LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, April 30, 1992
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Bruce Campbell, Jeff
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
George Law, Heather MacKay, Evelyn Atkinson and others requesting the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider a one‑year moratorium on
the closure of the Human Resources
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Valerie J. Black, Patricia Wilson, Catherine Westwood and others requesting the
government consider reviewing the funding of the
Mr. Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mrs. Carstairs). It complies with the privileges and practices
of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the
House to have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned residents of the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the Kimelman Report (1983), the Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry (1991) and the Suche Report (1992) recommended that the province
establish such an office reporting directly to the Legislative Assembly of
Manitoba, in a manner similar to that of the Office of the Ombudsman; and
WHEREAS pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act
Standards, the agency worker is to be the advocate for a child in care; and
WHEREAS there is a major concern that child welfare workers,
due to their vested interest as employees within the service system, cannot
perform an independent advocacy role; and
WHEREAS pure advocacy will only be obtained through an independent
and external agency; and
WHEREAS the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has
unsatisfactorily dealt with complaints lodged against child welfare agencies;
and now
THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly
of
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Jack Reimer (Member of the Standing Committee on
Economic Development): I beg to present the
Fourth Report of the Committee on Economic Development.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
Your
Standing Committee on Economic Development presents the following as their
Fourth Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, April 28, 1992, at 8 p.m, in
Room 254 of the
Your committee has considered the Annual Report of the
Communities Economic Development Fund for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1991, and has adopted the same as presented.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Reimer: I move,
seconded by the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the
report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
*
(1335)
Mr. Jack Penner (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on
Public Utilities and Natural Resources): I beg to
present the First Report on the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and
Natural Resources.
Mr. Clerk: Your
Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the
following as its First Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, April 28, 1992, at 8 p.m., in
Room 255 of the
Mr. Walter Bardua, president and general manager, provided such
information as was requested with respect to the Annual Report and business of
the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
Your committee has considered the Annual Report of the Manitoba
Public Insurance Corporation for the year ended October 31, 1991, and has
adopted the same as presented.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Penner: I move,
seconded by the honourable member for
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I would like to table the 1990‑91
Annual Report of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation and the 1991
Annual Report of the Manitoba Telephone System.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to
Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of the honourable members to the
Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us this afternoon Peter Muir, Tibor Bodi
and Peter Aitchison. They are members of
the climbing team who will be attempting the first ascent of
On behalf of all members, I welcome you here this afternoon.
Also with us this afternoon, from the
Cet apres‑midi, aussi, nous tenons a vous signaler la
presence dans la galerie publique de dix‑sept etudiants de la neuvieme
annee de l'Ecole Provencher, sous la direction d'Ed McCarthy. Cette institution est situee dans la
circonscription du depute de Saint‑Boniface (Mr. Gaudry).
[Translation]
Also this afternoon, we
would like to indicate the presence in the public gallery of seventeen pupils
in Grade 9, from
[English]
On behalf of all
members, I welcome you all here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
North American Free
Trade Agreement
Public Hearings
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): In the Speech from the Throne in 1990, the
government said, Canadians said no to the old style of elite accommodation and
closed‑door politics. Mr. Speaker,
since that time, the government has participated in a number, almost on a
weekly basis, of trade meetings between provincial trade ministers and the
federal minister, one of which is going on again today in a downtown
We have been concerned about the secret negotiations on
trade. We are concerned about the secret
drafts. We are concerned about the
secret responses from the provincial government. We are concerned about the secret analysis
that has not been provided to the people of this province about the positive
and negative impact of North American free trade with
I would, therefore, ask the Acting Premier whether the
government will amend its terms of reference on proposed free trade with
*
(1340)
Hon. Glen Cummings (Acting Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member has been told many
times that the six principles that
The fact is that our Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Stefanson) is involved on an ongoing basis with the federal authorities to
put forward
Mr. Doer: Mr.
Speaker, the minister has not told us what industries are impacted, what areas
of the province are impacted, who the winners and losers are, according to their
analysis. They have an $800,000 secretariat, and we do not know what they are
producing out of the bowels of the Legislature in terms of what is positive and
negative.
The terms of reference that the minister refers to do not
include any public input from the people of
I would ask the government why the public of
Mr. Cummings: Mr.
Speaker, to begin with,
Mr. Doer: Mr.
Speaker, I am not talking about
Judging from the bankruptcy numbers today, Mr. Speaker, which
are the highest in March since the history of keeping bankruptcy numbers, which
are on top of the bankruptcy numbers in February 1992, which are also the
highest in the history of this province, one would think the government would
start to pay attention to the public concerns on the economy.
So I would ask the Acting Premier, will they amend their terms
of reference to include public input from this province on what our position
is, what our response is, what the drafts say and what they mean for
Mr. Cummings: First of
all, the Leader of the Opposition chooses to misrepresent what is occurring in
the trend of bankruptcies in this province.
We are, in fact, improving. Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems like he is not willing to listen to
some principles that this province laid down as the condition upon which we
would hold any potential agreement that the federal government may choose to
enter into.
The six principles were enunciated. They are very public. They are being put
forward very strongly at any meetings that our representatives are at, and if
he wishes to throw out all possibility of trade, he should think about the fact
that
Those are the kinds of opportunities that we have to seize on
to make sure that our principles are being dealt with.
Education System
Dropout Rate
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the
Minister of Education and Training.
Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada has outlined a
number of deficiencies in our education system and many which amount to four
lost years under this Tory government.
If literacy is a problem with graduates, then can you imagine what the
problem must be with those that drop out?
What specific programs and measures are being undertaken by
this government to deal with dropouts, specifically women who constitute the
second worst dropout rate of any province in
*
(1345)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): We do take the results of this study very
seriously. We took it seriously enough
to make sure that we had a representative in
I would like to correct the honourable member in terms of this
being an indication of four years of our government because, if he in fact
reads the report, he will see the statistics are based on the years from the
early '80s, through 1987, as well, the years of the NDP government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to
look again.
Let me also say that this government did recognize the issues
that were raised in this particular report, issues such as high costs, skills
of students, quality of teaching and a linkage to work and employment. We do at this point have a number of
initiatives that in fact exceed the recommendations of the report which came
out yesterday.
Let me mention one which I have mentioned in this House
previously, and that is the creation by this government of the Student Support
branch. We are the only government in
Mr. Chomiak: Mr.
Speaker, will the minister outline what programs are in place, since she
refused to answer the question, for women who last year constituted the second
worst dropout rate in the country, to deal with the serious dropout rate in
this province?
Because the minister for the whole last week has refused to
answer the question in Estimates, will she tell us today what programs are in
place to deal with the situation of women dropouts in this province?
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me
answer again. In the first place, we
have created a very specific branch.
This government has recognized the concerns of at‑risk students,
people who are at risk of leaving school before their education is completed,
and we have created the Student Support branch.
Through that branch, schools, local communities will be able to
identify programs which they believe will be specific for their area, most
helpful to their communities, and apply for grant funding. In addition, the department is there also to
offer other kinds of supports which divisions might see as important.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr.
Speaker, my final supplementary is to the same minister.
If administrative costs to the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.
Speaker, the issue of accountability has certainly been one of the priorities
of this government, and the issue of accountability we are attempting to
address through a number of areas: one,
the institution of provincial testing which the other side of the House has so
firmly objected to, and the most recent study has said it is very important to
ensure our standards.
In the area of the Student Support branch, there is over $10
million of grant money available.
*
(1350)
Education System
Curriculum Revisions
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that there is
death on both their houses because neither party, whether it be the Tories or
be it the NDP, has given education the priority it deserves in the
I think it is important, however, to look at how this
government has prioritized its expenditures on education, and I will use just
one example. Last year they cut five
curriculum consultants. This year they are
cutting an additional curriculum consultant.
In their own supplementary Estimates, they list as one of the tasks of
that particular branch the systematic updating of programs to ensure relevant
standards.
Can the minister explain why this government is spending 17
percent less money on updating its curriculum so that it is relevant? What effect is that going to have on the
quality of education for our young people?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think it is very
important that we also maintain a sense of vision in terms of education in this
province and that we do not fall into a sense of complete panic that things are
all going wrong.
Let me inform the member of some of the initiatives currently
underway. Curriculum revisions are
underway in the K‑8 mathematics area, with emphasis on skill development
in that area. We also have plans
underway to produce a province‑wide distance education calculus
course. We are making major improvements
in the science curriculum. We are
assessing the English curriculum this May.
So we are in fact doing a great number of initiatives currently
underway.
Administrative Costs
'Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I was delighted at the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) who yelled across the House, more money, more
money. Well, let me tell you what the
Minister of Education has done.
The Minister of Education, while cutting curriculum
consultants, has added 5.52 staff persons to Management Information
Services. We are going to know how many
kids fail, but we are not going to put any money into preventing them from
failing.
Will the Minister of Education explain that?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, let me remind the honourable member
that this government has in fact put more money into Education this year so
that we can look at the issues relating to education.
In addition to that, we have several projects currently
underway, legislative reform being one, and also our own government's strategic
plan, which points to the very issue that I think the member is raising, issues
of accountability and making sure that our students come to a successful
completion. So I do not accept the information in her question.
Core Curriculum
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Economic Council
of Canada indicated that what we were doing was trying to teach the middle,
that we had ignored the upper‑end students and we had ignored the lower‑end
students.
Well, this government has taken a very critical decision. They
have decided that in Grade 10 they will eliminate specific curriculums for
bright children and middle children and those who have difficulties in
learning. They have merged them all
together in a core curriculum in the fields of language arts, social studies,
history, geography.
Can the minister explain why they have gone to a core
curriculum when it is very clear that a core curriculum is not meeting the
interests of the vast majority of students?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): There is a core curriculum in Senior 1. We move then to areas of specialization in
Senior 2 or Grade 10, and in that, we look specifically at specialization in
the area of math and science. When we get to Senior 3 and Senior 4, there is a
differentiation of curriculum. This is
intended to give students‑‑and we followed pedagogical advice to
make sure that students in Senior 1 had a broad enough basis from which to continue
their education and make important decisions.
We are supporting students in the Senior 1 and Senior 2 level
with the Student Support branch because we understand that it is not the rigor
of the curriculum that causes young people to disengage but other reasons
supported by the Student Support branch.
GRIP Program
Coverage Levels ‑
Lentils
*
(1355)
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, more and more farmers are
painfully aware that GRIP in its present form is unfair and inequitable. We saw it yesterday when the farmers from
Area 12 showed this government for its true colours, for its mismanagement and
hypocrisy with regard to GRIP.
Now we have the lentil fiasco, with the minister's blatant 12th‑hour
interference in the marketplace, something he says his government does not
believe in. Yesterday a full month and a
half after the contract called for making these announcements, Mr. Speaker, the
minister continued in his contemptible ways by showing complete disdain for
this Legislature‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Question, please.
Mr. Plohman: I ask
this minister responsible for lentils why he did not at least have the courtesy
to make the announcement with regard to the change in the coverage levels, the
support levels for lentils in this House to the representatives. He should have made it months ago, but he at
least‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): There is great difficulty associated with
doing what we had to do yesterday. The lentil acres in 1990 were 55,000 acres,
last year 135,000 acres. This year it
looked like it would be 400,000 to 500,000 acres.
Mr. Speaker, we have informed our signatories that the price
set for lentils has been too high. We
have been saying that for 14 months. We
have received in the last three weeks a number of letters and phone calls from
producers and producer organizations saying that we must do something.
The
We went to the signatories committee this week‑‑they
met on Tuesday‑‑and said:
Would you look at the issue? They
gave us a recommendation that we should do something in
Mr. Plohman: Mr.
Speaker, this minister should have known this a year ago. He knew there was an increase in lentils.
Why did this minister not make this announcement a month and a
half ago? How can he justify the
interference in the marketplace that he did yesterday after farmers have spent
thousands of dollars on seed, and seed companies have purchased seed and
inoculate for that seed? Where has this
minister been for the last month and a half?
Mr. Findlay: Mr.
Speaker, I would like to remind the member of my answer to the first question
that, for 14 months we have been talking about this, trying to get the National
Grains Bureau and Agriculture
We sought legal opinion to determine if the contract was
violated. We did what we did, and the
legal opinion said that as long as changes were made before April 30, it was
legally correct to do so. We did it in
response to numerous inquiries from the industry and from producers.
Mr. Plohman: Mr.
Speaker, this program is more of a mess under the management of this minister
every day.
I want to ask this minister how he intends to compensate those
farmers and those seed companies, such as the Farmers Co‑op Seed Plant at
Rivers, who have had 10 percent of their contracts, of their orders cancelled
this morning, only this morning, since this minister's announcement at the last
minute. How is he going to compensate them?
Mr. Findlay: Mr.
Speaker, nothing in our announcement prevented anybody from growing any number
of acres they wanted to grow or any contracts they have signed. Nothing in our announcement violated that.
I would like to read what the executive director of the
Manitoba Pulse Growers said yesterday.
He said: Even after higher
production costs are factored in, the support price for lentils guarantees
farmers a significantly higher return than for other GRIP‑insured crops,
even after the reduction.
They recognized that the support was far too high, relative to
other crops, and structurally, it was the right decision to take. We were promoted to do it by many people in
the industry.
GRIP Program
Coverage Levels ‑
Risk Area 12
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is going to
honour his commitment which he made in writing to the representatives of Risk
Area 12, making a commitment to make an adjustment in their coverage if there
were changes. Will he honour that
commitment so they can go ahead and lobby the federal government to work on
that for them as well?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, a year ago, I set up a process
involving farmers to come up with some legitimate numbers that we could advance
to the federal government. As I said
yesterday, I have written the federal government twice asking them to
understand that this was necessary to be done.
The committee has gone through its final report. I imagine the final report that all committee
members approve will arrive on my desk shortly.
We continue to ask the federal government to look at those numbers and
see if there is some way they can address the problem that has been in place,
the inequity that has really been in place, in that area for some 20 years.
*
(1400)
Ms. Wowchuk: My
question to the same minister is: Will
this government live up to the word of their minister? Will they put the money in place and put the
federal government on the line to see whether the federal government will stand
up to his word?
Mr. Findlay: Mr.
Speaker, we have been talking to those growers for a long period of time,
trying to find some mechanism that we could legitimately take some information
to the federal government. I say, when
that report comes in, we will continue to work with the federal government to
see that the information in the report will be accepted for them for '91 or '92
or forever.
Ms. Wowchuk: My
question is still to the same minister.
Will this government put the money on the line so that the
federal government will then be obliged to make a decision? They have a letter saying they will do
this. They need somebody to stand behind
this. I am sure many of his backbenchers
would be happy to do it.
Mr. Findlay: Mr.
Speaker, in terms of putting money on the line, we put $50 million on the line
for GRIP premiums for
Economic Growth
Building Permits
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, in each one of the five budgets
that this Finance minister has tabled in the House and again yesterday, he
continues to promise us that somehow prosperity is just around the corner, but
his predictions to date have been rather faulty, to say the least.
Now when you look back over the last four years, when you look
back at the statistics that are contained within Statistics
I would like to ask the minister this question: How does he account for the fact that over
the past four years, the share of total building permits in this country fell
some 18 percent? In
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the member has taken me a little
bit unaware. I thought he was going to
ask questions on bankruptcies today.
Obviously, he could not find a selective area that suited his particular
questions.
As I indicated yesterday, when one looks at all of the
statistical areas, one can pick and choose to set their own arguments. I would like to say to the member opposite
that economic growth of our province as compared to the national average for
'92‑‑and I think Manitobans today are trying to develop a
confidence, indeed, all Canadians are, in their economy. I think they want to look forward, Mr.
Speaker. I would like to say that I am
assured that the American economy is beginning to pull out of its malaise. I am told by my economic advisers that if
that occurs in the
I say to the member opposite, if he wants to focus on four
years of the past, if he feels that he is serving his constituents in the best
manner and reflecting on four years of numbers that have occurred over the
year, he could probably accomplish an awful lot more if he would attempt to,
with the government, try and find the best ways and support the government in
trying to make
Mr. Alcock: Now, if
I understand the minister's comment, Mr. Speaker, he is asking me to support
his four years of failure, and I am afraid I am unable to do that right now.
I want to ask him a very simple question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister explain to me why, after
four years of his policy, we are doing worse on building permits in this
province? A very simple question: Why have we done so much worse than the
national average‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Mr. Manness: Mr.
Speaker, again the member wants to select into an area. Why does he not ask the question about the
capital investment intentions well above those in
No, all the member is trying to do is once again destroy the
confidence of the consumers and the business people in this province for his
own political gain, Mr. Speaker, and I say to him, shame. He has ulterior motives; he is out to destroy
the economy in this province. He is
contributing nothing.
Mr. Alcock: Mr.
Speaker, we have five years of intentions, and not one of them has proved out,
not one of them.
I want to ask the minister this very simple question. He has put in place a plan; he has had that
plan working now for four years. In the
area of building permits, our performance is worse than that of the
country. Can the minister please explain
to us why that has occurred?
Mr. Manness: Mr.
Speaker, it seems almost identical to the second question, which was identical
to the first question.
I can give again the same response as I did on the second
question, but I know, when you are in opposition, you expect there to be
instant fixes. I know, Mr. Speaker, we
have had requests from the opposition benches that we should bring forward a
stimulation budget.
Of course, what that was, was asking the government to spend
considerably more in almost all areas of government or to increase taxes and/or
to do anything to employ people. I am
here to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the approach that we are taking is the
correct one as is reflected in the financial markets, in the manner in which
our Premier (Mr. Filmon) and indeed our Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr.
Stefanson) can now access corporate boardrooms in the country with respect to
the message as to what is occurring in our province to make our regime more
competitive. It is being reflected in
the financial market, where today, for the first time in the history of
Sewage Lagoon ‑
Oak Point
Environmental Concerns
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I have photographs with me today
that show how a pit extended onto a previous landfill site has been used as a
sewage lagoon near Oak Point. This pit has no liner. It is not complying with the regulations for
lagoons, and it has been allowed to spill over onto the adjacent land.
Residents are concerned that the proposed lagoon to replace
this area is not the proper solution.
How will the minister resolve concerns that the lagoon that is supposed
to drain into
*
(1410)
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the member demonstrates why we
need to work with a number of municipalities to make sure that their waste
disposal and sewage handling processes are brought up to snuff. We have had an ongoing process in that
municipality to site a new lagoon, to site a new waste disposal ground. The department has worked closely with them
in examining the plans that they have put forward, the studies that they put
forward. The department laid down the
conditions of a licence regarding the standard of effluent. The time of discharge and all of the relevant
information that was brought forward was taken into consideration, and a
licence was issued.
It is under the conditions of that licence that we will control
and regulate and make sure there is no damage to the surrounding environment.
Environmental Impact
Assessment
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): It is the minister's department that
authorized this pit to be used in this manner.
Can the minister then table the environment impact assessment
that is going to show that there will not be any effect on fish stock and fish
breeding ground on the reserve across the lake which draws its water from
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): All of the information that the department
took into account in looking at the plans is public information. It was filed, and I am sure that the member
can have access to that.
Public Hearings
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Since there was no public hearing where the
residents could have their concern‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Question, please.
Ms. Cerilli: Will the
minister hold a public hearing on the siting of this new lagoon in the Oak
Point area?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I regret to some extent that the
type of disagreements upon which the member is basing her questions end up
being brought to the floor of this Chamber, because in many ways this is not an
environmental issue. It is a dispute
between two communities about where this site should be located. It is a planning issue as much as it is an
environment issue. The environmental
restrictions that we can impose, the standards that we will require of
operation are the responsibility that we will deal with and make sure that
there is no damage.
The appeal that the member is referring to, a number of those
issues were raised and were dealt with in the licence. As so often happens, Mr. Speaker‑‑and
I do not for one minute deny it‑‑when municipal service sites such
as this are located, there is always some concern raised and some disagreement
about the location of it. There
certainly is a good deal of disagreement by a small group, but they were
clearly heard. The environmental issues
were raised, and we believe we have dealt with it.
Sewage Lagoon ‑
Oak Point
Licensing Process
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe that the
Minister of Environment would say that this lagoon in Oak Point does not raise
environmental issues. The fact is that
the proposed lagoon is to be a nonstandard lagoon, with its outlet entering
My question for the minister:
Why, given these concerns which have been persistent from the very
outset of this proposal from many of the local residents, did the minister not
require a proper siting study of the project and did he not require a proper
public hearing in front of the CEC to air those concerns and instead was
content‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, this has
been a very troublesome process. The environmental matters that are associated
with the siting of this lagoon, or any other service facility of this nature,
have to be carefully watched. They have
to be carefully designed and operations handled.
The fact that the original siting was used improperly is now
being corrected. One of the reasons that
this was not corrected over a period of time earlier was a disagreement about
where a new facility would be most properly located.
Mr. Speaker, the issues that were brought forward were, there
is a judgment call as to whether they are dealt with directly by the licensing
process or whether they go to a Clean Environment Commission hearing, and this
one was deemed to have been capable of being dealt with within the licensing
process, and that was what was done.
Public Hearings
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Again, for the same minister, Mr. Speaker, the
minister recommended to local residents when they met with him that they go to
mediation with the R.M. The R.M.
declined to participate.
My question for the minister is: Why, after recognizing that the concerns of
the residents were worthy of a mediation proposal when it did not go ahead, did
he not go the second step and in fact give a full public hearing process the
opportunity for the residents to put forward their concerns to a board like the
Clean Environment Commission to be heard and adjudicated upon? Why, after recognizing their concerns were
valid, did he not do a full job?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Again, Mr. Speaker, while I do not think the
member should characterize anything I said earlier as not being concerned about
the environmental issues, there was also a planning issue that was within the
jurisdiction of the municipality to make.
In the jurisdiction for which I am responsible, the licensing
of any design and building and discharge that might occur in relationship to
this facility was properly handled and will be properly regulated in the future
to make sure, whether it is a city of
Licensing Process ‑
Appeal
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, finally, for the same
minister. An appeal of this licence by
the residents is currently before the minister.
We are advised that the minister has privately told the R.M. that they
can start tendering this without having released publicly the results of the
appeal.
Has the minister in fact made up his mind on this appeal, and
if so, why did his department privately inform the R.M. before making the
decision public in the normal course?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Again, Mr. Speaker, someone is either
misinformed or has chosen to take a different tack on this.
Environment licence is valid during the time of appeal, and if
the municipality chooses to proceed to go to tender or to get bids on
construction of a site during that period, they are quite entitled to do
so. The results of the appeal and the
reasons behind any decisions that are made around that will be made public in
the appropriate time frame, and all people involved will have a copy and full
access to that information.
Social Assistance
Off-Reserve Status
Indians
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, the federal government's
withdrawal of 100 percent social assistance funding for status Indians living
off reserves will cost $8.7 million a year for the City of
What is the Minister of Family Services doing to avert a crisis
in the City of
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I reject that the province is doing nothing
about the withdrawal of federal funding.
We have made a very strong stand on this issue, and we used to have the
support of the opposition. I am
disappointed that they have changed their position on that.
We also have the Manitoba Assembly of Chiefs, the UMM and the
MAUM organizations supporting us in our dispute with
Bill 70
Amendments
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Will the Minister of Family Services amend
Bill 70 in order to prevent a massive tax increase for city taxpayers,
estimated at 5 percent?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): It is interesting that opposition members
have yet to speak on the bill, and the member is asking us for an
amendment. We have brought that
legislation before the House and given it second reading and look forward to
members' comments on that legislation.
If the member is here to solve some of the financial problems
of a municipal level of government, I encourage him to speak with city
councillors and maybe give them some direction on ways in which he would see
them changing their budget.
We are working with the SARC committee, which has a member, a
city councillor, on that committee. They
have presented a report to government.
We have basically accepted that report and are bringing in legislation
based on that SARC report.
Mr. Speaker: Time for
Oral Questions has expired.
*
(1420)
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (
Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great sense of pride to rise today
to wish a group of Manitobans the best of luck as they set off to celebrate
The present expedition will face many logistical, climatic and
physical challenges during their attempt to climb
Some of the members of the climbing team are with us here
today. Tibor Bodi, a constituent of
mine, is one of the three climb leaders, and Peter Muir and Dan Dunbar also
comprise a part of this team. The other
members of the team, who regrettably were unable to be with us today, are Peter
Aitchison, Bob France, also both climb leaders, as well as Richard Tiley,
Dennis Cunningham, Jeff Aitchison, Pat Dellistone, Raphael Munoz, Shane Petroff
and reporter Catherine Mitchell, who will be along to capture the efforts in
print.
On behalf of all the members of the House and all Manitobans, I
would like to wish the expedition a safe and successful climb and emphasize to
them that whatever the results of their attempt, all Manitobans can say with
pride that
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement? [Agreed]
I just want to again add other words of the Legislature to
congratulate the team on its ascent on
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):
Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed]
I, too, would like to add some words of support and
congratulations to the team. It is
ironic, when one comes from a prairie province, to think that we have an alpine
club and an alpine team.
I would like just to reflect for a second on what they are
about to take on. Mountain climbing is
something that I have only limited experience with, but it is one of those
pursuits that man throughout the ages has followed, in part, "because it
is there." Is that not the way they
say it? It is an attempt to show that we
can conquer those obstacles that nature has put before us. But it is not a recreational jaunt; climbing
an 11,000‑foot mountain is not a walk.
It is a very perilous and dangerous journey that they are about to
embark on. I wish them all the support
we can and Godspeed as they go to climb
* * *
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, do I have leave for a
nonpolitical statement? [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand today to
recognize the accomplishments of a group of students from my constituency.
On April 29, 1992, the
The winning team from Silver Heights Collegiate was comprised
of Geoff King, Rick Moore, Kaj Hasselriis and Mike Van de Vijsel, and was
coached by Mr. Ron Baillie. The team
alternates were Yaw Amoah‑Gyampoh, Jason Cook, Robyn Holmes and Kelly
Cassidy, who have provided intense daily practice for the team and will likely
comprise the team for the school next year.
The
I would ask that the members of the House join with me in
wishing the Silver Heights Reach for the Top team the best of luck in the
Canadian championships next month and in their future competitions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the
honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement? [Agreed]
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to rise today and pay tribute to
the two Manitobans who have been awarded the Order of Canada in this country
and announced yesterday in
Fred Penner has been appointed to the Order of
The concert was terrific.
I think the adults enjoyed it even more than the children. He has a special infectious quality that has
been passed on to families right across
I also know that the Cat's Meow Band that performs with Fred
Penner is a terrific band. It is made
up, of course, of Manitobans. Gordie
Osland, of course, is the executive director of the Children's Festival. In fact, I think part of the concert this
weekend was going to the Manitoba Children's Festival schedule in June of this
year.
Many other members of the band, of course, have tremendous
musical reputations as well as their reputations in performing for children
right across, as I say, this continent.
So congratulations to the Happy Feet of Fred Penner and his musical
talent and to members of his band for this great achievement, the Order of
I also want to pay tribute to Arthur Braid. Arthur Braid has been a long‑time crusader
on behalf of law, on behalf of scholarship and scholars, on behalf of teaching
at the university, and he has been very, very involved as the president of the
Canadian Paraplegic Association and vice‑chancellor of the Diocese of
Rupertsland.
Many members of this Legislature will know Arthur Braid. He has been a member of the Board of
Governors at the
He has been involved constantly in the formulation of law, the
formulation of policies and the presentation of briefs and legal advice at
committee hearings. So congratulations
to two great Manitobans on their award of the Order of
* * *
*
(1430)
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave for a
nonpolitical statement? [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker, my message is not going to be quite as happy as
the message that we just received from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer).
As I was reading my newspaper today, I read of the death of
Brian Pockar. Brian Pockar is a figure
skater, or was a figure skater and was a Canadian champion for a number of
years. He died today of AIDS, which is
beginning to strike all of us.
I have to say this was the first time it struck me
personally. I taught Brian when he was a
little boy, but more importantly, I remember Brian skating at the Winter Club
when my children were out there on their skates, pretty wobbly.
Brian was one of those young figure skaters, and they are not
always like this, less concerned with his own development than he was with the
whole beauty and art of figure skating.
I remember him many days coming by and picking up Jenny and putting her
back on her skates so that she could make another circle around the rink or
doing the same to Cathi when she failed as well.
He was a very bright boy, very bright. He had tremendous intellectual capacity, at
one point considered seriously becoming a doctor but then became so involved in
the pursuit of his athletic career that his academics were put on hold while he
did pursue that career and was extremely successful.
I think it is important for all of us in the House today to
recognize that AIDS is very much with us.
It is something that each and every one of us has to deal with on a
personal basis as to our attitudes towards it, but now we are also having to
deal with it on a personal basis, as those whom we know and care about find
that their lives have been taken because of this dreadful disease.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), 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.
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
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
HEALTH
*
(1440)
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Bob Rose): Order, please. 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 the Department of
Health.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 4.
Provincial Mental Health Services, (a) Administration: on page 85 of the Estimates book.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
I am wondering if the minister could indicate when that might
now be taking place since it did not happen today.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, late yesterday
afternoon it was drawn to our attention that not all the members of the Urban
Hospital Council would be present today.
Given that it was the first announcement and had some potential impact
on the Urban Hospital Council, it was decided to defer the meeting until Wednesday
of next week and that is when it has been rescheduled for.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I do not
want to take up a lot of time on this, but I am trying to figure out just where
the community health assessment fits into this process. The Wolseley residents committee is involved
in some sort of health task force and doing a community assessment. Will the recommendations coming out of the
Urban Hospital Council with respect to the Misericordia be it all made pending
the findings of this community committee or how do the two processes fit together?
Mr. Orchard: Well, in
many ways the two processes do not fit together as currently envisioned. When we established the Urban Hospital
Council and tasked a number of specific issues to them, the process was to
involve issue identification, government Urban Hospital Council members,
striking of investigation groups, task force working groups to come around the
issue, hopefully bringing together a significant amount of expertise around the
issue and then make recommendations to the Urban Hospital Council, which would
then choose to pass it on to government.
It was at the time that government makes the recommendation
that we would have to consider public input into the decision‑making
process. At the time there was no
specific forum and given the amount of discussion around the two issues in
terms of Misericordia specifically, like the emergency room operating hours was
one issue that was often advanced and the second one being the acute
psychiatric beds.
The Wolseley Residents' Association called a meeting in the
area to try and get some thought process around that. I was not at that meeting, I was unable to
attend but my deputy attended. I believe following that, not prior to, I had a
meeting. Following the public meeting, we had a meeting of myself, my deputy
with the some of the key members of the Wolseley Residents' Association. From that, and they expressed some of the
concerns because they did not appreciate that without a report from the Urban Hospital
Council there was a lot of speculation around what was going to happen. With speculation usually only a part of the
information is available and usually it is the most alarming part.
When they saw that there was a lot more balance to the process,
then their perception was, I think it is fair to say, they then wanted to know
what role an association like theirs might have in terms of community
involvement and community discussion of the issue.
That is being explored and the proposal that I think has come
back is one of a community health assessment.
Right now, there is a proposal that has been made to see whether we can
support them with funding, and right now I have not made a decision on that, or
government has not made a decision on that.
That is sort of where we are at, and I guess the Wolseley
Residents' Association, as I indicated after the first meeting‑‑I
mean, I can remember that association going back to, save the Wolseley elms,
back in my quite substantial youth many years ago. This is an association that has had a
considerable amount of longevity, and for government to undertake a discussion
process with them, there is some legitimate approach, and‑‑I am
looking for the right words‑‑a legitimate request can be made.
Where I am concerned is that this will set an example where
every community will then ask government, give us money and we will take on an
assessment, and there is really no end to the bounds of that. The Wolseley Residents' Association, as I
say, has history. Many organizations
might come forward without the same focus on the community, without the same
longevity. For instance, what would we
do with the City Council structure of the‑‑I do not know what the
right name is‑‑the community committees?
I could not entertain a request from community committees to
undertake such a study. Before I accede
to this‑‑and I want to accede to this request by the Wolseley
Residents' Association because of their history‑‑I am careful that
we do not create expectations that groups can come to government expecting
fundings based on a precedent, but clearly, to answer my honourable friend's
question, a year ago, had you asked how the Wolseley Residents' Association
might fit in this, I would have said I do not know.
Today, they want their part.
They want to understand the issue from the fullest standpoint; in other
words, from what the challenges are behind government and what government's
overall plan is so they can offer critique as to where its strengths and
weaknesses are, where it can fit or not fit and hopefully influence the
decision of government in the longer haul.
I believe there is an understanding that some of these current
issues are maybe beyond the ability because of an agenda that has been well
established beyond the ability of the health study to influence, but their
approach is to take a look at the community in terms of the context of the
reform of the health care system. It is
from that standpoint that I do see a purpose, but I do not know what the bounds
are of who you would fund, how you would set up criteria to make decisions, and
that is why to date no decision has been made.
I think my honourable friend can see the kind of potential
quagmire of requests that government could find themselves in if you accede to
one group which I do not think anybody in this room would say does not have
longevity and legitimacy and have done a lot of things for that community. I have been in politics long enough to know
that the first exception is the precedent, and that is what I am trying to get
my mind around.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: The
minister may not have acceded to any clear commitment to fitting the
recommendations of this community health assessment into government decision
making, but the government did accede to providing some dollars, as I
understand it, to this community committee for a health needs assessment. I may be wrong or maybe that is still on.
Mr. Orchard: The
proposal was there and it has been taken seriously enough to be advanced to
myself, and I have questions around it before I can give the final approval.
My honourable friend seems to be indicating there is an
expectation that it is a done deal, and if that is the case, no, not yet, and
for the reasons that I have specified, not the fact that they could not do a
very good service to the community and assist government in many ways. It is a brand new venture and I want to have
parameters around it so that we just simply do not open the floodgates.
*
(1450)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Two
quick questions then. By when will the
minister make a decision with respect to funding for the Wolseley Residents'
Association, and, secondly, when does the minister now anticipate an
announcement from the Urban Hospital Council pertaining to the Misericordia
situation?
Mr. Orchard: On the
first question, with Wolseley Residents' Association, as soon as possible, but
I will be very blunt. Estimates and a number of other agendas have not allowed
us a full discussion around the precedent that we may be setting and how we
contain requests like that.
As soon as we get a little freed‑up time, we will be able
to make that decision fairly quickly. As
I indicated, I think there is some acceptance by the Wolseley residents
committee that government, in terms of its planning agenda and the work that
has been done on a number of the issues, particularly the psychiatric bed
issue, will have to make its own decisions, so that their input at this late
stage of the game‑‑I do not think they are expecting that they
would have the opportunity to influence the decision, but guide the
implementation possibly or show the weaknesses of where some of the community
planning comes in, but to fundamentally impact on the decision, no.
Second question, it is anticipated that the rescheduled Urban
Hospital Council meeting for Wednesday next will present the recommendations
around the psych beds for the city of
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I just
want to get a sense of timing of a number of announcements that the minister
has indicated he will be making. There
is some indication, I think, from the minister that he would be by next week
announcing some overall hospital policy or health reform policy generally. Is that still coming next week, or if not,
when?
Mr. Orchard:
Hopefully next week, and I say that because I think that may well be
achievable. I wanted to have that done a
month ago, and it has consumed an enormous amount of time developing such a
proposal, but we are very close to having that completed, and I am hopeful that
next week is the time when we can make the discussion paper and the action plan
very public.
I simply say to my honourable friend that unforeseens may
derail that, but it is my intention or my wish that we be able to do that next
week.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: While we
are on unforeseens, would the minister be able to tell us today when we might
see the capital estimates?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, I
can do that. I was thinking we might
pass Mental Health, and then we could get into the discussion, because I was
expecting this discussion when we hit the next line.
A series of dynamics in terms of the internal planning, and I
am going to make a proposition to both my critics, and I will make sure my
second critic can‑‑I am going to make a proposition. The sense that I have is that we are winding
down Estimates, okay? I am not going to
be able to present the capital budget by Monday if that was the anticipated day
when we might complete Estimates.
The proposal that I would make is that we deal with the capital‑‑and
I have some logistical problems that are going to make the end of May the time
when I think I am going to have the capital budget. I will explain why‑‑and would it
fit that we deal with the capital budget in concurrence motion? If that does not fit, I would suggest that
what we could consider is passing the Estimates, and leave only my Minister's
Salary open, and come back with capital estimates for a debate on my Minister's
Salary and at the end of May when I expect to have capital planning developed,
the reform paper, the reform agenda, will be there and it would open up a
discussion for that as well, if my honourable friends want to. I simply say, that despite efforts, I will
not have capital program for Monday. The
sense that I was getting was that we would probably wind up the Estimates
process.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Let me
indicate that we will have to, at least from my perspective, want to think
about this and I will want to talk to my caucus colleagues about it. I have to say that just when I had thought we
could see the light at the end of the tunnel and we would be out of this awful
process, I am not very excited about having to reopen all of this at the end of
May, but I certainly will report back to my caucus that you do not expect the
capital estimates to be ready until the end of May and that you are offering
either the option of dealing with it in concurrence or keeping the Minister's
Salary open, that line open, and dealing with it in May. Okay.
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think from my
point of view and our caucus's point of view it will be good to have a
committee and debate when we have a health care reform as we are with capital
funding, but certainly I have to still check with caucus because I do not have
the privilege or right to make those decisions.
I do not want to pretend that I do have, but certainly from a health care
point of view probably it will make more sense if we can have both at the same
time and then probably we may need some more time. If you are going to discuss the health care
reform and if the package is going to come, I think that will be a good way of opening
up the discussion and give us some more time rather than only a short time in
Question Period. I would have no
difficulty. It could be politically
dangerous for the minister, but I think it will be good for us.
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, look, I fully recognize that a month from now it
could be a significantly more disadvantageous time for me to return to ask for
my salary as a line of debate. Let me
just tell you two things.
I did not do this with deliberation. We have been working on the reform paper and
I simply tell you that is the major reason why my deputy, for instance, has not
been at Estimates because he has been significantly involved in that. It has been a considerably greater consumer
of all of our time and that is one of the reasons for the delay around the
consideration of the capital estimates.
But also, I will tell you straight out, capital estimates, because we
have changed the location, you will recall a discussion we got into about why
the capital planning is in Healthy Public Policy and not attached to the
commission.
The reason was that when attached to the institutional side it
was institutional driven. Moving it out,
we have changed and we have challenged a number of proponents of capital
projects to rethink the context from a system‑wide standpoint because of
where we are coming from, from a system‑wide standpoint. That has added the second element of delay.
The capital estimates that I hope to present will show a
greater direction than what they have in the past of sort of renewing
facilities when the time expired, et cetera, et cetera. There will be a much
greater, I think, degree of clarity in the capital estimate presented a month
from now in the context of the reform of the health care system and some of the
changes that we envision happening over the next couple of years. I think the document will be much more
relevant to the future of health care than it would be if I was to rush one
through.
I can tell you quite frankly that what I considered doing was
simply bringing in a capital document that had two or three changes in it only
and nothing else, and everything else on pause, without context of balance and
explanation behind it. All that would
have done was raised a whole series of questions, why, why, why, which I would
not be prepared to answer as fully as I think I will be able to be prepared to
answer come the end of the month. So
there was not anything deliberate.
*
(1500)
I will tell you the other side.
Even though it is a political downside for me to reopen Health Estimates
after a discussion paper on reform is public and been around for a couple or
three weeks, it also allows us to talk about where it is right and where it is
wrong. I have said it, and I have had a
number of meetings around the issue with professional groups and others, that,
and I would say it to them very directly, health care is changing, and many of
us recognize that. I mean, it was
recognized yesterday in the presentation.
Things are going to change in the health care system.
We believe we have put together an appropriate amount of
underpinning to guide the change. I do
not recognize, and I do not ever confess that what we propose will be flawless
and universally agreed to, but what I have said to those who may well disagree
with the process is I am listening, but not just for disagreement but for a
suggestion as to how to do it differently and accomplish the same thing.
Even though it is a political downside for me, it is also a
political upside for me in that I am going to challenge critics, both of you
and your respective parties, that if you do not like what is happening, let us
get around to talking about what we should do.
If your suggestion is better than what we have been able to put
together, I have not hesitated to accept that, but it is a debate that will not
be just a hair pull. I am not even
concerned about that, but I would far sooner have my Estimates done with,
rather than come back.
If that is a proposal that both critics could take back to
their respective caucuses, I have talked to my House leader, and he agrees with
either process, either dealing with it on the concurrence motion or leaving the
salary open and then coming back and debating it then. It does not matter to him which way, and so I
can say the proposal I make, either one that is accepted by the opposition
parties will be acceptable to us.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think that will give us a good opportunity to put
our views on the record also. My only concern is time, how much time will be
given, if the House leaders can work that out.
Also, I think if there was a possibility of the package being
released in advance so that other people in terms of professionals and groups
can come and participate and the media will have the opportunity more to
scrutinize the whole process, and they can also develop their viewpoint, which
is going to be a very important point of view‑‑how the message will
go across. I think that will be very
positive for the taxpayers.
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, we could not open up this committee to public input,
but clearly, by the time‑‑let us say that it is the end of May or
towards the end of May when we revisit the Estimates, by then I would expect at
least three weeks of public discussion around the reform paper, so that those
opinions will be out there and could be discussed in this committee amongst the
two critics and myself.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Back to
Mental Health Services, I would like to get an understanding of this
organizational chart of who is who. I
know that Mr. Toews is ADM for this whole area.
I understand that John Ross is an executive director. Could the minister clarify for what?
Mr. Orchard: Well,
you might recall that Richard Voss has taken about a 20‑month, or
thereabouts, contract with the government of
We are into a very, very advanced workload in mental health
reform. We could not leave that position
open for a period of time, and, fortunately, Mr. Ross accepted the challenge,
came over and is occupying that position.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, I believe Mr. Ross was in Family Services. My question is just simply, what experience
or background does he have in the whole mental health field?
Mr. Orchard: Program
experience, of course, came from the regional, because he served both Health
and Family Services in regional services planning, but management skills were
equally as important to us in having the individual in the job.
As I said, in the competition from which Mr. Voss was selected,
it was a close competition with not all that much to choose between the two, so
moving over, we did not compromise the role and the undertaking. We had two very competent candidates.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: The
minister had suggested a little while ago that if I had concerns about the
cross‑cultural counselling unit, that I should raise them again at this
point, so I would like to do that briefly.
Since our last discussion, I understand that there has been in
fact a decision made with respect to not a direct financial contribution from
the government to the cross‑cultural counselling unit but, in fact, a
secondment of an individual from the department to this program for a
considerable period of time.
I am wondering why that decision was made. What kind of cost‑effective analysis
was applied in that decision? What will
it mean for the program?
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are working with
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Is the
minister saying that no decision has been made with respect to moving a person
from the Mental Health Division, from his department, to Mount Carmel Clinic
for purposes of co‑ordinating the cross‑cultural counselling unit?
Mr. Orchard: That is
what I am saying. The proposal is under
discussion.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, could the minister indicate, as part of that
proposal, who the individual is and what salary he or she is now making.
*
(1510)
Mr. Orchard: No, I
cannot, and even if I knew that I am not going to indicate that today because
we are in discussions and negotiations.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Could
the minister indicate if he will provide us with some information once the
decision is made in terms of the individual, the terms of the agreement and an
analysis from the point of view of cost‑effectiveness? I am thinking specifically in terms of a
fairly small grant request from this unit for helping them make a transition
between no funding to United Way funding as opposed to a fairly, what I
understand, high‑paid civil servant being moved over to this program.
Mr. Orchard: I will
provide the details of the arrangement when we complete them.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Just one
more question on the cross‑cultural counselling unit. The last time we discussed this, there was
clearly a difference of opinion and we were operating from different
perspectives around what had transpired over the last number of months or the
last year or so. It was my understanding
based on letters from the Mount Carmel Clinic Board and from discussions with
people in the field that, in fact, there had been information passed to the
department as early as the fall of 1991 and that there were discussions at the
branch level and that there in fact was a proposal put forward from the branch
to the minister for consideration of some sort of funding either on an interim
basis or an ongoing basis.
Has the minister reviewed that situation? Can he indicate if that was the case?
Mr. Orchard: I am
told that we were not considering provincial funding until a meeting that was
held on January 22, 1992.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Well, I
am not going to pursue it. Obviously, the part of my question concerning
discussions taking place between the department and the program as early as the
fall of 1991, the minister is going to ignore that part of it. I will not pursue it at this point. I do not think it really matters except I
think it is important to not discredit any community group and to indicate that
they were fairly rigorous about informing the government of their situation and
seeking funding at the earliest possible opportunity.
I would like to ask just a couple of questions about the issue
I was pursuing the other day and then make a suggestion that I had hinted at
earlier. I went back to review material
in this whole area of mental health services because of the attack I was under
by both the Minister of Health and the Liberal Health critic about my questions
pertaining to optimum number of beds and sort of an overall framework for
making health care reform decisions.
Under such an attack, I start to question myself and wonder if
maybe I have been off base and not retaining information very well, but upon
pursuing numerous studies in this field, I realized that what I was asking for
was not at all out of line or out of question, that it was very much a part of
any planning process around health care reform.
Every study I looked at talked about determining what is an appropriate
number of beds in an ideal situation with the proper community supports in
place and proper dispersal of those beds across regional lines.
Those numbers vary. I
know from studies in the
This MHO report talks about what is an ideal number of beds per
capita. It talks about the ideal number
of psychiatrists for a population base, it makes all kinds of recommendations
and suggestions for further study to get at that information. I want the record to show for the benefit of
both the Minister of Health and for the Liberal Health critic that it is a
reasonable and sensible way to go. It is
not ludicrous or silly or frivolous for anyone to be asking these kinds of
questions and to be suggesting that the department has this kind of base
information before it pursues a major task such as mental health reform.
I would assume that in fact the department has such
undertakings and some base‑line information and should be able to tell us
the current state of affairs with respect to beds and patients, where they are
at, what their needs are right now. Under ideal situations, with proper
community supports and dispersement of beds and services throughout a province,
like
I am not about to now ask for all that information. However, I think it would be useful for the
minister to provide us with the precise number of beds now, optimal number of
beds based on the department's studies, precise number of psychiatrists per
population now, ideal ratio between psychiatrists and population, the types of
support services that should be part of any kind of health care reform program,
the gaps in programs right now, the recidivism rates of mental health patients,
and on and on and on. Instead of asking
all of that, I would make the following suggestion. We have all received questions provided by
the Canadian Mental Health Association for the purposes of helping us through
this Estimates process and giving us some suggestions.
They have sent these questions to all of us including the
minister. In the interest of saving time
and pursuing this whole area in a constructive way, I would ask the minister if
he could provide us with a written response to all of those questions as soon
as it is possible from the department's workload point of view.
Mr. Orchard: When did
that survey come in?
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: You mean
the request, the questions‑‑April 23. It is very recent.
Mr. Orchard: I have
to tell my honourable friend I have not seen the survey, but normally we try to
reply to those surveys. I have no hesitation
in making my honourable friends part of the reply that we would make back to
the Canadian Mental Health Association.
Mr. Cheema: I wanted
to ask some questions on the same survey, but I think it will be best that way,
because each and every member does have the copies‑‑if the minister
would make the efforts through his department to get to some of the real
numbers and some of the answers the Mental Health Association is seeking, and
if we could also get copies of those surveys.
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, I presume each political party is to reply, and no
doubt they would give me the same courtesy of having the ministry availed of
the wisdom of their reply in the surveys as well. I am willing to share our thinking, if you
can share yours.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Maybe
the minister did not understand the actual question and suggestion. This is actually a set of questions that is
prepared every year for all of us to help us through the Estimates
process. They are questions directed in
terms of the department's activities, and normally we would have the time and
advance notice to be able to go through these questions to pick and choose and
ask the minister directly for verbal response.
In the interest of saving time, given where we are at in Estimates, my
suggestion is that the minister take a look at this and wherever possible,
where the information exists and it is not a problem for him, to give us the
written response to each of those questions rather than us taking up the time
now to do it.
Mr. Cheema: I would
agree with the member for
*
(1520)
So probably for us to go through all of them, if we have the
time, I think we would love to do it, because it is quite important for them to
know how the reform is coming along. I
am sure the minister would like to have our views. They are well known, they are all over the
place, and we are not going to change them today or tomorrow. They will be there until we die probably.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I just wanted to add a couple of
comments. The member for
We are having a reform because those things are not
functioning. When you are reforming a
system, you want to reform to the best of your ability and be flexible and make
sure the patient care does not suffer.
That is the ideal situation. But
if somebody will be so ingenious as to give the numbers in reform, that person
probably will get the Order of Canada in health care in this country right
now. It is very difficult to find those
numbers.
We are talking about the mental health system. I am not talking about, in general, the
others, and there is other data available.
The member for
So how do you reform?
Reform has to have real meaning attached to it. That means consultation. That means making tough choices. That means being flexible. That means being practical. That means having a look at the ability of the
taxpayer to pay for the cost. I think
those things have to be taken into account.
I just want to add those comments.
My question is, the one I was asking the other day on the
These are the group home health care providers for the mentally
ill patients. They have a very serious
concern and a very realistic one, and I would like the minister's staff to
review those concerns because‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson‑‑
An Honourable Member: What is the date on that?
Mr. Cheema: The date
is March 11.
In fact, I met with the group the other day, and their concern
is a very real one. The concern is that
they have patients‑‑how you want to call them?‑‑clients,
whatever name you want to give them. I
do not want to alienate any group, naming specific patients, but certainly,
with the number of patients they are taking care of in their homes, there are
certain difficulties they are experiencing.
Specifically why I am saying that right now is because, when the system
is going to be reformed in that area, a number of patients who are already
within the system, are going to go into the community to some extent.
If there is already a problem within the system, I think we
should correct it and make sure that some of the major issues are respite care,
hiring and firing people, quality control and assurance of mental health
services, issues of backup system, issues of the crisis centre, issues in terms
of providing security to the individuals who are going to be providing the
care, whether they are going to get some kind of training.
Those are very, very real issues, and I would ask the minister,
his staff, to meet with the group. They
are not complaining. They are, they
were, working on a nonpolitical basis.
That is why they have sent to all of us.
I took the opportunity to meet with them, and I made a commitment that I
will discuss the issue. We do not want
to make any negative impact out of that.
I think we have to look at the problems and try to solve them,
specifically the regional Manitoba health council, have a look at the letter
and try to meet with the group and see what can be done right now. I think that will help, and they will feel
more comfortable. There are a lot of
patients they have in their care, a lot of them, I think about 60 or 65,
probably more, but that is only one group.
They may have more patients in their care.
I can give a copy of the letter to the minister and ask them to
have a look at the system. I think that
will help to come to grips with some of the changing needs of these patients,
especially in that area and specifically in those communities where it is not
easy for them to, in the case of urgent need, go to a given hospital and get
the treatment; for example, somebody in Dauphin or other places where
eventually the patient has to be moved.
If you do not have a backup system, you do not have a special
client‑oriented system, then we will have problems. It will probably take one or two patients to
really go into the situation and then quote, unquote, the mental health system.
The interest groups will be very upset, and that may cause some
problem, but that can be improved. The
time is there. I do not think we have
lost any time. That can be
corrected. If it is possible for even
the minister's office to be in touch with them and meet with the group, that is
a major group. They are not just one or
two individuals.
The families who are involved in their care are also concerned
because of the many issues that are involved.
As I said, the emergency care, the respite care and then, for example,
if somebody has a mentally ill patient in their home for 365 days a year, it is
very tough for them to continue to provide care. If they have to hire somebody
else, how do they do it? Secondly, what
kind of requirements are going to be put in place, and thirdly, what kind of
training?
When are you going to release more clients into the community,
there has to be some kind of training or some kind of expert opinion available
as a backup system within the community, especially during the week after five
o'clock, or weekends, or nights, there have to be crisis lines where they can
reach and ask for simple advice.
That would be helpful because sometimes patients get very
aggressive, and things can really get worse.
I think that would be one pitfall if‑‑and not only
specifically with this group home system, but anything else. I think that needs to be looked at. I am sure
the Regional Mental Health Council are probably already doing it, but I am not
aware of that. If they can get in touch
with this group, that would be very, very valuable.
I will get the copy both to the minister's office‑‑
Mr. Orchard: Just to
let my honourable friend know, the letter was referred to the regional council
with the hope that they would meet. I do
not know whether they have been able to arrange the meeting, but, yes, we take
those concerns quite seriously because, I guess it is fair to say, we are not
dealing with oftentimes easy to manage situations.
It is going to present, in my opinion, quite a different
challenge than, for instance, respite care for seniors in the long‑term
care program. There gets to be
significant comfort around familiar surroundings for someone with mental
illness who is living in the community, and a disruption of that can be pretty
traumatic and difficult to handle.
I guess what we are trying to do is develop a common‑sense
approach to handle the issues, to provide that kind of support with a
sensitivity around how difficult it may be to manage in some individual cases.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, this is not one or two cases, and these are patients
who are in the community already. Some
of the patients are going to be released into the community when you are going
to have changes at the Brandon Mental Health Centre.
These individuals are not negative or they are not critically
oriented. I want to make it very
clear. They just came to us because we
were the first ones. We just made a call
and we made an effort for them to come and speak to us so that we can get a
first‑hand idea. It was knowledge
for me even personally to know that such and such things were happening.
*
(1530)
They are concerned, and they said that they would like to have
an input. They do not want to be
negative. They want to have an input and
want to make it clear. There is no way
we want to alienate a major group and put them in "a political
spectrum" which they do not want.
Mr. Orchard: No, I do
not take my honourable friend's discussion to lead there at all. You are pointing out a recognition of an
issue and a challenge that we need to get discussions and hopefully some
resolution of. I mean, that is very
appropriate.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the minister tell us how they are going to deal
with the mentally ill patients in the acute situation in some of the rural
hospitals and some of the northern areas?
How are we going to have a system that will not only meet the acute care
needs which it has not been met in the past, not a fault of a specific government,
but the way the system was put in place because of the shortage of health care
professionals, because of the shortage of no continuity of care because there
was no community backup system, how those things are coming along? How does the government view their own policy
would change the major flaws in the system?
Mr. Orchard: We
discussed the issue briefly the other day when the member for
In general terms, I think the way we see the opportunities
unfolding is that in certain hospitals serving a region, there could well be a
legitimate opportunity that could be met with the designation of several beds
in a facility. The designation of the
beds is one thing. It is the care that
you are able to provide is the second area.
In that regard, we are approaching through, specifically, the
human resources committee that we have working with the ministry. We have a number of areas where we are
undertaking discussion. One of them, for
instance, deals with family practitioners, general practitioners, and an
opportunity to access six months to a year.
I will not tie myself down to the months, but basically an opportunity
for a family practitioner, general practitioners, to have upgrading in terms of
their ability in psychiatry, so you would have a generalist specialist concept.
As well, I see a role for the psychologist profession, and I
also see a role for‑‑and this is very futuristic‑‑but
for a baccalaureate‑prepared RPN, because we are working with the
association over the next period of time on curriculum development of the two‑year
RPN program and a baccalaureate four‑year prepared program.
Now I am not narrowing the opportunities to that, but those are
some of the immediate directions that are being envisioned so that you will
have the combination of the opportunity for acute admissions, but that by
itself does not solve the problem unless you have the ability to assist the
individual while admitted. The three options are being discussed right now at
human resources committee and other options may well be pursued from that
committee and from ongoing discussions the department has.
Mr. Cheema: I just
want to touch the issue of the mix of services in terms of the practitioners,
the mental health workers, plus the RPN program to which the minister has
already made a commitment. The issue‑‑the
minister also gave statistics, and that was, I think, a few weeks or months
ago. It was said that 70 to 75 percent
of mental health problems, through the Health Services Commission data, are
seen by general practitioners.
There is a less amount of problems seen by the specialists, and
they are seeing more acute and more complicated cases and setting up a system
where the general practitioners in the rural communities and northern
communities will have upgrading, six months or one year. I know the program is being evolved because I
am practically part of that program already, personally.
We have functioned out of
I would encourage the minister to set up a program. I understand so far that the rural
communities are being considered, but we as a professional group have also made
a representation that the people who are already within the system in the city
of Winnipeg should be given opportunity.
Some individuals we have, I would not say myself, but other people have
done more work than us for even eight or 10 years, specifically working on a
basis that is very, very cost effective on a sessional basis or a fee for
service and has not caused the problem of shortage of specialists in any way.
What has been happening right now, the psychiatrists who work
within the hospital system, their fee schedules are very low as compared to
somebody where they have to perform more work and more responsibility as compared
with outside the system. But then you
have this backup or the general practitioner‑specialist system that has
been acting as a bridge for a long time.
To reinforce that, to make it more logical and academic, you have to
have a special qualification. I think
those things will be very helpful if the program can start it, and, as far as I
can tell, it is supposed to, sometime in June or July of this year. Then it can be done on a long‑term
basis so that you do not interrupt the pattern of practices. People can come and spend time and get their
training, and then they have to pass the exam and get accreditation.
It can be achieved even in the
We are not seeing major problems within the system as long as
you have a back‑up system. It
cannot totally replace what is important, but at least one can substitute and
one can complement, if that is the right word, and that has been
functioning. Other jurisdictions are
having a good look at the system because they are working for anesthesia, they
are working for gynecology, and now it is working for psychiatry. So we will ask the minister to look into that
in a serious way and make it possible.
I may have interest, not a monetary gain here, but interest
that some individual I have worked with for five years, six years, we are doing
calls that the other individuals are doing on a regular basis, and doing the
same work, and it has been very, very effective. I was told the
*
(1540)
Mr. Orchard: I think
that is accurate, and there is another avenue that certainly within the
ministry we think is important to pursue and that is a liaison between
psychologists and general practitioners.
It appears to me that without the necessity of the general practitioner
doing an upgrade, there can be developed, on the basis of regional availability
of staff, a working relationship outside the city of Winnipeg with
psychologists and general practitioners who can work as a pretty effective
team, so that is why I mentioned that relationship in my earlier answer as well
as the upgrade and the baccalaureate program for RPNs.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the minister tell us what kind of model‑‑I
do not want to pre‑empt the whole process‑‑they are having a
look at in terms of providing counselling services where you do not need a
general practitioner, you do not need a psychiatrist. You simply need a mental health worker, and
setting up a system in a given community to provide those kinds of services.
Mr. Orchard: I do not
think we can say anybody's model is particularly the one we are working towards
achieving. I guess you would have to say
it is a made‑in‑Manitoba model, building on a community mental
health worker now and, as the process matures, having a greater opportunity for
liaison and working relationships with other trained disciplines, as we have
discussed already in terms of the general practitioner, psychology and
baccalaureate RPNs several years down the road when that program as we
anticipate becomes a reality.
I guess we have not varied in our thinking from our original
presentation that we made back in fall of '88 with the first discussion paper
in terms of the multidisciplinary team approach, because I think one of the
clear‑‑and my honourable friend has alluded to the success of the
thinking, this is not an accurate statement, this is a general statement I am
making. There has been a tendency in the
past for mental illnesses of all severity to access the system at the most
professionally trained point, the psychiatrist.
That seems to have been a tendency in the past, and, clearly, successful
mental health systems that we have seen have varying points of entry for
individuals depending on the severity of their illness. We do not always need to have the advice of
the most highly trained professional to serve an individual's needs.
If fact, we probably waste professional expertise by having
them undertake service provision that others could very well provide in
certainly the opportunity for a more economic fashion, but certainly in a
service delivery environment closer to the individual's home, hence the
multidisciplinary team approach.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would like to ask the minister, has he or his
department reviewed the report from the Law Reform Commission about
sterilization in terms of the mentally incompetent patients?
Mr. Orchard: I am
going to get an answer, but I have not received any briefing.
My ADM thinks that Dr. Rodger may have taken a look at it, and
he is going to check and see whether he provided us with any written
advice. I did not receive any that I can
remember, but I appreciate I get a chunk of correspondence through the
office. I am not always up to speed on
varying recommendations, but I do not recall any coming in from the perspective
of the ministry. We will check and see.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is a very controversial issue and very, very
critically tough, and I would like the minister to at least have somebody
review the whole thing and see, because when they asked for the review the then
Attorney General was Mr. Gerry Mercier, and I think he asked for the review at
that time.
It is a long, long process, for eight, 10 years these things
were going on, and certainly a report came back and as far as I could tell the
report was not very conclusive. They
left it open. They said that politicians
should be making the decision in the
My next question is in terms of the Mental Health Review
Board. Can the minister tell us what the
waiting period is now in terms of if somebody is applying to review their case
in front of the Mental Health Review Board?
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, with the only exceptions being adjournments that are
requested, all of our reviews are being accomplished within the 21 days. The only exemption that I am informed happens
is where there is a request for adjournment for reasons of, obviously they are
probably not prepared or whatever reason, and those take longer. Those go beyond the 21 days, but could be
scheduled. Like, the scheduling part of
it in getting the changes that we made, in terms of the roster system with the
legislation, had allowed us to achieve that 21‑day target that we had set
up.
Mr. Cheema: Can the
minister tell us, have they received any major complaints in regard to The
Mental Health Act, the new amendments?
Mr. Orchard: No, I
think that things are working fairly well.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is an indicator that things are
functioning. We just want to know that
what we did in this
Mr. Orchard: Well,
you know, my honourable friend brings up quite an interesting issue, because we
got into a fair little bit of controversy at the committee time. I guess, had my honourable friend not been
balanced in his view we might have pushed through some amendments that we were
not ready to bring through. Experience says that today it indicates that the
legislation as amended has worked reasonably well, and I am going to pre‑empt
my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), but as long as he does not
get tangled up in
*
(1550)
An Honourable Member: It is
already done.
Mr. Orchard: I tell
my honourable friend, our analysis is that the legislation he is bringing in is
very, very close to my honourable friend's proposal with the exception that you
might recall the issue in terms of The Mental Health Act of the next of kin.
We have added an amendment that we believe meets with the
concerns that were expressed last year at committee stage, so that the
potential for the issue arising that was identified last year should be
mitigated against with Mr. McCrae's legislation.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, one very important question and very practical one
is: Can the minister tell us through his
staff is each and every patient when they are admitted to a psych unit being
read their rights?
Do we have a person in each and every hospital from the
hospital's point of view that it may be their responsibility? I think we should make sure that patients are
given a full reading about their rights and their responsibilities under The
Mental Health Act, because some patients have complained and this is a
practical problem. I think it should be
looked at.
Mr. Orchard: I cannot
answer that today, but we will check and endeavour to provide that answer.
Mr. Cheema: I am not
aware whether that is a part of each and every hospital's policy. They may do that, but whether that is to some
extent if the patient is asking, but the policy should be that to each and
every patient who is admitted to the psych unit should know what their rights
are in terms of The Mental Health Act.
It may have some problem in the beginning, but it will avoid a
lot of problems for the staff and for the patients and for the advocacy groups,
so they understand what is and what is not possible, and so they can have
access to services, because after five o'clock they do not have access to any
services and that is a major problem.
Mr. Orchard: Chair
recommendation.
Mr. Cheema: I think
my next question is not on mental health, but I just wanted to take the
opportunity to ask about the issue of the LPNs report yesterday that the member
for
Mr. Orchard: I met
with the president and the executive director of the association yesterday
afternoon. Their report is wanting a
response from government by May 1. I
indicated that I simply was unable to accede to that. From some of the reasons behind our‑‑the
reason why I have not been able to get a capital budget that I am comfortable
with presenting at the Estimates time, and I am going to try to‑‑well,
I told them we would respond to their report as quickly as we could get
appropriate staff and have our appropriate discussions.
At the same time, there is a report that has come out of
Education and Training which has some suggestions and some observations that we
want to have an understanding of in terms of balancing a response to the LPN
association report.
Mr. Cheema: So the
minister is saying that it will take a few more weeks to have a formal response
to the association, and if the minister would not mind sending a copy of that
response to us also so that we would have some answer to our questions.
Mr. Orchard: Yes, I
want to try to give them some kind of direction and response. As well, you know the issue came up about the
moratorium at
Mr. Cheema: I think
one issue the minister can at least communicate to the hospitals is that they
are trying to streamline their budgets, but when they are doing that, some of
the positions which were occupied by the LPNs are now being taken by the health
care aide workers and that is an major concern.
It may look good for the short term from a financial point of view‑‑I
would not say very good but look comparatively good‑‑but in the
long run are those things going to be practical for the patients and their well‑being?
I think those things have to be clarified, and there has to be
direction from the minister's office making sure that the patient care should
not suffer at the expense of making those changes at a rate, or when we do not
know the outcome of so many health care reforms which are going to take
place. I will give an example. It is a good idea to put all the patients who
are panelled for a personal care home on one floor or put the patients for long‑term
care on one floor, and that will save a lot of staff. But, to replace every LPN with a health care
aide worker, or significant health care aide worker who are replacing LPNs or
they may seem to be replacing LPNs in the future, I think that is a realistic
fear.
(Mr.
Gerry McAlpine, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
The issue here is the LPNs have asked me and they said that we
do more than shake hands with the patient or talk to them. They said that we
are performing duties which are very valuable and they are doing it in the
North and other places where you do not have an RN and you do not have a doctor
so they are doing all this work.
So basically it is a question of demand and supply, but there
has to be some respect to their professional capabilities because if we do not
use those resources, do not use their skills, they are going to go away. That is a serious concern.
I understand within the hospital they have to make a decision,
but the government can send a strong message that just to save a few dollars in
certain circumstances may not be good in the future, and if, for example,
something goes wrong, then I think we will have a really terrible problem in
terms of explaining why such action was not taken.
As long as there is approach with more caution in terms of
approach with a more realistic view and approach to make sure patients best
interests are kept in mind, I think that kind of letter from the minister's
office to the institutions will be very helpful, will be reassuring to the LPNs
that government is not after their job, they simply want to reorganize the
system, and they have a role to play.
I think that is what the LPNs are saying, and they understand
the system is going to change and everybody else does understand, but I just
wanted to make sure that the minister's office has been aware of some of the
things which are happening and in terms of not only dealing with saving some of
the tax dollars, but also making sure that you do not end up in a tragedy.
*
(1600)
For example, a health care worker who has no qualification in
terms of dealing with the patient care, it could be very dangerous if there are
problems.
Mr. Orchard: Well,
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I accept my honourable friend's caution but, you
know, hopefully any decisions made in the staffing patterns by management will
have been carefully thought through, so that those sorts of circumstances are
not likely to emanate from those decisions.
Clearly the LPN today, if I could kind of reflect a general
impression, I think they are really struggling as to whether they have got any
friends anywhere. I mean, all of us have
had our discussions with the LPNs. They
are concerned about the support they have received from, for instance, the
union.
They are very concerned about that. Right or wrong, they have relayed to me that
they do not believe they have been supported adequately by the union. They make the case that in the workplace, the
registered nurses in the supervisory position have often made decisions that
they believe compromises their profession.
I guess, to put it bluntly, there is an awful lot of turf war dynamics
that is causing consternation amongst the LPNs.
I think it is fair to say they are questioning whether government
supports them, I support them as a professional care giver. Despite efforts to try and work through a
number of problems that are certainly complex, there is no one single solution
to some of the challenges that they face.
You know, there is even the impression, I think it is fair to
say, that they do not trust government.
They do not trust the registered nurse, they do not trust the union. They are really looking for someone who is
going to provide some answers. In
reality the association, I think, the leadership will take the issue on and try
to come up with a reasonable working plan that provides some guidance to their
membership and assures a place in the future for the LPN.
I have said I am willing to work with them in achieving those
kinds of goals. I indicated that to
them, you know, in the past. As with
most professional endeavours, there is a lot of work that has to be done by the
professional and their organization themselves to come to grips with
challenges.
Clearly the health care system is changing. There are financial pressures that were not
there before. Managers are making
decisions on the basis of that to the best of their ability and knowledge. We are into a dynamic of change. It is challenging, but it also is an
opportunity, if viewed appropriately, and the effort is made to work in the
context that change is going to happen and to make sure that you are part of
the change rather than affected by it and that is all.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Item 4.(a) Administration: (1) Salaries $396,800‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $132,000‑‑pass.
Item 4.(b)(1) Salaries $186,000‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $39,700‑‑pass.
Item 4.(c)(1) Salaries $1,052,800‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $1,483,500‑‑pass; (3) External Agencies $2,470,700‑‑pass;
(4) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations $502,700‑‑pass.
Item 4. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: (d)(1) Salaries $993,900‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $161,200‑‑pass.
Item 4.
Item 4. Selkirk Mental Health Centre: (f)(1) Salaries $15,943,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $2,546,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 68: RESOLVED
that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $45,677,600 for
Health, Provincial Mental Health Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31st
day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
Item 5. Health Services:
(a)(1) Salaries $214,500‑‑sorry.
Mr. Cheema: Did you
pass the Mental Health Services?
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): The item did not pass. Do you have a question, the honourable member
for The Maples?
Mr. Cheema: Yes, we
have lots of questions on this one.
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, can I take the opportunity to introduce Mr. Frank
deCock, Associate Deputy Minister of Health.
I think he is no stranger to the committee.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, my first question is in terms of‑‑we
have been from the beginning, and the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis)
was very anxious to know, and I am anxious now to know‑‑what is the
policy of this administration in terms of the funding to the hospitals and what
kinds of communications they have communicated to the hospitals so that the
hospitals can have their budget for next year?
*
(1610)
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, back about mid‑February we started discussions
with the hospitals and gave them verbal indication as to what they could expect
in terms of funding, hospital by hospital.
I am talking about major hospitals.
We did not do this with every facility in
Let us deal with the Urban Hospital Council membership hospital
by hospital. We indicated a commitment
which would cover existing contracts that had been negotiated, would give them
an indication of the new program, if any, that was approved institution by
institution and an indication on what kind of an increase budget on the supply
side that they could expect, but at that time there was no commitment in terms
of what we would provide in terms of funding for any new contract negotiations
that were going on.
Subsequent to those discussions, circa mid‑February, we
have had two things subsequent to that.
Bargaining mandate was given to the MHO on April 11, and within the last
10 days the Urban Hospital Councils themselves have received the formal
communication as to what the budget allocations will be to the Urban Hospital
Council members. Then we expect to have
written communication go out to the balance of our hospitals within the next
two weeks.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the minister tell us‑‑I mean, he has
said that they did not communicate as far as the new contracts are concerned,
but what commitment have they made in terms of the numbers for each and every
hospital? Can we go hospital by
hospital, starting with Concordia, Seven Oaks or
Mr. Orchard: I guess
I did not quite transmit the contents of the letter that went out in the last
10 days. With the verbal instruction
that went out mid‑February each hospital is developing their plan of
action around the expectations of funding that was communicated to them in mid‑February. The letters that have gone out in the last 10
days do not have the finalized numbers in them.
Is that fair? We are expecting plans
back, reaction back, from each institution.
We have discussed this issue because we knew that there would
be‑‑the indications I got from earlier on in the Estimates is that
each hospital was going to be asked, okay, what did they ask for, et
cetera. I am told by‑‑and
when I think about it, it is accurate.
We have not dealt with individual hospital budgets and requests. So what I would like to do, if this meets
with committee concurrence, is to indicate the level of funding last year that
we had committed and approved in the budget and the level of funding that we
are committing for this year, which includes capital, the total commitment, and
to indicate what we see today because, remember, we have not got final numbers
back from the hospitals in terms of what their year‑end reconciliations
are.
The best information that I want to share today is an
indication of what the level of deficits are in the hospitals. This is where I
think there has been maybe some confusion about what the level of funding
is. We are budgeting‑‑the
figure is about 6.1 percent more in our hospital line this year over last year,
and that is an expectation which is an amalgam of increases for known
contracts. Included in that is the
bargaining mandate that we gave on April 11, there is an estimate for a global
supply increase, and there is also the capital retirement cost of any
expansions that were commissioned in the last 12 months or that will go into
this year or be part of this year's operating budget in some of the
institutions.
So that 6.1 percent is roughly the $53‑million increase
in terms of budget request that we are asking approval on. The first call on that, it is fair to say,
will be the deficits that would have been incurred by the institutions.
We can give a global figure as to what we expect the deficits
across the hospital system to be, to give you an idea. That was what the information development was
to give us. That being the first call on
the budget, it will then have to be retired first, will give one the sense of
how much additional budget is there this year for the new and expanded purpose.
I am not sure whether we can give my honourable friend‑‑do
we have a total of what the original requests were? We have not seen those yet? We do not have them.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, in these 40 hours this was the question which led to
many, many more questions. I asked
simply one question. I think there are
many major issues here.
I would ask the minister, first of all, are they waiting for
their health care reform package? Is the
minister waiting for his reform policy before the major commitments are being
made? Is that the line they are taking, or they are just waiting for hospital
requests, and then they are going to base their decision based on the
recommendation they have given to the MHO in terms of the contract negotiations
and other expenditures and other operating grants?
There are too many things I am asking in one question, but
basically I want to know if they are going to be guided by the principle of
health care reform and when they are providing a specific budget to a given
hospital. Secondly, are we going to see
a health care reform package which will deal with the community hospitals as
well as the teaching hospitals at the same time?
Mr. Orchard: Okay, a
whole series of questions there. Basically, the communication that we gave to
the hospitals back in mid‑February indicated‑‑and that was
before. I believe we gave them that
indication before we presented the budget and the Estimates. So the verbal communication gave the best
indication that we could without compromising the budget as to how much our
budget was going to go up this year.
*
(1620)
Bear in mind, and this is where some of the confusion about
whether it was a $53‑million increase or only a $3 million or whatever
the numbers were, because deficits come out of any increase. That is the way the policy has always
operated. That is why I always indicated
to questioners, have you asked the other side of the question as to whether
there was a deficit?
Because that is first call and naturally‑‑let us
just pick a figure, let us say there was to be a $5‑million budgetary
increase to a hospital, and they finished the last fiscal year with a $3‑million
deficit. They would have $2 million
essentially of new money to spend, because the deficit would be retired
first. Conversely, any hospital that
finished the year with‑‑is it a 2 percent surplus?‑‑if
2 percent of their budget was in surplus, they would receive an increase and
keep the surplus for current year needs.
But the reform package, the reform paper is going to be across
the system. It is going to involve not
only the teaching hospitals, but community and rural in terms of how they will
fit in terms of serving patient needs in a reformed system. This does not pick one area of the health
care system and isolate it out. It tries
to link the system into service provision across the board.
Budget targets are one agenda item, the reform is a second
agenda item which complements and exceeds the budget. It is part of the budget, but it is not the
only thing driving the budget. The reform package will see institutions change
their service delivery over the next two years.
The budget process is one, the reform process is part of it and added to
it.
Mr. Cheema: I
remember 1988 and '89 when the first time in the Health Estimates, we were
discussing it. We went through the
Health Estimate line, this part of the line within half an hour, and we had to
face the minister for two years to say that we just spent $990 million within
half an hour. This time there are going
to be more questions asked.
The basic question here is still that the minister has not
answered, or probably I did not get it, the health care reform. When the
minister is saying the budget is a separate thing and the health care is a
separate thing, I want to know how the health care system is going to be
guided, either by the health care reform package as the major principal player
or is it going to be a budget of the figures, five persons or six persons on
it. I think that is the issue because
the health care economist and the health care workers and the public would like
to know what is the basic principle. We
want to know what is going to happen in two years time. The results will be only known if we know the
principle. That is again my question.
Mr. Orchard: That is
why I say that both processes have a separate agenda and life, but they
certainly cannot be separated completely.
The budget process year by year makes hospitals make decisions, because
they do not get as much money as they ask for.
Secondly, in terms of that decision making, we superimpose, hopefully in
the very near future, the reform plan which shows how the hospital system, the
health care system changes with the patient at the centre moving budget with
the patient.
I have test‑flown off my staff the corny phrase,
"patient care, not where." It
got rejected rather quickly, as you can well appreciate. In other words, what I am trying to say is that
it is the appropriate service that the individual needs, not where that service
is delivered that is important. In the
reform, we intend to lay out a blueprint that we think is achievable without
compromising the quality of care and the appropriateness of care to the
individual, but is going to see the system change from providing that care in a
spectrum of high‑cost institutions to lower‑cost institutions in
the community. That is a general policy
guiding the reform.
Let me tell you on the budget side: I will give you some direct examples of some
discussions I have had with some of the institutional managers. I have been around this system too long, and
I say that affectionately. I can recall
a circumstance going back about 13 or 14 or 12 years ago, it does not really
matter, when the then Minister of Health reined in the system a little bit
without granting the funding increases, and tried to put some funding
constraints on the institutions, on the hospitals. The first and immediate reaction was closing
beds and laying off nursing staff. That
was, of course, the reaction that raised the greatest public furor, rightfully
so because everyone was concerned about loss of service.
Post‑analysis of that had some interesting utilization of
budget, the redecoration of executive offices in one area while nurses were
being laid off. We thought that was
rather inappropriate, but of course did not have the handle on the system. We still do not have as good a handle on the
system as maybe we would like. But,
clearly, I have said, when you are asking for more money, we are not able to
provide the kind of money that you request, and that has been the case every
year. That is not different.
When my honourable friends have previously budgeted in hospitals,
the requests were always higher than what government acceded to in terms of
funding; but, in terms of how hospitals approach constrained budgets in
I have bounced the concept within government; we have combined
Administration and Finance. That led to
some layoff of staff, but we amalgamated the service, provided the same service
as effectively, maybe some would say more effectively than before. We see opportunities for shared purpose
within our urban hospitals, particularly.
I have asked the simple question in terms of purchasing
departments. Do we need separate
purchasing department entities in all hospitals? I think clearly that there is an opportunity
for amalgamation, a function there, which can save budget dollars without
compromising one hour of patient care. I
asked the same question in terms of personnel.
Can we find common purpose across the system in personnel? We have a Civil Service Commission concept in
the provincial government, which does central hiring for all departments. There is a lesser function attached‑‑I
lost my train of thought there.
We are really challenging the system not to use the normal
response, not normal response, but the response of automatic curtailment of
patient care services, which is the first response to government not acceding
to as large a budget request as they have asked for. That gets us into management issues of the
system. That puts us quite consistent
with other provinces. I have taken great
delight in quoting back statements in the past as we got to this line saying
that we do not need more money, we need more management. It is quite a neoconservative statement that
has not been made by a Conservative minister but rather a New Democratic
administration. We are very much asking
our funded agencies to consider all their management options in determining how
they expend their budgets.
That does not mean that we are not going to be faced with some
difficult decisions. I am not naive
enough to believe that, with all that is happening in every province in
*
(1630)
So our approach is one where we are providing more money, not
less money, not as much money as what the hospitals would like. We are asking
very, very diligently of our managers to make prudent management decisions and
we will assist them in any way possible and support them when they are the
right kind of decisions, given the context of today's funding environment and
health care provision in the province and in the country.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, I just want to talk for a few minutes about the
issue of what I think has to be‑‑I will just wait for the
minister's attention.
I want to go back to the same thing again. I am very much concerned that the health care
reform package that the minister has said that we have a duplication of
services, we have to streamline our management, we have to have an alternate
care of delivery. That is fine, an
absolutely noble goal, but we want to see how your goals and your principles
are going to be having a real impact and in terms of how you are going to sell
to the taxpayers, to the patients.
(Mr.
Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
I do not think we can separate the health care reform package
from the budget at all, absolutely not.
It may be good for a month or two, but eventually when changes are going
to come, it is going to be very tough to sell.
If things are not done properly in terms of when the budgets are going
to be given to a given hospital, there has to be policy direction. The government does not want deficit
financing.
The government rather wants to streamline some of the
duplication of services. The government
wants to see more early discharge or post‑discharge claims. The government wants to see more efficient
use of the emergency care. They want to
see why a repeat visit to the hospital.
They want to make sure that the tests are not repeated. Those basic principles have to be sold to the
hospital.
I think they have to be told that this is part of the basic
principles of the reform system, specifically if we are going to have next week
some changes out of Misericordia Hospital, say, for example, 10, 15, 20 beds
are going to go and how you are going to give them a specific target of 5
percent increase or 6 percent increase.
That is immaterial, because it may only last for a month or two months.
What I am concerned and we are concerned as a caucus that we
want to see a reform package, bold steps, upfront explain to the taxpayers and
to the people at large. They have to
know exactly where you are going. I
think as long as they can have that understanding, because issues are going to
come tomorrow, we can pick the number, say, 5 percent or 6 percent and the
hospital can say we asked $20 million more.
You are giving $15 and you have lost $5 million, but that is not the
issue right now.
The issue is how we are going to sell and how you are going to
sell as a government to the whole issue of health care reform. I think to sell that you have to justify us
here. To us that that is the basic
principle you want to follow and you are not going to deviate from that basic
principle on short‑term political pitfalls. Some difficulty is going to come there. That
is why we want to see the reform package.
I would love to see something in writing. That is why we said if you want to come back
in four weeks time and discuss the capital budget and some of the ramifications
of the decision you are going to make.
Everybody is asking us why do you trust Mr. Orchard? We were telling them, we will see the package
and we will see how the reform process is going to take place. So it is very, very important for us to have
a basic idea from the minister's office of how this thing is going to take
place, because this, as you have said, can be done in isolation.
The hospital in Thompson is going to get an impact of what is
going to happen in our teaching hospitals.
What is going to happen in a community hospital will have an impact on
everyone. All the professional caregivers are going to have some impact, and if
they could get a better understanding and how the education can be done to the
individuals and to the health care provider, that will make your program a success. Without having the knowledge of the full
system, it will fall apart very easily, because it will just take a time for
somebody to say, tomorrow, for example, in Question Period, well, you are
giving 5 percent but in fact the cut is there because they are demanding more.
Those things are very risky nowadays. It
cannot be sold, because they are not realistic views.
When we want to have reform‑‑and everyone says that
For example, the first day in your remarks it was very clear
that you want to target some of the beds out of teaching hospitals, the chronic
care patients. You are going to move
them‑‑you would like to see them in the personal care homes or long‑term
facilities, but those things have to be put on paper and given as a package to
the messengers, through the media. They have to be explained that this is what
is going to happen. Then I think we can all make some informed choices and at
least give some ideas, because to me to comment or ask you many questions does
not make any sense because we have discussed those things for 40 hours.
One way or the other, we want to see where is the package and
how you are going to reform the system.
I think that is the question here, not this year's budget. It is not going to be a question of a
separate hospital. It is in terms of
bold steps and, as I said from the beginning, an open and frank discussion. If
you can convince us, I do not think we will have much problem, but then we can
tell to the people that is what we have, that is what the government wants to
have, a direction. You make a choice
whether you want to raise your taxes, you want to borrow more money, or you
want to continue to do something which everyone is saying that was not
effective. Everyone in this country is
making tough choices. I am sure at three
o'clock in
I want to be very blunt and very frank because for me to come
here and ask you the same questions I asked for four years, asking which bed is
going to close here and there, that is not the direction I want to take. We want to see the whole package.
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to have that kind of opportunity for discussion
with a paper out a month ago, because that is what we had originally targeted
as a goal.
As we developed the discussion paper and Estimates came on, et
cetera, we just simply are behind in the delay.
I am genuinely hoping that next week we do have the discussion paper out
in the public, because it attempts to deal with the whole system so that it is
not hospital A in isolation, it is hospitals in the context of the system. It is personal care homes in the context of
the system; it is community services in the context of the system; it is
Continuing Care in the context of the system; it is nurses in the context of
the system; physicians in context of the system. It tries to provide as much detail on why we are
making these moves as we can possibly provide.
My honourable friend has been around this health care system
long enough to know that the general statement that you can provide better
services within the existing budget, as a global term maybe people sort of buy
into it, but their first response when a problem comes up is, we need more
money. If it happens at hip surgery at
the Health Sciences Centre, for instance in January, the immediate response
that we get in our office is, you know, you should be putting more money
in. Today's environment says you cannot
do that, add additional monies to resolve every problem, because we have
essentially tried doing that for the last 20 years.
*
(1640)
What we are diligently trying to do, and the Centre for Health
Policy and Evaluation has been part of that accurate underpinning of what we do
in the health care system to allow us to make changes that we know are
appropriate. The discussions we have had
at Urban Hospital Council and the discussions we have had with experts in the
various professions are guiding us to take the system across the board and make
changes that keep the patient care foremost in our minds.
I think, and, of course, I would have to think this way or I
would not be doing it, but I believe that we have got a paper, a discussion, a
proposal, a plan with targets, with process, with deliverables in it, and with
purpose underpinning it that is going to cause a great deal of public
discussion and a greater deal hopefully of public understanding of what the
goals and the agenda are.
Now, it is not going to be without controversy. It is going to be fraught with controversy,
but I am very, very comfortable that there is absolutely no other province in
Canada that will have a more informed process, where over two years we move the
system and have it substantially respond to health challenges and financial
challenges at the same time and accomplish a degree of change within the system
that probably is not going to be accomplished in any other province and
probably not as successfully in any other province.
At the same time, we are underpinning that with an
understanding and hopefully some direction on a number of professional issues,
not the least of which is the supply of physicians; not the least of which is
the way our fee schedule drives service delivery; not the least of which in
terms of nursing is the disciplines and their expected roles in a reformed
system, in an emerging community‑based system.
I noted with interest my honourable friend's comment yesterday,
the member for
At the end of the day, I am totally convinced that we can,
within the budget that we currently provide, not compromise patient care at
all. I am totally convinced of
that. It is going to compromise where we
provide that care, and we are going to see, there is no question, downsizing in
some parts of the system on the institutional side.
I mean that is real. If
you want to take a look at downsizing in the system, take a look across the
border at the building binge in acute care hospitals in the
That capacity is gone, because there the drive was
different. It was purely financial, I
think it is fair to say. They established lengths of stay that we probably
cannot emulate for a number of years, because we do not have the support
systems in place.
In the
But
When we talk about an apolitical approach to health care, it is
happening, it is happening right across
If what we envision has flaws and is not workable and there is
a better way to accomplish the agenda of reform, and with our eye on the fact
that we are not going to have financial resources, I am listening.
I guess, a fallback, after my critics talk it over with their
respective caucuses‑‑I mean, we will have the opportunity post
reform paper going out to see what the reaction is.
Basically, I have said to some of the professional groups,
there are two ways that the health care system is going to reform. It is going to reform, as we see it in
Manitoba, through the presentation to the system and to the people of Manitoba,
of a reform paper which outlines where we think the system can go and how, or
the second method is with the simple blunt instrument of budget.
We could have come in this year and instead of having‑‑whatever
the number is‑‑$950 million or $947 million in the hospital budget,
we could have come in with a 1 percent increase and had about $900
million. Well, we did not do that,
because we believe we need to show flexibility to engage the system in co‑operating
with government on an agenda that has to happen. If it does not happen in the informed way and
in a planned way, then clearly I would suspect budget constraints would make it
happen the latter way, the blunt instrument of cutting the budget. We have not wanted to do that, and we have
not done that, but the system is going to have to make some changes and they
are going to have to do some serious soul‑searching in a number of
institutions to make those changes happen, because there is professional
resistance and there are a number of resistance points in there.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I do not disagree with the minister on many things. I would not have any problems in terms of
discussing the issue. For me all these
things would have real meaning. If we
did not have any reform, then I would discuss each and every section. I would like to know what is happening.
We are going to have a new whole thing, which everyone is
saying and the minister has been saying and we have been saying that we wanted
reform and the minister has made a commitment, and it is very tough for me to‑‑I
do not want to take time and impress all these people, it is not worth it, we
have done that for four years. We have
worked and I think for me to make any informed judgment, I want to see the
reform.
I think it is not worth it to proceed in terms of‑‑we
can ask the minister how much you are going to give this hospital, that
hospital. That is going to be
changed. All these numbers are going to
change, no question.
If you are going to have any serious reform, everything will
change out of $947 million. Each and
every person is going to be affected. No
question about it. If you do not do
that, then you are not serious about your reform at all, absolutely not,
because the patient is in the middle and you have professional groups, 40 or 50
of them, then you have the institutions, then you have the paraprofessional
groups, then you have the bureaucrats, you have everybody else, but there is
only one patient and the one taxpayer.
That is why we wanted to go and to make any judgment, to see how we are
going to support you in terms of the health care reform.
We want to see it, I simply am somewhat frustrated, because I
thought we would have something at least in principle to discuss those
things. It is not very positive, the
timing. I understand it is a complex
process. You need a lot of work and
timing is involved, but you need‑‑it is not going to be only one
person, it is going to be, you know, you need a professional group's advice,
you need so many individuals whole, it is going to be basically a newborn child
you are going to have and give to the people and ask them how you are going to
raise this again. That is basically what
you are asking.
It is going to be very tough, and I want to see a full package,
and I would feel more comfortable saying yes or no. I would be able to tell you where we would have
and would like to have discussion among the caucus members, because that is
going to be a very important issue, probably one of the most important issues
of the Constitution, and economy, as a part of your mandate this year for two
years. The impact is going to be for a
long, long time to come, and if you are not going to make any changes then I do
not think we need to talk about this thing.
It is not worth it because we have done that and just talking about how
many individuals in the department are working, those things have a meaning to
some extent, but we need a policy.
*
(1650)
We need a road where we can see, you know, where are the bumps
and how we are going to fix them and where we are going to reach. That is why I have been saying that we have
no problem with your objective and goal, but we want to see how you are going
to reach your goal so that we can assist you or we can raise some objections
and lay our own views on the table. As
you know, the polls are saying people want a reform and they want the truth,
they want honesty, but to do those things we need to see something in writing.
Mr. Orchard: I
understand what my honourable friend says, and that is why I think that the
discussion of the reform paper and the proposal for reform is going to be a
very, very interesting one in the province.
There are a number of things‑‑well, I guess in terms of
general direction I cannot lay it out any clearer or with any more detail today
than what I did in my opening remarks, because I took and gave a general
thought of how we envisioned the system shifting and changing. Specific examples have been given throughout
the course of the debate over the last number of hours.
I understand my honourable friend's frustration. To try and put this budget Estimates and
balance it against where the reform or the system is envisioned to be and how
it can happen makes for a difficult debate, because you might say to me on the
hospital line, well, you do not need that much.
You may well at the end of this year be able to achieve a budget of less
than that and have some of those dollars transferred back to a line we have
already passed in terms of home care, and that process is part of the reform
process. But when we go to print we have
to give you numbers that you vote on and that you approve. Paralleling that and overlaying that is a
reform process that is going to happen over the next two fiscal years.
Next year's budget will show, I think, some pretty significant
shifts in the budgeting process which are our best guesstimate as we go into
Estimate next year. At the
reconciliation at the end of 1994 I think we will see a difference from what we
print next year at this time, because we are into a moving dynamic.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, we would have no problems in terms of on just going back to
the same thing if we had a minister who had no vision, if we had a minister who
did not know what he was doing. When the
minister has been making changes, it would have been good for us to see something
in writing so that we can assist you. We
are not going to put obstacles. But to
do that, and discuss everything today or tomorrow, and ultimately in six months
everything is going to be changed. If
the reform is going to be implemented, this is not going to be the
numbers. If anybody in your department
is dreaming these are the numbers, then we are not dealing with the health care
reform. Then we are dealing with simply
a patchwork, and that is not going to be very good for the people of
It is the middle of the mandate. Now you have two more years to do it, and I
want to emphasize again that you have a chance to do it and you should be very,
very bold and come out with the policy and lay it to the people and tell
them. One example was yesterday. They said more money is not the answer, and
we did not question you even once during these 40 hours, that something is
going terribly wrong. We said things are
moving well, but to comment on $947 million and make informed judgment, I think
I will be deceiving myself.
So I will ask questions, but I would be rather happy to sit at
the end of May for four to six hours again, so we can discuss those
things. Because giving each and every
hospital a specific number and what is going to be done, it is going to be very
tough. It is going to be extremely
tough, but the question may change even tomorrow depending upon what is going
to come.
That is why when the member for
I would like to see some kind of direction from protocols. I want to see what is required, what is not
required, without setting the open‑ended system with no protocol is a
recipe for disaster, because patients want more and more, and physicians want
to protect themselves. But if they have
nothing to protect themselves, all the Medical Review Committee, anything you
want to put in place is not going to work, unless you have specified protocols. That has been what everyone is saying in this
country, but you have to take a bold step and say these are the protocols we
want to be followed. Patients can feel
comfortable, physicians can feel comfortable, hospitals can feel comfortable.
Each and every person will know what they are supposed to expect and what is
going to be delivered. Other than that,
it is going to grow.
Many Ministers of Health have said‑‑I have read
about them for 20 years, who have done in this province, but you have the chance
because you are in the middle of a political system where you could achieve
those things. But if you do not come up
with a policy which is bold, I would have a much tougher time to continue to
say good things about the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), whom I have
developed to like so much. I wanted to
see something in writing.
Mr. Orchard: I think
I probably lost the support that my honourable friend is giving me because I do
not think I am going to be as bold as what maybe I should be.
I cannot prejudge how other people are going to view the
discussion paper, its direction, and whether it is too bold, not bold enough,
but we have attempted to lay out the system and where we think it can change,
and has to change and how we envision that change happening.
Like I tell my honourable friend, I am frustrated from the
standpoint that I think these Estimates would have been exceptionally
productive in the last 40‑plus hours had I been able to have circa the
1st of April, the discussion paper, so that it became part of the discussions
and the suggestions that could have come forward. Because I say to my honourable friend that
from time to time when we have made changes, and the one I remember the most
from last year's Estimates debate, we deinsured the reversal of sterilization.
There was a circumstance that my honourable friend brought up
in this committee that led to a change in the way we put that regulation in
place, because there was one aspect of it we did not consider. The general principle was maintained, but we
put an additional level of protection in there, and that would have been again
advantageous to myself and the ministry to have that sort of advice. We will get it at the end of the process when
we table capital, et cetera.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
The time being five o'clock and time for private members' hour,
committee rise.
*
(1440)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
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 for the Department of Education and
Training. We are on page 39, 2.
Financial Support ‑ Schools (a) School Grants and Other Assistance.
Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Chairperson, can the minister now table
the School Grants and General Support Grants list that she committed to doing
at our last meeting?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Chairperson, I do have to table the
information that the Leader of the Second Opposition has requested. I have for the honourable member a list of
the Level II grants, the Level III grants.
I also have a categorical base supplementary support per eligible pupil
including phase‑in, total special needs support. Is this the information
the honourable member‑‑okay.
And then instruction and services grants. I also have government fiscal year from the
Consolidated Fund.
Mrs. Carstairs: I do not
think that the member indicated that there was also in that list the grants to
independent schools. Is that list there as well?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes,
that is included in the list, and I would also like to take a moment to explain
to the member opposite how, in answer to another question which was raised
during the Estimates debate on Tuesday, April 28, I would like to explain to
the honourable member how the Estimates evolve and why comparisons between this
year's Estimates Supplement, which is the light green book, and the Estimates
Supplement of prior years was not readily done and why it took some time to
reconcile it outside of the House.
Between one fiscal year and the next, organizational changes
occur including program realignments.
This year has been no exception, and Education and Training has had a
number of organizational changes that are reflected in the current
Estimates. Any financial adjustments
that are made to reflect the changes are all approved by Treasury Board. This is why there is a note on page 3 of the
glossary found in the 1992‑93 Estimates Supplement explaining the
Adjusted Vote.
The current Estimates Supplement contains a 1991‑92
Adjusted Vote which is a realignment of the previous year's vote to provide for
more accurate and realistic comparisons from one budget year to the next. On Tuesday, I promised to respond on three
main questions raised by the honourable member the Leader of the Liberal Party
(Mrs. Carstairs): No. 1, to provide a
reconciliation of the department's '91‑92 printed Estimates to the '91‑92
Adjusted Vote. Secondly, to provide an
analysis of the differences between the 1991‑92 printed Estimates for
Administration and Professional Certification branch and the 1991‑92
Adjusted Vote for the combined total of the Management Information Services
branch, 16‑1(f), and the Administration and Professional Certification
branch, 16‑1(g).
This analysis includes Financial Services, 16‑1(e) to
show how these changes were made. It
also shows that the increases to 16‑1(e), (f) and (g) over 1991‑92
are two staff years, and $161,200 or 4.5 percent. The 4.5 percent increase to these budget
lines includes the additional funding provisions for the September '91 general
salary increase and all other changes to the subappropriations are internal
realignments and do not represent increases to the department's overall
allocations; and thirdly, to provide an analysis of the differences between the
1991‑92 printed Estimates for the community colleges and the 1991‑92
Adjusted Votes for 16‑5(c)(d) and (e).
This information can be provided when we reach the Post‑Secondary,
Adult and Continuing Education and Training division under 16‑5, and I
have those for the member now to table.
I also have to table today the Executive Support out‑of‑province
travel which was requested on, I believe, it was Tuesday.
*
(1450)
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister for
the tabling of this information. It is
much appreciated by members on this side of the House for our deliberations in
the Estimates process.
I anticipate that my initial questions are going to be geared
towards the funding model and that approach, so I am just advising the minister
and her staff that I think the initial parts of my questions this afternoon
will deal with that funding model if the staff are available to deal with it.
My initial question is a general question. The advisory committee's report to the
Minister of Education dated June of last year was never made public, and I am
wondering if the minister can outline for us today why that report was not made
public.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, in answer to the question, the report was an advisory report, the
committee was an advisory committee.
There had not been a commitment nor an intent to make that report
public. We certainly welcomed the input
of that committee, but in creating a new funding model the process does involve
government as a whole. It was necessary
to look at the information from the advisory committee in relation to all of
government and then to come up with what we considered to be a good education
finance model.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam
Chairperson, just by way of a preamble to this particular question, I am going
to focus a bit on the report itself, the advisory committee report that I have
a copy of, and I think it is relevant to these Estimates because this is the
budgetary year under which the report is being put in place. It is also the culmination of four years study
of the funding model by the government.
I accept the minister's response as to why the report was not
made public. I do not agree, and I am
sure we will agree to disagree. I just
want to advise the minister that I have gone back. We have researched previous advisory
committee reports and there certainly was a lot more information provided to
the public with respect to the deliberations of the committees on previous
occasions for previous advisory committees‑‑that is of all
political parties, both Conservative and New Democrat‑‑than this
particular advisory committee report.
I was a bit concerned because it makes the process very
difficult to understand if the players in the field, and it is very complicated
material to not have an opportunity to review the documentation. I would urge the government, at the very
least for its own rationale and reasons, for very good policy reasons aside
from any other reason, to perhaps consider releasing more information, not
less, with respect to the advisory committee report, so as to allow the public
to deal with these issues. I wonder if
the minister might comment.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, the honourable member is right, that he and I will have to agree
to disagree on this particular matter because at this point we believe, with
that advisory committee‑‑and I would like to remind him that there
were members of the representative groups on the committee, those
representatives were there to give their opinions and to put forward a voice
and a position from their organization.
We also had representatives from the public in general, and I have read
their names into the record as well to say that we had also members of the
public there represented and to speak up from that point of view.
I would also like to remind him of our role as MLAs and that as
MLAs when these are brought forward we also have the responsibility to look at
all initiatives carefully and to bring forward matters of concern as people
representing the public. I would also
like to say that our government and I as minister certainly do support public
consultation. I would like to raise to
him again the Legislative Reform Panel which had extensive public consultation
and that public consultation can occur in a number of forms.
It can occur either through face‑to‑face meetings,
through public representation on committees or through a public hearing
process. We make an effort to use a
number of forums when we are looking for that kind of input.
Mr. Chomiak: The
problem, of course, with the nonrelease of documents of this kind is that it
would lead elected members such as myself to somehow adopt concerns that
perhaps the report was not released because the government was attempting to
keep information away from the public for political or otherwise reasons. It certainly does raise questions on this
side of the House as to why the report was not released.
I will cite an example.
The original terms of reference on the committee, dated October 5, 1989,
which is appended to the report, page 16, outlined a whole series of reviews,
specifically: to do an examination, make
recommendations, bearing in mind the issue of fiscal restraint. Fair enough, and: to completely examine education financing the
issues, after November 1989, examine the issues of educational financing as a
whole.
Those were the public terms of reference for this committee.
There probably was‑‑I was not elected at that time‑‑I
am certain there was a press release and much fanfare about the fact the
government was examining education financing.
But what happened subsequently was that the mandate of the committee was
changed and the mandate of the committee was changed on March 22, 1989, and it
is quoted in the report:
The original mandate of the committee was reviewed and
changed. It was generally agreed that
because the committee did not have the resources it would not be expected to
develop a new funding model.
But this was not communicated publicly. That therefore leads me to conclude that
perhaps the committee‑‑well, I question the minister, why were
those terms of reference changed and why was the public not informed of that?
*
(1500)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I would like to begin my response by saying that good government
can also mean a government that is elected to make the policy decisions, and we
have made the policy decisions with input.
I think that the input of this advisory committee has been very
important, and now one of the very important parts is beginning. We are now at the implementation stage of the
funding model, and we are encouraging input again at this point.
In every discussion that we have had about the funding model,
we have described the funding model as a dynamic and evolving funding
model. What we are saying is now, as the
new funding model is applied to divisions‑‑and I will remind the
member that my department has met with every single division as they have begun
to apply the model and has had a chance to have follow‑up meetings with
those divisions or at least telephone contact as they apply the model; that I,
as minister with staff, have met with over 20 divisions to directly hear from
them what their concerns are as they begin to apply the model; and that the
input and the consultation and the direct effect are continually a part of the
application of this funding model.
It has been such an important part that we have set up now some
task forces as a result of these meetings to look at issues very specifically
raised in the application of the funding model.
Mr. Chomiak: I could
probably spend the afternoon debating this issue with the minister. I will attempt to limit my comments because
there are many other pressing issues, but I do want to spend a little bit of
time on this.
The minister is putting the cart before the horse. This model was studied for four years. The committee was given a mandate prior to
the last provincial election. Several
months before the election was called, the mandate of the committee was
changed, and no one in the public was advised.
Then the committee was told by the government that certain criteria had
to be applied to the funding model, and they had no choice as to how these
criteria would be applied.
There was an election.
The government was re‑elected.
The government imposed the funding model, and now the government is
setting up task forces to deal with how the funding model should be
implemented. It seems to me the cart is
before the horse. The funding model should have been able to be brought in in a
smooth and efficient fashion without having to be revised three, four and five
times before it went public and subsequently advised after it has gone public.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am
really surprised by the remarks of my honourable friend. I am surprised that he indicates that he
would implement a model which is extremely inflexible, cast in stone, in which
he would hold back from implementing until he had determined that somehow he
had, without ever the effect of implementation, been able to anticipate every
single issue that might arise and then assume that the model that he put in
should then become inflexible, not evolving, and not dynamic.
The process that this government has stood beside is that the
new ed finance model is, in fact, a model which is dynamic and evolving and in
which there was a recognition that it would be almost impossible to completely
anticipate every single issue that might arise in the application of a new
funding model.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson,
Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
So then the stage was set so that as divisions did begin to
encounter issues that they could raise those issues with the department, and
that they understood from the beginning that we would be taking a very serious
look at those issues. That is the point
of the task forces.
So I am surprised at a somewhat inflexible approach by my
honourable friend. I stand by the
process of this government which has been one of continued consultation, and
let me stress the continued consultation.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the
minister indicate one single organization on the committee that has positively
endorsed this funding model?
Mrs. Vodrey: I think
it is very important to understand that the process of developing a new
educational finance model is certainly one of consensus, where ideas are spoken
about and modified in order to reach what is the best possible concept at the
time. I can certainly tell him that,
overwhelmingly, we have had a feedback that this model is a vast improvement
over the previous model.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the
minister table documents to that effect from those organizations that have
indicated a positive, that they approve of this model?
Mrs. Vodrey: This
information has certainly come in face‑to‑face discussions with
school divisions, with representative organizations. I am sure that they would be equally happy to
share those thoughts with the honourable member should he ask them.
Mr. Chomiak: Is the
answer no, therefore? There are no
letters on file endorsing this funding model from those organizations that were
on the committee, that are somehow overwhelmingly in face‑to‑face
meetings approving this funding model?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not
sure if my honourable friend is suggesting that the only authentic endorsement
is one that is received in writing. I am
wondering if endorsement in writing is the only process of consultation that he
would agree with, because a process of consultation around the new education
finance model that I, as government, and we, as a department, have gone forward
with has been face‑to‑face meetings and face‑to‑face
discussions and then a real effort to then work with the model.
I am surprised because my honourable friend seems to be
focusing on some kind of an approval which then would mark the go ahead, and
what I think is very much important is that we have received a great deal of
approval for the new ed finance funding model and that has come through face‑to‑face
discussions where people acknowledge it to be a vast improvement over the
previous model, and then following that a real effort in terms of working with
the model to then make it the best working model that we possibly can have.
Mr. Chomiak: I take
it the answer is no. I must be speaking
to different people from those representative bodies than the minister because
there is not a great overwhelming approval for the new funding model that the
minister seems to indicate.
*
(1510)
Mrs. Vodrey: Perhaps
we are speaking to different people, and I do not mean that lightly because I
must say that we have taken this new finance model very seriously, and we have
again as a department expended a great many hours in making sure that divisions
have a good understanding of the model.
As they apply the model, they feel that they have an open
communication through to the experts in the department for any assistance that
is required where they have experienced some difficulties which were, and in
some cases perhaps, unanticipated by them or perhaps by the committee or when
they have simply run into issues there has also been an open communication and
a very strong and direct effort both by this department and by myself as
minister to appreciate what those issues are and to then look at some problem
solving in the recognition that this is a dynamic model.
But regardless of those, in addition to that, I think it is
very important for the member to also be aware of the fact that the last
funding model simply did not work and divisions were not pleased with that
model and they recognized a vast improvement with this one.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the
minister indicate why the four‑year phase‑in was rejected in favour
of a two‑year phase‑in?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, there was a general belief that the four‑year period
was perhaps stretching this out longer than was really necessary, and I am
informed that basically people were saying let us get on with it, let us get
started, because 43 of 53 divisions previous to the new model were on the
guarantee. The old model was not
working. People were anxious to get on
with the new model. There was every
effort with the new model to make the new model as responsive as possible, and
in this two‑year phase‑in we are looking at it in a very dynamic
and evolving way. The belief was that a
further phase‑in was really not necessary. We did not want to stretch it out and have it
never really become a part. We felt that
the two‑year phase‑in was a belief and, I am informed, was in fact
probably the best way to go.
Mr. Chomiak: Does the
minister have any simulation models about what the effect of the formula will
be two years down the road when the phase‑in ends?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, I am informed that we are in the process of doing that
now. In fact, we are looking ahead as
far as three and four years, but we are also very anxious to see the results of
the task forces which are in place examining issues relating to rural divisions
and also the issues of sparsity which have been raised by some northern and
also some southern divisions. We are
looking to see what the experiences of divisions are related to their educational
needs in the first year, and also the issue of enrollments. Enrollments are also fluctuating in school
divisions. So, in the first year we are
looking very carefully at the impact and the effect and the experiences of the
ed funding model, also with new information, looking to project ahead as much
as three or four years.
Mr. Chomiak: Will the
minister undertake to table those simulations when they are received?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am
informed that certainly these projections are quite detailed. I am not sure if my honourable friend is
asking that they be tabled during the course of these Estimates, because it
would be unlikely that they would be prepared at that time. However, when they
are prepared they certainly will then be presented to the advisory committee.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the
minister outline for us what those task forces are, who comprises in them and
what they are studying?
Mrs. Vodrey: The task
forces are being worked on at the staff level, and they are gathering
information from all school divisions.
In response to the concerns and to issues brought forward, we have
initiated a number of studies. I will
give the member the names.
A transportation study, which will review transportation
funding in the light of the work done by the transportation steering
committee. It will review the rationale
for funding rural and urban divisions differently and the issue of contract
busing. Secondly, a FRAME task force will
review instructions provided to school divisions for the completion of budgets
and financial statements to ensure clarity and convergence with the SFP. Then a northern and remoteness study will
conduct an analysis of cost factors and circumstances affecting northern
divisions to determine if the amount provided under the northern allowance in
SFP is adequate.
A small rural high schools study will consider adjustments to
the SFP to better reflect the costs of providing high school programming in
small rural high schools. Distance
Education will develop options to allow for the funding of distance education,
especially with regard to small, rural or northern high schools.
*
(1520)
Occupancy funding will examine alternate means of funding
operations and maintenance that better recognize the reuse of school building
space. Assessment in the allocation of
funding will review the long‑term implications of allocating provincial
funding according to assessment strength and weakness.
I am informed that on the frame study which I had just recently
spoken of, that one is comprised of 10 secretary treasurers from school
divisions representing various regions of the province plus staff.
Mr. Chomiak: Is the
minister at all concerned, with respect to the new funding model, that of the
53 school divisions only three receive 50 percent or more of their special
needs funding from the provincial government?
The other 50 receive considerably less in most cases than 50 percent,
and is that not a concern of this minister?
Mrs. Vodrey: First of
all, I would like to reassure the member that the issue of special needs is of
real concern both to this government and to myself as minister. It was in the special needs area in which I
began working within the school system.
So I am certainly well aware of the issues relating to special needs.
On one of the sheets that I tabled today, I would just like to
draw the member's attention to the fact that we have increased our
percentage. The province has increased
our percentage of funding in terms of allowable expenditures from 46 percent to
59.5 percent for special needs. In
addition to that, we have also provided $10 million additionally in
supplementary funding.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the
minister specifically outline for me what the formula is to your phase‑in,
specifically what the formula is, because it has changed? There was an initial announcement and there
was a subsequent announcement. I would
like to have the details of the phase‑in formula please.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, just to go back for the honourable member. In November 1991, a commitment was made to
provide transition or fees in funding of up to $8 million as part of the
implementation of the Schools Finance Program in 1992‑93.
A further commitment was made that in 1993‑94 those
divisions receiving phase‑in funding for '92‑93 would receive half
of what they received in '92‑93.
Phase‑in funding was included as part of the 1992‑93 funding
announcement in January of 1992.
Phase‑in support for each division was calculated as the
difference between the 1991‑92 funding and the 1992‑93 funding,
after accounting for changes in eligible enrollment, less .75 mills on the
school division's assessment. At that
point, 18 of the 26 divisions experiencing a decrease in funding from 1991‑92
to '92‑93 were eligible for the phase‑in funding.
However, a number of school divisions did request some
additional assistance to ease their transition, and so in March 1992 additional
phase‑in funding was announced.
The phase‑in funding was recalculated as the difference between
the 1991‑92 and 1992‑93 funding, less 0.5 mills on the school
division's assessment.
Under the new calculation 23 divisions became eligible for the
phase‑in funding.
Mr. Chomiak: Will the
minister table a list of those divisions? Oh, I see I have it in the press
release. That is fine. The minister also announced in the March
change to the phase‑in program that there would be a new grant within the
funding formula to assist divisions that incur additional costs as a result of
enrollment increases in excess of l percent of their total and open a new
school. Can the minister outline the
specifics of those formulas, please?
(Madam
Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, just to give the member the information that I think he is
requiring, a grant for school divisions that has the following two
characteristics, first of all an increase in enrollment from, in this case,
September 1991 to September 1992 in excess of 1 percent and at the same time a
new school opening during, in this case, the l992‑93 school year, and if
a division qualifies by having both of these characteristics, the grant is
$7,500 for each new classroom. Based on present information, it was only the
St. Vital School Division which qualified.
They qualified for 14 new classrooms for a total grant of $105,000.
*
(1530)
Mr. Chomiak: I thank
the minister for those responses. Returning back to the special needs grant
issue, I am looking at pages 61 and 63 provided by the minister this afternoon,
and I am looking at the totals at the bottom.
Can the minister explain for me the difference in total special needs as
a percentage of allowable expenditure which is 59.5 and the total special needs
of actual expenditures which is 37.6?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am
informed that grants for special needs went up across the province 37
percent. Secondly, the percentage of
actual expenditures by divisions went up 59.5 percent. That is a percentage of actual expenditures.
Mr. Chomiak: I am not
sure if I made my question clear enough to the minister. The actual figure of 37.6 which is at the
bottom of page 61 is actual expenditures for special needs, and the 37.6 is the
component provided by the provincial government centrally to special needs
expenditures. The 59.5 on the bottom of
page 63, I assume, is the allowable vis‑a‑vis the provincial
government formula the divisions qualify for under the funding formula.
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me
clarify. First of all, 37.6 percent is
the grant in support of special needs, and that is how much the grant increased
under the new model versus the old model.
The 59.5 percent refers to how much of the special needs cost that we
pay for in the new model versus the old model.
I think the honourable member can see that there is in fact an increase.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson,
I think the minister's statement is wrong.
The grant to special needs did not increase 37 percent. It may very well be that the grants to Level
II and Level III special needs increased 30‑some‑odd percent, but
the combined grant of Level I, Level II and Level III, of which the total is at
the bottom of page 61, did not increase 37 percent. The figure at the bottom of
page 61 is a figure of 37.6 percent which is the provincial share of total
special needs cost, that is Level I, Level II and Level III, and the actual
increase over last year is only 2.7 percent.
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, I
am informed that the information that I am giving is correct, and I am informed
that the percentage includes both Level I, Level II, Level III support. It also includes other support in relation to
special needs, including clinicians, and that in the '92‑93 budget there
is an increase of 37.6 percent over last year with our new funding formula
model.
Mr. Chomiak: I am
wondering why the decision was made to include Level I funding within the base
funding under the new formula?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am
informed that the Level I funding was included in the base funding to indicate
that it is a type of funding which has been universally required. This decision was made following meetings
with the advisory committee, discussions across the province, and our new ed
finance model is really now looking at the classroom. So we have a funding model based on support
that is necessary for the classroom and that also indicates the realities
present in schools today.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank
the minister for that response and return to my previous question. I believe the minister is correct. I was wrong in my determination of the
figures. It does appear that there is an
almost $20‑million increase, so I stand corrected on that particular
portion, which leads me to the issue of why the instructional unit class size
decision was made with respect to this particular funding model?
*
(1540)
Mrs. Vodrey: In
answer, all the research that has been done has suggested strongly that we
needed to look at a model which combined finances with pedagoguing, and we had
to look in that combination of then how best to fund through an education
finance model.
All the research points again to the fact that the classroom
was the basic unit that was missing in terms of the funding and that children,
in fact, or young people or adults exist in classroom groupings; that this is,
in fact, the fundamental unit, and that all else exists in support of this particular
unit. So I think that may explain the
answer to my honourable friend's question.
Mr. Chomiak: Why was
the divisor of 20 chosen?
Mrs. Vodrey: In the
readings that I have done individually and also that have been part of the
research that was done in terms of this funding model, there has been
information that numbers of 25 or less are reasonable numbers to use in terms
of a classroom unit. There was consensus
on the committee that the number 20 was very close to the reality of the
experience in this province, and that this divisor appeared to meet with
approval from the committee and also from discussion around the province.
Mr. Chomiak: Does the
minister indicate that she has data or that the department has data that
indicate what the classroom sizes are in the
Mrs. Vodrey: I am
advised that at the moment we do not collect data specifically on the classroom
unit size. We do have a pupil‑teacher
ratio, or PTR, but that is in fact a different figure. It is arrived at differently by taking the
enrollment of the division, and it includes in the divisor all nonclassroom in
support as well, including principals.
The number was arrived at by consensus, by the committee. It is seen to reflect the actual reality as
seen by the advisory committee members across the province.
Mr. Chomiak: I would
accept that, except that I do not know where the number came from. The minister said that the literature says 25
or less. The minister indicates that the
committee thought 20 was the appropriate number, but I just wonder what the
empirical or what the data and the basis of the arrival of that figure was.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, the literature simply narrowed the range, but I am informed that
when we were looking at what the number would be for our model in Manitoba, we
then also looked at the sense of reality that the members of the committee were
able to bring to the committee and chose a number that appeared to reflect
accurately, as accurately as possible, what the reality is in Manitoba schools.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam
Chairperson, with respect to the actual enrollments per school, wherein it is
determined the divisor is divided into, how is the enrollment determined on the
per‑school basis?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I am informed that every school division does now submit its
enrollments to the department. They are
diligently checked in terms of their accuracy.
*
(1550)
Mr. Chomiak: Just by
way of example so that I understand, school X would submit an enrollment at
some point in time, and I am questioning what point in time, to the department
of say 500 students, and at least for the initial base funding the divisor of
20 into 500 would be calculated as 25 units.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I am informed that schools submit their enrollment to school
divisions. School divisions, through the
secretary‑treasurer and the superintendent and sign off on that
enrollment and it is submitted to the department. The date used is September 30
to then determine the eligible enrollment.
Mr. Chomiak: The
formula is clear for urban divisions, but the divisor is 20. When we get outside of the city, that is for
nonurban divisions, the divisor drops down depending upon the number of
students. Is there any other
differentiation other than‑‑how does that formula work outside of
the city of
Can the minister perhaps table a document or something that
could clarify it for me? As I understand
it, if it is outside of the city of Winnipeg, if it is more than 250 students,
the divisor is 20; 200 to 250 students is 19; 150 to 200 is 18; 100 to 149 is
17; 80 to 99 is 16; and fewer than 80 it is 15.
I am wondering if those are in fact the figures, and if they are applied
across the board or whether grades or any other differentiation applies.
Mrs. Vodrey: Just to
make sure that my honourable friend has the completely correct and up‑to‑date
information, the full‑time equivalent or FTE instructional units are
calculated for Grades K to 8, and Grades 9 to 12 are Senior 1 to Senior 4 as
follows.
In the Divisions 1 through 10 and 12, which are the city
divisions, you divide the FTE enrollment for the school division by 20. In the divisions 11 and 13 to 48 plus the
school districts 2264, 2309, 2312, 2355, 2439 and 2460, if the FTE school
enrollment in Grades K to 8 or 9 to 12 is, first of all, more than 200, the
divisor is then 20. If it is 200 or less,
but more than 100, divide by 19. If it
is 100 or less, but more than 18, divide by 18.
If it is 18 or less in Grades K through 8, one full‑time
equivalent at one full‑time instructional unit. If it is 18 or less in Grades 9 through 12,
or Senior 1 through Senior 4, divide by 18.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank
the minister for answering that question. I wonder if it is possible‑‑although
she might have read the entire formula into the record‑‑could that
be tabled perhaps?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, the
funding booklet is public information, and I will be happy to table for the
honourable member the whole funding booklet.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank
the minister for that response. It will
give me something to do on the weekends.
Will the funding booklet also include the eligible enrollments
by division so that I can spend time figuring out the recognized instructional
units per division? Will it contain
that, and if not, can I have those?
Mrs. Vodrey: I would
just like to remind the honourable member that the funding booklet sets out the
model for the funding which gives the formula.
At the moment, we have the enrollment by division not by school. I could certainly table the enrollment by
division if that would be helpful.
Mr. Chomiak: I
appreciate receiving that information.
Just with respect to the funding formula, this‑‑and I stand
to be corrected‑‑is the first time, I believe, that an actual
funding model has allocated funds based on a per‑school calculation. I am wondering if the minister might comment
on the significance of that.
*
(1600)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I am advised by the staff here today that, by memory, prior to
1967, there was funding school by school in rural areas only. Presently this particular model also is very
similar to that pre‑1967 model, looking at the needs of rural areas in
that way, and it is the only model where pedagogy is really a very considered
and prime factor in the funding process.
Just for the member's information, we have been asked by other
jurisdictions to share the basis of our model because it is seen as having been
an extremely important change.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam
Chairperson, I certainly recognize that there are some aspects of the funding
model, for counselling and guidance, school library personnel, et cetera, that
are quite favourable. I wonder if the
minister might elaborate for me, therefore, what she is referring to when she
talks about the pedagogical significance of the funding formula.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, to start with, the focus is the classroom grouping and funding in
terms of the classroom grouping. The
other funding is the funding that is considered to be in support of that
classroom grouping.
My honourable friend has named some of the funding which does
go in support of that classroom grouping, things such as library and
counselling and guidance, which have been identified very specifically as being
in support of classroom activities. In
addition, administration is in support of the classroom activity. Occupancy and the place where students study
is also considered to be in support.
Professional development for staff members is also considered to be in
support of that classroom unit and an effort of a financial model to recognize
significantly what the needs and the supports are necessary for the classroom
unit.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam
Chairperson, just for the administrative purposes of the minister, I can advise
that we will certainly be on this item for the balance of the afternoon. I am not certain if that changed the staff
allotments, but we will be on this line, all things considered, for the balance
of the afternoon. I do not know what the
minister wishes.
Just returning to the issue that the minister raised
previously, of course I suppose one of the most significant considerations upon
which the model is based is the classroom size of 20, and whether or not that
reflects the reality situation is a key factor in the success or failure of
this funding model. I am still not at
all certain that the classroom size of 20 and the subsequent components of that
model is in fact appropriate.
I would like to see more information on that determination,
although I also recognize I have asked that question before and there may not
be any additional information.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I am informed that the literature does not provide us with a
definite or a finite number for classroom size.
So what was done in the case of this model was then for us to look to
our practitioners and experts within our province. This was the number by consensus that was
arrived at by those groups.
Now we are reviewing classroom size as it relates to the
sparsely populated and remote divisions, because some of those divisions have
raised concerns regarding the divisor in their areas, and we are also, via MAST
or Manitoba Association of School Trustees, receiving formal feedback from
every division in the province.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam
Chairperson, when the minister provides me with the funding formula, I assume
it will outline for me the basis on which the allocation is made, for example,
to the students at risk program. Will it
provide that information? If it does
then I do not have to ask those specific questions, but if it does not I will
be asking some specific questions.
Mrs. Vodrey: The
model sets out the broad area but the details that I think the honourable
member may be wishing to ask about would probably best be found in the PDSS
line, Appropriation 16‑3. The
students at risk branch will be refining and updating the students at risk
school eligibility data collection.
Mr. Chomiak: Then I
will reserve my questions to that point in time. I am quite interested in the supplementary
formula and I am wondering if the minister can provide us with a division‑by‑division
breakdown of the supplementary funds allocated for '92‑93.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we
do have that data.
Mr. Chomiak: Could
you table it, please? Can the minister
provide us with copies of that, please?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we
will attempt to have the data prepared for the honourable member in the next
Estimates sitting.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank
the minister for that data. I am
wondering, will the basis upon which the supplementary funding is calculated be
provided in the data which will be tabled on the funding formula that I am
going to be receiving next Estimates process?
*
(1610)
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes,
that will be in the booklet which I will provide for you.
Mr. Chomiak: Thank
you. I recognize the minister will be
giving me division‑by‑division breakdowns of the supplementary
funding. I am wondering if the minister can tell me today what the total is for
'92‑93 in terms of supplementary funding, and how that compares to the
equalization funding of last year.
Mrs. Vodrey: In 1991‑92,
with the guarantee, the funds were $85,129,047, and this year the estimate for
'92‑93 for the supplementary funding is $33,223,785.
Mr. Chomiak: Just for
purposes of comparison, I am wondering if the minister has a table in front of
her that also shows '90‑91 because that would be more appropriate in
terms of comparison because of the base model put in.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, the
numbers for 1990‑91 are $84,541,085.
Mr. Chomiak: I am
wondering if the minister might want to comment on that divergence of what
effectively are equalization funds and the reason. The minister has identified that some rural
northern divisions are studying the loss of funding. We have divisions like Kelsey with declining
enrollment that have been fairly dramatically affected by the formula. I am wondering if the minister might comment
on the significantly less amount of money available in this component of the
funding model vis‑a‑vis other years.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, yes, I am happy to comment on that. The previous model provided funding at the
end, and sometimes that was helpful to divisions, but the difficulty was that
money was not flowed through any kind of a structure or any real criterion
base.
Under the new funding model, we flow a great deal of that money
now directly through the base funding.
So under our current funding model we are either paying by grant or
equalizing 83 percent of divisions' net operating expenditures.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam
Chairperson, has that figure changed or been adjusted since the initial
November announcement of the funding model?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I am informed that the answer is no.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam
Chairperson, last year the minister provided us with a division‑by‑division
breakdown of the special levy and the increase or decrease on a year‑by‑year
basis. I am wondering if the minister
has that information this year.
*
(1620)
Mrs. Vodrey: Could I
just clarify, would the honourable member like the special levy mill rates or
the special levy dollars?
Mr. Chomiak: I would
appreciate both.
Mrs. Vodrey: In
tabling this information, I would just like to say for the honourable member's
information that the total school taxes for the homeowner in the province went
up only 0.8 percent, and total property taxes, which is ESL plus special levy,
went up only 1.5 percent. That is
including commercial in the province, and that is the lowest ever.
Mr. Chomiak: I think
that the taxpayers are very appreciative of that, given last year was probably
the highest ever in terms of increase.
Mrs. Vodrey: I would
just like to say again, that we are pleased that the total property tax was low
this year. I am very pleased to be able
to say that to the taxpayers.
Mr. Chomiak: Last
year, the minister gave me statistics on the number of teachers employed in the
province and the year before. For 1990, the minister gave me a figure of
13,062, and 1991, 12,850. I wonder if
the minister this year might have the statistics with respect to teachers
employed in the province for this school year.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am
informed that the total eligible teacher count in the province for '92‑93
from our sources is 12,691.
Mr. Chomiak: One of
our concerns with respect to the classroom unit size is that we might be placed
back into a situation that we were placed in in the 1970s, under the previous
GSEP, wherein we were in a situation where we had authorized and unauthorized
teachers and all of the dilemmas that were faced by divisions with respect to
that process.
I am wondering if the minister has a response or a comment with
respect to that concern. I have had it
for sometime. I think it is going to
happen in the
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I would just like to say that I do have a number of discussions with
the Manitoba Teachers' Society. As I
stated the other day to the honourable member, I do meet on a very regular
basis with the MTS. They have, as I told
him, prepared a series of agenda items, and they have raised, in a general
sense, all of their agenda items at one point.
Now we are going through those agenda items, issue by issue, to make
sure that they and I have had a very full conversation regarding this issue.
The issue that the honourable member has raised I know is a
concern to the Manitoba Teachers' Society.
It is something of a concern that I think that we need to certainly be
aware of and that we need to monitor carefully.
We are convinced that our model is sound. Certainly it is not the intention of this
model to have this happen, but we will be looking at it carefully. In the past model this seemed to be more of a
difficulty, but under the new model we are only using instructional
personnel. I think that that is an
important change in this new model.
Mr. Chomiak: I do not
know if I understand precisely what the minister means by: we are using instructional personnel on this
new model.
Mrs. Vodrey: I hope
this will clarify. Under this model the
instructional personnel referred to are the classroom teachers. In the past, it
was anyone who held a teaching certificate, and that may have been at that
point then administration counted in. In this case we are trying to not use
that kind of a count, but instead to use actual classroom teachers as a count.
Mr. Chomiak: So that
excludes teaching assistants?
*
(1630)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I am informed, yes it does.
Mr. Chomiak: That
excludes clinicians?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, it
does exclude clinicians.
Mr. Chomiak: That
excludes special education co‑ordinators?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, it
does exclude co‑ordinators, I believe was the last mentioned by my
honourable friend, and again I would say to him that our focus has been on the
classroom teacher.
Mr. Chomiak: But the
minister did take note of the fact that we have had a three year decline in
teaching employed personnel in the
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I
see by the numbers presented by my honourable friend and then the numbers that
I presented for this year. I do not
believe he can suggest that the new model is the reason for this as the new
model is in fact in its first year of application.
Mr. Chomiak: No, I am
only suggesting that the new model could very well‑‑it is a concern
of members of this side of the House and not just Manitoba Teachers' Society
that the new model could result in a situation of the kind that I described
earlier with the authorized‑unauthorized situation with school divisions
being forced to pick up the cost of so‑called unauthorized teachers.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I
have acknowledged to the honourable member that that is a concern and is one of
the issues that I and my department will be monitoring.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the
minister indicate when she expects the regulations for the SFP to be published?
Mrs. Vodrey: As my
honourable friend knows, this is a major rewrite of the regulations. We do believe that the funding booklet which
we will provide to him is really quite accurate and that regulations will only
serve to confirm what is in the funding booklet. We are in the process of working on those
regulations now. We expect to have them
prepared by the late fall or certainly by the end of the calendar year.
Mr. Chomiak: Last
year, the minister indicated to me that, and I do not agree with this figure,
the net operating revenue provided to you by the department of school divisions
constituted 69.2 percent of the operating costs of school divisions. I am wondering if the minister can provide
for us a comparative figure of what the net operating revenue to the divisions
are from the provincial government this year.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, yes. I am informed that,
compared to last year, which my honourable friend raised, at 69.4 percent, this
year the figure is 69.6 percent. Now, if
we also wish to factor in, under the new funding formula, the equalization,
then the amount rises to 83 percent.
Mr. Chomiak: What
does the minister mean by equalization?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, yes, just to clarify. Equalization in the new funding model
constitutes about 39.8 percent of the total support and represents an increase
of 31.5 percent from 1991‑92.
Equalization is provided in three ways.
Number one, the Education Support Levy is raised uniformly
across the province by two mill rates, one for residential property and one for
commercial property. The amount
collected, together with funds from the Consolidated Revenues, is distributed
to school divisions by the Schools Finance Program.
Secondly, the 7.9 mill uniform levy is a reduction to support
based on total school assessment.
Recognized expenditures are reduced by 7.9 mills to determine support.
Three, supplementary support is provided to school divisions in
four categories: special needs,
transportation, vocational and occupancy.
If a school division spends more than the grant available in these four
areas, and this is a formula, then 80 percent of the unsupported cost is
provided based on a formula which ensures that a low‑assessed division
has access to the same revenue as the school division with the highest assessment
per pupil.
Mr. Chomiak: I am
having great difficulty with this figure, this 83 percent figure, and I would
appreciate if the minister could outline for me what she means by 83
percent? Is the minister saying that 83
percent of the operating costs of divisions are now being met by the
*
(1640)
Mrs. Vodrey: To
clarify it for the honourable member, the operating expenditures for school
divisions is $1,079,119,669. In terms of their operating support the province
provides categorical funding support for '92‑93 of $100,909,752. We provide block base funding at
$563,614,923. We provide equalization
supplementary funding at $28,270,970.
This year there is no guarantee as there has been in other
years. We have also provided phase‑in
funding of $8,000,000; in fact, it will be slightly more than that this
year. Then with the 7.9 mill uniform
levy which is $135,399,302, that brings the total support to $836,194,947.
When you take that figure and you divide it by the $1‑billion
figure which I gave my honourable friend, that does bring us to a support of 83
percent. If the 7.9 mill uniform levy
was removed from those numbers, that brings us to the figure of 69.6 percent.
Mr. Chomiak: Last
year the minister provided us with a Categorical Block Equalization and
Guaranteed Support by division. I do not
notice that in the package of information that was provided to us. I am wondering if the minister would provide
us‑‑those were actuals the minister provided us with last
year. I am wondering if we could have
those figures.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I
can table the information I believe that my honourable friend would like and it
is by school divisions.
Mr. Chomiak: I
appreciate that. I will have
considerably more questions in this area, but I want to review the documents
because I want to be quite specific. I
want to discuss this in greater detail with the minister, but I want to turn to
another topic briefly, and that is the fact that the minister has indicated in
the data that she provided to us that the actual increase in dollar value of
total special needs support this year over last year is $19.6 million. The figures that the minister provided
according to my calculations of subtracting 52 some‑odd million dollars
from $71 million equates roughly to $19.6 million, which is the increase the
minister is stating in total special needs support this year over last year,
apples to apples.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I am informed that the $19.7 million is based on the information
that school divisions have forwarded to the department at this time, but the
$22 million is the estimated amount of money that may be required to provide
totally through the school year, and we do not have yet the figures which tend
to come in in January for the Level II, Level III young people who come in at
that time.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam
Chairperson, I am curious about this figure, because the Estimates book
indicates that there was an increase in operating support to divisions of $19.6
million, and it just so happens, I presume coincidentally, that the special
needs figure is $19.6 million. Just
commenting on that, one would suggest then that can one make the argument that
the total increase in operating support to school divisions this year has been
basically, if those two figures are correct, focused entirely on special needs
or exceptional students?
*
(1650)
Mrs. Vodrey: I think
I understand the honourable member's question in that we did put approximately
$23 million more into funding this year, and I think he is asking is the 19.7
money for special needs the total place or the only place that money went. The
answer, I am informed, is no, that is not the case, that there was also a
redistribution as a result of the new model.
There was money from the guarantee also to be redirected so
there has been a reconfiguring also of money previously directed in other
places, and I do not think that he can assume that the $23 million all went to
special needs because it is a new model.
Mr. Chomiak: That is
correct. I agree with the minister. For example, the equalization went from $85
million down to $33 million and that was obviously the money that had formerly
gone into that particular area. An
allocation has been shifted around to different areas and to different
components of the formula.
Mrs. Vodrey: As I
said, yes, there has been a reconfiguration, a reconstitution, under the new
funding formula model. It did include
removing the guarantee. There were 43
school divisions as I explained to the member previously on the guarantee. There are now no school divisions on the
guarantee, but that $40.6 million then becomes available for the new funding
formula model.
Mr. Chomiak: We have
received now a copy of the document, page 29 from the minister's book, entitled
Categorical Basis and Supplementary Support including Phase‑in for '92‑93. Just for my own understanding, if we look at
the first item, Winnipeg School Division No. 1, which has been estimated this
year at $115,958,064, that will be the sum total provided to Winnipeg School
Division No. 1 from the department. Is
that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I
am informed that this does account for the major share of the funding and other
than funding which might come into the at‑risk programs on a by‑project
basis.
Mr. Chomiak: So for
my own understanding again, it does read Categorical Basis and Supplementary
Support and the Phase‑in and there is a $10‑million package of at
risk that may or may not be included in this formula?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I
am informed that about 7 million of the 10 million at‑risk dollars are
already allocated across the province, and there is approximately $3 million
which remains to be allocated for additional special projects.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank
the minister. So, the bottom figure of
$694 million accurately reflects the provincial expenditures towards education
this Estimate year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I am informed that the $694 million is for the school year '92‑93‑‑the
school year would be the important word‑‑and that it does include
the categorical and the base funding, supplementary funding and the phase‑in
funding. What is not included in that is
the approximately $3 million still to be allocated on a by‑project basis
for students at risk programs. Also,
there is still capital grants and D grants to be added in.
Madam Chairperson: Order,
please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time
for private members' hour, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
*
(1700)
IN SESSION
Mr. Speaker: The hour
being 5 p.m., it is now time for private members' hour.
Committee Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): The Committee of Supply has adopted a certain
resolution, directs me to report the same, and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would ask for leave of
the House, if it would be okay, for private members' hour, to have Bill 66 for
second reading called first, with leave of the House?
Mr. Speaker: Is there
unanimous consent to move Bill 66 forward?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No. Leave is denied.
DEBATE ON SECOND
READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 16‑The Health
Care Directives Act
Mr. Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill 16,
The Health Care Directives Act; Loi sur les directives en matiere de soins de
sante, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 18‑The
Franchises Act
Mr. Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), Bill 18,
The Franchises Act; Loi sur les concessions, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [Agreed]
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, if I could speak on that, Bill
18?
Mr. Speaker: On Bill
18?
Mr. Ashton: Yes.
Mr. Speaker:
Okay. Leave has been granted to
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine).
Mr. Ashton: I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. I wanted to, in particular,
reference this bill, in fact, a number of bills, that the member for Elmwood
(Mr. Maloway) has brought before this House in previous sessions and in the
current session, which deal with consumer matters. I must credit the member for Elmwood for his
activities in this regard. In many ways,
Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood has become a major champion of the rights
of consumers in this House, and I think he should get credit for that.
In fact, the member for Elmwood, some of us would suggest, has
done for the consumers than the minister responsible for Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), who seems to respond to consumer concerns if there is
an I‑Team report, but is not looking at the kind of substantive changes
that we have seen from the member for Elmwood, supported by every member of the
New Democratic Party caucus, fighting for the rights of consumers, Mr. Speaker.
I want to go further and say that I believe in many ways that
in the difficult times we are faced with, the bottom line is that we need this
kind of legislative initiative. We do
not have to spend tremendous amounts of public funds to protect the
consumer. We have the proper legislative
base. If we had the kind of bill that we
see before us, Bill 18, The Franchises Act, we do not need to spend massive
amounts of money. In fact, we do not
need any additional funding, no additional funding, to perform a major public
service by protecting the rights of consumers.
That is something that I think everyone has to recognize. We are all aware of the financial situation
of the province. In fact, I know the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) reminds us of that on a regular basis.
Some of us on this side certainly say it is no surprise that we
have a worsened financial situation because of the decline in the economy. We look to the government and their failure
of the past four years economically to deal with the economic crisis we have
been facing, a crisis that is worsening.
The bottom line is we have seen a government that has allowed us to end
up in a situation where we are in a deep economic crisis in this province. We know there is not funding available for
grandiose schemes that might protect the rights of consumers.
So why not this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker? It does not require additional public
funding. This bill, Bill 18, has been
introduced. It has been ruled in order
because it does not involve public expenditure of funds. If it did, it would not be in order. We would not be debating it at the present
time. We have a golden opportunity
here. Members of this Legislature have
the opportunity to follow through in the kind of thing that we saw yesterday.
We saw all members of this House support a private member's
resolution that was brought forward by the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs.
Carstairs) which was subject to a friendly amendment by a Conservative member
and was supported by the New Democratic Party in addition to the Liberal and
Conservative parties. All three parties
supported that resolution. Why can we
not have that kind of approach on bills such as Bill 18 and other bills before
us, an all‑party approach?
Mr. Speaker, I will go further.
If the Conservatives have concern about specific provisions, we can put
it forward to committee. We can make
amendments in committee. The bottom line
is we can deal with specific concerns, but why not have an all‑party
approach? Why not for once in this
Chamber have an all‑party approach in private members' hour. Why not for once have a vote, allow us to
have the ultimate say.
I look to the government following the precedent that was set
yesterday, the kind of precedent we saw when we had a minority government, when
we did have votes on private members' bills.
I ask them to consider very carefully this particular bill, and I ask
them to allow it to go to a vote, because they know they have the ability to
block this bill. They can stop this bill
from going forward in terms of the normal debating process and having the vote
on second reading. They have that
ability, Mr. Speaker, but they can if they are reasonable, if they are fair‑minded,
allow us as members of the Legislature to debate this particular bill.
*
(1710)
I say to members opposite, particularly members who are not
part of the Treasury benches, they have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, if they
will discuss this and persuade their cabinet colleagues not to bring down the
kind of stonewall we have seen on so many other bills, if they will just allow
them to allow this matter to go to a vote, they have the opportunity to decide
themselves, because surely a bill such as this should not be subject to
government discipline. This should not
be subject to the Whip. This is private
members' hour.
I look to the private members opposite. They are as important in terms of debate on
bills such as this as anyone else in this House. In fact, I will go even further. They have more of a role to play than the
Treasury benches, because members of cabinet through cabinet discussions and
the resulting cabinet solidarity have their own legislative agenda. They have their own legislative agenda, Mr.
Speaker. In this case, it is not one
that is doing very much for the consumers, but they have their own legislative
agenda.
There is nothing in the parliamentary traditions that binds the
government private members from doing what we as opposition private members are
doing and that is to say we are looking objectively. We are developing our own initiatives. We are developing our own agenda. The bottom line is they have that opportunity
as well.
Let us look at this bill.
What does this bill do, Mr. Speaker?
First of all, let us look at the fact that this bill, while unique in
The bottom line is we are seeing it on a continuous basis. We
are seeing franchises that offer a great deal in terms of promise, that often
are grossly inflated in terms of the kind of cost that is attached to one
having the franchise. We are seeing that
many of those so‑called promises have bordered on the fraudulent.
There have been many examples here in Manitoba, and concern has
been expressed‑‑travel agencies being one where the approach of
those is to be so grossly inflated levels of franchise fees, to then adjust
those according to the ability to pay of whoever is unfortunate enough to be
considering investing in that kind of franchise, and then indeed saying, well,
perhaps the normal franchise fee is $100,000 but in your case we will lower it
to $50,000 or to $35,000 or $20,000, knowing full well that the $100,000 fee
was totally and absolutely out of line with the kind of financial reward and
benefit, the kind of investment return that members of the public looking at
purchasing a franchise would expect. We
are seeing, too many times, franchises where the franchisers have not lived up
to the kind of promises that have been made.
I note that this particular bill has several different aspects
to it. It is a comprehensive bill. It deals with the regulation of franchise
trading, Mr. Speaker. It requires a
statement of material facts which is, I think, a significant matter, a
registration of the application prospectus which would once again provide
greater control, greater rights for the consumer. It goes into detail in terms of the
prospectus. It requires a certificate of
full disclosure and also deals with a number of other areas relating to
salespersons, in particular, and also to a number of general concerns about
representation as to registration.
There is also a section that deals with enforcement. That is important, because there is no use,
as we have found, of having consumer legislation unless there is the ability of
the member of the public that has been unfairly treated to receive some sort of
redress, unless there is some sort of penalty, Mr. Speaker, for those who would
abuse the rights of consumers.
There is a whole section of this bill that deals with liability
of directors and officers, that deals with what defences would be applied. Also, in particular it deals with a kind of fines,
and deals with some very substantial fines, up to $25,000 of someone who is
guilty of an offence.
That is important because toothless consumer legislation is no
better than no legislation at all. It
provides provisions for investigation and action, Mr. Speaker, which is
important, specific provisions in terms of dealing with the appointment. It is fair, it provides an appeal commission,
and that is a mechanism open to any person primarily affected by a direction
decision, order of ruling, of the director that is appointed by this bill.
There is a section on administration which is once again part
of the comprehensive approach of this bill.
This is a comprehensive bill, Mr. Speaker, and I once again give credit
to the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) for introducing a bill such as this in
the Manitoba Legislature.
I ask the question why the government is not doing anything to
prevent people from being ripped off as they are on an almost daily basis by
those, Mr. Speaker, who are misleading them about their abilities to deliver
the kind of promises we have seen in terms of franchises. Why is this government not acting? Is it going to take an I‑Team report
before this government finally realizes that it has to act on behalf of the
consumers in this particular area?
I know a number of people personally who have been in the
situation of, I quite frankly would say, being ripped off by individuals who
have set up franchises, who have made promises that have not been delivered,
Mr. Speaker. I have seen that happen,
and does it take more people to be affected on a personal basis? Does it take more people to be ripped off
before this government will act? Who is
this government protecting? I ask that
question. Why will it not act itself and
bring in a bill as a government bill?
Why is the government not now speaking to this bill, and why will they
not give a commitment, something they can do very easily, to at least having
this go to a vote?
If they do not agree with the bill, they will then have to be
accountable for their actions. What we
have seen too many times, Mr. Speaker, in this House, in private members' hour,
is the government hiding behind its ability to stonewall legislative
initiatives from other members, to stonewall, to debate out the bills, to wait
until the end of the session when those bills are still remaining on the Order
Paper and have them die on the Order Paper.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Do not put so many on the paper.
Mr. Ashton: Well,
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says, do not put so many on the
paper. If the Minister of Finance will
guarantee there will be votes on a specific number of private members' bills,
which he has the ability to do, I am sure that we would probably see more focused
discussion in terms of bills. When we know our chances of getting a bill even
to a vote that would have the bill defeated by the government, if that was to
happen, the odds of that are pretty slim.
The only significant number of private members' bills that have
gone to a vote took place when we had a minority government. The government had much less choice at that
time in terms of being able to block those kinds of bills. We have had the occasional bill in the early
1980s, but I look to the minister.
Outside of the private bills, when was the last time that this
government said, yes, we will allow it to go to a vote.
Mr. Manness: We had a
vote last night.
Mr. Ashton: Well,
indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance makes my point. There was a vote last night on a resolution,
and what I said earlier in my comments was, let us have a vote on this
bill. Let us have a vote that allows
each and every member of the Legislature, even those who do not wish to debate,
to state where they stand in terms of the protection of the rights of consumers
in regard to franchises. Let us have a
vote, Mr. Speaker. Let us follow up on
that principle that was established yesterday that saw all‑party
agreement on a resolution.
We had all‑party agreement on a resolution a few weeks
ago, proposed by a government member. A
similar resolution had been on the Order Paper in regard to post office, and
why not have the same approach on this particular bill? What does the government have to lose by
putting this bill to a vote? What does
it have to lose, even if it votes it down, which I perhaps sense may be the
case? What does it have to lose? In fact, I would say the people will gain,
Mr. Speaker, because they will at least have some accounting from the government
for its actions. I say this because
governments of all political stripes have done this.
It is time in private members' hour that we got back to the
original purpose of private members' hour, which was to allow matters not just
to be debated‑‑this is not a debating club, this is a decision‑making
body.
In
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
*
(1720)
House Business
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to
see Bill 66 come forward for second reading, if indeed it is the will of the
House to do so.
Mr. Speaker: Is there
leave to bring Bill 66 forward at this time? [Agreed] Bill 18 will remain standing in the name of
the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), as previously agreed.
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC
BILLS
Bill 66‑The Child
and Family Services Amendment Act (2)
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that Bill 66, The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a
la famille, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this
House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, this is really a very, very simple bill. In fact, I think it amounts to one line in a
change to the present legislation. It is
a bill that affects the post‑adoption registry.
At the present time, if a young person is adopted and they wish
to make contact with their former family, there is a process in place. It is a very complex process, as it should
be. There is nothing wrong with the
present process, because it protects not only the rights of the adoptee but the
rights of the birth parents, because they have given up this child for an
adoption purpose. But should it be clear
that the adoptee wishes to make contact with the birth parents, and if it is
equally clear that the birth parents do not mind having contact with that
child, now perhaps an adult, then that process is made possible by the
Department of Family Services. It has
worked very successfully.
I know, for example, of a man in his 30s who is going to be
reunited with his mother on Mother's Day this year, not having any contact with
that mother for some 32 years, but they both agreed that they would like to
have that contact and they are going to have that contact on Mother's Day of
this year. In addition, the same kind of
contact can be made with the siblings.
If a sibling is with a birth parent then that sibling can, in fact, also
achieve contact with the adoptee.
Where there is a breakdown and where such contact is not
allowed is if the adopted child has a sibling who has also been adopted, that
contact cannot be permitted at the present time. Even though we are suggesting
the same controls should be in place if that adopted child is not an adult and
if that adopted child does not want to have contact, then, of course, the
contact should not be made. But if a
child who is also adopted wants to have contact and if, in fact, it is a birth
sibling of another adopted child, then what this legislation would permit would
be for that kind of contact to be maintained.
We do not want to see any lessening of the controls. We think the controls are appropriate. What we do want to ensure is that if anyone
has been adopted, but they have a brother or sister who is, in fact, a birth
brother and sister and that birth brother and sister has also been adopted,
they will be entitled to have contact with one another should they both wish
that contact to take place.
It is a simple piece of legislation. It is not one that I think requires a great
deal of debate. It just requires a
willingness for those of us in the House to decide whether we want to extend
the rights presently in law to include others who have been adopted. I would just ask this simple question. If it is acceptable for an individual to have
contact with a birth sibling who has not been adopted, why is it not acceptable
for them to have contact with a birth sibling who has been adopted?
Surely, the relationship is exactly the same. They have never known this brother or
sister. They have never had previous
contact with this brother or sister, but we are limiting their ability for a
brother and sister if it is still living, if it is not any longer living or
never did live with the birth parent.
So I would ask the members to consider this. I do not expect them to make quick comment on
it, because it is an idea that they have to think about and consider before
they do make contact, but I think it is a reasonable suggestion. I think it would give the kind of contacts to
one group in particular above all else, and that is the number of aboriginal
children who were adopted outside of this province and outside of this
country. That has been referred to as
genocide by none other than a court judge in the
As a result, we have made very considerable changes in the way
we deal with aboriginal children. I
think we are now dealing with them in a much more appropriate fashion, but many
of those children were adopted, and many of their birth siblings were
adopted. They would now like to unify
their families, but they cannot make that unification because if the parents
are no longer living, they have no avenue to make that contact because they are
prohibited from doing it under the present legislation.
So I would ask members to consider it, and I would ask that in
a short period of time they also participate in this debate and that they give
passage to this bill, because this is no condemnation of the present
government. This has been an ongoing
problem for a great many years. It is
just a further recognition that we must move into this additional area as we
have moved into other areas that are similar but not exactly identical. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
An Honourable Member: Six
o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Six
o'clock? Is it the will of the House to
call it six o'clock?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: It is
agreed. The hour being 6 p.m. this House
now stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning (Friday).