4th-36th Vol. 31-Debate on Second Readings

Is there leave to permit the bill the remain standing? [agreed]

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): It is a pleasure to speak on this bill because it is a very interesting and unusual bill because of the process that it went through, namely, an all-party committee. I have been here for about seven and a half years, and it is the first time that there has been an all-party committee on anything other than constitutional change or Canadian unity. I think it is an appropriate process that we should probably use more often in this Legislature to review legislation and bring recommendations to the government, and I will comment further in my speech about the all-party committee.

Today we received the Fourth Annual Report of the Children's Advocate for 1996/97, and in his report the Children's Advocate comments on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I think it is very appropriate to compare our legislation and our practice to the UN Convention Rights of the Child. It is also significant, I think, that children have rights in Manitoba and in, I guess, all provinces in Canada.

Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair

Because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and because of provincial statutes, such as human rights legislation and, in several provinces, Children's Advocate legislation, children do have rights. That really distinguishes us from other countries around the world where children do not have rights, and where as a result they are subject to exploitation and oppression of many different kinds.

The Children's Advocate makes some significant observations. There is a comparison of Manitoba's child welfare system in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child, and it points out that if you compare the legislation with the convention, namely, if you compare The Child and Family Services Act in Manitoba with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child, the legislation stands up quite well.

He says, and I quote, "If one simply does a comparative analysis of The Child and Family Services Act to the Articles of the UN Convention, there would be no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that from a strictly legislative perspective, Manitoba's Child and Family Services Act is very consistent with the UN Convention."

* (1520)

However, he compares practice with the UN Convention, and he says a different view emerges. I would like to quote from his report because I think these are important observations. He says, "Many children, and their parents who are involved in the child and family services system, are not afforded basic dignity and respect that one would expect from a helping profession. Access to basic information and involvement in decisions which affect their lives is not always practised in a consistent manner. Over-reliance on social work jargon and complicated procedures often leads to confusion, tension, and mistrust being"--between I guess--"clients and the system. Self-sufficiency and empowerment of both children and families does not occur unless it is fiscally viable and rewarding for the system."

We know that there are limits to the amount of money that government has to provide service to children, and government departments have to operate within budgets, and agencies that get money from government have to operate within budgets. One of the agencies of government that consistently has problems operating within its budget is Winnipeg Child and Family Services.

Now, it is probably a good thing that they still provide service when their budget runs out, and every year they come back to the government and they say, we have a deficit, will you cover the deficit. The former Minister of Family Services knows all about this because he was part of that process. And to their credit, every year the government passes a special warrant and covers the deficit, and this year it was $8.8 million that cabinet approved by Order-in-Council to cover the deficit of Winnipeg Child and Family Services.

We agree that the agency and the government should continue to provide service for children in Winnipeg and in Manitoba, but obviously there is a problem with the budgeting, which the Provincial Auditor has commented on and the Children's Advocate has commented on, and we hope that the government will improve their budgeting process.

The Children's Advocate goes on to say the quality of care of children in some instances is very punitive in nature as opposed to offering guidance, nurturing and development. And then he says, and I quote, "I do not believe the whole system is all doom and gloom as there are many dedicated, committed and caring workers attempting to promote positive and lasting well-being for children and their families. As workers they are also confronted with many restrictions and limitations as to what they can offer."

So we know that in many cases, workers have many, many clients or children in their care, and that even though they would like to provide more service to them such as home visits, and counselling and linking them up with resources, the workers on the front line are overburdened, as they have pointed out in their briefs to the government, and are unable to provide the kind of service and the quality of service that they would like.

He continues to say, and I quote, "In short, while Manitoba may have the legislative framework which supports the rights and interests of children and their families as envisioned by the UN Convention, much work has yet to be done on the actual implementation and changes to the practice of child welfare in this province." And then he says quite significantly, "government must remain committed to making a social investment on behalf of our children and their families. Sole reliance and the goodwill and philanthropy of neighbours, social agencies, and the communities is not enough as we prepare for the second millennium. The needs of children and families involved in the Child and Family Services system cannot be isolated from the broader social problems of poverty, unemployment, family violence, etc."

This is an interesting comment, as well, because it reflects other reports that the government has. For example, there was the report that was done by the executive directors of about 25 agencies in the city of Winnipeg whose funding comes from the United Way. They had scathing things to say about the lack of government funding and the cutbacks in recent years and the results and the limitations, really, on their ability to provide service to people in the community as part of their function of helping agencies in the community.

Also, the government has an environmental scan that was done by Winnipeg Child and Family Services, commissioned, I believe, by the agency, and certainly the government has a copy of that report. They talked about why children come into care, and they came up with three characteristics of children in care. What were they? Children living in poverty, children whose parenting is by a single parent and children who are aboriginal. Those were identified as the three at-risk groups, and if an individual has a combination of all three, their chances of being taken into care by Winnipeg Child and Family Services are extremely high.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

I was told recently of a study at Headingley Jail about gang members that said that 100 percent of gang members at Headingley Jail were raised by single-parent households, single-parent individuals. Now, I do not have a copy of that study. I have not been able to verify it, but I would not be surprised if it is true. It would not be shocking in the least to know that, and this is not to blanket all single parents and condemn them because of this kind of information. It is just to say that a minority of single parents have great difficulty parenting, difficulty parenting because of things like living on social assistance and a lack of resources, and the result is that some of these children get into trouble.

The Children's Advocate has had an annual report every year, and some of these reports have been extremely critical of this government. The Children's Advocate has made numerous recommendations and has highlighted problems in the system; for example, children living in hotels of which there are a number. In fact, at one time they ran out of rooms at one hotel and they had to rent rooms in two or three hotels, sometimes at great expense, mainly because they were renting apartment suite hotels.

The Children's Advocate has commented on children dying in care. The Children's Advocate has commented on allegations of abuse; for example, in his second annual report on page 13, and I quote: statistics from the child and family support branch, as reported by agencies listed, a total of 97 allegations of abuse of children in foster care for 1994-95 resulting in the removal and re-placement of 61 children. In other words, in at least 61 cases, the allegations were considered so serious that the child was moved to another foster home placement. So we have some very serious concerns about service to children in Manitoba by the Children's Advocate.

Of course, we have constantly urged this minister to follow up on these recommendations. I have asked every year in Family Services Estimates what the minister is doing to follow up on these recommendations and whether or not they have been implemented, and every year, of course, we get a partial list of recommendations that have been implemented.

But some of them are still outstanding. For example, if one looks at the second annual report for '94-95, one of the recommendations, actually recommendation No. 5, the Children's Advocate says that child death reports provided by the Chief Medical Examiner where a child has been in care or in receipt of services from a Child and Family Services agency be made public to the extent possible within the confidentiality provisions of legislation.

I have urged the minister to develop this policy and to make it public and to implement it, and every year the minister stalls and says that she is working on it. I do not remember any of the excuses that the minister has given, but we are still waiting for this very important recommendation. The minister agrees with the recommendation, but we are still waiting for the implementation.

I would like to comment on the report of the Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for the review of the Children's Advocate legislation, and I would like to commend the minister and commend the government and commend the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), who was Chair of the committee. I enjoyed working with him. He was a good Chair. We also had staff support from the Clerk's office, one of the staff who I believe is from Thompson. We had the pleasure of travelling to her hometown when we had public hearings in Thompson.

As I said before, I thought the process was good, having an all-party committee. Now, I know that the government members and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) hoped that everything would go fine and there would be a unanimous report with unanimous recommendations, recommendations supported by all three parties in this Chamber. We were that close. We were very close to getting a unanimous report but, at the last minute, I sprung a surprise on the other members and we had a minority report from the NDP caucus.

The reason was that I took the recommendations, as the Family Services critic, to my caucus, and they felt that they did not go far enough. They also did not reflect some of the things that we are hearing on behalf of the public. Certainly it would have been very difficult for us to write things in a minority report that the public did not support, but in fact the opposite was true. The things that we recommended in our minority report were items and concerns that were brought to the fore by those people who presented orally and in writing or who mailed in briefs to the all-party committee.

The public hearings were an interesting process in themselves. Not only did we have public hearings in the Legislature, which is normal, but we had video conferencing, which was a first for the Manitoba Legislature. I believe we had people in Brandon speaking to us in Winnipeg, courtesy of MTS, I believe. We had people from Brandon also making presentations to us courtesy of video conferencing. This is a very good way for us as members of the Legislature to consult the public without having the great expense of travelling outside of Winnipeg.

* (1530)

Actually, one of the problems of our legislative process is that we expect people to come from wherever they are in Manitoba to the Legislative Building to present briefs, and that can be very expensive, especially if you are looking at return airfare from Thompson or The Pas or Flin Flon or one of these places or travel time in driving to Winnipeg. Consequently, we get very few people from outside of Winnipeg presenting briefs at the committee stage in the Manitoba Legislature. So video conferencing took care of that. People did not have to travel. They made presentations from Brandon and Dauphin.

Then, as I said before, we did travel to Thompson, and we had public hearings there as well. I think it is good for us as members of the Legislature to get out of Winnipeg and to consult with people. Sometimes we in this building are accused of having Perimeteritis, of not being able to see beyond the Perimeter Highway. So one way of overcoming this is for us to go out and hear presentations from the public outside the city of Winnipeg.

Now, the committee heard many, many excellent presentations. We were very pleased to have the number of people present to us as did. The first item that is in the all-party report has to do with the reporting relationship. Most presenters recommended that the Children's Advocate report to the Legislative Assembly rather than to the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson). The people who made this recommendation said they believed that the Children's Advocate and his report would then be more independent from the government, that the advocate would not feel inhibited by reporting directly to the minister and would feel free to say whatever he or she needed to say in his or her annual report.

Now I do not think that is a problem for the current Children's Advocate, Mr. Wayne Govereau, who has felt quite free to express his opinion and to put those opinions and recommendations in his annual reports to his credit. But there is no guarantee as to who the next Children's Advocate will be, and we believe that, by providing more independence, this will protect the Children's Advocate to speak out and to speak up where necessary, and to make recommendations where necessary, on behalf of children. So the first recommendation of the subcommittee is one that we totally support.

Some of the presenters stressed the need to have the Children's Advocate appointed for a specific term of office in a manner similar to that of the provincial Ombudsman. The legislation addresses that, but we feel that it does not go far enough. The legislation recommends a term of three years, once renewable. We believe that this should be increased to five years, once renewable. The reason for that is that we need to attract the best possible candidates; and, if someone is only guaranteed three years or the possibility of six years, we may not get the best possible candidates.

This is a position that would probably be advertised across Canada. The current Children's Advocate, I believe, comes from the province of Alberta, and we think it would be much easier to attract someone who is suitable for the job and someone who would have excellent qualifications if they knew that they were going to have the job for a minimum of five years or a maximum of 10 years.

Many of the presenters commented on the scope of responsibilities of the Children's Advocate. Some presentations to the committee made reference to the fact that the existing scope of responsibilities was too restrictive. The point was made that the mandate of the Children's Advocate should be expanded to respond to the concerns of all children who are encountering problems in their lives, whether that be in child welfare, mental health, the judicial system or the education system.

Unfortunately, we believe that the report of the all-party committee and the amendments do not go far enough, because the recommendation of the committee was that the Office of the Children's Advocate maintain its present responsibility only within the Child and Family Services system. We believe that there is a need to go further and to expand the responsibilities of the Children's Advocate so that he or she can investigate complaints from children in all areas of government.

The report that we have today, the Fourth Annual Report of the Children's Advocate, I believe, comments on that and points out that there are some areas where children have almost no rights. In fact, I think he points out that parents have no rights or very few rights in the education system. Certainly, that is one area where there are thousands of children and where they are affected by not only the policy of school divisions but the policy of the provincial government, and therefore it is appropriate that the Children's Advocate's responsibilities be expanded so that he or she could investigate complaints in the education system.

The next area that the report comments on is compliance with recommendations of the Children's Advocate, and it says that several presenters acknowledge the fact that the Children's Advocate can exercise broad investigative powers, though the penalties for failure to comply with the recommendations from his office are nonexistent. This was another recurring theme of the presenters, that over and over again we heard that the advocate had broad powers to investigate children in the care of Child and Family Services agencies, but that, if the Children's Advocate made a recommendation, there was nothing that the Children's Advocate could do to enforce the recommendation or to force compliance with the recommendation. So a number of people urged the government to amend the legislation to allow some sort of compliance mechanism.

There were some very good suggestions made as to how to enforce compliance. Of most of the presenters, I asked them, well, what kind of compliance mechanism would you recommend? I also made suggestions to people and said: would you be in favour of a compliance mechanism such that, where there was a failure to agree on the part of the Children's Advocate and a child welfare agency, that the use of mediation-conciliation or other culturally appropriate dispute resolution services be provided? Most of the presenters that I posed that question to said, yes, we would be in favour of using mediation-conciliation or culturally appropriate dispute resolution services. So we think that is another area where the government did not go far enough, that there should be some sort of compliance mechanism.

We also recognize that there are many aboriginal children in care in Manitoba. In fact I believe we have the highest number of children in care of any province in Canada, and many of those children are aboriginal. I have heard, and I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this, that 60 percent of children in care in Winnipeg are aboriginal. So we believe that any of these compliance mechanisms should be culturally sensitive to aboriginal people.

* (1540)

The committee recommended that in cases where the agency and the Children's Advocate disagreed, that a referral be made to the director of Child and Family Services for resolution, but we believe that that is not appropriate because this branch is part of the Department of Family Services, and Child and Family Services agencies report to this branch. So we do not think that is going to be sufficient to resolve cases where there is disagreement between an agency and the Children's Advocate or the Children's Advocate's recommendations.

Several presenters made reference to the fact that the duties and functions of the Office of the Children's Advocate is not well known in rural and northern Manitoba, and probably that was the biggest advantage that we had of consulting people in rural and northern Manitoba, specifically in Brandon, Dauphin and Thompson. When we asked people if they had heard of the Children's Advocate office, some of the presenters said, no, they had not heard of the Children's Advocate office, in spite of the fact that the Children's Advocate office has brochures that they mail out, including to members of the Legislature. They have posters that they mail out. I believe I have a copy of the Children's Advocate poster in the window of my constituency office on Selkirk Avenue, and it has a phone number where children can phone the Children's Advocate office.

In spite of that, we asked presenters in Thompson if they had heard of the Children's Advocate office and some of them had not, and that is regrettable. So we believe there is a great need to expand the services of the Children's Advocate. We believe there needs to be an expansion, so that children and families are better served by the advocate's office in rural and northern Manitoba. There is also a need for culturally sensitive services. What we really mean by that is when the Children's Advocate office has an opportunity, they should hire aboriginal staff, so we have aboriginal people providing assistance to aboriginal children.

Certainly this complaint is not unique or new for this particular arm of the government. I think people in rural and northern Manitoba frequently feel that they do not have the kind of access to services that people in Winnipeg have, and from time to time governments try to address this problem, and this is one area where it needs to be addressed.

The final recommendation of the committee had to do with the need to evaluate the goals and outcomes of the key components of the Child and Family Services system. It was noted that there is a need to define measures which are objective rather than judgmental, and was further suggested that the annual reports of the Children's Advocate should focus on a critique of the system. This is a recommendation that our caucus supports. It was a good idea. We would like to see it implemented. I do not think it is in Bill 4, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; however, it is probably not appropriate to be in legislation. If we do think it is appropriate, we can always amend the bill to put it in the legislation. It is just something that is a very good idea, and the government should just do it, or authorize the Children's Advocate to do it. Perhaps they could get assistance from the Social Work faculty at the University of Manitoba, or perhaps they can hire someone to do a statistical analysis and provide that information in the annual report. We think that would be helpful.

The bill includes a number of new items, for example, the ability of the Legislature to remove the Children's Advocate. In this case, the parallel would be the Ombudsman legislation in the Province of Manitoba, whereby with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, the Ombudsman can be removed. This bill says to remove or suspend on a two-thirds vote, and we think that is a good idea. Obviously, there are a number of parallels here between The Ombudsman Act and the Children's Advocate sections of The Child and Family Services Act. In fact, we are making some changes here that bring the Child Advocate into line with, or we are going to make them similar to provisions of the Ombudsman legislation.

The Children's Advocate will now report to the Legislature through the Speaker. They will table an annual report. They will be an officer of the Legislature. They will be hired by a committee of the Legislature, which is quite important. It means that all of us will have a say in who the new person is, who is being hired, not just the minister and the government, and they can be removed for cause with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. So we are in favour of that part of the legislation.

Another new part of the bill says: "The Standing Committee of the Assembly on Privileges and Elections may refer to the Children's Advocate for review, investigation and report any matter relating to (a) the welfare and interests of children." We think that is another good provision of this amendment bill. From time to time, there may be areas that need to be investigated; there may be areas that the Children's Advocate has not been able to investigate. I am not sure what these situations would be. Perhaps the Children's Advocate might want to investigate something, and they do not have the staff resources to do so, but a committee of the Legislature, if they tell them to investigate something, then they will have to do it. So we support this new clause in The Child and Family Services Act, which actually gets the Legislative Assembly, or a committee of the Legislative Assembly, more involved in children's issues. Certainly there is need for us as legislators to get more involved in children's issues, and in supporting the very important work of the Children's Advocate, not only investigating, but upholding children's rights and making recommendations to the Legislature and to the government.

I wish that I had time to go into some detail of the presentations that came before us, but I do not have all the briefs in front of me--I wish I did. There were many excellent recommendations which are not in this bill, which are not in the minority report in any detail, which should be looked at in the future by the government and by the Children's Advocate. It is only regrettable that we cannot act on all of the very many good ideas that we heard in the public presentations and in the briefs that were sent to us.

We had some excellent recommendations from the Children's Advocate and from experts like the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Manitoba. I am just going by memory here, but the Children's Advocate, for example, recommended a new statute, a Children's Advocate law or a Children's Advocate commission, and in other provinces they have their own legislation. They are not part of The Child and Family Services Act, and that is certainly something that this government could look at. That is something that there is precedent for not only in other provinces but in Manitoba.

For example, we used to have a section of The Child and Family Services Act on adoptions, and in a recent session of this Legislature the government took those sections out of The Child and Family Services Act, and they brought in a new adoptions act and made amendments to The Child and Family Services Act. That went through a similar process except there was not an all-party committee. It was the member for River Heights who chaired a review committee, and they brought recommendations to the minister, and then new legislation resulted. So now we have a stand-alone adoption act in Manitoba.

Certainly, this is something that could be done with the Children's Advocate legislation. Other provinces have a commission or advocate legislation that is stand-alone legislation. I suppose it is probably not necessary at this time in Manitoba. If one were to broaden the powers and allow the advocate to investigate every government department or complaints from children about any government department or agency, then maybe it would be necessary, but as long as we have a rather narrow focus for the Children's Advocate, where he or she can only investigate complaints from a child welfare agency, then it is probably sufficient to leave those sections in the existing Child and Family Services Act.

There were recommendations that the Children's Advocate not only investigate and make recommendations but that the Children's Advocate act like an ombudsperson or even like a human rights commission, and the Children's Advocate provided a lot of information to members of the committee that was very helpful. For example, the advocate provided comparison of legislation between the Children's Advocate, the director of Child and Family Services and the Ombudsman and the Public Trustee, provided a profile of Children's Advocate services in Canada, provided copies of legislation from Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan, and it is very interesting to read all this material and to make comparisons with other provinces.

* (1550)

For example, I was looking the other day at legislation in Quebec, and not only do they do investigations but they have an educational function which we have in Manitoba, but I believe it is much narrower simply because of lack of staff and resources. But in Quebec they have a commission. They emphasize the rights and freedoms of children and the rights of children and adolescents, and they have an advocacy role and an education role. They investigate complaints brought to them under the Charter and provide information and education. They also provide research. I am sure that that is the kind of function that the advocate in Manitoba would like to have, to be able to do research into child welfare issues. They also have affirmative action programs, so their mandate is much broader than the Children's Advocate in Manitoba.

These things, of course, are good ideas but they cost money, and it is not easy to advocate something, that legislation be broadened, without knowing what the cost implications are. One has to be careful about advocating major changes and expanding the powers of the advocate without knowing what the cost would be. So one is always cautious in making recommendations to broaden legislation without knowing what the cost implications are.

If I could go back for a minute to the all-party committee, I think there are a number of areas where all-party committees would be a very good idea. It has been suggested, for example, that The Liquor Act, the Sunday shopping legislation, those kinds of pieces of legislation lend themselves to having all-party committees whereby you have public hearings, you listen to what the public says, and then you make an all-party report. Sometimes there might be unanimity. Sometimes you might get an all-party report where there is agreement. I know the government hopes that is what will happen this time.

Sometimes you might get an all-party committee report where there is a minority report, and then the government just has to decide whether they are going to implement only the government-majority recommendations or all of the recommendations, but I think it is easier for the government to pick and choose recommendations that may come from all three parties if it is an all-party report. All three parties in this Legislature, if they were represented on that committee, would have listened to the public and hopefully would reflect the public's opinion in their final report and final recommendations.

Unfortunately, the way our British parliamentary system works in the Manitoba Legislature is that we almost always have government reports, usually the result of a backbencher or a couple of backbenchers, touring across the province, writing a report. Sometimes it is public; sometimes it is not. It goes to the minister, and then the government brings in legislation. That tends to be the rather rigid way that we do it here, and there are other ways, and I think an all-party committee is one way to do it.

I think that the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) enjoyed the process. As I said before, he was a good chairperson. It is a good way to get to know people across the way that we do not always get to know, by having meetings together and travelling together and hammering out a report together. I would hope that the government would use this process again and again in the future, especially for areas which may be less controversial or where there is the opportunity to do something new and different, because, you know, a lot of our voters think that we are too partisan here, and they think there should be more co-operation, but there are other people that do not want us to co-operate with the government at all. I mean, there are both kinds of opinion out there.

For those who think that there should be more co-operation, we can point, I think, with some pride to the all-party committee and say here is a committee where the members co-operated very well. We did not come in with a unanimous report, which I know the minister is disappointed in and the member for Pembina is disappointed in, but I think nonetheless, we wrote a good report. The government acted on it, and it is a good model for the future. It is the kind of thing that voters would like to see more often, so we would encourage the government to have all-party committees more often in the future, and, certainly, something as important as children is a very good opportunity to do this.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I look forward to the government proclaiming this legislation. We look forward to seeing if there are any changes as a result of this legislation, if the Children's Advocate actually does feel more independent by reporting to the Legislature. We certainly look forward to being on the committee that either rehires the current advocate or hires a new advocate as a result of publicly advertising the position to see who it is going to be, and we are pleased that now members of the opposition will be part of that committee that hires the new advocate.

With those words, we look forward to debating this bill, and we look forward to hearing the public again in committee, because now people have a chance to comment on the government's bill, and we look forward to the comments of the public. Thank you.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): It is a privilege to rise on this bill, Bill 4, and make a few comments about the bill and make some more comments about kids in our society and what we should be doing collectively as a Legislature to truly eliminate many of the causes and many of the conditions that would allow for and provide for an advocate for children to speak on behalf of the most powerless and most vulnerable in our society, and that is our kids.

We certainly believe that the Children's Advocate should be an independent person reporting to this Legislature, as a person reporting to the Legislative Assembly as opposed to a person that is reporting to the minister of the day. It is a point we raised with the former Minister of Family Services repeatedly, and, of course, in a private member's bill, but we kind of were stonewalled by recorded announcements from the former minister about why this was not good policy.

Like so many other things that we rise on in this Chamber today, it is only a matter of time before the members opposite see the wisdom of our suggestions and the wisdom of the ideas and alternatives we have been presenting, and I guess it goes without saying that it is only a matter of time that the public will see the same wisdom and, rather than wait five or six years for something that could have been put in place earlier, they will get the innovations and the creativity and the real kind of policies that make sense for the people at the earliest possible opportunity.

So we have lost a number of years, regrettably. The former minister, of course, will know that he wanted to practice the old ways of doing things in this Chamber by having the responsibility report directly to the minister and then ultimately through to this House in terms of a report, but, of course, the Schreyer years and years after that, we developed a new way of reporting and developing people and advocates for purposes of Manitobans that would not be subservient to the minister of the day but rather be a report to all the MLAs.

Regrettably, this government, after the leadership that was taken by the Schreyer government in the establishment of the original Ombudsman and the act that was passed in this Legislature where it required the Ombudsman to report to this Legislature--regrettably, the government again, the Conservatives again, as they are wont to do, go backwards. They march backwards in time. When given a choice between going forward or going backwards, they march backwards, and only after public scrutiny and public concern and public presentations do we see an act today to have the advocate report directly to this Legislature. [interjection]

* (1600)

One would think that--speaking of moving backwards, I hear some comments from the member opposite--with the evolution of the electoral officer in Manitoba, with the Ombudsman's office and the great success we have had in renewing terms by the legislative committee for two five-year terms, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we could have built an act for the Child Advocate years ago that would have accomplished some of the amendments that are proposed today in the act.

Having said that, we support this modest step forward, and we would say hallelujah to the government because this proposal is long, long overdue. We know, of course, that once it is passed the people that will be responsible for implementing this will probably not be members opposite but ourselves, and I can guarantee you that we will accommodate the spirit of this amendment and have this act truly report to this Legislative Assembly.

When we look at--a modest hallelujah chorus for one amendment--the existing report from the Child Advocate, we should be quite concerned about what is in this report. It really speaks to some of the issues that we raised in the minority report that we provided that, regrettably again, as alternatives were not picked up by members opposite and, on behalf of kids, we did not proceed with it.

You will recall our minority report spoke of the scope of the existing Child Advocate's office and the need to have a much broader scope in terms of how we can represent kids. Do not forget we are dealing with people that are often voiceless, they are often powerless, and they need an advocate to speak directly to us and to the public about some of the needs that they have, whether it is educational, recreational, economic, social.

That is why this bill is so important for members of this Legislature, because we are dealing with often the most vulnerable kids in our society, and we need and they need more scope for the Child Advocate's office and, therefore, a greater voice for their concerns in our society.

One would look, and I do not know how many members opposite read the report, I do not know whether the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) has read the Child Advocate report, because obviously I would believe she should have in terms of what it meant for the people. It makes the statement that matters involving educational needs and issues and parents and children have virtually no rights and limited avenues of appeal.

Now, we did not need this report, and I do not know how the Liberals voted when the minority report of the NDP came out. I know they started kind of a Stockholm syndrome in these committees to try to co-operate and come together, et cetera. Sometimes that is a healthy environment, sometimes it is not so healthy when some of the people that are not in the same room, like the kids, are not part of the same environment of coming together in consensus.

So we did something unusual, and we did write a minority report. We got some changes that we were pleased with on the Calgary Framework and the Winnipeg Framework, but on this one we did not get some changes, and I feel that we are vindicated. When I look at the existing Ombudsman's report, I feel we are vindicated from the position we took in terms of the existing advocate act, and I keep speaking in a more general way. I feel that we are vindicated on our desire to have children have a right to speak out on the education system.

I also think it is a very major concern for all of us about the number of cases that the advocate's office is dealing with and the number of issues that they have to deal with on behalf of our kids. Many kids are facing, involved in Child and Family Services, remain a constant concern for the advocate's office. We believe that when one reads through on this report, it becomes more and more obvious that many children are feeling the frustrations of this society and feel that they have to reach out to the Children's Advocate and, therefore, the Children's Advocate feels that they are limited in terms of how much they can deal with and what is the scope of what they have to deal with in this report.

We, therefore, had moved a number of amendments to the minority report prior to the introduction of this bill. Members opposite should think back over some of the concerns we have been raising in this legislature and in the public about children and their future in our society. In 1994, we had produced a policy on putting children first, a policy that talked about health, social development and education as important needs for kids. We believe the more that those needs are met, the less of the concerns will have to be raised in a Child Advocate's office and therefore come to this Legislature in the form of a report directly as proposed or indirectly as presently mandated.

We raised this in 1994 and then we produced alternatives, an 18-point plan or about a 20-point plan, for kids. And what have we heard from the government opposite about dealing with nutrition, prenatal programs, early childhood testing, early childhood diagnosis, early childhood programs, preschool programs for kids that really need them?

What have we heard from the government opposite? They feign interest, they wring their hands and say, oh, we care. But they are almost like a person out of a Dicken's novel when it comes to actual action, because it is cutback after cutback after cutback when we look at children's services and look at its impact on children's rights here in Manitoba.

When we fast forward a few months later, a few years later, it was horrific to us to have to come forward to this Chamber with the United Way report that documented case after case after case where frontline agencies were stating that young kids were losing hope. It should have been a huge alarm to members opposite that young children were losing hope, and kids as young as eight and nine years old were falling between the cracks. They condemned the provincial government for cutback after cutback after cutback. They stated, as an independent agency working with their grassroots organizations, that government cutbacks have meant more and more of a burden is being placed upon the voluntary and staff resources that the United Way supports to their credit but the United Way feel is crumbling under the weight of Tory reductions and Tory cutbacks dealing with children.

Where was the concern opposite? Well, we got the answers: oh, I want to thank my honourable friend for that question, and then they go on and on and on. If an interpreter could go through the weasel words or their answers, you would find at the end of the answer: I would like to thank you for the question, and we are going to continue to cut back on kids' programs day after day after day until we get just close to the election campaign; then we will make a number of other announcements which we do not plan on introducing in terms of the kids; we just think it is a political issue that we have to deal with.

So that is why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this bill, we feel that in recognizing the independence or enhancing the independence of the Child Advocate, we have missed the children's boat, if you will, when it comes to the scope of this legislation and the ability of this Child Advocate's office to speak up and on behalf of the voiceless, the powerless and the children in our society.

I think that every area that is contained within the so-called Postl report, early childhood programs, medical programs, diagnostic programs, programs that affect the long-term dignity and the long-term ability of kids to survive in an economy and survive in our communities should be and must be, in our view, incorporated into the act and placed as a principle of scope within the Child's Advocate act here in Manitoba.

* (1610)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we absolutely believe that the volumes of material and research that were contained within Postl, the recommendations that were contained in the Healthy Child report must be part of the scope of this bill.

Now, I know why members opposite are opposed to it because, of course, they are not proceeding with many of the recommendations. It was they who cut back on the diagnostic testing of early childhood people on requiring hearing, speech therapy, behaviour therapy. Do you know how long the waiting lists are now? And, of course, they are bumped back into the school programs. Do you know how long the waiting lists are now for kids in early school years, year after year after year? But you do not want that in this bill in terms of scope because this would hold you accountable for your own draconian cuts to kids and their future.

I should say that not only are these cuts draconian and heartless but they are also shortsighted, because we know and Postl demonstrates that early investment on early intervention programs will pay off through decades of kids who become young people and then adults who are going to have the skills and the capacity to make up for any shortcomings that they must deal with in terms of their own health and opportunities.

So, regrettably, this act does not deal with that. It does not provide the scope of preventing kids from getting into trouble. Again, some of the stuff that was in Postl and some of the reports we have seen from the Indian and Metis Friendship Centre and other areas talk about the need to prevent crime. This is why the Tories are so off base. On the one hand, they have bombed all the bridges of opportunity for kids in our communities. They almost have policies that breed crime, and they do not have policies then to prevent crime and give kids hope and opportunity.

Why not have this as part of the Child Advocate's scope? Why not have the issues of hope and opportunity, recreation, education, community assets and places to go, literacy programs, programs that will make a difference for kids? Why do we not have that as part of the scope of this bill as well, on behalf of the powerless and the voiceless in our society?

I suggest to members opposite that they do not want that kind of scope because they know, they know they have cut it back dramatically. So why is the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), when this bill is presented at cabinet, not fighting for education to be part of this bill? Why does she not want the scope expanded? [interjection] Well, the minister says: nice try, and I know it took us five years of stonewalling by the previous minister, five long years. Well, this bill is really saying you were wrong. [interjection] You are not surprised I am saying that. Well, it is basically saying, and it is funny that you just correct these mistakes just in time to have the next report come somewhere else, right? Just in time, you know, it is just one of these just-in-time policies of the Tories, just-in-time for delivery, just in time to deliver it after the next election campaign. How many bills and policies do we have that are just in time for the next election campaign? I mean, you can go on and on and on. I mean, whether it is hospital capital or personal care capital or all these education capital or all kinds of other issues that they have failed the people of Manitoba for years, and all we get is just wait and just in time for something in the future.

An Honourable Member: You should have been a spinner, Gary.

Mr. Doer: I should have been a spinner. Well, I take my hat off to members opposite for spinning. They seem to have--well, of course, there is a symbiotic relationship between the media and the Conservative Party, a kind of organic relationship that they might have. We are not in that same milieu as members opposite in terms of this. Let me give you an example of this as it affects the Child's Advocate act. When we released the United Way agency report and provided a table out of this Legislature and asked questions of members opposite, would you think when the United Way was saying that children have no hope, nine-year-olds expressing real concern about their future and real frustration, one would have thought that that would have ended up in the front page of the most prominent newspaper that we have in our community.

An Honourable Member: And did it?

Mr. Doer: No, it did not. The spinners were out there. You know, the censorship was in action, the spinners were out there killing the story at the desk and killing the story with the editors and the powers that be over there. So then a couple of days later after some of the other electronic media ran the story, after some of the electronic media had the conscience to run the stories, the report was written as if we did not even raise it in the Legislature, on the op ed page of the paper three days later. What was missing from that of course was the accountability of the Tories to children, the accountability of the Tories to their own cutbacks and the accountability of the Conservative Party and the government to the future of kids in our society.

Therefore, when the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) heckles me about spinning, we must look at the Child's Advocate bill because children do not have the right and power of spinning like members opposite do, and that is why they need a stronger Child Advocate with a much broader scope that we will be proposing in amendments that I hope are joined by other parties as we proceed to have an act of the future rather than just correcting the mistakes of the past.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we support the advocate becoming an officer of the Legislature, but we wonder why the term of office is only for a three-year period of time. We think the model at minimum, the Ombudsman's model of five years, and five years makes sense. This Legislature has the right to renew or not renew the term, and I think we believe so because we want somebody that I think it is reasonable for people to interrupt their existing careers for a 10-year period and it is a legitimate period of time to develop the expertise to develop the intellectual expertise, but as well as that the kind of public credibility that gives you power to speak out on behalf of kids over a longer period of time. We do not want somebody the minute they are getting into this office to have to be thinking about what their career will be after they are out of office in a relatively short period of time.

* (1620)

Now we know that people's careers will change more rapidly, but we think a five-and-five year period of time, we think kids and their advocate needs should be treated on a comparable basis to the Ombudsman. If we are going to a comparable reporting system to this Legislature, then we believe that the comparability should be carried on for the term of office, and we will be proposing that obviously when it is appropriate to do so.

We have also raised some concerns about rural and northern Manitoba services, and we will be looking at proposals for this. We think, as I said before, that the Ombudsman is telling us today, or the Child Advocate is telling us today, that education must be included and considered as part of this report. We also think that the government should take note for the long-term interests of investing in children. We have suggested before that we live up to the UN Convention on children, and we find that the words are strong, but the action is somewhat wanting.

I would quote from the advocate's report today that, the government must remain committed to making a good social investment on behalf of our children and their families. Sole reliance on good will and philanthropy of neighbours, social agencies, and community is not enough as we prepare for the next millennium. The needs of children and families involved in Child and Family Services systems cannot be isolated from the broader social problems of poverty, unemployment, and family violence. If we truly support the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, then we must be prepared to make a fiscal investment to ensure that our families can become strong and prosperous, and the well-being of our children and our future is guaranteed.

Members opposite should understand this, because when you look at what is going on in Manitoba versus Saskatchewan, when you look at the clawback on some of the tax benefit packages for low-income families with children by this government, when you look at the programs that have been put in place for early childhood intervention, early childhood nutrition, and early prenatal programs with mothers and families, when you look at some of the work that is being conducted for both the income side, the education side, and the opportunity side, and you compare that to what has been announced in Manitoba compared to what is being announced in Saskatchewan, you will find that Saskatchewan is miles ahead of us in terms of what they are doing and how they are doing it. That is why the social council of Canada is praising the Saskatchewan government for the initiatives that they introduced, and that is before their massive introductions of new programs that they introduced along with their budget of two weeks ago.

It is regrettable that this government will talk about children's programs, but, what really it is doing is putting back a little bit of what they cut in the past. Whatever it is, they have cut it before, they have cut it before, they have cut it before. They put a little bit back, and they try to claim that this is a children's program, and they try to feign interest in children and in their well-being.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we believe that the amendments that we have put forward today--

An Honourable Member: What amendments are those?

Mr. Doer: Okay, the amendments that we will be putting forward on this bill will make it a stronger bill for scope. It will make it stronger for purposes of term. It will call on the government to give kids and children a voice in education. It will look at the Postl report and at the inadequacies of this government. We will vote for this person, this Child Advocate reporting to the Legislature, but we will also vote with our most vulnerable and voiceless by proposing much stronger amendments to make the Child's Advocate office broader in its scope and, therefore, more sensitive to the needs of our kids moving into the next millennium. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is actually with a great deal of pleasure that I get to stand today and speak to Bill 4. I think that a good number of the concerns that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) has put on the record I would concur with in terms of when we talk about the scope in particular of the legislation and the benefits for children in the province if in fact the government were to take a more positive, progressive move towards the protection of the rights of our children.

I can recall very clearly the discussions that took place when we first created the child advocacy office. It was quite a controversial bill at the time in the sense that the single most important criticism from what I can recall offhand was where the children's advocacy office was reporting to. We had argued that in fact it should have been reporting to the legislative Chamber. We really believed that that was absolutely critical because it would give a sense of independence to the office, much as we have a sense of independence for other offices such as Elections Manitoba, such as our Provincial Auditor, the Ombudsman's office. All of those offices are absolutely critical in modern-day democracy, if you like.

What I look at when I think of our children and the children's advocacy office is that there is little doubt, and I think that each and every one of us has said this in the past, that our children are our future. We cannot take for granted the uncomfortable situations that children are far too often put in and rely on those social structures that we have in place to alleviate those concerns.

Far too often we do take that for granted, so we do need to be more active and, as I say, progressive at ensuring that future I am making reference to, our children, that they do in fact have an advocate that is going to be there for them. Where we can broaden that, as I make reference to the broadening of the scope of potential legislation like this, I think, can be a positive. I should not say "I think"; I know it can be a positive, and we should not be reluctant to move in that direction.

When I look at Bill 4, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I see in it is, in essence, an admission that in fact the government was wrong in not bringing in or doing it this way in the first place. I do not necessarily want to condemn the government for not doing it in the first place, because when government does something positive, I like to think that I can give a straight-across-the-board compliment.

In this particular case, they have done a good job in bringing forward the legislation that is there. The only disappointment that I would have with respect to it, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) made reference to it, is, in fact, its scope. I say that primarily because I, like many MLAs, have opportunity to deal with a good number of youth in our community.

In one of my capacities as a volunteer, I work with different types of youth from the different socioeconomic strata, if you like, and the ones that I find most challenging or most difficult in terms of trying to assist are those individuals that come from the dysfunctional family. That is really a challenge for all of us.

* (1630)

I can recall having conversations with individuals within the community in regard to some of these problems. In particular, I can recall offhand where there was one youth that I was involved with and trying to assist, and this individual was somewhat stereotyped into a position in which their destiny has already been decided. This child, if you like, was just going to evolve right into that position where it was talked about that the individual's mother, because this one happened to be a single mom, had no idea what was happening around her; in all likelihood did not even know how many children. I say that somewhat facetiously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but really had no idea what was happening with her children. This particular child who was 14 years old, I was surprised at how she had to mature mentally in order to survive, not only in the outside world but also inside her home.

I look at instances such as that, and one has to wonder what role or what more maybe we could be doing as Legislatures to promote a healthier atmosphere for these children. I am not talking that the government has to come in there with their heavy hand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that what really needs to happen is that we need to get the communities more involved.

That can be done in so many ways, and what needs to happen is that we have to start looking for some more tangible solutions, because if there is any area in the last nine, 10 years in which I have been around and which I think there has been a very strong failure of politicians of all levels, it has been in trying to deal with the issues facing our young people today.

I had opportunity to meet with, for example, a number of youth to which I posed a question. It was just over 200 youth. They were all Grade 9, some might have been Grade 10s, and one of the questions that I would pose to them was in the last six months how many of you have actually set foot in a community centre, and there was a lot of prodding to try to get them to put up their hands. Less than 10 percent actually indicated that, in fact, they had set foot.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would think that it is probably higher than that in terms of the actual numbers who attend, but here, where different levels of government try to provide services and programs for our students, I am not sure if we are really hitting the mark. I think in certain areas, especially in extracurricular activity that goes on outside of our school days such as the community facilities that we have, maybe we are not providing the type of programming that our young people want to see.

I have seen, to a certain degree, a number of young people who have said to me, for example, maybe what we would like to see is more of a social atmosphere. Maybe it is pinball machines; maybe it is some pool tables; maybe it is a hangout; an informal basketball shoot over at the local gymnasium. There are all sorts of things which I believe could be done at that end. Well, if we take a look at our schools, I would again argue that our public schools are there to challenge the abilities of all students, whether they are the gifted or the learning disabled. If we fail to do that, quite often what will happen is they will fall through the cracks.

The reason why I bring that up is the same reason why I would bring up the community clubs and activities that go outside of the schools, and that is there is a role for us to ensure that the young people who are in our communities, who are in every community, do have challenges before them, and in many cases there are far too many children who are falling through the overall--not only public educational cracks but the cracks that are there for society. If we were talking about one or two or three students, well, maybe it would be a little bit more easy to take, but we are talking about significant percentages of young people who are, in fact, falling through this crack. It is somewhat disappointing in the sense that it does not appear that we are really addressing this particular issue.

So when I think of the child's advocacy office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think of that as the last stop, the opportunity for our youth in particular and society as a whole to see this particular office be what the name says, and that is an advocate for what is of critical importance, that being, as I indicated, our future, our children. That is the reason why I do not believe that we do any service by not allowing the child advocacy's office to broaden its responsibilities. What I would be interested in hearing from the minister, in particular, is more so how the minister envisions the future role of the advocacy office. To cite a specific example, it would have been very reassuring had we heard a number of years ago the then Minister of Family Services say that, yes, the advocacy office is not going to report to the Chamber but what I see happening is it reporting to the Chamber within the next few years.

Madam Speaker in the Chair

Madam Speaker, that would have been, I think, a positive contribution to the debate. What I would like to see from the current minister responsible for Bill 4 is for her to come out and give some sort of an idea as to how she believes the role of the advocacy office is going to expand, hopefully, in the future but most importantly to acknowledge that there is a need for the advocacy office to continue to grow. That is what is most important, and that is what I look to the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) to say, is to tell us--because I know that members of the New Democratic Party do have intentions on bringing four amendments.

* (1640)

The Leader of the official opposition has already indicated that, and I applaud members who have been able and have the time and the resources to be able to look into it in more depth and come forward with amendments which could have a very positive impact. I would suggest to the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), because to a certain part she has already expressed an open mind on this particular issue--after all, she is bringing forward this particular bill--and that is to continue with that open mind going through the committee stage and public hearings in hopes that there might be something that will come out of the committee stage in the form of amendments that could have a very positive impact on the child advocacy office, in hopes that the minister will, at the very least, seriously listen to what public and members of the opposition are saying; adopt where it is possible.

If there are amendments that are not adopted, at the very least in conclusion before it leaves committee or at her last opportunity during third reading, be able to talk about the future role of the children's advocacy office and what she sees happening over the next number of years, in order to take into account the concerns that not only members of the opposition have but members of the public, and to portray some sort of a vision that the government has with respect to this very important office.

With those few words, Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, it is actually with great pleasure that I would be voting in favour of this bill.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): It is indeed with pleasure that I am allowed to put a few words on record regarding Bill 4. Bill 4 attempts to implement the recommendations of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, which, as the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) has pointed out, was an all-party committee. I think that shows people in Manitoba that we can work together, that all factions and all groups in this House can work together. But I also point out that there was a minority report issued from that subcommittee, so, although we work together well, we obviously do not always have exactly the same opinion.

It is well known that all is not well when it comes to the rights of children, and many critics have pointed this out. We do wish to strive as much as possible to empower families and to empower children, but it is also true that, when we talk about the child advocacy office, the Children's Advocate, lack of funds or finances often narrows the scope of what we would like to do. So there is quite a difference between what we want to do, what we would like to do and what actually happens, and it is unfortunate that money often becomes a deciding factor.

As the member for Burrows has pointed out, Child and Family Services in Winnipeg itself regularly overbudgets and the government does cover the deficit, but it does point out that in the initial phases of planning we never seem to have enough dollars to address the serious situations that exist out there with regard to children and problems faced by children.

Also, as the member for Burrows has pointed out, the Child Advocate has stated that all is not doom and gloom despite the fact we all know that front-line workers are overworked and stretched way too thin, but the biggest point made, I think, by the Child Advocate was that philanthropy is not enough. Charity is not enough, and that is one of the problems. Very often, I think, especially members opposite seem to think that the charitable approach is the one that solves the problem.

We are talking about a much more systemic problem that has to be addressed much more globally and in a much more general fashion. We are dealing with broader social problems, problems of violence, poverty and unemployment, and those are linked. It is no accident that the unemployed and the poor often resort to violence, because they see that as their only option. It is unfortunate that children get caught in the same spiral or in the same atmosphere.

I am talking also of violence that children themselves perpetrate. I attempted to get to a funeral just several days ago to Lac Brochet where a young man was horribly--he was murdered in Thompson but horribly mutilated in the process. It was a terrible, terrible tragedy, and allegedly--although this is, I presume, before the courts now and perhaps these three people have been charged--but at least the allegations that are floating out there are that young people were involved in this horrible mutilation, children as young as 14 years of age. That concerns us greatly, that people that age should find their life so hopeless that they have to resort to these incredibly sadistic and violent acts.

Very often when I travel up north it is the aboriginal children who are increasingly at risk, in places such as Tadoule Lake and Lac Brochet and Brochet, Pukatawagan and other northern, isolated communities. I talk with the teachers and I talk with educators. One of the big problems faced not only in those northern communities but also in the centre of the city and other places is fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect. Those children face a very bleak future, and the teachers teaching those children have an incredibly difficult task on their hands.

Madam Speaker, the fourth annual report of the Children's Advocate has been delivered, and the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) made reference to past reports and allegations, or at least the Children's Advocate alleged that there had been quite a few abusive situations, especially in foster care. There was talk in the past of improper housing or children warehoused in hotels because of lack of proper housing for children, and so on. A whole series of ills and ailments were chronicled by the Children's Advocate. I am sure we are trying to address these situations, but as pointed out before I think it is very often a question of too little coming too late.

However, I do not want to belittle the process. Many positive recommendations have been made by concerned individuals and organizations to members of the subcommittee, and I wanted to congratulate the subcommittee members in travelling outside the city to get away from Perimeteritis, I guess is the right word, beyond the Perimeter. I am very glad that they also use technology, because I know they dealt with video conferencing. So there was fairly widespread input to this process, and I am very happy to see that. I think that is a very democratic direction to be going.

Bill 4, Madam Speaker, establishes first of all the Children's Advocate as an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly. I think that is a positive direction. I think we need to put distance between that person and people, the one person wielding the authority of the minister, for example. It is better for us to have that person directly responsible to the Legislative Assembly. It makes the whole process much more objective and I think therefore much more credible.

Secondly, the terms of office, Bill 4 deals with terms of office for the Children's Advocate and recommends a three-year term which could be renewed once. As the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) has pointed out earlier, that is perhaps a fairly short term, and he had some concerns that qualified candidates might not apply for the job, because a three-year term might not seem long enough, but I am sure that could be changed either in committee stage or via amendment or whatever. But perhaps a five-year term might be more appropriate.

Thirdly, according to the content of Bill 4, the Children's Advocate can be removed only by a two-thirds vote of the Assembly. I think this appears to be a reasonable and sensible direction, because that would not place the Children's Advocate at the whim or the mercy of any particular party that happens to be in power. It is not likely that any particular party in power would have two-thirds of the members, although I guess that is possible. I prefer to see this two-thirds rather than the 50 percent plus one.

Fourthly, The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections may refer to the Children's Advocate for reviews, investigations and report any matter relating to the welfare and interests of children or services provided to children under The Child and Family Services Act. That was the fourth point under Bill 4.

As the member for Burrows has pointed out, there are many good ideas out there and many of these ideas have been presented to the subcommittee. Many of these ideas hopefully will be put into operation, but at the same time we want to point out that the member for Burrows did issue a minority report. So it is good to have good ideas, but that is often not enough. We need organization, we need co-operation, and we obviously need money. To safeguard children and to be serious about the rights of children may not be a cheap process.

The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) made some interesting comments, Madam Speaker. He pointed out the tragedy of so many children who are already set on their, it seems, predetermined path at a very early age. It has always bothered me as a teacher that teachers of kindergarten children or Grades 1, 2 or 3 are already able to say this child will do this; this child will become that. It is very disheartening when someone says about a six-year-old, you know, this kid will become a thief or this kid will do this or this kid will do that, and you want to shout at them and say, no, we can change this; it does not have to be that way. Sadly and unfortunately, sometimes--well, very often these predictions come true.

Now, I would also point out, Madam Speaker, that sometimes teachers are wrong about children, very often. I would like to refer to a study done in 1969 by Rosenthal and Jacobsen reported in Scientific American--I think it was January of 1969--where teacher expectation in that study was absolutely critical to child performance; in fact, to child intelligence, IQ. If the teacher thought the kid was a loser, then the kid would become a loser, and if the teacher thought this kid had hidden potential, that this kid was an underachiever, then the child usually did very well. So teacher expectation can have a tremendous impact on the life of a child and, of course, that of parents and of peers as well.

* (1650)

But to get directly back to Bill 4, Madam Speaker, as my Leader pointed out, the independence of the Children's Advocate is very important, very important. The advocate should not be subservient to the minister. The advocate should be, in a sense, the servant--not the servant but be responsible to the House. It is a good democratic direction to have the Children's Advocate report directly to the Legislature. I think that is indeed the proper and democratic direction to be going.

Madam Speaker, as mentioned by several previous speakers, our member of the subcommittee issued a minority report. It is unfortunate that many of the government members and perhaps others did not take that report seriously enough to validate his own report; in other words, to incorporate his ideas. That was unfortunate because I do believe that that minority report more directly reflects the concerns and the issues raised by the Children's Advocate, him or herself.

The members of this side of the House, Madam Speaker, believe that there are serious issues affecting children and that these issues need to be put into a proper context, into a proper frame. In other words, we have to look at it in a much more generic, general, broad-scoped way, as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) pointed out. We cannot merely narrow it down to a very narrow focus and at the same time be overly concerned about dollars, because some of these problems are going to require a lot of money to fix.

My Leader and the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) made reference to the United Way report which chronicles the anger of many young children, the hopelessness, the lack of direction, and that bothers me. It bothers me a great deal that children that age do not see any sense in living or do not see any sense in becoming productive members of society. That bothers all of us in this House, Madam Speaker.

In fact, I remember--and this ties in with something that happened in 1989 or 1990. I am not exactly sure which year it was, but I was working as a consultant for Frontier School Division, and we ran a questionnaire for all our teenage students across the Frontier School Division in conjunction with a federal questionnaire. I do not have that questionnaire with me or the results, but I do remember some great discrepancies between our students, our teenagers in northern Manitoba and those of the rest of Canada.

I remember particularly the teenagers under our jurisdiction of Frontier School Division saying things in large numbers, well over 50 percent, 60, 70, 80 percent range or more, that they never in their life thought they would hold a decent-paying job. That concerns me when we have three out of four students, teenagers, saying, no, I do not think I will ever get a decent job; it is just not out there. Or even more disconcerting, Madam Speaker, were students saying they felt that their parents did not love them, and it was an overwhelming number of students, I believe 80-some percent, totally in opposition to the national sample which was something, I believe, like 10 or 15 percent.

So we have the vast majority of students saying they do not feel wanted. They do not feel like they are important in their family, and, of course, that attitude puts an incredible strain on teachers who then have to fulfill the function of parent, in a sense. But it concerns me that there are so many children out there who have that attitude, and I do not know how you can succeed in school or succeed in this society or become a productive member if you are at that stage where you really believe that, but that seemed to be happening. At least our research indicated that was happening. There was an abysmal lack of self-esteem. It is indeed quite scary that some of those young people hold themselves in such low self-esteem.

I agree that maybe throwing dollars or money at the problem is not going to solve it instantly; but, on the other hand, nickel-and-diming things to death is not going to improve it either. I think perhaps what we are saying is that the problem is much more complex and we have to look at it in a much broader context. We have to develop a much broader scope, as both the member from Burrows (Mr. Martindale), my own Leader, and the member from Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) have pointed out.

Therefore, the Children's Advocate needs more power. We need to see the problems that children face in the proper context. We cannot just reduce them to a simple formula. It is complex, and it has to be studied in that fashion. It is not going to be easy because all of us may have altruistic aims. We want to make the world better for children--there is no doubt about that. We want children to have a better future. But is that really happening out there? That is the question, Madam Speaker. We feel, though, that a good first step is the Children's Advocate. We just wish that the Children's Advocate would be more broad based, would have more powers as we have advocated; and, as others have said before me, we are hoping that some of those changes may yet take place in the committee stage via amendments, or perhaps by later bills.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, this is an opportunity for me to express and participate in forging this legislation about the Child Advocate's office. This is an office that derives its nature from that old Scandinavian idea of Ombudsman, an old institution that is created for the purpose of solid accountability to the citizens themselves. It is important that public officials in government, appointed or elected, should have that sense of link to the people that they serve, a sense of accountability to the general welfare of the community and all the individual members of society. It is for this reason that it is important that the Child's Advocate office should be reporting directly to the Legislature, in the sense that the legislative members of this body are representing constituents and citizens in their respective districts in our province. It gives the occupant of the office a sense of importance, an independence from the government of the day in the pursuit of what he thinks to be in the public interest.

Children are one of the more important assets of any society. The children of today will be the citizens of tomorrow. Unless we are able to prepare them for the vicissitudes of life and the necessary environment for their self-improvement, we will be creating problems for ourselves to solve. Research has shown that the first few months--the first seven years, in fact--of an infant's life is most crucial to the future destiny of the child. If the child has been neglected--let us say the father, the mother are both working, and they had no time for the child and there is no sense of security or safety in the psyche of the child--the child becomes a problem child, right at the very beginning. Research has shown that even touching the child by the mother is quite different from the touch of any other stranger as far as the child is concerned, especially in the rapid development of the brain and all the senses of the child. This is important for the proper composure and proper growth and self-development of that living being. In other words, the attention and the love and caring that we show these little children is important for the present and for their future development. So it has been written that whosoever causes any one of his children to stumble--it is written in the Good Book--it is better for the person to put a heavy millstone on his own neck.

* (1700)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House--this will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), who has 36 minutes remaining and, as previously agreed, will also remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).