DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS--PUBLIC BILLS

Bill 201--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), Bill 201 (The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie), standing in the name of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).

An Honourable Member: Stand.

Madam Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

SECOND READINGS--PUBLIC BILLS

Bill 204--The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (2)

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), that Bill 204, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, this is the same bill that I have introduced on previous occasions, and that the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) introduced when she was the Family Services critic for our party. As I said at first reading, the purport or the purpose of this bill is to amend The Child and Family Services Act so that the Children's Advocate reports to the Legislature instead of to the Minister of Family Services.

The first point that I would like to make is that there is a need for this in order to maintain the independence of the Children's Advocate. In fact, when the Minister of Family Services introduced the Children's Advocate to the Province of Manitoba we were very concerned that the Children's Advocate would not be independent, and in fact we were concerned that we would not know what recommendations the Children's Advocate was making to the minister. The first time we found out about recommendations that were being made was from foster parents in Thompson, and had the correspondence from the Children's Advocate to those foster parents not been shared with us we would not have known that the Children's Advocate made recommendations to the minister.

Subsequently we have the Children's Advocate's report and it is filled with recommendations, and we are very pleased that the Children's Advocate has written such a forthright report in his first annual report. In fact, there are numerous recommendations running to four or five pages in the first annual report. But the independence of the Children's Advocate is still an issue, because we do not know when this report was actually written and when it actually landed on the minister's desk. For example, the covering letter says December '94, and we know that by statute the minister has to table the Legislature after a certain number of days, and we have no way of knowing whether it might have been held up at the printers or whether it got sent back to be rewritten. We do know that it was not tabled in December, that we did not get it until the session resumed in, I believe, March of this year, and so the recommendations are not as timely as they might have been. If the Children's Advocate did report directly to the Legislature, this would not be a problem because the report would be tabled immediately without having to go through the minister's office.

I would like to commend Manitoba's Children's Advocate, Mr. Wayne Govereau. He does an excellent job. He is very co-operative, and I appreciate the fact that his office is there in order to investigate problems in the Child and Family Services agencies, because I get numerous phone calls, not just as the Family Services critic but as an MLA, and I am sure that other MLAs in this House get phone calls which are on Family Services matters, and, of course, they tend to be complicated. Most of them have two sides to the story, as we recently found out from a question that I asked the minister in the House a couple of weeks ago. We are at a disadvantage, particularly in opposition, but I would say any member, except for the minister, because of the confidentiality provisions. In fact, I pointed this out when I asked the minister a question a couple of weeks, so we are not privy to all of the information that might help us to make up our minds as to whether people have a genuine problem with the Child and Family Services Agency or whether maybe the agency did act in the best interest of a child or children.

So it is good to be able to refer this, to refer casework to the Children's Advocate, because they can investigate, and they do have access to information and to files and, I believe, to confidential information that we, as MLAs, would not have. That certainly is a service that is appreciated by myself and others as members of this Chamber.

I would like to discuss some of the recommendations that the Children's Advocate made. While I have commended the individual and commended his first annual report, I think there are a number of lingering problems that my bill addresses. One is, perhaps there would not always be an Advocate who felt so strongly about their independence, and a more timid advocate might be intimidated or inhibited by the Minister of Family Services. It might not be so forthright. That is why my bill recommends that the Advocate report to the Legislative Assembly. In fact, the first recommendation that the Advocate makes under recommendations concerning his own office is, and I quote, that the Children's Advocate be required to report to the Legislative Assembly as opposed to a particular minister in government.

If you look earlier in the Children's Advocate's report, on page 7, he gives reasons as to why he believes that he should report directly to the Legislature. He talks about, not this minister, but about the previous minister, and I hope the previous minister has read these comments, because they are very, very interesting and very critical. The Children's Advocate says that there were incidents in which he spoke out publicly against certain decisions of government, much to the dislike of the previous minister. The Children's Advocate was warned about his open criticism of government policy in regard to foster care cutbacks in 1993, and inferences were made that if the Children's Advocate did not refrain from such public criticism, he should consider leaving the position, along with veiled threats that the proclamation of the legislation could be delayed.

Well, this is really quite amazing in a number of regards, first of all that the Children's Advocate had the courage to print this in this first annual report and, secondly, the content of what he is saying, that he criticized his former boss and also that veiled threats were made that he might be let go from this office and that the legislation might be delayed from proclamation. This is really quite amazing. Well, the minister at that time was the honourable member for Minnedosa.

By comparison, Madam Speaker, I have the press release from the Minister of Social Services in Saskatchewan. This news release is dated March 22, 1995, and the Children's Advocate there, the acting Children's Advocate, became permanent as of November 1994. Under legislation introduced in the Saskatchewan Legislature, the appointment of the Advocate must be approved by the Legislature, which I believe is not the case in Manitoba. The Children's Advocate in Saskatchewan can prepare special reports for the Legislature at any time, either at the request of the Legislature, any minister or department, or upon her own initiative, since, in Saskatchewan, the Children's Advocate is a woman, Dr. Debra Parker-Loewen. So the Saskatchewan legislation follows, in some respects, the recommendation for the private member's bill that I have proposed.

* (1610)

The Children's Advocate has recommended, in a second recommendation that is very important, that the powers and duties of the Children's Advocate be expanded to include all children's issues and rights across all government departments and services. I think this would be an improvement over the current situation, even if it was only applied to the responsibilities of the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), because in Manitoba we have many very serious problems that the Children's Advocate has commented on in Child and Family Services agencies but also in other areas that greatly affect Manitoba's children.

For example, and I am quoting here from an excellent report commissioned by the government called the Health of Manitoba's Children, and on page 28 it says that there are many determinants of health. They are having an impact on Manitoba's children. For example, Manitoba has the highest rate of youth incarceration in the country. Manitoba has the highest proportionate number of children in care in Canada. In 1991, suicide was the leading cause of death from injuries in the zero to 24-year-age group in Manitoba, exceeding deaths from motor vehicle traffic accidents, falls, violence, et cetera.

Consistently, Manitoba has demonstrated average or above-average rates as a province. Manitoba has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the country. Winnipeg, I believe, has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada. Manitoba has one of the highest rates of adolescent pregnancies in Canada.

These are areas that the Children's Advocate, if he or she had responsibility for children's rights and issues across all the government departments, would certainly want to comment on. In fact, the Health of Manitoba's Children has recommendations in the Child and Family Services area, particularly under child protection. These recommendations are quite similar to some of the recommendations in the Children's Advocate report.

So I would like to read them into the record. I am sure that the minister will be commenting on some of these. For example, increasing preventative program expenditure to 10 percent to 15 percent of budget allocations and family support programs to 35 percent to 40 percent of expenditures. I think this is a very good recommendation and one that the Children's Advocate would agree with, that we need to put more supports into families before children are apprehended. We are really talking about prevention here.

I know the minister is going to talk about their preventative programs, but this recommendation suggests that there be a major reallocation of resources. I am sure that that is a recommendation that the Children's Advocate would be in favour of.

One of the things that the current Children's Advocate complains about is that he was not consulted or was not part of decision making that had to do with the allocation of resources.

On page 8, he says, "I believe that I have not always been able to successfully influence policy or funding decisions. First, because I have not been invited to participate in any of these processes. And secondly, the majority of such activities and decisions are directly related to government's agenda for cost reduction and not necessarily service enhancement based upon the actual needs of children and families being served by Child and Family Services."

We see that there is a similarity between what the Children's Advocate is saying and what the Health of Manitoba's Children report is saying.

There are many individuals who contact me, who question the priorities of this government and say, why are you not giving foster parents, for example, more money for high-needs and high-risk children, when in fact if the children are not in a foster home they may be in a hotel or a motel, which probably costs the government $200 or $300 a day. Yet it is very difficult for foster parents to get the maximum rate of $50 a day in order to deal with children that have very, very high needs and in fact can be very destructive.

I visited a foster home in my constituency and the foster mother pointed out that there was almost no furniture in the living room and no pictures on the wall. The reason is that these kids are so destructive that they cannot keep nice furniture, and they cannot keep pictures on the wall.

I think that if we do put these resources into homes, then foster parents will be encouraged to continue being foster parents instead of getting out of the business. In fact, I got a phone call last week from a foster parent who was so fed up that she said that there will not be any more foster children in their home, because the last four children were taken away in handcuffs. She had a very frightening experience, because while the police were outside she went inside to gather up the child's clothes and she looked under the bed, and there was a child curled up in a fetal position who had been living in her house without her even knowing about it. This was a very frightening experience for this foster parent.

So I think that the recommendations that the Children's Advocate makes are very important, and the recommendations made by the Postl report are important as well and are very much in keeping with the kinds of things the Children's Advocate is recommending. So I hope that the minister will seriously consider this bill and consider amending The Child and Family Services Act.

The minister has promised that there is going to be a complete review of The Child and Family Services Act and that there will be public consultation. This is a matter of public record from Estimates. So I hope that one of the things that this government will do in that review, and this minister will do in that review, is to review the reporting mechanism for the Children's Advocate.

Thank you, Madam Speaker

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill that my honourable friend has put forward. I had some great experience with child and family services, as some members opposite may be aware, in 1985, when a previous government decided that it was important to democratize child and family services and to provide for community-based services in all of Winnipeg and, in fact, all of Manitoba. I had the opportunity to work with many volunteers and parents and with the staff of Children's Aid of Winnipeg and Children's Aid of eastern, Children's Aid of western and Children's Aid of central Manitoba to develop a system that was community based.

Madam Speaker, for reasons which still elude any kind of analysis, this government decided, in 1990, that they wished to abandon the community-based approach to child and family services. It is an interesting reversal because we hear from the members opposite frequently how important it is to have things rooted in the community, how important it is to be supportive of volunteers, to be actively involved in the affairs of a community, and where is it better to address issues of child poverty, child maintenance, child neglect than at the grassroots level?

So I and many other Manitobans with me were dismayed when this government, in a very unilateral, very highhanded manner, dismissed over 100 citizen board members, dismissed hundreds and hundreds of volunteers, put in place an appointed patronage board and took all of the dissent, took all of the community voices that were advocates for children and brought them under one staffperson, one board, and essentially they silenced the voices that were speaking for children through the child and family services system of this province.

They essentially said that, in spite of whatever conditions our children are suffering, you will not hear about them, you will not speak to the press, you will not speak to members of the opposition, you will not let those conditions be known. Madam Speaker, they were devastatingly successful. The voices for children and of children in the child and family services system became first muted and then silenced.

Madam Speaker, over the last few years, we have heard virtually nothing of the chaos that is going on daily inside that system. We have heard virtually nothing of the overspending. We have heard virtually nothing of the fact that Manitoba has the worst record of bringing children into care in all of Canada, a far higher ratio of children in care than any other province.

Madam Speaker, this record of this government on child welfare is an appalling record. They have the worst of all possible worlds. They have gutted the community's interest and involvement in child welfare, dismissed boards, dismissed volunteers, dismissed those who would speak for children. They have appointed a patronage board, a patronage board that is appointed to be silent and to keep silence on behalf of children.

* (1620)

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

I would remind the honourable member for Crescentwood that debate on second reading should be very relevant to the content of the bill. In listening to the comments of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), my understanding of the content of the bill is that it is a delineation of direction for the Child Advocate's role in terms of the reporting procedure.

More simply, it makes the Child Advocate report directly to the Assembly as opposed to the ministry. I am having a little bit of difficulty in understanding exactly where the honourable member for Crescentwood is coming with his more generic remarks regarding social assistance.

I would appreciate the member speaking to the bill.

Mr. Sale: I am speaking directly to the bill and very explicitly. The role of the Child Advocate is to speak on behalf of Manitoba's children, to speak freely and openly on their behalf.

The current Child Advocate statute requires that that advocate report not to this House but to the minister concerned. It is an approach to child advocacy which I think is unprecedented in Canada. I know of no other situation where the delivery of child and family services is so circumscribed by the government's fear that there might actually be something said in the community of relevance about the needs of children than this government.

The bill to which I am speaking addresses specifically the ability of Manitobans to hear about and hear from those who are concerned about children and their welfare and specifically to hear from the Child Advocate.

I think my remarks are directly related to the act in question before us today. The purpose of that act is to improve Manitobans' ability to hear about the conditions of children in this province, specifically in the child welfare system but, more generally, as the Child Advocate recommends, in regard to all of the conditions in which children find themselves in this province.

I was referring, Madam Speaker, to the history by which this person came into place and by which his role as being accountable to the minister responsible instead of to this House came into place. It is a history of damping down any kind of dissent, of preventing people from speaking freely about the needs of those who cannot speak on their own behalf. That is why this amendment to this act, put forward in the bill to which we are now giving our attention, is such a vital amendment.

The Child Advocate makes some very clear recommendations. The Child Advocate says, I should be reporting to this House. That is what this bill would achieve. The Child Advocate says that the powers and duties should be expanded to include all children's issues.

My honourable friend the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) pointed out that all of the conditions of children in Manitoba are simply deplorable by comparison with national averages, the conditions of poverty, the conditions of juvenile crime, the conditions of children under apprehension in the child welfare system. We are not proud, I think, as Manitobans of the conditions in which our poorer children exist.

In calling for a change, we are calling for what the members opposite themselves use frequently in their rhetoric. They talk about accountability. They talk about transparency. They talk about community involvement. Yet when it comes to putting anything like that in place they want to appoint the members of school advisory committees, they want to appoint directly the board of the Child and Family Services system for Winnipeg, they want to damp down citizen involvement, and they want to keep the Children's Advocate on a leash, on a leash in which the advocate reports only to the minister and does more or less the minister's bidding.

Madam Speaker, I want to quote from the report of the Child Advocate, in which he says, the Children's Advocate has spoken out publicly against certain decisions of government, much to the dislike of the previous minister--not the current minister, the previous minister, the minister who comes from the constituency of Minnedosa--the Children's Advocate was warned about his open criticism of government policy in regard to foster care cutbacks in 1993. Inferences were made, Madam Speaker, that if the Children's Advocate did not refrain from such public criticism, he should consider leaving the position, along with veiled threats that the proclamation of the legislation, that is, the legislation for the Children's Advocate, could be delayed.

Madam Speaker, it is appalling that someone responsible for speaking on behalf of children should find it necessary to tell his own minister of the threats against his office coming from a previous minister. That is an appalling situation.

No minister should have the power to warn an advocate for children that his speech on behalf of children is uncomfortable to members of the government, and that he should tune his speech to be more publicly acceptable to the members of the government. That is not the role of a Children's Advocate. It is to be the fearless defender of those who cannot defend themselves. That is why we are calling for the amendments to this act, which would allow for the Children's Advocate, like the Provincial Auditor, like other civil servants, such as the head of the Civil Service Commission, to be accountable not to the government of the day. It can have the ability, whether it is this government or another one, to so change or so bend the will of the advocate that they can make his or her role ineffective. That is not the role of government when it comes, particularly, to its most vulnerable members which are its children at risk.

Madam Speaker, I would say as well that the Children's Advocate has done an exemplary job of putting in context the many responsibilities that he now carries. I would want to put on the record, I am sure along with other members of this side of House, our dismay that the current minister seems not to understand the deep and direct connections between fiscal poverty and the other kinds of poverty which she apparently is prepared to acknowledge.

She does not seem to understand that fiscal poverty, as the Children's Advocate understands, is deeply connected with failure to attain a decent education. It is deeply connected with diseases of the upper respiratory system. It is deeply connected with abuse. It is deeply connected with the life chances that that child will have and to which the Children's Advocate rightly points as his primary concern, that is the life chances of the children who are at risk in Manitoba.

Poverty does, as the minister has said, have some connection to nurture. There is no question that badly nurtured children will not do as well as children who are well nurtured, but it also has a deep connection to the issue of monetary fiscal poverty, low income. I am appalled the current minister does not seem to admit that the great number of children living in poverty in this province are at risk, not because they are not loved, indeed they are, in many cases they are loved very, very deeply, but because they cannot be afforded adequate housing, adequate nutrition, adequate care.

The role of the Children's Advocate, in addressing that, is surely a central role for members of this House to be concerned about. The Children's Advocate also intends to have the discretion to decline or to refuse investigative complaints, a reasonable request. There are indeed many other recommendations in his report which, if he were a servant of this House instead of a servant of the minister, he could spend his very valuable energy and efforts in addressing.

Madam Speaker, it seems to me to be self-evident that a government that is concerned about children and the welfare of children would want its most central spokesperson to be able to address that question of welfare directly to the public through the members of the Legislative Chamber, that most Manitobans who think very long about this question would be very unhappy with the current situation, where ministers are able to manipulate, through threat and pressure, the role and activity of the Children's Advocate, which threat and pressure he has put on the record. It is not a question of allegation, but a question of the record on page 7 of his initial report.

So I welcome the opportunity to support this very valuable amendment, Madam Speaker, and I hope that all members will similarly be concerned to put the person who has the welfare of children at the top of his agenda before the members of this House in a report and not through the minister of child and family services as is now the case.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Crescentwood for his comments and my colleague from Burrows for introducing this bill. It is a bill, as he has indicated, that has been introduced many times by members on this side of the House but cannot get the support of government, and I hope that this government will recognize--[interjection] The member across the way has indicated that we are filibustering this bill. This is a very important bill, and I think that it is important that we hear different perspectives on it. Certainly, we would like to hear the government's comments on this bill, but we know quite clearly that they will not allow it to pass as they have not let that happen in the last three times it has been introduced.

* (1630)

The Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) is here, and perhaps, if she listens to these comments, she will recognize the merits of this bill and these amendments and will consider, but, certainly, the Children's Advocate plays a very important role, and that office must be independent from the minister. We would hope that the minister would consider this amendment and ensure that the merits of that office are maintained and enhanced by giving the Children's Advocate the opportunity to report directly to the House as we see in other provinces and take away the threats that are there. As my colleagues have indicated, there were opportunities, there were other channels, for the concerns of children to be addressed, but changes that have been made by this government have taken away those avenues.

Patriotic boards have been put in place instead of ones that hear the real concerns of children and speaks up for the children. It is very important that we have a Children's Advocate and that that Children's Advocate be independent of the minister and report directly to the House.

The Children's Advocate has only been in place for one term and has put forward his first report, his first recommendations, and there are some very good recommendations. In his report, he says that they should be reporting directly to the House and that they should be dealing with many other issues, all issues, that affect children. There are issues that affect children far beyond the child and family services department, issues that affect children right across all departments in government, and the Children's Advocate should be able to address those without having the heavy-handedness of a minister over his head, as we have seen outlined in this report, where it is quoted, stated, that the minister has threatened the Children's Advocate, if he did not toe the line, that there would be delays in implementing the legislation. That sort of intimidation is completely unacceptable.

We must have a person who can speak up for our children, particularly when you recognize, Madam Speaker, that in this province we have some of the poorest children, and these children, children who come from poor families, do not have a spokesperson for them, in many cases, do not have avenues to access resources or supports. It is through the Children's Advocate office that their issue can be raised, and that must be something that we change in this legislation.

I think the government only has to look at what is happening in other provinces. There is a similar office in Saskatchewan which is a permanent position, a position that is not appointed by the minister, where the person in that job does not have to be threatened or feel vulnerable that they may say something that will upset the minister and then be at risk of losing his or her job, and in that case it is a woman who holds that job, but in that case that person can be a true advocate on behalf of the children of that province. In that province, as well, the Children's Advocate does report directly to the Legislature and has much more flexibility and is not intimidated or threatened as we have here in this province.

There is a need for the Advocate to be independent to address the real concerns. Just as we have the Ombudsman, who acts independently, the Children's Advocate must play that same role and we would hope that this government would consider these recommendations.

I think it is very important, Madam Speaker, that the children of this province do have somebody to speak for them and to address their concerns, particularly in light of the fact that we have the highest youth incarceration, in this province, and Manitoba has the highest poverty rate. These are issues that are very important, that are affecting the well-being of the future generation of this province.

We have an above average rate of young people committing suicide. Now, that just shows you the desperation that many people are feeling in this province, and they have no avenue to have their issues addressed. As I had said, high poverty rate, but an issue that causes me an awful lot of concern, Madam Speaker, is the fact that we also have the highest teen pregnancies in this province. These are very important issues that are facing our young people. The young people that we have in this province must have a person who can speak up for them to address their concerns without being intimidated, without being threatened that his or her job will be eliminated, without feeling that if he does not say the right thing that the minister can have that position removed.

We have to take those kinds of things away and put in place the assurances that the Children's Advocate can address all issues that are concerning young people in this province, whether it be poverty, whether it be the impacts of cutbacks in welfare rates, whether it be the lack of services for young people.

One other area that affects people, particularly in rural Manitoba, that has affected young people and the supports that are in place for young people is the cuts to friendship centres that we have seen. Through the friendship centres, and in my constituency there is a very good friendship centre in Swan River that provided some very good services, very good supports for young people, but when we saw the cutbacks that we did, the children's worker that was in there lost her job. We now do not have the communications between the schools and the friendship centre and the home which played a very important role in keeping young people in school.

So, Madam Speaker, there are many things that have happened as a result of actions taken by this government, cutbacks to friendship centres, cutbacks to educational programs, cutbacks to the Access program, reduction in foster family rates. All of these things are having a negative effect on the children in this province.

It is the Children's Advocate whose role it is to address these concerns and raise the concerns of our young people and be the spokesperson, because many of the other spokespersons that we did have have been removed by actions taken by this government, for example, people in the friendship centre.

So we have to have the assurances that just as the Ombudsman has the ability to be independent and not be influenced by any minister, you have to have the assurances that we have a Children's Advocate who is independent of any minister. Because, as we know, there are comments in the Children's Advocate report, Taking up Their Cause, the first annual Children's Advocate report we have comments in here showing that the person in the job right now has been advised that he should not be so forthright in his reports, and that is not good for the children of this province who need someone to speak up for them.

* (1640)

We have to ensure that this person can have no fear whatsoever of addressing any issues, and, Madam Speaker, there are many issues now that have to be addressed on behalf of our young people in this province. They need a strong spokesperson and that is the reason for this amendment.

I commend my colleagues for recognizing the importance of the independence of the Child's Advocate and when you look at the report it states quite clearly in here that there must be independence and certainly that the powers and duties of the advocate be expanded to include all children's issues right down to all government department services.

Another recommendation is that the Children's Advocate authority be amended to have the discretion to decline or refuse to investigate claims that are considered malicious or where, in the opinion of the Children's Advocate, the circumstance and the case do not require investigation. There are some very good recommendations that are put forward and one of the other recommendations is that additional staff be put in place to operate the program, to provide for the Children's Advocate, and there are some very good recommendations.

So there are very serious issues facing the children of this province. There are very few avenues that they have to have their concerns heard. The Children's Advocate is the only avenue and they must be addressed particularly as I say when we look at the plight of our young children in this province, when we consider that there are an above average number of people in this province who attempt suicide. Now that is a very serious situation if we do not have the resources in place to address those concerns. We have the highest poverty rate. Many young children are hungry, and those poor young children just cannot live on love. They need food in their stomachs, but those are the issues that are not being addressed by this government.

It is government policy that is affecting our young people and when government makes policy that has a negative effect on children there must be somebody who can speak up for them and have the independence to say so freely without feeling that his or her job is in jeopardy. If it was a permanent position we would not have to worry about that, but I hope that the government will seriously consider this legislation and that this session we will see this amendment pass and we will see an independent Children's Advocate who can seriously address the concerns that are facing the children of this province. It is a very important service that we have to see, we have to see our young people have those avenues open to them. I look forward to the government's comments on this bill, and I look forward to having them pass it.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Norbert, on a point of clarification.

Mr. Laurendeau: If we start now on the resolution, is the clock going for one hour on the resolution, or do we only have 15 minutes on this resolution?

Madam Speaker: The previous agreement was that it be determined by one hour's duration, two separate private members' hours. So whatever business is dealt with in the first hour, the time to debate that expires at five o'clock, and a new resolution will commence at five, between the hours of five and six, or however many resolutions the members so desire they want to deal with.

PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

Res. 24--Education Renewal

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that

WHEREAS a dynamic and innovative education system is an integral and essential component of the Manitoban community, bringing benefits to the province on an individual and collective basis; and

WHEREAS a sound education is essential for Manitoba's children to compete in a rapidly changing global economy; and

WHEREAS all education partners--students, parents, educators, business, industry, labour and government--have a shared responsibility for the children of Manitoba and so must work together to present constructive ideas for change; and

WHEREAS the Manitoba government has consulted with Manitobans and has presented its initiatives and plan for the future in New Directions, A Blueprint for Action and Renewing Education: New Directions, The Action Plan.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of Manitoba to continue its movement to renew and strengthen the education system in Manitoba for the benefit of present and future generations.

Motion presented.

Mr. Laurendeau: Madam Speaker, it was just such a good resolution, we wanted to hear you read it a second time, that is all there was to it.

Madam Speaker, this government has put one priority first in education and that is putting the student first. Education is exactly that. It is what we as a government can establish for programs for the students. It is important that the education of our children for their future, a benefit which will create jobs not only for themselves but for their children in the future.

Madam Speaker, for too long the system has been lacking, and it has been lacking not because governments have forgotten about education, but because we have not allowed the consultation to take effect and we have not allowed the discussions to be there. Parents have to be involved in an education system if it is going to work. Without the parental responsibility being involved in the education system, it is not going to work in the future. In our school in our community we have a parent council which has been in effect for a number of years, and it has worked, because we have been able to work with the teachers, we have been able to work with the principal, we have been able to work with the school trustees to initiate programs that are helping our children in helping them into the future.

Madam Speaker, as we are moving ahead in the new global economy--and that is a catch phrase that everybody has caught onto--our children could be left behind. We have to see that they not only learn about the past, but about the future. As I talk about the past, if I can just relate back a little bit, history is a very important part of what our education system is all about. It is important that we look at what our history was in Canada, how Canada was come to play, and not only our history as we know it since we came to this country but the pre-European history, as the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) had brought forward. It is important that our children know all there is to know about Canada so that they can take and give the competitive advantage of Canada to the entire world. We have so much to offer here in Manitoba from our natural resources to, No.1 again, the children and their future. They will be able to prosper not only because of what we have in natural resources and in our farming communities but because of the intellectual capabilities that they will have in the future.

* (1650)

Madam Speaker, there is just so much available to them, and I think we have to put the tools in place so that they will have them. The teachers within our schools have to be given the tools to teach. No. 1, they are teachers first. They are not babysitters, and when it comes time that they become babysitters it takes away from the integrity of the classroom. The students are going to school to learn, to learn where their future is, the mathematics, the reading, the writing, the history, but they are not there to learn about a society of technocrats. I cannot find the word, but it is interesting how we have educated our children away from education. They are learning more about the can dos and want to dos than the have to dos.

It is interesting how when we start talking about reading and writing, some people say, well, how about the rest of it? Well, the rest of it can flow. Yes, it is important that we have some music within the school. Yes, it is important that we have some arts within the school, as long as we are using the cross-curricular so that we are educating them throughout those other subjects within subjects.

Madam Speaker, we implemented computers into the classroom, and we are using the cross-curricular. We are actually using mathematics, science, social studies, all as one subject, and it was interesting how the three teachers were able to bring together one process that was able to initiate this cross-curricular within the Grades 9, 10 and 11 class, where they were actually working on sustainable development initiatives that was able to create more awareness of the world today. The children were able to learn more about what society is about, how to protect our Mother Earth and how to protect what we have built as a society.

Yes, we have in the past made mistakes, but, Madam Speaker, we have learned from some of those mistakes. If you do not make mistakes, you have not tried. It is very important that we look at where we are heading into the future and exactly how the standards that we establish for our children in the schools today take effect. When we say we are not to challenge a child in the school and we just pass them on to another grade without giving them a level to reach, I do not think that is appropriate. For us to take someone from Grade 3 and slap him in Grade 4 when they have not completed that curriculum or that established criteria for that level is not fair to that child. They are moving ahead with what? They have lost already because when they move along to the next class they are behind by a whole year and sometimes two years, and I do not think that is fair to that child.

When we move to standards and start testing, it is not to punish that child as some people have said. It is not to punish them and say that they are bad. It is to say you have to establish and you have to reach a goal. We do it in sports all the time. We challenge our children in sports. We challenge our children in a lot of their activities so that they excel for the best. What is the best? What is the standard? The standard should be established at the best of that child or that appropriate program that is in place. Some children can excel to a lot higher level, but we still have to have the minimum standard.

There has to be a minimum standard, because if they cannot reach the minimum standard, then we have to do something about it, and we have to work with that child or with that group of children to see that they do reach that standard, or we will have a legacy for tomorrow that will become more of those who are dependent on government. For too long, Madam Speaker, we have brought them to the trough and said come and eat from the trough and we will care for you till eternity. It does not work. We have done it with wild animals. Once you bring them to the trough and you feed them, you will never be able to set them free again, because they will come to that trough and that is the only way they can survive.

Well, Madam Speaker, we have done it with society. We have brought them to the trough and we have brought them to the trough and we have taught them to eat, but no longer can we afford to put the food in this trough, and when we put them out in the real world to succeed on their own, it is not working. They do not know how to succeed on their own, because they have never been given the tools to do it. So who is really winning? How can we succeed when we keep handing out everything and saying to the people, here it is and we shall take care of you till the grave. Well, it is not fair to anyone, and especially to our children.

Madam Speaker, the education renew is an action plan which I believe is going to bring us into the future. It is a plan which gives us an opportunity to do a lot more consulting. It gives us an opportunity to go out and listen to the public and hear the public. We did exactly that, because as this blueprint was being drafted we were still hearing from public presentations on different aspects of the blueprint. We listened and we made some changes in the blueprint, because that is exactly what it is, it is a blueprint. When you build a house, if your wife tells you she does not want the wall there, well, you better move it; I want a different coloured sink, you are going to change it. It is called communication. So by communicating, this government will continue to create a positive atmosphere within the educational field.

Madam Speaker, the education of our children is No. 1. As we move ahead in the future, I know that this government for many years to come will be going forward to the public and looking for reaction. We have to listen to the public and bring forward those changes, and at times we are going to have to listen a little clearer and see that we take some of those necessary changes, but we have established a direction. This is exactly it. We have put the road map before the public of Manitoba, and as of now, the road map is drawn. They can now find their way through this road map and they will find their direction. They cannot get lost, because the direction is there.

It is going to teach our young people how to co-operate and how to establish the future generation's economic benefits all around not only Manitoba but the western provinces, because we are going to start establishing a curriculum that is going to work across the western provinces. Why should we have a separate curriculum here in Manitoba than they have in Saskatchewan or Alberta or British Columbia. Madam Speaker, math is math in all four provinces, as far as I know. I think they still add the same way as we do. Mind you, they subtract different in British Columbia because of the NDP government; they still come out on the deficit side, but I think with a little bit more education, I think we are going to bring them alongside and I think we have corrected some of those inequities.

So, Madam Speaker, I think we can teach them our way of math, and I know that they have accepted our math curriculum and they are moving towards that, and as we move forward and we start working on the curriculums of history and the sciences, I really think that the benefit is ours. I think that we have the opportunity to take a lot of the duplication of services out of the education system. We have an opportunity to work together as a western grid.

So, Madam Speaker, as we move forward in the education system and we start working towards a curriculum that is standardized across the western provinces, I think that we will have a much clearer vision of where we are going in the future. We will recognize that the students are No. 1. We will recognize that teachers have to have the ability to teach. We will recognize that when children leave school they have to have guidance to understand where they are going in the future. We can no longer forget what the industries are they are moving into. When they are in Grade 11 or 12, we should be giving them direction into which fields they are going into, and there is no reason when they are in Grade 11 or 12 that they cannot get credits towards that field. In some cases, they should actually have credits that move with them from the Grade 12 level on towards their apprenticeship programs.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for St. Norbert will have two minutes remaining.

The hour being 5 p.m., as previously agreed, we will now move to the next resolution.

Mr. David Newman (Riel): I would like to seek the agreement of this House to bring forward a resolution that would have been brought forward by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), who is not present today, and I would like to move that resolution with the permission of this House, the Young Offenders Act resolution.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit the honourable member for Riel to propose Resolution 25, the Young Offenders Act? [agreed]

* (1700)

Res. 25--Young Offenders Act

Mr. David Newman (Riel): Moved by myself, seconded by the honourable member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews)

WHEREAS there has been an increase in youth crime and violence in this province; and

WHEREAS the current Young Offenders Act does not adequately address many classifications of offenders; and

WHEREAS Manitoba's position includes more transfers to adult court, increased parental responsibility and publication of names of some convicted offenders.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly support the provincial government and the Minister of Justice for their continued efforts to strengthen the Young Offenders Act.

Motion presented.

Mr. Newman: This resolution raises a very important issue that we are all concerned with as Manitobans and elected officials. It concerns our youth, and it concerns their future and also the impact they have on other people's health, safety and future in this province.

Youth justice issues are extremely important to this minister and this government. This has been demonstrated by the concentrated efforts that have been made on both the prevention-intervention side but also the punishment side. The government of Manitoba has recognized the importance of the issue to Manitoba and has been taking strong action on crime issues. Because of this government's understanding of the issues and, I would suggest, a broad and deep understanding, a plethora of prevention-intervention measures have been introduced.

Madam Speaker, Youth Justice Committee, the No Need To Argue program and youth night courts and others are initiatives which address the need to change the behaviour of youth so that they do not repeat. Manitoba realizes, however, that prevention does not address all of the needs of her justice system. Serious, violent young offenders are not receiving a strong enough message from the Young Offenders Act, and it is that specific problem which needs to be addressed. The Young Offenders Act needs further changes because those made by the federal government do not go far enough.

There have been some changes, and I am pleased to suggest that those changes have been a product, in part, of the contributions made by the strong submissions made by our government through the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) on a number of occasions, but some of the proposals have not been adopted in the form of amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

The federal government's position: They have proposed changes which would stiffen penalties for young people that commit violent crimes, as has been suggested by us. These changes include: The youth court may, on application of the provincial director, the Attorney General or his or her agent, make an order permitting the applicant to disclose to such person or persons as is specified if the court is satisfied that the disclosure is necessary. Reasons for disclosure would include: The young person has been found guilty of an offence involving serious personal injury; another example, the young person poses a risk of serious harm to persons; thirdly, the disclosure of the information is relevant to the avoidance of that risk.

First-degree murder disposition, under the amendment proposed and approved by the federal government, was not to exceed 10 years, which is up from the five years less a day previously. This would be comprised of continuous custody of six years subject to review and the remainder to a placement under supervision to be served in the community.

For second-degree murder, continuous custody up to four years, followed by supervised community living for three years, total sentence available seven years, and this is up from the previous five.

Every person who is charged with first degree murder, attempt to commit murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault or aggravated assault who is 16 or 17 will be dealt with as an adult unless they apply to the Youth Court to have their case dealt with in Youth Court.

There is a great deal of speculation regarding the reasons for these changes to the Young Offenders Act, and it is interesting to see the polarity of the views. It was suggested they reflected demands for more protection and for more punishment. Mr. Rock came under public fire from both sides of the equation. On one side proponents of stiffer penalties stated that the proposed changes would be ineffectual because they were not stiff enough. Quoting Policy Chief Dale Henry, in June of 1994: There is a very strong feeling out in the community about the weakness of the Young Offenders Act, and I do not know that the federal government got the message.

On the other hand, Minister Rock came under fire because many felt that increased jail terms were not the answer to the problem of youth crime. In The Globe and Mail criminologist Neil Boyd, on Friday, June 3, 1994, stated: Changes in punishment is not the answer. Most of the violent offenders come from violent backgrounds and attack people they know. Quick fix is popular but does not address the social problem.

What Rock has done has pleased nobody. Manitoba, on the other hand, has taken a consistently clear approach to the issue of youth crime and violence, and a stricter Young Offenders Act is only one aspect of a comprehensive strategy which has been introduced by this government. So what is Manitoba's position? The government of Manitoba had asked for more substantial changes to the Young Offenders Act than those proposed by the federal government. The position includes more transfers to adult court, increased parental responsibility and publication of names of some convicted offenders. Virtual automatic transfer of a young offender to adult court in cases involving serious offences, such as homicide, offenders with a record of criminal activity or an offender who has involved other children with no previous criminal records in the commission of a crime.

Creating a category of dangerous young offenders was another approach of the Manitoba minister. The category would allow a wider range of sentencing options including longer sentences particularly for violent and repeat offenders facing charges, such as homicide, aggravated sexual assault and robbery. Another, consideration of parental involvement and responsibility to a young offender's actions including financial and legal responsibility. Publicizing the names of convicted offenders where it is in the public interest, particularly crimes of violence, repeat offenders and those who use other children in the commission of a crime. Maintaining the minimum age of 12 years of age, but establishing a mechanism to allow repeat and heinous offenders under the age of 12 to be brought into the justice system by application to a Youth Court judge.

Madam Speaker, the federal legislation was seen as inadequate by many including Police Chief Dale Henry, now-retired Youth Inspector Lou Spado, and even NDP justice critic, the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). Manitoba's former Assistant Attorney General for Public Prosecutions, Stu Whitley, and this government also made comments to that effect. Spado said, they are saying public protection must be our primary objective in dealing with violent young offenders. How is knowing the kid next door is a violent offender going to protect you? He has committed a violent act, but they will not put him in jail. There is a risk to your safety so they are going to let you know who he is, but they are not going to incarcerate him.

Winnipeg Police Chief Dale Henry called the changes disappointing. The honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) said the proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act are long overdue but only a part of dealing with rising youth crime. What is needed is swifter consequences. Stu Whitley, Manitoba's Chief Prosecutor, says, the Young Offenders Act has stripped police of the power to combat sociopathic punks.

* (1710)

This government has consistently recognized the importance of prevention and rehabilitation with respect to youth crime. The broad spectrum of prevention, rehabilitation and educational programs which address youth crime and young offenders attest to this fact. We have talked about this in debate in this House during private members' hour before with our discussion on Youth Justice Committees, the No Need To Argue program, the Children and Youth Secretariat, the Urban Safety program, the Summit on Youth Crime and Violence, and the education intervention programs in the correction system.

Some of the spin-offs from these initiatives are really amazing when you translate them down to action within our constituencies. Ones that I know about, for example, Victor Mager School which is just a wonderful example to so many other schools and community bodies, I think, in our overburdened city with all its problems. Jan Smith in that particular school, the community liaison officer, has together with staff and volunteers and co-operation with the community through community clubs and other bodies done some fantastic things for the local community, where there are very serious problems, in a preventative way. This is the sort of use of the sporting facilities in the school itself. The ability to liaise with people who are professionals that know their job. The ability to become, in effect, mentees of volunteers that give a 13-year-old individual who has never played hockey before an opportunity to play hockey somewhere where it is not just a competitive thing as community clubs, unfortunately, have become too accustomed to solving, addressing and supporting.

The Winnipeg Development Agreement holds some excellent, I think, resources to address some of these basic initiatives and bring them to full bloom. We have all kinds of organizations, and, again, I know in my constituency--I have already spoken to this under a previous debate--the Citizens for Crime Awareness, but it is not just my constituency, that is throughout the whole city of Winnipeg. They are the people responsible for Neighbourhood Watch, and they are doing some amazing things as they evolve into grassroots-based organizations.

This government has also recognized, however, that reform of the Young Offenders Act is necessary in order to address the problem of serious violent young offenders. While many resources are expended on prevention, rehabilitation and education programs, there are still violent offences being perpetrated on the people of Manitoba. It is those offences that a stronger Young Offenders Act should address.

Stu Whitley raised extremely important issues in his presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Manitoba's principal concern, he said, is with a violent recidivist offender. A stronger Young Offenders Act is meant to address the violent, persistently criminal kids. This is the message. The message is to deal with those people that the present act is not addressing adequately. The people know it. It is now up to the government federally to do something about it. If people are planning, premeditating and thinking intellectually, one has to conclude they also bring into the balance what will likely happen if they are caught. That is the sort of message that can be conveyed by a stronger Young Offenders Act.

There are many compelling reasons that a stricter Young Offenders Act should be supported by all members of this House. Some of those, I submit, are as follows: giving the justice system the power to address violent offenders under the age of 12 through the court system would have substantial benefits. Based on Mr. Whitley's estimate of the number of Winnipeg cases which would be dealt with in such a manner, less than 10 per year, there would be little increase in the caseload of the courts. In addition, knowing that they are not immune to judicial action would provide a strong deterrent to children under the age of 12.

Another compelling reason, Madam Speaker, suggests support for a tough Young Offenders Act would not detract from the many other initiatives currently in place not only through the Department of Justice but through other departments as well. Manitoba is aware of the importance and necessity of prevention and rehabilitation programs and has continually demonstrated its commitment to these initiatives. A stronger Young Offenders Act would function in addition to not instead of Manitoba's prevention, rehabilitation and education programs.

Manitobans from across the province have indicated they both want and need stronger penalties for young offenders. I submit the challenge is for each MLA to take responsibility for and provide support for the crime prevention initiatives in their constituency and begin that support by supporting this resolution. Thank you.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address this resolution, which is indeed an important resolution, as my honourable friend has pointed out.

The Young Offenders Act replaced a piece of legislation which had been on the books in Canada for well over 60 years, and the new act caused in its implementation a great deal of difficulty to all governments across Canada. I think I can say without hesitation that this government has experienced many of the same kinds of problems that other governments across the country have experienced in bringing into play legislation which fundamentally changed the way we dealt with delinquency, which we used to do under the previous legislation.

Madam Speaker, the intention of the Young Offenders Act was and is, I think, an honourable intention. It was to provide for reasonable consequences for delinquency. It was also to recognize that there is an age below which it is very questionable whether children can form a criminal intent and therefore whether they can, in fact, do acts which they understand properly to be criminal acts. I think that in the actual implementation of the act, however, it has become clear that it is an act wanting substantial strengthening and improvement and particularly clarification.

One of the great difficulties of the current act, Madam Speaker, which I am sure all members opposite are aware of is that it puts in question the role of the child welfare authority in dealing with children who commit offences under the Young Offenders Act, and yet, as I know and as I am sure that many of them know, the children who are seen under both the child welfare act and the Young Offenders Act are often the very same children. They are seen one day under one act and another day under another.

The fact that under one they are subject to the provisions of a judicial process with lawyers and court dates and often court dates that are far too late to have any meaningful deterrent effect on the behaviour in question, I think, raises for us the fact that while the Young Offenders Act was a useful attempt to try and get at the problem of delinquency in children, it has largely failed to do the job that it was set out to do.

Madam Speaker, the child welfare act has in it a number of provisions which are preventive in nature whereas the Young Offenders Act has mostly provisions that are intended to punish and deter.

We know, from working with younger children, that basically it is extremely difficult to get compliance from younger children to something that they do not fully understand. I remember well one of the early encounters I had with this act, and that was through the arson of Young United Church, which tragically burned down in 1989. It was finally found, after many months of investigation, that the perpetrators in this case were young children who had hidden in the building after the close of the day and had deliberately set a fire. These children were, I think, in one case, 12 and, another case, 10 years old.

I do not think that there is anyone who would suggest that either of these children had any real sense of the magnitude of the destruction that they were causing with their act. Were you to sit down with these children and to say, do you understand the loss to the people of the church, do you understand the loss to the citizens of Broadway, do you understand the seniors whose building was taken away from them by this disastrous fire, these children would, I think, have no conceptual understanding. They knew that they had done something wrong, but the question of whether they had committed a heinous offence or not, I think, is quite beyond their ability to sort out.

That, Madam Speaker, I think goes to the heart of the trouble with the Young Offenders Act. It does not provide the resources or the processes to deal adequately with the whole question of the socialization of the children that we find committing offences. Unfortunately, young offenders are vastly disproportionately children who are also deprived in other areas of their life. They very often are children who have been seen, as I said earlier, probably very recently by officials under the child welfare act.

* (1720)

Very often the offender, who has a liquor or a drug or a break-and-enter offence, will be found to have a long file in the child welfare system, often of neglect, sometimes of abuse. So we have to ask ourselves: Is it an appropriate piece of legislation that we now have in this act that will allow us to get at the causation?

Sometimes people criticize those of us concerned about the causes of juvenile crime for being softhearted. I think that we are compassionate but not soft headed or softhearted in that sense. We understand that if you do not deal with the root causes of offences, no matter how serious or how trivial, you probably will wind up spending more and more time and more and more money on this particular offender as she or he develops a long-term pattern of offences. So the Young Offenders Act, which allows for some rehabilitative function, some rehabilitative focus, but is under assault because it is not tough enough, is pretty silent on getting at the question of cause of behaviour.

Madam Speaker, that is generally seen to be the purview of the child wefare act, that the intention of the child welfare act is to prevent family breakdown, to prevent the circumstances of children leading to their antisocial behaviour in one way or another. It has primarily the function of providing prevention and reintegration. The Young Offenders Act is very weak on this count.

I understand the concern of the members opposite about the Young Offenders Act classifications of offenders not being adequate. It is very difficult to speak against the notion that some young offenders that we have seen who have committed heinous crimes ought not to be moved speedily to adult court. It is very difficult to argue against that when the child is 16, 17, 18 years of age and has a very serious pattern of criminal offending.

That is not, I think, our primary concern. I think we understand the need for flexibility in terms of moving young offenders who have a deep pattern of offence to adult court on occasion. The difficulty is that the WHEREAS in this motion starts out by saying, "WHEREAS there has been an increase in youth crime and violence in this province . . . ." but then it goes on to make it appear that the problem is the Young Offenders Act.

And "WHEREAS the current Young Offenders Act does not adequately address many classification of offenders . . . ." Then it goes even further and says, our position is to include more transfers to adult court, increased parental responsibility and publication of names. This is a very narrow response to the first WHEREAS.

We have an increase in youth crime in this province far out of proportion to our province's size. We are the worst in Canada, and yet the other provinces, the other nine and the two territories, administer the same Young Offenders Act. There is no difference between the Young Offenders Act in Newfoundland and the Young Offenders Act in Manitoba. The same act is in place, yet they have a much better record and an improving record on youth crime, and we have a worsening one.

Madam Speaker, it is hard for us on this side of the House to attribute that problem, as this motion does, to the admitted weaknesses in the Young Offenders Act. We see a government that has decided that child poverty is not an issue, that it is only if you are not loved that we have to be concerned. We have seen a government that reduces the staff of courts so that young offenders do not come before a court until many, many months after the offence has been committed.

I remember a number of times, in the past couple of years, constituents saying to me that the Young Offenders Act was like saying to a child at Easter, you are going to be in deep trouble at Christmastime, my friend. When you are 15 years old, Christmastime is a long way from Easter. It may be a matter of many degrees of evolution of the child's development, and, Madam Speaker, as a teacher, you know how rapidly children change during their adolescent years.

So, if they commit a serious offence, as many do, stealing a car, doing a break and enter when they are 13 or 14 and the charges are not disposed of finally until they are 15 or 16, we have completely missed the boat in terms of tying the consequences of the crime to the actions of the young offender.

This motion, which appears to be concerned about youth crime, has a single-minded answer, and the single-minded answer is to blame Ottawa's Young Offenders Act for the problems in Manitoba, but every other province has this same act and many other provinces have tried much more innovative ways of dealing with youth crime.

For example, the police force in Edmonton, Alberta, has been spectacularly successful at dealing with child prostitution, not by strengthening the Young Offenders Act or by charging children under the Young Offenders Act, but by charging the johns by going after the real offenders in child prostitution, who are the adults who are abusing children for sexual gratification.

There are other examples, Madam Speaker, that are closer to home. St. Theresa Point, in this province, has had a youth justice council for many years. Mr. Justice Murray Sinclair pointed out that on the reserves that have operated for some time with youth justice councils, juvenile crime is virtually nonexistent, that it has been a very important measure for dealing with the real causes and the dynamics of crime among juveniles.

My honourable friend from Burrows points out that for many years the Faculty of Recreational Studies at the University of Manitoba has operated sports fly-in camps, has provided recreational opportunities to young people in the North. We know that in the inner city, when we provide drop-in centres such as Rossbrook House, many of the children who are now associated with Rossbrook have given up behaviours which might well have landed them under the rubric of the Young Offenders Act.

So, Madam Speaker, we find this resolution wanting because it does not deal with the causes. It does not deal with the real, underlying problems in regard to young offenders. It takes a single-minded approach, pointing to Ottawa as the source of the difficulty for Manitoba, whereas in fact it is Manitoba that is failing to take progressive action to deal with the underlying causes.

Therefore, I would like to move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers)

THAT Resolution 25 be amended by adding the words following the first BE IT RESOLVED clause; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manitoba government immediately launch a task force on youth poverty and destitution to examine the underlying causes of Manitoba's abysmal juvenile crime situation and to identify and implement appropriate strategies of prevention.

Madam Speaker: I will be taking this amendment under advisement.

* (1730)

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to make some comments in respect of the resolution. I will not address the amendment since you will be taking that under advisement in respect of whether or not the amendment is--the motion is appropriate.

I think the comments made by the member for Riel (Mr. Newman) and the member opposite are helpful in this debate, this very difficult question.

I think it is clear that, in order to make a better product, a worker needs to be provided with the proper tools, and the issue in the area of preventing youth crime, the issue here is no different. We must provide the responsible agencies in society with the proper tools. One of these tools is a proper legal framework, and please note, Madam Speaker, that I am saying that this is one of the tools, but I would submit that it is in fact a very important tool. It is not the only tool; it is, however, that tool that I wish to restrict my comments to.

I think if we wanted to look at the broader issue, such as the amendment that is being proposed by the member opposite, that involves consideration of other tools perhaps as important as the legal framework, but clearly the legal framework, in order to do the job, must be suitable. A carpenter needs a hammer, a carpenter needs a saw, a carpenter needs many tools in order to encounter the problems that he or she must face and to deal with that problem; each tool has an appropriate use for a particular problem.

Now, the Young Offenders Act is one such tool in the arsenal of those responsible for insuring that children in our society are dissuaded from criminal activities. I can agree with the comments of the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) that the Young Offenders Act is in no way a great step or leap forward from the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I recall when I was prosecuting under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The first day I started, they handed me the Juvenile Delinquents Act and said, well, take a look at it, but that act will soon be gone, we are going to get a new act. Well, I was still prosecuting under the Juvenile Delinquents Act when I left the Prosecutions branch, but clearly there were all kinds of problems with that Juvenile Delinquents Act, and it appeared to me that, in many respects, the treatment of children under that Juvenile Delinquents Act acted more like an incubator for crime than a method by which to prevent or dissuade children from becoming criminals.

That concerned me, so I welcomed the Young Offenders Act and the proposals that were being put forward, but more and more as you examined those proposals, it soon became apparent that this idea of incubating criminals was carried on with the Young Offenders Act.

The tool that was created to address the problem was no better than the tool before it. I can recall prosecuting various young individuals, and they would come to court month after month. There was not much problem with getting guilty pleas or convictions in a timely fashion. Many of the children wanted those trials sped up, and we accommodated them, because, in the final analysis, there was no consequence. There was no consequence until these children, suddenly and magically, at age 18, became adults.

These same children, now adults, a day or two later, would walk into court and expect the same kind of treatment. In those days, there was a fine of a maximum of $25 and various other similarly ineffective penalties under the act. These children, now adults, appeared in the court. No, they did not need a lawyer. Why would we need a lawyer? Just come in here and plead guilty and get on with our lives. Well, the judge in fact said, son or young lady, I think you had better get a lawyer. Suddenly, these young people were into a system before they realized it, and they began to realize the magnitude of their crime after they were an adult and after they were into the criminal system. We had created criminals.

Our justice system, through that Juvenile Delinquents Act, created criminals by not demanding accountability from these children as children, from demanding a sense of responsibility for their actions, because that was essentially the philosophy behind the Juvenile Delinquents Act. There was no sense of responsibility, no sense of accountability, and now this child, who used to receive a $25 fine and six months unsupervised probation for break and enter into a residential home, because that is what you got for that, was into the federal system, into the penitentiary system. A judge, looking at his acts committed as a juvenile, would then say, you have had all the chances that the justice system is going to give you, and now you are a criminal. Now you are going to penitentiary. Now this child, now hardly an adult, is doing hard time in a penitentiary.

That is what our Juvenile Delinquents Act did. It created criminals. So, for some reason, we wanted to reform, and, for good reason, we wanted reforms in the act. The Young Offenders Act was created. Yet the essential component of an effective legal justice system was missing from this act as well. What is that? It is the lack of accountability, a lack of a sense of responsibility to society at large missing from the act. So the same children go through the system, get their slap on the wrist, and I would just say in respect to the comments that there are delays, lawyers can speed up these systems. We can get trials very, very quickly if the lawyers are co-operative, and we know that. But for various reasons they choose not to, and I am not going to go into the motives, but we know that the system, if all the professionals were co-operating in a proactive way--[interjection] I will not comment about the legal profession in a derogatory way here, because I too was a practising lawyer until I was--

An Honourable Member: Are you an MLA or a lawyer now?

Mr. Toews: Well, I am an MLA, and that is where I think we want to look at the entire problem.

An Honourable Member: Then you are able to comment on the lawyers.

* (1740)

Mr. Toews: The problem is not just lawyers, but I was just commenting on the member opposite's comments that there are delays in the system. If there was good faith on the part of all parties involved, these delays would disappear very, very quickly. Let us leave it at that.

We have these young children come into court and again the charges are disposed of. Yes, it is true, it is now easier to get these children into adult court if we want to, but what have we been doing? We said now that you do not become a criminal until you are age 12. You cannot be held accountable until age 12. What are we doing before that time? These kids, out in the street, are not stupid children. They are very, very bright. They know the system better than many lawyers know the system. It does not take them long to figure out that if you are 13 or 14, you do not do the B and E yourself, you send your young brother in, who is 11 years old or 10 years old, who cannot be held accountable.

So again, what are we doing? We have set up a system because of an artificial legal barrier to say, that child cannot be held criminally responsible. So now we are assisting this 13- or 14-year-old child turning his or her younger brother or sister into a criminal, because we do not hold them accountable in any way.

Again, these legal, artificial barriers create the criminals. The system creates the criminal in no fewer ways than other influences do, so if we are going to address the problem of the legal framework, let us do it properly this time.

I think that some of the positions that this Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) has brought forward should be commended because it strikes directly at that issue, that lack of accountability, that lack of responsibility to the greater society that the present act has inherited from the old Juvenile Delinquents Act. Yes, we have bigger fines; yes, we have the capability of sending children to prison for longer times, but yet we incubate these young people in a legal system that protects them and makes them into better, more effective criminals so that now, by the time they are 12 years old, they have become sophisticated criminals who have absolutely no fear of the legal system.

So the proposal that we establish a mechanism for bringing people under the age of 12 to the court system is very, very important to assist the court system, to assist the police officers, to assist the prosecutors, to indeed assist the parents themselves in bringing home to the children, yes, there is accountability for your criminal acts, and there comes a time, even though you are under age 12, that you are responsible for the actions that you commit.

The sense of consequence, I submit, is further strengthened by the issue of parental involvement, by publicizing the young offenders' names, and I would say this is particularly effective when you look at a community. Some of us look at Winnipeg as a great big city. Well, we look and live in sections of the city. We know who lives in our neighbourhood. I have watched children grow up in my neighbourhood. I know who they are. I know who their parents are. If some of these young offenders were named, the community would recognize these children, and the community would demand action from some of these parents. Now these parents and these children can walk around in a cloak of anonymity.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) for that show of support before I start speaking. My hope is that the same show of support will be there when I sit down after I speak.

I want to concur with much that has been said so far concerning this resolution that we have been talking about in terms of the Young Offenders Act. I want to recognize and thank the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for bringing this to our attention in the first place and also the member for Riel for bringing it to the House today. I think it is a very important issue that all MLAs need to speak on, and I think all MLAs need to take very seriously the problems of protecting and providing security for Manitobans from one end of the province to the next.

Also, I would like to concur with much of what has been said by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) as well as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews). I think that everyone who has spoken on this Young Offenders Act so far can agree that there are many areas that both sides of the House will in fact agree upon with some minor differences of opinion on certain specifics of the resolution that has been placed before us.

Certainly, Madam Speaker, we need to take seriously protecting people in this province. Over this past summer, when I was on holidays out in the eastern part of our country, I was somehow--I was not pleased to get into discussions which painted Winnipeg in particular as a city full of crime. As a Manitoban and as a legislator I was particularly embarrassed to talk with people who made the assumption that crime was somehow rampant in our province and that it was a very insecure city and province in which to live. That is a reputation that I think all members should be very, very cognizant of.

I think that all members should be striving in their actions and in their words in this House and in the legislation that we pass to try to maintain a top-notch reputation from one end of this country to another.

If I was a person living in the Maritimes or on the west coast, it would not be a factor in my deciding to move here or set up business; it would not be an encouragement to know that Manitoba is bucking a national trend and having our crime statistics increased while other parts of the country are experiencing improvements in their crime statistic. So it is something that all members indeed should be very cognizant of.

As I speak on the Young Offenders Act I want to take some of the things that I think I have learned, as well as other educators in Manitoba, about how the teenage mind ticks. Many of us who have had a lot of experience working with teenagers and adolescents understand that these are folks who are going through some very tumultuous times. These are folks whose chemical make-up is undergoing a tornado within the skin that envelopes them. The thoughts and the actions of young folks these days are certainly different than they were back when the Young Offenders Act replaced acts that preceded it. On this point, too, I must agree with many of the comments that the Minister of Labour has already put out as to the improvements that the Young Offenders Act made to the Juvenile Delinquency Act. But I also agree that there are things that the Young Offenders Act could be doing more of in order to help out with the problem of protection and security for Manitobans.

* (1750)

Adolescents these days take a look at the world in view of choices. They have lots of choices available to them. I want people in the House to consider how a young person goes about making up his mind or her mind before they take some kind of illegal action. What is the best way we can help these students make the correct choices, students and other young people?

First of all, those of us who are a little older and a little wiser have to provide some sort of guidance to teenagers and some kind of counselling to help them make these correct choices to begin with. One of the most effective ways of doing this is through the school system. I think we have to look at this in terms of preventing an action in the first place, rather than always responding or reacting after an illegal action has been committed.

I think that makes sense to look at it that way and I would think that most honourable members would also agree with me in those terms. One of the ways, in a school at least, that I found and other school principals and school teachers have found that is very effective is to get young people involved in the decision-making process. The attempt here is to try to get students to take ownership for the process itself.

If students take ownership of the process and they feel they are part of the rules and the regulations governing their behaviour, they are much more apt to follow the rules and regulations that are set there to govern them. I think that is a very important point that we have to remember as legislators, because there are some very good ideas that come from youth today. I think we would be very irresponsible to ignore the kind of advice that we would get from teenagers when it comes to setting up the rules and responsibilities and regulations that govern young folks today.

I think if we are interested in producing outcomes and lowering the number of crimes committed by young offenders, then we should take seriously the young folks who do have some good ideas and try to bring them into the decision-making process. I think that is something we should look at as part of the Young Offenders Act, and I think it is something that this government should look at in its own day-to-day operation and the legislation that we eventually approve in this House.

I think the government and all MLAs have to take seriously and understand the role that poverty plays in producing the environment in which crime occurs, specifically crime with young people. You do not have to go very far in this city to find areas of high crime statistics, and then also realize that those are also areas of high poverty. The connection there is very strong.

If we are serious about reducing the number of crimes committed by young people, then we have to be serious about dealing with poverty. We also have to take a preventative tact as opposed to always reacting to situations.

One of the proposals that has come forth from this government is the whole idea of boot camps. When I was a school principal, I understood that there had to be consequences following the actions of students. I understood the consequences had to be of such a nature that they would deter a young person from taking that action again, but what we forget here is the action that we are dealing with has already taken place. We have to do everything we possibly can to prevent that action from happening in the first place, as opposed to sitting back and waiting to send a young student, a young person off to boot camp to teach him a lesson for what they have already done.

My own personal opinion is that we have not gone far enough in preventing that student, that young person from committing the crime in the first place. It would be irresponsible for us to simply sit back, provide boot camps for young people without going that extra mile to try to help them out in the first place.

How can we dissuade teenagers from committing these crimes, from acting? What can we do to help them out, to block or dissuade them from taking action that is unacceptable? Well, for one, in rural Manitoba, we need to have RCMP who are visible. We need to have RCMP out there establishing a presence to try to prevent the criminal activity from happening in the first place. What we have seen in that area, at least on behalf of mostly the federal government, are cutbacks.

Within the city of Winnipeg, again, we need to have the city police a lot more visible, a lot more accessible than what they are right now.

In the school setting, it was always clear that first of all you have got your students to take ownership for the actions that are acceptable and the consequences that will follow. It always helped to set that more co-operative type of environment within the school and produce a situation where the students of the school wanted to behave.

They always knew beforehand what the consequences were. They were very clear. If we as teachers or if we as school staff were unclear about the consequences, then students were unclear, and they chose to misbehave based on not being clear about the consequences. We have to be clear. We have to be direct with our consequences and, most importantly, the consequences need to be immediate.

If there is a delay, then the line between the action that the young person did and the consequence is too hazy. They do not make the connection between the two. We know these things as teachers and as school principals. We know these things as parents. As an uncle, I know these things. Why do we not use this knowledge when we come up with legislation that is going to affect young people?

Of course, the other thing that you have to be absolutely clear on is that you have to be consistent, you have to be absolutely consistent. You cannot treat one young person differently than another. I know in a school setting that just drives the students around the bend and it causes confusion and a whole raft of expectations that are unrealistic.

It is my understanding that this government has put out a nine-point plan on youth crime. There are a few here that are of particular interest to me as a former educator. The one that I want to point out is the fourth promise that they made in this youth plan known as the school violence prevention co-ordinator. Now, that sounds pretty good and it probably looked pretty good on the pamphlets that went out to people during the election, but my understanding is that a half-time person has been seconded for the entire province. My understanding also is that no one is currently in place.

If anybody thinks that a half-time person can provide school violence prevention for the province of Manitoba, then we are sadly mistaken. You would have a tough enough time in some of our large schools, in a single school, to have that sort of a position make any difference at all.

The other point that I want them to draw attention to is the school violence prevention training, which I understand translated into a one-day workshop offered in April of 1994, but there was no follow-up to this. Again, if you think that a one-day workshop on school violence prevention is sufficient, then again you are mistaken. Battling crime and battling violence within schools and in society is an ongoing process--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Dauphin will have one minute remaining.

The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).