LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
June 17, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
Speaker's
Statement
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Routine Proceedings, I have a
statement for the House.
I must
inform the House that Gulzar Singh Cheema, the honourable member for The
Maples, has resigned his seat in the House effective June 17, 1993. I am therefore tabling his resignation and my
letter to the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council advising of the
vacancy thus created in the membership of the House.
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Jack Penner
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Fifth
Report of the Committee on Economic Development.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee
on Economic Development presents the following as its Fifth Report.
Your committee met on Wednesday, June 2, at 8
p.m. in Room 255, Thursday, June 3, at 11 a.m. in Room 254 and Tuesday, June
15, 1993, at 7 p.m. in Room 255 of the
At
the June 15, 1993, 7 p.m. meeting your committee elected Mr. Penner as
Chairperson.
Your committee heard representation on bills
as follows:
Bill 4‑‑The Retail Businesses
Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act; Loi sur l'ouverture des commerces
de detail les jours feries‑‑modifications temporaires
Brent Stewart ‑ Morden and District Chamber of Commerce John Krahn ‑ Mayor of Winkler Roger Emery ‑
Written Submissions:
Mr. and Mrs. Marion ‑ Private Citizens Stan Phillips ‑ Stan's IGA
(Brandon) Elizabeth Sellick ‑
President,
Bill 23‑‑The Retail Businesses
Dale Botting ‑ Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Susan Hart‑Kulbaba ‑ President,
Written Submissions:
Neil Stewart ‑ Roblin and District Chamber of Commerce George Gershman ‑ President, Tourism
Association of
Your committee has considered:
Bill
4‑‑The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments)
Act; Loi sur l'ouverture des commerces de detail les jours feries‑‑modifications
temporaires
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 23‑‑The Retail Businesses
Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours feries dans le commerce de
detail, la Loi sur les normes d'emploi et la Loi sur le paiement des salaires
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendment:
MOTION:
THAT Bill 23 be amended
(a)
in the heading of section 19, by striking out "Coming into force" and
substituting "Coming into force:
Part 2"; and
(b)
by adding the following after section 19:
Coming into force: Part 3 20
Part 3 of this Act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.
All
of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Penner: I move, seconded by the honourable member for
La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be now received.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION
PERIOD
RCMP
Investigation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our caucus, we would
certainly wish the former member for The Maples and his family well in their
future in
Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister responsible for
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we were informed that the RCMP and staff from the federal
Department of Environment, utilizing a search warrant, visited upon the
Manitoba Hydro offices. I would like the
minister to advise us on the circumstances and what documents they were
attempting to obtain in the visit to Manitoba Hydro.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for The
Mr.
Speaker, the member raises an issue which deals with a Crown corporation which
I am responsible for. Details of that at
an appropriate time when available, I would be prepared to provide.
* (1335)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that
the federal Department of Environment and the federal RCMP are investigating a
spill at
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, the member raises again the
issue that deals with a Crown corporation, of which he is asking for detailed
documents‑‑
Mr. Doer: I am not asking for them.
Mr. Downey: Well, I misunderstood the question then. I thought he was asking for‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Doer: I asked what documents the federal government
was seeking in their investigation.
Perhaps the minister would take that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member did not have a point of
order.
* * *
Mr. Downey: Again, Mr. Speaker, he asks what documents the
federal government are seeking at this particular time.
I
would, as I said earlier, after an appropriate time, be prepared to respond to
that question after I have an opportunity‑‑and if it is a federal
inquiry, then that is the individual whom those pieces of information would
have to come from.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister
responsible for Hydro and the Deputy Premier of the government to please find
out what the situation is in Manitoba Hydro.
Please find out what the situation is of why a federal department has to
go in to a provincial Crown corporation in this way, and please advise the
House and the people of
We
are asking questions in the House today.
We do not have, certainly, all the answers. We are not the government responsible for
this Crown corporation. The minister is.
We
would like to know the reasons for the investigation, the circumstances around
it. We would like this minister to
assure us that this department and this Crown corporation will participate
fully and co‑operate fully with the federal Department of Fisheries and
the RCMP.
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, I
would see no reason why there would not be full co‑operation from
I
am quite prepared to provide appropriate documentation or information that
would become available if it is appropriate to in fact make it available to the
public.
Youth
Violence Reduction Strategy
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I have a new question, Mr. Speaker, on another
topic.
I
certainly think that the public interest is served with full disclosure on this
matter.
Mr.
Speaker, to the Minister of Justice or the Deputy Premier: We were advised yesterday there has been a 20
percent increase in alleged assaults with juveniles in the city of
I
would like to ask the government: Given
the fact there has been a 37 percent increase since 1988 in these same kind of
alleged assaults, what is the rationale for these increases? What is the
strategy of the provincial government to deal with what I am sure all members
would agree is a very disturbing and alarming increase in alleged juvenile
assaults?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, violence of any kind is
unacceptable. I think every member of
this House would agree that is totally unacceptable.
As
far as the details of the question, I will take it as notice for the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae).
Impact of
Program Reductions
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, as a former volunteer member of
the Boys and Girls Club, I was quite surprised to hear yesterday that the
executive director of the Boys and Girls Club feels the increase in the
assaults in the city of
I
would like to ask the government: Is
there any co‑ordination between the Department of Finance, the Department
of Family Services, the Department of Education and the Premier's Office in
terms of what the impact of the cutbacks the provincial government has
implemented is? Have any of these
cutbacks resulted in the 20 percent increase in juvenile assaults in the city
of
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is a very simplistic way for
the member of the opposition to try and turn an issue into a political issue
which would be to his advantage.
If
he wants to do that, I think we should go back and start‑‑if we are
talking about impact on young people‑‑with the massive debt he and
his colleagues, when they were in government, piled on the backs of young
people and people who are going to have to pay the future taxes. That is what deficits are, Mr. Speaker. That is what deficit is, is taxes that have
to paid by young people in the future.
As
was said yesterday by the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the increase in the interest
charge on that debt from when he was in government, when he took over
government in 1981, was something like $90 million and has currently gone to
$550 million, which last year was paid for by the taxpayers of
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: I would ask the Deputy Premier to publicly apologize
to Mike Owen, whom I quoted, who is the executive director of the Boys and
Girls Club of
Let
me quote you somebody else who is more in contact with the real world than the
Deputy Premier opposite. I would like to
quote the director of Rossbrook House, Sister Lesley Zacouman: If society
continues to cut off the options, these people will go to the streets.
Mr.
Speaker, again, an experienced person working directly with kids in the inner
city. What options has this government
cut off that is forcing kids to go on the streets? What are the real impacts of some of the
draconian measures made by this government in terms of an increase in juvenile
crime and an increase in terms of safety that our citizens are feeling on the
streets of
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I did not make any inference to
the fact that anyone else was simplistic other than the Leader of the
Opposition in what he was trying to do politically.
I
have lots of respect, Mr. Speaker, and this government has lots of respect for
the work that is done at Rossbrook House.
In fact, I have been there with many of my colleagues, attending
functions and being with those young people, to show that we are interested and
to try to make sure there is a clear understanding of some of the needs.
But
I will try to respond so people can understand.
We have some $400 million less to provide education, to provide family
services, to provide health care, to provide all those needs the Leader of the
Opposition refers to, because we send that money to the banks of
We,
by law, are obligated to pay that debt before we do one bit of education or one
of those other support programs. So let
it be he who looks in the mirror and takes the credit and the blame for those
individuals who are having difficulty, because there is not enough money to
provide for all those things that have been done in the past.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): I, too, want to start
my comments this afternoon by recognizing the great contribution by the former
member for The Maples to this House, to his caucus, his constituents, and, as
well, to his community.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to just add that I personally will, I think, mostly miss the
former member for The Maples as a great friend.
He and his family were friends to me and my family and to many in this
House, and we will miss them dearly. We
wish them well in
My
question is for the Minister of Environment.
Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Dale Stewart is currently the chairperson of the five‑person
panel which is reviewing the
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources and the department have made no
secret down through the years, at least since this government took office, of
their support for this project. That
support has been reflected on numerous occasions in this House, and indeed is
reflected in the comments and the brief they put forward to that very same
commission which Mr. Stewart is now the chairperson of.
My
question for the Minister of Environment:
Does he think it is appropriate that the same individual who was the
deputy minister of the department, which had consistently shown support for
this project, is now the most influential person, the chairperson on the
commission which is reviewing it?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have
every confidence in Mr. Stewart's ability and capabilities and his willingness
to serve this province and work with the commission on the very troubling
problems that we put before the commission.
If
the member has some concern that he believes is real, let him put it on the table.
* (1345)
Mr. Edwards: I just have put it on the table, and that
concern is that the Hespeler report which came out in 1987‑‑and Mr.
Stewart was the acting deputy minister at that time‑‑proposes as a
first phase, diversion from
Mr.
Speaker, my question for the minister is not directed to the integrity of Mr.
Stewart. If this government does not
understand the appearance of conflict and the need for government to be
circumspect and vigilant in protecting against conflict of interest, then they
do not the understand the nature of the appearance of conflict. It is real and it is there.
Why
is this man still chairing that commission?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, he is not in the courtroom. He is dealing with a quality civil servant
who served that party faithfully, worked after this organization came into
government. He is a civil servant of the highest quality whom I trust
implicitly with this responsibility.
For
him to stand in his place and besmirch the career of a longstanding quality
civil servant is unacceptable, and I challenge him to repeat that outside of
the House.
Mr. Edwards: He is so willingly blind to the conflict of
interest which is being created by him, Mr. Speaker, he has put Mr. Stewart in
that compromising position. It is not a
position he should have put him in.
Mr.
Speaker, the question for this minister is why is the person who headed the
department which was the proponent of this project, why is that same gentleman
the decision maker on this very same project?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, already the member is putting
misinformation on the record. The
proponent is the Pembina Valley Task Force.
The
Pembina Valley Task Force is the proponent.
Let him get his facts straight, and let him quit attacking a quality
civil servant.
Point of
Order
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the minister has very clearly
indicated that I put misinformation on the record, and I want to clarify that
point‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the Second
Opposition did not have a point of order.
He clearly said that at the outset.
There is no point of order.
Hayrides
Safety
Regulations
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I
want to ask the acting Premier if his government is undertaking a review of
this incident, and which departments will be involved to see that safety
regulations were being followed?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, let me first of all express
sincere regrets and sympathy for the young children who were hurt in a freak
accident yesterday at Birds Hill Park, but I want to indicate to the House and
to members here that the same rules apply to people who drive horses on the
roads as they do with vehicles.
We
have hundreds of rules and regulations basically developed to try and protect
the public from injury and from harm, and we apply those rules. At the present time in this particular case,
the RCMP are investigating the situation, and once we have that report, we are
prepared to deal with it further.
* (1350)
Hayrides
Safety
Regulations
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the
definition of amusement is primarily dealing with the mechanical side which our
department inspects, as I am sure the member can appreciate, but we certainly
will be awaiting the results of the RCMP report, and if there are some
recommendations coming forward that there is an area in the safety scheme that
needs to be filled, then we will consider that.
At
this time, it is premature to make that analysis until we have received the
report from the RCMP.
Hayrides
Safety
Regulations
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
How
are we going to know that all of these regulations are being followed across
the province, and what regulations are being followed?
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister
of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, there are many people who enjoy
riding, wagon‑drawn rides. It is a
novelty, part of our heritage, I suppose.
I can recall as a youngster driving horses, and that was a means of
making a living at that time.
Mr.
Speaker, both the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) and myself have given the
undertaking that once we have the report from the RCMP, we will review it. If there are any discrepancies, anything that
should be addressed, we will do that.
However, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that
irrespective of how many rules and regulations we apply through my department
on the highways or in the other departments, from time to time you do have
accidents.
However, we are not taking this lightly. As soon as we have the final police report,
we will review it, myself along with my colleagues the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) and the Minister of Labour, and if something has to be changed,
we will do that.
Workforce
2000 Program
Justification
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, looking at recipients of the
Workforce 2000 private training incentives, it is often difficult to see where
some of these grants fit with the economic strategies for the province.
So
I want to ask the Minister of Education why she considers it more important for
the economic future of
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Those
companies, business, industry, labour groups who wish to take advantage of
Workforce 2000, wish to participate‑‑and I will remind the member
that they also put money on the table‑‑they go through a series of
criteria, and then the program is monitored. There are also checks of the
program as it goes along. There is a
process of monitoring.
I
would also remind the member that this Workforce 2000 recommended by STAC as a
model to involve the sharing between government, business, industry and labour
has been a model across
* (1355)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, but the issue is training for
what? It was the choices and the alternatives I was asking the minister about.
Equality
of Access
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): My supplemental question for the minister is,
what steps has she taken to ensure that in the companies which have received
Workforce 2000 money, there is equality of access to that training and that
trainees are not selected on the basis of age or gender or even the amorphous
attitude?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Again, Workforce 2000 operates with many sectors
in
We
work and we monitor in each one of those.
Each one of those areas that wishes to participate in the program is
required to comply with the criteria, and then there is a monitoring process
ongoing and following.
Ms. Friesen: But yet again, the minister read a list that
was put in front of her.
My
question was, is there equality of access to training programs in Workforce
2000? Is that a criteria for the grant?
Mrs. Vodrey: We are coming to the line of Workforce 2000 in
the Estimates of the Department of Education.
We will be able to review those criteria in detail.
However, I would like to table a report. The member has just been so critical of
Workforce 2000. I thought she would be
interested in a letter we have from the Carpenters and Joiners of
Water Flow
Levels
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The
people of
Now
we have the Ministry of Natural Resources' brief which indicates at page 6
that: On the Assiniboine River, impacts
would be variable depending on location and flow conditions. Flows east of
That is apparently acceptable as a matter of
course as a result of that project.
My
question for the minister: Why is it now
acceptable that there be less water for the people of
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, members know that as a rule I am
not bashful in making my views known from time to time on this or any other
subject, but I want to make it absolutely clear that it would be inappropriate
for me to on a daily basis comment on what is happening at the Clean
Environment Commission hearings.
My
honourable friend the Leader of the third party opposition is a lawyer. He will understand that I view it somewhat
analogous to a question asked of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) on an
ongoing trial, which would be clearly sub judice and would not be answered.
Mr.
Speaker, as a matter of notice, I have no intention of answering any questions
with respect to what is being said on a daily basis at the Clean Environment
Commission hearings. Those hearings will
be extensive, exhaustive. The government
places a great deal of importance on those hearings.
When they are concluded and when their
findings are completed, some three or four or five or 18 months hence, I will
be prepared to comment on the matter.
Mr. Edwards: This is a brief entitled, from the Manitoba
Department of Natural Resources. He is
the minister, Mr. Speaker. Is he saying
he is not prepared to defend his own report in this House?
My
question for the minister: What is
it? Is it now tolerable that the people
down river in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Natural
Resources Report
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question again for the Minister of Natural Resources: Is he prepared to defend the report that his
department has put forward or not? Is he
prepared to answer for it or does his department function without his
leadership, because‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
* (1400)
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, the professional engineers and other Natural Resources people have
specific mandates with respect to the management of our natural resources,
water being among them, fish being among them, other matters being among them.
They are called upon from time to time by different
They call and they rely on the professional
advice of my engineers. That is the
advice, that is the position being put forward before the Clean Environment
Commission to pass some judgment on as to whether or not a proponent's proposal
for a water allocation is doable.
That is not my job. That is for my professionals to assist the
Clean Environment Commission to come to a decision on that proposal.
Human
Resources
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, a recent
report by this government indicated strong support for the Human Resources
Opportunity Centres across this province.
It indicated, among other things, a growing demand for the program and a
payback to government of $16 for every one dollar spent, a cost‑effective
program by any government standards.
I
want to ask the Minister of Education about this program, Mr. Speaker, because,
unfortunately, when we questioned the Minister of Education during Estimates,
it was evident that there was no consideration given for this report when the
decision was made to cut the Human Resources Opportunity Centres by 10 percent
and to eliminate the Parkland Centre completely.
Will the Minister of Education today indicate
whether she has now reviewed this report?
Will she now admit that this was a gross miscarriage of justice and a
colossal error by the government in making this decision?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, we are coming to the line that deals with the HROCs and the HROPs in
the Estimates process of the Department of Education and Training, where we
will be able to talk in detail about this.
However, I did say to the member at other
times he has raised the issue, this government did have very difficult
decisions to make. We have attempted to
now work through a process with staff to provide the service on behalf of
Manitobans.
That service is still being provided. He speaks of one particular HROC and HROP,
and we are attempting to service the needs of that particular area through
itinerant workers.
Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the
minister made no contingency plans when this decision was made to provide
service for the
I
ask her today whether she will review the decision in light of this report and
reinstate the funding and the program for the Parkland Human Resources Centre
that is so necessary for the vulnerable people in the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, we have staff from the
In
addition, in the Parkland area, we have maintained the Single Parent Job Access
Program, and we are working very hard to continue to maintain programming and
support for the people of the
Mr. Plohman: How ridiculous. Did you hear that? Itinerants from Brandon‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's comments did not get
on the record.
The
honourable member for Dauphin, kindly put your question now, please.
Mr. Plohman: Certainly, I would, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask this minister: Is this all the commitment that she has to
the decentralized program that this government touted high and low as the great
saviour for rural
Is
this what she does for decentralization by having workers go from
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I wonder when the last time that
member was up in the
We
will get to the discussion of all of the centres which have remained open, all
of the programs which continue. As I
said, we are still looking to service the needs of the people of the
We
have maintained the Single Parent Job Access programming, and we will continue
to provide support for the people of the
Flame-Master
Furnaces
Judicial
Decision‑Appeal
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Housing.
Last year almost 200 homeowners in Gimli
attempted to get justice over defective Flame‑Master furnaces. Now the Minister of Housing failed to act,
and he was sued.
Last week the minister lost in court, and Mr.
Dave Kowcun of Gimli got a $1,200‑plus‑costs award towards a new
furnace.
I
want to ask the minister whether he will be appealing the court decision.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, before they haul me off to jail,
we are having this matter under consideration as to whether we are going to
appeal.
Government
Action
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): I would like to know when the minister will
be acting on the other 193 people that had defective furnaces and are out a lot
of money because of this case.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): The circumstances
surrounding Mr. Kowcun are somewhat different than the circumstances
surrounding a number of the furnace issues there, in any event, but before
anything is done, we will carry out the judicial process in this matter to
determine liability. After that, we will
deal with it.
Mr. Maloway: Clearly, this man has won his case, and more
people are going to proceed to the courts.
I would like to know when the minister will decide to do something and
solve this case in the interests of Manitobans.
Mr. Ernst: The last time I looked, the member for Elmwood
was not a member of the appellate court.
When they decide, as they will in due course, should we decide to
appeal, then we will make a decision.
Repap
Manitoba Inc.
Investment
in
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I bring some good news to the
House. Mr. George Petty, the president
of Repap, is about to go into his annual meeting tomorrow. He indicates that he expects the company to
be in a positive cash flow and in an ability to start back to his expansion
plans.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Finance what this means for Repap's
investment in this province. Will we
begin to see some of that long‑awaited investment as a result of the fact
that the company is about to become profitable?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the member for the very reasoned question he puts before the House.
Mr.
Petty extended an invitation to me personally to be in attendance at the annual
meeting of Repap. I will unfortunately
be unable to attend.
We
are mindful, too, of some of the turnaround obviously within the coated paper
line that is a significant contributor to the well‑being of that
company. There is no doubt, as we
continue discussions with Mr. Petty and Mr. Kass particularly, we will be
trying to push more quickly the larger developed project at The Pas and in
keeping with the commitment made by Repap contractually to the province.
Yet, I would not want Manitobans to believe
that there is going to be expansion, certainly within the context of the next
few months. When one surveys all of the major
players within the forest product industry, certainly Repap is probably best
positioned to take advantage of any recovery within the industry.
* (1410)
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could
tell us, when Mr. Petty phoned to invite him to the meeting if he indicated
when we would start to see some of that investment in this province.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the company has lost roughly
$300 million in the last two years. I do
not think their bankers or their financial supporters are going to let them be
engaged in significant expansion at all in terms of 1993.
An Honourable Member: You certainly miscalculated that, did you not?
Mr. Manness: Well, what I did not miscalculate, Mr. Speaker,
was the fact that the NDP have been against Repap from Day One and indeed the
800 jobs. I did not miscalculate that.
In
fairness to the question, Mr. Speaker, certainly Repap has made no new time
commitment with respect to the major project development.
Social
Assistance
Dental
Services
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I have no
intentions of leaving the good constituents of Burrows for Osborne, but when
the member for Osborne leaves we will be happy to represent his seat by our
party.
Mr.
Speaker, for several years the City of
Why
is the minister making this change when the City of
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, we have been in discussions with the City of
Part of the changes we are making to have one
system of social allowances in the province requires some changes in the manner
in which the city does business. We are
currently in discussions with them on a number of areas, and I am sure that
when those discussions are completed, we will have arrived at a system which is
workable.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister why he is
forcing these changes on the City of
Why
are they doing these things?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The province agrees to fund to a certain level
the services that are provided by the City of
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Economic Development be amended as follows: Osborne (Mr. Alcock) for
Motion agreed to.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic
Development be amended as follows: the
member for Morris (Mr. Manness) for the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay);
the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Gimli (Mr.
Helwer); the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) for the member for River East
(Mrs. Mitchelson); and the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) for the member
for
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask, first of all, whether or not there is a willingness to waive private
members' hour.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No, there is no leave.
Mr. Manness: I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
* (1420)
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This afternoon, this section of the Committee
of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of
Education and Training.
When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 4.(g)(1) on page 39 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, we asked the minister about the report that was commissioned by
the Planning and Policy Development Branch.
The final report was provided November 5, 1992. We asked this during the earlier part of the
Estimates.
Has
the minister had an opportunity now to review that report?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, yes, I and my department have had an opportunity to look at
the report.
I
am aware that the report was supportive of the role of these programs when they
were a part of the Department of Family Services, and now, we will have to look
at the role and exactly what the function of these particular programs are
within the Department of Education and Training. I explained that to the member, I believe,
the last time we spoke about this.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, well, the minister should not be worried
about whether she has to explain things.
That is her job.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I would like to ask the minister if she has found out from
her staff what this report cost to undertake.
Mrs. Vodrey: That was an expenditure done within the
Department of Family Services. The
member may like to address that question to the Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer).
Mr. Plohman: The minister is now responsible for this
program, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. The
Minister of Family Services indicated he would answer no questions on HROC, the
Human Resources Opportunity Centres, because they now fall under the Department
of Education.
We
are not going to be caught in game playing between the two ministers. That minister said it is no longer his
responsibility. This minister is now
responsible. It is up to her to find out
what it cost when it was commissioned and provide a report to this committee.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are, as I have
said, not attempting to play games by any means. We are attempting to provide the information
that is the most current.
At
the moment, the Department of Education and Training has to now look at the
programs that have been transferred from the Department of Family Services in
the light of the work of the Department of Education and Training. This was an expenditure he is asking about
that was accepted and passed by the Department of Family Services. It was not passed within the Department of
Education and Training.
Mr. Plohman: Certainly, when programs are transferred, all
aspects of the discussion surrounding those programs are relevant to the
issue. The minister has a responsibility
to provide responses on aspects both before the program came and following
because she is now responsible for the program, and what went on before has
everything to do with how the program is dealt with now.
We
have a report done. The minister says
she is reviewing this report, and she is going to see how this can be
incorporated into the future program changes in her department. So if you are using a report that is
commissioned by this government, if you are using that report for future
decision making, you have a responsibility to provide a report to the committee
on what the costs of that report were.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have not been the
minister who tabled that report. I am
not quite sure how the member has actually received that report, if in fact it was
presented to him or if he received that report by some other means.
However, I will say to him that certainly as
Minister of the Department of Education and Training, I am looking very
carefully at these programs now and certainly will be pleased to answer
questions regarding these programs and my responsibility for these programs as
they are part of the division of Advanced Education and Skills Training.
So
I will be happy to discuss aspects of the program if he cares to ask those
questions.
Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will
certainly get to that, but if the minister wants us to table the report for her
edification if she has not seen it, then we will be glad to do that. We have a copy. We assume the minister has access to this.
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: There has never been any question of our
access to the report, or mine. I have
explained that we have been reviewing it.
I most certainly have seen it.
The
question was how the member received that report, how the member for Dauphin
received that report.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that was certainly
out of order as you have so ruled, because it is none of the minister's concern
where I got my report. What is of
concern to her, of course, is what she is doing with the report, and we are
asking her how much the government paid to have this report done.
* (1430)
She
is responsible for the programs. If she
does not know how much and did not bother to try to find out, it seems to me
after this was raised, the first thing she should have asked is: How much did
we pay for this report that we ignored?
So
I am asking her what was the cost, and if she cannot give it to us today, just
an undertaking that she will find out how much it cost. A simple phone call by one of her staff‑‑she
certainly has enough of them around. Ask
one of them to go call.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I have said from
the start, this report was commissioned by another department. It was commissioned at a time when these
programs were the responsibility of another minister in another department, and
the study itself was to look at these programs within the Department of Family
Services.
Since the time of that report, these programs
have been transferred to the Department of Education and Training. The Department of Education and Training now
has to look at these programs to see how they fit, the function and the role of
these programs within our department, and that is exactly what we are doing at
this time.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I asked the minister
whether she will undertake to provide us with a cost of this program and a copy
of the original complete report.
Mrs. Vodrey: I will remind the member again that the money
expended for that report was money expended by the minister of another
department, that it was not expended by the Department of Education and
Training, and is not to be expended in this year under this year's Estimates
which we are discussing now.
We
are discussing now the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training,
and we are discussing the spending for the coming year. That report was commissioned by the Department
of Family Services, and it has come from their budget. So I have said to the member that that
minister is the person he might like to ask that question of.
I
have also understood from what the member has said, he has offered to provide
copies of the report, so it seems to me he already has a copy of the report,
and is now asking, could he have another one.
Well, he already has one.
So
I would say that he seems to have the information contained in the report. I am sure, as he has read that information,
he is aware that it was constructed to look at those programs as they were part
of Family Services, and they are now a part of the Department of Education and
Training.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister's
comments border on the absurd. She knows
very well we have a copy. It says Phase
I, Final Report, and was delivered November 5, '92. The Policy and Planning
branch undertook this. It could have
been Executive Council, or it could have been under the department. It could very well have been by Executive
Council Policy and Planning.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, the minister knows very well who undertook this report,
what it cost, when it was done. We see a
Phase I. I want to know where Phase II,
Phase III are‑‑if there are other phases, table the report‑‑and
if is there any additional money flowing.
If this was undertaken by a private consultant, as we understand it was,
through Prairie Partnership or Prairie Research, that this in fact could mean
that additional dollars are still flowing in final payments.
We
want to know precisely when the dollars flowed on this report and what the cost
of it was.
Mrs. Vodrey: There are no additional dollars flowing. There is no money flowing from the Department
of Education and Training for any further parts to this report, any completion
of this report. There has been no money
expended by the Department of Education and Training, nor will there be on this
report.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister is dismissing
this report as if it is irrelevant, as if it is not important. There is
certainly not going to be any money spent by this department on this report.
Well, I want to just tell her that one would
assume that there would at least be some follow‑up by the consultants
with this department since they have assumed responsibility and since this
major work was undertaken. What follow‑up
has there been by these consultants with the department?
Mrs. Vodrey: That evaluation was done, again I will remind
the member, prior to the transfer of the program to the Department of Education
and Training. We will be looking at
those programs and any information that has come from the evaluation in the
light of our overall economic strategy.
At
this point, one of the important points has been that the Department of
Education and Training now, through its creation of the new east branch, the
Advanced Education and Skills Training, they are looking at the reorganization
to make sure that the programs which we have brought into Education and
Training are well integrated.
We
can look clearly at the roles and what the function of these programs will be,
and that is exactly the work that we are doing now.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is
nonsense. I want to know whether the
minister has received a Phase II report?
Mrs. Vodrey: The report that the member is speaking of,
the whole report, is a report that is internal to government. That report has not been made public.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I never asked the
minister whether it was made public or not.
We have a part of that report.
Obviously it is Phase I dealing with the Human Resources Opportunity
Centre. I am asking the minister if she
has a Phase II report. Yes or no. It is not whether it should be made public; I
am asking whether she has received a subsequent phase.
Mrs. Vodrey: One might wonder then how the member did
acquire that report. The report is
internal to government, and the report was not released.
Mr. Plohman: What is the point of the minister's
question? To hide from giving this
committee the facts? Providing open
information to the committee that is studying‑‑that are members of
this Legislature studying her department and her irresponsibility in her
department. What is she trying to do
here? It is nothing but games. Now come clean with this committee. We are asking for a copy of the report. We are asking some very good information that
is necessary for the public.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member to choose
his words carefully.
Mr. Plohman: Certainly.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I am attempting to keep the decorum at a
fairly level pace here, and some of the words the member is choosing are not
quite appropriate for any committee that I chair. So I would ask the honourable member to
choose them carefully.
The
honourable minister, to reply.
* (1440)
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I have said that this report was
commissioned by another department, by another minister, for the use of another
department. Now, these particular
programs have been transferred to the Department of Education and
Training. We will be looking through our
reorganization of our AEST branch, at the function and the role of these
programs.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, who paid for this
report?
Mrs. Vodrey: The Department of Family Services paid for
this report.
Mr. Plohman: Have you at least the kind of communication
and organization that one would expect, that at least when a major division and
branch of government is transferred to another department, that along with it
came further documentation on this report, since it is fundamental to the
future of this program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, the cost of the report was paid by
another department. It was not paid from
the money which is being made available and which we are discussing this year
in the Department of Education and Training, the Estimates for the coming year.
What I think is important is that now we will
have the opportunity to look at that report and see what parts of it apply to
these programs as they are now a part of the Department of Education and
Training.
Mr. Plohman: Has the minister read the report?
Mrs. Vodrey: I have certainly seen the report, had an
opportunity to discuss the report with staff, and I am aware of the contents of
the report.
Mr. Plohman: Has the minister read Phase II of the report?
Mrs. Vodrey: I will tell the member that we certainly have
the full report, and the full report will be examined as these areas are being
integrated into the Department of Education and Training.
Mr. Plohman: Can the minister tell us whether she
understands the process of Estimates, that the critics, as a matter of course,
delve into reports and happenings of the department over the past year, as well
as what will happen in the future year, that this is a matter of tradition in
the Estimates process?
Mrs. Vodrey: I certainly understand the process of
Estimates, but as I have explained, these are the Estimates of the Department
of Education and Training. This
particular report was commissioned by the Department of Family Services.
Mr. Plohman: This section is the responsibility of this
minister at this time. If the minister
understands the process of Estimates as she says, she knows that it is standard
practice that critics will ask the minister questions about reports that she is
now responsible for that have been completed or are in process prior to
Estimates. That is a standard
traditional practice in the Committee of Supply and committee of Estimates.
Does the minister understand that to be the
case?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the member wishes
to talk about the report‑‑and I do not know if he knows what is in
the report. I have told him that I know the
contents of the report.
The
report was prepared when these programs were a part of another department. We will now have to look at the report, but
we will have to look at it in light of the function of these programs and the
role of these programs in the Department of Education and Training.
Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister
knows the report was commissioned prior to the elimination of the Parkland
Human Resources Centre. It was based on
what was there at that time. Now part of
that system is no longer there.
How
can the minister review the report to gain any knowledge about what she is
supposed to do in the future, if she has already trashed part of the program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there were very
difficult budget decisions to be made on the part of the Department of Family
Services when they were going through the budgetary process. Now that these programs have become housed in
the Department of Education and Training, we will be looking at their function
and future planning from within this department.
Mr. Plohman: Is the minister not aware that when a program
is transferred to her department during the process of a year at any time, it
is then her responsibility to answer any and all questions related to that
program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am certainly
prepared to answer questions regarding the content of the program and exactly
what our plans are for this program, but there were decisions made in another
department regarding the commissioning of a report and very difficult decisions
made about this particular area, and then the area was transferred to the
Department of Education and Training.
I
have said to the member that I am certainly, with my staff, looking at the
report, but if the member can understand, we have to look now at this report in
light of the Department of Education and Training, not the Department of Family
Services.
Mr. Plohman: Does the minister expect us to believe that
she was not even consulted on this program, knowing of course that she was now
going to be responsible for this program in her department, prior to those
decisions being made?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, again, I am very happy to
talk about the program as it is housed in the Department of Education and
Training, but the member knows that when he wishes to discuss the details of
decision making that took place in another department, then it would be that
minister who would answer those questions.
What I can do is speak to the member about where we are going now. I understand that this program is of interest
to him, and I understand that he would perhaps like to speak about what is
happening with that program now.
Mr. Plohman: The minister should have a little more
respect for this process and the committee than to play games in this
particular case.
Point of
Order
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Deputy Chair, I do not think it is fair‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Can I ask you to bring the mike up and start
again?
Mr. Derkach: I do not think it is fair for any member
around this table who is a member of the Legislature to be accusing another
member of being dishonest or playing games or any of the kinds of comments that
I am hearing from the member for Dauphin, and I think he should withdraw them
and apologize for his conduct in this Chamber.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of
order at this time, but I will listen carefully to the words that are coming
from the member.
* (1450)
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chair, the minister must have more
respect for this committee, so that she would not undertake to leave us with
the impression that somehow we can go and ask this other minister who is no
longer responsible for these programs about decisions that he made. He has already advised the committee that he
is no longer responsible. We agree;
therefore, he can not answer questions on it.
This minister is now responsible, and if she
does not understand that, she should go to her Premier and her House leader and
others and get briefed as to what her responsibility is. Clearly, it is a responsibility to this
committee to answer questions about the program. We are not asking confidential
questions. We are not asking what she
knows. We just want to know whether she
was consulted prior to the decisions being made, because she was going to be
responsible for these decisions, or did she not even know that?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would like to inform all honourable members
that, as rulings in this committee have stated, it is not up to the minister to
answer any questions being put to them, and they are not required to answer any
questions coming to them about other departments.
Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Chair. Let me say to the member, so that there is
absolutely no doubt on the record, my respect for this committee, which is why
I have been making every effort to answer the questions that are put forward. However, I say again to the member that I am
very pleased to answer questions about this particular program and will when he
asks them, but he is asking questions that focus on a decision made at another
time by another person when these particular programs were a part of another
department. I am very happy to speak
about these programs now that they are a part of the Department of
Education. I most certainly was aware of
the reorganization. We believe that the
reorganization which was taking place will be very helpful to the people of
We
are looking now at these programs in the light of the Department of Education
and Training. The Department of
Education and Training has a different role.
It has a different mandate. It
has a different function from the Department of Family Services. So we will be looking at all of these programs
in the light of the work that we do in the Department of Education and
Training.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is the minister saying
that this report, done when this branch was in another department or this
program was in another department, is irrelevant to her considerations now as
she is now responsible for it, for all aspects of the program and the report?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, as I have answered now
probably 10 times or more, I and my department are looking carefully at this
report; however, we recognize that this report was done for another department
when the circumstances were different because these programs were offered
within a department that had a different function from the Department of
Education and Training.
Now
that it has moved into the Department of Education and Training, I have advised
the member that I am certainly aware of the contents of the report and staff
are reviewing the report carefully, but we now have to review the report in the
light of the mandate of the Department of Education and Training.
Mr. Plohman: Let the record show simply that the minister
refused to provide evidence of the cost of this report to this committee.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I want to ask this minister: How much federal money was lost by the cuts
that were made to the HROC this year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, let me begin by
saying: Let the record show that this
minister is responsible for answering for the expenditures of the Department of
Education and Training. I have done so
for a great many hours and will continue to do so because we have a great
number of programs still to cover. I am
certainly more than prepared, have been more than prepared, and continue to be
prepared to answer questions regarding the expenditures of the Department of
Education and Training.
Regarding the question that the member has
just asked, I am informed that it will take us a short time to calculate any
figures which may be involved, but perhaps the member would like to ask another
question and then I will give him that information from his first question when
I have it available.
Mr. Plohman: This minister's credibility in this committee
is certainly strained as a result of her refusal to provide any forthcoming
information about this report. It is
clear, and she has that information. I
have to say that, as far as I am concerned, there is a credibility gap here,
and the minister knows very well that this report was commissioned. Its first phase was made available in
November of '92. That is only six months
ago. It follows that the consultants
would have met with staff to discuss the report following, that there would be
follow up on that report and could very well be further‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: The member says the report was made
available. This report was an internal document. He has obviously some information that is
internal. He is leading the committee to
believe that somehow this was a tabled report.
It is not.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the report was
prepared November 5, '92, and we have a copy of the Phase I report. Whether the
minister says it is confidential or it was internal, that is her problem. The fact is, it is available to the
committee, and we have obtained a copy of that report. Now I am asking the minister: How much federal money was lost by the
cuts? I also want to ask her: How many staff will provide the itinerant
services from
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, as the member knows, in
this particular program, when the provincial government spends money, we
receive half of that money back from the federal government, and therefore the
money which we will not be receiving on behalf of that expenditure is $534,000.
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying that in making this
decision the government has forgone $534,000 federal dollars that were
providing this service in the province.
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said to the member in my first answer,
the provincial government would expend funds and receive a half back. Therefore, yes, we did not receive
$534,000. However, we did, in fact, by
provincial expenditures then, not expend the total amount also.
Mr. Plohman: Just to clarify now, the $534,000 is forgone
federal dollars. Am I correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, that is correct.
Mr. Plohman: How much of this applies to the Human
Resources Opportunity Centres in this line?
None of this is New Careers?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the savings as related
through the centres‑‑and that would be all of the centres‑‑that
is a saving that has occurred as a result of all of the centres, not just one.
* (1500)
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the minister
tell us what the savings of dollars were to the government and to the federal
government of the closure of the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, on that particular HROC,
the province would have spent $325,000 and would have received $162,500 from
the federal government.
Mr. Plohman: Can the minister explain why these figures
are not matched? Is it that some of the
expenditures of the province are not eligible?
Which are those, capital spending, or what part of it is not eligible
for federal sharing?
Is
the minister saying that the $325,000 is the total and that the actual cost to
the province is really $162,000 and the federal is $162,000? That is not what she said, but that way I
could read it that is matched.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I believe that is
what I said. The member is now
correct. I did say that the provincial
expenditure would be $325,000 and we would receive back from the federal
government $162,500.
Mr. Plohman: The minister would be correct in saying the
total cost to the province is $162,500.
That is the saving.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is correct.
Mr. Plohman: I ask the minister, how many staff will be
providing itinerant service from
Mrs. Vodrey: The member asked the question of what
expenditures would not be covered under the federal government's cost
sharing. Under CAP and Part 3, the areas
which would be excluded would be rental of provincial space, the provincial
health and education tax. Then capital
expenditures must be preapproved, so there would be some capital expenditures
which may be accepted. There would be others which would not be accepted. I understand that sometimes capital
expenditures such as a van might be accepted under some circumstances and
perhaps not under other circumstances.
The
number of staff who will be providing the itinerant service from
Mr. Plohman: Two staff from
Just to further clarify my questions on this,
are these full‑time staff allocated to the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in the
There will be two of the staff who will assume,
as part of their caseload, the Parklands area, and they will work as itinerants
to the Parklands area. Yes, they are
full‑time staff. No, they are not
assigned full time to the Parklands. They will, as I said, assume, as part of
the caseload, work in the Parklands area.
There were, my information says, approximately
120 active cases transferred to the Westman area from the HROP regional office,
but all the on‑site participants will complete their programming and then
some will be moving on to work experience.
So
for the two staff who will be acting as itinerant, in terms of their caseload,
it would increase by approximately 50 each.
However, as I said to the member when we discussed this in the policy
area, all staff will have to look at what their caseloads are, and they will
have to look at the amount of time, including travel, which all of the
consultants do, and then look at a division of work in caseload that is the
most efficient. That is exactly the place where they are now, looking at the most
efficient way to divide up the caseload.
This is true for all people who offer clinical services.
* (1510)
Mr. Plohman: The minister said earlier there were four
staff in
Mrs. Vodrey: I believe I said there were 14.26 totally in
the HROC and the HROPs. Four are part of
the HROPs; 10.26 are in the HROC programs.
Mr. Plohman: I still have not gotten that clear. The minister said four to the HROC and then
10.26 to the HROC programs. What is the
difference?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, four to the Human Resources
Opportunity Programs, the HROPs; and 10.26 to the Human Resources Opportunity
Centres, the HROCs.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, okay, so four involved with the program
and 10.26 with the centres. (interjection) You hear HROC and HROP and see if
you know the difference between P and C, if you can distinguish.
I
can use jargon for the minister, too. I
want to be much more clear. She likes to
play games, as I said earlier, and this is what we are getting here.
(interjection) Well, there was mumbling.
She can say, I am not playing games, but I will tell you that is what it
is.
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: Let the record show and I will check Hansard
that I believe the member was using the acronym as well.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for the record, the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) said, and I quote from the April 27
Estimates: "The member is possibly
aware that we have transferred our training programs out of Family Services now
to Education so that all of the training programs that were in this department
and some that were in Labour are now part of the Education and Training
department of government."
Then he went on to say: "I think, as the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) and the Department of Education look at this broad spectrum of
people they have to serve and this continuum of service, they have to make
decisions within there to decide where the dollars are best placed, but knowing
that they will have to serve all manner of people who are seeking training and
retraining in Education."
It
was, he says, "a very difficult decision to downsize in this area, but
there was a feeling that there were services that could be offered by other
groups within that community and services that could be offered from the City
of
He
said that they will serve it from Brandon, right, but he never indicated any
answers about that report and other areas of the discussions, and I have not
just found the exact line where he indicated that the Minister of Education
would be the one to answer the questions in detail.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I want to get back to the discussion that we were having
about staff. The minister is saying
something that is just incredible, really, for anyone to believe that two staff
on a part‑time basis are going to serve the whole
Is
there any intake of additional people that are going to be served, or does the
minister just see this playing out the string for the people that were already
in the system, and once they have been serviced, the obligation from Brandon is
over? How are they going to be involved
with intake of all of those people who need this service in the future and are
not yet part of that service?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a couple of
points. First of all, the member has had
trouble with the term HROC and HROP. I will just remind him that they were
given their names by his party when they were in government.
Then he speaks and has read into Hansard what
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) said in his Estimates. That is exactly what I have been saying
today, that we are looking to serve all members of the community and that we
are certainly looking with the movement into the Department of Education and
Training to provide the full spectrum of service of training for the people of
If
the member did not happen to ask that particular minister about the report,
then that was an opportunity missed with that minister. However, I have been prepared to talk about
the report by saying that, yes, we have reviewed it, we are aware of the
contents, and we are certainly looking at it, but we have to look at it now in
the light of the Department of Education and Training. So with that in mind, I do not know if the
member has any other way he would like to look at that report specifically but
in the light of our department.
I
would then say to the member that‑‑and I think that this is really
a very important part of the questioning‑‑that we are looking to
certainly maintain a presence in the Parkland area for this service, and we
have maintained a presence in the Parkland area for this service. We have also maintained a presence in the
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Overall‑‑I know that we have
discussed this throughout the course of Estimates‑‑there were very
difficult decisions to be made. We had
to make some very difficult ones, but with those difficult decisions, we have
attempted to make sure that there is a presence on behalf of these particular
programs available to the people of the
I
certainly am aware that there are, I understand, 70 cases for the Single Parent
Job Access Program and a single staff does look after those particular
clients. So caseloads are a difficult
thing when we are dealing with people. I
understand that, but we are doing our best to maintain the service. That is exactly what we have done.
Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, to go
further on the discussions that took place, the Minister of Family Services
said on a number of occasions that these had been transferred to the Department
of Education and our critic for Family Services the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale) said, and I quote: I think
the focus in Education and Training probably makes sense.
I
guess I was asking for clarification so that I know whether we should ask our
questions here or in Education and Training Estimates. I would not want our critic to enter
Education and Training and ask questions about the closure of the Dauphin
centre and find out that the minister was not involved in the decision to do
it. So I think it is probably best to
ask the questions here.
He
did ask the questions, and again the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) continued to say that part of the program was transferred as part
of the budgetary process, and our critic asked, was there any analysis
specifically, analysis or study taken of whether or not to close the centre,
what the pros and cons were, and, if so, what did that analysis show?
* (1520)
The
minister simply said, well, part of those discussions, of course, that take
place within the branch of government discuss the services that were available
and analyze those services and requirements.
One of the decisions we had to make was that we would downsize this area
of the department as part of the transfer, focus that training within the
Department of Education and Training to provide training options in that
particular area. However, he did not
talk about the specific report that was brought in at that particular time.
So
our critic did ask about whether there was any particular analysis, and he was
not given an answer or any reference to that report. That is on the record, and so, clearly, when
I am asking about the report, it is valid.
It is appropriate at this present time.
The report was something that was being used by this government to make
decisions and was available. That report
was very positive about the HROCs, about the Human Resources Opportunity
Centres, and the HROPs, as the minister said, the Human Resources Opportunity
Programs.
Now, I would like the minister to indicate to
us whether she feels this will provide an adequate service to the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, we have reflected
during the course of these Estimates on very difficult decisions, and they were
difficult decisions, and as I can say to the member now, we have looked at
trying to continue to provide a presence and a support in these areas, and we
also maintained the Single Parent Job Access Program which appeared to have,
certainly, one of the heavier caseloads.
Because we recognized that, we attempted to make sure that service was
still available.
Mr. Plohman: Again, it is basically a nonanswer. We have a nonprogram for the
We
have no referral, no program either, no referral officers. There were two staff who were assigned in the
Parkland for that, one in
We
have established, through the questioning process over the last couple of
weeks, in the earlier round we had in Question Period and in this committee
today, that the move is contrary to the decentralization policy that the
government has. It makes a mockery of
decentralization.
We
have established that the Human Resources Opportunity Centres were very
efficient, that the report the government commissioned which the minister will
not tell us about in terms of cost and other phases says that, in fact, the
payback was $16 for every one dollar spent by government.
We
have established that the federal government was paying half of the dollars,
half of the costs, and all the government had to do was have $162,500 to
provide this service in the
I
have talked with many of them. It has
changed their lives. It is cost‑effective. It has kept them out of trouble. In many
cases, it has turned their lives around and allowed them to lead productive
lives. They have gone on to meaningful
careers, productive citizens in society, no longer involved with the problems
they had in the past, whether it be drug and alcohol abuse in some cases,
trouble with the law. There are many
costs to society of allowing these people to just continue to linger out there
without any program for them.
The
minister talks about a continuum. She
has gutted the continuum. A major
portion of that program was gone when that centre was eliminated. All these other agencies referred people to
the Parkland Human Resources Centre.
That is gone. So there is no
continuum there. It is a continuum in
the mind of the minister only. It is at
a theoretical level. There is no
practical continuum of training and support to these people.
I
find it really mind boggling to think that this minister could justify this
decision. She has the report. If it was not considered by the previous
minister, then why does this minister not consider it, come back to Treasury
Board and say, look, this is ridiculous.
Look at the report. Look at the
service. This is a mistake and I want it
reversed. I am responsible for these
services now. I want this reversed. I cannot put up with this decision. It does not make sense. It does not make economic sense. It is not cost‑effective. It is not efficient. We get matching dollars on this program. It is being used efficiently‑‑$16
to one payback. What is going on
here? There is every justification to
restore this program.
Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, I move that 16.4(g)(1) be reduced by $150,000 taken
from management salaries; and that this committee strongly urge the minister to
consider using the resources saved to restore the Parkland Human Resources
Opportunity Centre.
I
want to speak to that motion, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.
Motion presented.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): At this time, I will
take the motion under advisement and be back with a ruling.
Does the member for Dauphin wish to continue
with his comments on the motion? I am
sorry, I understand at this time it is not debatable while it is taken under
advisement. The motion is not before the
committee until the ruling is returned.
Mr. Plohman: I just want to say, without speaking to that
motion, that I have completed my line of questioning on this particular line,
and I will await your ruling on the admissibility of that motion and pass to
other members who may want to question on this particular line.
I
would not be in favour of passing this section, though, until we have a ruling.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I
recall a case which I had brought up, and I am not too sure if I made reference
to the case before to the Minister of Education but during the Question Period,
where someone was on social assistance and we were trying to get that
individual off the social assistance. I
see these programs as opportunities, not necessarily that will cost government
money, but will in fact save government money.
There were some concerns that I had with
respect to, again, the Department of Family Services and some of the cutbacks that
were done there and the impact of those cutbacks on this particular department
and particularly, for example, the single‑parent ACCESS program, because
in many cases they rely on services such as daycare facilities.
* (1530)
I
guess maybe we will start off by asking the minister if in fact there has been
an impact for individuals that are trying to upgrade, in particular the single
parent out there, as a direct result of that particular cutback.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: The member has made some statements about the
value of these programs, and we have certainly maintained them. We have certainly made sure that there
continued to be some funding for these programs. But I know, as we have been talking over the
past few weeks, that there have been difficult decisions that had to be made
across all departments of government, which did require us to look at the
amount of money being spent, and did require us to make some very difficult
decisions.
The
member says, particularly in the area of child care. Again, any questions
regarding the implications of the child care surcharge rate for the social
assistance recipients are questions which do go to my colleague the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), who would have the most detailed
information regarding any impacts in that area.
However, I can say that, based on the
provisions of the Canada‑Manitoba agreement, the Single Parent Job Access
Program and the Gateway program will continue to offset the total actual costs
incurred by the social assistance recipients trainees for child care expenses.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is expected in
this Single Parent Job Access Program that 701 individuals will benefit from
it. How does that compare to previous years?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am advised that the Single Parent Job
Access Program served approximately 730 single‑parent social assistance
recipients in the year '92‑93, and the projection for '93‑94 is 701
participants.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would be interested
in knowing in terms of‑‑if we can just get a couple of years. Have we seen a gradual decline in individuals
in this particular program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I have the numbers for '91‑92,
which are 754; then, as I gave the member, '92‑93 was 730; and we are
looking at estimating 701 for '93‑94.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am wondering if the
minister can indicate‑‑these numbers that she has given, given that
we are in a recession and one would think the demand for a program of this
nature would in fact be increasing, is the minister believing that she is
meeting the demands for a program of this nature, or are these using the
argument of scarce resources that we have budgeted down to this line?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, though the member may
expect an increased demand, what we have been looking for in these programs is
a very good quality of training, and we have been looking to have the quality
of the training somewhat more detailed, so we believe that there is perhaps
even a greater value. Though the numbers
may be slightly smaller, we believe the quality of the training is extremely
good and should be helpful to those individuals.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would have trusted
in '91‑92 the quality of training would have been extremely good at that
point in time, too, that in fact the reason why we see the decrease in
individuals in this program is because of the government's priorities. I would suggest to you that the government's
priorities on this particular line are all mixed up. I would ask the minister if she believes
enhancing programs of this nature does save money in the long term for
Manitoban taxpayers.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the money that is available
I know is certainly helpful and beneficial to the individuals who are in the
programs, as is the training very beneficial.
As
the member knows, however, there have been very difficult decisions. Manitoba taxpayers have a threshold amount of
money that they have available, as does government, so what we have been
looking to do is to provide the best training and to provide the greatest
amount of support and to continue these programs, because of the benefits. So I certainly do not believe that we are
arguing the benefits of this particular program. However, I can say that in looking at
providing the best program, we do not have as many people involved within the
program as previously and there is not an endless supply of money which would
continue to allow us to pour more and more additional dollars in to this
particular program.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, of the 701
individuals, for example, for the upcoming fiscal year, from what I understand
virtually 100 percent of them would be on some form of social assistance or
another. Is that not correct?
* (1540)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that
for the participants, income security would provide a needs assessment so
individuals would receive the income security or social assistance as the need
is determined. However, all participants
in the program do receive a minimum wage or a training wage to assist them.
When we have been speaking about the quality
of the programs just previously and under the Skills Training component of the
Single Parent Job Access, specific vocational training programs are developed
and delivered. They are developed and
delivered in conjunction with public and private training institutions in areas
which offer opportunities for employment and correspond to the career interests
of the individual.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I would go
back to the question of cost efficiency and saving taxpayers' dollars. In fact,
this is what this government talks about in terms of wanting to be able to do
in the programs that are out there is to save money.
I
am wondering if the minister could tell me, if you had a program that instead
of decreasing but you increased at this particular area of expenditures, would
it not save the government money not only in terms of the long term, but also
the short term? Is that not a fair
assessment? By attempting to get
individuals who are predominantly receiving some form of social assistance or
another and providing them the skills and assisting them in getting into the
workforce, that is not going to cost governments money. In fact, in the long term, I would argue it
would save government a considerable amount of tax dollars.
Mrs. Vodrey: That is exactly the goal of our
reorganization, is that under our reorganization, we want to make available to
Manitobans the greatest number of opportunities for those Manitobans to develop
the skills they require.
So
as we go through the budget lines in this area, the member will see that there
has been significant dollars devoted in this whole skills training area, and as
I have said when we discussed the literacy portion, the spectrum goes from the
literacy programs which are community‑based right through to the colleges
and universities and other skills training opportunities.
For
many individuals, they do require literacy training and numeracy training as a
starting point, and for those programs to be offered within an individual's
community is really a very helpful start.
Then there are, as we have discussed, many kinds of programs in between.
Chairperson's
Ruling
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: It has been moved by the honourable member
for Dauphin that line 16.4(g)(1) be reduced by $150,000 from management
salaries and that this committee strongly urge the minister to consider using
the resources saved to restore the Parkland Human Resources Opportunity Centre.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I indicated during
the questioning and prior to the motion I made in this House, it is clear that
during the shuffle of this important program from the Department of Family
Services to the Department of Education, there was a critical change in that
program. The critical change was the
elimination, the virtual elimination of service to the
The
Human Resources Opportunity Centre and the Human Resources Opportunity Program
has been in place for some 17 years in the Dauphin and
I
have talked to these people, and I would implore each of the members around
this table to talk to people who have gone through those programs to understand
the human dimension of this kind of a decision, a decision for $162,000 that
eliminates a program that serves a couple hundred individuals, clients, in the
Parkland region every year over that time.
That adds up to thousands of individuals who have been helped.
They are not 100 percent successful, but in at
least 50 percent of the cases and more, they are successful in reversing this
terrible syndrome of despair and turning around their lives. We talked to those people about that, and I
am saying to the members of this committee, this is an opportunity to take
money from management services and provide it where it is more important,
because 50 percent of the dollars, half the dollars, are going to come from the
federal government. You get a $16 payback
for every $1 spent. You forget about the
politics of hammering the
Surely, the member for Ste. Rose (Mr.
Cummings) and the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) should have
been standing up for the Parkland, whether that centre was located in Dauphin
or Roblin or Swan River or Ste. Rose, wherever.
It was serving the
The
minister will not talk about the evaluations that were done, the report that
was commissioned, about the cost of that report, how much the government spent
to put in place an analysis that showed very positively that this program was
needed, that the demand for the program was expanding actually. There was a tremendous need for this program,
and it was so cost‑effective, more than any other program I have seen in
terms of evaluation at 16 to one.
There is no rationale. The minister cannot explain the
rationale. She talks about itinerant
service just down the road here. Well,
it is a hundred miles away, and there is a park in between. I explained that when we discussed this
earlier. In slippery conditions, you do
not talk about driving in miles there.
You talk about driving in hours.
Otherwise you go around the park and it is much further.
Those people cannot be expected to
relocate. Single parents, for example‑‑the
minister keeps talking about Single Parent Job Access. These single parents are going to take their
kids and have to move to Brandon or The Pas, to the nearest centres now? It is
totally ridiculous, and the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) should think
about this, instead of trying to make some witty comments that show, in fact,
he has none.
* (1550)
The
fact is this program has been a tremendous support for the
I
ask for your support in turning around, reversing, a terrible mistake at
best. I mean, we can characterize it as
a mistake during the shuffle of these programs from one department to
another. There is certainly no rationale
for it. No one has given any
evidence. This minister cannot justify
it. She is talking about two staff who
will be part time in the
Let
us make a smart decision on the basis of the money that is involved here that
will help so many people and bring some good news to those people. It is not for me that I am asking this. It is not for any of us. It is for the people who need this service.
The
member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) and the member for Ste. Rose (Mr.
Cummings), surely, who represent this area of the province that was being
served by this program should not fall for this line about itinerant services
from
I
leave it there, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and I move that the question be put.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The member has moved that the question be
put.
All
those in favour of the question being put, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those opposed, say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I say the Nays have it.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am happy to take a
little bit of time to speak on this motion, because I think that I have, over
the course of this discussion, spoken about the importance of skills training
to Manitobans, and certainly to all Manitobans, including the Manitobans who
live in the
When I look at, first of all, the kinds of
Manitobans who might take part in this kind of a program, I understand they are
Manitobans who, for some reason and perhaps for many reasons, have had some
difficulty in receiving training or receiving employment. The reasons for that may be many.
I
also understand that when individuals wish to take part in a training program,
it does take them some time to prepare themselves and also to believe that they
have the support they need to actually enter into the training program. Because of that, we also recognize that one
single training program is not necessarily the only or the correct training
program for those individuals. We
recognize there needs to be a number of options for individuals to take part in
training programs.
The
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) has focused on a single training program as
the one and only program, and his emphasis seems to indicate that all
individuals should take part in this program and this program only. What I would like to say to him is that I
believe people need a series of opportunities, and that was one of the reasons
why this particular set of programs was moved into the Department of Education
and Training.
In
the past, these programs were segregated.
They were in the Department of Family Services, and that was very
helpful. The report the member spoke about was done for the Department of
Family Services, but there has been a recognition in the skills training area
that people do need the opportunity for a series of choices. The opportunity to provide those choices
comes as we move these particular sets of programs into the Department of
Education and Training.
I
have spoken during the course of this discussion about the spectrum of
programming which is now available.
Individuals are no longer required to look only at one type of program,
one kind of program, but they are now able to look at a series of
programs. We believe that by looking at
a number of different programs, they will be able to make the choices that are
really most advantageous for them.
I
have spoken about the kinds of programs that individuals might like to take
advantage of. I have spoken about them
from the literacy end, which provide the very basics in education, those skills
required in literacy and in numeracy for individuals to then move on into other
kinds of programming.
Now
that these programs are integrated within the Department of Education and
Training, we will be able to look at and help Manitobans look at, again, the
whole range of programs, and, I believe, find the program that is best suited
for that individual. I would say to the
member, again, he has had trouble with the whole concept of choice in a number
of different areas, and we are saying now we think it is important for
individuals to be able to look at a number of different areas.
We
also think it is important to be able to make sure that individuals such as
single parents have the opportunity for the Single Parent Job Access Program,
and that particular program has been maintained in the
We
have also said that for individuals who still require the services offered through
the HROCs and the HROPs, we will provide an itinerant service for those
individuals, that there will still be a presence of this kind of training
program that is available in the
So
I just want to put to rest some of the issues the member has raised, and,
finally, in the area of evaluation, I would just like to remind the member
again that this evaluation was commissioned when these programs were a part of
the Department of Family Services, and because of that, the whole paper was prepared
to integrate them into that particular department.
Now
these programs are in the Department of Education and Training, so we have to
look at that evaluation, and with that evaluation, we have to see how it
applies to the mandate of the Department of Education and Training.
So,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would definitely not support the motion of the member
for Dauphin.
Mr. Derkach: I would like to address this whole area, as
well as the motion that has been put before this committee by the member for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I would have to support the Minister of Education in terms
of the direction she has taken with regard to providing all Manitobans with
education and training opportunities in our province. Indeed, I would have to say the programs that
are being offered by the Department of Education and Training today in terms of
retraining individuals across this province are second to none. Many other jurisdictions can learn a lot of
lessons from the direction this government has taken with regard to training
and retraining citizens in all areas of our province.
The
government moved to consolidate programs from various departments into the
Department of Education for the purpose of efficiency and effectiveness, indeed
trying to limit the number of duplications that occur in government from time
to time.
When we took government in 1988, I think it
was very evident that there was no co‑ordination of the kinds of programs
that were being offered throughout government, and that was typical of the
approach that was taken by the former administration.
I
think that taxpayers in this province would expect that we would conduct our
affairs in an effective and efficient manner so that we do not duplicate
services, so that we do not try to have several departments offering similar
kinds of programs. So for that reason,
these programs were consolidated within the Department of Education and
Training. It does give a focal point to
training within one department, and certainly clients then know they can
address their concerns with that department when it comes to Education and
Training.
* (1600)
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I think the minister, through this course of Estimates
review, has been very successful in pointing out that this department is indeed
addressing the needs of Manitobans in terms of education programs, literacy
programs, training programs for those who require them.
I
could use the example of Workforce 2000 and indicate to you that here is a new
program that was developed by this department that has indeed been an extremely
successful one. Even in a time when I
was Minister of Education and Training, there were provinces that were looking
at this program with some envy, because they recognized how important,
innovative and effective this program was.
As the Minister of Education and Training has reported, some 54,000
Manitobans have taken advantage of this program since its inception.
Now,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) has focused on a
program within his particular town. He
has made a very blatant political stance on this issue and his rhetoric, of
course, rings hollow, because there are opportunities in the
I
could just identify a couple of opportunities that are now available which have
not been in the past. Again, I indicate
to the member that, yes, we had a
I
allude again to the FYDE program, the First Year Distance Education
Program. There was no such program in
the Dauphin area when we took government.
Today, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have a very successful First Year
Distance Education Program operating in the Dauphin community.
I
could speak about the native education component of the Department of Education
and Training.
When we decentralized positions from
Education, we ensured that the Dauphin area would receive some recognition for
the kinds of people that live within that area.
It is for that reason that we moved personnel from
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I think there were eight positions decentralized to Dauphin
at that time. I would invite the member
for Dauphin to take the time to walk into that Native Education office and to
look at the kinds of programming and opportunities that are available to
citizens of Dauphin and the surrounding area.
Point of
Order
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on a point of order,
the Minister of Rural Development has just said that he decentralized eight
positions to the
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let not the member for
Dauphin try to insinuate, by the remarks that he puts on the table, that indeed
there has been no recognition of the needs of the people in the
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I also would like to indicate that within that Parkland
area which I represent and in the entire area there are opportunities today in
education that have never been available in that area before. People in that area understand that.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I have to say also that people in that area understand that
governments have to take control of their spending habits. Indeed, we would like to be able to do more,
but there is one reason why we cannot do more, and that reason is because of
that enormous debt that was left to this government and to the people of this
province by the administration of the New Democrats under the Pawley
administration. Whether we like it or
not, that is why we are forced to make some very difficult decisions. Those decisions are not just made in one
department. Those decisions have to be
made across the broad range of departments that exist in government.
The
member for Dauphin has to take some responsibility for that enormous debt that
this province faces, because he was the member who was the Minister of Highways
at the time who constructed a bridge to nowhere in Selkirk, who spent over $20
million on a bridge which really went nowhere and there were no roads to. That is the kind of expenditure that has
caused us to make the decisions that we are making right now.
It
goes further. We could talk about the
MTX expenditure of $27 million lost to
Yes, we have had to make some very difficult
decisions. They have not been easy. They have impacted on Manitobans from the
north right down to the south. Indeed,
we have had to look at how we can deliver services in more effective ways.
When you look at this particular program that
the member for Dauphin speaks about, the Minister of Education and Training has
indicated very clearly that within the scope of programs in the Department of
Education and Training they will look after the needs of the people in that
Parkland area by simply reorganizing the delivery of those services from within
the department.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, the member for Dauphin cannot understand that, because his
method of addressing problems was to tax the people of this province and
continue spending inappropriately. It
was tax and spend, tax and spend. That
is the approach the New Democrats have taken.
That is why today, or just in the last few days, we have witnessed the
kind of demise of the New Democrats in
I
have to support the Minister of Education and Training wholeheartedly in that
she has taken a new approach to education and training in this province. She has taken a fresh look at the needs of
Manitobans, and she will deliver programs to Manitobans, whether they are in
the south part of this province or the north part of this province, and will
deliver them effectively. So I am
completely opposed, and I am astonished that the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman)
would be so narrow minded as to bring this kind of motion forward in this
committee.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, it is a pleasure to engage in the debate. I do not want to hold an element of surprise
for the committee. I will go right to suggest
that I do strongly support the minister and am totally opposed to the motion.
* (1610)
When those of us in Treasury Board had to
involve ourselves in these very, very difficult decisions, not the least of
which was to pass judgment ultimately on the Human Resources Opportunity
Centres, not only in Parkland but indeed elsewhere, I must tell you that it was
an agonizing decision. But, just indeed
as the first cousins and/or sisters and brothers of the NDP party, particularly
the Choices group, said, look, a government at times has to make hard, hard
choices, I am here to tell you that we had to make a very hard choice, and we
did.
We
looked at all of the training area. We
sensed there was some overlap and duplication.
We sensed there were some areas that had to be addressed. So we went to work, indeed as the taxpayers
of this province would want us to do, acknowledging that no program of
government should ever be immune from scrutiny, that there is not a program
anywhere in government that should not be challenged from time to time.
We
have been watching carefully the development of this program, bearing in mind
that it provided some degree of social service.
We were mindful of that, that every one of our programs does within the
social field, and there is no argument there. But the reality is it was time to
make choices. So, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, evaluations were done.
Let
me say, and I will go a little bit further than the Minister of Education, who
probably will not appreciate me saying so, but what do you do when you are also
part of decisions of government, which, at this point in time, is hiring very
few people in the public employ of government and in Crowns?
One
has to ask the question of themselves:
To what extent are you providing some false hope? When one traces the history of individuals
who were training under this particular program, almost inevitably they were
employed by some arm of government.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, we have a situation, then, where government was reducing
the total number employed within the public sector, still training‑‑
An Honourable
Member: Some rationale.
Mr. Manness: Well, I did not say it was the rationale. I said it was an element that was brought to
bear in the decision, taking into account the hard choices that we have to
make.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, the member can rail on and on, and he can say, well, we
would take a different choice. But, of
course, he can never ever‑‑(interjection) Well, I do not know; the
member says, political. Every program
that is now in place impacts somehow on Manitobans. I would think we were elected to govern and
to make choices with respect to all Manitobans.
If
he wants to move on to the decentralization issue, there is only one government
in
Well, of course, what we did not do is what
the NDP government in
But
I digress, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and want to indicate that the choice around
this particular centre was not an easy one to make. It was not the only one; others were made,
too.
If
the member‑‑I do not know whether or not he sat on Treasury Board
of the former government‑‑but if he did, he would realize that from
to time to time when you are forced with these most difficult decisions, you
have to decide whether to gradually choke off a program, or whether or not you
ultimately dismantle it hard and then begin to rebuild.
In
essence, that is what we tried to do in the training area, and why we
consolidated the best of the programs that we could afford under the leadership
of the Department of Education and Training.
It
is not rhetoric; it is the way you have to govern. It is the way, indeed, that Premier Rae and
Michael Decter, who is well known to the member opposite, that is the way they
are having to govern. So the member can
talk about contingency plans, but contingency plans are well built in, and they
will be given greater focus over the years.
But
at times you have to dismantle what you have in place and begin to rebuild from
there. The member would not understand
that, because he could care less of the fact that the province has a collective
debt of around‑‑(interjection) No, it is around $14 billion, your
debt. (interjection) No, around $14 billion that the member talks about.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, in conclusion, I say to you that we make no apology for the
decision, bearing in mind that it was a tough decision to have to make. Were money growing on trees, as the NDP used
to spend it as if it were growing on trees, I am here to tell you that we had
no other choice but to look at all elements of not only Education, not only of
all the departments, but specifically in Education in the area of
training. We have had to make this
decision.
Probably, if the member wants to take his
wrath out on anybody, maybe he would prefer to take it out on somebody like
myself or other members of Treasury Board, but he does not have the courage to
do that. (interjection) We wonder at times who is the critic for anything over
at the NDP. They have it so mixed up and
messed up.
Mr. Plohman: If you want to move to this portfolio, we
will have some fun with you.
Mr. Manness: Well, John has had‑‑but you see,
this is the problem. Since the member
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) has come into government, he has too much fun at his
job. If he would take it a little more
seriously and try to bring a little more reason to some of the motions he
brings down, I think it would be better for everybody.
So,
with those few words, I know there are other members that will want to address
this motion because, indeed, there is an awful lot that needs to be said about
this particular issue and this motion in defence of our minister and in defence
of our government.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, one has to take into consideration what really has been
going on over the past many hours within the debate of the Estimates of the
Department of Education and to again see the kind of what I would call less
than responsible action by the critic and member for Dauphin.
I
have sat in to hear a considerable amount of debate, and I think there have
been some reasonable questions placed to the minister and to the
department. I say that genuinely. I think there has been a desire to get some
reasonable information. There has as well been, though, some, what I would say,
activity which is less than parliamentary and less than democratic in the way
in which the member has approached the Estimates‑‑information and
tactics which I have never seen the like of in the many years that I have been
here.
I
think really what it calls into question how effective the use of time we are
using of the taxpayers' money to accomplish the end goal of getting information
that is adequate so that the public can understand how the monies are being
expended, to explain to the public how the program delivery is taking place,
how it fits in with the overall government policies that we have been elected
to administer.
For
the member opposite to introduce a resolution of this nature, which takes time
to debate‑‑I can tell you that without question the government
stands fully in support of the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) and the
decisions that she has made. There is not any question this is a policy of
government that we all have fully endorsed and will continue to support.
But, when one looks, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
at the number of staff that the Minister of Education has had in these
Estimates for the number of many weeks‑‑(interjection) Yes, she has
to because I have sat here and listened to the members opposite going all over
the map on the Estimates. We would pass
lines in the Estimate book, and then they would go back to debate certain
issues.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, to fully cover adequately the information that the members
want, the minister has been very conscious of that and has had staff on stand‑by. That is a major cost to the taxpayers of this
province to have the numbers of people sit in committee to assist in getting
these Estimates through.
* (1620)
I
say that it is extremely irresponsible on behalf of the member for Dauphin to
bring a resolution like this forward, which is only game playing and
grandstanding to try and raise his own profile.
I will tell the people of Dauphin‑‑(interjection) I will
tell the people of Dauphin if the member knows where it is, the absentee MLA
for Dauphin. Yes, it will.
But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the point is that
we are taking a lot of time to debate the Estimates of the Department of
Education. Education is extremely
important, but I can tell you the position in which this government found
itself in after how many years of New Democratic governing forced the kinds of
decisions upon us that have had to be made, not easy decisions. It is always
easy to spend money and give additional programming, and it is easier for the
staff.
I
can tell you and I commend the staff, they have had to make tough decisions
internally to present these kinds of budgets. The minister has had to make
tough decisions. School boards have to
make tough decisions. We have all had to
make tough decisions.
So
I regret that this is the attitude that the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman)
brings to this committee as if he does not have a responsible role to play in
trying to resolve the problems‑‑may not have been totally his
responsibility, but it is a societal problem that we all have to deal with.
If
the member would take time to read the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), who
made the decision yesterday to no longer continue in the Legislative Assembly,
I think it would do him some good if he read the comments of the member for The
Maples. He continually said he wanted to add in a positive way to the
legislative process and to dealing with the people of
This is a very negative approach. This whole time in the Education department
Estimates had been absolutely and totally irresponsible as far as the member
for Dauphin is concerned. Not all
members, I say that there has been some constructive questions come from some
of the members, but I can tell you to bring this kind of resolution forward,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is absolutely, I think, totally time wasting.
Again, to keep going back and forth all over
the Estimate book as the member has done, has forced staff to sit here, to cost
the taxpayers' money, and I hope at the end of the day that the member comes
clean with the taxpayers and tells them precisely why he is doing this. It is to raise his own political profile.
So
I want to leave it clearly on the record that I fully support the minister and
the Department of Education in the decisions that they have made.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to add a
few words, and I want to start off by commenting that I was listening quite
attentively in terms of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) was saying
in terms of the potential for duplication and things of this nature and
priorities‑‑wonderful words.
If, in fact, that was what the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) was
doing, she might actually have an argument for some of the things that she has
actually done in this portion of the budget.
Prior
to while the motion was being ruled upon or the Deputy Chairperson was seeking
advice, we were asking questions with respect to the Single Parent Job Access
and I just started to get‑‑in terms of other programs, I wanted to
comment on the New Careers.
If
you look at it, and if it is a question of government trying to avoid
duplication to try to be fair and so forth, then one has to question why it is
that each and every one of those areas and lines have in fact had a substantial
decrease. If in fact there is
duplication, and the government is still concerned and was wanting to address
the needs of the skill shortages and assist in getting individuals off of
social assistance, at the very least we would have seen some sort of indication
in terms of priorities on some of the programs that are out there that are
successful in this particular area, but we did not see that.
You
know, you can go right down through New Careers to Special Employment Programs
such as the Single Parent Job Access, the Human Resources Opportunity Centre,
which the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) is talking about, and it is a
straight cut.
My
opinion on this is that the Minister of Education was told this is how much
money we have to save and then applied it to all of the different areas. That is not deciding or picking out
priorities or which programs are more effective than others and things of this
nature‑‑(interjection)
Well, to the former Minister of Education, I
would have liked to think that if I was given direction from a Minister of
Finance, or from the Premier, that you have to save so much money in the
department, one of the things one would do would be to evaluate the programs
and the worthiness of each and every program and establish priorities, and the
Minister of Education says that is exactly what happened.
If
you take a look at the cuts, as I say, it is virtually straight across board on
all of the different areas in which we are talking about on this particular
line. That is not establishing
priorities. I will attempt, at least
once we have had the vote on this particular motion, to try and get answers
from the minister that would give some sort of an indication in terms of the
programs that are more successful. (interjection)
We
have given very positive suggestions, things like literacy retraining. If in fact you take a look at some other
provinces, in particular the
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, no doubt the Minister of Education and I will have ample
opportunity, if not during this Estimates process, in the future to talk about
the whole issue of literacy.
But
I know, in terms of that issue, the minister herself was on the Illiteracy Task
Force for the province of Manitoba and disappointed in a sense that she has not
really come to grips with coming up or developing a program that would be able
to get individuals off social assistance and so forth.
So
in looking at this, and I would conclude by saying that the government did not
attempt to prioritize the different areas of government expenditures, in
particular in the Department of Education, that it was more of a straight cut
on the different programs.
I
think it is very shortsighted thinking in terms of, if you plan education for
the future, you would see that it is more in the public's best interest to
invest in Manitobans, and this is a wonderful area in which we can invest in
Manitobans because it is a direct way of getting individuals off of social
assistance and into the workforce so they become more productive.
This is why it is most unfortunate that the
Minister of Education would give this area of the budget such a low priority,
and I would encourage the minister that she should in fact be going back to
Treasury Board, that she gave in too easily on this particular area, and
fighting for dollars where the public dollars, not only in the short term but
also in the long term, will in fact be saved.
And you are going to be contributing that much more in a positive way to
society as a whole.
* (1630)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I note that there are a number of other speakers who want
to get their comments on the record, so I will be reasonably brief. I am reminded of the comments by the Leader
of the NDP Party in
I
know that, in the Estimates for Family Services, I challenged the numerous
critics, who drifted in, to indicate what tough decisions they would make in
terms of Family Services, and I have yet to hear any concrete suggestions.
Not
only the Leader of the NDP in Manitoba recognizes that, but I am reminded of
the words of the Premier of Saskatchewan who talked about the easy time it was
to add programs during the 1970s and 1980s, and how difficult it was,
especially for an NDP Premier, now to have to disassemble some of those
programs that were put in place. (interjection)
Well, I was hoping the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) would be reasonably well behaved.
We have watched his bullyboy tactics in here for the last two
months. I cannot believe the degree of disrespect
he shows for colleagues here in the Legislature. I would suspect that he would learn something
by listening to the comments that are being put on the record by other members
and give some balance to the debate that goes on here.
But
I suspect that is a little out of character for him, and that while sometimes we
do have high expectations for him, I would challenge him to meet those
expectations.
I
note today that he carries a road map around with him. I know he does not get back to Dauphin very
often, but I would have suspected that he did not need a road map to find his
way there. In fact, I wonder if it is a recent map or is it the one that has
the bridge on it in Selkirk. It was a
little bit tattered. It was probably the
one with his picture on it.
At
any rate, governments all over
I
can tell members of the committee that governments across this country, and I
had the opportunity to meet with social service ministers recently, are
struggling with training programs and what is the best way to get Canadians
back to work. Of course, within that
large group of unemployed people, in other provinces as well as here, the
scarce resources that we have have to be targeted to put in place the best
programming that we can. I can tell you from my experience with programs like
the Single Parent Job Access and the GATEWAY program which have been left in
place, and some other special programming, these were the most successful
programs in taking social allowance recipients off the rolls after some
appropriate training and putting them back into the workforce.
Now
the restructuring of government in
I
can tell you that we are looking carefully at experiments that are taking place
in New Brunswick and British Columbia where social allowance recipients are
still accessing social allowance, but special funding has been put in place by
the federal government whereby an actual wage subsidy can be paid to those
people who are in training as a transition from that world of unemployment to
the world of work.
While we have targeted substantial resources,
some $12 million in recent years to find training programs for social allowance
recipients, that is only a small portion of the number of people out there who
are at this time needing training and retraining. I commend the minister for some of the skills
training initiatives that have taken place and the previous minister for making
rural Manitobans, making programs available to them through the expansion of
the campus in Dauphin and the ability through Distance Education to provide in
rural Manitoba some of the education programs which not only our young people
but unemployed people require if in fact they are going to get back into the
world of work.
I
would like to also comment on the recent conversion of members of the NDP to be
proponents and fans of decentralization.
I recall, when this initiative was first brought forward by our
government in 1988 and '89, the critics in the NDP were totally opposed to any
decentralization of programming into rural
Through the leadership of a number of
ministers in this government, many, many jobs have been decentralized to rural
So,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with those few comments, I want to be sure that members
of the committee realize that I fully support the initiatives that the minister
has taken within the Department of Education.
I can see, through a number of the initiatives that are underway at this
time, that more focus will be given to this whole area of training and
retraining.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): I have been quietly
observing the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) and the frantic efforts that he
is making in order to try and show that he is protecting his base in Dauphin,
and attempting, at the same time, to reflect on those of us who also represent
portions of
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Unfortunately, nobody, other than those on the
government side of the House, seemed to be willing to talk about some of the
realities that we are facing today. (interjection) Well, the member says, fine from
within, but one of the things that he has consistently overlooked is, it is
very easy to talk about projects in isolation, but you, at the same time, have
to be talking about what are the priorities and what are the areas of
responsibility that government can best undertake to serve the public and give
them the level of service in a manner that is suitable and with the best use of
the dollars that are available.
It
seems to me that we have to face the harsh reality of where the economy of
I
think I would like to be very clear about commending the Department of Education
and the number of changes that they have had to undertake. They have been under considerable pressure,
not just financial pressure, but the pressures of reacting to probably some
changes that needed to be considered in a longer time frame. But we no longer have a long time frame to
look at some of these rather critical and important changes. The public is expecting results, and they are
not expecting us to simply continue to do business the way we did before, unless
we are prepared to show that that is only way.
I
think the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) and others recognize that looking at
the way we deliver programs to the public these days is shifting, that there
are a lot of different approaches that can be used. There are some people in the department who
have brought forward some very good ideas and have dealt with what in some
cases might have been considered by those who are less willing to leap into the
cause as a bit of a body blow.
* (1640)
The
fact is that we have to prioritize the programs and will put people in the best
position to react to the economy that they are in. They are upgrading their skills and putting
them into opportunities that will allow their future to be a little bit
brighter. For those who consider
themselves educationally disadvantaged, it is part of the process that we need
to address, and the amalgamation of the programs between the two departments
was not something that was undertaken very lightly. I recall a lot of the discussion that
occurred. If anyone around this table or
anywhere else thinks there was not a lot of agonizing and a lot of concern that
was expressed during the discussion about where these programs and where these
dollars might go, then they thoroughly underestimate the concern and the level of
agony that the Minister of Education and the rest of us went through in trying
to determine some of the best areas to allocate what are very hard to come by
dollars these days.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
We
have to put in place programs that will have the best output in terms of the
results, not just the efficiency upon which we may be able to use a particular
program. We have to have the overall
results relate directly to the types of jobs and opportunities that people may
be able to access after they have been part of programs that the taxpayers are
sponsoring.
I
notice the member for Dauphin does not really want to listen to this
dissertation, but perhaps he will take time to have a look in Hansard, because
I am sure he is going to want to go back to Dauphin and he will selectively
quote from Hansard, and maybe he would like to take a look at my comments in
their totality so that he can‑‑(interjection)
Well, the member for Dauphin, now that he is
listening, seems to be a little bit agitated about whether or not the
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, when I look at the dollars that are being spent and some of
the demands that we have in education as a whole, I look at Clark Hall, I look
at the steam tunnel at the
Those of us who have to make a living by
dealing with the vagaries of the market and the economy realize pretty quickly
that if you want to carry on with that type of thinking, you will find yourself
facing a very steely eyed banker, in this case, the economy of Canada and the
world, who says that you cannot continue with that kind of nearsighted
thinking. We are now reaping the rewards
of that type of devil‑take‑tomorrow attitude.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, no matter how the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) would
like to cut it, the opportunity to have made commitments to education, health
and social services was during the years of inflation and during the years of rapid
growth and put in place the efficiencies that were needed and at the same time
stop our debt from growing, so that when we hit times like this, we can balance
our concerns.
This government has spent the last number of
years making sure that health, education and social services receive more than
their fair share. We have finally hit
the wall in the sense that that fair share cannot continue to grow at the rate
that we believe it should. Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, when you look at it in that context, I think it is only reasonable
that you expect the department to have to make some fairly difficult, in fact,
very difficult decisions.
Mr. Plohman: They are political masters. Do not blame it all on them.
Mr. Cummings: Well, the member for Dauphin is whining away
that it is the political masters. This
may be his bad angle from this side, but I still think that he is not giving me
a clear view of what he thinks.
An Honourable
Member: The motion is clear.
Mr. Cummings: The motion is only a tip of the iceberg. What we are debating here is the
nearsightedness and lack of credibility of the members who are putting together
an attack on one program that they felt was a priority that was not dealt with
at a time when they had an opportunity to deal with it.
Mr. Plohman: That is why I got these glasses.
Mr. Cummings: I do not know if they reflect your
nearsightedness or not, but I would certainly say that they may indicate your
lack of vision. (interjection) I acknowledged my eye problem a long time ago,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Well, it seems to me that if we are going to
spend hours and hours in discussion on repetitive questioning that we have
spent in the Estimates of this department that we better start talking about
what is the vision, that we have not heard a vision expressed from the other
side of the House. Their vision has been
tax and spend and keep the programs in place.
The
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) referenced the fact that we have to look at
the total context of how we deliver educational services in this province.
(interjection) Is the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) anxious to cut off my
opportunity to express‑‑(interjection) Oh, well, there we go
then. He wants to hear the rest of it, I
am sure.
Last night, as I recall, there was some desire
to keep the committee process going.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, while it is enjoyable to have a little thrust and parry
with the opposition, this is a very serious situation that we are talking
about, not just this program but all of the changes the Department of Education
has had to deal with.
It
is not just the Department of Education, but that is the department that we are
talking about, and I think we should focus in that area, because we have
challenged them. We have challenged the
Department of Education to make sure that they are using every effort that they
can to deliver programs. I would think
that there are people within the department, as well as in the public and in
the opposition, who are disappointed in some respect with some of the changes,
and have concerns about some of the changes that have to be made.
In
the overview and in the final evaluation we will be judged upon whether or not
the dollars that are allocated for education are being used appropriately, and
if they are being put in a place that will most enhance those who need the
educational opportunity and perhaps cannot afford it in their own basis.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, if this is not clear to the members of the opposition, then
I suppose the only way that they will listen to any further debate is for us to
go to the House and have them express their concern by standing on this kind of
a rather frivolous motion at a time when we have a lack of vision and lack of
overview of where we want to be with educational opportunities in this
province.
I
really regret that I do not have the opportunity to go on for another hour or
two, because I am just starting to get warmed up.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will just pick up
where my colleague left off talking about a lack of vision by the NDP
opposition and especially, you know, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) with
this kind of a motion. It shows
completely that he has no understanding of the overall picture of the difficult
financial circumstances we find ourselves in not only as a province here in
* (1650)
We
see his cousins, his brothers and his sisters in NDP governments in three
different provinces across the country that are making similar difficult
decisions. I think in government
sometimes NDP administrations do opposite to what, especially opposite to what
this NDP opposition might say, but they do not have to accept any
responsibility in opposition for trying to balance the budget or trying to get
things under control.
I
think most of us that are sitting around this table that have not been the
minister for Education, Health or Family Services, do know that over the last
number of budgets when revenues are not being generated as freely and are not
flowing as freely as they were in the past years that we have had to look at
our departments very closely and take budget reductions, that year after year
while we have tried as a government to protect our health, education and social
safety net. We did that until this year,
but recognized that no longer can we continue to try to keep the deficit down
unless there were some very difficult decisions that were made in those three
areas which take up two‑thirds of the budget that is expended on a yearly
basis in our province.
So,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the ministers responsible for Education, for Health and
for Family Services were asked to come to the table with realistic
recommendations. None of the decisions
in any of those areas are easy to make.
I mean, there is not any program that is in place that Manitobans have
come to expect. When you take some of
those programs or some of those dollars away, none of the decisions are easy.
But
what government has done when times have been good, it has increased
budgets. I know the first year I was the
Minister of Culture I had an increase in my budget. I think even the second budget that we
brought in had an increase. Every
government department across was looking for new programs and new ways to spend
their dollars.
What governments have not done over the past
is re‑evaluate the kind of programs that have been in place for 10, 20 or
30 years, and look at what the outcomes of those programs are. What we have been able to do with the luxury
of increased budgets is just add on new programs without having to look at and
evaluate the old programs. Are they
still meeting the needs of Manitobans today?
Or is there a better way that we can utilize the scarce resources that
are available to provide the most benefit to most Manitobans?
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, we have come to a point where Education has had to share in
the burden of looking at what programs most benefit Manitobans. As I said, none of the decisions were easy
decisions, but the decisions that have been made, hopefully, will enable us to
continue on to provide the maximum amount of education and training for the
maximum number of Manitobans.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those in favour of the proposed motion,
please say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those opposed to the proposed motion,
please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
An Honourable Member: Recorded vote.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested. This
section of the Committee of Supply will now proceed to the Chamber for a formal
vote.
HEALTH
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Health.
Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
Order, please.
We are on item 2.(d) page 79 of the Estimates manual, Healthy Child
Development (1) Salaries $901,100.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Madam Chairperson, I am quite prepared to
begin questions when the minister is here.
Do we have any idea when he might be arriving?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Shortly. If you ask questions of a technical nature, I
would be prepared to handle those types of questions, but I am obviously not
competent in policy areas.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I am assuming we can just
wait a few minutes until the minister arrives, with all due respect to the
Minister of the Environment.
Madam Chairperson: Is that the will of the committee?
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Just on that, do we have any indication
when? If it is going to be a significant
amount of time, I think we would have to adjourn this section of the committee.
I
mean, the clock is ticking in terms of Estimates' time.
Madam Chairperson: The understanding is that the minister is on
his way.
Mr. Ashton: I would suggest, then, that we do that, that
we adjourn the committee so as not to lose the Estimates' time. I appreciate the efforts of the Minister of
the Environment. He had a chance to make
some substantial shifts in health policy here.
He could have made history. But,
if he is not in that position, and if the minister is not likely to be here, I
would suggest we adjourn this section of the committee until 2:45. Would that
be reasonable?
Mr. Cummings: Madam Chair, I would only ask if the critics
have some technical questions that they would like to deal with. They can certainly have at the minister as
soon as he gets here, but if there are some technical aspects that they would
like to explore, it certainly would be possible for staff to convey to me some
of those answers. I certainly will not
venture into policy areas, however.
Mr. Ashton: Part of the problem is that most questions in
Estimates are related to policy matters; even technical questions lead into
policy questions. I appreciate the
efforts of the minister.
Ms. Gray: We are trying to make the best use of the
time.
Mr. Ashton: And I think to make best use of the time,
exactly as the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) said; it is best if we
adjourn until 2:45 and then reconvene the committee. It is only 15 minutes.
Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to recess for
15 minutes until the minister arrives?
Is that the will of the committee? (agreed)
Okay, the committee will recess for 15
minutes, and reconvene at 2:45.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Perhaps I could ask some questions of the
Acting Minister of Health so we can put in some time.
An Honourable Member: I know you want to get a couple of extra
hospitals in your riding but‑‑
Madam Chairperson: The committee will reconvene at 2:45.
The
committee recessed at 2:30 p.m.
After
Recess
The
committee resumed at 2:45 p.m.
Madam Chairperson: Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This committee will
reconvene. We are on item 2.(d) page 79,
Healthy Child Development.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Chairperson, I wonder with the
indulgence of the committee if I might first off offer my apologies for the
delay this afternoon. I was attending
the swearing‑in of the Associate Chief Justice Gerry Mercier, and that
was the reason for the delay.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: I would like to take the opportunity because
of events in the last 24 hours in particular that I have not had the
opportunity to attend wherein the member for Maples has announced his
resignation of his position as MLA in the Legislature and his opportunity for
furthering his medical career in
I
missed my honourable friend's address to the House yesterday afternoon, and I
regret that. There were no individuals
who were here and heard the remarks that indicated that they were anything but
a very, very sincere and dignified and appreciated contribution to the debate
of this Legislature.
On
that topic, I want to say that in the five years that we have had our
respective roles that we have, I think it is fair to say, grown to appreciate
each other's position on issues and to respect each other's opinion.
I
have to say that the reputation that Dr. Cheema will leave behind in his
resignation as the MLA for Maples today is one of considerable integrity as an
MLA representing his constituency, as a member of official opposition and
second opposition respectively, and as a critic with a number of
responsibilities, the most prominent of which of course were his
responsibilities as Health critic during those elected years.
I
say without equivocation that I valued his input. He had a perspective which in today's
political environment was unusual in that he was willing to take risk and not
only say what was wrong but indeed to say what was right with process. In today's legislative environment that is
always a position of risk, and the risk is only temporal and not real, because
in the time that I worked as Minister of Health I can assure members of the
Legislature that Dr. Cheema's stature in the health care community increased
with his continuing exercise of function as opposition Health critic.
He
was viewed by administrators, professional groups and Manitobans observing a
very trying time of change in health care as being balanced and fair and
objective in his criticism and, more importantly, his willingness to take the
"political risk" to make sure that the medicare system had the best
opportunity to change with the times and to be there when Manitobans need it.
I
think that is a contribution that not only I can make but others, no doubt,
will make, if they have the opportunity, who worked with him in developing
their respective critic roles.
I
want to take the opportunity to wish Gulzar Cheema and his family every success
in their new venture and new career.
Ms. Gray: I, Madam Chairperson, on behalf of all
members of the Liberal Caucus, thank the Minister of Health for his remarks,
and if the minister was at the press conference this morning that Dr. Cheema
had, he would have noted the question from the press about his relationship
with the Minister of Health. Dr. Cheema
referred to the Minister of Health as a friend and a colleague and said that
certainly with much sincerity.
* (1450)
We
will all miss him and his contributions to our caucus in the different
perspective that he brought and, particularly, his sense of humour. Dr. Cheema has a wonderful sense of humour,
and we will certainly miss that as well.
* * *
Ms. Gray: Moving into where we left off in Estimates
the last time we met, under Healthy Child Development, one of the interesting
things I noted as I was going through the Estimates, and albeit quickly, was
that in this area of Healthy Child Development, this seemed to be the only
section where in fact there was any change in SYs as in a decrease. Obviously this is because of the loss of the
services in Dental Health.
When the minister and his staff were making
decisions about where monies would be spent, where possible changes or
efficiencies could occur, I guess what I am wondering is why there were not any
changes at all that seemed to be made in any of the other sections in terms of
perhaps decreases in SYs gained through administrative efficiencies. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, as long as I understand the
tenure of the question as being that the decreases‑‑and I think my
honourable friend is correct‑‑in SYs are related to the treatment
portion of the Children's Dental Health Program and its curtailment as a
budgetary decision in this year's Estimates.
The
balance of the SYs are remaining consistent, without either increase or
reduction, for primarily two reasons. Basically this division of the ministry
is growing into a new role, because I think my honourable friend can see that
there is, in some areas under this sub‑appropriation, a system‑wide,
if I can put it that way, blend of responsibilities that are coming to focus on
issues.
From that standpoint, we are clearly growing
into the role and the responsibility of this division. I will not preclude reallocation of resources
as we learn areas that need further reinforcement or opportunities for
redeployment of staff as we mature our program approach in this area.
There was deemed in preparation of these
Estimates to not significantly change the status quo within this ministry, with
the noted exception of the Children's Dental Health Program.
Ms. Gray: In this section one of the expected results
is the attendance of children and parents at the child health clinics. Can the
minister tell us, has there been any change in the child health clinic program
over the last number of years? Has there
been an evaluation or have there been any changes in terms of target group?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I am informed that the roles and
responsibilities as undertaken in this area are essentially the same as in
previous years. There may be some
opportunity for changes we discussed the other day in terms of implementation
of a Healthy Child policy that is in discussion, and possibly some
opportunities that may focus our utilization of resource according to the
Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation study on Maternal Demographic
Risk Factors and the Incidence of Low Birthweight, Manitoba 1979‑1989,
copies of which I will make available as discussed last time we met.
I
want to also share with both of my honourable critics the Manitoba Health
Guidelines for Postpartum Discharge and Community Follow‑up. I believe that was a request for information
as well.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I wonder if I might just get clarification
from the committee.
Due
to the fact that there was an Acting Chairperson after 11 p.m. on Monday and
given the fact that I have checked the Estimates manual and these items were
initialed, but in checking the Hansard I do not have 2.(c) Women's Health items
passed. Indeed there are considerable pages of debate and questioning on it,
and I wonder if I just might ask the indulgence of the committee to revert back
and quickly pass that section if that is the will of the committee. Agreed.
2.(c) Women's Health (1) Salaries $386,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $515,700‑‑pass; (3) External Agencies
$342,100‑‑pass.
I
thank the committee for their co‑operation.
Ms. Gray: I had asked a question about the child health
clinics. I was just wondering if there
was a move to looking at targeting those child health clinics, unless they
already are, to low‑income parents.
Mr. Orchard: I think it is fair to say that probably that
is where a considerable amount of the activity is undertaken now, and may well
see a more focused approach pending a discussion paper, as I indicated earlier
on, whether we can from the low birthweight baby birth incidence report from
the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation‑‑whether there is a
readily available methodology to target our resources to the sociodemographic
grouping, where low incidence appears to be of a greater degree of
problem. That would certainly be helpful
if we can easily identify early in the pregnancy those individuals.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell this
committee, then, how are we targeting low‑income families so that they
are the ones that are primarily using the child health conferences?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I did not want to leave the
impression with my honourable friend that we are targeting, but I am saying
that that tends to be, probably, where a significant portion or a greater level
of our activity is concentrated there.
That is by practice rather than deliberate effort of targeting.
I
think, though, in terms of future planning exercises, as we are able to
identify sociodemographically related issues and would have the ability to
target our programs better and more effectively, certainly, we would attempt to
exercise that. That is where some of the
reports, some of the discussions with the Centre for Health Policy and
Evaluation may well lead us, if we can develop:
a) effective methods of identification; and b) more effective
utilization of resources if we were able to target.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the other day when we were
meeting in Estimates and discussing the discontinuance of the treatment
component of the dental program, the minister commented‑‑and I am
looking for his exact words in Hansard‑‑but the minister spoke of
the fact that there would be discussions with school divisions in regard to
looking at any potential treatment services, I suppose, that could be done
through school divisions. Can the minister
tell us who is initiating these discussions with school divisions?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, the remaining component of staff
will undertake those.
Ms. Gray: Is the minister prepared to table some type
of an implementation plan as to what steps his staff are planning to take in
regard to how they meet with school divisions, what they decide to do, what
they can offer, et cetera? I am assuming
that that was all determined and that plans and decisions were made on how his
departmental staff would proceed before the actual decision was made for the
cuts to the treatment program.
* (1500)
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, there was not the necessity of a
sophisticated planning strategy around the withdrawal of treatment
services. That is fairly
straightforward. It continues until the
end of this month and will be curtailed.
In
terms of the prevention, fluoride and other initiatives around education,
clearly there will be a different methodology of delivering that which will be
worked through with the school divisions to assure that we are able to provide
within the respective school divisions to those children that are currently
availing themselves of the prevention component the continuation of that
prevention component in fluoridation.
Ms. Gray: With the continuation of that program then, I
am assuming that there have already been overtures made to school divisions by
departmental staff. Is that correct and
is each school division being met with individually, or how are they working
with the school divisions, collectively or individually?
Mr. Orchard: There have been discussions already with the
school divisions about the changes that were announced in the budget. Ongoing
discussions with the school divisions will focus on a couple of areas, firstly,
the interest in the equipment that is in some of the schools. As I have mentioned earlier, one school
division‑‑we do not know whether this initiative would be
consistent across other school divisions‑‑has expressed an interest
in exploring a parent‑paid program utilizing our equipment and, as much
as possible, the existing staff complement.
Certainly, we have no concerns about assisting in that discussion to see
whether there is a resolution that may well flow from that.
Secondly, in terms of the ongoing education
prevention component, those discussions will be finalized, I would suspect,
over the summer months with the school divisions so that we have a program that
is reasonably mature come the commencement of the new school year.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, just to refresh my
memory, exactly how many school divisions are impacted by this decision to
discontinue the treatment?
Mr. Orchard: Thirty‑seven school divisions.
Ms. Gray: To clarify then, each of these 37 school
divisions have had contact made with them from the department in regards to
future plans for any type of programming.
Is that correct?
Mr. Orchard: I cannot say every single school division
because appreciate that some of the school divisions were part of the Manitoba
Dental Association delivery program wherein there was not the placement of
equipment, et cetera, in the schools. I
believe that was 17 divisions in that delivery mode.
There has been discussion with a number of the
other divisions who have equipment in the school because that seems to be one
of the areas wherein at least one school division, as I have mentioned earlier,
has expressed an interest in finding a way to maintain the program,
understanding that government is not able to reinstate any of the funds
formerly dedicated to the treatment side of the program. They are wishing to investigate, with the
ministry, options of providing that program at a cost‑recovered basis
with the parents.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, is the minister prepared
to table any correspondence that has gone from his department to the various
school divisions in regards to not only the discontinuance or the planned
discontinuance of this program but any other correspondence relating to future
plans, whether it relates to equipment or other fluoridation programs,
education prevention programs, et cetera?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I would be prepared to
share with my honourable friend the letter that is going out to the school
divisions in terms of curtailment of the program, but I am not at liberty to
share correspondence that may go out to individual school divisions with my
honourable friend. I think my honourable
friend would understand that correspondence is not intended to be public
correspondence. Should the school
division wish to share that correspondence with my honourable friend, I would
have no objection, but I am not at liberty to share correspondence leaving my
office with individual Manitobans or organizations.
Ms. Gray: Well, I will ask the school divisions. My concern is if in fact‑‑are the
schools divisions, have they been made aware of what the next steps are, as the
minister has alluded to some of them in his comments today. But I am really wanting to know if in fact
school divisions are made aware of those comments, which is why I was wondering
if there had been correspondence that had gone out to school divisions other
than the correspondence regarding the discontinuance of the treatment
program. That is why I asked the
question. I do not see why, actually, it
would be so confidential, that if it is a letter that is going to school
divisions about further programs why that would be a huge secret. It is obviously up to the minister to
determine whether he is prepared to share that information or not.
Mr. Orchard: Well, Madam Chair, it is not much of a
secret. I have indicated probably a
dozen times in Question Period and several times in the course of Estimates the
nature of the inquiry made by one school division and the willingness of the
Ministry of Health to pursue options with that school division including the
vesting of existing equipment for the nominal sum of $1 if that is required to
facilitate a school‑division‑based program which is funded by their
parents with children in the program.
There is nothing terribly complex about the
initiative raised by the one school division and our response. It may well get complex in terms of achieving
the end goal, and that has not been finalized obviously, because there are a number
of issues to be dealt with and a number of groups to work with in terms of
pursuing the feasibility of that. I have
indicated clearly that we are willing to pursue that option with any school
division that so wishes to undertake it, and we will be doing that.
Ms. Gray: If I can then from the minister's last
comments, then it is up to the school divisions to initiate with the department
as opposed to the department to initiate with the school divisions?
Mr. Orchard: A school division has already initiated those
discussions. The discussions from the
Ministry of Health, when contacted by other school divisions, are that we are
willing to pursue that. I think there
probably has been a reasonably wide sharing of the one school division's basic
premise in terms of the program change.
Ms. Gray: Just for the record, the reason for my line
of questioning was my concern that it is being left up to the school divisions
to initiate any type of follow‑up with the ministry. Given all of the
issues that are now going on with school divisions, and we could give lists and
lists of all the issues they are having to deal with this year, my concern was,
where would that be on the priority lists of school divisions? That is why I thought the department was
initiating some follow‑up.
My
reason for wanting the correspondence, with all due respect to the ministry,
was that I wonder if, in fact, any contact has been made with school divisions,
other than the one mentioned to actually look at some type of follow‑up.
Madam Chairperson: Shall item 2.(d)(1) Healthy Child
Development: Salaries $901,100‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $954,800‑‑pass; (3) External Agencies
$89,900‑‑pass.
2.(e)(1) Acute and Ambulatory Care: Salaries $81,700.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Chairperson, with respect to this particular
appropriation, the objective is to develop a strategic plan. I am wondering if the minister might outline
what the status of that plan is. The
Objectives, Activity Identification and Expected Results this year are
identical to last year. The only change,
I think, is one less staff year and a little less expenditure.
Can
the minister describe what the status is of the strategic plan? I am not sure if this is the Moe Lerner
component or some variation on a theme.
* (1510)
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, before I respond to my
honourable friend, I have another bit of information for the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray). I think this is
some of our cancer programming material.
Madam Chairperson, the objectives remain the
same as they were. I think that my
honourable friend would have to agree with the objectives of minimizing length
of stay, while ensuring the quality of patient care, to develop cost‑effective
and efficacious ambulatory care services and to identify factors influencing
acute and ambulatory care service patterns.
In
that regard, this divisional staff is working with rural health reform and
individual rural facilities as required, and with the development, through the
reform implementation committee, of work with a number of programs that have
greater opportunities in terms of ambulatory care and reduction in length of
stay, so that the work dedication of this group is very much on an ongoing
basis with those two major and broad areas of reform.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, just so that I understand
completely the minister's response, this is a team of two individuals that are
looking basically at the minister's reform plan, the rural restructuring, and
is going to produce a proposal to come to the minister or is producing a co‑ordination
between these various activities. What
is the end result of this process?
Mr. Orchard: The process here is to assist the acute care
system in shifting program emphasis to ambulatory care, where appropriate. There are a significant number of areas in
the appropriate category as identified in the Centre for Health Policy and
Evaluation, how efficiently hospitals discharge their patients that study in
terms of focusing in on the length of stay and working with facilities and with
the various investigative program groups to achieve both a shortened length of
stay and an increased move towards ambulatory care procedures within those
individual programs where that is being studied and in terms of advice and
working with individual facilities in achieving the same.
The
advice of this area will be part of any policy development and any accepted
recommendation and program change in our various surgical or medical programs
as the task force study groups conclude and bring recommendations forward. We will have been, if you will, at the table
providing advice as appropriate and guidance as asked for.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, is this group only
confined to rural
Mr. Orchard: As I indicated in my first response, Madam
Chairperson, this area of the department works both with rural and with the
reform planning group. I guess I did not
clearly identify that their task is the urban acute care environment. I thought that was understood from our
earlier discussions.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister identify
who the two staff people are in this area?
Mr. Orchard: There is one individual in this area, Marion
Sedak.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, the minister gave one name
and there are two staff years. Is the
other staff year not filled?
Mr. Orchard: That is correct, Madam Chairperson.
Madam Chairperson: (e) Acute and Ambulatory Care (1) Salaries
$81,700.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, is this section Acute and
Ambulatory Care, is this individual then working with the groups of hospital
staff, et cetera, in rural
Mr. Orchard: As we move in that direction, this would be
the individual responsible, but I cannot tell my honourable friend which
hospitals in rural
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, in reference to the rural
hospitals working on the possibility of changing their delivery patterns, this
idea, which I think is an excellent one, is, I am assuming, part of the health
care reform. I am wondering where in the
health care plan this began. Where did
this idea begin and how long has the process been underway, the service
delivery patterns where the rural hospitals are getting together and looking at
how they deliver services and what changes can be made?
Mr. Orchard: I do not know when it would be appropriate to
attach a beginning point, because I think that there is a great deal of
variability here because some individual communities have affiliated under one
administration and have been working towards a service delivery‑‑well,
for lack of appropriate terminologies, centres of excellence within a community
grouping of four where they will, for instance, maybe focus or attempt to focus
on obstetrics in one and surgery in a second community and hospital of a given
working group.
That process has been going on to varying
degrees for a number of years, but if my honourable friend asked about when
would it have commenced in terms of a more formalized process with the
assistance of government, I guess we would have to go back with the tabling of
the document, the health reform document and several months thereafter, the
creation of the equivalent to the Urban Hospital Council in the rural environment
where nominations came from the various regions and MHO to establish the Rural
Health Advisory Council, and from there the process of asking communities to
investigate opportunities for collaboration around health care service
delivery, both acute and long‑term, and within communities and between
communities.
* (1520)
That was, of course, undertaken I think with
some significant dedication of time in the first few months of this year with
plans in general being developed for every area of the province of Manitoba and
those plans having discussion with the Rural Health Advisory Council and the
ministry and the re‑asking of those various groups to consider in some
cases‑‑well, as a matter of fact, in most cases, a larger
affiliation and a larger area of association.
Two
answers: First of all, a formalization
within the last, say, eight months of a process of asking facilities within
communities and between communities to seek opportunities of collaboration in a
formal process but certainly not the first time that process has happened. I think my honourable friend can understand
that. Some communities have already
collaborated well in advance of the request for discussion in that direction by
the ministry.
Ms. Gray: The reason I asked the question is: I see this plan is a good one for urban areas
as well as rural, but I was wondering how this plan to look at centres of
excellence in the rural areas fit in with the fact that this government already
went ahead and allowed a number of capital projects to occur in rural Manitoba,
i.e., replacement of the Virden Hospital, a new hospital in Minnedosa, et
cetera.
I
am not making a comment about whether those were needed or not, but I question
why in fact those capital projects went ahead when perhaps this discussion now
of looking at centres of excellence that it might have been more appropriate to
actually wait and hold off on those projects until some of this planning was
completed. Perhaps the minister could comment
on that.
Mr. Orchard: I think my honourable friend is starting to
point toward the
The
reason I say that goes back to a commitment, and I will share the history with
my honourable friend. When I was first
elected in 1977, the Carman Hospital of some, oh, I think it was 38 or so beds
was in the flood zone and was 40 years vintage, was looking at a very expensive
upgrade for fire and other standard requirements. The decision that I encouraged the then‑Minister
of Health to make was to reconstruct the hospital entirely and attempt to build
a smaller acute care function that would have the opportunity to deliver at
least as sophisticated a range of services as the old hospital.
What made that decision and my urging of the
decision, and I believe the subsequent go‑ahead, was the commitment of a
physician who had been practising as a general practitioner, a family
practitioner, in Carman to indicate that he would return to Carman to undertake
a surgical specialty that he was in training for. I think since that time and the return of
that physician to Carman, the smaller hospital, I think the configuration of
the Carman Hospital, some 27 beds downsized, and from that it maintains a
fairly active obstetric program and certainly a very active surgical program
with one of the first laparoscopic surgery programs, I think the first one
outside of Winnipeg or Brandon, and one of the first in Manitoba to be
undertaken there, proving that you do not have to have your major urban
hospitals deliver quality care and fairly complex care.
I
say to my honourable friend, on a personal note, that is where I spent my
recovery days after I allowed a tree to misbehave and almost take my head
off. I suffered quite a significant
injury, and it was looked after very, very well in that hospital.
Now, that hospital serves a fairly significant
catchment area to the west, to the north and to the east. To the south, there is a saw‑off point
between Morden, Winkler and the Carman community, but clearly, the demonstrated
efficacy of a renewed hospital plant of that size has proven itself.
That is why we had no hesitation in, for
instance, at Virden, where you have a fairly larger catchment area, and
Minnedosa, with the same dynamics, to renew those two hospitals there, based on
the confidence that they could provide very focused and very excellent care
opportunities.
If
I can be so direct as to say, it is always the chicken‑and‑egg
debate. I mean, we want physicians to
move from
We
are pretty confident, in terms of the reform, the affiliation, the association
of health care into districts, that the capital investments we have made and
the ones that we propose will have a great deal of integrity and fit in the
reformed health care system that we will see emerge over the next number of
months and ensuing years.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(e) Acute and Ambulatory Care (1)
Salaries $81,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $35,500‑‑pass.
2.(f) Capital Planning.
Ms. Gray: I have one question under Other
Expenditures. Under Other Operating
$3,400, what comes under Other Operating for costs?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, let me make sure we have the
right one. Are you talking under Capital
Planning, a $3,000 expenditure?
Ms. Gray: No, it is under Acute and Ambulatory still,
Other Expenditures, after Supplies & Services.
Mr. Orchard: Oh, yes, that is on Acute and Ambulatory
Care. Hotel and meals are the major component, $2,900 of that would be. The other $500 is in Other, and I do not have
a breakdown of the other in the Other.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(f) Capital Planning.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the minister
would table in the House the annual Five Year Capital Plan.
* (1530)
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I was not planning on
tabling that document until we got to a later point in the Estimates under, I
believe it is, Expenditures Related to Capital.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, if the minister would
agree, perhaps we will just defer discussion of this section and meld it all
under the Capital Plan under 5.(a) and do it all at once at some later point.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I would be fully prepared
to entertain questions now in case I have to provide responses with the Capital
Program. Even if we pass this section,
when the Capital Program comes down I am fully prepared to go back and discuss
any details that would be here. Right
now, if my honourable friends had some specific areas that they wanted to get
into, in case I do not have answers today, it might be helpful to discuss that
now and I could attempt to provide any information that we do not have close at
hand today.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, from my part, I am
prepared to accept that offer from the minister. My only general question in this area other
than when I have a chance to review the Capital Plan is how the Capital
Planning unit has specifically targeted in the minister's health reform package
with the Capital Planning with respect to the strategic aspect of it as to
where we are going. That is basically my
question in terms of this area.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, that is an appropriate
question, a very appropriate question.
In my introductory remarks of the Capital Program, I will share some of
that with you and then some of the explanation behind the Capital Program will
also I think give my honourable friend some more of that information. I have no question, it will probably
stimulate some additional questions.
We have
had this debate before, but I want to reinforce why Capital Planning is in this
area of Healthy Public Policy. All too
often, for probably 25 years, including the first three years that I was
minister, Capital Planning was at the commission and it was institutionally
focused almost exclusively and entirely. I have to say that the reason we moved
it here is we had to put a system‑wide approach to Capital Planning. I think that is what maybe my honourable
friend from Crescentwood was alluding to.
As my
honourable friends might appreciate, but you do not appreciate how enormous the
pressures are until you are the minister deciding the Capital Plan, every
organization, every community puts enormous pressure on government to renew
capital redevelopment projects. There
are some times when you simply have to say no, I cannot approve that under the
current circumstances.
We
have been very cognizant, and as I have said on a number of occasions during
the debate on Capital Estimates, the easiest way that a minister can raise his
popularity with Manitobans group by group, community by community, is to accede
to their capital redevelopment requests.
The only difficulty is that when it comes time to operate those and pay
the operating costs of those, you are not terribly popular with the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) and the taxpayers of
Now, I want to, in the course of the capital
Estimates, share what I consider to be some successes in our capital program,
and some areas that we are not likely to repeat, given the experience we have
had in them, where we think there are opportunities to move the reform process
in a more appropriate way with capital investment that may not have been what a
given community or a sponsoring organization had requested in the past, but, I
think, fits with where health care is going in today's context and environment.
I
find the capital area to be a very interesting one to attempt to come to
decision making around, and look forward to the tabling of the estimates and
the explanation of this year's proposed capital projects and the five‑year
out projection of where the capital program will be heading.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, in reference to my
question about the building or renovation of some of the hospitals in rural
Manitoba, and I used Virden as the example or Minnedosa, the minister talked
about the importance of attracting not just physicians to rural Manitoba; he
used the word "specialists," to rural Manitoba. Just for clarification, is the minister
suggesting that he feels we will be able to get specialists going to such
communities as Minnedosa and Virden?
Mr. Orchard: I believe that is a distinct opportunity.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, has there not been any
discussion that when you are looking at some areas such as Westman, as an
example, that the centre there would be
So
that is why I am asking the question. I
can certainly see a need for attracting specialists to
Mr. Orchard: No, Madam Chair, I would not want my
honourable friend to get that impression.
Clearly, the referral patterns are to
What I am saying to my honourable friend, I
will give a specific example. A
specialist does not have to be resident in a community to serve a community. There are more itinerant specialist practice
opportunities being exercised in rural
An
example I want to give to my honourable friend would be in terms of urology.
(interjection) No, I do not think there is a urologist outside of Brandon or
Winnipeg, but I have had discussions with physicians in the hospitals the size
of the Carmans, the Portages, the Minnedosas the Virdens, about the 'what if'
possibilities of a urologist, for instance, undertaking a day slate of surgery
on an itinerant basis with the assistance of the general surgeon and the
physicians, anesthetist, et cetera, in rural facilities, and that is entirely a
possibility.
The
difference from the traditional referral pattern is that, instead of having the
patient do the travelling, the specialist does the travelling, and it has, if
my honourable friend thinks about it, several important components to it that
are significant opportunities for the system.
You have the opportunity to utilize acute care capacity closer to home
for rural residents. Secondly, I do not think there is any question that you
would relieve the pressure on our major urban facilities in terms of waiting
times and other dimensions of care.
Thirdly, with few exceptions, I think that the cost of care is probably
lower per day than in our major urban hospitals. So there is a benefit to the patient
receiving care closer to home, the acute skills are maintained in these
hospitals by the caregivers, whether they be physician or nursing or support
staff. You can, with little incremental
cost in a lot of cases, provide the service where there is the physical acute
care capacity. Fourthly, it relieves
potential pressures elsewhere in the system.
So
I say to my honourable friend‑‑do not take my comments literally of
attracting a specialist to be resident in a Virden, or resident in a Minnedosa,
or resident in a Carman. That will
happen in terms of general surgeons, but my honourable friend knows that
general surgery is more specialized now, so it is into the specialist delivery
program. But the utilization of those
facilities by specialists on an itinerant basis is certainly, to me, a very
significant and open opportunity for development, and it is from that aspect
that I pose the specialist recruitment concept.
In the instance specifically referred to by my honourable friend,
* (1540)
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, it is an interesting
argument that the minister suggests, and I certainly do not necessarily
disagree with him. I would be interested
in, however, if the minister has available any studies or research on the
example he has used about the suggestions of having specialists in such areas,
whether it be
Mr. Orchard: Well, I do not know whether this will satisfy
my honourable friend, but we can provide my honourable friend with some of the
case studies in those areas which lead to reinforce my belief that it is an
entirely pragmatic possibility. What
gives me encouragement personally is the fact that some of the physicians and
surgeons who are currently practising on a resident basis in some of our
outside of Winnipeg and Brandon communities indicate to me that that would be
an entirely appropriate opportunity to pursue and indeed they are.
Ms. Gray: I would be pleased to see those case studies
when the minister has an opportunity to share those. The minister used an example of, I believe, a
specialist spending some time in Souris, as an example,
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, we will attempt to provide that
information.
Ms. Gray: I thank the minister. I know the minister referred to pressures on
governments to look at Capital Planning, and I know that we oftentimes have
requests that come to us and I am sure that the government certainly does on
communities or communities within urban centres who wish to build personal care
homes. Can the minister tell us, or is
this something we need to wait until we get into Capital Construction, what is
the philosophy around the building of new personal care home beds?
Mr. Orchard: A progressive one, Madam Chair. Let me give my honourable friend some general
rules of thumb. There is a general
planning guideline that would say you do not construct a freestanding personal
care home facility with less than 40 beds in that facility. There has been consideration for 30 but
nothing below 30.
When my honourable friend considers that
policy, there are some communities, regardless of how persuasive their
arguments are, their catchment area or their area of service mitigates against
construction of a personal care home. I
know that is a difficult message to give to those communities but it is a
consistent message. It has probably not
changed since 15 or 20 years.
The
exception to that rule has been where there was an existing acute care hospital
and there was an opportunity, either to convert but that is not too often, but
to juxtapose personal care home capacity.
There we have, I guess, probably constructed as low as 18 beds in a
circumstance like that and maybe even one of 16 but do not hold me to the exact
numbers. They have been less than the 30‑bed
consideration, but it is because they have been in affiliation with an acute
care hospital that, although downsized, still was deemed to be an appropriate
acute care hospital for reconstruction.
Those are what is called the "swing facility" or that is the terminology
we have used where they have been a combined facility, and we have provided‑‑(interjection)
"Swing." That is what they
call it. Pardon me?
An Honourable Member: Like this place, the swing facility.
Mr. Orchard: We have undertaken construction of swing
facilities in Benito, Erickson and Manitou and have had those facilities
operating for upwards of three and a half years now. I think it was the first one that was opened.
That is the physical configuration. To identify the need, we have used a
consistent guideline in the ministry. I
will get that for my honourable friends when we get into the capital
budget. It is a target of so many beds
per population over 875 in a catchment area.
Now, you get into arguments as to what is a
catchment area. I can understand that.
Some communities may want to include other communities in order to
justify the establishment of a larger facility, but basically those guidelines
have not changed. In most areas of
We
have areas of the city of
* (1550)
The
second area that we are actively pursuing is in the St. James west quadrant of
the city, where we have some proposals for construction, and we are advancing
some other planning areas.
There is a real debate about personal care
home capacity. Within the ministry, there are staff who believe clearly and
unequivocally that we are building too many, and that we ought to be, instead
of focusing our resources on personal care home capacity, spending those
resources in a more advanced, if you will‑‑I guess that is the
proper terminology‑‑continuing care service.
They point to examples of European countries
that have a fraction of the number of personal care home beds per capita than
we do. That is one of the most difficult
debates to try and come to a decision around, because unless you live and
understand the community, the family dynamics in some of those European
nations, you do not know whether there are applicable lifestyles. Our lifestyle does not necessarily tend to
lead us today, at least, to in‑family support of our elders, our
parents. I think there is a significant
difference there.
However, I think there is a growing
understanding of maybe opportunities that we are certainly pursuing with
seniors housing, managers of senior housing, and community groups, because they
are making the proposal to us that maybe there is a more effective utilization
of not only existing resource, whether it be support services like continuing
care or support services for seniors, but an opportunity to make a better
investment in EPH, elderly persons housing, than directly into personal care
homes.
We
are certainly open to those kinds of discussions, but I doubt that we will
probably develop a standard and an approach that is going to meet with all the
experts' opinions, because as I say, it has quite a range in terms of what is
an appropriate target for number of beds per 1,000 over age 75 in the province
of Manitoba.
The
one thing I will say to my honourable friend is that we have, and I will
provide those numbers at a later time in the Estimates program, but my
honourable friend will find that we have added some pretty significant amounts
of personal care home capacity in the last little while that have come on
stream in the last two years. In
particular, in the next year and a half that is going to be fairly aggressive
as well, and that clearly is enabling us to make the shift in the acute care
hospital and downsize the acute care hospitals and their role in providing
interim placement for panelled patients.
That is a goal that everyone in this House believes is probably an
appropriate one.
Ms. Gray: Just another question in this area. With the building of the new Minnedosa
hospital, I know there was quite a bit of discussion in the community about
what to do with the old building, the old hospital. I recall speaking with some people in
Minnedosa about their concerns about some of the community certainly feeling
that there could be use made of the old hospital. I am wondering if the minister could update
us as to what his department's position is on that, or have there been any
further decisions made on that particular building?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I think the old hospital
is either currently being demolished or has been demolished.
Ms. Gray: Is the minister aware if it has already been
demolished, because I know there was a group of residents who were attempting
to try to have it saved?
Mr. Orchard: I am informed that the demolition has been
completed. Again, let me indicate to my
honourable friend that communities have a very warm spot for facilities that
are replaced, and suggestions are made, well, let us convert it into housing,
personal care home. There is a whole
range of options that always comes forward, but what you will generally find,
and there may be exceptions to the rule, but the reason why a decision was made
to replace rather than renovate was because of structural inadequacies in the
building.
I
think it is a fairly common rule of thumb that new construction is not a great
deal more expensive than renovation in today's construction environment. So even if you have need, let us say, for
personal care home capacity in the community where you have replaced an acute
care hospital, probably if you come right down to the decision you would likely
construct new that personal care home capacity that was needed and was an
approvable capital project. Unless there
is a nongovernment use for which a private or independent group would bid for
the replaced facility and its land, the most often exercised option is
demolition, demolition of the old facility.
Each and every time that happens, there is often comment from observers
in the community that it is quite a waste of a good "facility."
I
can simply say that investigations in the past and going back to the
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I think one of the main
concerns, now that I recall the discussion with some of the residents of
Minnedosa, was not necessarily what the final decision was‑‑and,
again, this is obviously over and done with now, but perhaps in the
future. It was the concern that there
was an attempt by citizens‑‑and maybe their difficulties were with
their town council, I am not sure, as opposed to the department‑‑but
all they wanted was some real information to say: No, it does not make sense to keep this
building; the costs would be prohibitive; it is less expensive to get rid of
it. Then, should some other kind of
construction occur, the cost would be at least as reasonable.
I
think that is what they were a little leery as to whether in fact that was the
case. All they wanted was some
information provided to them to say that, and I think that is where some of the
difficulty was, but I thank the minister for his response on that.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2. Healthy Public Policy Programs (f)
Capital Planning (1) Salaries $206,400‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $120,400‑‑pass.
Resolution 21.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $14,008,600 for Health, Healthy Public Policy Programs for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1994‑‑pass.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, if the questions that stimulate
from some of the answers here, I will just beg the indulgence of committee; I
should have done this beforehand, as long as my ADM Ms. Hicks is around. There was for the fiscal year '92‑93,
Manitoba Health provided advice to Manitoba Environment regarding possible risk
of human health from proposed developments on the following proposals: Abitibi‑Price, Pine Falls, on the de‑inking
plant modernization in the Clean Environment Commission hearings; for the Town
of Altona in terms of the waste water lagoon expansion; the Boreas project in
Thompson, which has to do with forest renewal; City of Brandon waste water
lagoon; Bristol Aerospace in terms of the Rockwood plant, the ground water
contamination issue; Camp Arnes, Lake Winnipeg, again, waste water lagoon; the
R.M. of Cartier, a water supply pipeline; the same thing with R.M. of Ritchot,
only this time Centra Gas in terms of the pipeline; city of Winnipeg and 27
other municipalities. If my honourable
friends want the listing of the other municipalities, I would have to provide that
later, but that was in terms of lead in water.
* (1600)
A
number of Manitoba communities in terms of radon gas in buildings; a number of
Manitoba communities with public health inspection services; Red River,
Winnipeg to Lake Winnipeg, sewage in the river; Lynn Lake, dust from mine
tailings; southern Manitoba, crop residue smoke; city of Winnipeg,
decontamination of soil pollutants; city of Winnipeg in terms of the Palliser
Furniture air pollution; city of Winnipeg, HIV contaminated sewage was the
investigation or the issue; Flin Flon, HBM&S air pollution. We certainly had a significant role at
Conawapa with the environmental review; the
same thing with Repap; Coulee Agro in Plum Coulee with crop protection
warehouse; the R.M. of De Salaberry, Otterburne, waste treatment lagoons;
disease control centre, the federal virology lab in terms of providing advice
to the location; Ducks Unlimited, water supply impoundments advice; Elie farm
supply crop protection facility; Enviro‑Oil in Virden and the R.M. of Wallace,
bulk materials handling. Enviro‑Oil
is the used oil remanufacturer. I
believe they are in full process of locating a second manufacturing facility in
Virden and the R.M. of Wallace.
Farmers Co‑op Seed Plant Ltd.‑‑I
believe that is at Rivers‑‑a seed‑cleaning plant, advice;
Heritage Co‑op 1929 Ltd. in bulk materials handling; Homewood Co‑op,
crop protection bulk materials handling.
The same thing with Imperial Oil at Roblin and Winnipegosis, Brunkild
and Elie, bulk materials handling in terms of Interlake agro services; Laidlaw
Environmental Services was waste transfer stations; Lanagro was bulk materials
handling.
The
R.M. of MacDonald, the rural water pipelines, for advice; R.M. of MacDonald,
the water storage reservoir, water supply impoundment; Manitoba Hydro at Anola
in terms of advice on transformer stations; Manitoba Hydro at Raven in terms of
advice on transmission lines; then the same issue again at Split Lake; Manitoba
Pool Elevators in Arborg, bulk materials handling; as well as the same issue
for Manitoba Pool Elevators at Darlingford, Dauphin, Elgin, Fisher Branch,
Glenboro, Killarney, Ninga, Solsgirth, Starbuck, Stonewall, Swan River, The
Pas.
Gimli, hazardous waste storage facility, waste
transfer stations; household waste depot on Logan Avenue, waste transfer
stations; town of Morden, water treatment and plant sludge waste water
treatment lagoons; the R.M. of Morris, Rosenort lagoon expansion, waste water
treatment lagoon; Neepawa‑Gladstone Co‑op, crop protection bulk
materials handling; the New Rosedale Colony in terms of waste water treatment
lagoons; Pelican Rapids, lagoon; Novopharm Biotech, manufacturing and
industrial advice; Pineimuta Place, lagoon, a waste water treatment lagoon; the
R.M. of Shoal Lake and Oakburn, sludge removal, waste water treatment lagoon;
Simplot Soilbuilders at Plumas, bulk materials handling; sludge disposal, town
of Swan River; Swan River Consumers Co‑op, bulk materials handling; True
Resource Management, Guertin Brothers waste transfer stations.
Twin
Valley Co‑op, Elkhorn, anhydrous ammonia, advice in the bulk materials
handling area; Twin Valley Co‑op, R. M. of Miniota; United Grain Growers
Birch River, United Grain Growers Deloraine, United Grain Growers Fannystelle,
United Grain Growers Hargrave, United Grain Growers St. Anne, all bulk
materials handling. Those will be
fertilizer and chemical plants.
R.M. of Woodlands, the Warren lagoon
expansion, wastewater treatment lagoon; City of Winnipeg in terms of advice
around the north end pollution control sewage treatment plant and the West St.
Paul sludge review. Those were the areas
in '92‑93.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank the minister for that list. While the ADM is still here, just two small
questions. Firstly, most of the programs
are self‑explanatory. What is the
basic issue surrounding the transmission lines and the question of health? Is
there a generic issue surrounding those?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I am advised it is to do with
the magnetic aura around transmission fields.
I think the issue came up that there was the linkage that has been‑‑now
I do not know how much science there is behind it‑‑with M.S. and
transmission line auras. I think that it
what the investigation at Anola and at Raven‑‑I am not sure about
Split Lake‑‑but that is what some of them were about at least.
Mr. Chomiak: The second issue was the issue of the holding
tanks at the Ducks Unlimited. Was that
in relation to ground water perhaps in terms of drinking water, or what was the
health‑related issue there?
Mr. Orchard: My information is rather limited. It says Ducks Unlimited and, in parentheses,
water supply impoundments. Now I am not
even certain whether this is the new facility at Oak Hammock Marsh. So if my honourable friend wishes, I will
provide that information later.
The
member for Kildonan asked about AIDS cases in women and in aboriginal
people. From 1985 to June 16, 1993, we
have had three cases of AIDS in women out of 97 total cases during that same
period of time. We have 14 cases of AIDS
in the aboriginal community and 76 cases in the Caucasian group and seven that
fall in other ethnic groups.
I
do not believe that any of the female cases are aboriginal women, but we will
double confirm that because I think that would be the nature of my honourable friend's
question.
From 1985 to June 16, 1993, that was AIDS
cases. There have been 386 HIV positive
individuals, and of those the male‑female breakdown are 360 male and 26
female.
Now
I do not have the same breakdown in terms, nor would we have because that is
not part of the information that we have on HIV positive, we just have male‑female. So I cannot give my honourable friend in
terms of aboriginal on the HIV positive. Let me just check and see whether I
have some others.
* (1610)
There was a question awhile ago about auditing
practitioners' records. Bill 4, an
amendment to The Health Services Insurance Act came into force September 30,
1991, and provides Manitoba Health with the legal authority to carry out the
inspections of practitioners' offices including medical laboratories for the
purposes of claims' verification. So
that authority exists, and my honourable friend might recall the debate around
that. It was centered around recovery of
dollars from one of the labs in the province.
The
facility management agreement between ISM and the ministry goes until January
1, 1995, so there is another 18 months and a few days in that contract. A question from the member for Crescentwood
regarding overtime paid in the department, the overtime paid in '92‑93
was $1,339,802.81.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, while the minister has
been answering questions that we had asked the last few days, and we appreciate
that, I had also asked a question and I am not sure it was responded to. I do not know if he has the answer today
about whether the administrative support positions that were directly
supporting field staff such as mental health workers, public health nurses, et
cetera, were being, and I used the term, fast tracked, similarly to the home
care case co‑ordinators and mental health workers.
Mr. Orchard: No, I do not have that information, so I will
have to provide that to my honourable friend at a later date.
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(a) Administration.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, this particular division,
the Administration end, has seen an expansion of two positions from last
year. It looks to me like it is the
administrative support area. I wonder if
the minister can identify those particular positions and what they are for.
Madam Chairperson, just for purposes of
clarification, while I recognize that the appropriation this year indicates
there were seven staff years last year, last year's Estimates book indicates
five staff years, so that I am trying to ascertain.
Mr. Orchard: Yes, my honourable friend is right. It was five last year. It is seven this year because we have
transferred in two staff years from other areas of the ministry, an
administrative officer from the Home Care branch and an Administrative
Secretary 2 from the Health and Wellness branch.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, of the seven people the
minister said have been seconded or moved to work with Connie Curran, are any
from this particular area?
Mr. Orchard: That is in a subsequent area of this
division.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, just in general, can the
minister outline what new policy initiatives and new directives are being
undertaken by this branch of the ministry this year?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, let me maybe take a little time
to answer that question. With the
changes that are being undertaken in the health care system or shifting of
service provision from acute care hospitals to other areas of program delivery
the Continuing Care department has been liaising with the hospitals and with
the community planning to very much be part of that change in that shift.
That has not to date led to any policy changes
that have been proposed. That does not
preclude that as we gain more experience in the reform process that we may find
policy changes that may be proposed and brought forward and announced. There are some opportunities I believe, as I
have always stated, in terms of a better co‑ordination of service, and
that in part is what we hope, in terms of the Connie Curran contract, we are
able to identify and bring into place.
My
honourable friend will know that as part of the reform process, we were going
to expand the hours of operation of our assessment co‑ordination within
the acute care hospital system, and that I will have to give my honourable friend
the status report on that. That is the
only change that is not a change in policy but that is a change in method of
delivery of the program. There are the
changes that my honourable friend knows, and have been subject of discussion in
Question Period and the Estimates, in terms of the Ostomy Program which is
under this appropriation, in terms of the medical supply program and in terms
of the, if you will, housekeeping aspect of the Continuing Care Program that
will impact on the Continuing Care Program and its delivery. Those are the only program changes to date.
Again, I am not trying to avoid the question
of my honourable friend, but I am simply saying that as we mature our thinking
and as the process of health care reform unfolds, there may well be policy and
program changes that are recommended. I
can only indicate to my honourable friend that at any time those are undertaken
it will be accompanied with a full announcement process and will probably only
be achieved subsequent to some pretty full investigation around the value of
any changes that might be proposed by hospitals, by the community services
groups and by community health centres.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, how are those opinions
from the community service groups, the community health centres, the hospitals
being brought forward to the ministry to fit in with what the minister just
did? How is the minister receiving these
suggestions and going about this policy development process?
* (1620)
Mr. Orchard: Just so we do not get off on the wrong
phraseology, program development process rather than policy, because the policy
has remained consistent. That is what I
qualified, that there may well be policy changes, but none to date.
The
venue for those discussions are the various investigative committees where it
is appropriate. For instance, with an
acute care hospital, if they are moving in a direction which would have an
impact on aspects of the Continuing Care Program, we naturally have departmental
staff attached to that area of program investigation.
I
think my honourable friend understands why.
I mean, if they are currently part of, and there is an opportunity for
an increased or a decreased role as the system shifts, they have to be part of
that input in decision making. So where
necessary, they are attached to those task forces and issue investigation
groups and are attempting to liaise with the development of those shifts in
program delivery and to accommodate those shifts with flexibility within our
current program of continuing care delivery.
But, if my honourable friend is wanting
specifics that group A has made a proposal to do X, Y, Z in terms of the
Continuing Care Program, that is not really the process that is there in place. It is not an exclusionary one. I mean, we accept them, but the main process
of discussion is as part of the study group process of looking at program and
other issues in the reform. Where appropriate, Continuing Care staff are
attached to that discussion process.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I am not entirely certain
I understand the minister's comments.
Perhaps they will be clearer when I read them in Hansard.
We
have in existence, at present, a Continuing Care Program with its various
component parts; and we have the minister's reform proposal of May of last
year; and we have a significant shift in the shifting from acute care beds; and
we have less hospital capacity at this point; and what I do not see is the plan
in place at the community level to deliver what everyone in the system agrees
is the need for more community‑based services.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I am not wanting to,
although it might be an appropriate time, to get into the full debate, but I harken
back to discussions we have had just as recently as I suppose two days ago with
the closure later on this year of the 39 surgical beds at St. Boniface, for
instance.
Those are accomplished not by replacing the
service with another service in a less‑expensive locale, but in terms of
managing the delivery of service to the individual patient in a more effective
way. That more effective way is in terms
of length of stay around the surgery, which is identified in the hospital
efficiency report.
St.
Boniface has been working, for instance, in terms of a same‑day admission
policy. They had this piloted for a
number of months at St. Boniface. On the
basis of their experience with that same‑day admission process, know,
have confidence that it will work across their surgical program slate. They also are moving fairly dramatically
towards an increased utilization of not‑for‑admission surgeries and
that led to the decision to close 39 surgical beds.
They are maintaining their level of activity,
and they are doing it with fewer in‑patient days; hence, fewer beds that
they have to staff and maintain and operate.
That has not led to a demand for replacement service, that is an
effective and more efficacious management of existing resources.
Similarly, let me deal with another issue that
I know my honourable friend is familiar with, and that is of course the
consolidation of pediatric services.
Again, there were bed closures in a number of hospitals, consolidation of
services at Children's Hospital, with some existing beds that were not utilized
being commissioned. But again, that
shift did not entail the creation of a community supportive home care delivered
service.
Similarly, in terms of the downsizing of our
two teaching hospitals, which was undertaken before March 31, there were
replacement services, but the majority of those were actual bed replacements
for the individuals in the three locations that I have mentioned to my
honourable friend‑‑Concordia, Municipal and Deer Lodge‑‑and
accessing the continuing care service. I
do not think there is any question that, in some circumstances, greater access
of the existing continuing care service but not the necessity of the creation
of a new or additional program venue in a Continuing Care Program.
Now, I refer back, and this is where, with all
due respect, the former leader of the second opposition party maybe got a
little strayed in terms of her statements around the St. Boniface closures of
surgical beds and the staff layoff notices that went out. My honourable friend the member for
An Honourable
Member: I did not say that.
Mr. Orchard: No, that was the tenor of her remarks.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Orchard: Well, then the newspaper and what I heard in
Question Period was not right.
But
I wanted to get my introductory remarks because I think there are two quotations
in there that are appropriate for all of us to revisit. They are not my remarks, so my honourable
friends do not have to search in them hidden meanings or diabolical plans. They are just statements of considered fact
by the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation wherein the essence of those
remarks were that one should not conclude that for every acute care bed that is
closed there has to be a replacement of that bed and the service it provided
with a service in the community or elsewhere in the system, that there are
opportunities and significant opportunities to downsize the acute care service
delivery section without replacement of service simply through more effective
operation of our acute care facilities.
Clearly, that is what is happening as we
speak. That is the genesis of
implementation of better programming, better management at St. Boniface. I think my honourable friend will see those
kinds of management initiatives decrease the reliance in our acute care
hospitals on inpatient services.
I
just want to indicate to my honourable friend that that is very much the
process of, call it health care reform.
It is health care reform that is going on in every single province in
* (1630)
Of
course, that is what in part is putting the intellect, if you will, behind the
decision to retire
In
each and every case, I can tell my honourable friend, whether it be in
There will be some improvement in both amount
and availability of some community‑based services, certainly, but not
nearly the dollar‑for‑dollar budget transfer, and that is a
reality. They are able to offer those
services in a more effective fashion, and we believe we can too.
My
honourable friend will be interested to know also, and we can pursue this maybe
further as we discuss this line in the Estimates, the managers of some of our
housing projects are very supportive of the Continuing Care Program, so
supportive of it that they believe there is an opportunity to manage it better
within their facilities and have commenced some discussions with the ministry
that I am very interested in, in seeing how we can make that community‑based
relationship with the Continuing Care Program to make the system work more
effectively for those who are assessed and need it for care that are resident
in those buildings.
That has not led to a policy change or a
program change, but clearly, I sense a very, very enthusiastic willingness to
pursue that opportunity with the ministry and with Continuing Care, and we want
to do that because now is the time to have all Manitobans take a real solid
look at how we can exercise opportunities for progressive change to make all
programs work better.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, what I can gather from
what the minister has said to this point is that all of the changes to the
health care system that have occurred have not required any significant change
in programming or services offered in the community. Is that correct?
Mr. Orchard: In part.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister explain in which part it is
correct and in which part it is incorrect?
Mr. Orchard: The part that is correct is that unless one
considers a community hospital community, and I do not sense that is where my
honourable friend is coming from, that degree that would be incorrect in his
assessment, correct in my assessment. We have introduced new services for long‑term
care at three facilities, and that has allowed us to physically transfer the
service and budget from a more expensive facility, i.e., teaching hospital to a
less costly facility, i.e., Concordia acute care hospital, Municipal or Deer
Lodge long‑term care facility.
That, I do not think, is the pure definition
of community my honourable friend believes is community, but it is a
redeployment and a reinvestment in the health care system which has done two
things. I submit, without denigrating
the service provided to panelled Manitobans who are in both of the teaching
hospitals, I am not denigrating the service that they receive there, but I know
that in an acute care hospital the environment for care is not the same as it
is in a dedicated long‑term care facility.
I
will simply say to my honourable friend that that shift did two things. It allowed a better opportunity for quality
care, because the care was long‑term care, not acute care. Secondly, it did reduce the system cost in
providing that care.
That
is why we were able, in part, to reduce our global budget this year, because we
are spending less resource on average to support those individuals in a better
care environment. That is health care
reform. In addition to that, we are
working with community groups for year two of service delivery, replacement of
service delivery and enhancement of service delivery in the community, some of
which may flow from the discussions that some of our housing managers want to
undertake.
If
that results in a new policy and/or program approach, that will be community
based, that will be new, that will satisfy, I think, my honourable friend. But if my honourable friend takes a look,
groundwork on stage two has been underway.
Stage one, year one was the downsizing, primarily of our teaching
hospitals and a replacement of services where necessary and appropriate in
lesser cost, more appropriate facilities.
That is a replacement of service, that is new
commitment of program, that is new hiring, that was new capital investment in
some cases; but it is not pure community that my honourable friend is, I think,
wanting to attach to, and I accept that.
But we did not intend that first year of shift from tertiary hospitals
to be focused on a plethora of new community‑based services.
Mental health is entirely different. We can get into the mental health
reform. That is an entirely different
process than the first year of our downsizing of the acute care hospitals.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister explain
why last year in the Estimates book he indicated that there would be 24,000
recipients of home care, and this year the Estimates book says 20,000
recipients of home care. In other words,
the total number of recipients has dropped by 4,000.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I have, on page 54, that
"approximately 24,000 Manitobans will receive services from the Home Care
Program in the fiscal year 1993/94."
* (1640)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, this is a new one to me
because on page 46 of last year's Estimates book, I see approximately 24,000
Manitobans will receive home care services‑‑do you know what?‑‑I
have erred. That is right. I was looking at the home care equipment
program, as opposed‑‑well, my question is not wrong in a certain
extent, but I will rephrase the question.
It was the wrong question. The
minister is correct.
Madam Chairperson, 24,000 home care equipment‑‑the
same question, why is the home care equipment program down by 4,000 this year?
Mr. Orchard: That is the expected result of the $50
charged for supply lines that were supplied free of charge, and equipment
items. Anything over $50 will be
provided at no cost to the recipient, but anything under $50 will and that
would account for the fewer numbers.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, the tenor of the
minister's reform document certainly, if one looks at page 13, implies a
shift. The charts, the graph and the
money reductions imply a shift towards community‑based service, more
efficient, less expensive, less costly, more efficient services offered in the
community as opposed to the institution.
The chart on page 13, which I have seen, certainly implies that, but let
me get to the heart of the matter.
We
see a reduction, the minister will no doubt admit, and without getting into playing
around with the numbers, because it is very hard to deal with the hospital
budgets until we get to that item, but basically the hospital budgets are down
in the Estimates by $20 million. So we
see them down at $20 million. Presumably, a good deal of that $20 million is as
a result of fewer acute care beds in the hospital system.
We
then move to the Continuing Care system and we see an elimination of the
homemaker services. We see a user fee
charged on home care equipment supplies.
We see 4,000 people dropped off of the home care equipment supply
program because they fall off of the $50 cutoff line. We see personal care home bed costs rising
dramatically, a 74 percent increase, and we see a means test for personal care
home beds put into place. We see
increased personal expenditure on the part of the recipients of the service at
the community level.
What we do not see in this mix are any
initiatives from the department, any programs at this point from the department
that are designed to fit in with the tenor of what is outlined and what
Manitobans were led to believe would be the case in terms of the minister's
Health care reform.
The
minister has to admit that certainly, and throughout the document, not only
implied, but specifically stated, is one of the reasons why there is
considerable distress in the community with the minister's initiatives.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, first of all, I want to
indicate to my honourable friend that he can continue to use the phraseology,
user fee, but it is not accurate. User
fees have a very distinct meaning in health care provision and user fees
trigger the penalty under the Canada Health Act and the reduction of payments
supporting health care service provision from the federal government should a province
introduce user fees.
Now, if my honourable friend wants to use
them, my honourable friend can, but my honourable friend would also have to
then say that Premier Ed Schreyer and the New Democrats introduced user fees in
Pharmacare, Personal Care Home Program.
Now, I do not mind if he wants to do that, if he wants to be open and
honest about it, that is the way we will approach it. (interjection) Pardon me?
(interjection) Well, it is a consumer contribution, and it is the same dollars,
but it does not have the connotation of contravening the Canada Health
Act. I think that is what all of us are
attempting to preserve, the Canada Health Act and the provision of servicing.
Now, let me indicate to my honourable
friend. My honourable friend is concerned
and we are going to have a very lengthy and generous debate in this area. I look forward to it because my honourable
friend is concerned, for instance, about homemaking services being removed from
the Continuing Care Program this year, my policy decision that I indicated
earlier on.
My
honourable friend, in expressing that concern, has to acknowledge that in 1985,
a very progressive policy was brought in by the then Howard Pawley government,
called support services for seniors. The
driving force behind support services for seniors was to provide the
opportunity in communities, rural and northern, and within the larger community
of
The
support services for seniors program which now I think has gone to some three
point some million dollars‑‑we can get to that line and discuss it‑‑has
enabled a number of communities in Manitoba to provide services that were never
provided by government in any fashion, but in the issue specific to my
honourable friend's statement, services of house cleaning, meal preparation to
support individuals and their independent living in their own homes or
apartments.
The
structure of the support services to seniors program, as introduced by the NDP‑‑and
I congratulated them for it then and continue to‑‑was to provide on
a cost‑recovery basis, my honourable friend's terminology, a user‑fee
basis, that service that was formerly provided free of charge by the Continuing
Care Program in areas where the support services for seniors, the community
services organizations brought the service in.
Now,
at the time, it might have been smart politics for me to accuse the NDP of
bringing user fees into the Continuing Care Program, but it made good
sense. It still makes good sense. What
is different, and I will admit to the difference in approach with this budget,
is it has been a gradual approach up until this year where the housecleaning
and meal preparation support has been removed from the Continuing Care service
venue when support services for seniors have been available in that community.
There is considerable sophistication across a
lot of the province right now, but there are areas without support services for
seniors. So what we had was a genuine
disparity of program, where communities that had support services for seniors
programs, their seniors were paying for housekeeping and meal preparation.
Because there were not support services for seniors in other communities or
parts of the city of
So
we made the policy decision‑‑and my honourable friend can argue
that it was wrong, and that is fine, I will accept his argument that it was
wrong‑‑we decided that we would make it consistent across Manitoba,
that no one would receive free‑of‑charge housecleaning and meal
preparation as part of the Continuing Care Program, because we do not believe
there is any area of the province of Manitoba where those services cannot be
accessed either through support services for seniors programs or for hire in
the community.
If
my honourable friend believes that was wrong, then my honourable friend has to
say that they would reinstate that if they were to achieve government and, in
so doing, would have to say that the 1985 policy foundation of Howard Pawley's
government was wrong, and that would make for another interesting debate if my
honourable friend makes that statement.
* (1650)
Let
us deal with some other areas. That
support services for seniors, that is the meals and housecleaning aspect of
it. I do not expect to be applauded by
those
I think
my honourable friend has to admit that there is a consistency of approach
there. But what is more important, and
my honourable friend ought to consider, is in looking at the budgetary line, he
will see that there is an increase in the budgetary line of Continuing Care
year over year. That is with a reduction
in resource to provide housecleaning and meal preparation. We have invested that into more sophisticated
care needs to maintain independent living for more people for a more prolonged
period of time.
Now, that is what my honourable friend says we
should be doing, and that is exactly what we are doing, and that is exactly why
I have said this policy is consistent with the health reform document.
Now
let us consider a couple of other aspects, because while we are at it let us
get all of the issues on the table. We
have introduced consumer contribution in terms of ostomy supplies, up to $300
per year, a 50‑50 cost‑sharing up to a maximum of $300 per
year. Those supplies were formerly
provided free of charge. We made that difficult decision for several
reasons. First of all, other provinces
do require significant contributions and in a lot of cases more contributions
from their ostomists in terms of maintaining their supply program. Ours still remains as generous as most
programs. Again, there is a reduction in
the commitment to the Continuing Care Program as a result of that, but we did
not take the budget away. We left it in
there to purchase yet more care for Manitobans to maintain their independent
living in their homes and in their communities to avoid the institutionalized
care.
We
introduced a policy that home care equipment under $50 would be paid for by the
individual. We still maintain the
wheelchair and the more expensive home support supply programs as part of the
Home Care program, but for lesser cost, no.
The reason, again, is to take that resource‑‑because, Madam
Chair, I do not believe, if most Manitobans think about it, that asking to
purchase an $8 or a $10 or a $12 cane is an undue imposition of cost. Again, we did not remove those dollars from
the budget, we reinvested them. In
what? More care to maintain independent
living of individuals in the community.
So,
Madam Chairperson, I say that everything we have done this year is consistent
with reinvestment in community care. Yes, it is asking some people to
contribute out of their pocket for something they received free under the
program before, but this environment, financial and fiscally, does not enable
us to make those free programs available anymore. That is why when we are engaged in this
debate I want to hear more from my honourable friend the New Democrat and my
honourable friend the Liberal that it is wrong.
I expect to hear that from them.
But I want to know if you would reinstate them should you be government,
because any other position is just simply nefarious politics of low value.
* * *
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(Deputy Chairperson of Committees): Madam
Chairperson, a motion was moved in the section of the Committee of Supply,
meeting in Room 255, by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). The motion reads:
I
move, that line 16.4(g)(1) be reduced by $150,000 from management salaries, and
that this committee strongly urge the minister to consider using the resources
saved to restore the Parkland Human Resources Opportunity Centre.
Madam Chairperson, the motion was defeated on
a voice vote, and subsequently two members requested that a formal vote on this
matter be taken.
Madam Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested. Call in the members.
* * *
(Concurrent sections in Chamber for formal
vote)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. In the section of the Committee of Supply
dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Education, a formal vote was
requested.
The
question before the House is, moved by the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman), that line 16.4(g)(1) be reduced by $150,000 for management salaries
and that this committee strongly urge the minister to consider using the
resources saved to restore the Parkland Human Resource Opportunity Centre.
A
COUNTED VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows: Yeas 18, Nays 25.
Madam Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated.
The
hour being after 5 p.m., committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hour being after 5 p.m., prior to private
members' hour, the honourable member for Gimli with committee changes.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic
Development be amended as follows: the
member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) for the member for Assiniboia
(Mrs. McIntosh); the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for Lac du
Bonnet (Mr. Praznik).
Motion agreed to.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to announce at this time, believing that the representations toward Bill 22
will not be exhausted tonight, I would like to call another period for the
Standing Committee on Economic Development to consider Bill 22 tomorrow
afternoon at one o'clock until 5 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., the House is adjourned
and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).