LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
OF
Tuesday, June 8, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Plohman). It complies with
the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board has
played a vital role in the orderly marketing of Canadian wheat, barley and
other grain products since its inception in 1935; and
WHEREAS the federal Minister of
Agriculture is considering removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Wheat
Board; and
WHEREAS this is another step towards
dismantling the board; and
WHEREAS, as in the case with the removal
of oats from the Wheat Board in 1989, there has been no consultation with the
board of directors of the Wheat Board, with the 11‑member advisory
committee to the board or the producers themselves; and
WHEREAS the federal minister has said that
there will be no plebiscite of farmers before the announcement is made.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Ms. Cerilli). It complies with
the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of
Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has
adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to
sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of
Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual
Report 1992 for the Department of Rural Development, the Annual Report 1992 for
the
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Monsieur le president, I have, for the
Legislative Assembly and my honourable friends my critics, Supplementary
Information for Legislative Review 1993, Departmental Expenditure Estimates for
the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba.
* (1335)
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us
today members of the German Lander Parliament and Business Delegation.
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
Also with us this afternoon, we have from
the Minnedosa Collegiate twelve Grades 10 and 11 students under the direction
of Mr. Bob Pineo. This school is located
in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer).
Also, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Framework for Economic
Growth
Employment Creation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
Last year, Canadians were given a copy of
a Tory theory paper called the prosperity paper, issued by Michael Wilson. Today, Manitobans were greeted with a similar
Conservative theory, a document issued by the Premier, a very self‑serving
document, I might add, in terms of not dealing with some of the real and total
economic challenges we are facing. It
deals with partial economic challenges, but does not deal with some of the
reality of what people are facing in
It does not talk about rising social
assistance and a strategy to deal with that.
It does not talk about rising unemployment and a strategy to deal with
that. It does not talk about out‑migration
and the problem of people leaving the
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
Premier why there is not a specific action plan in the document tabled after
six budgets by the Conservative government to deal with the rising social
assistance in the province, to deal with the fact that after the Premier
announced his Economic Committee of Cabinet, we have 15,000 more people
unemployed, and to deal with the fact that now, unlike in 1990 when 5,000
people were unemployed for six months, we have 13,000 people who are unemployed
for over six months in the
What hope do we have for those people in
the strategy document tabled by the Premier today?
* (1340)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Leader of the Opposition, of course, is
narrowly focused on a short‑term strategy. He has no long‑term vision and no view
of how we take
Mr. Speaker, it is a coincidence that we
have guests from
Mr. Speaker, many of the things we are
doing, of course, are paying dividends.
There are 7,000 more people employed today than were employed last
August in this province. That is good
news. That is not good news for New
Democrats. They do not want to hear
anything of that nature.
Many of the comparisons show the massive
progress we have made in terms of competitiveness, where we used to be, of
course, the highest in terms of our personal income tax rates, and we are now
the fourth lowest in the country‑‑comparisons all the way through
the piece in which we are now the second lowest sales tax rate in the country.
These are the kinds of positive things
that people are looking to, as they want to have a foundation upon which to
fund their investments, to base their investments on in the future. These are
long‑term strategies, a framework that involves all Manitobans working
together.
Manitobans are not looking for the kinds
of little, cute‑kid quips that you see in Laurie Mustard, that you get
from the Leader of the Opposition. They
are looking for a long‑term framework for the future growth of this
province, and, Mr. Speaker, that is what we have given them.
Unemployment Rate
Government Statistics
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): The Premier forgets to tell Manitobans that
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
Premier: Why does his Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) send internal documents and
letters, which I will table in the House, to
Is it the understated statistics of his
own Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, or is it these glowing numbers the
Premier released here today in the report he tabled?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition
wants to point to a year like 1991 in which we exercised severe public sector
wage restraint, a year in which we kept our spending down, as we have done
consistently. This document tells about
it, that we have been the third lowest in increases in spending throughout our
entire period of six budgets in office.
We could do what the Leader of the
Opposition preached and practised when he was in government, which is to simply
spend taxpayers' dollars to artificially create GDP growth, because for every 3
percent of increase in spending, that increases our GDP growth by 1 percent.
They practised that year after year after
year. They were getting virtually no
real growth in the economy. The only
growth was based on public sector spending, and all that left us with was the
debt, the debt that we are now having to pay interest on, Mr. Speaker, the debt
that is choking our ability to provide social services, the debt that is
choking our ability to provide for health care, the debt that is choking our
ability to provide for education.
That is all we are left with, with that
artificially fuelled GDP growth from government spending of the New
Democrats. That is not the answer, Mr.
Speaker.
Framework for Economic
Growth
Interprovincial
Migration
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): You know, it is a wonder the Premier can keep
a straight face after running a deficit of $862 million last year, the highest
in the history of this province, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not answer
the question on real unemployment. (interjection)
It is okay; he is too busy developing a retreat on the Children's Dental
Program. He is a little agitated here
this afternoon.
The Premier did not answer the question
about dealing with the understated unemployment according to his own letter
signed by his own minister.
There is another issue in an internal
document sent to the federal government that is lacking from the strategy
document or theoretical document tabled by the government six budgets after
they were elected, and that is the whole issue of the loss of population from
His own government's letter states the
reality of interprovincial migration which masks the symptoms of regional
disparity. It must be considered
alongside unemployment to accurately measure the ability of an economy to
create jobs.
I would like to ask the Premier: Why has his government failed so miserably to
keep people in this province, and what strategy in this paper can Manitobans
look to to get hope to have their careers in
* (1345)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that
The fact is the information we have
provided as the basis for our economic framework is realistic, that it is
straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and that it provides us with a framework and a
long‑term vision of where this province is going. It is not the eight‑second clip that
the Leader of the Opposition is so good at, but, then, of course, that eight‑second
clip reflects the kind of thinking that goes into their long‑term
strategies.
We saw what the short‑term, make‑work
approach to government was in their office‑‑debt, debt and more
debt, and that is all we are left with.
We are not left with jobs. We are
not left with industrial growth. We are
left with debt, and that is all we have as a legacy of the short‑term
thinking of New Democrats.
Framework for Economic
Growth
Education Priorities
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Speaker, the authors of this Framework for Economic Growth must have
had their tongues in their cheeks when they wrote this one. On page 6 we find, quote: The immediate challenge is to identify
educational spending priorities and to broaden our commitment to lifelong
learning.
Mr. Speaker, this government has
identified its educational priorities; first of all, private education, and
second of all, building better golf courses and car dealerships in Workforce
2000.
I want to ask the Minister of Education
and Training (Mrs. Vodrey): Did she not
tell the authors of this report that the percentage of gross expenditure on
education in
* (1350)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, regrettably, all we find in the questions from the member
for Wolseley is her taking every opportunity to try and feather her own nest,
because she speaks in terms of one, of course, who is always arguing that those
who work in education ought to be paid more in order to improve the quality of
education.
I reject totally‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, I was waiting to make very clear
what the First Minister was saying in his comments, and once again the Premier
is taking the low road in not answering a question. He has broken our rules which indicate that
one should not impute motives in this particular case.
I would like to ask him to withdraw that
inappropriate comment made about the member for Wolseley immediately.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point of
order. I do not believe the honourable
First Minister was imputing motives.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to deal with
the matter raised.
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the member opposite is constantly
trying to equate the quality of our education with how much money we pay those
who work in education, and that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The fact of the matter is we have to start
judging the outcomes from our expenditures.
This nation, as a proportion of its gross domestic product and on a per
capita basis, spends more on education than almost any other nation in the
world and does not get the results, does not get the results because that
member, like every other member, wants to try and equate the value of those who
work in education with how much they are paid, not with the results.
We have had some 50,000 people since May
of 1991 trained under Workforce 2000 to improve their skills so they will be
better able to meet the needs of the jobs in the workforce today. That is the kind of value that we have to
evaluate, not just how much we pay those who work in education.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Speaker, it is just like Estimates, the minister answering for his
Minister of Education.
My question for the Minister of Education
was: Did she discuss with the authors of
this report her views that she presented to the Northern Economic Development
Commission, that
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The member has put her question.
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, we see the problem that New Democrats have when they cannot
look beyond their own self‑interest.
All they are talking about is how much
money is paid to the people who work in education. They do nothing to try and evaluate the
results of that education. They do
nothing to try and evaluate the outcomes of education, and as long as they are
on that track, they will never be able to prepare our students for the
challenges put forward in this document and every other analysis of where the
future challenges and opportunities in growth and investment in this world will
be.
Ms. Friesen:
I do see where part of the problem is.
We have a Premier who can only see education costs in terms of‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Wolseley, with your question, please.
Ms. Friesen:
Perhaps I should address this question to the minister since he seems
intent on answering all this.
Did the First Minister explain to the
authors of this report the central role of the
* (1355)
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting point the member for Wolseley
makes. As a former university professor
herself, she is arguing the cause for her own people, saying only‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton:
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's 484, Citation 3,
indicates very clearly a member will not be permitted by the Speaker to indulge
in any reflections or to impute to any members unworthy motives for their
actions.
This Premier, the Leader of the party of
Bob Kozminski and Arni Thorsteinson, to talk about that in this House, is
despicable. The party‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, what
the Premier said, and I think everybody heard him, was to do nothing but state
the facts. He did not, in any way,
impugn motives on the member‑‑(interjection)
No, he did not.
Mr. Speaker, the member was asking a
question, certainly understood by us, and in view of asking for money for the
faculties, for all the faculties, not specifically for herself, that is a
statement of fact.
The opposition House leader certainly did
impugn motives with respect to the references he made to certain
individuals. So the very rule the House
leader opposite quotes should be directed to him, and he should apologize to
the House.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable
opposition House leader, I indeed thank the honourable government House leader
for his remarks on this matter.
I am not exactly sure what was said, so I
am going to take this opportunity to take this matter under advisement. I will peruse Hansard, and I will come back
to the House with a ruling.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to finish his
response.
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, with respect to investments in capital, during the past
five years, this government has put more money into the capital of the
universities than any previous government in the history of this province, so
let her not try and make an issue with that.
Go and look at the figures and you will
find out that this government has put more into capital, because your
government, when it was here in office in the '80s, stripped all the capital
out of it.
So for the last five years we have been
repairing the steam tunnels. We have
been repairing the buildings. We have
been adding to all of the infrastructure in those universities, Mr. Speaker,
and that is the truth.
Framework for Economic
Growth
Education Priorities
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the document released today
looks very nice and it sounds nice.
Mr. Speaker, producing these is surely one
of the biggest growth industries in the province, but once you have looked through
it, it becomes painfully clear that all the words are nice and the rhetoric is
finely tuned, but the substance is not here in this document.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the First
Minister. The fact is at page 6 the
document speaks glowingly about: Skilled
workers are becoming the single most important factor in production. The immediate challenge is to identify
educational spending priorities and broaden our commitment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the student social
allowances program was cut. The bursary
program was cut. The Advanced Education
and Skills Training budget was cut. The
labour adjustment branch was cut.
Universities were cut. Literacy
was cut.
Where is the substance? What is the plan to achieve these glowing,
wonderful ideals in this document? What
is the plan to do it?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, the plan is to ensure that all Manitobans understand what
is happening with respect to the shift from an industrial economy to an
information economy, that all Manitobans understand that this is a fundamental
sea change that has not happened in the history, perhaps, of the world.
In looking at it, Mr. Speaker, we have to
do many things to put us in a competitive position. Among those things, we have to obviously have
our tax load on individuals and on corporations made much more
competitive. We have to ensure that
information and innovation drive the economic opportunities of the future, that
we identify the target‑segmental areas of our economy in which the
greatest opportunities will be for the future, because we cannot stop the
changes that are taking place.
We cannot stop the wind, Mr. Speaker, but
what we can do is prepare for the future by ensuring that we know where the
opportunities lie, what our vision is of future growth and economic development
in our province, and provide for that.
* (1400)
Private Sector
Involvement
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): With respect to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, I
think the thousands of unemployed Manitobans do understand the world is
changing and that it changes quickly, and that the global economy affects this
province and the unemployment situation.
What they are looking for is some leadership in retraining and in getting
them back into the workforce with dignity and without the loss of income over
the long term.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Premier. He talks about a co‑operative
approach. He talks about bringing in the
various sectors of the economy, and government cannot do it alone, and I agree. Government, he says, does not have money to
do this, and I agree.
My question is: Has he brought them in? What commitment has he gotten from the
private sector to help him? Have they
committed dollars to this kind of retraining, because if they are not going to
do it, and he is not going to do it, who is going to do it?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, during the past year, the Round Table on Environment and
Economy has held at least half of its meetings outside of the city of
In addition, in November of this past
year, the Economic Innovation and Technology Council held a major forum in
In February of this year, we held a
meeting with respect to Total Quality Management in health care, again
sponsored by the Economic Innovation and Technology Council that talked about
opportunities not only for reforming our health care system, but getting
investment in it. In March of this year,
in
Of course, in April of this year, the
Economic Innovation and Technology Council, along with the Department of Rural
Development, held a rural development forum in Neepawa, bringing together
hundreds of people to help develop the strategies.
So I say to him: Yes, yes, the stakeholders are prepared to
make a commitment. Yes, the stakeholders
do want this kind of leadership and vision, and, yes, the stakeholders do want
this kind of framework as the basis for their future actions.
Mr. Edwards:
Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier and the government have had many
meetings and forums around the province.
I have been to some of them. They
are all nicely organized, and I was at the one in Neepawa where the First
Minister flew in and blew off and flew out and did not listen to anybody, gave
his speech in the morning and then took off.
I was there. I have been to those
meetings.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the First
Minister, however, is: I think
Manitobans are pleased they have come out to see them, but where is the
commitment from the private sector?
Where are the dollars? Where is
the time line for this? Where is the
commitment?
Our friends are here from other
countries. They have commitments from the
private sector, hard commitments, commitments for retraining programs and a co‑operative
approach to get people back into the workforce.
My question for the Premier is: Where is the time line? Where are the
dollars? Where is the commitment to co‑operation,
Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, I think all Manitobans appreciate that I have
responsibilities to look after. When I
participate in a forum‑‑and I have; several ministers and a large
number of my caucus there for the entire day and the entire forum‑‑I
am not expected to be in all places all the time.
Having said that, I can tell him, yes,
there is a commitment from people throughout this economy to do their part in
terms of training and retraining. That
is why 50,000 people have been retrained and trained through our Workforce 2000
program, courtesy of joint investment not only of the government of
That is the kind of significant commitment
we are seeing, because they believe in the process, and they believe that
government can be a facilitator in helping them to ensure their employees have
the skills and the knowledge necessary to be successful in today's work world.
Framework for Economic
Growth
Aboriginal Education
Programs
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, in reading this document titled
Framework for Economic Growth, it would be interesting to see where it is filed
in the library, most likely under fiction.
I hope it is not submitted as a prospectus to any potential investors,
because it is full of falsehoods and inaccuracies.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) how he can reconcile statements in the report that aboriginal education
and training have been improved and that this government has set up an improved
working relationship with aboriginal people‑‑both of those are
direct quotes from this document‑‑when they have cut New Careers,
they have cut the ACCESS program, they have cut friendship centres, they have
cut funding to First Nations.
How can he reconcile the statements in
this document with the reality of cuts to education for aboriginal people?
Hon. James Downey (Minister
responsible for Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am
extremely pleased to respond to the member for Thompson.
This Premier (Mr. Filmon) and this
government have resolved many outstanding difficulties and claims, whether it
is the
That member sat as a member of his
government and was unable to do any of those kinds of things. I am proud of our record, and it is accurate,
what is in that document.
Mr. Ashton:
Mr. Speaker, if this Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) is proud
of his record, that is scary.
I will ask this Minister of Northern
Affairs, since he wants to answer the questions instead of the Premier (Mr.
Filmon)‑‑I guess the North is not important enough for the Premier
to answer them.
I would ask the Minister of Northern
Affairs: Where was he when this
government cut New Careers funding, when it cut the ACCESS funding, when it cut
the funding to aboriginal friendship centres and when it cut the funding to
First Nations? Where was he?
Mr. Downey:
Mr. Speaker, I was there putting money in recreation programs through
the Department of Northern Affairs and the Citizenship department, 20‑some
additional jobs to help the northern people.
I was there when we did the research and
the work to put hydro into some nine communities where they had not seen hydro
in northern
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, the member did not answer the
question in terms of education and training.
If he wants to talk about where was he,
where was he when this government cut the funding in terms of job creation for
the Northern Youth Corps Program, where it has cut funding in terms of capital
spending in the communities, where it has left many communities now this year
with no summer jobs for young people?
Where was that minister when those
decisions were made, and where was the Premier (Mr. Filmon), by the way, who
writes nice, glossy things in this document while northern
Hon. James Downey (Minister of
Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we were introducing programs for
the mining sector, for the prospectors and developers, mining tax holidays for
people to go and get meaningful jobs in northern
We were doing real things for the people
of northern
Anishinabe Respect
Funding
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.
I hope she will answer this question, because
aboriginal people have fared very badly under this minister with all the cuts
she has made to training programs for aboriginal people across
Since Anishinabe Respect, which is an
employment preparation program, has recruited 26 students who have been left in
limbo since November, I want to ask the minister when the Anishinabe Respect
will be getting word about their funding.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, we are beginning the
process of Advanced Education and Skills Training Estimates, and I will be
happy to look at the details of that during the Estimates process.
* (1410)
Anishinabe Respect
Funding
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier because he gives a much
better answer. The people have been
waiting since November. They are
recruited. Their families are left in limbo.
They do not know if they will take a job or not.
I would like to ask the Premier if he will
ask his minister if she will take a visit to Anishinabe Respect, which is
located on
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the
Minister of Education.
Literacy Programs
Private Sector
Involvement
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
We have a budget in which there is a
decrease in terms of literacy programming, training and so forth. I think it demonstrates very clearly this
government's approach. We have a classic
example of a lot of fluff the government has introduced earlier today, Mr.
Speaker.
My question to the Minister of Education
is: On the one hand we see fluff, then
we look to the
My question to the Minister of Education
is: Will the Minister of Education make
a commitment today to seek co‑operation from the private industry to
ensure that we do have a literacy program that will get Manitobans back into
the workforce?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, as that member
knows, the whole issue of literacy is of great interest and importance to
me. I chaired the task force on literacy
for this province, and from that task force we did set up our Literacy Office
and also our Literacy Council.
I think during the Estimates of the
Department of Education and Training, we will be able to talk about the total amount
of program dollars which are still being funnelled into community‑based
programs in literacy, and I think he will find that those dollars remain
extremely substantial for
Let me also tell him, as he has spoken
about partnerships with the private sector, that Workforce 2000, which was
spoken about earlier today, has levered over $18 million from the private
sector.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting in terms of
what the Minister of Education is saying.
In the
The question quite specifically is: What is this government doing to ensure that
there is a private sector involvement in literacy programming?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to go over the literacy programming this
province does support because we have very extensive literacy programming. It is community‑based programming. Much of it comes from the ideas of the
community, and it meets with the hours in which participants are actually able
to take part in literacy programming.
I will be more than happy to speak to him
about the numbers and types of literacy programs which we have in this province
during the course of the Estimates, and I believe we are ready to look at
Advanced Education and Skills Training beginning this afternoon.
Literacy Rate
Government Statistics
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
When I had contacted the department in
terms of trying to find out what the literacy rate is in the
I am wondering if the Minister of
Education can tell the House, what is she basing the literacy rate on in the
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows
if he has kept up to date on this issue, the whole matter of percentage of
literacy rate is now a matter of some discussion because the actual method of
measurement has come under some discussion itself.
The actual literacy rate can be measured
partly through self‑reporting, partly through graduation from schools and
through assessment which we do within our K‑12 section. It also comes from reporting within business,
industry and labour. It also comes from
screening which occurs in community‑based programming.
Social Policy
Government Position
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, two reports in the last two days reveal disturbing trends
in terms of the direction of the federal Conservative government in social
policy.
The Caledon Institute of Social Policy
report called Setting the Record Straight, released yesterday, and Towards
2000: Eliminating Child Poverty, released today by the subcommittee on poverty
of the House of Commons, both spell out the direction of the federal
Conservative government when it comes to social policy. Those trends and directions are dismantling
the social safety net and eliminating poverty by changing its definition.
I would like to ask the Minister of Family
Services: Will he stand up for
Manitobans and call on the federal government to stop eroding the social safety
net in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member did put his question.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, last week, I had the privilege
of meeting with my counterparts from across the country. The major topic we talked about was income
programs for unemployed people and social allowance recipients. There certainly is agreement that the
measurement tools used by Statistics Canada and more specifically the low‑income
cutoffs are not an adequate measure to measure the income of Canadians.
There was general agreement that there
needs to be some refinement of the measurement tools used in that area. Ministers from all provinces have committed
themselves to working with the federal government to look at ways of enhancing
both the education and training for unemployed people and also the benefits
that accrue to those people.
Child Poverty Rate
Federal Government
Initiatives
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Family Services write to Barbara
Greene, the chair of the subcommittee on poverty, and tell her that eliminating
child poverty by changing the definition does not eliminate poverty, does not
help people who are vulnerable to unemployment and to cutbacks in federal
programs?
Will the minister encourage her instead to
do something real and something concrete to enhance the income, particularly of
families with children, which is the only way to eliminate poverty amongst
children by the year 2000?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): I would ask the member opposite to do his own
communication with whomever he wants to write to. We will continue to address these issues on
an annual basis, as I have indicated in the past. The member has been very supportive of a
number of the enhancements and reforms we have brought to the Social Allowances
Program.
I will maybe just take the opportunity,
since he has asked the question, to mention a few of those. We do address the rates on an annual basis,
and our rates are comparable to other jurisdictions in
We have consistently said that there is a
difference in the cost of living in
Social Assistance
Employment Creation
Strategy
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, it seems that this minister agrees with Barbara Greene and
wants to redefine poverty in order to eliminate it.
I would like to ask the minister, since
employment is the best way of enhancing people's income, if he will talk to his
colleagues in cabinet, particularly the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst),
and support the proposal by the City of
Will this minister support the proposal to
get those people back to work?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): I completely reject the member's preamble
where he is putting his own interpretation on my words. He can certainly read that in Hansard for the
correct version.
The Minister of Urban Affairs has
indicated it is an issue that is before government and one that government will
be dealing with in the near future.
HIV Infections
Blood Transfusions
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): My question is for the Minister of Health.
The House of Commons subcommittee on blood
and HIV recommended that the provinces compensate those who got the disease
through their blood. Mr. Speaker, the
governments of
Can the Minister of Health make a
commitment to make sure that people are compensated on compassionate grounds on
this issue?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, the Commons committee on this
issue also urged that the federal government revisit their compensation
package. I have indicated to the House
and to those who have inquired that in September of this year, Ministers of
Health will be discussing the issue.
I think it would be an important
initiative to undertake those discussions collaboratively with the federal
government, because one of the things that we attempt to do in this nation is
provide some consistency of program support from sea to sea.
The current environment where two
provinces have made announcements, one to negotiate and the other one to
commence negotiation in Quebec, independent of the other two provinces, tends
to reinforce that you can end up with a diversity of responses and, Sir, the
difficulty where we may well create an environment where the federal government
is left not participating in any additional compensation which may be
forthcoming, as recommended by the Commons committee.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render),
that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural
Resources be amended as follows: the
member for
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, if you were to canvass the
House, I believe or at least I would hope you would find there is unanimous
consent for me to make the following necessary adjustments to the Estimates sequence
tabled on March 15. They are to relocate
the Department of Northern Affairs in the sequence so that it will be
considered outside the Chamber immediately after Education and Training, and
delete Native Affairs.
Secondly, just a minor name change, Industry,
Trade and Technology to Industry, Trade and Tourism, and thirdly, add to the
list to be considered outside the Chamber immediately after Allowances for
Losses and Expenditures, et cetera, the items, Allowances for Salary Accruals
and Emergency Expenditures.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to alter the
sequence as outlined by the honourable government House leader, and also for
the name change?
Some Honourable Members:
Leave.
Mr. Speaker: That is agreed? Okay, there is agreement.
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce a number of committees. The Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections will hold public hearings to review The Freedom of Information Act on
Tuesday, June 22, at 7 p.m. and Saturday, June 26, 1993, at 10 a.m., if
necessary, in Room 255 of the
The Standing Committee on Economic
Development will meet on Tuesday, June 15, '93, at 10 a.m. to consider the 1992
Annual Report of Manitoba Mineral Resources.
The Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet on Tuesday, June
15, 1993, at 10 a.m. to consider the 1992 Annual Report of the North Portage
Development Corporation and the 1992 Annual Report of The Forks Renewal
Corporation. The Standing Committee on
Economic Development will meet on Tuesday, June 15, 1993, at 7 p.m. to consider
Bill 4 and Bill 23 in Room 255.
Next, the Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on Wednesday, June 16, '93, at 7 p.m.
to consider the 1992 Annual Report of the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Corporation;
the Standing Committee on Economic Development will meet on Thursday, June 17,
'93, at 10 a.m. to consider the 1992 Annual Report of the Manitoba Lotteries
Foundation; and the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources
will meet on Thursday, June 17, '93, at 10 a.m. to consider the 1992 Annual
Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether or
not there is a willingness to waive private members' hour and continue in Estimates
today.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings),
that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a
Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into
a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the
Department Education and Training; and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel
Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This afternoon this section of
the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates
of Education and Training.
When the committee last sat it had been
considering item 4.(a)(1) on page 39 of the Estimates book.
* (1430)
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, under the first section, Management Services, I
am interested in finding out a little bit more about The Private Vocational
Schools Act that is highlighted in a couple of places in the Supplementary
Estimates as part of the activities of the Management Services in terms of
administration and negotiation of federal‑provincial agreements and
training agreements and the private vocational schools that exist in the
province in compliance with the act.
Can the minister tell us how many of the
private vocational schools exist in the
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): There are 43 private vocational
schools registered in
Point of Order
Mr. Plohman:
If the minister wants to read them all out into the record, she
can. We know that she is quite capable
of doing that but, if she wants to table them, that would be satisfactory as
well. We do not need to take the time of
the committee reading all of these. I
thought there was far fewer than that.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. The honourable
member does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey:
I am certainly more than willing to table it. The member had asked me to read them and that
is what I was doing. Let me provide you a copy now and if you would make copies
for the members, thank you.
Mr. Plohman:
Is Success commercial college one of those?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, it is.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the minister give the committee some idea of
the scope of studies offered at that institute and the number of staff at the
Success commercial college?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The correct name of the private vocational school is Success/Angus
Business College, and it provides training in the areas of administrative
secretary, legal secretary, medical secretary, private secretary, general
secretary, computer accounting technician, business administration,
stenographer, clerk typist, dictaphone typist and receptionist, travel, word‑processing
administrator, travel procedures as an evening course, accounting technician as
an evening course, legal secretary as an evening course, medical terminology,
word‑processing operator as an evening course, sales marketing,
microcomputer applications, computerized office systems and legal secretary as
an accelerated program.
The information regarding the number of
staff is considered to be confidential information to that particular
institution and, through our private vocational schools area, we simply monitor
that they are in compliance with the act.
Mr. Plohman:
Does the department, in monitoring whether certain colleges or private
vocational schools are in compliance with the act also keep statistics on the
number of graduates from each of the colleges?
If so, does she have the number for that college?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do have that information on file. It is to enable us to make sure that there is
compliance. We have information
regarding grads and enrollments. The
information is not made public, because individual schools would not want to
have that information made public to others in the area.
Mr. Plohman:
Can the minister tell us why she would honour that request or that wish?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because in the case of these schools, we do not
fund those schools. We simply make sure
that the schools are in compliance with the act.
Mr. Plohman:
What are the major features of the act where compliance is monitored by
staff?
* (1440)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the private vocational schools and
monitoring under the act, certificates of registrations are issued on the
calendar year. The registration process
requires a submission of an application fee; an application form signed by a
commissioner of oaths; teacher declaration forms to ensure instructor
qualifications comply to the minimum of the regulation, signed by a
commissioner of oaths; course outlines; valid security, example, a bond to
ensure consumer protection; financial statement prepared by a public accountant
to ensure financial viability of the school; copies of the application,
contract, certificate, diploma and all advertising material, sales literature,
circulars, calendars and collection forms, also application forms for the
person or persons who act as agent, sales person or representative of the
school all signed by commissioner for oaths.
In the area of security, schools are
required to post a security for tuitions refund in the event of school closure
in the amount obtained by a formula based on peak student enrollment or in the
form of a bond from a guarantee company or a personal bond with collateral.
In the area of curriculum review, schools
are required to submit a course outline for review by the Private Vocational
Schools Program Review Committee, which recommends approval to the minister or
designate who approves the course. The
committee is composed of a
The area of administrative duties, the
unit provides support services associated with the act and regulation to
students, private vocational schools, operators, the general public, the
minister, senior administrators and the division.
In the area of a monitoring process,
schools are monitored by the private vocational schools' administration through
the review of the Manitoba Gazette, urban and rural newspapers, print and audio
advertisements. That has been an
important area in our monitoring. Also,
investigation of information from the public, screening of the registration
applications, annual on‑site visits to all schools excluding the
correspondence schools and, also, periodic student surveys.
In the area of complaint resolution the
private vocational schools' administration assists both students and private
vocational school operators with the resolution of a complaint if the charge is
determined to be a contravention of the act or a regulation. The private vocational schools' administration
designs and develops policy in response to both government and the private
vocational sector and the unit staff also participates on committees and
provides liaison with major stakeholders in the public and the private sector,
for example, the Manitoba Trucking Association Education Committee, the
National Accreditation Commission.
Mr. Plohman:
Can the minister give any indication of the number of violations of the
act over the last year?
Mrs. Vodrey:
In the area of complaints statistics, in 1992, the year which we have
completed, there were 28 complaints received. Of those, one complaint was
withdrawn and 27 of those complaints were resolved. In 1993, again we have not completed the
year, there have been 14 complaints received, 10 complaints withdrawn and four
complaints resolved.
Mr. Plohman:
Any charges laid on any of those?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in 1992, acting on four complaints, there was
one charge. In 1993, there have been
none.
Mr. Plohman:
Can the minister say whether tuition fees are monitored and regulated in
any way?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, tuition fees are monitored and regulated in
that they ask for approval to increase.
Mr. Plohman:
Can the minister indicate whether there are any standards among the
colleges for similar courses or are they allowed to go at whatever they can
justify on the basis of cost or what is the criteria?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on private vocational schools entry into
business, they do set their own fee. By
and large, it is set by what the market will demand. It is a private enterprise, however. We have found that they seem to set
comparable fees to other schools that offer the same type of training. Where private vocational schools wish to
raise their tuition fees, we do review the tuition, and we do have the right to
ask for some justification for a tuition fee which seems to be an extremely
large raise, especially if perhaps they have had tuition fee increases over the
immediate number of years.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, on this question, can the minister
indicate the comparative rates between the community colleges and the tuition
fees charged to the private colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The community colleges are subsidized in what they offer in terms of a
training program. So, for example, a
community college fee might be $850, a private vocational college fee might be
in the range of $5,000.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister is saying that an individual having to take the course in a
private college might have to pay six times as much.
* (1450)
Mrs. Vodrey:
I am informed that in 1993, students at
However, with that comes the ability in
many cases to take a course at an accelerated rate, sometimes, at an ongoing
entry as well, as opposed to fixed entry points.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, obviously, the costs are much greater in the private colleges for
the reason stated by the minister.
Under that circumstance, knowing that
students have to put out a lot more from their own pockets to take the courses,
does the minister have any consideration of that reality when making a
determination whether to reduce the enrollment allocation for courses that are
offered in private colleges, or is there any correlation between what is
offered in private colleges and what the government considers to be necessary
at the community colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, when courses at community colleges are being
considered, we do look at a number of factors, but one of the most important
changes‑‑I know we will talk about this in the Estimates process‑‑is
that the colleges have now moved to college governance and, with the ability to
now make more decisions at the local level, then the community colleges and
their boards will be considering a lot of this information.
What is offered by the private vocational
schools, again, are market‑driven courses in many ways. Students who attend some of these private
vocational schools sometimes receive sponsorship from places such as Workers
Compensation, Indian bands or Employment and Immigration Canada funds.
Mr. Plohman:
So there is public money going into these schools. The minister said
there are no direct grants, but there is support for students enrolled in those
schools.
Mrs. Vodrey:
There is some funding available to students as they wish to pursue their
course, but I think he is drawing the distinction between some of the cost of
underwriting courses at the community colleges versus the private vocational
schools and funding which students may access to attend a private vocational
school.
Mr. Plohman:
I just want to ask whether the numbers of graduates or students going
through the private vocational school system are growing vis‑a‑vis
the community college system. Could we
look at a trend over the last three years?
If the minister can provide that at the next sitting, I would certainly
like to have it. She does not have to
provide all that information at this time if it is not readily available.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, in terms of the private vocational schools, in 1990
their enrollments showed a decrease of 12 percent; in 1991, they showed an
increase of 11 percent; and in 1992, they showed an increase of 20 percent.
The substantial increase in enrollments in
1992 and '91 may be due in part to the increase in sponsorship programs such as
the fee payer program sponsored by Employment and Immigration Canada. This stems from the unemployment insurance
changes from the passive income support into the active training support.
Also, we have noticed that there have been
Manitobans in the past few years who have been seeking to upgrade their skills
in a number of areas. In the community
colleges, in 1992‑93, there was an increase totally of 2.3 percent; and
in 1993‑94, we have an estimated decrease of 2.4 percent. Part of that would be reflective of the
changes of the Government of Canada and how they will be funding programs at
the community colleges. We use that
estimated number because we know that the community colleges, now with their
boards of governors, may be looking to negotiate directly with the federal
government for courses to be offered at the community colleges.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, the minister did not give comparative figures. In 1990, did she not have it, and '91? She started '92‑93 for the community
colleges, so it is not as comparative as I would like to have had it.
* (1500)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, I have the actual numbers of '91‑92, but I do
not have anything to compare that with for the year previous. So what I did was I gave the member, based on
three years of the community colleges enrollments, the increase for '92‑93
and the decrease, which is only projected at this time because we do not know
how the community colleges will deal with the Government of Canada, although we
understand that they will be speaking to the Government of Canada on behalf of
perhaps reinstating some of those programs directly with the colleges.
Mr. Plohman:
Could the minister provide us with a table of the courses that have been
discontinued at the community colleges over the last three years, and the total
number of graduates or percentage increases and decreases over the last three
years for both? She has given us for the
private colleges. There are a couple of
years missing for the community colleges, and the total courses that have been
discontinued, the names of those courses and the number of graduates that were
coming from those courses in the year prior to their discontinuance. Can we get that information at another
sitting?
Mrs. Vodrey:
What the member has asked for is extremely detailed information, and
that detailed information would be available through our Colleges Secretariat,
which is Appropriation 16.6.
Mr. Plohman:
That is fine, as long as the minister knows that we want that
information. If she can have it at that
time, that is fine.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Deputy Chair, I wanted to continue with some questions on private
vocational schools, and to ask the minister about the retention rates in those
schools.
Mrs. Vodrey:
We do keep that information within the department in our private
vocational schools area. I can tell the
member that it does vary. It varies
depending upon the industry. It tends to
be very school specific.
It is not information that is released
because again we do not fund these schools and this information would be
particularly valuable perhaps to their competitors.
Ms. Friesen:
The minister said they were school specific and industry specific where
she identifies problems in retention rates.
Am I correct?
Mrs. Vodrey:
I did not speak about problems. I
did say that we kept statistics. The
statistics are school specific, and what I said was that there seems to be a
variance in the area of students withdrawing.
Sometimes it is dependent upon the industry; sometimes it is dependent
upon the school.
Ms. Friesen:
Well then, could we look at it by industry? As I understand the minister, she is saying
that there are varying retention rates in schools across different industries. Could she give us some more information on
that? Where are the high retention
rates, where are the low retention rates?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, that is information which we do not disclose publicly because
this is not government money which funds the schools. Therefore that information is determined to
be private.
Ms. Friesen:
That is exactly why I took the more general of the two options that the
minister essentially offered, and that is to look at it by industry rather than
by school.
Again, although the minister says that there
is no public funding of these institutions, I believe that many people who go
to these institutions are there on some form of student loan. So indeed there is public money in these
schools in quite a large way. I would
think in some industries, if you are looking at CEIC money and student loan
money and Workers Compensation money, there is a very large amount of public
money in these.
So it seems to me that looking at it
overall, maintaining the kind of private company confidentiality that the
minister wishes to, I am asking about comparisons across industries. Where are the high retention rates? Where are the low retention rates?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, we do not give out the information by industry because some
industries are very small, some schools offering particular training to support
an industry may be very small. There may
only be two, for instance, and with the release of that information one school
may know that it is not them, and therefore they will have a very good idea of
what is happening within another school.
So again it is not information which we
provide publicly. We do monitor that
information as we look for the schools to comply with The Private Vocational
Schools Act, however.
Ms. Friesen:
As I see it, there are probably about four or five industrial areas that
you could look at. There is an esthetic
area, driving schools, recording, broadcasting schools, modelling agencies and
florist schools, where there might be more than one certainly. In those, for example, it would seem to me
that the minister's argument that it would be betraying confidentiality does
not hold. There are certainly more than
one or two hairdressing schools, more than one or two driving schools.
Is it possible to obtain the information
about the uses of public money, which is essentially what these schools are
doing, using student money, to give us some idea about what their retention
rates are? Retention rates are an
indication of the academic and professional training standards that are
maintained in these schools. They are
not the only ones by any means, but they are one of the ones that are
measurable.
Mrs. Vodrey:
It is the students who have accessed public money; it is not the
institution nor the private vocational school, which the member seems to have
implied in her question. Students, having accessed that money, have a choice of
where they wish to apply to take that particular program, and I am not sure if
the member is opposed to that kind of choice which is available to students. On behalf of the schools which we are
discussing at the moment, I have explained to her why we do not release that
information.
* (1510)
Ms. Friesen:
It is exactly that element of student choice which does concern me. One of the ways in which students must weigh
up the kind of school which they go to or the kind of training, which industry
they are going to apply to, would presumably be some element of comparison and
some element of assurance of the kind of education which they are going to
receive. So it seems to me there should
be something publicly available, and Estimates is one place to begin that, of
the academic evaluation of these schools.
One way of doing that is to look at the
number of people they retain. I think if
anybody in
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, on behalf of the students of
I did comment, when I spoke about the
monitoring process, that part of the monitoring that occurs by our Private
Vocational Schools area in Education and Training is a review of the Manitoba
Gazette which would then reveal if there had been any legal action. In addition, we also look at the
advertisements which occur in the rural and urban newspapers. We also monitor the print and the audio
advertisements, and I think the member is acquainted with that, and knowing
that it was because of the scrutiny of our private vocational schools area that
we were able to avoid some problems and have been able to avoid some problems
in the past.
So that is the kind of scrutiny that is
provided on behalf of students to licensed schools. Then it is up to the students to make a
choice based on the information that they obtain, and they can know that the
schools have passed through the same process of registration and licensing and
then they will make their choice.
Ms. Friesen:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the students then can base their choice
upon the absence of legal action and the self‑advertisements of the
schools involved. It seems to me that it
would be advantageous for students, as well, to have a reasonable expectation
that there was a high level of completion in these schools.
Now, the minister is essentially saying
that is part of the monitoring process.
I want to confirm that. Is the
retention rate of schools part of the monitoring process? At which level must the retention rates reach
in order to maintain a license? So, for example, is there any penalty involved
for the schools in very high dropout rates?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Well, certainly, students may check with this individual school where
they are paying their money to attend to look at the attrition rate. The member asks if there is a penalty for a
dropout rate. The penalty is a very
direct one: the schools lose money. So
in that regard, yes, there is a penalty that is available but it is a very
direct one in that, again, they do not receive payment for the courses that
they offer.
The member is asking, it seems, for some
kind of a percentage. Again, as I have
explained, in some courses there may be, for instance, four people. If two of those people for some reason found
it necessary to withdraw, it would appear that there was then a 50 percent
dropout rate, and that in fact may not actually reflect the quality of the course
that is being offered.
So I would remind her that students may
check with these schools. These schools
obviously want students to attend, and if students are not satisfied the
schools will lose money‑‑a very direct penalty.
Ms. Friesen:
Madam Acting Deputy Chair, well, yes, in a market system in education
that is exactly what happens, but the role of the government, I would think, is
to ensure that the public money that students are using to attend these
colleges was well used and that it had a payoff in fact for the economy as a
whole and for the Manitoba community.
The minister does collect these
statistics, and, yes, of course, they can be misleading when it is 50 percent
of four people, but I think most reasonable people can read those statistics. They can be explained. I do not think that is really an excuse for
not releasing them or for enabling students to recognize that there is an area
of alarm here, that they should be asking these questions.
One of the difficulties, I think, is that
the students who apply to private vocational schools are sometimes people who
have had very little experience in educational institutions. The very idea of asking for these kinds of
criteria from schools would be both threatening and probably would not even
occur to most people. It seems to me
that there is a role for government there which is, through the students,
expending a fair amount of money in this market education system.
I ask the minister again. She collects this money, she collects the
information, the statistics. Why can it
not be made available on an industry basis?
If the numbers are good, then we will all celebrate and say, yes, this
particular industry is doing a good job.
If the numbers are not as good, then we should be able to say to
students, look, you are interested in that particular area but these are the
kinds of questions one should ask.
Why is that so unreasonable?
Mrs. Vodrey:
First of all, no excuses have been provided. That terminology is quite incorrect.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
What I have provided is information for
the member on the process of registration and monitoring of our private
vocational schools. As I have said to
the member, that is why we go through this process of licensing, why we go
through the process of monitoring where we check the kinds of advertisements
that are being made available to students against the kind of curriculum that
we know is available.
So we do provide that kind of check and
balance which I know the member is interested in. Also, we would assume that the private
vocational schools then also want to provide realistic training at a realistic
cost; otherwise, they would not remain in business because, as I have said to
the member, the very direct penalty for failing to do what they say they will
do is that students will withdraw.
So I am not sure how much more information
I can provide her, because I have explained the process that Private Vocational
Schools area goes through to assist Manitobans.
It is a process that we believe is one which does protect the interests
of Manitobans, but students themselves will have the opportunity then to make
choices among those places where the courses are offered.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just to go back to an earlier question. I asked whether retention rates had any
effect upon the maintenance of licences, and the minister did not answer it
directly. So I just want to pose it
directly, and I assume the answer is no, because the minister replied that it
was essentially a market system and they would lose students. So the answer is no, it does not affect their
licence.
* (1520)
Mrs. Vodrey:
The dropout rate, or the withdrawal factor, is not a factor in the
actual licensing, though if we see a very high dropout rate, I am informed that
certainly the Private Vocational Schools would be willing to work with that
school if there seemed to be some difficulty.
What would affect the holding of a licence
is a failure to comply with the law. So
we look at making sure that the private vocational schools are in compliance
with the act, and that is the way we assure‑‑and I have gone
through the process of what the act requires, and that is the way that schools
maintain their licences.
As I have said before, the dropout factor
is not a factor in maintaining the licence.
It may, however, be a factor in maintaining the business.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, so when a situation does arrive where a flag is
signalled for the minister, then the information, which is being denied to the
public through this committee, is then forwarded to an advisory committee which
is concerned, which does look at overall standards?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let me take a moment to introduce Monika Oepkes,
who is the manager of the Private Vocational Schools Administration.
If there is a very significant dropout
rate at a private vocational school, that information is noted by the
department and then‑‑it is not a committee, but it is, rather, the
manager of our Private Vocational Schools Administration, Monika Oepkes, who
then goes in and meets with the private vocational school and is able to decide
if there is any kind of support which can be offered to assist the school.
Ms. Friesen:
Thank you for that clarification.
It sounded as though it was the whole advisory committee which would
have access to this information.
Does the minister know whether an
application for freedom of information on this would be successful, using just
industry‑wide numbers?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, some freedom of information requests have been
received and, again, a number of those requests are severed releases where the
information if, No. 1, competitive or if, No. 2, affects a third party, that
information is most certainly blacked out.
Ms. Friesen:
In the minister's view, does this information that I have been
requesting here affect a third party?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, it could. It could affect
the school.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have been asking for industry‑wide
numbers in areas where there is more than one school and certainly more than
two schools. Again, this whole
discussion has been conducted on that basis.
So, again, could I ask the minister if a
request was made for freedom of information for areas of the industry where
there is more than one school, more than two schools, where there would be no
mention of individual schools. Would the
minister still consider that not available for freedom of information?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member asks again another hypothetical
question. I would say to her simply,
then she may have to try.
Ms. Friesen:
I wanted to ask a similar question about the claims of private
vocational schools to employment records.
Again, proceeding from the minister's basis of freedom of choice for
individuals and an informed choice, one would hope, these claims of 70, 80, 60
percent success in employment rates are obviously one of the ways in which
these schools attract students to them.
What kind of monitoring is done of those
claims?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as part of the monitoring process, the private
vocational schools area does, where they see the percentages, frequently check
exactly what the meaning of that percentage is to the school. Some of the questions they may ask is, is the
percentage used percentage of total enrollment or is it the percentage of
graduates in that particular course area?
If it is found to appear not to be as
accurate, then the private vocational schools area does ask that be changed.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when the private vocational schools section
looks at that, is it looking for comparable numbers across an industry, or is
it simply looking at the claims of a particular school and ensuring that is
written very specifically and very clearly?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, each school does its own advertising, and so we
look at the individual ads of each school.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what does this section do to actually verify the
claims that are made? I can see that it
is relatively easy to say, well, are you looking at enrollees or are you
looking at graduates. When an 84 percent
or a 60 percent success rate in employment is looked at, who checks up on those
individual employment records? How long
do they cover them for? Are we looking at sort of employments three years out
or two years out or one year?
* (1530)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not check the individual employment
records. There is a contact made with
the school. The first contact is usually
by a phone call, though there may in fact be a visit. Schools will be asked to verify in writing
the claim that they are making.
Ms. Friesen:
Have there ever been any complaints in this area where the minister has
had the opportunity to compare the schools' claims with the real world, the
actual facts, or has there ever been an occasion where we could at least have
an example of some check?
Mrs. Vodrey:
There have been some complaints, as I gave the member figures of
complaints received. This complaint
around actual employment often is one of a number of complaints which a person
might put together about a private vocational school.
I am informed that on checking
specifically on the area of employment rates, Education and Training has found
that the schools have been honest.
Ms. Friesen:
I promise a couple more questions.
The minister did read out a list of the number of complaints. Could she tell us, first of all, how many
involved claims of‑‑I cannot quite say false advertising because I
have not seen the claims, but essentially the issue of whether there is an
accurate representation of the percentage of graduates finding employment?
Second of all, could she tell us what
procedures, what methods her department followed in essentially determining the
number of graduates and over what period they were employed?
Mrs. Vodrey:
In the complaints procedure, there is a process that a person would
provide name, address and phone number of the person making the complaint, name
of school, course, date of the course, state the complaint, but I am informed
that there never has been a single complaint around the issue of advertisement
re‑employment. In fact, that has
been a part of other complaints that have been made.
However, it has only occurred maybe twice
in terms of the information that we have.
In terms of checking on that particular area, as I have explained to the
member, there is a direct contact with the school, sometimes a visit to the
school. Then the school will have to verify in writing. They will also have to discuss exactly which
statistics they are using.
I am not sure if the member was asking
about how a total complaint was investigated.
Ms. Friesen:
No. I am asking specifically
about the claims of many of these schools to employment rates. What I am understanding is that the minister
simply discusses with the school their claims and the basis‑‑not
even the basis on which they are making the claims, but simply the level of
claim they are making, whether it is a percentage of graduates or numbers of
people enrolled.
In the event of a complaint which does
involve those kinds of claims, is there no checking on the number of people who
have been employed, where they have been employed, how long they have been
employed? I mean, how else do you check
it?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, as I have explained to the member, the
process of checking is to check with the school exactly what statistic they are
using. Is it a statistic of
graduates? Is it a statistic of total
enrollment, and then, does the employment actually reflect that percentage of
that particular statistic?
As I have said, where it is found that it
does not, where the schools cannot verify in writing that it does, then the
schools are asked to change that particular percentage or claim that they are
making, but as I have said earlier as well, we do not look at the employment
records, the individual employment records of students.
Ms. Friesen:
So just exactly what is it that the schools are required to write to the
minister that would satisfy her that X school has, over the past three years,
had an 84 percent employment?
Mrs. Vodrey:
What schools are required to verify in writing is the course, the number
of students, the number of students who have graduated and then the number of
students who have become employed.
Sometimes schools do in fact provide where
students have gained employment.
Sometimes, as part of their advertisement, they also do that, but the
information that we have documented at the minimum is, again, the course, the
number of students graduated and the number of students who have become
employed.
Private vocational schools do focus on
making people employment ready, but very few schools actually‑‑I
cannot think of any schools, if I am right, that guarantee jobs. Schools do not guarantee jobs. They do speak about an employment rate.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chair, so essentially, the schools are not required to say
where their students are working and how long they have been working
there. They can simply write to the
minister that X percentage are employed, and the minister, who is now acting
upon a complaint, requires no further evidence.
Mrs. Vodrey:
I am certainly informed that where we ask the schools to say where the
students are employed, the schools provide that information to us.
Ms. Friesen:
So the minister gets a letter then saying that X graduates of our
school, these are the years of their graduation, this is where they are
employed, and this is how long they have been employed there.
* (1540)
Mrs. Vodrey:
They do not provide us information on length of employment.
Ms. Friesen:
Does it refer then only to existing employment, that is, people who are
in jobs at the time of the receipt of the letter from the minister?
Mrs. Vodrey:
It depends upon the date that the private vocational schools area gives
to the employer. If they ask upon
graduation or if they ask as of a certain date, the schools will comply with
whatever the date required is.
Ms. Friesen:
I want to look at dispute mechanisms within the schools and to ask if
this is an area of monitoring by the department. Students who are in dispute over marks,
teaching, conditions of the schools, a feeling that they may not have received
what they had anticipated they would receive as a result of the
advertising: What does a student do who
has a complaint in a private vocational college registered under the act?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the schools themselves may have appeal
mechanisms or mechanisms to deal with complaints. Some schools do; not all
schools do. However, most schools do not
want to lose the students, so they do provide a way to deal with the complaints
or appeals that are required of them.
The private vocational schools
administration only becomes involved when there is determined to be a
contravention of the act or a regulation.
Ms. Friesen:
When the government monitors these schools or when it has an annual
inspection, is the presence or absence of dispute resolution a factor in the
evaluation?
For example, do you ask that
question? Do you consider it the role of
government to advise on the desirability of having such a resolution?
Mrs. Vodrey: Under the act, specifically, it does not
require schools to have the appeal mechanism, but in terms of certification
under The Private Vocational Schools Act, certainly we speak about all areas of
those that the school wishes to speak about.
We also provide advice and points for
consideration of the schools, but in this particular area, it is ultimately up
to the schools how they wish to deal with the particular matter of dispute
mechanisms or advice or appeals.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chair, what proportion then of the private vocational schools
do have such procedures?
Mrs. Vodrey:
We do not keep those statistics, however I am informed that certainly
most of the larger schools seem to have those appeal mechanisms.
Ms. Friesen:
Could the minister tell us what the education level is of students who
are applying to the vocational schools or who are taken into the vocational
schools?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Some of the schools require high school.
Others will accept an equivalency or the GED. Some schools accept the completion of Grade 8
level.
Ms. Friesen:
The minister spoke in her evaluation of, I think it was in the
evaluation section of these schools, the requirement for student school
contracts. Is that right?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, I did make reference in the registration process to the
registration process requiring a submission of the application fee, application
form, and then one of the other areas I also spoke of was copies of the
application, contracts, certificate, diploma, all advertising materials, sales
literature, circulars, calendars, and collection forms.
Ms. Friesen:
Would it be possible for the minister to table a specimen contract with
the name of the school removed, or something that the minister considers to be
average industry standard?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The regulations of The Private Vocational Schools Act determine what
that contract should look like, and I refer the member to the act and the
Regulation Section 46(1), and it is page 24.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chair, I do not have a copy of that act in front of me. Could the minister tell us whether there is a
cooling off period, as there is in many consumer agreements for students?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Under the regulations for the signing of this particular contract, there
is not a cooling‑off period required. The member may have to check with
the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in terms of whether or not
that is the standard practice for this type of contract or, in fact, only in
some other kind of sales.
But where a student decides after the
signing of the contract that they would not wish to carry on with attendance at
the school, the school may keep the registration, but the school would be
required to return all tuition.
Ms. Friesen:
After what period would the school return that tuition?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Up to completion of two‑thirds of the course. Beyond two‑thirds
of the course, then they would not be required; then it would be prorated. What was returned would be prorated to the
student.
Ms. Friesen:
I think I would like to be a bit clearer on this, because I think there
are a lot of students who do not know this.
Maybe I should let the minister explain it again, but you could be, for
example, in a yearlong course. You could
decide after having completed two‑thirds of that course that you are
going to withdraw from that school, and that up to two‑thirds the school
would refund you two‑thirds of the tuition, and that for the last third
they would refund it on a prorated basis?
Maybe we could take that example of a one year to explain it.
* (1550)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Let me try and make that answer a little bit more clear. In terms of the return, before a student has
actually attended the program and wishes to withdraw without attending any part
of the course, then the school may keep the registration fee, but the school
would be required to return the tuition fee.
When a student actually begins the
program, then there is a formula which is in place in the regulations, and up
to two‑thirds attendance at the course, then the student would pay a
prorated amount and would receive a refund on the other part of the tuition,
the remaining amount of the tuition.
After two‑thirds completion of the course, the student would not
receive a refund.
Ms. Friesen:
Yes, that clarifies it, although I am still not sure that many students
actually are aware of this. Certainly,
with some of the cases that I have dealt with, it would have been useful for
the students to have known that from the beginning.
What proportion of the total fee is the
registration fee on average in these cases?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, the registration fee is 20 percent of the course cost
or $100, whichever is the lesser. The
maximum amount is $100.
Ms. Friesen:
That is by regulation, is it?
Mrs. Vodrey:
That is correct.
Ms. Friesen:
I asked last time in this section about untrained teachers in this
industry, and I believe two of the Maritime provinces, I think it is Prince
Edward Island and New Brunswick, both require in their vocational schools
regulations that teachers have some kind of training.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, under the regulations of The Private Vocational
Schools Act, a person who teaches in the private vocational school must fall
into one of five categories. No. 1, they must possess a bachelor's degree from
a university in
Ms. Friesen:
And none of that requires teacher training?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, these have not required the Bachelor of Education
degree.
Ms. Friesen:
Nor have they required any other short courses in training the trainer.
Mrs. Vodrey:
The private vocational schools are advised that these courses are
available for their instructors. They
are not required to have taken that particular course.
Ms. Friesen:
In the evaluation and monitoring of these schools, which this section of
the branch conducts, is there any recording of the number of staff who might
have taken up such shorter training courses?
Is that a criterion?
Mrs. Vodrey:
That is not information that we collect; however, the private vocational
schools are required to submit a notarized teaching declaration. On that declaration, they then must declare
exactly what are the areas of qualifications, academic and teaching experience
and also occupational experience. With
that, they also have to submit references, and those references also would include
employment experience references.
Sometimes, I am informed, in addition to
providing this notarized teaching declaration, in some cases, there is also a
resume attached regarding each of the teachers.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chair, do we know what proportion roughly of students in
private vocational schools are receiving public assistance‑‑for
example, those which come from this minister's department, student loans?
* (1600)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, I do have a number which is a global number because
the number includes not only private vocational schools, it also includes Bible
colleges, schools of nursing, aviation schools.
This particular statistic is the number of
students who have collected the‑‑and this is the Canada Student
Loan. We have the numbers for the Canada
Student Loan, and then we also have the numbers for the Manitoba Student
Financial Assistance. For 1992‑93
school year, that global number is 2,546.
Now there are awards also given to students
attending other institutions such as the Universities of Manitoba,
I have a number again in that same global
categorization for students attending, as I said, private vocational schools,
schools of nursing, aviation schools, and the Bible colleges and accessing the
Manitoba government bursaries and loan rebates for '92‑93, and that
number is 1,079.
Then the
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chair, I thank the minister for those numbers, but they are
not very helpful. I assume those are the
ones that we have with us.
The issue that I am looking at is the
student body composition of the vocational schools, which is the line that we
are looking at. In Saskatchewan, for
example, a province which is often compared to us in educational practices and
in population composition, of the students enrolled in private vocational
educational schools which come under their act similar to ours, close to 40
percent‑‑it is about 37, 38 percent‑‑of those students
are on student loans.
So what you have is a picture of a good
proportion‑‑I do not think you can it is necessarily typical in the
sense of average, but certainly a high proportion of students in those
vocational schools, first of all, do not have the resources to make it on their
own. Forty percent of them are on
student loan.
As the minister has said, there are other
forms of public funding. CEIC, Workers Compensation
would add to that. Second of all, they
have anywhere from a Grade 8 to a GED kind of qualification, and perhaps some
of them have high school.
They are entering a system where they are
required to sign a contract for which we do not know whether there is a cooling‑off
period or not, which is written, I presume, in formal legal language. They are entering a system where they have to
face advertisements that argue that there are 70 and 80 percent employment
rates and for which the government has no standard way of verifying those
numbers until there is a complaint. They
are entering a system where there is no requirement and, indeed, no recording
of whether their teachers have any training.
It seems to me that we are looking at a
large number of areas of vocational schools where students with less education,
fewer economic resources than other post‑secondary education students,
are entering a system where they have relatively few protections. Now, obviously, in some industries and in
some schools, there is not going to be a problem, but in some there may. I wonder, has the minister ever considered
some kind of consumer instruction, some kind of consumer booklet which says to
students, look, buyer beware; you are entering a system where you are
essentially entering a commercial contract and for which I would have a number
of concerns?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, we have discussed a lot of information this afternoon
that does act to provide a level of standard for private vocational schools and
also the ongoing monitoring of private vocational schools. In the member's question about, will there be
something provided to students so that they can look at the schools, and
perhaps discuss them with an employment counsellor, the answer is, yes, through
our Manitoba Prospects, which we distributed for the first time this year.
In the next Manitoba Prospects‑‑the
circulation is in the area of 100,000‑‑we will have an area which
focuses on private vocational schools, and which will help students look at
some of the issues of awareness which they will need in choosing a private
vocational school, and then it will provide them with some information that
they may wish to continue some discussion about attendance in a private
vocational school with employment counsellors, or with other trusted friends or
relatives.
Ms. Friesen:
The issues that we have discussed today, the absence of information on
retention rates, on graduate employment, on dispute resolution, on absence of
teacher training, on legal contracts with no cooling‑off period‑‑will
all of those be included in that article?
Will all of that information and concerns be shared with the employment
counsellors?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The Manitoba Prospects article will focus on how to go about assessing
decisions regarding enrolling in a private vocational school. It is that process of decision making that I
think students need to think about and also would perhaps like to have the
opportunity to discuss with people who are close to them or whose advice they
rely on.
I would remind the member that some of the
information which she is requiring for private vocational schools may not be
available as well at other institutions such as our universities.
* (1610)
Ms. Friesen:
I do not believe that universities advertise by their employment
records, nor is there an absence of dispute resolution, nor formal ways of
dealing with a variety of issues.
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey:
I did say to the member that a number of schools do have dispute
mechanisms and a mediation process in place.
I did say to her that we do not keep the statistics on that. However, many schools do have, and students
certainly would have the opportunity to look into that dispute mechanism, as
they do at the universities.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
The honourable minister did not have a point of order.
* * *
Ms. Friesen:
The point I am making, obviously the minister understands that in a
public institution which is publicly accountable and where there is public
information available through public schools and every other area of our public
education system, there are certain guarantees and certain standards that are
understood and accepted by the public at large.
The difficulty with private vocational
schools is that these cannot be taken for granted. That is why I am drawing these to the
minister's attention. I will look
forward to seeing that article in Manitoba Prospects, and also, of course,
looking at the circulation of that magazine or that newspaper, which, I hope,
will encourage students to look very carefully at the kind of system that they
are entering into.
I wanted to move on from vocational
education and ask about the religious colleges.
An Honourable Member:
Where are they?
Ms. Friesen:
Still under the same line, I think.
What I wanted to ask about the religious
colleges is, are the grants provided under this line or are they included in
the UGC, and what is the particular relationship of this section of the
department to the private religious colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the private religious colleges do receive their
funds flowing through this particular line of the Estimates process, and I
believe the member's question is: Why
are they not funded through a line of the Universities Grants Commission? The reason is the UGC Act does not provide
for the funding of private religious colleges.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, has the minister received any recent
applications for new religious colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, there has been one request.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the minister tell us where that request
has come from, how many students it would add into the private religious
college system, and is the potential for approval of that included in these
Estimates?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are still in the process of reviewing the
request. We need to check with the
universities regarding eligible courses.
Therefore, it will not be included in the funding for '93‑94.
Ms. Friesen:
I am making an assumption. I assume
the minister does not want to name the school, but it is one outside
Mrs. Vodrey:
The answer is no, no approaches.
Ms. Friesen:
Have there been any applications to affiliate with
Mrs. Vodrey:
The answer is no.
Ms. Friesen:
Before we move to pass this, I wanted to ask about the reduction in the
number of staff in this department. We
have seen a 20 percent increase in private school vocational enrollment. We are seeing an increase or an additional
application in religious college. What
are the implications of reducing the staff in this area?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, as the member knows, there has been a recent
reorganization of the division, and that has resulted in the amalgamation of
the Administrative Support function for the ACCESS programs and the former Post‑Secondary
Career Development and Adult Continuing Education branch into this new line,
the Management Services branch.
So the work again has been subsumed or has
been taken on by those people who are currently working there. The workload, I can say to the member, has
been fully redistributed through the remaining staff of the Management Services
branch and the viability of programs has not been affected.
Ms. Friesen:
Has there been an overall reduction in management and administrative
support in this area?
The minister has redistributed the work. She has redistributed the personnel, but
taking the total amount of the total lists of responsibilities and looking at
the number of staff who were formerly employed in that, do we have the same
number?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, there has been a reduction of three SYs in the
Professional/Technical area and two in the Administrative Support area.
Ms. Friesen:
Were those people reassigned within the department, or are those people
who were, to use the euphemism "let go," fired?
Mrs. Vodrey:
All five individuals whose positions have been reduced have either been
redeployed within government or taken the VSIP or have resigned voluntarily.
* (1620)
Ms. Friesen:
How many resigned voluntarily?
Mrs. Vodrey:
One.
Ms. Friesen:
I ask also about the expenditures of this section of the
department. I notice there are two areas
in particular where there have been large reductions, in Transportation and
Communications, Transportation reduced by about 50 percent and Communications
by considerably more. Again, I am
looking for the impact of this on a department that does conduct annnual
inspections and that presumably has a mandate that takes it through much of the
southern part of the province.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, the Transportation line has been reduced due to the
college governance and the travel related to college governance, and the
Communications line has been reduced, again primarily due to the community
college programs and personnel advertising now budgeted within the community
colleges budget.
Ms. Friesen:
Could the minister also tell us what else has been taken out? How much has been taken out of this budget as
a result of community college changes?
For example, you have an increase‑‑no, I will get to that
later. Let us look at the decreases. The reduction in Professional Fees‑‑(interjection) I will come back to
it. It is interesting because it is an
increase in rental and maintenance. I am
quite happy to ask the minister about that as well, but if we are just looking
at it systematically, perhaps the reductions first and the relationship to
college governance.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, there has been a reduction in all areas for the
community colleges that totals up to $250,000 through this line, and it is a
one‑time nonrecurring.
Ms. Friesen:
Could the minister give an explanation of the reduction to Professional
Fees? Is that related to community
colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The reduction in Professional Fees of $7,900 is related to college
governance administration.
Ms. Friesen:
Does that mean that last year's $38,860 was entirely devoted to college
government administration contracts? Is it what is taken out that was the
colleges', or was the entire line formerly available for colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not sure if the member had referred to the
line correctly. In the '92‑93
expenditures the Professional Fees were 15.4, not the 38. Thirty‑eight is from the line above.
So the 15.4, this year 7.5‑‑the
decrease is 7.9, and that is accounted for by the College Governance
administration.
Ms. Friesen:
Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister for the
correction. That is right, I had not got
the lines right. But the question I was
asking is still the same. Does that mean
that last year 15.4 was spent entirely on College Governance contracts?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the money which was not used for Professional
Fees or not earmarked in the year previous for Professional Fees was money
available to be used for things such as short‑term contracts to help
prepare us for governance. In some cases, they may have looked at details of
accountability as we moved into the governance process, and now we are in the
governance process.
Ms. Friesen:
So of that 15.4, how many contracts were there? Who had those contracts
and how were they defined?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, of that amount of money available, we believe
that, in fact, it was not spent, that that money was not needed in that
particular year.
This year, we have budgeted some funds in
the event that we may need to look at some additional areas this year.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chair, so $15,400 was estimated, but not expended. Could the minister tell us how much was
expended then on that line?
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the
Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I am informed that the province has not totally
closed the books for this time period, so we will need some time to provide a
reconciliation for the member. I will
certainly provide that information as quickly as I can.
* (1630)
Ms. Friesen:
Does the minister have enough information with her now to tell us
whether it was close to $15,400? We are
looking at a 50 percent less, or 75 percent less, or 25 percent less?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I would prefer not to estimate, and I will
provide the reconciliation for Thursday.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the reason I am asking this question is, of
course, that it looks like a substantial reduction. Can the minister tell us what she is
estimating spending the $7,500 on? If
last year there were some problems with expenditures in the sense of
overestimation, then how has that been corrected this time?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, in the year previous, I understand that some of
that budgeted money was‑‑we were able to do some of that work
internally. The Department of Finance
did some of the work which we thought we might have to contract out, which is
why some of that money had been budgeted and not expended.
In this year, we are expecting to have
some expenditures in this area. It may
be in the area of some technical reports.
It will be certainly in short‑term contracts in the area of some
technical reports. It may also be in the
area of reports for computer capabilities.
As the member knows, we are moving to a
new program with our Student Financial Assistance in
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): Item 4.(a)(1) Salaries $480,700‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $407,300‑‑pass; (3) Advanced Education and
Training Assistance $1,679,100‑‑pass.
Item 4.(b) ACCESS Programs $9,926,000.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, let me take a moment to introduce the staff of
the Advanced Education and Skills Training area: Dominique Bloy, who is the assistant deputy
minister of this division; Mr. Bob Gorchynski, who is the acting director of
Management Services; and Mr. Earl McArthur, the acting director of Labour
Market Policy, Planning and Analysis, and Mr. Bruce Proctor, the co‑ordinator
of the ACCESS program. As the member
knows, we have gone through some restructuring and some changes of title.
Ms. Friesen:
The obvious thing that leaps out at you from this page is the reduction
from $11,100 to $9,900 in this area. I
wonder if we could hear the minister's defence of that, of a program which has
made Manitoba renowned in the area of particularly aboriginal education, but
not only that, and for a government that has just produced a report, which
claims that of its 10 strategies, education is one of them, and another one is
the close and amiable relationships that they have managed to maintain with
aboriginal societies in Manitoba.
None of that seems to be fulfilled by the
straightforward reduction that we see in ACCESS programs. There is a good deal that I think we shall
want to discuss about ACCESS programs. There certainly are a number of members
of our caucus who have some particular concerns, both regional and community
concerns, that they want to raise about the ACCESS programs. But maybe we should start at the
beginning. We have heard the minister
many times talk about‑‑essentially blame this on the federal
government.
Two years ago, the federal government did
withdraw from some aspects of ACCESS funding, and the minister did at that
point continue the grandfathering, continue support for students in ACCESS.
So I wonder if we could put that argument
to one side. We know that the minister
did take up some of the slack that the federal government‑‑her
federal government, her Conservative colleagues‑‑did drop. But, putting that on one side, the minister
this year has taken $1 million or more out of ACCESS programming. It really seems to me very inaccurate to
describe this as a result of the federal government action. Two years ago, yes. We accepted that. We understood what the minister was doing,
and yet in response to every question on this she has continued to maintain
that this is the fault of the federal government.
Last year the minister claimed that she
was stepping in to cover the actions of the federal government; this year she
has not. So there has been a change in
policy.
* (1640)
Mrs. Vodrey:
I know the member would like to not look again at the facts regarding
the federal government funding, but that is a very important piece in terms of
the funding for the ACCESS programs. The
member will know, as I have said several times, that last year this province
did step in and supplemented where the federal government would not, to the
amount of $1.1 million. The province is not able to continue picking up where
the federal government has not been able to support students. So this year we do look at a reduction in the
area of $1.2 million, and this year the province is not able to pick up that
extra money which, in fact, we did in the year previous.
So, as I have said, quite correctly, the
reductions are primarily a result of the federal offloading relating to the
funding of Status Indian students under the Post‑Secondary Student
Support Program of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada, but the
province is committed to ongoing support of this very worthwhile family of
programs.
I will tell the member that there were 712
continuing students in the ACCESS programs as of April 1, 1993. So we have certainly made every effort to
assist those students who are currently in the ACCESS programs.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I also want to
raise a number of concerns related to the ACCESS programs. The ACCESS programs are amongst the best
programs of their kind in the country, if not this continent.
The bottom line is that there has been an
extensive number of students graduate in the last number of years. In fact, I recently had the opportunity to
attend the Social Work Program graduation in Thompson, and there are a number
of additional graduates now graduating from that program, also the Northern
Nursing Program. There have been a
series of programs that have really established a new model for accessibility
to education.
I am concerned, though, with some of the
recent developments in terms of ACCESS programming. I talked to people at the Social Work Faculty
in Thompson last week, and they have been cut to four funded spaces from the
previous number of 11. There are
students that were previously under the‑‑in the days when we used
to have a Northern Development Agreement, until the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey) bungled the process and negotiations. We no longer have‑‑(interjection)
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we no longer
have a Northern Development Agreement, and that is one of the problems. (interjection)
For the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) to talk about useless rhetoric is, I think, an interesting
contradiction in terms in here. Perhaps
he should read some of his speeches from the Department of Agriculture.
This is not rhetoric. The fact is we no longer have a Northern
Development Agreement. The fact is
students that were previously receiving assistance under the then‑NDA
funding for the ACCESS programs had, up until this point in time, been
maintained at the assistance levels under the NDA levels. I have been advised that they will now have
their student assistance cut back because they are no longer being
grandparented under the previous amount.
So it is having an impact on the students. This is on very short notice,
and the students are very concerned about this.
It is going to have a significant impact.
There are also other concerns, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. One of the major factors
for the ACCESS programming in northern
The problem, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is
they had some start‑up funding from the federal government. They have no funded spaces, and they have
been caught in the recent developments with the Department of Family Services
whereby the number of spaces has been frozen.
Assessment is being done, and we will then determine where we go in
terms of funded child care spaces.
Without funded child care spaces, the programs cannot and will not
function. So the combined impact of
these various aspects is hurting the ACCESS programs and is creating a great
deal of concern and uncertainty.
What I would like to ask the minister on
these items is, first of all, in terms of the cutback and the number of funded
spaces, if she can confirm that it has been cut in northern
I realize I have given the minister
several questions, but in the interest of time I thought better to give notice,
and also to staff as well, for the response.
But the bottom line is people who are part of the ACCESS programming in
Thompson and northern
Mrs. Vodrey:
As I said in my previous answer, we have certainly maintained a
commitment to the ACCESS program. As the
member can see, the budget line is $9.9 million. It is over $9.9 million. That is still a very
significant contribution to the students who are in that program.
Mr. Deputy Chair, 712 students are
currently in that program, and we do have a commitment to see those students
through the program. In addition, we
have also taken new students through the intake process. The intake process is somewhat smaller this
year. However, we have continued our
commitment to the program through continuing to fund those students who are
currently in the program and by taking in new students through a new intake. So
I think it is important for the member to look at it and to see where the
commitment on two sides occurs.
Had there been no intakes overall, then I
would say the member may have raised a concern, but we, in fact, did take new
intakes into the program. But, as I have
said, with the change in funds available by the federal government and with the
amount of money available, yes, there has been some reduction in the numbers of
new students taken in but there still have been new intakes brought into the
program.
Then, in the area of the grandfathering,
the province did have to make a decision in order to maintain its commitment to
students who are currently in the program as well as a commitment to new
students, because we did want to show a commitment to the program by taking in
a new intake. We had to do that, all of
it, with the backdrop of a substantial loss of federal contribution to these
programs over the past years.
* (1650)
What this does is the decision now results
in a uniform bursary rate for all ACCESS students. There were some grandfather students of those
712 students in the ACCESS programs who were receiving more money than was
available to other students who are part of the ACCESS program. This, in fact, now provides a uniform rate to
those students who are part of the ACCESS program and to those new students who
will come in through the new intake.
Let me remind the member, in terms of the
support available, that the student financial supports, in addition to that
bursary rate, consist of rental subsidies, regardless of what the member may
have read or heard about. Those rental
subsidies continue to exist. We
recognize the need to support those students.
The total amount of support available then
to students who are within the bursary program, the overall nonrepayable annual
support rate, is in the range of $10,600, and that includes the bursaries. That is a significant contribution level
which is available to students within the ACCESS programs. In terms of the difficult decision to
eliminate the grandfather but to make all students at an equitable point in
terms of what they accessed in terms of bursary funding for the ACCESS programs,
and because of the federal government's reduction, then decisions did have to
be made.
However, if the member knows, those
students would be eligible for other types of assistance. It would be in the form of the Canada Student
Loan or the Manitoba Student Financial Assistance, but recognizing that these
students are in post‑secondary programs, so they are looking to be
trained in an area of post‑secondary education. As other students, they may then decide that
they do need to supplement with the Canada Student Loan.
But I stress now that the bursary money
available is now equitable across some programs. I would remind the member that the community
colleges did not have students who were eligible for that additional rate, that
grandfathered rate. So now it allows
students within all of the institutions to have an equitable bursary rate. The total amount available for students based
on their need and the additional funds which they might wish to access is in
the range of $10,600. That is a
significant commitment, and it is made to the students currently in the program
and it is made to those students who will be new intakes into the program.
Mr. Ashton:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I did have the question on the child care
facility and I will just restate that in a moment, but I am concerned about the
minister's definition of equity. What the government has done is the government‑‑the
rate after the NDA rates was lower than the NDA rates. People were told that they entered the
program on a certain rate and that would be maintained. That is no longer being maintained. The people who are on the NDA rate are having
their rate cut, period, on very short notice.
There are people, and my understanding‑‑and the minister can
put on the record exactly when, but it will come into place as early this
summer.
Believe you me, if the minister thinks the
current rates are overly generous, the minister might wish to talk to some of
the ACCESS students about some of the costs they face and also recognize that the
ACCESS students, by definition, come from economic circumstances, social
circumstances, geographic circumstances where they do not have the money and
the ability, in the financial sense, to pursue a normal process of education.
That is the whole basis of the ACCESS program.
So I am concerned when I hear the minister
talk about creating equity, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I suppose this is the Conservative version of
equity, what you do is you flatten everybody down to the lowest rate. I would have thought equity would have been
looking at the rates‑‑(interjection)
An Honourable Member:
That is the socialist way.
Mr. Ashton:
Well, I notice the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) here
talks about the socialist way. We do
know that the Tories‑‑and we have seen this in some of their
corporate programs‑‑believe in socialism for the rich. That is their style. This is, I think, very much an indication of
the lack of equity in this particular case.
Those students, on short notice, have now had their rates decreased,
when in fact the rate should be assessed.
I am also very concerned about the
minister's statement that the amount that is being given here, quote, in terms
of bursaries, is a significant amount of money.
Indeed, it is a significant amount of
money, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. So is the
amount that would have been paid in welfare to people who would not have been
able to continue their education.
I wish the Conservatives would get their
bookkeeping straight when they look at issues such as this, because that is
what is happening in this province. On
the one hand, they are cutting back in terms of the New Careers programs, in
terms of ACCESS programming, in terms of programming in the community colleges,
in terms of universities. On the other
hand, there is one area of growth in the budget. It is welfare, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
I just attended another graduation. I have had the opportunity to attend many of
the graduations. I have even had the
opportunity to teach a number of the students over the years and I have seen
that‑‑(interjection)
Well, I value that experience, and I am
proud to have been associated with Inter‑Universities North and with the
ACCESS programs because I have learned a lot from the students in those
programs. Believe you‑‑
An Honourable Member:
They were teaching you. You were
not teaching them.
Mr. Ashton:
Maybe the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) should enroll in one
of the classes. He could learn a lot, I
am sure. He certainly is in need of it.
The point I wish to make with the ACCESS
programs in northern
Last weekend, I was in Nelson House and
there were 19 high school graduates. I
think very much a part of that is the fact that in that school there are a
majority of the teachers who went through the BUNTEP program. A majority of the teachers are from the
North. In fact, the majority are from
Nelson House. That is how important
these programs are. Nineteen students
are graduating from Nelson House this year.
I can take the minister into virtually any
remote northern community which has high school, and if you talk to people, the
key factor is the people providing the role model to those students, and also
some hope that when they get out of high school, there are some possibilities
that are in place.
What the minister has failed to recognize
in her comments is what she said earlier about some reduction. Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I asked her for
the specific numbers. The minister
perhaps can give this when she has the opportunity. I asked specifically, because the information
I received in Thompson is it is being cut to four funded positions. They have been cut to four funded positions
in Thompson and I wish to‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please.
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just on two points of order: one, there are 712 students who remain in the
ACCESS program, with 25 new; and, secondly, let not the member leave on the
record that I have‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. I cannot hear the
honourable minister. The honourable
minister has the floor. She is speaking
to a point of order. I am having trouble
hearing the minister.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let the member not leave on the record that I
have not had communication with the ACCESS students or with the New Careers
students because, most certainly, I have had communication with those students.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. The honourable
minister does not have a point of order.
It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Ashton:
Before I was interrupted, I wanted to point out that the ACCESS programs
are in jeopardy, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because of the combined impact, the
cut in number of funded spaces, the cut in terms of overall funding, the‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. The hour now being
five o'clock, time for private members' hour.
Committee rise.
* (1430)
HEALTH
Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay):
Order please. Will the Committee
of Supply please come to order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is
considering the Estimates for the Department of Health. We are on item 1.(b) Executive Support (1)
Salaries, on page 77 of the Estimates manual.
Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the minister has the documents that he
promised he would be tabling during this sitting of the committee.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Madam Chairperson, I will check, and if my
honourable friend wants to continue with his questioning, I am sure I can
respond during the course of the discussions this afternoon.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, just finishing off from some questions that arose
yesterday during the debates, while the minister is looking for the material
that he is going to table, will he also table for us statistical material that
was offered to him to justify the decision to move all of the in‑ and out‑patient
surgical services from the community hospitals to the Health Sciences Centre?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, that information was given to my honourable friend last
night, directly to him, and in terms of a response to the member for The Maples
(Mr. Cheema) as well.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I believe last night the minister provided us
information from his perspective that justified the expansion of the program at
the Health Sciences Centre and justified, from his viewpoint, the argument that
the Health Sciences Centre, the Children's Hospital could accommodate the
expanded service. He did not offer any
evidence or any information to us, nor has he ever in this House, statistical
reasons to indicate why the decision was made to go from the community
hospitals to the Health Sciences Centre.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, my honourable friend is being naive in the utmost if
he believes that the information I gave him in terms of accommodation of the
consolidated pediatric program, as put on the record last night twice, in
Question Period several times, does not underpin the decision. If my honourable friend believes that is not
sufficient information and justification to underpin the decision, I cannot
help him anymore.
Madam Chairperson, while we are on the
topic, maybe my honourable friend the critic for the New Democratic Party (Mr.
Chomiak) might, after having enjoyed a sleep last night, can tell us if he and
his party agree or disagree with the decision of consolidation. My honourable friend has been hectoring
around the edges in terms of process around the decision which he can make the
criticisms that he so wishes, and that is fine.
But my honourable friend refuses to
indicate whether the decision was appropriate or not, whether the New Democrats
agree or disagree; and, if they disagree, what they would do should they be
government to reverse it. Surely, my
honourable friend owes the House, the people of Manitoba, health care planners,
Urban Hospital Council members‑‑the people that made that decision,
as to what would be the fruits of their labour should his province ever be‑‑
An Honourable Member:
Unfortunate.
Mr. Orchard:
That is not strong enough‑‑should the NDP ever have Mr.
Chomiak as the Health minister in the province.
Let us find out what they believe in terms of the decision. Is the decision right or wrong? Will you take a stand on that issue? Will you tell us what you believe in on
behalf of the New Democrats?
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us why he is afraid to table
the report, the final report of the Urban Hospital Council? While he is at it, why is he afraid to tell us
the statistical basis, the operations for the past five years at the community
hospitals and St. Boniface Hospital, and the comparative figures for those at
the Health Sciences Centre in order that we could understand the statistical
basis upon which the decision was made, and why the minister is afraid to do
that? If the minister can, between now
and next sitting of this committee, provide that information, we will be happy
to accept it during the next sitting of the committee.
Mr. Orchard:
While we are speaking of fear, why is my honourable friend afraid to
accept the information that has been given to him twice last night, several
times during Question Period in response to questions, and, more importantly,
why is my honourable friend afraid to say whether the policy of consolidation
to Children's Hospital pediatric services is right‑‑and they agree
with it, or wrong‑‑and they do not agree with it?
Why is my honourable friend afraid of that
very simple statement of support or nonsupport of a program initiative that is
working effectively on behalf of the children of this city?
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, since the minister refuses to provide us with that
information, that is, the statistical justification for why the decision was
made to consolidate inpatient/outpatient surgery from the community hospitals
to the Health Sciences Centre, we must assume that what I had earlier
indicated, last night, the decision was made for reasons that I still do not
understand, and probably will not ever be understood, because the minister is
refusing to provide the basis for that information.
He must have a list of all studies,
reports, documents, et cetera, that are presently in process or being reviewed
by his department at this point in time.
Does he have a general list that he could table with this us to allow us
to know what reports, studies and other ongoing consultations are occurring in
the department?
Mr. Orchard:
Now, Madam Chairperson, I really am quite dismayed at my honourable
friend's line of questioning. He opened
his remarks saying that we do not do any consultation, that we do not do any
invitation of position, that we do not invite consultation, that we do not ask
the opinion of everybody else; now he wants a list of all the consultation that
is going on. Will my honourable friend make up his mind?
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I can assume from the minister's answer he does not
have any reports of consultations.
For the minister's interest, I can
indicate that I have dealt with several ministers in several departments, his
colleague, the former Minister of Education, for Roblin‑Russell; I dealt
with the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)‑‑all who had the courtesy
and all who had the wherewithal to provide us with a list of ongoing studies
and reviews carried out by their department in order to allow us to question
some of the priorities and the direction of the department.
Every department I have ever dealt with
since I have been in this Chamber has been able to provide that. Now the minister is saying he cannot provide
that and we are sorry to say that. I am
sorry to hear that, Madam Chairperson.
I am wondering if the minister will
perhaps reconsider. There are three conclusions that could be reached, Madam
Chairperson: the minister is unwilling
to provide the information; the minister does not have the information; or the
minister is simply, for whatever political reasons, trying to play some kind of
games.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, there are no games being played by myself. My honourable friend asked those questions
Thursday afternoon. Has he forgotten
that I indicated the nature of the committee, the time line of reporting? It is in Hansard. I have already answered my honourable
friend. Has he such a short memory that
he has forgotten those responses already?
My honourable friend is wasting the time
of committee by asking a repeated question from Thursday last to which he
received answers in terms of what the committees were and the time lines for
reporting. My honourable friend is
suggesting that information was not provided to him Thursday last.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister therefore state‑‑and I
have to assume from his answer that all of the committees and all of the
references I made on Thursday last to studies and consultations are an all‑inclusive
record of all of the reports that are being undertaken by his department, and
there are no other external or internal studies, reviews, task forces or
reports that are being undertaken by his department this year, other than the
ones that I specifically, some half dozen to perhaps eight, referenced last
Thursday during the last meeting of the committee.
Is the minister saying that there are no
other outstanding reports, studies, consultations or ongoing studies that are
available in the department?
* (1440)
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, no. My
honourable friend well knows that there are ongoing reviews for instance by the
Health Advisory Network. My honourable
friend has indicated his interest in receiving some of those reports. Hopefully, we can accommodate that request.
In terms of the reports that my honourable
friend asked for on Friday, and the committee members, yes, we intend to help
my honourable friend by providing him with that information. That was the essence of the discussion
Thursday last, information to follow.
My honourable friend, for lack of
something better to do, reinvents questions.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, the minister has had in his possession, as I understand
it since the end of 1992, a report on midwifery, which, as I understand it,
suggests that midwives have a key role to play in the delivery of good
obstetrical care.
Other provinces have moved aggressively
and they have developed such services. I
am wondering, can the minister tell this committee why the report has not been
released and what action will be taken by his department in this regard?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, with the qualification that should the information I
provide my honourable friend not be the current status, I will refresh the
information at the earliest opportunity.
We have received a report on midwifery which was developed by the
committee on midwifery. It is my
understanding that they are now in the process of examining the legislative
framework under which midwifery could be introduced in the
Lest my honourable friend leaves these
discussions with the penchant to say that this government and this minister and
this ministry are not interested in midwifery, I want to make sure my
honourable friend does not make that factual error. From the outset, we have expressed an
interest in midwifery as a delivery choice for women in the
Basically, in terms of the study of how it
might be incorporated and implemented into the system, I have only placed
basically two criteria on the study committee and the implementation analysis
committee, and that be that we ensure that midwifery can offer a safe and
effective choice for women in terms of birthing and, secondly, that the
introduction of midwifery as a birthing choice would not be an add‑on to
our health care service budget, that it would be a replacement in terms of cost
within the budget.
Given those two criteria which I think are
both reasonable and logical if one considers them, I look forward to
recommendations on how we might guide the implementation of midwifery in the
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I take it from the minister's response that the
recommendations of Frank Manning and the obstetrics group will have an
interplay and interaction with respect to the midwifery decisions that are
forthcoming.
Mr. Orchard:
That may be a possibility. I have
not received Dr. Manning's report, but the midwifery investigation is
independent of Dr. Manning's report on where obstetrics might be appropriately
provided as a service to women in our urban hospitals.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, in the health reform update in November '92, a target
reduction for hospital savings in '91‑92 was cited as $12.1 million which
was not achieved. In '92‑93, the
target reduction not achieved was cited as $10 million. The total target for savings for '92‑93
was then cited as $43.8 million.
Can the minister advise us how many of
these cuts and services were actually achieved by the end of fiscal year '92‑93?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, my honourable friend, in terms of his phrasing of the
question, is inappropriately describing the budgetary process, and I cannot
reply to my honourable friend's premise of cuts in service.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, how many jobs have been lost as a result of this
restructuring by the end of fiscal year '92‑93?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I am not certain of what my honourable friend is
referring to. Is my honourable friend
referring to the downsizing at the two teaching hospitals? If so, is my honourable friend also wishing
to know the number of jobs which were created through the reallocation? I do not know what my honourable friend's
indefinite question is aimed at.
Mr. Chomiak:
Yes, Madam Chairperson, I would like the answer to both questions.
Mr. Orchard:
That is agreeable.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, by his response is the minister indicating he will
table those responses? Or is the
minister indicating that he will provide those responses forthwith?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, is the minister having trouble understanding the
question, or would he like me to repeat it again?
Mr. Orchard:
No.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell this committee exactly how many
staff of hospitals and nursing homes have been laid off during the last 12
months by staff category?
Mr. Orchard:
I think my honourable friend asked about personal care homes?
Mr. Chomiak:
Yes, Madam Chairperson, I asked about both hospitals and personal care
homes.
* (1450)
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, we will attempt to make that information available to my
honourable friend forthwith now that he has asked for some additional
information in terms of personal care homes.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, on the line item expenditures I note that the
Professional/Technical support of the minister's office for the four staff
years is up by somewhere in the vicinity of $22,000. Can the minister outline why that is the
case?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, it might help my ADM of Admin and Finance if my honourable
friend could go to the Estimate book and identify an operating line from whence
he is questioning.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, under the category of Salaries, subtitle Professional/Technical
staff years, four. Total salaries are
$180,400 this year. Last year four staff
years were $158,100. Sub‑Appropriation
21‑1B, in the Main Estimates Book, page 23.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, these are reclassifications that have been undertaken
in compliance with the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. Chomiak:
Can the minister indicate what the salary is for the deputy minister
this fiscal year?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, $100,400.
Mr. Chomiak:
Perhaps the minister can clarify, in the expenditure Estimates, it is
shown as $104,000 last year. In response
to the member for the Maples (Mr. Cheema), the minister indicated his deputy
minister's salary was $96,400, I believe.
I am going by memory. It could
have been $96,000‑something‑or‑other, but in that range. The Estimates book for last year shows
$99,200. I wonder if the minister can
clarify what the salary level was last year and this year, therefore.
Mr. Orchard:
I think the Estimates book this year reflects the Adjusted Vote.
Mr. Chomiak:
So is the minister saying that last year's salary for the deputy
minister was $99,200 rather than the $96,400 that he provided this committee
last session?
Mr. Orchard:
That may well be because, as the Estimates books are printed, it is
current. If there is an increment during
the year, that is reflected in the Adjusted Vote at the end of the year, and if
the increment was naturally an increment, it would reflect a higher salary. That is the process that my honourable friend
will often see throughout the printed Estimates. Where the SYs are the same and the salaries
are going up, it will be because of one of two initiatives, the increment, if
any is eligible for the individual, and any reclassifications that have been
undertaken during the course of the year, all of which are printed, I believe,
reduced by the effect of the 10 days without pay, the 4 percent reduction.
Mr. Chomiak:
I can assume that the deputy minister's salary has increased from
$99,200 of last year, or $96,400 as previously printed last year, to $1,400
this year based on, not reclassification because it is clearly not, but based
on an increment to the deputy minister this year.
Mr. Orchard:
That would seem appropriate, provided my honourable friend had $100,400
not $1,400, and secondly that my honourable friend would acknowledge that there
are two factors: the potential of an
increment; plus the 4 percent reduction.
It ends up in essence being a wash.
Mr. Chomiak:
I wonder if the minister can give us an update as to the status‑‑it
may be not appropriate at this appropriation line‑‑if the minister
could advise me of the status of the integration of the Manitoba hospital
services commission together with the department and how that is
functioning. What new initiatives have
been undertaken in that area, or would he rather do it at another
appropriation?
Mr. Orchard:
I am at the beck and call of the committee, Madam Chair.
Mr. Chomiak:
Perhaps the minister can give us an update, therefore.
Mr. Orchard:
In essence, the amalgamation into the ministry of Health is
completed. It was completed
approximately 12‑15 months ago.
There has only been one change in senior positions as a result of that,
and that was not a change in individual but a change from acting to confirmed
statuses‑‑assistant deputy minister. I think that is the only change‑‑pardon
me‑‑with the exception of the addition of the assistant deputy
minister for reform.
Mr. Chomiak:
I have a number of questions on the task forces and the various studies,
so they are awaiting the actual documents so that I can review them more
concisely. But when the minister made
his announcement of health care reform, he indicated that he thought that
reform would cost net approximately 100 jobs or in that vicinity.
I am wondering if the minister can advise
us as to whether in fact that figure still holds true.
Mr. Orchard:
Would my honourable friend care to indicate in what presentation‑‑I
have made a number of them‑‑that my honourable friend is quoting
the 100 net. Which area of reform,
because there are a number of initiatives ongoing?
Mr. Chomiak:
Yes, I will in fact reference for the minister the documentation in
which that was indicated.
It was in presentations that were made at
the time of the announcement overall of the health reform package. When it talked about the shift of the urban
hospitals, it talked about the bed shift estimated net staff affected of 230,
but positions available for redeployment of staff 130, and essentially with a
net figure of 100 as a result.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, it is my understanding that net figure of affected
individuals is very, very close to what actually happened with the downsizing
of Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface.
Mr. Chomiak:
Well, I look with a good deal of anticipation to the documents that are
going to be forwarded to us by the minister in terms of the loss of jobs, and I
asked for the number of loss of jobs at the hospitals and personal care
homes. I might add, can the minister
outline therefore‑‑which will obviously make his case from his
comments‑‑will he also outline the number of jobs that have been
created at each of the hospitals and personal care homes by staff category?
Mr. Orchard:
We will attempt to provide the information.
Mr. Chomiak:
The minister earlier took notice and indicated he would provide us with
information concerning how many staff at the hospitals and nursing homes had
been laid off during the past 12 months by staff category. I am not entirely certain if the minister is
going to provide it, but I am asking him now to provide it. Will he also provide the numbers of jobs
created in each of those facilities by staff category as well?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, we will attempt to provide as full information as we
can.
Mr. Chomiak:
On March 21, 1992, Dr. Ross indicated that there were approximately
2,600 Manitobans waiting six months or more for eye surgery. I wonder if the minister can provide us with
an update as to what the waiting list at the present is regarding eye surgery.
* (1500)
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, I will attempt to provide that, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Chomiak:
The minister spent a few occasions and a fair bit of time attempting to
define the opposition's position concerning Total Quality Management. I wonder if the minister might outline for us
how he understands the operation of Total Quality Management as being
apparently implemented by Ms. Connie Curran.
Mr. Orchard:
First of all, I would caution my honourable friend to solely associate
Total Quality Management with the APM consultants contract under the guidance
of Dr. Connie Curran.
Secondly, am I to anticipate that now my
honourable friend supports Total Quality Management and its opportunity for
input by staff into decision making at our facilities, or has he maintained the
traditional New Democratic opposition to that?
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I take it from the minister's answer, therefore, that
Total Quality Management is being implemented notwithstanding or in spite of
our‑‑in conjunction with efforts by Connie Curran.
I return to my initial question to the
minister. Will he please outline for us
his understanding of Total Quality Management and its implementation in the
health care system of
Mr. Orchard:
Well, my honourable friend does have it right this time. It is an independent process. It started some year and a half‑‑I
guess, 18 months‑‑ago, in terms of the process of Total Quality
Management and its role in the changing health care system.
I might indicate to my honourable friend
so that maybe he can‑‑some of the mystique and some of the aura and
some of the resistance by the New Democrats in
My honourable friend might take some
comfort in knowing that the Council of Deputy Ministers for the provinces has
undertaken the initiative of Total Quality Management and its implementation
within the health care system.
My honourable friend would be quite, I
think, intrigued and pleased to know that the
I know that that may confound my
honourable friend the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), who has stated and
staked out turf politically in
Sometimes, Madam Chair‑‑and I
should not say this because it might provoke my honourable friend the member
for Kildonan‑‑but sometimes, I think, NDP stands for new dinosaur
party.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, the minister did not answer the question again. So I will simply ask him, will he state what
his understanding‑‑(interjection)
The minister says he forgot. Perhaps he will now state what his understanding
is of the Total Quality Management, as being implemented in the health care system
of
Mr. Orchard:
I would be pleased to do that for my honourable friend, Madam Chair,
because there is a significant, I think, history that needs to be revisited
around the issue of how our health care system has evolved and emerged over the
last number of years.
My honourable friend, if he has spent very
much time talking to care providers in our institutions in particular but not
singularly, he will find a fairly common observation proffered by those
individuals in that they do not have an opportunity for input into decision
making; their voice never seems to surface past their supervisor; good ideas
that they may have never get a forum and an opportunity for discussion.
I think in many ways, Madam Chair, you
might recall the unfortunate strike that Manitoba had in the month of January
1991 where, in a contract dispute, the Manitoba Nurses' Union was on strike for
approximately the full month of January.
The reason I mention that is one of the
key issues that nurses expressed consistently from east to west, north to
south, the
When that sort of observation is made
consistently by nurses and other caregivers, one has to start looking at and
analyzing two things: No. 1, Is that a
real criticism? Is that a real
difficulty with the system? No. 2, Why? Then try to seek a potential solution.
Well now, as part of the two‑year
agreement that was struck after the 1991 strike with MNU, we had nursing
advisory committees‑‑I believe was the formal phraseology‑‑wherein
there was to be an interface between management and the union in facilities to
try and resolve problems, but I think with all of the hope that was attached to
nursing advisory committees, I think, by and large, they probably did not meet
the anticipated goals of either nurses or management in terms of a genuine
opportunity for input.
It was at approximately that time, two and
a half years ago, that the whole issue of Total Quality Management and its
opportunity as a management style in our health care system was being
investigated by deputy ministers, by the Province of Manitoba in particular.
Two things emerge. First of all, the observation that within our
institutions in particular, we probably have a significantly layered decision‑making
structure, with many layers of management within our respective
facilities. I think one can see, if one
candidly observes and thinks about it, that layered structure of management and
reporting would do little to encourage grassroots up input into decision‑making
suggestions for how to better manage, et cetera.
* (1510)
That was one of the focuses that we
started to analyze and tried to take appropriate action around in terms of
flattening management structures within our institutions. My honourable friend nods his head, so I
presume he is familiar with that initiative.
Secondly and more importantly was an attempt
to determine through investigation that we ought to try and create a management
process which would invite and welcome input from caregivers at all levels in
the system, that not only "managers" would make decisions, but people
with hands‑on knowledge of patient care, patient flow, service provision
would have an opportunity to observe how improvements could be made within the
existing structure.
That in essence is Total Quality
Management. Total Quality Management is
a vesting down in an organization's decision making, an input into decisions,
not a concentration at the top of the management layering but a vesting of
decision making down, a greater responsibility lowered into the hierarchical
structure, the chimney‑silo structure of management decision making
within institutions. That is Total
Quality Management in simplistic terms by no means completely explained.
That process we believe has significant
value in the management structures of our health care system. I think we find, if not universal, certainly
very broad consensus amongst the CEOs that Total Quality Management is an
appropriate initiative to try to bring more opportunity for decision making and
partnership and decision making at all levels of staff and care provision
within the institution, so that is Total Quality Management.
My honourable friend probably made the
attachment of Total Quality Management to the APM contract and Connie Curran's
initiative within the hospital system. I
can understand where my honourable friend would make that analysis
inappropriately because that was the essence of some of the print reporting
coming out of the Total Quality Management Conference, wherein my honourable
friend might recall the conference invited Dr. Curran to be one of the
presenters at the conference.
The attachment of the restructuring
processes undertaken and initiated by APM was linked directly with Total
Quality Management. They are not
isolated initiatives, but they are not the same initiatives. Restructuring deals with how we break down
those chimneys of management structure or those silos of management structure
to get more interaction at management levels, and how we reduce
compartmentalization of service delivery in our institutions, where you have a
number of service functions very much departmentalized and compartmentalized,
both in physical structure and in nature of delivery, where a more appropriate
reorganization would have an integration of that service delivery centered
around the patient in a care‑giving team.
That is the essence of restructuring that
the CEOs and boards of both our teaching hospitals saw as such a significant
opportunity to (a) contain and reduce costs within their respective facilities,
maintain the level of patient care and improve the opportunity for hands‑on
caregiving by nurses and other caregivers by simplifying the work process of
giving more responsibility and giving more opportunity for time not to be
wasted in moving materials and/or patients to services, but providing those
services in a more confined area of the hospital so that you provide care where
care is needed in as many opportunities for restructuring as is possible.
So I hope that helps my honourable friend
and now, given the background particularly that New Democratic governments in
other provinces are implementing Total Quality Management, maybe my honourable
friend might consider his party's opposition to it from the comfort of
opposition.
Mr. Chomiak:
Ms. Curran was also under the health organization work restructuring
program to select 16 project sites. I
wonder if those sites have been selected and whether or not the minister would
table that information for us.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, that is not in the current initiative.
Mr. Chomiak:
Can the minister just outline for us the status of the nurse‑managed
centre care model structures that are being set up I believe by Ms. Curran?
Mr. Orchard:
That issue is under current discussion.
If the process is deemed of value it will move to the striking of a
working group or investigation committee with the potential opportunity, if we
proceed, for reporting later on this year.
Mr. Chomiak:
Did the minister state therefore that there will be a committee struck
that will be reporting on the issue of nurse‑managed care later this year?
Mr. Orchard:
That is correct. If we see value
to that process which, as my honourable friend has indicated, is currently
under discussion as to how and whether it will appropriately fit in a reformed
system and is worthy of pursuit.
Mr. Chomiak:
I was under the impression that the nurse‑managed care model was a
go in the department. Is the minister
saying that it is not a go and it is still being considered? Or is the minister saying it is not a go
while the structure and the make‑up of it is being discussed?
Mr. Orchard:
What I am saying to my honourable friend is the concept is being
explored to assure ourselves it has the stated outcome in terms of
effectiveness, of care delivery within the
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, APM Consultants is basically undertaking, as I
understand it, five basic projects. Can
the minister outline what the status is of each of those projects?
Mr. Orchard:
Nearing completion of the first stage, which will quantify deliverables
that all parties must agree to.
Mr. Chomiak:
Is the minister talking about negotiations with Ms. Curran, or is he
talking about the actual projects. There
were five appended schedules to the contract.
Schedule A: Achieving Sustained
High Performance through Operations Restructuring at St. Boniface Hospital. I am asking the minister what the status is
of that particular proposal, or does that fit in the generic answer that he
gave previous?
Schedule B: Achieving Sustained High Performance through
Operation Restructuring of the Health Sciences Centre; Schedule C: Review of Home Care Operations; Schedule D: Review of Purchasing Procedures at the Urban
Hospitals; and Schedule E: Review of Management Structure of the Urban
Hospitals and Ministry of Health.
Mr. Orchard:
My answer is consistent. All of
those projects have been through the investigation stage with the
identification of deliverables which will, if we proceed to the major stage of
the APM contract, must be signed off by all parties to whom those respective
five initiatives apply.
Mr. Chomiak:
Can the minister indicate how many representatives of APM Consultants
have been brought in to work on these contracts at this point?
Mr. Orchard:
There have been seven people in developing the deliverable stages.
* (1520)
Mr. Chomiak:
The Review of Home Care Operations project indicates that data is
supposed to be gathered regarding home care operations in
Mr. Orchard:
The data‑gathering process has been commenced.
Mr. Chomiak:
On a relative scale can the minister indicate which of the five projects
are in the order of completion? Which are
furthest advanced? Is it the
restructuring of the two hospitals or is it the home care or is it the
purchasing procedures?
Mr. Orchard:
They are all at approximately the same stage of development.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate in terms of the home care
study what status specifically the study is at in terms of the data
preparation, the data accumulation? Where is the study at?
Mr. Orchard:
As I indicated previously on two occasions, nearing completion of the first
phase as provided in the contract.
Mr. Chomiak:
Which would entail, in that particular instance, the data collection.
Can the minister indicate specifically
where the contract for review of purchasing procedures at the urban hospitals
is presently at?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, at the same stage as previously indicated in three
responses.
Mr. Chomiak:
Is the minister saying that that particular project is now building on
strategic plans, developing operating visions, service goals and financial
targets?
Mr. Orchard:
My honourable friend has the entire text of the contract with APM in
front of him.
If what he just quoted from is
representative of completion of the first phase in terms of development of
deliverables within that particular contract on purchasing, then that would be
accurate. However, I cannot comment
because I do not know where my honourable friend is quoting from.
I am telling my honourable friend that all
five projects are nearing completion of the first stage, which identified
deliverables, which must be agreed to by all parties participating in the
particular contract area and signed off. That is the essence of the
contract. That is why the contract is
unique.
My honourable friend will have to be
satisfied that the work done to prepare the deliverables is nearly completed
and, as I have indicated now on a number of occasions, is very close to
completion, deliverables identified and opportunity for review and sign‑off
by those participating institutions as well as the ministry, as well as the
consultant.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate whether or not an income
tax ruling with respect to tax payment by Ms. Curran has been received and what
the status of that might be?
Mr. Orchard:
No, I cannot, Madam Chair.
Mr. Chomiak:
Does the minister have any idea at this point in time, that is, today's
date, how much money has been paid out to Ms. Curran?
Mr. Orchard:
No, but it would certainly not exceed the contractual agreement less the
holdback.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate at what point a decision
will be made whether the contract will be continued or whether the contract
will cease and desist?
Mr. Orchard:
Upon completion of the first phase with the deliverables at each of the
projects identified and if those deliverables are satisfactory to all the
proponents, government, APM and the respective institutions, then the contract
may well be signed off and, at that time, the completion of the second phase
and the major phase of the contractual arrangement. That process is nearly completed, as I have
indicated to my honourable friend.
Mr. Chomiak:
The minister indicated in Question Period yesterday that offices were
not renovated at the Health Sciences Centre to accommodate the consultants for
APM and associates. Actually the
minister's response was not clear.
Can the minister indicate whether or not
offices have been renovated that will be occupied by APM and consultants and/or
associates?
Mr. Orchard:
My honourable friend, should he take the time to read the contract, will
find one of the requirements of the contract is that suitable office space be
provided at both Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface.
I believe that has, no doubt, been
undertaken because of the seven people that have been working in those
respective institutions. I cannot
confirm or disaffirm my honourable friend's rumoured speculation as to cost.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, so the minister is indicating that, in fact, as we
indicated in Question Period, offices are available in Health Sciences Centre
and St. Boniface Hospital for Ms. Curran, and that renovations have taken
place. But the minister is not saying
is, he will not advise us to what the cost of the renovations were. Is that correct?
Mr. Orchard:
No, that is not correct.
Mr. Chomiak:
Can the minister advise whether or not he will provide us with
information as to how much the office renovations at Health Sciences Centre
cost?
Mr. Orchard:
My honourable friend if he were‑‑and I know he is an
intelligent man and listened to my response.
My response was, the part of the contract that he is thumbing through
indicates that St. Boniface Hospital, Health Sciences Centre shall provide
suitable, I believe is the phraseology, office space for the consultant during
the period of time the consultant is working within the respective institution.
I would assume, since the consultant has
been working at those two institutions, that suitable office space has been
provided. I cannot confirm or deny my
honourable friend's rumour and speculation around (a) whether there are
renovations and (b) what the cost of those renovations is.
I indicated to my honourable friend that
should he wish to find that out he might wish to contact the respective
hospitals, because the Province of Manitoba globally funds the two institutions
and they are responsible for making decisions within the global budgets in that
regard.
We neither direct them to do same, nor
have the opportunity to comment on whether, in fact, my honourable friend's
rumours and speculation are accurate.
But there is a process my honourable friend can undertake to determine
that.
Madam Chair, clearly my honourable friend
has the contract in front of him in which provision of suitable office space at
St. Boniface, at Health Sciences Centre is part of the arrangement undertaken
by the hospital government and APM Consultants.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I take it from the minister's response that he is not
going to undertake to provide that information to this committee.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I think I was very clear in my response to my honourable
friend as to how he might confirm his rumours and speculation.
* (1530)
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, in a review of Estimates last year, the minister
talked a lot about the amount of money provided to hospitals and chastised the
member for
Mr. Orchard:
My honourable friend brings up a very interesting topic last year, and I
look forward to him outlining his position on behalf of the New Democrats. Last year's singular focus by the critic for
the New Democratics was in more institutional spending out of, how would I put
it delicately, one side of the mouth or on the other side of the mouth, they
said they need to move away from institutions.
The sole focus last year for some 32 hours
of debate was how much money were hospitals going to get, how much less were
they going to get in some areas and decrying government for reducing spending
and reinvesting that spending in community‑based service provision.
I certainly hope my honourable friend has
a more enlightened approach to health care reform than his predecessor. Maybe that is the reason why we have a new
critic for the New Democrats. (interjection)
Yes, I think it is about No. 5 now.
Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate to
my honourable friend, just so he understands, the process of the January
directive to all of our institutions in terms of a request for spending
reductions which I believe was 1 percent of the fourth quarter supplies‑‑I
think that was the reduction in funding‑‑a disallowance of fourth‑quarter
depreciation and a request to not undertake discretionary spending and travel‑‑initiatives
which we had undertaken within the ministry and had virtually eliminated all
discretionary travel. The only travel
that was approved was I travelled and my deputy travelled to some ministerial
undertakings and initiatives, and senior staff participated in, not that many,
but a few committee meetings on the national level to do with reform initiatives
nationally.
The reason for that directive in‑year
to the hospitals, I want to remind my honourable friend, was because in
preparing the Estimates for fiscal '92‑93, we had received projections of
transfer payments and revenue sharing from the federal government. They based those projections on the projected
growth of tax revenue for the Canadian economy based on each provincial
economy's projection of growth and the tax revenues thereby generated.
Midyear with the incredible weakening of
the economies of central
We had to undertake measures across the
system to try and recoup a portion of that from all of our funded agencies and
all of our activities of government.
That is why in the third quarter we put those three directives out to
our institutions and, in fact, removed those dollars from their respective
budgets. I cannot give my honourable
friend the numbers that represented, but I will certainly make every effort to
provide that to him. The alternative was
an even higher deficit.
My honourable friend I know is quick to
condemn the size of the deficit, as all people in this House are, from last
year. Had we not undertaken that initiative in fourth‑quarter funding
with our funded institutions, the deficit would have been that much
higher. So I would like to ascertain for
my honourable friend, does he believe in retrospect that request for co‑operation
and that budget directive to our institutions was wrong in the fourth quarter
of last year, and we ought not to have done it, thereby driving the deficit
higher, that my honourable friend so often criticizes? Or is my honourable friend, by the nature of
the questioning, concurring with the unfortunate circumstances that the
downturn in the
Mr. Chomiak:
Can the minister indicate whether‑‑I know we will be
getting, I am certain, into this in much more detail, but the base reduction,
the base budgets of each of the hospitals that were reduced accordingly in the
fourth quarter last year, I assume that same reduction is in place for this
year as well as the additional reductions that have gone to base funding to
each hospital. Is that correct?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, with all the respect I can muster, it might be appropriate
that when we get to that line and I have the appropriate staff that we can
undertake a full discussion of those questions and that issue.
Mr. Chomiak:
On December 4, 1992, the head surgeon and chief of the Health Sciences
Centre wrote to the board of directors outlining some concerns regarding
surgery and surgery services as a result of 51 surgical bed cuts from the
Health Sciences Centre and related matters.
I have highlighted numerous, numerous concerns that were raised by the
head of surgery concerning the Health Sciences Centre. There was subsequently a reply from Mr.
Thorfinnson dealing with‑‑and in fact there was a petition attached
to that initial letter‑‑respect to some of the concerns. I am wondering if the minister might give us
an update as to the status of the surgery and that surgery issue at the Health
Sciences Centre.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I wonder if my honourable friend might avail me of a copy
both of the letter and the response, and I might be able to more fully reply to
that issue.
Mr. Chomiak:
The minister does not have a copy of those letters, has not seen those
letters?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, if I understand my honourable friend's preamble to the
question, my honourable friend indicated it was a letter to the board of Health
Sciences Centre responded to by the CEO of Health Sciences Centre to the
board. That correspondence was not
directed towards me. Hence I ask that my
honourable friend might provide me with a copy of both of those letters so that
I can more appropriately respond to whatever issues he is raising.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I will provide the minister with that information so
we can continue this discussion when we next meet or a subsequent meeting by
the committee.
This is simply an aside, in terms of I am
not sure if it is an appropriation, but it had been rumoured for some time that
the pediatric heart surgeon would be leaving the province from St. Boniface
Hospital. Is the minister aware whether in
fact that took place?
Mr. Orchard:
I am not aware of any departure of a pediatric surgeon from St. Boniface
Hospital.
* (1540)
Mr. Chomiak:
I believe it was Dr.‑‑actually I should refer to my notes,
but I believe it was Dr. Kim Young.
I will get those documents in terms of the
surgical services to the minister in order that he might provide us with an
analysis.
During Question Period several months ago,
I provided to the minister some statistics regarding the size of surgery rooms
for pediatric surgery at the Health Sciences Centre. The minister took some umbrage with the
tabling of that information, particularly because it was shown and demonstrated
that those particular facilities were below the optimum sizes recommended by
the Manitoba Health Services Commission.
Can the minister indicate what has been
done in this regard concerning both the sizes and the facilities for pediatric
surgery at the Children's Hospital?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I have some of the information that I believe was requested
earlier on.
Mr. Chomiak:
I will repeat my question.
Perhaps the minister did not hear my question. Several months ago I tabled in the House data
indicating that of the five pediatric surgery rooms at the Health Sciences
Centre, four did not meet the standards as defined by the minister's own
department. I am wondering what steps
have been taken to remedy that situation by the department since that
revelation.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, it is my understanding that pediatric surgery is proceeding
in safe circumstances without endangering children, and I hope my honourable
friend is not on another one of his what‑ifs and rumour speculations
wherein he might lead parents of children in Manitoba to believe that the
facilities at Children's Hospital are inappropriate or unsafe, because neither
case is accurate.
Mr. Chomiak:
So I take it from the minister's response, the obvious conclusion is
there has been no change in terms of the facilities for children's surgery at
the Health Sciences Centre, which indicates that, of the five operating rooms,
four do not meet the minimum standards as defined by the minister's own
department, and the fifth meets minimum standards, but not for complex surgery
as defined by the minister's own department.
I take it that no change has been made in that regard since we raised
the matter in this House several months ago.
I take that from the minister's response. Is that correct?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, when my honourable friend makes such a sweeping statement,
naturally it is fraught with some inaccuracies.
There has been very significant change in surgical capacity at
Children's Hospital, as I explained to my honourable friend last evening. We have the opportunity for 50 hours of
additional surgery in Children's Hospital to serve pediatric surgical needs for
children previously receiving that service on both an inpatient and outpatient
basis at St. Boniface and other urban hospitals.
Yes, there have been changes because one
of the changes that I indicated to my honourable friend was the renovation and
making available of an additional surgical theatre. Those surgical theatres are operating
effectively and safely, delivering patient care as configured since 1983.
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Madam Chairperson, my time has come now. I am going to ask the Minister of Health,
from the Health Action Plan, some of the policy questions.
Can the minister tell us what is going to
be the role of each and every hospital in terms of how the hospitals are going
to fit into this Action Plan?
Mr. Orchard:
I cannot give my honourable friend specific details, because I would
suspect that some of the emerging roles of the hospitals will be determined as
we receive reports from the number of committees that are investigating various
programs and, in particular, from the obstetric services committee and the
surgical services committee. For
instance, right now the committee is in the process of finalizing
recommendations, for instance, around ophthalmology.
What is clear that will happen in terms of
ophthalmology is that the program will be no longer offered at St. Boniface and
will not be offered‑‑I have to be careful in terms of Health
Sciences Centre. Their service provision
will be trauma.
The services currently undertaken at both
those two hospitals will be vested to‑‑and this is where the
committee is coming to grips with where they will be relocated‑‑and
the two hospitals that are being considered are Misericordia and Seven
Oaks. There are some decisions yet to be
completed around which hospital and in what fashion would they be impacted with
this consolidation of ophthalmology.
Now, similar discussion is undergoing in
terms of obstetrics where there are a range of options in terms of two plus
zero, two plus two. My honourable friend
is probably more familiar with some of those.
We have not received recommendations on that program realignment, but as
an overview, if I can give my honourable friend an overview of what I see as
being the end result, let us say, a year and a half from now or two years from
now, I think it is fair to say that each hospital will see a change in the
services that they offer. In some cases,
that change will mean that a service previously offered will no longer be
offered there but will be consolidated at another hospital in attempting to
emulate a centre‑of‑excellence concept within our urban
hospitals. It will mean an expansion of
programs in certain areas in certain hospitals through consolidation. We think that there is opportunity for some
pretty significant program operational advantages in terms of expediting access
to the surgical program.
If the pediatric consolidation is any
example, we also think that that consolidation and the amalgamation of
administration around those surgical programs being concentrated in one or two
hospitals rather than several ought to achieve some operational savings that we
will have the opportunity to either reinvest or remove from the respective
hospital budgets.
In terms of‑‑and I am not
trying to avoid my honourable friend's question because his question is an
appropriate one‑‑in terms of what each hospital will have in terms
of program and service delivery, I cannot answer that right now because we have
not received the advice on any program with the exception of pediatrics where
we have been able to make a decision on reconfiguration of program.
Mr. Cheema: Madam Chairperson, I think it is fair to
assume then from the Health Action Plan and the changes which are happening,
that the role of each and every hospital is going to change. It is not going to remain the same. That has been made very clear.
In terms of how that role is going to fit
into the service delivery in terms of the consolidation of services or
establishing centres of excellence, I think that is the question, that in terms
of which hospital is going to be providing, for example, ophthalmology services
or orthopedic surgery or major surgical procedures. I think what everyone is asking now is simply
just to reinforce that we cannot do everything in every hospital. So that was the one basis, the trial for
consolidation of pediatric services.
That is already two months into the
effectiveness and that is helping in terms of improving the efficiency. That is going to be beneficial, ultimately
save dollars, plus improve the quality of care because you are going to be
providing under one roof all the services.
Basically, the concept which everybody talks, the community concept in
hospitals, that part of the community and if you are going to combine all those
resources under one roof, whether you want to name a hospital or a community
centre, that is what it is. That is why
everyone is changing that.
We were very impressed when we met with
the
* (1550)
I think that is very, very positive,
because they know their hospital role is going to be changed. It does not matter who sits in that
chair. We wanted to make sure that from
our caucus point of view, from our party's platform point of view, we want to
reinforce that.
The hospitals of excellence is not a
choice, but it is a must. The service
delivery as far as the primary care is concerned in each and every hospital,
that should be maintained, but some of the services‑‑for example,
if somebody is travelling from Thompson to get cataract surgery, they can
safely either go to Seven Oaks or some other hospital. For them, that does not matter. If somebody is going for a trauma surgery,
they can go to Health Sciences Centre or to St. Boniface, just to give an
example.
If somebody is getting just a surgical
procedure, it takes 20 minutes in this city to go from one end to the
other. That is the average travelling
time. Any other city comparative to
The example is all in the
communities. In terms of your own
community, the patient has to travel half an hour even to see their
doctor. It is not a question of getting
the service within the hospital. So I
think that concept has to come.
So, basically, we want to make sure that
each and every hospital and the communities surrounding that hospital know
their role and the health care providers in that given hospital or institution
know that role so they can adjust to the changing need. The question here is‑‑one media
report came that
We want to make sure, if that is going to
happen, then the government should be upfront in explaining those things,
because that is a necessity that would benefit the patients. I think that will help to cut down the
waiting list, which has been a case in many, many instances, that the waiting
list has been padded because, if the one physician is working in two hospitals,
you are booking the patients in both. So
that has been the case in some instances.
I think that can change.
So I think even that will help, which was
outlined in the Health Action Plan, that you are going to set up a committee
which is going to look into different areas of the waiting period, and that
committee was supposed to bring this report.
I will ask about that report. I
want to reinforce the issue of excellence of hospitals. Again, making sure that the patients and the
public and the health care providers, if they are involved from Day One, I
think it will make your job much easier, because I think that is what they
would like.
It will be easier for orthopedic surgery
to be in one hospital. At the same time,
they can get the other support staff. I
think it will help the training part as far as the post‑graduate training
is concerned, if you are going to consolidate that aspect. I was talking to one of the very well‑known
orthopedic surgeons in
That is why I wanted to know if the
government has any definite plan in terms of which hospital is going to be
doing what kind of services in the long run.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I concur with my honourable friend's direction and
the indication of where the system will shift and change, because that is most
helpful and, quite frankly, refreshing.
I just want to indicate to my honourable friend that although we have
not got the reports on surgical and obstetrics and a number of the other
committees, the to‑date findings, if you will, of the committees were
shared at the retreat some, I guess, six weeks ago now, and that was in an
attempt to bring the stakeholders up to speed with the current level of
investigation and understanding.
Let me tell my honourable friend the
danger in that. We had that meeting in
reform, and it was mid‑week following that the rumour mill‑‑and
I am surprised the member for Kildonan did not pose the question, because the
rumour mill was really flying in
As we provide more information in order to
assist reasoned input into the decisions we are trying to achieve, you will
have those individuals‑‑and in this case, I have to be very
direct. I hope my honourable friend the
member for Kildonan does not take offence, but this is where the New Democrats
sort of thrive on confounding the process of change, because they will pick up
a document that may be several months old and say this is what you are going to
do, because someone has provided it to them maybe in the last few days, and
cause a great deal of consternation and fear and dismay to sort of wave over
the system on inappropriate and wrong information.
If we do not share the information to get
feedback, then we would legitimately be accused of making decisions in
isolation. The more we share, the more we open our vulnerable side politically to
having the official opposition, the member for Kildonan come to the House with
the latest rumour and speculation about what is happening.
It really reached almost unbelievable
proportions in January of this year. I
mean, I had a couple of the print reporters phoning me on weekends wanting my
comments on the latest rumour that was floating around the health care
system. I ended up simply refusing to
comment on rumour.
You simply cannot run a department always
commenting on rumour. In the case of the
* (1600)
My deputy, under my instruction, indicated
that government cannot invite comment and advice from the stakeholders in the
system, if every time we share current information or as much current
information as we have the whole system just goes into a rumour frenzy. It is debilitating to the system. It is debilitating to the workers, the
caregivers in the respective institution, because they do not know what is
right and what is wrong when they hear so many rumours day in and day out.
We are really troubled with the conundrum
of wanting to provide as much information as we can in terms of the process
without leaving the whole system wide‑open to continued rumour and
speculation.
I have tried consistently, throughout
every single step of investigation for five years, not to comment on interim
reports or reports that are draft and have been circulated for comment. I will
only react after the ministry has analyzed reports, made recommendations as to
the process of acceptable direction that we can announce, and I make the
announcement with as much backup information as I can around the process.
My honourable friend is right in terms of
understanding the change in the system, in our acute care system, not only in
Manitoba, but I think every province is probably moving in somewhat similar
directions where there is going to be a consolidation of surgical and other
programs in given hospitals so that you can build upon the effectiveness of
maybe a larger program with less management duplication in implementing that
program, certainly eliminate the confusion around‑‑let us consider
a typical surgical slate for one of our busier hospitals.
If you have a number of programs, you know
as well as I do that the heads of surgery for each one of those programs are
going to be at the chief of surgery getting their block time in terms of surgery. If an emergency or trauma comes in, the
system can get bumped and thrown off track, and there can be people at the end
of the day whose elective slate is cancelled.
Having so many programs and so many heads of surgery and program leaders
to deal with in one institution does not make that scheduling process easier,
it makes it more difficult.
I think the system understands and the key
players and leaders in the system understand that if we can, in a meaningful
fashion, create some consolidation of common programs in our hospitals in
Winnipeg that we will have the opportunity to more effectively run the system
to undertake our surgical procedures in a shorter waiting period of time with
less opportunity for surgical cancellation.
As a small example of that, not a small
example, but as a real example of that, I think, Seven Oaks undertook a
management system in terms of patient flow where if I recall the discussion I
had with Seven Oaks, I think it was a period of time of over a year where they
had not cancelled an elective surgery.
They had been able to maintain their slates through an appropriate
facilitation of co‑operation between emergency and the slating of
surgery, et cetera.
That is an opportunity that is being
explored across the system, No. 1, and fits certainly with program
consolidation. I hope that the system
can fairly quickly come around that investigation and provide recommendations
to the reform team so that we can accept or reject those recommendations and
get on with the implementation of any that we accept.
Mr. Cheema: Madam Chairperson, I think at issue is the
ultimate development of one‑stop centres where for a certain specific
procedure, a person can go there and the families can get all their treatment
procedure done under one roof and try to get all of the support services which
will eventually save all the time and all the efforts. I think that is the one issue where I was
trying to tell the minister.
The second issue there is where the
minister has discussed with the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) about the
Total Quality Management.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
There cannot be a better example than the
quality management that is happening at Seven Oaks and some other
hospitals. You have a program for
physician managers; you have a program for the middle‑management level;
you have a program for the superior recovery of the hospital beds. All those things are part of our day‑to‑day
life. If anyone in real life is opposing
the Total Quality Management, I think they are just dreaming. They are somewhere else, because we do it in
our own lives. I mean, we have to be
efficient in whatever we do. So the same
principles apply in all the different formations. So we want to make sure that the government
knows that our party is on the side of Total Quality Management because it is
going to improve the effectiveness and the quality of health care in the long
run.
It may hurt initially because somebody is
going to lose their job for the short term, but eventually they are all going
to be working in the same environment, probably in a more efficient way and
less costly. So I just wanted to make
sure we put those things on the record.
I would like to ask the minister now, in
terms of the ophthalmology program, I am sure the minister is getting the facts
almost on a daily basis from Paula Keirstead and we get the same facts. There is a group of physicians who are
advocating for
Certainly I am not speaking from my
party's behalf, I am speaking as the local MLA of the hospital in my area. I think that plan looks very impressive. I am sure some of the individuals in the
other hospitals are not going to like what I am saying, but certainly I am sure
the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has done the same thing. We are both probably advocating to have the
ophthalmology program in the
There was some concern in the past, and
probably I was part of that, that there is going to be one hospital closed
because we were told that. I think those
internal reports and initial rumours come to haunt you afterwards because that
may or may not be the real case at all.
I have learned from my own mistakes because
sometimes it is not possible. You get a
lot of reports. You go through them and
want to try to quickly do something and I think you end up hurting the process
in the long run.
So I just wanted to make sure that I put
my comments on the record and ask the minister in terms of when the final
decision is going to be made for the ophthalmology program to be given to a
particular hospital.
Mr. Orchard:
Within about 10 days we hope to have the report to the deputy minister
and then by the end of the month to work through the decision‑making
process at my level so I can announce and support a decision that makes program
sense. It will be, by all appearances‑‑we
have run into one glitch that we had to do a revisit‑‑and barring
unforeseens, which I think we have got those out of the way and behind us, I
think we ought to be able to make a decision on ophthalmology this month.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I hope the decision
will go into north
As the minister knows, more cataract
surgeries are done in that hospital than any other hospital as far as I can
tell. I think that hospital is quickly
gaining a reputation for a short surgical stay as well as the outpatient
procedures. Those things will complement
the programs. So we are hoping that the
minister will make the good news known to us shortly.
* (1610)
My next question is in terms of the
strike. The strike was the emergency
doctors' strike. Now, I am sure
something has been learned from that strike in terms of‑‑(interjection) We did not see any
disaster in terms of the patients were diverted and, for the first few days,
patients were not coming because they called a strike so let us wait.
Has the department collected any data in
terms of was there really any lack of services in those hospitals in terms of
the very, very acute emergency situations?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, again, during the time that the emergency
physicians were on strike, there was a pretty significant effort at particularly
the two teaching hospitals and Misericordia in terms of providing 24‑hour
service. The interesting thing was the
circumstances and the timing of the strike in that Seven Oaks was not able to
operate at all so that the northeast quadrant had to feed in to probably the
Health Sciences Centre, I think it would be appropriate to speculate, or on the
west side into possibly Grace Hospital, and then Grace Hospital, because of
their shift to the newly constructed area, part of which was emergency, they
were closed for 48 hours‑‑I think, at any rate, a pretty
significant amount of time.
The system was able to work through that
strike and to the best of our ability, we do not know of any circumstance where
the strike compromised medical outcome of an individual who needed emergency
services. There was no question that
because of the nature of the strike and the inability to prepare maybe
contingency plans adequately that there is no question there was additional waiting
times for some people who presented at emergency. That no doubt caused discomfort for those
individuals, but we have reasonable confidence from all the reports and
analysis we have done that the health status of those individuals was not
compromised. It was an issue of quality
in alleviation of pain immediately versus actual compromise of the outcome of
the medical emergency.
One of the things, I think, that was found
in terms of the emergency services strike is that individuals were seeking
alternate service delivery. In some
cases it was‑‑I noted on television one night I think it was the
Sports Medicine Clinic‑‑where an individual had taken her mother
and was on the news doing same, indicating that, quite frankly, she had, if I
recall the interview, been cared for quicker in that setting.
Now, I want to indicate to my honourable
friend that the reform committee will be receiving the report soon, quite soon,
and expect to be able to provide me with a recommendation for consideration by,
say, mid‑July in terms of operations of emergency departments. The report is slightly delayed in part
because of some of the analysis my honourable friend has asked whether it was
done to make sure that recommendations have opportunity and integrity. I should not speculate like this, but I think
the report is going to suggest that we can reduce the hours of operation of
some emergencies in the community hospitals and having that recommendation
vetted through the reform committee and presented, hopefully we can make a
decision circa mid‑July in terms of any action we undertake in that
regard.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I think the minister
anticipated my next question that I was definitely going to make. Are we going to have 24‑hour service
being maintained in all the hospitals as of July, or are there going to be
changes after we see the report of Dr. Lerner?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I cannot prejudge and speculate on the report
and its recommendations to the reform committee, but clearly the emergency
services task force is looking at ways that we can reorganize and restructure
our emergency departments, part of which may well be recommendations that
reduced hours in some facilities can be undertaken without compromising the
ability to deliver service.
At this time, I cannot speculate (a) what
is in the report, (b) what might be synthesized from that report and
recommended to myself for consideration of government, but, hopefully, barring
any unforeseens, we will be in a decision‑making position by mid‑July
and announcement of whatever changes have been recommended through the
emergency services task force, the reform implementation committee and
government, so mid‑July looks like about the time frame.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am sure the
committee is having a look at the
My next question is in terms of the Health
Advisory Network. Can the minister tell us if there is any budget attached to
that network now?
Mr. Orchard:
There is budget attached, but it is part of one of the lines that is not
specifically separated as it has been in the past, and that is primarily
because, with the exception of, I believe, one ongoing committee issue, the
Health Advisory Network has completed the majority of its work with the
exception, I believe, of one report.
What we will do is, in the process of discussion possibly as soon as
tomorrow, if we cannot find it today, give the projected budget for the Health
Advisory Network this year.
Mr. Cheema: The reason I asked the question is because
that is one of the activity identifications in the area of the active support
staff's, the minister's, the deputy minister's and ADM's level. They are supposed to provide the minister
with some of the advice.
Can the minister tell us in terms of the
Pharmacare card and the Smart Card, at what stage are we now, in terms of the
planning? When can we expect to have the
announcement from the minister's office to have the promises that were made in
the throne speech, as well as later on, to make sure we have a Pharmacare card?
* (1620)
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I will try to briefly bring my honourable friend
up to current status. We have set a
target, and I hope it is achievable, of January 1, 1994, for the implementation
of plastic card technology in the Pharmacare system, and we have further set
target dates to have‑‑and the reason for January 1, 1994, is the
Pharmacare program is on the calendar year rather than the fiscal year, and
then we are hoping that if we can move the implementation smoothly for the
Pharmacare program, we will be in a position to facilitate the introduction of
the plastic card technology in physician offices and other fee‑for‑service
providers for April 1 of '94, at the start of the fiscal year.
Now, I say that with risk because of two
things. This is a very significantly
changing technology. I mean, even since
we hosted the national conference on plastic card technology, there has been
significant advancement in terms of technology and opportunity of utilization
of the plastic card in the health care system.
With this kind of changing dynamic, we had concerns, very serious
concerns, as to whether we could stick to our deadlines of implementation of
January 1, April 1, next year. My
honourable friend‑‑and I again want to thank the Liberal Party for
giving me a pair in the House some two or three weeks ago.
My deputy minister and myself and another
individual who is going to head this plastic card technology and implementation,
because that is what we were missing in terms of someone who will take a hold
of it and run with the implementation, we visited the State of Wyoming. The State of
Where we are at currently is we have
identified system‑wide goals in Health, and we are making sure that in
developing those goals, we have‑‑I do not know whether I am using
the right terminology‑‑basically, the software foundation
identified so that if it is a Smart Card or a computer interlink system, if we
had the software, to assure that we can implement the plastic card technology
to progressively add dimensions or program service to it as we move down the
road and as it is proven effective and appropriate. That is, I think it is fair to say, one of
the major time consumers, because that has never been done before. I mean, other areas have taken specific
program areas. We have chosen not to do that and try to make the card one of
utility across a wider spectrum of service in the insured service
division. That is going to make the
implementation more complex but of more long‑term value and more cost‑effective,
quite frankly, because the price of your card may range from less than $1 to
$17 or $18.
If it is at the upper end of the range,
with a million Manitobans potentially, you can understand it is a pretty big
investment. So the more we can use it
for, the better that investment is for the system.
We, having set the goal on identification
of the software platform for introduction, the anticipated next step would be
to put out a request for proposal, because I think it is fair to say that the
easy part is the supplier.
We do not want to be married to a supplier
first. That is the mistake that our
honourable friends who are now in opposition made in terms of an
agreement. They tied themselves to a
supplier and then tried to design a program to meet the purchase commitment of
supplied computer hardware and software.
We are doing it the opposite. We are designing the system we need, and we
will put that out for proposal call, from which we expect to have aggressive
and numerous vendors interested in providing the service, and I make no bones
about it, it is a very tight time schedule but, hopefully, we can have that on‑line
for January 1, 1994. That is the reason
why we passed my honourable friend's resolution earlier this session.
Mr. Cheema: I just wanted to make sure that there is a
specific time frame and that was outlined in the throne speech. I think the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) statement
as well as the minister's statement is reassuring, but things could change, as
the minister has said. A few weeks, a few
months is a possibility that could happen because of so many things that are
going on, especially with the health reform.
Those things can happen but we just wanted
to make sure the health Smart Card is coming so that it will help us in the
long run in terms of achieving many goals.
There could be some difficulties initially, as the minister has
said. There has to be something which is
going to meet our needs but, ultimately, that card can be used by some other
departments also. I think that is the one
experiment going on there. The minister
shared that with me.
The social assistance and some other
financial resources the patient and the senior citizens are going to be using
have very, very useful technology.
Ultimately it will trace some of the deficiencies we have. It will not hurt anybody but it will improve
the quality and ultimately it will help us as taxpayers.
I just want to reinforce that just to make
sure it will happen in a time when the health care reform is taking place to
make sure some of the goals are being met simultaneously so that you do not get
off base in many things at the same time so that you are at least achieving
some of the things and make sure that the expectations are not raised to a
level where you cannot meet all five things at one time because next year it is
going to be two years in April for Health Action Plan as well as so many other
expectations that are being built up.
So everything is taking place and we just
wanted to make sure you do not end up in a mess if one aspect of the health
care reform does not work. I think it is
very, very important that the technology must be used.
I think that is where the other health
care professionals have to play a role also, the health care providers
also. They have to probably involved
from Day One, and I am sure that some discussions are going on in terms of the
Peer reform commission and so many other things that could be very effective in
the long run.
The second thing is there are some issues
of confidentiality, and I am sure that is going to be productive. That is very important because we all have
cards from banks, and we all use them for the financial resources. That is a major undertaking. But the mishaps
in that area are very, very rare.
Financial information is important, but I think the personal health
information is more important.
It seems from the experience from the
various banking cards that these things can be done in a very, very effective
way. I think eventually there could be
some problems, but ultimately that will function. I just wanted to make sure that we are on the
same wavelength as far as the Smart Card was concerned.
Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister
tell us now in terms of some of the deadlines for the Health Action Plan, and I
would like to go through them one by one.
One commitment was made that there is going
to be an access review group to study the waiting list, and we were supposed to
have the protocols set up in almost six areas of management. That was due in
November of 1992. I think we are about
four to five months late in that respect.
Can the minister tell us when are we going
to have that report?
Mr. Orchard:
We are delayed significantly on that, and I will have to try and get an
update as to when we expect that report. That is the one that Dr. Ralph Brown's
chairing? Yes.
* (1630)
Mr. Cheema: The Action Plan also asked for the setting of
protocols, for example, for CT scanners.
That issue has caused some controversy.
I do not think there has been a clear statement from the minister's
office to tell the people of
Mr. Orchard:
In terms of the issue, my honourable friend might recall there were two
parts to the announcement about a year ago.
The first one was the recommendations from, I guess it was called, the
CT Scanning Committee and Dr. McEwan, as radiology consultant, his backup
material in which he did the analysis around the waiting lists that were
alleged to be part of the system and the waiting times, et cetera. That preliminary data indicated a number of
things which pointed to a better managed system than what some of the
commentary would indicate.
The current status is the committee is
gathering information as to CT scanning requests and undertaken by individuals
to determine where they are from; under what circumstances they are recommended
for, for instance, CT scanning and the process by which they access it; where
they access; the times for wait; prioritization of the patients who are being
recommended for CT scanning so that we hopefully have some confidence that
those with the greatest need receive the service first; and elective or an
annual CT scan to check on certain medical conditions that are undertaken‑‑but
that people with more urgent needs or more pressing needs receive their service
more quickly.
Now, that process of data analysis is
ongoing right now and it is taking a fair bit of effort and time. It is hoped that in this calendar year‑‑and
I will try to get more specifics for, say, Thursday, as to when we might have
recommendations in a report from the committee‑‑but it will be, I
am advised, several months. We will try
to get a little better handle on a more definitive time estimate for my
honourable friend for Thursday.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Acting Chairperson, on page 10 of the
Health Action Plan, the minister has made a promise that under the section of
Healthy Public Policy, the Human Services Committee of Cabinet and deputy
ministers were supposed to be meeting and making sure that there is broad co‑operation
between the various departments of the government.
Can the minister tell us what those
committees have done so far?
Mr. Orchard:
Let me deal with the Human Services Committee of Cabinet. We have had a number of meetings over the
past two years or two and a half years, I guess now. We have dealt with a number of topics ranging
from program initiatives to legislative initiatives in terms of trying to
provide a more facilitated and cross‑departmental approach to issues.
At the same time, my deputy minister
chairs the Healthy Public Policy deputy subcommittee, and has been likewise
bringing issue focus across the jurisdictional responsibility of various
ministries. I will be very candid with
my honourable friend, the process is not by any means mature. There is a greater understanding and a
greater degree of co‑operation within government in terms of
understanding the need to have a more interdepartmental approach on a number of
issues.
I want to indicate to my honourable friend
that‑‑oh golly‑‑again, I almost hesitate to give a time
line, but within the next several months I hope to have ready for presentation
a child development strategy that is developed in a collaborative forum
bringing a number of stakeholders together around the issue of healthy child
public policy.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
We have already undertaken a fairly
significant amount of work in consultation and collaboration around the issue,
and my latest update on that initiative indicates that we may well have a discussion
paper and policy direction paper available certainly this year and hopefully
sooner rather than later this year.
But again, I give my honourable friend the
caution that conceptually we have, I think it is fair to say, a broad general
agreement around the issue of Healthy Public Policy in terms of child
development. Now, it is a matter of
finalizing a number of program initiatives between departments, and we think we
can achieve that in a rather expeditious fashion with an appropriate document
being available for public discussion and outline of where we think there are
pretty significant opportunities in terms of healthy child public policy.
Mr. Cheema: Madam Chairperson, on page 56 of the Health
Action Plan there was promise made that the report will be made available for a
drug cost and benefit study. It was
supposed to be done by October of 1992.
Have we got that report?
Mr. Orchard:
No. I am going to have to check
the specific reference in there, but, no, we do not have that.
* (1640)
Mr. Cheema: Madam Chairperson, it is on page 56 of this
report, and it was the report on a drug cost and benefit study that was
supposed to be released by October of 1992.
I will ask the minister to check.
Madam Chairperson, on page 47 there was a
major statement from the Health Action Plan that the health care professionals
who were going to be dislocated, they will be given some assistance in terms of
re‑employment and retraining. Can
the minister tell us, what are the mechanisms that have been put in place to
make sure those people are given the opportunity to pursue their careers?
Mr. Orchard:
That is one of our larger working groups with some 26 members which take
us, really, across a number of‑‑if I understand the membership
appropriately, it has membership of 26 in total, Manitoba Health having one
representative, 10 from the hospitals, one from the Manitoba Health
Organizations, and other memberships include the federal government, the
Department of Labour Manitoba. We have
11 unions represented on the committee as well as one consultant, and I am not
sure who the consultant is‑‑the chair is a consultant by the name
of Leonard Schreyer.
Mr. Cheema: Madam Chairperson, I will not ask what the
relationship of the last name is, but I will ask‑‑can the minister
tell us how many individuals who are dislocated because of the health care
reform have been re‑employed again within the system?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, we do not have the specifics with us today, but that
is part of the answer that we are going to try to provide on the basis of a
question from the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). We will provide as much information as we
currently have.
Mr. Cheema: Madam Chairperson, on page 21 of this plan, the
promise was made to have an expansion of the antenatal Home Care program. Can the minister give us an update on that
promise?
Mr. Orchard:
That expansion has occurred, and since April the 1st, the expanded
program has been up and running. What I
will do is, if my honourable friend wishes greater detail, we could deal with
that later on, but there has been an expansion of that program since April the
1st.
Mr. Cheema: We are just going through the promises so that
we know. We just wanted to make sure the
plan is being followed the way it was said.
I mean there is a few weeks difference, but as long as the basic plan is
still intact, that is my whole motive to ask those questions because it is very
essential to make sure people who are going to be notified from us, so they
will feel comfortable that the Health Action Plan is still intact. That has been my questioning since I started
asking on the whole process.
Now, can the minister tell us, in terms of
the outcome so far in terms of the whole Action Plan, is the minister's
department satisfied with the major thrust as well as, not the thrust, but‑‑how
shall I say it‑‑how the major achievements as far as the Health
Action Plan is concerned? Are you
satisfied with the progress so far which has been achieved? It is quite a broad question.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, in general, yes. I
am going to qualify my "yes" in the fashion of my answer.
I think that without question, and in
saying this, I am not denigrating the concerns expressed by some of the caregivers
that were affected by the downsizing in our two teaching hospitals. There were
some layoffs of nursing and other support staff in terms of the downsizing of
the two teaching hospitals and that is regrettable, and the Labour Adjustment
Committee has attempted to facilitate supportive initiatives to help those
individuals.
But in general terms, I answer in the
positive in terms of how we view the process to date. I think that was a fairly significant shift
that took place at our two teaching hospitals, a pretty significant downsizing
in both of them and a commissioning of replacement beds in three other
facilities. I think it is fair to say
that that process went exceedingly well given that it is the first time a major
shift like that had been undertaken.
I have disappointment, if you will, or
concern, that some of the time lines that were identified in terms of certain
investigations, we were unable to maintain the integrity of time lines that we
thought were achievable when we announced the document.
However, I think my honourable friend is
fairly understanding of the size of the shift and the change that we are
undertaking and that some of these projections around deliverables were maybe
optimistic at the time we crafted The Action Plan. But the one thing that is happening in terms
of our implementation committee and the reform initiative and the staffing that
have been attached to the reform initiative is that we are continually refining
the process learning from, not mistakes‑‑I think that is too strong
a word‑‑but learning how we can improve the process through trial
and error, to some degree, and in taking approaches that we thought would work
and finding out that there was a better way.
From that standpoint, I think it is fair
to say that the whole ministry and staff have grown pretty significantly in
terms of maturity around the process, experience and ability to deal with a
pretty significant change agenda, something that, quite frankly, was
intimidating to all of us, myself no exception. When we laid out The Action
Plan, we knew it was a very significant and aggressive agenda. From that standpoint, that is why my opening
remarks to these Estimates indicated a great deal of expressed content with the
skill with which my ministry staff has undertaken this and the support we have
received from individuals in funded agencies or professionally attached to
health care as physicians, nurses or others, in terms of participation and
support of the change agenda.
So I think, if I could be so brazen as to
suggest, I do not think any other province has undertaken changes in as
effective a fashion as we have in
Mr. Cheema: Madam Chairperson, I think the whole process,
as far as the time frame is concerned‑‑and we discussed the target
dates last night and the overall planning‑‑that may have to be
revised to some few months here and there that it is going to take place. So far, as far as we can tell‑‑and
I will repeat that again today because we have the ADM who is in charge of the
health reform plan‑‑the perception we are getting, it is on track,
no question about that. There are going
to be a few problems. We do not
anticipate a smooth process.
* (1650)
As long as the public is being notified in
terms of, not only the health care professionals who are an important part, but
others who are not more but equally important.
Through the meetings which have been taking place‑‑I have
gone through the list, and about 30 meetings have already taken place by the
Department of Health‑‑some were not very well attended. There were two, three individuals at some
meetings and, in some places, nine or 10 or 20, and that is not very good. In one place, people are complaining that we
are not being notified, and when you are there, they are not coming. So something is missing here.
I would like to encourage the department
to have probably a wider campaign in terms of the information package, which
can be easily understood, and people can come and take part in the reform
process. When they come to the meeting,
they are very upset and angry because something, they think, is going to be
taken away. When they leave the
meetings, most of them are either satisfied or some of their questions are
resolved. I think that is very, very
positive. We have gone through some
meetings and sometimes we are under attack because we sit in this House so they
think we are causing all those problems but, when you explain to them, things
are very much improved by the time the participants leave the meeting.
I just want to reinforce that part. I did not want to repeat it, but since the
ADM who is in charge of the program‑‑he should also listen from my
perspective and the perspective of many organizations we have met.
Their main concern is more
participation. As the minister said,
there is a danger in participation, because you do not know who is going to say
what and how they are going to treat the whole process, but how many times are
we seeing rumours and fear stories on the front page? We are not seeing those because it is
changing. I think that is very, very positive
and that is why I do not think you have to be afraid of explaining the change
because if enough individuals would understand the change, I think things would
become much easier and that would be helpful.
My next question is in terms of the
obstetrical beds. That plan has been put
off. Initially there were some
individuals saying, the government is going to change its mind. When you have such a major plan, you are
going to change your mind in as many areas as possible, especially in an area
when you are going to shift the beds out of the teaching hospital to the
community hospital, then some of the information was not correct, probably
because one is looking from one angle.
When you see the whole picture it becomes different. I think now Dr. Manning can at least bring
more light to the major problem in terms of how you are going to shift those
beds.
I just want to ask the minister: When are we going to see the final report in
terms of the obstetrical services as far as the low‑risk deliveries are
concerned?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, the Manning report is not just narrowed in terms of
its investigation of low‑risk obstetrics. It will be the obstetric
services in the city of
Mr. Chomiak:
I want to start at the onset by thanking the minister for tabling the
information that he had indicated would be tabled, particularly that relating to
the various working committees and groups from the Department of Health.
Continuing along the line of questioning
as it relates to the Quality Health for Manitobans, The Action Plan, I note
that in the introduction the minister said:
"The government will not introduce user fees. User fees do nothing to encourage effective
utilization of health services and they may serve as a barrier to needed
services for some people."
Having said that, and having quoted the
minister, I am wondering why the minister saw a need to introduce user fees
this year into the health care system in the form of the user fees for the use
of home care supplies.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I do not want to get into a debate on definition and
semantics with my honourable friend, but surely my honourable friend must
acknowledge that user fees are as debated and discussed during the 1984
amendment in terms of adding the fifth principle, I believe, of appropriateness
to the Canada Health Act, or, no, accessibility, I am sorry, accessibility,
wherein extra billing was prevented, extra billing being regarded as a user
fee.
The prohibition in the Canada Health Act,
1984, subsequently parallel legislation being passed in this Legislature, I
think, in '85 was to disallow user fees which would fit the definition of the
Canada Health Act, i.e., for physician services and hospital services. Those are program areas that have been
jointly funded, if you will, with the federal government under the historical
presentation of medicare.
User fees are not the phraseology my
honourable friend ought to get into in other program areas because my
honourable friend would then have to explain why New Democrats introduced a
user fee in Pharmacare, why New Democrats introduced a user fee in personal
care homes, why New Democrats introduced other user fees, if you want to use
that terminology, it is not the appropriate terminology. That is why I have separated the two
issues. We are, yes, asking for consumer
contributions on a number of program issues just as New Democrats have done in
the past.
New Democrats always had consumer
contribution in ambulance services as another example. The consumer contributions that we have
introduced‑‑I would be quite anxious to get into this debate on
Thursday because time is going to run out on us today, to compare the relative
program direction in
We will debate all of those issues, but my
honourable friend ought to be very, very cautious in terms of his position from
opposition as saying everything is a user fee, because should my honourable
friend ever get to be government, my honourable friend is going to be expected
immediately to reverse all of those quote, unquote, identified user fees that
he so protesteth about, would be the Shakespearean way to put it. That is why I am going to ask my honourable
friend‑‑I put him on notice now‑‑that every single time
he brings up consumer contribution and other program initiatives that we have
brought in, I want my honourable friend to identify the New Democratic Party's
stand on whether it is right or wrong and whether they will reverse it should
they be government, because anything less is false bravado.
My honourable friend, so far in these
Estimates, has failed and failed miserably even to take a position on the
consolidation of pediatric services to Children's Hospital. I hope my honourable friend has the integrity
and the ability, as critic for the New Democratic Party, to state his
unequivocal position on behalf of Gary Doer and the NDP of Manitoba on what
they would do with each of those changes in program, whether they would reverse
them, because that sets the stage for an honest debate on health care, not a
dishonest slippery debate that New Democrats are entering in right now.
My honourable friend is the author of one
of the slipperiest pieces of communication that I have seen. I appreciate my honourable friend using such
a nice picture of myself, but my honourable friend has got "An Urgent
Message from Dave Chomiak, Health Critic for the New Democrats."
The quote is, we must save medicare, and
it is "Dear Friend," and he goes through a litany of half truths,
factual inexactitudes and other things that are not unparliamentary to state in
this case, Madam Chair, but ends with the request of those poor, impoverished
Manitobans, if you can consider making a contribution to our election plan and
victory fund today, your donation of not $5, $10, they start at $50, $100 or
$200, will help us take our important message about health care to the voters
of Manitoba. Your donations will be
eligible for generous political tax credits.
A fearmongering document that goes around
and asks those poor, impoverished Manitobans to donate to the NDP their hard‑earned
money. What a disgusting and disgraceful
position my honourable friend is taking.
That is why, every step of the way, we are going to ask my honourable
friend to screw up his courage and to tell us where New Democratic Party
members stand on policies of importance in health care. And none of this slip and sliding and not
answering will be tolerated, Madam Chair, I can assure you of that.
Madam Chairperson:
Order, please. The hour being 5
p.m. and time for private members' hour, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
* (1700)
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
DEBATE ON SECOND
READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain standing?
(agreed)
Also, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) who has one minute
remaining. Stand?
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 202‑The Residential
Tenancies Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), Bill 202, The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation,
standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 203‑The
Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 203, The Health Care
Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
Stand?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 205‑The
Ombudsman Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Bill 205, The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 208‑The
Workers Compensation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), Bill 208, The Workers Compensation Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail, standing in the name of
the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
Stand?
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
SECOND READINGS‑‑PUBLIC
BILLS
Bill 209‑‑The
Public Health Amendment Act
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to once again introduce this legislation, and I move, seconded by
the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that Bill 209, The Public Health
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la sante publique, be now read a second
time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I am pleased with the opportunity to introduce
Bill 209 at the second reading stage, and I hope, since this is the second time,
the second session running, that this bill is before the Legislative Assembly
that we will finally hear some comments from members of the government, from
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that we will finally have some debate on
legislation before this Chamber on this particular important health care issue
as well as others.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to note for the
record that there have been two private members' bills before this Assembly for
two sessions running on very important health care matters that have received
little attention and certainly no discussion from members of the Conservative
government.
This Bill 209 as well as Bill 203, The
Health Care Records Act, are two private members' bills that were introduced
during the last legislative session as a result of hard work and study and
input by various members in our community and concerned organizations in the
health care field. They come out of a
long‑standing movement to try to address some outstanding issues in the
health care policy field and to move us in the direction of greater consumer
responsibility for health care.
It is regrettable that that kind of
initiative from the community, that kind of forward thinking strategy from
community‑based organizations are ignored, ignored by this
government. It is regrettable.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Finance): Nonsense.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: The Minister of Finance says nonsense. Well, I
would like to remind the Minister of Finance that many thoughtful individuals
and organizations in the health care field on the community side have been
trying for some number of years to get the ear of this government and to
persuade this government to initiate some legislation in some very important
areas. (interjection)
No, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of
Finance, these groups and individuals do not want more, they do not want more
money. We are not talking about Finance
bills; we are not talking about legislation that requires expenditure upon the
part of the government. We are talking
about legislation and ideas that simply require political will and commitment
on the part of members opposite to do some very forward‑looking
initiatives in the health care field.
Mr. Speaker, we have been pursuing both
The Health Care Records Act and Bill 209, The Public Health Amendment Act,
which is legislation to require reporting of adverse reactions to vaccines, for
very good reason. We are not bringing
these bills forward for political points, because, in fact, we would be happy
if the government would come forward with its own legislation and introduce
bills of their own that encapsulated the ideas in these two private members'
bills.
The bill before us, Bill 209, has emerged
from a number of individuals and groups in our community who have faced the very
serious downside of immunization. These
are individuals and organizations who have recognized that there is a negative
side to immunization, that in some children immunization does mean serious
disability and sometimes death.
* (1710)
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is by no
means suggesting we question the practice of immunization in terms of it being
a leading factor in the reduction of many diseases. This legislation is simply asking the
government of the day to take the necessary steps to ensure that health care
consumers, that parents of children have choices and have information about the
possibility of adverse reactions to vaccination.
It is not asking for major overhaul of the
health care system. It is not asking for
increased expenditure on the part of the government. It is simply asking for leadership from this
government to ensure that we can avoid, as much as possible, adverse reactions
to vaccination.
There is significant evidence that
immunization, notably whooping cough, measles and polio vaccines, cause
disability and death in some healthy infants.
I want to quote from a couple of affected parents who went through a
horrible experience with respect to vaccination and hope that their words will move
this government.
I quote:
Granted the vaccine‑damaged children and their families are a
small percentage of the population, but they are a hurting percentage.
Mr. Speaker, I go on and quote from the
Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee of the Canadian Paediatric
Society which stated: It is highly
likely that even the most sophisticated vaccines will carry some risk of
adverse reaction. It went on to say, although the number of people involved is
small, the injury is tragic.
We are before this Chamber again this
session with repeat legislation or proposed legislation calling for a safer
vaccination program. We are simply
asking through this bill that this government require all physicians, all the
medical professionals, in the
I do not believe that is too much to ask
of this government. I do not believe that this is an issue that is so
controversial that it does not warrant hasty passage through this Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation also calls
for a system for ensuring that parents of children, parents considering
vaccination of their children, be offered, be provided the fullest explanation
possible of the risks of vaccination in order that they may be completely
informed about the benefits and the risks of immunization.
Again, does it seem that that is such an
inordinate demand to be placed before government? Does it seem to be a controversial
initiative? It seems in fact to simply
be common sense. It offers parents
absolute certainty that they will receive complete information, something that
is not absolutely guaranteed in today's world.
I do not need to remind members in this
Chamber that there are always cases of professionals in our society that do not
take the extra step and provide the fullest information necessary for
individuals and families to be making informed decisions and choices.
The vast majority of medical professionals
and doctors in our society today do take those steps and provide the
information, but we all know some do not.
Some parents remain ignorant about the impact of certain medical
interventions. We are asking that this
government go the extra step and entrench, enshrine in legislation, the
requirement that all medical professionals, all doctors, all persons administering
vaccinations and doing immunization provide the most information possible.
So, Mr. Speaker, you can see what we have
before us is a bill that makes sense, does not cost this government a
penny. It is not controversial. It does not threaten the medical profession
in any way whatsoever. It simply
requires two things: A mandatory
reporting of adverse reactions to immunizations, and that medical professionals
be required to provide information to parents making decisions about
vaccinations.
I hope this time, in this session, this
government will either pass Bill 209 or introduce its own legislation doing
exactly the same thing. I hope also that
in this session, this government will finally respond to the question of access
to medical records.
Mr. Speaker, we do not understand why
something as fundamental and as important as the right of access to one's own
health care records has not been addressed and recognized by this
government. Why is this government so
reluctant to move on any issues that empower individuals, consumers and
citizens in terms of taking responsibility for their own health care? Why is this government so reluctant to
entrench in legislation what only makes sense, the right to have access to
medical information pertaining to that individual?
There is a lot of questioning coming from
across the way, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder if some of the members on the
Conservative benches can answer that question.
What is so wrong, what is so difficult, what is so problematic about
entrenching in law the right of access to one's own health care records? Would it not make a lot of sense? If this government is concerned about finding
efficiencies in the health care system and seeking ways to improve our health
care system, would it not make sense to empower the individual, to help the
health care consumer understand more about his or her own health care so that
person can then make informed decisions and take responsibility for improving
his or her own health care status?
Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by
saying, I hope that when it comes to Bill 209 and Bill 203, two basic simple
pieces of legislation dealing with health care, with access to health care
records and access to informed choices, that this government will act and will
not, as we saw in the last session, delay debate, delay decisions and prolong
this issue. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), that debate be
adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* (1720)
Bill 211‑The
Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Speaker's Ruling
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I regret to advise the member for
Order, please. The object of Bill 211 is to amend The
Municipal Assessment Act to add a specific exemption for the
As I ruled in 1988, a bill which involves
a direct expenditure of public funds or imposes a specific charge upon the
public revenue or imposes a tax must be recommended to the House by a message
of the Lieutenant‑Governor. Our
Rule 53(1) describes the types of bills which require a message as bills which,
and I quote, "impose any new or additional charge upon the public
revenue."
Further, our Rule 54(2) states that a
motion cannot be moved by a private member if it, and I quote, "provides
an exemption or increases an exemption from a tax or a proposed tax."
Therefore, as Bill 211 is not recommended
to the House by a message and it is not being introduced by a minister of the
Crown, I rule that Bill 211 cannot be proceeded with.
Point of Order
Ms. Wowchuk: On a point of order, I recognize that it has
been ruled out of order, but this is a very important matter to the people of
the Swan River constituency, and I hope that the government will look at the
bill and look at some way they may be able to address this matter.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has made her point, but she did not have a point
of order.
Bill 212‑The
Dauphin Memorial Community Centre Board Repeal Act
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Motion presented.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move for second reading Bill 212, The
Dauphin Memorial Community Centre Board Repeal Act.
This bill repeals an act of the
Legislature that has been in place for some 40 years. It was to be repealed a couple of years
ago. The government had endeavoured to
repeal it as part of its statutes translation, obsolete acts were to be
repealed.
However, this act was not obsolete at that
time and had to be pulled from that bill.
So it is ironic that the ministers are sitting there and saying, well, I
wonder if this is in order, because, in fact, the subject of this bill reflects
an error that occurred a couple of years ago and that we are now attempting to
rectify.
What we are dealing with at this time is
an agreement by the three parties that were named in the original act of the
Legislature. That act established a
framework for the administration of the Dauphin Memorial Community Centre, and
it was encompassed, under the act, that the Rural Municipality of Dauphin, the
Town of
This worked for some 40 years, and it
worked reasonably well. But as times
changed, new circumstances arose. The
three parties found that the structure that was named in the legislation was
too rigid, that, indeed, there should be some changes in the representation and
the way that the operation took place, and so they decided that they had to
negotiate a new agreement.
It was felt that an act of the Legislature
was not required to accomplish the ends of the Memorial Community Centre and
the administration thereof.
So there was a feeling that, by way of a
legal agreement between the three parties, a new structure could be put in
place. Until that new structure was in
place, they wanted this act to remain in place.
That is why they objected to it being ruled as an obsolete act and
actually repealed a couple of years ago when the government was translating
many of its acts, and of course that was done.
Since that time, the agreement between the
three parties has been finalized. They
are now working under the new structure and this bill validates all decisions
made by that new structure since its inception some time last fall. They are now working under that new
agreement, but this bill, then, this repeal is, in fact, retroactive to the
time when that new structure began and validates all of the decisions made by
that act, so there can be no legal challenges to it.
It is my hope that the Legislature will
pass this bill to validate formally the new structure that is in place in
Dauphin between the Rural Municipality of Dauphin, the Town of
They are anxious to know that this has
taken place in the Legislature. They
will want the support of all the members of the Legislature. They will want the support of the members of
the government to repeal this act so that there will be a formal recognition of
the new structure that is in place.
Now, they can continue to function without
this bill, perhaps as they have over the last number of months, but it means
and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) should be aware that it is not
advisable to have to make acts of Legislature retroactive to an extent that it
is unreasonable.
I know that the government has begun the
practice of making acts retroactive, such as with Sunday shopping. But in this case, I would not like to see
that happen for an extended period of time.
So I think it is important that the ministers who are sitting there find
a way to support this bill.
* (1730)
Now, they have to remember that in the
overall context of things, this bill may not seem as important to them as some
others but, to the community in Dauphin, it is very important, and to myself as
their representative therefore in this Legislature, it is very important.
It is my hope that we will have a co‑operative
response from the government on this bill when we finally complete this session
and it will be one of the bills passed through.
I know that it will be considered in the context of all of the bills
that the government is putting forward.
So, Mr. Speaker, with those few words, I
know that representatives of the three groups involved will be looking forward
to the Royal Assent of this bill at the closing of this session of this
Legislature.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on
this bill. I would ask the members
opposite to move it to committee as quickly as possible.
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli):
I move, seconded by the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
debate adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock?
The hour being 6 p.m., the House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned till 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).