for example, where you had a neoconservative agenda, mass privatization is not working. It does not work in health care. It does not work in a lot of sectors.
An Honourable Member: We do not know that yet.
Mr. Ashton: The member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) says we do not know that yet. That is part of what the problem is. That is the Conservative approach. I mean, frozen food. [interjection] The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) says the present system does not work. I am sure he is talking about his tenure as Minister of Justice. If he is talking about that, but is he suggesting, for example, that we should have mass privatization in the health care sector. [interjection] Well, they suggested it in home care. They backed down when people said no. They are doing it with food services right now.
The bottom line, to the member for Turtle Mountain, is if you look at it, the philosophies now of this neoconservative period are very much on the wane--a lot of people looking at human services. Even the Reform Party now is talking compassion on hepatitis C. Madam Speaker, has somebody not awakened to the--here is the Reform Party trying to get people in the country to get them to believe that the Reform Party is more compassionate than the Liberals. Quite frankly, I would not want to get into a debate either way because I think the Liberal behaviour has been anything but compassionate.
But people in society, I think, are increasingly starting to look at the fact that the public sector is very much about public service, and when we talk about efficiency, as does the Public Trustee act. We are talking about efficiency in the sense of public service not the ability to net out profits, not to try and turn public services into quasi-privately run or operated systems. You know, the private sector does a lot of things far better than the public sector does, but there are things that the public sector does better. I would like to list some of them. I think utilities such as electric power are better run by the public sector. It is a natural monopoly; it is a utility. We have gone through the argument on telephone services. Despite competition that has been around for five years, it still has many features of a utility.
Public automobile insurance, you know, that was very controversial in the early 1970s. I do not think anybody would question that now. I know certainly members opposite, I would hope, would not question it. There would be a lot of money made on Hydro and MPIC being sold off. I mean, if they made money on MTS, can you imagine what they would do with the other Crown corporations. But they provide cheaper, more efficient public services. You know, we have the lowest hydro rates, I think, in North America, some of the lowest in the world.
You know, it is funny, because the Conservatives also buy into the idea that you cannot run the public sector efficiently. Why do we have the lowest costs in North America? One of the reasons is that we, Madam Speaker, built Limestone for a billion dollars under budget. That was the NDP. The Conservatives opposed it. The Liberals called it Lemonstone. The public sector can be run efficiently and has been run efficiently. Their idea of public sector efficiency is they add--you know, these Tories over here, they were socialists for the Jets. They pumped $40 million to $50 million into the Jets, and that is what they consider sound public policy.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, I hate to interrupt the honourable member for Thompson when he is in full flight. We are really enjoying hearing him. Maybe he enjoys hearing himself as well, but, Madam Speaker, could we have some relevancy? I do believe we were speaking about the Public Trustee. I have been listening very carefully and I have not heard it.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for St. Norbert, I would remind all honourable members that our Rule 35 is very specific. Speeches shall be directly relevant to the question under consideration or to a motion or amendment that the member speaking intends to move or to a point of order. I would appreciate the assistance of all honourable members in complying with Rule 35.
Mr. Ashton: If the member had been listening carefully, he would have heard me not only reference The Public Trustee Act, but I actually, Madam Speaker, read into the record its mandate. I read into the record its board of directors, the groups it works with. I read into the record the fact that it is moving into an SOA, and I read into the record the sorry record of this government when it comes to public services and the fact that it cannot operate public services without bringing in incorrect approaches, whether it be the kind of greed we see with MTS or the inappropriate operation of SOAs or dealing with public services. And the member makes my point.
In fact, if the member had been a little bit more patient, I was actually concluding my remarks. I want to say on the record again to the government that they should reflect on the fact that the times they are a'changing. By the way, I do not subscribe to the bank version of that. I think the Bob Dylan original version is, you may remember in the 1960s. Well, I do not think they have much musical appreciation either, Madam Speaker.
But, you know, I really think members opposite should reflect on the fact that they are falling out of step increasingly. Their rigid, right-wing, ideological approach is not being reflected today in what many governments are doing. I say to them, if they wish to continue that, it will certainly not be to our political disadvantage. I think it would very much be to our advantage, but they should not continue to try and put in place inappropriate concepts.
What we are arguing on this bill is to make sure we maintain the true role of the Public Trustee, and I emphasize that, which is to provide efficient administration of assets on behalf of the clientele, the public trustees. Efficiency should not be efficiency as far as the government is concerned, it should be efficiency as far as the clients and the families of those clients. It should make sure their best interests are taken care of. There should be no profit to government. There should be no overcharging by government. There should only be public service. That is ultimately what the Public Trustee's office is all about.
That is why I spoke today, Madam Speaker, and I realize I may have raised other issues, but these are issues that are directly related, the decline under this government, the complete decline I think of any ethical sense of what government is all about.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Just for clarification, has the honourable member for Thompson concluded his remarks?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Mr. Ashton: Well, Madam Speaker, I had, but after the members opposite were saying that I had, I am wondering if I should not have. I have finished.
Madam Speaker: Technically, the honourable member for Thompson has three minutes. The honourable member for Thompson has concluded his remarks.
As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
* (1700)