LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
June 24, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENTS
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, I have a brief statement to make to the House.
I
wish to provide the House with an update with regard to actions pertaining to
the Northern Flood Agreement.
This morning, Chief Eric Saunders, York
Factory First Nation, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with
As
you are aware, a settlement agreement was signed with the
Discussions are currently underway with Cross
Lake First Nation with respect to developing a process to enable comprehensive
settlement agreement negotiations to be undertaken.
Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased that we are making substantial progress in regard to
settling our obligations under the terms and conditions of the Northern Flood
Agreement.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the
statement here this afternoon.
We
certainly believe that the five bands that were part of the original Northern
Flood Agreement signed, I think, a number of years ago, in fact in 1977‑‑many
of those conditions and many of those issues are outstanding. The government is proceeding on a band‑by‑band
basis, but there are still two bands that are outstanding, I believe, from the
Northern Flood, and we are not sure from the minister's statement today whether
there will be a referendum of the people in the community prior to the actual
signing of this proposed agreement, which has been the tradition in past
agreements.
Mr.
Speaker, there are other general issues that have not been dealt with either
and, of course, would have been dealt with under the Conawapa environmental
assessment. The whole issue of the
environmental impact was in the original agreement signed by the former
I
think, in terms of the micro, signing community by community, that is certainly
the right of the community to make that decision. We respect their right to do so, but there are
still two communities outstanding, and there is still the provision that is
outstanding on the overall environmental impact which was contained within that
treaty or that agreement between the government.
Mr.
Speaker, that was one of the disadvantages of the provincial government
cancelling halfway through the environmental impact study that was well
underway between the federal and provincial governments. I am not saying that by way of criticism,
just by way of fact, because there still could be court cases from communities
that are not signed dealing with the part of the original Northern Flood
Agreement to have that provision fully complied with.
Mr.
Speaker, we will await the decision of the community on the proposal from the
minister. I do appreciate the fact that
they are going community by community, but we still have two communities
outstanding and the macro issues outstanding.
These are difficult issues. I do
not pretend to say anyone in this House can say that these are not very
difficult issues to resolve. Different
communities come at it from a different philosophical and historical approach,
and I guess all of us will feel much better if all issues in the Northern Flood
Agreement are ultimately resolved. Thank
you very much.
* (1335)
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, as I
said back in June of 1992 when the agreement was announced by the minister with
respect to the Split Lake First Nation, I will say again here, we are very
pleased indeed to see this progress made.
I want to congratulate the negotiators for the York Factory First Nation
as well as for the government in achieving this settlement. I think we all agree it is high time that
there were settlements like this. We
have every hope that this community as well as others will now go forward to a
new future.
Mr.
Speaker, I simply want to say that we have, of course, I think, learned a lot
through this process as a community and as a society, as people who represent
the people of this province in this Legislature‑‑about how to and
how not to go about northern development.
I
think in many respects there were many, many mistakes made, but the truth is
that these agreements are very important for the future of these people, for
the future of these nations, and we should congratulate those who today, better
late than never, have come to these settlements.
Mr.
Speaker, my final comment, I want to give credit where credit is due. The Hydro representatives were before the
committee some time ago. They were
questioned at length on their new approach, any revisions in their approach
towards development in the North and towards native communities. They did display, on the record, a very
different approach, which I think was consistent with more of a progressive
view towards development in a co‑operative fashion in the North. I do hope that those spoken commitments at
that time from the Hydro are representative not only of that organization, but
other Crown corporations working in the North and this government.
Mr.
Speaker, I do hope very much that the people of York Factory First Nation will
move forward under this new agreement to have a new life and a new relationship
with the rest of us in their future years.
Thank you very much.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
Also this afternoon, from the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Senate of
Abolition
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, since the Charlottetown accord
was defeated last year, and in fact since Brian Mulroney announced his
resignation as Prime Minister of Canada‑‑in fact, he has one day
left I believe, and many of us think that is very good that he only has one day
left‑‑15 people have been appointed to the Senate of Canada, 15
patronage appointments, many of them fundraisers for the Conservative Party,
other people are friends of the Prime Minister, functionaries of the
Progressive Conservative Party.
I think
most people find this cost and this body to be totally out of date, a $50‑million
patronage body, when health care and education are being cut back.
Yesterday, 14 Liberals including the former
Leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party along with 11 Conservatives and one
independent voted another $6,000 in provisions for the Senate of Canada.
Our
phones have been ringing off the hook.
This group was supposed to be a sober second body. God knows they have not got the sober second
thought of anybody, Mr. Speaker. We do
not need them anymore and will the‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: There was one Manitoban who voted for this
yesterday, and it was the former Leader of the Liberal Party. But all of them should be condemned collectively
by this House.
Will the Premier, at the First Ministers'
meeting that is being called by the Prime Minister‑designate, call for
the immediate abolition of the Senate?
It is time to get rid of that body.
It is not good for a sober second thought, and it is too costly for the
people of
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, although one should not look for
any small comfort when faced with such a wrong‑headed action, I do take a
little bit of comfort in noting that there were 16 Conservative members who
voted against that particular raise and none of those who voted for it were any
of the Manitoba Conservative members of Senate.
I
agree with the Leader of the Opposition.
It was wrong, wrong, wrong, and it is why I, as a member of those who
attempted to negotiate a constitutional package last year, included serious
Senate reform.
If
these people were elected, I do not think there is any way that they could show
such a disdain for public opinion as they did with that action yesterday.
I
join with the Leader of the Opposition in condemning what I think to be a
terribly inappropriate move by the Senate of Canada.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, in the last number of years we
tried to reform the Senate. It failed. The people of
At
the
The
First Ministers are meeting with the Prime Minister in the first week of July
prior to the Tokyo Summit. We have an
opportunity to have a referendum with the people of
Would the Premier agree to take a resolution
to the First Ministers' meeting? It
should not take more than five minutes to discuss this issue to abolish the
Senate and put that to a referendum along with the federal election which is
scheduled this fall. Let us get it
done. Let us get rid of this high‑cost
and out‑of‑date institution.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as much as I agree with the
Leader of the Opposition vis‑a‑vis the terrible inappropriateness
of the measure taken by the Senate of Canada, I recognize that this is a hot
political issue. It has been on the open‑line
show all morning, and the Leader of the Opposition wants to capitalize on that.
The
fact of the matter is there are some very significant matters, I think, that
have to be talked about at the First Ministers' meeting which will be, unfortunately,
brief, but we do have to talk about common approaches to
We
do have to talk about getting Canadians back to work and talk about economic
development and investment creation and opportunities for all of those
things. I do think that we will have to
give that kind of serious and major consideration to those issues at a meeting
in which we get together for the first time in about a year and a half as First
Ministers. I would think that those are
the agenda items I will be concentrating on, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker,
In
terms of getting our fiscal house in order, what better ways for the First
Ministers to show that we are going to get our fiscal house in order and save
$50 million and perhaps put that into health care or education that have been
starved by the federal government? What
better way to show leadership in getting rid of an outdated institution?
People are absolutely furious. They see every day the appointments of
senators reminiscent of the way Trudeau stacked the Senate back in his dying
days as Prime Minister of this country.
They are absolutely disgusted with the 15 or 16 Liberals who have voted
for this provision and the 11 Tories who have voted for it.
It
is time, Mr. Speaker, that we spoke with the people of
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my previous answer.
Homemaker
Services
Guidelines
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, this government and this
ministry this year has introduced user fees on home care supplies, is
increasing the nursing home rates, in some cases by more than 74 percent, and
is cutting the homemaker services that used to be provided free of charge to
many senior citizens and many who are confined to their own homes.
Can
the minister advise this House today whether or not any guidelines will be
provided to the new organizations that are now going to be providing this fee
for service in terms of homemaker service?
What cost will it be to our sick and to our elderly who will now have to
pay for this homemaker service?
* (1345)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my honourable
friend's question and invitation to reply in front of the television cameras,
the identical discussion we had Tuesday last.
My
honourable friend, in his preamble, forgot one important dimension to the
question of individuals on home care paying for housecleaning and meal
preparation, and that was that the policy in 1985 introduced by the then‑New
Democratic Party government brought in the home support for seniors program,
which, with the use of volunteers, would establish those types of services in
the community, and when they were available, they would be the first call for
service provision at a cost to the client receiving them in the home care
program formerly for free.
Now
that policy, Sir, was agreed to by all members of the House as introduced by
the NDP. This decision today completes
that policy direction by the NDP in 1985.
My honourable friend seems to want to forget that little piece of
history.
Home Care
Support Workers
Employment
Status
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the minister is now introducing
a fee for service on nursing home beds.
He is now introducing user fees, and he has not answered the question,
how much it will cost these people in their homes.
Can
the minister then advise us, since he will not tell us how much it will cost,
how many homemaker, home care support workers will be losing their jobs as a
result of this government's initiative?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, again, I am dismayed at the‑‑an
outside observer might observe about the lack of integrity in that last question. I, Sir, will not make that observation.
My
honourable friend said that we are introducing a charge to residents of
personal care homes. Again, history will
show‑‑if my honourable friend wants to go back when personal care
home charges became part of the Ministry of Health's insured service provision‑‑it
was introduced in 1973, by a New Democratic Party government which introduced a
per diem charge.
Now, my honourable friend is saying today,
that we are just bringing it in. What a
callous distortion of history and fact, Sir.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the minister has
refused and is unwilling to answer the question. He will not provide the facts to the public
of
My
questions I will compile both together, and maybe he will try to answer
finally. How much will it be costing
these people now for the homemaker services, and how many of the approximately
1,500 or so home care support workers will be losing their jobs as a result of
this government's initiative?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, we do not have those figures
because there is a reallocation of hours that happens on a regular basis as,
again, we discussed in these Estimates, Tuesday and Monday.
There are individuals in the Continuing Care
Programs who are working more hours than their casual employment at the
commencement of the same casual employment, and so the figure varies region by
region according to the needs and the competence, I would presume, of the
caregiver. Some individual caregivers,
their hours go up quite significantly; others do not, and others leave the
program. We do not maintain day‑by‑day
records as to who is working and who is not.
The hours of care is the important dimension.
Again, in Estimates, my honourable friend
knows that the hours of important care are going up in the Continuing Care
Programs this year, not down, as my honourable friend would try to allege in
front of the cameras today.
* (1350)
Labour
Adjustment Strategy
Status
Report
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the
last eight days in this province, we have witnessed the announcement of 1,265
layoffs: 116 LPNs and 32 registered
nurses, up to 600 from Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, 480 from Hydro, 20 from
Cortelco, 39 from Great‑West Life, with more expected, and 10 from the
municipal hospitals.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier
this morning: Given that on March 26, 1993, with much fanfare, there was an
announcement by the provincial and federal governments which stated that up to
half a billion dollars would be spent in the 1992‑1993 years, which this
agreement is in currency, and that one of the primary goals of that very large
amount of money would be labour market adjustment, how much of that money can
this Premier tell those 1,265 laid‑off Manitobans will be dedicated to
retraining them, to getting them back into the workforce in this province, with
dignity and with the least amount of economic stress to them and their
families?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is
misstating a number of things, firstly, the Hydro layoffs that will amount to
less than a hundred. Most of the
adjustments will be made by early retirement, and obviously those people are
not candidates for retraining, so I urge him to get his facts straight.
With respect to northern
With respect to almost a thousand of the ones
that he names, there are things that are in place to address their concerns and
their needs.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that they are in
place, and I do not think the workers agree that they are in place. As for Hydro and other Crown corporations, we
have also heard that MTS expects to cut another 400 positions in the ensuing
year. It is not certain and Hydro could
not be certain how many people would actually be out of work.
Labour
Adjustment Strategy
Status
Report
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): My supplementary
question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), flowing from the first question: Of that half‑billion‑dollar
commitment, joint program, which runs until March of 1994, how much is going to
be available for labour market adjustment, which is one of the key areas
indicated in the press release, and will the Premier be making an announcement,
or will he make it now, as promised by the Minister of Education and Training
when she said on March 26, the day of the announcement, that further
announcements would definitely follow the signing?
Now
would be an appropriate time to have a further announcement for the 1,265
people in this province, who in the last eight days have been told that they
are going to be out of work.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, following the signing of that agreement,
Mr. Edwards: It is often the case in this House that those
types of terms are thrown out. I want
something that the 1,265 workers can understand, and I want the minister to
answer to them today as to how much of the half billion dollars‑‑leave
aside all the studies and the boards and all this consultation talk‑‑how
much is going to be available for them, to retrain them, to get them back into
the workplace.
When is that going to happen?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker,
Based on that agreement now, we will have a
much better joint decision making.
* (1355)
Student
Social Allowances
Program
Reinstatement
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, when this government tries to
defend its elimination of the Student Social Allowances Program, it finds
itself with some pretty thin arguments.
First of all, it says these students, who are
existing on $5,000 a year or less, must share the pain. Second of all, they say that no other
province does it.
I
want to ask the Minister of Education whether she is aware that the
Saskatchewan Skills Development Program provides social allowances to
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The
member speaks about the student social allowances, and I think she knows that
students may, in fact, at the high school level, attend programs within their
local high schools, within their home high‑school area. That has been an option. That continues to be an option.
Student
Social Allowances
Program
Reinstatement
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): The minister must know that is not an option
for over half the students on that program.
Is
the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) aware that metro
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): We have
indicated, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has, that many difficult
decisions had to be made within this budget.
We have indicated that those students have some options they can
pursue. We are currently in discussions
with the City of
Ms. Friesen: Is the Minister of Education aware that the
New Brunswick Income Assistance branch supports 1,500 students who live away
from home because they are in danger in their homes, and attend high school,
and will she reconsider and bring back those 1,200
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, we have made those budget
decisions, and I have indicated to members opposite that there are
opportunities for those students, all of them making individual decisions how
they are going to pursue their education, either on a full‑time or part‑time
basis.
Mammography
Services
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Health.
Women in the Westman area continue to wait an
unacceptably long period of time for a mammography test for breast cancer. A recent example is a woman whose family has
a history of breast cancer and whose doctor submitted her name to the Brandon
General Hospital last November, and now, seven months later, she has still not
been given a date when she can have this procedure at the Brandon General
Hospital, and as a result, is suffering considerable stress.
Will the minister now reconsider his position
and provide the necessary funds to the
* (1400)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my honourable
friend's question, and my honourable friend knows that the waiting time which
is longer in
If
a circumstance exists, as he described for a woman in the Brandon region‑‑if
a circumstance like that exists where there is a history of breast cancer in
the family, those are the kinds of circumstances with which physicians
recommend, not an elective mammography but priority access to the service.
Now, I would appreciate if my honourable
friend can share with me in private the individual's name so we can investigate
that, because that clearly, Sir, is, if the circumstances exist as my
honourable friend says, not an appropriate referral to mammography for that
individual.
I
would be very interested in pursuing that because I am advised that in
circumstances where there is some immediacy and urgency, the delay or the
waiting time for mammography in
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister this
question. How can he continue to
discriminate against those women in Westman whose doctors want them to obtain a
mammography test? Yes, elective, as the
minister states, but the women in
I
say this is a clear question of discrimination in view of the fact that the
incidence of death from breast cancer is the highest‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am frustrated with dealing
with this issue with my honourable friend, because my honourable friend wants
to make all sorts of allegations that are not correct, absolutely not correct
in terms of this government discriminating against women or anybody in the
Westman region.
It
has been this government that was leading the charge for CAT scanning, for
instance, in
Now, Mr. Speaker, what I want to say to my
honourable friend is that he can attempt to raise this issue for a fear
campaign and a partisan campaign, but it will avoid the issue of expert opinion
as to the value of mammography as a screening mechanism for women under
50. Study after study after study says
that is a waste of resource which would deny services, if invested there, to
other areas of health care which my honourable friend would then stand up and
complain about.
Sir, for needed mammography in Westman region,
a physician has the opportunity to make that service available for a woman so
judged as in need and that is appropriate.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, it is amusing and amazing how
this minister can rewrite history. He
knows darn well that it was the previous NDP government that put the CAT scan‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member for Brandon East, with
your question, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I want to‑‑(interjection)
It is not me that is saying you are discriminating against‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East, with
your question now, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, will the minister undertake to
study the firm recommendations and the position of the National Cancer
Institute of the United States which maintains that if every woman over the age
of 50 years‑‑(interjection) Well, you can make light of this if you
want, but there are women in Westman who are damn afraid of this issue because
of the inaction of this government. You
are discriminating‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Will the minister undertake to look into this,
because there is evidence that if women had an annual test, that the deaths
from breast cancer could be cut by one‑third, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats constantly amaze
me. Now they want to adopt the American for‑profit system which has every
woman from 20 years up going for a mammography test for profit for the
physician, for profit for the radiologist.
I prefer in this case to rely on a Canadian study which says exactly the
opposite, Sir.
On
the one hand, my honourable friend decries American consultants and then the
next time, when it fits their narrow partisan approach to health care, they
want to adopt American policy.
Well, Sir, we will use the best advice we can
get, regardless of whether it comes from the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health has had an
opportunity to answer the question. Now
we are moving on.
Firearms
Control
Government
Position
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, we were concerned this week when
we heard that the Justice minister had made comments in
Can
the Premier today clarify the position of this government respecting gun
control laws?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, is that sort of reminiscent of
the member for
Mr.
Speaker, in fairness to the Minister of Justice, I will take that question as
notice. I think he should answer in his
own terms to clarify what appears to have been a misunderstanding.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice
said: Decent law‑abiding gun
owners, many of them hunters and farmers, should not be treated like criminals.
I
would like to ask the Premier, who is responsible for this government: Is it the government's policy and does this
government believe that the current gun control laws do treat individuals like
criminals? Is that the position of this
government?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear to
anybody in my party that any decent, law‑abiding citizen should not be
treated like a criminal. If the Liberals
believe otherwise, let them say so.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, that quote came from the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae). We are
very concerned that we have a Minister of Justice who is talking about relaxing
gun control laws outside of‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood,
kindly put your question.
Point of
Order
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): On a point of order,
I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne 409.(10): "A question ought not to refer to a
statement made outside the House by a Minister." That is very clear.
Mr.
Speaker, I say the question in the vein of questioning put forward by the
member is out of order.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, on the same point of order, it is very important that we find out in
terms of what this government's policy is on gun control.
The
question is not out of order. It is
seeking a response from the Premier to clarify government policy on gun
control.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised, the honourable
government House leader did not have a point of order. The honourable member for Crescentwood
clearly did state that the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) had made
a certain remark or comment, but in her question she also did ask what was the
policy of the government.
I
am going to ask the honourable member for Crescentwood to put your question
now, please.
* * *
Ms. Gray: My question to the Premier is‑‑what
I want to know is the first question that I asked that you did not answer, which
is: What is the policy of this
government respecting gun control laws?
We want it clarified.
Point of
Order
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Very quickly, I will clarify that. The
honourable member is repeating a question which was previously asked, and it is
therefore out of order.
Now, if the honourable member for Crescentwood
would like to rephrase her question, please.
* * *
* (1410)
Ms. Gray: Can the Premier of this province tell us,
does this government support the fact that there should be tougher gun control
laws?
Mr. Filmon: Tougher than what?
Bill 47
Correspondence
Request
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, security deposits‑‑(interjection)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are moving right along here now. We have the honourable member for Burrows,
who has the floor.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, security deposits of low‑income
tenants have been a perennial problem, particularly when some slum landlords
refuse to return the security deposit at the end of a tenancy.
The
Residential Tenancies Act, which was supported in this House by all three
parties, had very strict provisions to try to cure this very serious problem
which frequently forced people to take food money for their next security
deposit and forced people to resort to food banks.
When the act was being debated, landlords were
opposed to the security deposit provisions in trust. Now, less than 10 months after the act was
proclaimed, this government is withdrawing those provisions with undue haste.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Will she table a list of all landlords and
landlord groups and tenants and tenant groups who met with her or who phoned
her or wrote her requesting specifically that she withdraw security‑deposit‑in‑trust
provisions from the act?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, no one has specifically asked
that we withdraw security deposits from the act. A lot of people have expressed concerns about
the amount of time that was being taken to deal with this.
The
administrative staff at the branch whose workload has increased by 300 percent‑‑and
that is the figure that we looked at from last year to this by virtue of having
to handle security deposit accounts just in terms of handling the files‑‑have
said this change will cause increase in cost and size to government of probably
in the area of about 10 extra staff in order to handle the auditing of these,
to handle a $1,000‑ to $2,000‑a‑year problem.
The
cost of that seemed greatly excessive to the branch. Tenants had requested
specifically a compensation fund which gives greater protection than the trust
deposits ever did. That we are able and
willing to provide for them at this time, Sir.
Residential
Tenancies Act
Security
Deposits
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed the minister
would blame her staff when it is really landlords who want this change.
I
would like to ask the minister, when The Residential Tenancies Act was
proclaimed, if landlords were required to have their security deposits in trust
on September 1, 1992, or whether there was a year of grace extending to
September 1, '93, and when was the deadline‑‑
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there were several questions in
there, and I think I know what the member is trying to indicate or infer by his
remarks. I would indicate to him that
the greater protection that is in here, because of the changes that are being
made for tenants, is what he really should be concerned about.
There was no undue pressure put upon this
government by landlords. The security
deposit provisions‑‑any landlord who puts forwards a bad track
record, we still can order those security deposits into the branch. That was a result of consultation by tenants,
which is what I thought he was looking to have us do.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister: Why did she not use the money that was
already in her department for a compensation fund and get the staff to enforce
the current provisions, instead of caving in to pressure from her landlord
friends?
Mrs. McIntosh:
Mr. Speaker, this is about the fifteenth time that member has said,
"caving in to pressure" from her Tory landlord friends. I resent it, it is not true, it is wrong.
I
am improving the system here for the betterment of the marketplace for tenants,
for landlords, for the taxpayer who has to be concerned about the cost and size
of government, which this member is not concerned about. He would rather have tenants, who are
taxpayers, pay more taxes to build an empire in a particular government branch
for no reason that I can see that would protect the marketplace, because what
we have here will protect the marketplace better.
I
spoke on this bill extensively yesterday.
I do not know if he heard what I said.
I look forward to him putting this bill into committee so we can debate
it at length, rather than snip at knee‑jerk questions in Question Period.
Ski Hill‑Conditional
Approval
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, this government received a
proposal for a ski hill at
My
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources: Has his department reconsidered its conditional
approval for this project, based on the research information that was provided?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, the department will, as in all other instances, make its position
known with respect to any proposals within our natural environment when the
proponent follows the provisions of The Environment Act and in fact places a
proposal before it. That, to my
knowledge, has not been done at this time.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, what are the conditions for this
approval, for the conditional approval, if there is shown that development is
going to destroy an environmental‑sensitive area? What possible
conditions could there be to reject a proposal, if not that it is going to do
this?
Can
the minister tell us what is it that his Wildlife branch in his department
recommended with respect to this proposal, based on this research information?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, at some point I would like the
honourable members of the opposition to at least acknowledge that we take very
seriously in government due and proper process.
My
department advised the proponents that prior to any further thinking about this
development, they would be well advised to seek some expert advice, hire
somebody to provide that advice to them.
I believe the department and my colleague there within Rural
Development, in fact, provided some funding for that advice.
This is the advice that is now coming forward,
that, in fact, there are some sensitive questions relating to the particular
species of bird life, wildlife in that area.
That was done at our instigation, internally, within this government,
because we take the causes of the natural environment extremely seriously. When
that information is brought back to appropriate department officials, that will
all go into the mix of developing a proposal.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, it is good that we have
environmental studies going on. Now let
us follow them and‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Your question, please.
Ms. Cerilli: I would ask the minister: If we cannot count on this type of critical
habitat to be protected in a park in
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer the
honourable member this way, because honourable members will be aware that on
another matter that concerned the natural environment, namely, the development
at Oak Hammock Marsh, it was often falsely alleged by members opposite and
regrettably by the media, that we were in some way in violation of the Ramsar
Convention, that internationally renowned organization that monitored and, in
fact, privileged our Oak Hammock Marsh with its designation.
Just last week, 3,000 of the world's
specialists concluded a Ramsar Convention at
School
Division
Boundary
Review Information Release
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Speaker, my question to the minister is:
When will this minister provide details of the proposed review of the
school division boundaries?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the member anticipates what will be in any announcement that I am
making. As I said to him earlier, I will
be making an announcement regarding that particular initiative shortly.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
* (1420)
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Kildonan have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I, together with many members of
this Chamber, had the pleasure of attending the annual Negev dinner in Winnipeg
honouring the Simkin Family‑‑Jenny Cohen, Clare Erlichman, Jim
Simkin, Saul Simkin, Israel Simkin and Abe Simkin, six members of a pioneering
family who, through their community efforts and hard work, have transformed our
community and made it into the kind and caring place that it is.
This is a pioneer family, Mr. Speaker, which
rose from modest roots to become "a phenomenal Canadian success
story." As a testament to the love
and respect that is felt by the community toward this family, over 1,800 people
attended the dinner that night, making it the largest Jewish National Fund
dinner in the entire world. The proceeds
from this dinner will go toward the many dynamic projects undertaken in
I
am sure all members of this House will join me in honouring the Jewish National
Fund as well as the Simkin family on this outstanding offer.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the second
opposition party have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I, too,
had the honour and the privilege of attending the recent dinner this week held
in honour of the Simkin family. I know
that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was in attendance as well, perhaps other members
of the Chamber.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to join comments with my colleague the member from the New
Democratic Party in honouring officially in this House the valuable
contribution of the Simkin family over the many decades that they have been
active in the
Mr.
Speaker, I simply want to add my congratulations to that family on their enormous
success and thank them for their enormous contribution to this community.
The
dinner was a magnificent success. As my
friend indicated, there were over 800 people in attendance, I think testament
to the very high regard that all, not only in the Jewish community but
throughout this city and this province, have for the Simkin family. Thank you.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine)
for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
I
move, seconded by the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister), that the
composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as
follows: the member for Kirkfield Park
(Mr. Stefanson) for the member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme); the member for St.
Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae); the member
for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) for the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr.
Pallister); the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey) for the member for
Emerson (Mr. Penner); and the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) for
the vacant position.
Motions agreed to.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on
House business, firstly I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments will meet on Tuesday, June 29, at 7 p.m. to consider Bill 14,
The Personal Property Security and Consequential Amendments Act.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would ask whether or not there
is a willingness to waive private members' hour.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour? No? Okay, leave is denied.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), 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 of Education and Training; and the honourable member for
* (1430)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. 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 6.(a)(1) on page 42 of the Estimates book.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I note that the
critic for the NDP party is not here.
Should we not wait until they arrive?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We can carry on the questioning.
Mr. Alcock: Perhaps you could instruct me as to procedure
in the committee then. Is it the
procedure to go ahead when one of the official critics is not here?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen) had said she was finished on the Colleges Secretariat. I understood
the member for Osborne still had some questions in that area, so we were taking
the opportunity to give you the chance to ask questions on that line, and that
is 6.(a)(1) Colleges Secretariat.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was simply asking
you the question, whether it is customary to proceed without the presence of
both critics.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: There have been a number of occasions when we
have started with just one member. If
the honourable member would rather wait until the critic for the opposition
gets here, it is at the will of the committee.
If you would like to wait until such time as they get here, then that is
what we will do.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am prepared to
proceed, but it does concern me that we would start the committee without at
least giving the other members an opportunity to be present in case they do
have questions.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Well, this committee was called to order in
the House 15 minutes ago, for the honourable member for Osborne. I believe that is enough time for just about
everybody to be here. They know the
meeting has been called, and I believe it is up to all members to be here on
time.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I have some items to table at the beginning of the session
today. I have information on response to
inquiries regarding three companies under the Workforce 2000 training
incentives component, and I would like to table those now.
Then, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, under Workforce
2000, there was a question regarding training incentives to small‑ and
medium‑sized businesses, support to priority groups through wage‑assisted
training, and I have that to provide today.
It is broken down by region, number of employees trained and the total
number of priority group members trained.
Then, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there was
information requested regarding our Partners with Youth program, approved
sponsors and project descriptions. I
have those today, and this is for the 1992‑93 year.
Then, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have a list
under Workforce 2000, a list of trainers and training type under the Workforce
2000 program. What I will table today is
the legal name of the company receiving training, the trainer name and the
training type. The training type is by
code, and so I would also like to table today the explanation of the training
codes to go along as an explanation with this document.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I also have to table, on behalf of
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister
for the information, and I will see that it is passed on.
I
have a question. I understood that we
had passed the line dealing with Workforce 2000. I realize what the minister is doing is just
following up with stuff that was committed, but I note that the staff and such
are here. Is there an intention to
recall them for further questioning? Is
it necessary that they stay here?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the staff who are
here are staff who support the Colleges Secretariat.
Mr. Alcock: Actually, perhaps the minister could, for my
benefit at least, introduce the staff who are here and are involved with the
Colleges Secretariat.
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me take a moment to introduce Dominique Bloy,
who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of the AEST Division; Mr. Bob Gorchynski,
who is the Acting Director of Management Services‑‑I introduce them
by the title, since there has been a reorganization in the AEST branch and
these are now titles under the reorganization‑‑Mr. Earl McArthur,
who is the Acting Director of the Labour Market Policy Planning and Analysis
Branch; Mr. Rick Dedi, who is the Acting Director of the Colleges Secretariat;
and Margaret McDonald who is the Financial Officer.
Mr. Alcock: Thank you.
I
note there are staff present in the back of the room who were here for
Workforce 2000 and other programs. It
just seems such an enormous waste to have people sitting around doing nothing. I have no intention of calling any questions
about Workforce 2000, certainly.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate
that. The staff did arrive with the
information to be tabled. Having brought
that information, they have remained for a couple of moments to see if there
was any clarification required by members.
Perhaps that clarification may not have been through the Estimates
process, but the I thank the member. The
staff have now left, back to their offices.
Mr. Alcock: I thank the minister for that.
We
left last session talking about the relationship between Government Services
and the colleges, given the change in governance.
The
minister mentioned that at ACC, parking and security is done by the Government
Services under contract. The question
that arises from that for me is, is there an attempt to build a special
operating agency that does contract to the colleges in the same way that
Government Services has worked to create a special operating agency that
contracts with the government departments around the services of automobiles
and repair?
* (1440)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are not aware of
any attempt or effort in that direction.
The member may like to speak to the Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme), however, in the process of his Estimates to determine if any
discussion is held with him.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, how has it arisen
then that at ACC there is this arrangement?
What is the history of that?
Mrs. Vodrey: In the case of ACC, this was a matter of
operating efficiencies. It would seem to
be more efficient in that particular college.
It was not a matter of program delivery; therefore, there was an
agreement on all sides that this would be contracted through Government
Services.
Mr. Alcock: Has there been a discussion about contracting
similarly at the other colleges for these services?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair,
Mr. Alcock: As I recall the discussion from last Tuesday,
the parking and security services at Red River are handled by staff that
formerly worked for Government Services and that have been transferred to the
employing authority of
Mrs. Vodrey: That is correct.
Mr. Alcock: And in the case of KCC it contracts privately
for these services?
Mrs. Vodrey: That is correct.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if we can move on
then to a question that came up, as I recall, in the Estimates in the previous
year's budget‑‑and at that time it was specifically about Red River
Community College, although there was an indication, I believe, from the
minister that the department was considering generalizing it to the other
colleges‑‑this is the whole question of the introduction of Total
Quality Management to the operations of the colleges. I wonder if the minister can give us some
background on the progress to date and the programs that have been instituted
and whether or not it goes beyond
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair,
The
other community colleges have not implemented TQM. I am informed that they are looking at TQM or
other related styles. I understand that
Mr. Alcock: Can the minister just clarify the comment
that
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair,
Through this,
Mr. Alcock: So
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the training that is
provided is not a training for cost or for payment. At the moment, it is done through the
network. It is done collegially through
the network as a support to develop TQM.
However, it is possible that in the future Red River may, in fact, develop,
depending upon the demand, a course in the market‑driven training area.
Mr. Alcock: ACC and KCC have not currently instituted
programs in TQM, although you indicated that they may soon introduce something
that is either TQM based or "other related styles." What might these
other related styles be?
* (1450)
Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, the member has gotten a little
bit ahead of what I had said. They are
looking at, they have not yet said that they intended to introduce, this kind
of programming. The president of
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I recall a discussion
last year that the new president at Red River has a background‑‑I
believe there was some discussion, I think, from his experience at
I
wonder if the minister can tell us what programs have been introduced at
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in terms of the
accomplishments over the past year, I may have stated those already, that Total
Quality Management concepts have been introduced into many aspects of the
institutional operation over the past year, and approximately one‑half of
the staff have been directly involved in the projects relating to improving the
processes associated with the support of the administrative and the academic
process.
For
1993‑94 the objectives are to use the TQM techniques to improve the
ergonomics of the classrooms, labs and office space; to use the TQM approach to
address the recommendations from the president's task force on services to
aboriginal and multicultural communities, and to complete the review of all
diploma‑level curricula by June 1993 for the purposes of incorporating
appropriate TQM concepts and methods, the fundamentals of economic sustainable
development and an understanding and an appreciation for cultural diversity.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a fairly
standard observation of TQM programs that they produce on average 10 percent
improvements in efficiency per annum during their implementation phase. I am wondering if the minister can tell us
what the experience has been at
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that we do not have any
statistical information on the gains in this year because it is has been a
fairly new implementation. However, the
gains have been more noted through the development of a college team. That has been actually noted just in the way
that the college team is working.
Also, there has been noted, again by
observation within the college, an effectiveness in the area of the management
of equipment and resources. Now people's
familiarity with the whole idea of TQM is allowing them to apply the principles
of TQM through some of the college initiatives.
One
of the initiatives that I had spoken about was in the area of the president's
task force on services to aboriginal and multicultural communities.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess the problem I
have, and it comes back to the same problem I had when we discussed this last
year, is that there is a lot of high‑minded labelling going on in the
sense that wonderful things are happening under the name TQM, but the reality
is, when you come down to an accomplishment:
Did something happen faster? Did
something happen at a lower cost? Were
some steps in a process removed? Were applications processed faster?
It
is fine that they have a team, and I suspect they may even have T‑shirts
or something that substantiate that. But
what has happened that improves life on a daily basis for the students at that
schools? Or what has happened that makes
the working conditions better for people who work there? What has been the product of this other than
a variety of meetings, training and feel‑good work sessions?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I know last year when we
spoke of the goals of TQM, we spoke about them in terms of measurement or,
actually, categorization within a behavioral area and within a statistical
area. I have said that we do not have
that statistical information that I can provide the member with this year,
because it is in its first full year of operation.
* (1500)
What I have been able to describe to the
member is the behavioural effects of TQM in this first year. I am certainly informed that those who are
very involved with the college of the sense of ownership and the creation of
this sense of teamwork that people are, in fact, working as part of a group and
people's opinions are important. I think
that is one way. Again, it is hard to
measure based on a statistic, but it is able to be measured behaviourally and certainly
in the tone that is set out at the college.
In
terms of efficiencies, though I have spoken in the House previously and I may
also have spoken about it within Estimates, one area where
Again I would say that we would certainly be
looking in the second year for some measurable, other than behaviourally
measurable, results of TQM in the college.
I am sure the college will be looking to that as well.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it just strikes me
that we get caught up in sort of new fads and new approaches to
management. God knows, we have been
through a number of them in the last decade.
I would not want to even begin to enumerate them all, but it strikes me
that prior to‑‑I mean, is the position that has been taken that,
prior to the current president, people's opinions were not important at the
school, that people were not listened to?
What is it that TQM has brought to the
management of the school? The concern I
had last year was that when you introduce TQM, if you are not introducing it to
an industrial process, if you do not have the statistical processes in place to
measure the current situation and then to identify the opportunities for
improvement in others, what you may have is very little different from what we
have had for the last 20 years in terms of attempting to build different
approaches to communication.
What TQM offers is an ability to measure both
the current situation and then to substantiate some change or some improvements
as they are introduced. Now what I am
hearing the minister saying is that, after one year of doing this, they have
nothing other than a different feeling.
You know, they could have a different feeling from any one of the labels
that could be applied to a change in management.
Mrs. Vodrey: I know last year in the Estimates, we had a
fairly lengthy discussion on the issue of TQM, because I know the member has
been viewing it as is this‑‑as he said even again today‑‑one
of several choices that may be used and used for a short time without any real
changes, and then maybe another style or another particular program may be
adopted.
I
can only at this point‑‑I think it is important to go back to how
the president and the people of Red River Community College have identified the
effects of TQM for themselves. One of
the areas, and I spoke about this earlier, is that approximately one‑half
of the staff have been directly involved in projects related to improving the
processes associated with the support of the administrative and the academic
process.
I
did give the member an example of the changes put forward in the registration
program, identified and then actually put into action. Things have to start somewhere. In this case, it is putting together a team,
a team that has a variety of skills, as opposed to a very single and narrow
focus where one individual may look at determining what changes may be
made. So there has been a change, and it
has been reported to me as an important one, where staff is now involved at a
much wider level in terms of projects and involved in the process.
Then I also spoke about the TQM approach being
used to address the recommendations from the president's task force on services
to aboriginal and multicultural communities.
A concrete step that has come from that is an additional section of 15
students will be added to the college preparation for natives program, as part
of the plan to increase aboriginal student enrollment by 25 percent. An additional 15 aboriginal students will be
accepted into the urban native integration and adaptation program, a
microcomputer application program.
So
flowing from the results of the task force, how that task force would be
implemented and applied within the college, there has now come some very
specific concrete direction that will affect the student life of the college.
In
the two examples, registration, and also this particular program, that is one
way that students then will feel the effects, and we hope and believe they will
benefit from the effects of this particular management style, which again, I
will remind the member is really just into its first year at
Mr. Alcock: I will leave this just with a couple of
comments, as I will not be here to ask these questions in the subsequent budget
year.
TQM
is a process that grew out of really industrial programs, where they had an
ability to measure very carefully.
Statistical process control was a central part of this. The concern I have had from the beginning
when I start hearing people talk about this as a management technique in soft
service, in human services, is that it is very difficult to do that without the
measurement base.
I
believe you can create that in some areas.
I think it is very difficult, but I think it would be a very exciting
experiment if you could, in fact, create some of those measures and begin to
look at really what is occurring other than we feel better or we communicate
better.
What new manager in an organization has not
said his senior staff communicate better as a result of his or her new
processes, whether you call them TQM or quality circles or communication
circles, whatever label you want to attach to them.
For
me, the interesting thing about this attempt to introduce a new management
style or a new management process into a college as opposed to a business is
that as soon as you step out of the transactional processing arena, you have a measurement
problem. I do not say that pejoratively.
The excitement may be in how you solve that. I would be very interested in hearing about
that.
I
understand that it is only a year, and the minister is saying that they can
point to some things on the feeling side and then some process things with the
registration although it is hard to clarify.
But that would be a transactional area that one would presume there
could be some measures and some comparisons in.
So
I will leave this just with the comment that I would be interested in future
years in hearing whether or not you have been able to establish some of those
measurements and some of those processes, and we can look to some real
implementation of a managed quality program.
I will move off of TQM at this point.
I
would like to ask though a question about this.
The desire to choose TQM in
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that TQM often does get started
with someone referred to through the system as a champion, someone with
experience, and that is what has happened at
* (1510)
Mr. Alcock: And the minister is quite right. So it was not a result of a government policy
to move in this direction, and there will not necessarily be a proliferation.
Certainly, if the president at
Mrs. Vodrey: Those colleges are free to move in their own
direction and have indicated they are looking at other systems as well.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chair, I know the member for
Wolseley had some questions, and I am prepared to leave TQM, although I have
more questions on the secretariat.
If
the member has some questions she can go for awhile, and I will come back.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Thank you.
I wanted to raise a procedural issue for a minute. There are two basic lines dealing with
colleges. Is the minister prepared to
take all the questions on colleges and then pass them both at the same time or
pass them one after another?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we will try and answer the questions
then in that block and provide the information in whatever order it is
required.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I wanted to ask about
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, there are several
international projects occurring at the colleges.
Ms. Friesen: I am particularly interested right now in the
Are
there any connections between
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we do not, at
this time, have the level of detail the member is asking for, but I will be
happy to approach the college and get that information for her. I am happy to table it at the next sitting.
Ms. Friesen: As the minister knows, part of what I am
looking for here is establishing what the relationship is between the government,
the secretariat and the colleges.
Would that kind of information I have asked
for be included or available from the minutes of board meetings? We have established that is the primary
public level of accountability.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in this case,
as the colleges have moved to governance, it is unlikely that they would be
available specifically through the minutes, unless they were discussed issue as
an agenda item.
However, I am informed that with the new
relationship, if a person wanted to have that information, the colleges should
be able to provide that directly to an individual. The records would, again, have, I suppose,
the usual concerns around personnel matters and so on, but otherwise, that
information should be available from the colleges.
Ms. Friesen: I assume the minutes would show the
introduction of such programs.
Presumably, it would also show the staffing of them. It might, in an annual report, look at a kind
of status report of each particular program.
The
final question I asked in that series was what was the economic impact in the
communities of those particular programs. Now I would anticipate that would not
be conveyed through board minutes or through board considerations, not that it
would not necessarily be part of their deliberations, but that is not their
focus. Their focus would be to deliver
the programs and to look at the educational impact and educational evaluation.
It
does, however, seem to me that it would be the minister's responsibility or the
cabinet's, in some way, to understand the economic impact of such
programs. My sense is that they would be
very beneficial. But I am really looking
for the government's responsibility in the use of community colleges as part of
the government's overall economic framework or economic development.
* (1520)
Mrs. Vodrey: Just in response to the first part of the
member's question, yes, there would be the annual report. The annual report we would expect to cover the
details of the work being done at
In
terms of the government's role, government, by policy, does support
international programming. The college's
role in this has been to provide training and development in third world
countries, and there has been a transfer of training and a transfer of skills.
In
terms of the direct economic benefit, that has been somewhat more difficult for
us to measure. We do know that when we
do assist other countries with project development, the technical equipment is
acquired, where possible, from
The
government of
So
the overall specific question of economic benefit, I suppose, is somewhat more
difficult in each case to speak of, and the details I am not able to provide
her today. I can tell her that to tie
the college's task force with the Advanced Education and Skills Training area,
this task team has been struck to examine the college international education
policy guidelines.
So
that is one way we are trying to look at the international role. For
Ms. Friesen: I think, if I remember rightly, that the
government, or this department rather, did not make a submission to the Rural
Economic Development commission. This
department did make a submission to the Northern Economic Development
commission, but not to the rural one, and I wondered if there was some substitute
for that formal presentation.
Has
there been a Department of Education position on the role of community
colleges, whether it is Red River or Assiniboine or KCC in the future economic
development of rural
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of rural economic development, the
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) held a forum on rural economic
development. The staff from the
Department of Education were represented at that. We understand, I am not able to confirm
today, but we believe that the president of ACC also attended that particular
forum. ACC has been working with the
Brandon Council, the Keystone Agricultural Centre, Brandon University at
looking at ways to establish ACC as a centre of excellence, particularly for
technology, technological training in the rural areas.
ACC
has been working itself with a number of initiatives to serve the rural
communities. They have the provincial
mandate for agricultural training. ACC's
agricultural and rural enterprise division offered 25 programs to 1,250
students in 59
Over the past six years, approximately 115
rural communities have participated in ACC's Distance Education courses. At ACC's Parkland campus in Dauphin, they
offered seven full‑time programs to 118 students and continuing education
programs to over 1,200 residents of the Parkland region, including Ste. Rose,
Gilbert Plains, Grandview and McCreary.
The
Parkland Southwest Regional Centre delivered a business skills refresher course
to 11 participants who graduated in December, 1992, and the centre offers
several evening courses in co‑operation with Major Pratt high school in
Russell. In 1993‑94, ACC is
offering continuing education courses to approximately 450 students in
approximately 15 rural
* (1530)
There are a number of other initiatives. I am wondering if this is the kind of
initiatives the member is interested in knowing about regarding ACC's role with
rural
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I was really
interested in is how ACC's mission is conveyed to it from the government,
looking at the role of the government in adjusting, in determining and changing
the mandates of the colleges.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, our role at this
point is to support ACC in what is seen as their catalyst role within the
Ms. Friesen: If ACC wanted to go beyond the mandate that
the government has established, that is the catalyst for rural development, how
would those kinds of changes be accomplished? What I am looking for is, yes,
the colleges have gone to governance, they have a certain amount of
independence and flexibility, but they also derive a substantial proportion of
their income from the government. There
is a policy established now which determines particular roles for particular
colleges. How frozen is that? How do
those changes occur?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, under The Colleges
Act, No. 3, it speaks about the mandate of the college. I know the member has a copy of this or could
look at it. I am pleased to provide her
with mine if she would like to have it.
The mandate of the college is extremely broad, and it has been
maintained in that very broad way to allow for the boards then to adapt the
colleges to the areas of regional needs and to the areas that they see they are
able to develop within their community, within that wide community area.
The
government's role providing such a wide‑ranging mandate would be to
provide program approval through the approval of the budget and would also be
to monitor those programs. That
monitoring would occur through the annual report as well as through the contacts
that the secretariat would have with the colleges.
Ms. Friesen: The annual report is fairly clear. Could the minister explain how that program
funding works? The colleges will apply
or they will present their budget to the colleges. They will present their
asking budget, I assume, to the secretariat and that will be detailed in terms
of program. So, for example, the kinds
of questions that I asked on the international programs would presumably have
been included in a request to government.
Again, I am looking for‑‑I am using this as an example of
how the relations do work or will work or how you anticipate that they will
work. Why would you not have the
information on the international programs, if it had been presented to you as a
program proposal?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, part of the difference is
how the budget this year was provided.
The budget was provided in a block, not by program. Next year, the budget will be by formula.
I
just wanted to check also regarding the proposal because, in terms of the
international programs, I spoke about some of the programs which were currently
ongoing, but now the member speaks about a proposal. A proposal has been provided to government, a
concept proposal to establish a centre of excellence for international training
in agriculture, rural microenterprise, secondary processing and value‑added
production. That has come as a proposal
from the college to government now.
Ms. Friesen: So that is something that the government is
looking at now as part of the overall mandate of
When the minister said formula, could I ask
her to elaborate on that? In the future
the regular practice will be to fund by formula. Is that on a per‑student basis, per
program? How does that work?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the development of the formula
is one of the tasks of the Colleges Secretariat during the year '93‑94 to
have in place for the year '94‑95.
Ms. Friesen: Is that a formula that will be established on
a same basis for each college? Is that
what the government is aiming for?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, it will be a formula that
applies to all colleges. It will be a
formula somewhat as the public schools formula is, one which involves
principles which will apply to school divisions, and then the schools funding
formula, again, allows for in the first year of application and so on to look
at how it applies and where there may need to be adjustments. We will see what is put forward from the
Secretariat regarding colleges.
Ms. Friesen: Will the formula include capital equipment as
well as operating grants?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, it will.
Ms. Friesen: When would the minister expect this to be put
on stream? This will be for the next
year's budget?
Mrs. Vodrey: It will be in place‑‑we intend it
to be in place for the '94‑95 budget.
Ms. Friesen: How will this be announced, and how will it
be conveyed to the colleges, and will there be any kind of public discussion
before the provision of Estimates?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the colleges will be
involved in a consultation process as the formula is being developed, and then
the guidelines for the use of this formula will be‑‑the colleges
will have that for the budget cycle '94‑95.
Ms. Friesen: Can I look at this now from the perspective
of establishing fees at the colleges?
How have fees been established?
Just for the record, if the minister could explain how fees were
established in last year, how they were established in this first year of
governance, and the process for establishing fees in each of the colleges under
the new formula system.
* (1540)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in the past the colleges
have had the fees set as part of the normal budgeting process, and the way that
we look for the tuition fees to be set in the future‑‑The Colleges Act
gives the boards of governors the authority to set tuition fees; that is 17(d)
in The Colleges Act. So in practice the
colleges will identify tuition fee revenue in their annual budget submissions,
and the department then will review requests for tuition fee changes as part of
its annual review of the college budget submission.
Ms. Friesen: This will be different, then, than the
universities' process of establishing fees?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, it will be
different than the universities' establishment of fees.
Ms. Friesen: Does the government have a policy of
establishing the same fee for the same course in each college?
Mrs. Vodrey: Until now that has been the case where the
costs for course have been fairly comparable.
Certainly, I realize as minister, and the government realizes, that
tuition fees do represent a significant factor in the accessibility to
community colleges, so we will certainly be viewing tuition fees as an
important consideration in maintaining the accessibility of the community
college system and also in reviewing the budgets of the community colleges.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, accessibility is
certainly part of the reason I was asking the question, but equity was
another. For example, one could argue
that there are higher costs in the delivery of one course in KCC than there
are, for example, in delivering it in
Again, I am asking the question from an equity
perspective. Does the government or will the government have a policy of
looking at equal charges or equal fees for the same course throughout
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, at this point I can say
that certainly as we look at the tuition fees established, we would also look
at where the course was being offered.
We are in the process, again as I said, of looking at the funding
formula for the colleges. All of these
issues will have to be considered in the development of that formula.
Ms. Friesen: Can we expect or anticipate a formal policy
statement on the funding formula at some point?
Mrs. Vodrey: We will certainly make the funding formula
known. How it will be made known, I am not able to commit to today.
Ms. Friesen: I want to look at the impact of federal
cutbacks on community colleges. The
minister has often spoken of this. I
wonder if we could have some detailed information on the impact of this in the
past year on each of the colleges and the anticipated impact next year. I would doubt that there is a longer planning
horizon than that from the federal government, but if there is I would like to
hear of it.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the federal direct
training purchases will decrease by 28 percent in 1993‑94, and they are
scheduled for elimination by the end of 1994‑95. The federal government will continue to make
indirect or project‑based training purchases from the colleges in '93‑94
and, we understand, in subsequent fiscal years.
Historically, direct training purchases have
provided the colleges with ongoing commitments for block purchases of training
in existing college programs. Block
purchases provided a high degree of stability and also financial security for
the colleges and the provincial institutions.
Again, the indirect purchases, which the
federal government is moving to, do not provide that guaranteed level of
funding provided under the direct purchase arrangements. Training is sold to the federal government on
a project‑by‑project basis. The colleges are in competition with
other training suppliers for federal training projects.
The
new market for training services created by the federal government has required
the colleges to become more entrepreneurial in order to access the federal
training funds. Indirect or contract training is provided through the delivery
of training to private or community organizations and the provision of training
to specific clients of Employment and Immigration Canada, such as job entry or
job re‑entry programs.
In
1994‑95, when the direct purchase of training ends,
The
provincial contribution, through provincial operating grants in '93‑94,
will rise by 2.1 percent. That increase‑‑we
look to continue to support the college during this change, the federal
government's method of funding programming.
Again, Manitoba has and will continue to
express its concerns to the federal government regarding the net loss in
federal funding due to the decreased UI benefits and also increased UI premiums
in Manitoba that have not been fully compensated by the increased federal
training expenditures.
In
this particular area with the UI benefits, we are concerned about reductions
for the community colleges.
* (1550)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, what is the overall impact
then on the community colleges of the elimination of all the federal money by
next year and an increase of only 2 percent from the provincial government? What is the net decline, decrease?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the reduction of the
federal government can be measured in the direct purchase area, and we see that
reduction as approximately $3.4 million or about 28 percent. It is much harder in the indirect, because
those can be negotiated on an ongoing basis.
Ms. Friesen: I am looking for the impact on the colleges
of this. The 28 percent is a decline in‑‑that
is 28 percent less than the federal government contributed last year. What proportion is that of the overall colleges'
budget? If we take the overall federal
contributions, those that we can measure, the direct purchases, what is the
decrease in percentage terms to the colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the 28 percent reduction of
the federal government direct training purchases at the colleges has had an
impact on the budget. College revenues
from the federal direct training purchases represented 18.1 percent of the
colleges' expenditures in 1992‑93.
Federal purchases represented only 13.5 percent of the colleges'
expenditures in 1993‑94. That is a
predicted loss of $3.4 million from the previous year that I have been
discussing.
Ms. Friesen: So, for example,
Mrs. Vodrey: The percentage of the direct purchase funds
was 18.1 percent of the colleges' expenditures in '92‑93. We predict that it will represent 13.5
percent of the expenditures in '93‑94.
That would be a change of 5 percent, and that is looking at all three
colleges together.
Ms. Friesen: Maybe we should look at it in the context of
one particular college then, just to get an idea of how it is going to
work. What was the budget of
Mrs. Vodrey: Taking, for example,
Ms. Friesen: How will
Obviously, if you are having a reduction from
the federal government, you have a small increase in the provincial government
which is not going to meet the gap. Two
ways of meeting the gap: one, the
minister says indirect purchases; the other presumably is fees. So I am looking at the timing on that and the
principles that the colleges are going to use.
Are
fees going to be used? Essentially, once
you have determined what your indirect purchases are, is then the other side of
your budget fees, and is that how it is going to be allotted, or are there
other principles at work here?
Mrs. Vodrey: I just want to check with the member, because
I see that we are now looking at the revenue side for the colleges, because we
had spoken about what the expenditures we expect to be. We look at a decrease in revenue from the
direct training purchases of the federal government, but to support the revenue
side, I have also spoken about an increase in provincial funding. Yes, tuition fees are another way to support
the revenue side; but, in addition to that, the revenue side can be supported
through course charges for the market‑driven training, and those are cost
recoverable. So the revenue changes would
not have to be looked at specifically through the area of tuition fees, because
the colleges will have other opportunities to increase revenue.
* (1600)
Ms. Friesen: My concern is that the 2 percent increase of
the provincial government is not going to be enough to meet the needs of the
community colleges, so the pressure upon revenues is going to be high. That is the basis of my concern. The minister says the provincial government
is going to increase its contribution by 2 point something, 2.1 percent, 2.3
percent? What is that a percentage
of? Is it a percentage of last year's
base which included federal contribution, or is it percentage of last year's
provincial contribution? I guess I
should not say contribution; I think it is referred to in the book here as a
grant or transfer payment.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that 2 percent is the
difference between last year's provincial grant and this year's provincial
grant.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister also
used two terms on the revenue side. One
was course fees for market‑driven training, which are cost recoverable,
and the other one she used was tuition fees.
I am not sure the distinction that is being made there. Are not the course charges tuition fees?
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, The Colleges
Act gives the board the responsibility to set tuition fees and rates and other
service charges to be paid by students.
However, in the market‑driven training, that is the cost that is
arrived at through negotiation of a contract.
When that contract is negotiated by the colleges with EIC, for instance,
or it might be another industry, for instance, that required that market‑driven
training, then the cost of that would be again negotiated by the contract; it
would not be the same as the tuition fee.
Ms. Friesen: Is it possible that a course could be given
as tuition based, student based, and the same course, for example, something
might be computer training for industry, but essentially the same course being
given through contract and through negotiation, but that could be negotiated at
a different level?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is, I
suppose, possible that might occur, but the courses which are provided for
market‑driven training are usually very specialized to the particular
client who is requiring the training.
The cost of market‑driven training is also higher than the cost of
tuition, because a student paying tuition is actually receiving the cost at
virtually a subsidized rate, whereas market‑driven training does pay for
the full cost of the course.
Ms. Friesen: Presumably, in the future, there is less of a
subsidy available to students because of the overall decline in support for
community colleges from the federal government.
Mrs. Vodrey: The difference is that in the direct purchase
the federal government did underwrite more of the total cost of the
training. In the indirect, the federal
government will not be underwriting the total cost. Those students could be entering into any of
the programs offered at
Those people in the market‑driven
training are different from the direct purchase, which the federal government
provides, or the students who are paying tuition. Market‑driven amount is arrived at by
contract. It is fully cost
recoverable. There is also a profit to
the college through the market‑driven. The profit to the college is then
reinvested in the college within the infrastructure or for the equipment within
the college.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know that
in the past the colleges have been able to negotiate essentially market‑driven
training with the federal government that has had that profit basis in it that
has enabled them to subsidize other courses and programs and, I suppose, even
infrastructure within the colleges as well.
My
concern is, when you go to a market‑driven system, it is the market which
will determine it, not the federal government, no sort of abstract federal
price which may in the past have been more advantageous to the college. When the market determines, the market
determines. I mean, it is‑‑why
would we anticipate that the college would be able to negotiate contracts that
will essentially enable them to make a profit particularly if, as the minister
says, the intention is to establish a competitive environment with private
trainers, private vocational schools, for the delivery of that training? Why is the price not going to go down
considerably?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, there are three
types of training we have been talking about.
Before there was a direct purchase.
With the direct purchase, there was a guaranteed block of purchase which
was a more dependable type of purchase.
The federal government has moved now to indirect purchase. It does require negotiation. However, the community colleges are able to
negotiate for that indirect.
In
the area of the market‑driven training, the colleges previously still had
to go through government to respond to the market‑driven request. Now they do not have to. Now they are more able to be more immediately
responsible to the federal government or to business, industry and labour who
are requiring the market‑driven courses.
* (1610)
Ms. Friesen: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, but my question is
not to do with flexibility or ability to meet the needs. The issue is price and the market determining
the price in an environment that the government is increasingly anticipating
will be competitive.
The
purpose of that competition, presumably, is to reduce the cost to those people
who require the training or who desire the training.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, I just want to go
over again the market driven versus the direct and indirect, because I am
wondering if the member somehow is mixing up an opportunity on behalf of
someone who wanted to take the course.
The
direct or the indirect are sponsored by the federal government. They have phased out direct. They are moving to indirect. Indirect training which a person wishes to
take part in may be any one of the college courses, or it may be a program or a
course offered in another institution.
That was why I was speaking about the fact that the colleges, for the
indirect purchase dollars, will be required to be competitive, will be required
to make sure that people see the value of the courses they offer for that
indirect training dollar.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
In
the area of market driven, however, market driven is the development of a
tailor‑made course which a business, industry, labour group or the
federal government may approach the colleges to develop. In terms of that, the cost would be not a
regular tuition fee but, rather, again, what the market would bear, because
this is a skill that the market has particularly required.
So
the market‑driven profit, where that has accumulated, would then be put
back into the college for the benefit of students in terms of equipment or
infrastructure. But it is separate from
the indirect purchases of the federal government, and the tuition fees would be
different because of the nature of the programming.
Ms. Friesen: I think what I am focusing on here is the
amount of profit that is going to be there for the market‑driven
contracts that people will be coming forward with; suppose, for example, a
market‑driven program in computers.
You
know, there are many trainers around now in computers. There are courses that
are offered at community colleges. There
will be courses that will be offered perhaps by two or three of the private
community colleges. Somebody who wanted
that training, or the company or corporation that wanted it, could approach any
one of those. That is the market. That market is going to competitive. The impetus of that market is going to be to
reduce the costs in a variety of ways.
So
what I am concerned about, in the long run, is there going to be any profit,
enough profit in those market‑driven training courses that can be applied
to the community college infrastructure in the way they have in the past?
The
community colleges have lost a lot from the reduction with the federal
government. It has not been made up by
the grants of the provincial government, although those, I accept from the
minister, have increased, but it is not making up the gap.
The
gap has to be made up, in part, by fees and by market‑driven training
courses. In the long run, how much
profit is going to be in those market‑driven training courses in a
competitive environment, and is it going to be enough to sustain the long‑term
support of the community colleges, because I think that is the public's
concern?
Mrs. Vodrey: The colleges, now that they fall under
governance, are free to seek other sources of revenue apart from the provincial
funding and also the tuition, and the sources of revenue that may come to the
colleges are the indirect purchases.
That is the one where there is some potential competition and where the
colleges will want to make themselves as competitive as possible for those
indirect purchase dollars.
A
second area is in the area of market‑driven training, and the colleges
are in the position to be among the most responsive to developing market‑driven
training because they have already a great deal of the infrastructure required.
The
colleges are saying at this point that they expect certainly to be very
competitive in market‑driven training, that they expect a profit in the
range of 15 to 30 percent, and that this profit would then be put back into the
colleges for the benefit of the colleges.
So
we do expect that the market‑driven training, simply by the nature of the
equipment available at the colleges and so on, would, in fact, be beneficial to
the colleges.
In
terms of the students' fees‑‑and I know that this has been the
underlying part of the discussion in terms of where will this lead for
individual student fees‑‑well, again, with the profit, that should
assist in the area. But also individual
student tuition fees are subsidized and continue to be subsidized through the
province. Students at our community
colleges pay approximately 8 percent of the actual costs of the particular
course. So the provinces continue to underwrite
in the area of tuition fees, but market‑driven training is a different
type of course for profit and fully cost recoverable.
* (1620)
Ms. Friesen: What will the fees be at the community
colleges in the coming year, that is, under the budget that we are looking
at? How much have they increased
by? Is the figure that the minister just
gave me, of 8 percent of actual cost, still the stable relationship that will
be maintained in this coming budget?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the fees for the community
colleges for next year will be $825, annual fees for '93‑94. Our fees at our community colleges do remain
among the lowest in
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, that $825 is a per‑course
fee, that is, in the sense of a course that lasts a year, or a program fee?
Mrs. Vodrey: That is the cost for a full‑time, 10‑month
program for an academic year.
Ms. Friesen: Has that increased from last year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, there has been an
increase from last year. The amount is
approximately $75.
Ms. Friesen: Does that $825 approximately equal 8 percent
of the actual cost of the course?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, it represents 8.5 percent.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, does the minister have
available today a five‑year historical perspective on the college
budgets, that is, the amount that a college has in its budget? I am not speaking so much of the provincial
transfer, but the combination of transfers and income over the past. I am looking really for a baseline number
that we can use for the next five years to measure from.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the Supplementary
Estimates for Education, on Schedule 6 there are expenditures listed from 1989‑90,
Support to Community Colleges. This is
the expenditure line comparatively over the last five‑year period. The
revenue has always been listed separately, and it was listed in the revenue
section of the Estimates until this year.
Ms. Friesen: The member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) and I
would both like to know if the colleges do produce an annual budget, or rather
an annual report, an audited report, that has presented expenditures and income
and revenue.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the college budgets
would be presented in the Department of Education Annual Reports and those are
available within the library.
The
colleges will present their first annual report with their budget in October
1994. Because of the transition, it will
be for that one year, a 15‑month accounting.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one of the other
elements of this we should have in here, I think, is the amount of Government
Services support there was in the past for community colleges. Now, how has that been managed in the
transition, and where will we find that number?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in the 1992‑93
Estimates, the total amount of Government Services transferred to the colleges
is a total number, $2,294,900.
Ms. Friesen: When the minister says that the grant to the
community colleges has increased by 2 percent, it was 2 percent over the grant
of last year. Now, when the minister
referred to the grant of last year, did that grant include that $2,294,000 of
Government Services money?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the Schedule 6 within the
Estimates had been adjusted to reflect that.
Ms. Friesen: And so the 2 percent increase, 2.1 percent
increase, was an increase of a total number that included‑‑it was
based upon the grants of last year, the Government Services of last year, added
together, 2 percent of that?
Mrs. Vodrey: That is correct.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I wanted to look at
reduction in staff in community colleges.
Could the minister give us an idea, in each of the community colleges,
what the decrease in staff has been, first of all, in positions, and then
second of all, in the actual numbers? I
guess I would be interested in both: the
diminishment of positions, and then the number of staff who have been laid off.
* (1630)
I
understand there have been a series of layoffs and I wonder if the minister
could ensure that the numbers are up to date as of the end of July, I
suppose. We must know by now the people
who are to be laid off even in July.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I have the number of
positions where there have been reductions across the community colleges: Assiniboine
Community College, 13.41 positions; KCC, 8.21 positions; Red River Community
College, 35.19 positions‑‑for a total at the three community
colleges of 57.29 positions. That is
positions, not individuals.
Ms. Friesen: And the number of individuals would be?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, there is a total of 42
permanent and 30 term or contract employees who have been affected. Since the elimination of a position and
incumbent mid‑year results in less than a full staff‑year saving‑‑many
of the employees affected are part‑time employees‑‑the total
staff years, positions and the employees affected will not balance.
But
the member was asking in terms of phases:
for Phase 1, at Red River Community College, six permanent and three
term; for ACC, six permanent, no term; and, for KCC, one permanent and one
term. For Phase II, June 30 and beyond,
Red River Community College, 26 permanent, 19 term; for Assiniboine Community
College, three permanent, three term; and, for KCC, no permanent, and four
term.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, that is a very surprising
drop for
Mrs. Vodrey: We will total up the numbers and look at
positions, as well as persons or individuals, and give the total and a
breakdown for the member as soon as possible.
Mr. Alcock: Just clarify one thing for me. The 57.29 positions that were lost at the
colleges, is this as a result of organizational changes that took place as a
result of the move to governance, or is this as a result of Bill 22?
Mrs. Vodrey: These were not a result of moving to
governance. They were a result of the federal reductions, which then changed
the programming.
Mr. Alcock: What is the impact of Bill 22 going to be?
Mrs. Vodrey: Each of the colleges will be taking 10 days,
as are government and Crown corporations.
Mr. Alcock: Is that all staff at the colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, it will include all staff.
Mr. Alcock: Has there been any discussion about essential
services at the college, or are there sufficient staff in each of the areas to rotate
through, so the losses do not impact on service?
* (1640)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, as a result of governance,
the colleges are able to choose their days.
They will choose their days to provide the least disruption to
inservice, and that would mean to students, to clients, to any contract
obligation.
So
they will not all be operating on exactly the same 10 days but rather the 10
days that are the most feasible and efficient for those colleges.
Mr. Alcock: Let us start with the teaching staff. How are the teaching staff affected by this
then?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, for Red River Community
College and Assiniboine Community College, they have notified us of the closing
on the following days: six Fridays in
July and August, July 2, 9, 16, 23 and 30 and also August 6. They will also close on November 12. November 12 was a staff development day, not
a day in which classes were held, and they will also close three days during
the Christmas season, December 29, 30 and 31.
Mr. Alcock: For the six Fridays in July and August, were
these days that would normally have offered classes?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am informed that those
are not regular class days. If there is
any summer program taking place in that time, then arrangements will be made to
make sure that the integrity of that course is protected.
Mr. Alcock: You mean there is no summer instruction
taking place at
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, there is summer instruction, but they
adjusted the program offered to allow for those days.
Mr. Alcock: Can you explain how the programs were
adjusted? I mean, if it took them five
days a week to offer them before, how were they adjusted to accommodate this?
Mrs. Vodrey: They did not provide us with the
details. The colleges simply assured us
that they would be accommodating the full course.
Mr. Alcock: Well, I would be interested in perhaps
between now and the next time we meet if the minister could find out the
details of this, because adjusting to meet the full course in some other
circumstances has meant a net loss in either instructional time, laboratory
time, marking time, tutorial time for students.
I
appreciate that the secretariat is not able to answer that question right now,
but I would be interested in hearing that. That is for
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Alcock: And the three days that are being lost at
Christmas, are these days within the holiday period when the college is not
operating?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed there would normally not be
classes on those days.
Mr. Alcock: So what would instructional staff be engaged
in doing on those three days?
Mrs. Vodrey: We will get the details of what staff would
be doing on those days for the next sitting.
Mr. Alcock: Perhaps then we could move to another aspect
of this new financial relationship, although I did have one question on fees,
and I am not certain whether it got completely clarified in the earlier
questioning.
There is an implicit if not an explicit move
at the university level towards fees covering 25 percent of the operating costs
of the institution. Is there any policy
of that nature with the colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey: We do not have any plans to move to a
prescribed portion of a fee. Tuition is
set on an annual basis, and we do not have any plan to change from that at this
time.
Mr. Alcock: At the three colleges, what percentage of
total operating costs do fees cover?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the tuition as a
portion of operating costs varies among the colleges. We predict that, for 1993‑94
Assiniboine Community College, it will account for 6.6 percent; Keewatin
Community College, it will account for 3.6 percent; and Red River Community
College, it will account for 10.4 percent.
Mr. Alcock: So am I correct in assuming that, if we take the
example of Red River as the larger institution, a student going to the
University of Manitoba will have roughly, I think it is about a 78 percent
subsidy right now headed towards a 75 percent subsidy, whereas a student going
to Red River Community College will have in the order of a 90 percent subsidy.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, colleges have
traditionally been institutions which attempt to maximize accessibility, and
so, according to the numbers, that would appear to be correct.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the government seems
to be moving quite forcefully to change that relationship with universities, to
reduce the amount of subsidy, to increase the amount of support that students
pay directly, and yet is not doing so with colleges. Is there a reason that has been discussed, or
is it just an oversight as a result of the move to governance, or is it
something that has been dealt with at this point?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that 25 percent has
been an amount, I understand, discussed across
* (1650)
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will get into the
details of university fees when we move to that line, although I do not think
it is in dispute that fees at the University of Manitoba, in any event, once
being a decade ago covered about 16 percent of operating costs and now cover
about 21 percent, so whether there has been a published government policy to
move towards the 25 percent level that was talked about, that has been the
effect of government policy over the last six or seven years. I do not see anything similar to that with
the colleges now.
I
think what I am hearing the minister say is it is just not an issue that has
been discussed at this point, or it is not something that currently sits on the
agenda with the colleges, that this sort of ad hoc process of setting the fees
each year, depending upon the combination of revenues and the demand for
services, is really what is driving fee setting.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would take
exception to the term "ad hoc" and would not call the setting ad
hoc. The setting of tuition fees has
been part of a process that has included many factors. It has attempted to always include the
concerns for accessibility. It has also
looked at comparison with other provinces and where
Mr. Alcock: Yes, I certainly would apologize for any
offence that arises from the use of the word "ad hoc." That was not my intention. It was more the sense that comes out of this
line of questioning that each year the college sort of sits down and thinks
this through, that there is not a particular direction that it is headed in.
I
mean, I get a little perhaps confused when I read what exists here in the
expected results and the objectives and activities of the secretariat, when I
see things like formula mechanisms and frameworks and a whole bunch of things
that suggest that there are relationships established here that are the product
of policy. Yet when we talk about how
these things get established, they seem to relate more to a series of sort of
soundings in the community each year.
That is certainly different from what one observes when one looks at the
way the universities are funded.
I
was just asking whether there is a difference.
I guess the minister is saying that there is a difference, and there is
no policy in place to relate fees to the total operating costs, et cetera. It is the mechanism that is currently in
place that will go on into the future.
With that, let me move on to a related
question here.
The
member for Wolseley was asking about market‑driven courses or market‑driven
programming and making the case that if you are moving into a competitive
situation, this could drive down the costs for certain kinds of programs or
certain kinds of services, and that carries with it some attendant concerns
about the basis for such competition.
It
is equally true that it could drive up, that one could earn a profit from
programs, and one could actually have fees not covering 10 percent, but it
could have fees in certain program areas covering 100 or 110 or 130 percent and
actually accrue a profit.
I
guess two questions: Is this not the
case, and is this not occurring right now?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is the case in the market‑driven
course area, and yes, it is occurring now.
Mr. Alcock: Which leads me to the question about how the
college accounts for the use of its funds to government as it is moving into
what is more of an arm's‑length relationship, and appropriately so too.
Is
the funding that government gives it‑‑and I keep seeing this talk
about a funding program and formula mechanism‑‑that is a portion of
the funding the college receives, is that decided on a line‑by‑line
basis? Is there a line‑by‑line
accountability for that funding, or is it transferred as a block in response to
expected results? How does it relate to
the surpluses accrued from the market‑driven?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as the member knows,
the funding has previously been provided in a block. The accountability has been in a line‑by‑line
basis. As the colleges have now moved to
governance, we will be looking not at line by line in the future. We will be looking more at sort of a program
envelope, program by program. The
Colleges Secretariat in the 1993‑94 fiscal year is charged with the
development and the implementation of a results‑based framework which
includes legislative requirements and guidelines for program evaluation and
review, annual reports. I believe you
have that information.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, I noticed it here, which is why I am
raising it now. If we think about how
this might work, particularly if we are going into program envelopes, that a
request will come forward to government as part of its annual budget
submission, and they will ask for a particular amount of money, presumably
justified in a somewhat of a line‑by‑line basis. I mean, there will be some detailing to the
request, and that will form the basis for whatever the government‑‑they
will make a policy decision as to how far they are prepared to go with this or
not to go with it or approve or disapprove, and that will form the basis for
the grant.
The
question I have is what happens to the revenue that comes in from the market‑driven
side of this? Does the college capture
this and use it as discretionary funding?
Mrs. Vodrey: The colleges would be looking to match the
revenues that come in with the expenditures.
As I said earlier, any profit which comes, particularly from the market‑driven
area, is expected to be put back into the colleges into the infrastructure or
equipment area.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour.
Committee rise.
HEALTH
* (1430)
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Health. We are on item 5.(b) Hospitals and Community
Health Services, page 82 of the Estimates manual. Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
Item 5.(b) Hospitals and Community Health
Services (1) Salaries $31,517,800.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Madam Chairperson, I am just wondering if the
minister had some material for us from the questions the other day.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Chair, I am just having staff pull that
together, but, yes, we do have.
I
thought we had already provided this, but apparently we did not provide it, and
if we did provide it, we are providing it again. This is the current reform office flow
chart. There are the attached committees
and membership of committees. Was that
what you wanted?
Ms. Gray: Yes.
Mr. Orchard: In the openness of these Estimates, I am
positive I made that available, and what I had to do was refute‑‑well,
not refute, but discuss an outdated one that the member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak) had before my honourable friend assumed critic status. I think maybe it was when the member for The
Maples was here.
Now, what else was there?
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I know this is not exactly
in the section that we are on, but I know the minister has no difficulty in
answering any questions about his department.
I
want to clarify again the minister's position on the nonprofit cleaning
services that are available in home care, and I do not know if that is part of
the material that he was going to provide today. I am still concerned that the department is
removing people from home care who were receiving a homemaking service. I am concerned about a couple of things. I do not have specific cases, but I am
concerned that some of the calls that have been coming into our office about
people who are being taken off the program, that I am not sure there is
appropriate follow‑up with them to suggest to them what other alternative
services there are, because if there were, you know, why are they calling our
office and seem to be quite distressed and upset?
I
am certain some of these are cases of my colleagues, which I am certainly
prepared to pass on to the minister, but I guess I would like to know, are
there any specific guidelines or protocol that was put in place for staff‑‑although
they should know this but I can appreciate their caseloads are very heavy‑‑to
provide support and follow‑up to these individuals to ensure that in fact
they are able to avail themselves to an alternate service?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I appreciate my honourable friend's
questions. I may not be able to answer
them completely, but the advice I get is that if the home care worker making
the judgment that the referral would be appropriate for an individual to go
from the housekeeping, the meal preparation, to a paid‑for‑service,
if they consider that there needs to be follow‑up to make sure that
happens, that is a course they follow.
But in developing this program, I want to tell my honourable friend that
we have left it to the discretion of the assessors and the co‑ordinators
of the program to make the judgment as to who would be able to handle, you
know, the retaining of this service on their own. People who are slightly disoriented or, you
know, do not have that ability in the judgment of the staff are not taken off
the home‑care‑provided program.
The
best way that I found in the past to handle these circumstances is if my
honourable friend has the ability just to pass the individuals on, and we do an
inquiry and we find out what the judgment circumstances and decision‑making
circumstances were. It is completely
revisited, and if there has been an inappropriate assessment, I mean, we have
reinstated the service. If the judgment
has been appropriate, we provide that kind of information to my honourable
friend on behalf of the individual so that they will know the reasons for the
judgment. But I cannot appreciate, I cannot deal with these circumstances sort
of in a hypothetical way.
We
have in the past been able to resolve, I would say with few exceptions, any
individual cases that were referred on to the satisfaction of the
individual. So if my honourable friend
is able to do that, that would be a process I would suggest. In some cases, maybe the person does not want
their name forwarded on, and I respect that, but we look at each one of these
very, very seriously as they come in, and do a full review of circumstances.
Ms. Gray: I can appreciate you cannot deal with part of
my question, because you do not have a specific case, but I had also wondered
if any special protocols or procedures were put in place so that these people
taken off home care were followed up with.
But
just in regard to those individual cases, with respect to individuals who are
prepared to have their names go to the minister, can we deal directly with the
minister's staff verbally in terms of getting a response as opposed to via the
letter route, which I find very cumbersome?
It usually does not say what we want it to say when we have to put
things in writing, and it usually takes about six weeks. That is not a criticism of the minister; that
is just a reflection of workloads and how long things take.
* (1440)
Mr. Orchard: Well, I appreciate my honourable friend's
observation, but I would prefer to have those referrals come directly to myself
for forwarding on. Appreciate it puts
staff in an awkward position‑‑like, my staff in an awkward position
if staff in the Continuing Care Programs are being contacted directly by
MLAs. It is not trying to make the
process more politically safe.
There
have been instances where staff discussions have been‑‑whether
right or wrong‑‑have not been understood correctly, and it puts
pressure back on staff. So the preferred
route is to channel them through my office, and then when the request for
review comes from my office, it is expedited, and we try to deal with them as
quickly as possible. So, for the sake of
not putting untoward pressure on staff, I would prefer to maintain that route.
It
has worked rather successfully on behalf of people with concerns about program
for the past five years and before, because a similar process was followed
before, when I had to, from time to time, deal with individual cases, or
members of my caucus had to deal with individual cases as opposition members.
Ms. Gray: Well, the minister and I will disagree on how
successful that process is, but we will not get into a debate on that
today. Suffice it to say, we disagree on
that issue.
But
I am wondering if the minister can tell us‑‑I do not know if he has
this material with him today‑‑over the last year, how many home
care cases, where homemaking was either the sole service or part of the
service, have reviewed where people have been taken off the home care program,
and referred to other services?
Mr. Orchard: Appreciate, Madam Chairperson, that we dealt
with this three or four days back, and I will have to take that question and
provide my honourable friend with an answer at a later date.
Ms.
Gray: Again, just to clarify, when
the minister said in the House today, in response to a question from my
colleague the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) that he talked about‑‑(interjection)
Sure, he is a colleague. He talked about
reviewing cases and he used the quote:
Where services are available.
Now, I wonder if he could clarify when he
speaks of services in the community, is he referring to nonprofit services such
as the one in north Winnipeg that is called‑‑I forget what it is
called‑‑the northwest council on seniors, and they provide a home
maintenance program? Is he referring to
those nonprofit services or is he talking about any services in general, such
as Molly Maid, or those kinds of profit services?
Mr. Orchard: I missed the last part of the question.
Ms. Gray: I want to clarify whether you were referring to
nonprofit services, home maintenance, cleaning services, or whether you were
also referring to any other services that might be out in the communities, such
as Molly Maid, or any of those private types of services?
Mr. Orchard: First referral is to the not‑for‑profit
providers. Where they do not exist a list, I understand, of service providers
is made available who would be private service providers.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I know the minister has
talked a lot about consistency of this service.
He cites as one of the reasons for not having some people on Home Care
and other people going to nonprofit services because that was not fair and
consistent.
I
would then ask the question, again using it as an example, I am aware that
people in the northwest part of the city have an opportunity to be referred to
the northwest council for seniors because they have a nonprofit cleaning and
home maintenance service. So in the
sense of consistency, what nonprofit service do the people in south
Mr. Orchard: I gave my honourable friend, the other day,
names of services that are in the general area of south
Rural
Within
The
progress has not been as fast because for approximately, I guess, a year, while
we undertook an evaluation to make sure that Support Services to Seniors was a
very effective way of delivering supportive services for independent living
that government naturally cannot provide.
I
mean, governments cannot provide every single service, and I think that is
recognized by everyone. It was certainly
recognized by the previous administration when they established the Support
Services to Seniors Program.
We
undertook a review, and the review indicated that they were a valuable service
in communities where implemented. But
during the time of that review, we did not approve that many new programs. We, maybe, approved only a few during that
year‑and‑a‑half period of time.
Other than that, we have had a fairly steady
increase in the number of programs that are funded, and expansions of some
existing programs were appropriate.
This year, in trying to focus our diminishing
resource base on care, we made the decision that when the service was solely
housekeeping or meal preparation, that there were not other medical indicators
that would say the individual was unable to arrange those services themselves,
we would remove those people, in a gradual fashion, from the government‑paid‑for,
taxpayer‑paid‑for service.
They would be referred first, as is always the case, to not‑for‑profit,
if they existed, and where not existed, provide a list of private providers.
The
whole intention was to remove that level of service delivery, which was
inequitably provided throughout rural Manitoba and Winnipeg, to make it
consistent that the government would not provide that anywhere in the province,
and to reinvest those dollars into the needed‑care services which, of
course, we went through in substantial detail in terms of the increased‑‑I
am not probably going to give the right category, but there was a decrease in
the hours and units of service of the home care workers. At any rate, the HAs and the home support
workers was an increase because that meets with more intense care needs, and it
is not the nature of housekeeping and meal preparation.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, one of my concerns is that
some of these people are being reviewed and taken off the program before there
is a nonprofit service available. Is
that correct? The minister is agreeing
to that.
Well, I guess my question then is: How is that consistent? When you have people,
then, in one part of the city who are afforded an opportunity to deal with a
nonprofit cleaning service, which has to be quite a bit difference in price
than a private for‑profit service, I do not see how that is consistent at
all.
* (1450)
I am
wondering why this was done, these people taken off the program, before the
minister and his department ensured that there were more of these Services to
Seniors Programs available.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, my honourable friend, the
process for Support Services to Seniors and community resource councils is
this: The community develops a proposal
which they then present to the department.
The department assesses it and says, yes or no, and provides the
funding. The department does not go out
into communities in south
Now, is my honourable friend saying that we
should have gone to south
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, yes, I am suggesting that
Support Services to Seniors staff find out who the community leaders are of the
community groups in various parts of the city, as they have done in the
past. Because I recall, when the service
was developed in north Winnipeg, one of the priorities of the Support Services
to Seniors staff was to actually work in the North Kildonan and East Kildonan
areas, because it was felt that there were a lot of community groups out there,
certainly, a sense of community, that they like to participate in projects for
the good of the people who live in their community, and they are actually the
first step of the process.
In
some cases, there was initiation on the part of government staff to meet with
these community groups and to say, here are some of the programs and services
that we have seen developed in other areas of the city. If you are interested, or should you feel
this is something you want to do, we are here as resource people to assist you
to do that.
So,
in fact, although certainly the community can initiate, and it is excellent
when the community does. There is
nothing to stop the ministry from doing some of that initiation and taking some
proactive steps. In fact, it has been
done in the past.
Mr. Orchard: It continues, Madam Chairperson, to be done,
but if the community does not take up the advice, take up the creation of the
program, what does one do? I mean, you
assist the communities. The ideal is to
have the community approach the government and say, we want to become part of
the process. You make them aware of the
availability of the process, but if the community does not come forward with
their proposal, surely my honourable friend is not faulting government.
Ms. Gray: What I am doing is asking then the minister
if, in fact, the community does not take that initiative, whether it is the
help of staff or not, and I am not sure whether staff have initiated that, the
question then becomes, how does the minister of the department deal with that
real inconsistency in terms of what is service, particularly when he is on the
record most of the time talking about how important consistency of service and
fairness is? That is what I do not
understand. How does the minister
reconcile it in his own mind?
Mr. Orchard: Very easily, Madam Chair. As I have indicated to my honourable friend,
how do you justify?
Now
let us deal with the issue of income.
Theoretically, the south of
Now, if we believe that income separation is
accurate‑‑and I believe it is; I believe it can be statistically
proven‑‑is my honourable friend saying that we should continue to
support services that less wealthy Winnipeggers in the north end pay for, that
we should maintain them free of charge for Winnipeggers south of the
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the minister has pointed
out the inconsistency that was there before.
I agree that there was an inconsistency; however, he is generalizing in
terms of income. In fact, when you look at the city of
I
guess what I would want to know, as a minister and as a department, what
research has been done to show that the type of services that can be provided for
individuals, particularly the elderly and/or the young or disabled, but
particularly the elderly, depending on the variety of services, can lead to a
delay in hospitalization or institutionalization of people as they grow older
or as they have medical problems? What
research shows what types of interventions are necessary?
* (1500)
I
ask that question because I know the Support Services to Seniors Program. I have always supported that program. I think it is a good one, but there is a big
difference between having a network of nonprofit support services, particularly
in the area of home maintenance and meal service for the elderly, and having
the elderly in the community who are there basically‑‑they cannot
avail themselves of a nonprofit service because it is not there. They would
have to go to private service or rely on friends or neighbours. In fact, they may not, and therefore, their
health may deteriorate as opposed to be maintained, and we might start to see
people going into hospitals or personal care homes sooner.
Are
there any long term, any longitudinal studies that have been done to show what
is the best type of service to provide in a home care situation? Where do we actually have the biggest impact
on service? That would be my first question
to the minister.
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend's first question will be
answered with approximately a dozen answers over the last several days that we
have dealt with Continuing Care, where we maintain exactly the objectives my
honourable friend states, maintaining independent living without the necessary
advancement of placement in personal care home or admission to a hospital is in
the provision of the home care assistance services, nursing services, all of
which are increasing with this budget because of this decision.
That is our best value to maintain independent
living. It is exactly where we have to
go. That was recognized, I believe, by
Mr. Desjardins as minister in the government of the day by creating Support
Services to Seniors, to take and invest modestly in volunteer co‑ordination,
salary support, so that volunteer groups and not‑for‑profit service
groups could provide, at a cost‑recovery, at a cost to the individual,
meal preparation and light housekeeping, and in addition to that other services
that government did not provide, that the individual, because of the lack of a
resource council, did not have friendly shopping, did not have friendly
visiting, did not have phone calling, did not have any of a number of other
programs.
So
what I am saying to my honourable friend is that we have been encouraging, with
the exception of the period of time that we had the Support Services to Seniors
Program under review to make sure we were getting good value in replacing
dollars from elsewhere in the ministry into Support Services to Seniors. We have that confidence, and that is why we
are moving as quickly as we can reallocate budget to Support Services to
Seniors.
Now
we made the decision, and the decision is to make consistency with homemaking
and meal preparation. Let us do a little
hypothetical. The person who receives
from the home care program light housekeeping and no meals‑‑let us
take that as a scenario. Now the
individual may receive that care for once or twice a week, maybe, whatever;
maybe even once every two weeks‑‑
An Honourable Member Probably once every two weeks.
Mr. Orchard: Probably once every two weeks. We are saying now that they would seek out
alternate care. Under the current
program the home support worker, if I have got the right category of worker,
would go in and do the housekeeping. The
individual might say, you know I would really like to get my yard cleaned
up. Sorry, we cannot provide that. You know I might want to have my laundry done
every couple of weeks. Sorry, we do not
do that. Well, no, because they are not
assessed for it, and the individual would say but I am willing to pay you for
it. Well, I am sorry we cannot do
that. And you know where it
stopped? Just exactly there.
Now
by referring this individual to a private supplier of the housekeeping, they
ask the same question, I would like to have my yard cleaned. Well, we can handle that. And I am willing to pay for it, the
individual says. Well, that is what we
are here for.
What I am telling my honourable friend is,
this change will do more to put in supportive services that we could not put in
as government, did not put in as government, cannot put in as government, by
having these individuals referred to an alternate service supply for which they
will pay a modest amount every two weeks or whatever our assessed need was, but
they will have the ability now to pose the question: Well, could you do certain things for me? The answer in this case will be yes.
I
submit to my honourable friend, although she may want to disagree with me, that
this will provide a greater range of service for that individual than we were
providing in‑house in government and probably maintain the independent
living status. The hang‑up that I hear my honourable friend coming at is,
we are going to ask the person to pay, but that is not really the hang‑up
my honourable friend is saying because she accepts that principle when it is
support services for seniors.
What the principle is, is that it is not going
to be for a not‑for‑profit.
I presume my honourable friend is concerned, instead of paying‑‑let
us pick a figure‑‑$7 an hour, they might have paid $9 an hour for
the cleaning. Yes, that may well be a
concern, but that concern can be resolved with those communities getting
together and putting in support services for seniors and not‑for‑profit
cleaning if they so desire.
I
think there is value to this direction, because it allows us to reinvest that
resource into more sophisticated care by not providing inconsistently in the
We
can agree and we can debate this until the proverbial cows come home, but what
these decisions are, as difficult as they are, they are consistent with the
objectives of health care reform; they are consistent with the program of
community‑based care. I throw out
the challenge to my honourable friend that I have thrown out to the member for
Kildonan: If you were in government,
would you reverse the decision? Do you
know what? I will bet you, you would
have to stand up and say, no, you would not, because it is a consistent
decision. Maybe we argue about how it
was implemented, but I will guarantee you that there would not be a government
replacing this one or a minister replacing myself who would reverse the
decisions.
Ms. Gray: What I would want to do is to be assured that
government as a potential initiator had done everything that they could within
the various communities of Winnipeg that do not currently have the nonprofit
services to seek out groups that might be prepared to look at that kind of
development of a seniors council.
That would be No. 1 that I would want to be
assured of. I do not disagree with what
the minister has said. He talks about a
modest amount; I raise it as a concern.
My concern is for the people who may fall through the cracks. That is a concern, that there are people who
may fall through the cracks.
The
reason I say that is because I do not necessarily have the same faith that our
government system‑‑and this is nothing to do with the individuals
in the system‑‑has the ability to ensure that those people who may
not any longer be eligible for a service are assisted to make sure that things
are done, that they are either referred to appropriate services or that they
have some supports in the community so that they can maintain themselves in the
community. That is my concern, that some
people might fall through the cracks and that some people will not receive the
kind of support that they need from government, not necessarily home care
service, but support from an individual to assist them and getting them to the
right places or to the right organizations.
That is the concern that I raise, and I raise
that because of high caseloads and because of bureaucracy in general. So I will leave those comments on home care
at that.
* (1510)
Mr. Orchard: I appreciate my honourable friend's
concern. Her concern is not held with any
less commitment than my very same concern in that regard. I fully admit to my honourable friend, in
some cases we might be vulnerable in that there has not been an adequate enough
follow‑up or consultation with the individual. That is why I say to my honourable friend, if
those cases come to her or her colleagues' attention, we will follow up on them
to make sure that they have not fallen through the crack, because no system is
perfect, never has been and never will be.
I
want to tell you that my office gets substantially more letters of thank you on
home care for very, very excellent service than we do letters of
complaint. I think that is a pretty
generous sign that the program and the people who work within the program have
the interest of the individuals receiving care as their foremost concern.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Chairperson, while we are on this
topic, I am wondering if the minister would table for us the guidelines for
household maintenance, the guidelines for meal preparation, and the guidelines
for the meal preparation service.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, unless I am mistaken, they
are part of the guidelines that my honourable friend had at his disposal some
two weeks ago and read from.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, which information is the
minister referring to that I had at my disposal two weeks ago?
Mr. Orchard: I could go back to Hansard, and I could do
that right now if my honourable friend would give me a few minutes to go
through my Hansards. My honourable friend
posed a question within the last two weeks that we have been in Estimates, when
we talked about the policy of the Continuing Care Programs. He quoted from a title and had a book in
front of him. He described the color of
the binder, and he said, is this the policy that which home care is guided by,
and I indicated yes.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the guidelines that I
read from‑‑I asked the minister a general question on some guidelines
that were the bottom line for home care.
The minister knows full well, despite the smirk on his face, that there
are new guidelines that have been issued by the department with respect to
those two programs. He has just spent
half an hour talking about this new program.
Can
he outline what the guidelines are for those new programs instead of playing
games in this House and wasting time?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the decision in terms
of meals and housecleaning as single‑source services provided by the
Continuing Care Programs is where the individual is believed to have reasonable
ability to arrange those services themselves and acquire them from alternate
sources other than the Home Care Program.
Where they are the sole services, those individuals will be reviewed
and, where deemed appropriate, referred to alternate services.
Mr. Chomiak: Are not the household maintenance guidelines
(a) if the client is frail (b) there are no family members and (c) no
nonprofit, then Home Care will take the service on?
Mr. Orchard: With the exception of the last criteria.
Mr. Chomiak: When did that come into effect?
Mr. Orchard: As of the budget for this current sitting of
the session. As I have indicated to my
honourable friend the Liberal critic and to my honourable friend when last we
visited this subject, the individual is then provided with a list of
individuals and firms‑‑or let us not say individuals but a list of
groups who can provide housecleaning services and/or meal services.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr.
Sveinson): The honourable member for
Crescentwood.
Ms. Gray: It kills you to say that, does it not?
A
question on the organization structure that the minister provided to us‑‑I
hope this is not going to take too long but could the minister‑‑the
one that starts out implementing the steering committee.
I
know who the deputy minister is. I am
wondering if the minister could tell us who the members are on the various
implementation committees expanded‑‑is this very long?‑‑co‑ordination
committee and the working groups?
Mr. Orchard: I do not know whether my honourable friend
has that information, but that information is part of Hansard that was given
two weeks ago. I am quite willing to dig
it out and repeat it again if my honourable friend wants it.
Ms. Gray: No, that is fine if it has already been asked
in Estimates. I do not have an interest
in knowing again who they are. I will
read it in Hansard. That is fine, thank
you.
The
Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson):
5.(b)(1) Salaries $31,517,800‑‑pass; 5.(b)(2) Other
Expenditures $6,043,400‑‑pass; 5.(c)(1) Salaries $12,741,700.
Mr. Chomiak: The minister's Health Reform document speaks
about the fact that there is a substantial cost increase in terms of lab
services, particularly in the area of private labs. I am wondering if the minister might outline
in general what the government policy is with respect to lab work and referrals
of lab work from physicians to private versus public labs.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, this is not a new
policy. I think this has been the policy for 20 years probably, where the
physician has the choice of either referring his laboratory work to either a
public lab or a private lab. It is the
individual physician's choice. There is
only one exception to that rule of choice, if you will, and that is since
about, I cannot remember the year, but circa 1985 or 1986 there were amendments
introduced, I believe, to The Health Services Insurance Act, which in effect
gave government more control over the licensing of private labs.
My
honourable friend might know that the implementation of laboratory services in
rural
The
legislation brought in in '85 or '86 gave government the ability to control
private lab establishment anywhere in the province. Primarily, I think it is fair to say, the
focus was on rural areas where the implementation of private labs, when there
was sufficient public lab capacity, was deemed to be not a good use of
resource, so that the rule of thumb of choice is only compromised where there
is not choice in some areas of rural Manitoba where the lab for referral is a
government‑owned lab through LAXes.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, is the minister
contemplating any change in policy at this time with respect to the policy that
he just reiterated as a long‑standing policy, in light of the minister's
Health Reform document?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, and that was the issue we discussed, I
believe, two and a half weeks ago when I asked my honourable friend if he would
be willing to give speedy passage to potential legislation that we were
contemplating that would put in a constraint on conflict‑of‑interest
referral of lab work by physicians, i.e., a prohibition of referring lab work
by physicians to laboratories in which they or their family had beneficial
interest.
I
did not have to pursue that matter with my honourable friend, because when I
pursued it, I believe it was on a Thursday, our legislative drafting agenda had
all the resources committed, and it was not possible to bring that legislation
in in this session. It is contemplated
and expected that we would be crafting such legislation and bringing it in next
session.
* (1520)
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Item 5.(c)(1) Salaries $12,741,700‑‑pass;
5.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $9,329,600‑‑pass.
Item 5.(d)(1) Salaries $966,100.
Mr. Chomiak: I understand that this year there is a change
in the Air Ambulance Program with respect to the provision of receipts by
individuals who‑‑pardon me, provision to the Northern
Transportation Program with the requirement‑‑I correct myself there‑‑that
receipts be provided for transportation.
Would the minister outline what the change in
policy is?
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend will recall, I think it
was last budget, or was it two budgets ago, that we introduced the $50
contribution by people receiving patient transportation warrants to access
service out of east of Lake Winnipeg and north of the 53rd, with exceptions
around certain chronic condition and escorts.
Now
that policy change remains consistent.
It is administered by Flin Flon, The Pas, Thompson, Churchill. Those four centres administer the issuance of
the transportation warrants, and I am advised that the program is consistent;
it has not changed, but maybe if my honourable friend has‑‑okay.
Ms. Gray: I am wondering if the minister was able to
find out any more information on the question I had about ambulances?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I think the question
was on miniambulances.
Ms. Gray: I do not know what you call miniambulances,
but those smaller versions of ambulances.
Mr. Orchard: Yes, I think we are talking about the same
thing. Can I call them miniambulances so that I think I am talking about what
my honourable friend wants me to talk about?
Ms. Gray: Yes.
They are still in use.
Mr. Orchard: Miniambulances are an ambulance conversion
based on a modified minivan chassis. The
units generally have modified roof lines to give higher head room and are
designed primarily to accommodate stable patient transfers.
Winnipeg Ambulance first began exploring the
acquisition of minivan units for economic reasons in 1988, prior to the
proclamation of The Ambulance Services Act.
When the act was proclaimed,
After considerable negotiation with the
Emergency Health & Ambulance Services Branch, these vehicles were approved
for use by
Some of the larger and bulky items, such as
monitor defibrillators, are not carried in the miniambulances routinely for the
same reason. Since the miniambulances
could not routinely stock the same quantities of equipment as the regular‑sized
modular ambulances, the licence approval granted to Winnipeg for these units
carried the condition that they not be used for emergency responses but be
limited to interfacility transportation.
The
city agreed to this condition, and in 1992 there was one report of a
miniambulance used for emergency purposes.
Ms. Gray: I thank the minister for that thorough
answer. Somebody did a good job on that one.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister outline us what the status
is of that process in rural
Mr. Orchard: There was to be a Motor Transport Board
hearing, and I believe that hearing was to be in June. I believe the hearing has been deferred to
September.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate whether or not any
regulations are being drafted under his department to deal with this particular
issue?
Mr. Orchard: I do not know whether you would call them
standards. In the course of hearing the
application from I believe an applicant out of Beausejour the Motor Transport
Board asked my ambulance division to give them some guidelines as to what would
be minimum requirements. I think they
have been provided to the Motor Transport Board now, have they not? Yes.
Mr. Chomiak: Is there any move or thought on the part of
the department to put these guidelines into effect under The Ambulance Act or
any other of the legislation arising out of the Department of Health?
Mr. Orchard: Not at present.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Item 5.(d)(1) Salaries $966,100‑‑pass;
5.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $2,726,600‑‑pass.
Item 5.(e)(1) Salaries $478,300.
Mr. Chomiak: I am only rising to inquire whether‑‑I
assume we will be talking about Capital programs under 9, rather than this
category? That is my only question.
Mr. Orchard: Can I ask my honourable friends for a little
guidance here, because I had made some changes to my introductory remarks
around Capital, and those were completed in the last few hours.
Now, if we are going to complete Estimates
today I would make available a pieced‑together Capital program, and it
would not be the one that we distribute.
If
we are not going to pass the Estimates until, say, Monday, then I would have
the regular version ready for Monday. I
am at the disposal of the committee.
Ms. Gray: Just to clarify, this put‑together
version the minister has, does it basically have all the information?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am not going to
answer that, because they may ask for it and then not pass the Estimates today.
* (1530)
Ms. Gray: Perhaps I could ask the question again. I am sure the minister might respond this
time.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, if we cannot have a
little levity in the House here, I mean‑‑no, in essence the information
is not any different, but it is an extra process, because when we put the
capital program together, we put it together in‑‑I do not know how
many we put together, but it is used for distribution.
All
it is is an extra step. It does not
change the information, but it is a wasted step. If we are going to complete today, I would
have staff do that. If we are not, I
mean, I would have the regular program available for debate on Monday. That is the only difference.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): 5.(e) Capital Construction (1) Salaries
$478,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $227,500‑‑pass.
Resolution 21.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $64,832,700 for Health, Health Services for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
6.
Insured Benefits (a) Salaries $5,214,400.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister just
tell me where we are in terms of the contract with chiropractic, when that
particular agreement with the association runs out?
Mr. Orchard: I think our contract expired March 31, so we
are currently without a contract and are attempting to reach one.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister just indicate how many years
the lapsed contract lasted?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the contract that
expired March 31 of this year was a three‑year contract.
Mr. Chomiak: The Estimates indicate that approximately
236,000 Pharmacare claims will be paid this year under the program. Last year the Pharmacare claims paid bout
223,000. Can the minister just indicate
what the difference is in terms of claims paid, why?
Mr. Orchard: I think there might be a little confusion,
and I will have this clarified, because, with Pharmacare claims paid, it can be
one claim per family per year or some claim on a monthly basis. As my honourable friend can appreciate, what
we have done in the last number of months, we have had‑‑well,
particularly the issue was, I guess, focused rather directly last year with the
decision of standing by the April 30 deadline for claims refund. There were a number of people who were asking
advice around that, some of whom had missed the April 30 deadline.
We
pointed out in the course of last year, in last year's decision of April 30
being a definitive or final deadline:
Look, as soon as you reach your deductible, you are eligible for a
refund, and you do not have to wait until after December 31 or until April 30
to file.
Let
us consider a circumstance of a fairly substantial user of pharmaceuticals that
you would have, in the month of January 1992, a significant amount of use, and
by maybe February or March the person would be eligible for refund under the
program. It makes little sense to wait
an extra 14 months to get the refund, and a lot of people did not know that
they could file quarterly or more frequently than once.
So
I think it is fair to say that we now have a greater number of more frequent
claimers during the year, so that, even though the program costs are staying
level and maybe decreasing, the number of claims are there, not necessarily the
number of individuals claiming, but the number of times a number of individuals
claim. So that is the reason for 223,000
to 236,000 as in terms of frequency of claims.
What I will try to do for my honourable friend
is to give him an example of how many claimants there were year over year.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, did the minister put
in place an ongoing evaluation of the impact of the changes that have been made
to Pharmacare over the past year?
Mr. Orchard: I am sorry.
Ms. Gray: Did the minister put in place an evaluation
of the impact of the changes to the Pharmacare Program, the changes that he has
brought in over the past year? Is there
an ongoing evaluation as to the impact of those changes, whether positive or
negative?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am not sure that I
am able to answer my honourable friend's question. The decisions that we have implemented in
terms of the formulary, No. 1, have all been on the basis of review by the
Pharmacare Advisory Committee, which is composed of pharmacists and
physicians. The other decisions in terms
of deductible and co‑payment, of course, were policy decisions of the
Ministry of Health and Treasury Board and government. The decisions on the formulary are made
professionally on the basis of meeting health care needs in a cost‑effective
fashion.
In
terms of the evaluation aspect, where there have been circumstances where an
individual has said that decision will compromise my access to therapy, that
has been investigated and where that can be established as accurate, the
benefit through the EDS, exceptional drug status, has been reinstated.
Where there are alternatives, which was the
original reason for the changes in the formulary, all the changes in the
formulary did one of two things in general:
removed a product from the formulary which was available over the
counter and hence did not need to have a prescribing fee and extra cost
attached to it; or there was an equally effective lesser cost alternative
therapy than the one that was deleted.
Only in cases where there was an exceptional
individual circumstance were those guidelines overturned or overruled. From that standpoint that would be the extent
of the review done into the best confidence we have. We do not believe that there has been any
negative impact from a health perspective from the decisions.
* (1540)
I
would not begin to argue that some would make the case that because they could
no longer receive an insured benefit under Pharmacare for certain things, that
there was a financial impact, but in terms of medical impact, no.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, if I recall
correctly, there is an appeal mechanism established with these changes. Can the minister tell us how many appeals
that there have been since these changes were in place, and how many were
upheld, how many were denied?
Mr. Orchard: We do not have that detail here, but I am
pretty sure we can make that available in terms of number of appeals and the
number of times the appeal resulted in a change, okay?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am wondering if the
minister can provide us, and it does not have to be today with a‑‑actually
I might be asking if this is the wrong section‑‑whether we can get
a breakdown of the Pharmacare benefits paid at the optometric, chiropractic,
dental, the breakdown of those major categories that are administered under
these insured benefits.
Mr. Orchard: Yes, and if we have those here, we will give
them now. But if we do not have them
here, we will provide them.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): 6. Insured Benefits (a) Salaries $5,214,400‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $586,900‑‑pass.
Resolution 21.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $5,801,300 for Health Insured Benefits for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
7.
Health Services Insurance Fund (a)
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, does the minister
have a list of who is on the Manitoba Health Board?
Mr. Orchard: It is in Hansard already, because I provided
that last week, I think.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Ben Sveinson): 7.(a)‑‑
Mr. Chomiak: Just in general, can the minister outline
what their per diems are, or what the payments are in terms of members of the
Manitoba Health Board?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, out of the $570,000,
let me break it out for my honourable friends here: The commissioner's remuneration and travel is
estimated at $89,000, with $16,700 in terms of travel, and remuneration
$72,300. Part of this is a budgetary
commitment as well for the Health Advisory Network, where there is a budgetary
allowance of $250,000.
Now, in addition to the board's remuneration
and allowance for travel, we fund from here a number of committee expenses: the
Dental Review Committee; the Medical Assessors for the ministry; the Pharmacare
Professional Services; the Manitoba Drug Standards & Therapeutics
Committee, that is the one we just talked about in terms of the formulary
changes; the PCH Prescribing Guide Committee; the Medical Review Committee,
which does the physician practice reviews; the Medical Appointments Review
Committee; the Standing Committee on Diagnostic Services; and consulting
contract with the Manitoba Drug Standards & Therapeutics Committee, and
that is a $50,000 committee.
So
the committee expenses in total, all those that I have mentioned, are $198,000
of the budget, and there are miscellaneous expenses of $6,100 and other fees of
$1,200. I do not know what those are,
maybe they are membership fees‑‑(interjection) Pardon me? No, no.
Well, I think that is part of the travel, I think is their lunch.
The
travel expense probably has increased since this board has come in, because
this board has probably visited every acute care hospital in the city of
Also, the commissioners have had additional
duties to try and interface originally with the Health Advisory Network. A member of the board was attached to one or
two and sometimes more of the Health Advisory Network Task Forces. But in total, the expected expenditures are
composed of the Health Advisory Network board, the committee expenses, in total
the $570,500.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, does the minister
know the per diem of the chair of the Manitoba Health Board, the daily per
diem?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, the vice‑chair does not get
anything. That is my deputy. We do not allow that double dipping.
(interjection) Well, yes, I mean, he is worth more, they tell me.
(interjection) Well, it is Frank and Frank and Fred.
The
half‑day meeting for the chairperson is $256; full‑day meeting is
$446. For the members, a half‑day
meeting is $146; and a full‑day meeting for members is $255.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, is that not a lot
higher than some of the other per diems for other boards such as commissioners
for civil service? Are they all paid
those kinds of dollars?
* (1550)
Mr. Orchard: I cannot answer that, but these are the per
diems that were in place when we came into government and this board is the‑‑it
is the highest per diems that I have in any of the boards I have within. They are reasonable per diems, but I want to
indicate to my honourable friend that the individuals that are on there have
professional backgrounds that they have used extensively in providing advice to
the ministry.
The
chair is a Bachelor of Nursing by educational background and has had pretty
extensive both acute care and long‑term care administration as well as
community service delivery work and has done consulting for administration in
her private career.
The
members of the board have professional experience from chartered accountancy
through a lawyer through a physician through investment councillor and have put
a tremendous amount of respective professional opinion to the board in a number
of fashions.
We
have almost made our per diems in terms of, if you would, consulting on varying
matters depending on the expertise needed by the board. It has been a very active and I think quite
an effective board.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am not certainly
denying probably the qualifications of the people on the board or the fact of
the amount of hours of work they put in.
I can appreciate the minister does not know what the per diems are in
other areas, and I probably will ask a question on that in the Civil Service
Commission because I would be amazed if board members of the Manitoba
Agricultural Credit Corporation and Civil Service Commission receive those per
diems, but I might be wrong. I thank the
minister for that.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Item 7.(a)
7.(b) Health Reform $15,000,000.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am wondering if the
minister can give us an outline of the $15 million, in terms of that money that
is now allocated, that money that is proposed to be allocated, and that money
that still is not earmarked for any specific project or projects.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, some of the
reallocation direction was a reallocation to Municipals, Deer Lodge and
Concordia in terms of the commissioning of additional beds at those three
facilities for long‑term care with the downsizing at both our teaching
hospitals. The pediatric consolidation
led to a use of these dollars from the teaching and community hospitals that
wound down or phased out their pediatric inpatient capacity.
There are funds in here for reallocation to
the Winnipeg Mental Health program and the shifts in the Mental Health
program. Then there is, out of the $15
million roughly, a little over $4.5 million which has not been earmarked. Most of the first three categories have been
earmarked already, with the exception possibly of some nondedicated money in
the Mental Health reform program, because appreciate we have not received a
budget for the safe house yet, as an example.
You might recall we discussed that one.
In
terms of the $4.5 million out of the $15 million yet to be allocated, there are
a number of our committees that have been on the list that I gave at the start,
and I think I tabled it again today, where some of the dollars in terms of the
surgical program investigations that are going on, we expect that there will be
a need for some reallocated resource there.
We know there is going to be need for reallocation of resource around
some of the community health centre developments that we discussed earlier on
in the Estimates program.
We
are using some of these dollars to cover the cost of experts that we have had
come in, not the APM contract, but for instance, Dr. David Naylor, Dr. John
Crosbie, came in and assisted us on emergency medicine. So we have a portion of the dollars here to
provide for those experts to be brought in to share their experience and their
expertise in guiding program change.
There is a broader and more general area of
just the establishment of alternative community programs and the co‑ordinating
costs relating to them as a result of Health Reform where we are shifting
services. That portion yet to be
allocated totals $4.5 million, almost a third of the $15 million.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister
indicate whether or not this funding, therefore, is transitional funding and it
will not be allocated, for example, necessarily in the next budget year. That is my first question.
Mr. Orchard: Yes and no.
Transitional in this year's budget, but once reallocated from the
teaching hospitals, as an example, for the budgets to maintain the 60 beds at
Concordia, 44 beds at Deer Lodge, 20 beds at Municipals, transition from
teaching hospital to those hospitals this year, but once completed this year it
will become a reduction of the budget at the teaching hospitals and an addition
to the budget at those three respective facilities. So transition in terms of this year, but into
the base budget either as an increase or a decrease for future budgets.
Mr. Chomiak: Just so I understand, let me use some
hypothetical figures, and for purposes of this argument, I will use a
hypothetical bed just so I understand.
Let us take the assumption that there is a $700 bed from the Health
Sciences Centre that has now been allocated to Concordia at say $200.
Therefore, the $200 for that bed will come out of this $15 million this year,
and then next year the $200 for that bed will be added to the budget of
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, in essence, that is
the process that we are engaged in here with the exception being that I would
not attach veracity to the dollars. I
will give my honourable friend an example so that he understands the difficulty
the system has when they are downsizing as to what portion of their global
budget was used to maintain those beds. The costs that are part of the Health
Reform document are average costs, and they are demonstrative of the average
cost of a patient day in a teaching hospital versus community versus personal
care.
I
know my honourable friends understand that there is a range in each of those
facilities. We spent a considerable
amount of time trying to develop some sophistication around what are accurate
figures. Appreciate, I do not say this
in any way trying to offend the managers of our hospitals, but always when they
are reducing size, the cost is very marginal and incremental and very small,
but when they are adding those beds, gee whiz, the cost can be pretty high.
There had to be a way to get around this, and
I have to share an anecdote. I know
particularly my honourable friend the member for Crescentwood would appreciate
this one because this is getting back to farming again, you see. Mr. Acting Chairperson, this is an old
farming story. We had a circumstance
where there was a ward to be phased out of service at one of our hospitals. By
the time we went through all of the calculations, it worked out to something
like, I do not know, maybe $40 or $45 per day of cost to operate each of those
beds, so that the amount of money that the budget for that hospital was going
to go down was very, very small.
* (1600)
I
advised my deputy minister that that was the best news we had had, because we
were going to use a long‑standing tradition where two farmers buy a piece
of machine together, and they buy it and split the cost. The way we handle things so we do not have to
engage lawyers and spend all that extra money on legal work is we just have a
simple agreement. It is called a buy‑sell
agreement.
If
I am a 50 percent owner of this machine and I decide I want to sell my share
and my partner wants to buy it out, we establish the price in this way. If I say, on a $10,000 machine, where I have
$5,000 invested, by golly, that machine has appreciated in value. It is now worth $14,000 and my 50 percent is
worth $7,000. My partner sells his half
to me for $7,000. You can appreciate you get to a pretty honest evaluation of
what it is worth right off the bat.
Nobody inflates the price and nobody tries to deflate the price. You get to an honest price pretty quick.
What we sort of did here is I said, well, that
is the best news I have ever had. If we
can get beds at $45 a day, I want to move the entire program for
Michael Lloyd and Associates has developed a
fair degree of integrity and sophistication around the incremental costs of
beds in all of our hospitals. We feel
pretty comfortable that when one institution downsizes, another one adds
capacity, that we can establish a transfer based on budget reduction on
facility A, budget addition on facility B based on an assessment by Michael
Lloyd and Associates that is as accurate as we have ever had. We have not had that luxury in the past, and
it is basis the Michael Lloyd assessment that we will do the budget area
reductions within the teaching hospitals and provide the incremental budgets to
the Concordias, Municipals and Deer Lodges.
My
honourable friend's premise is correct, but we think we have a fairly accurate
assessment of the actual costs in each instance, whether it is a downsizing or
an increment to the facility.
Mr. Chomiak: Essentially the minister is saying, my flow‑through,
irrespective of my arguments, in terms of numbers is correct, in terms of the
budget moving from hospital A to hospital B, being picked up next year in
hospital B's base budget and essentially being removed from Health Reform.
That deals with hardware. I guess there is a breakdown in terms of
software, if I can use that analogy, in terms of there is a fair amount of
consulting expertise in everything that is also associated with this Health
Reform.
Mr. Orchard: There is some, but of the 15 million, it will
be a very, very small portion. I would
suspect that probably less than 150,000 of the 15 million would be for
individuals‑‑no, it would be less than that because the Michael
Lloyd and Associates contract was through the Health Advisory Network budget on
the teaching hospital cost overview. It
was a fairly sizable commitment but that has already been done. (interjection)
Yes, that is not part of here because that was done in, in essence, the last
two years of budget through the Health Advisory Network.
Mr. Chomiak: If, say, community health centre X had a
proposal for some kind of community‑based reform, is it conceivable that
money would come out of this budget, therefore we are saying there is probably
still $4.5 million kicking around that could be utilized in the next year for
community‑based programming?
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, yes, that is right. Approximately 10 million has already been
committed in here in terms of the shift in long‑term‑care beds, the
pediatric consolidation and the facilitation of community‑based mental
health programs, but there is $4.5 million that can be committed to those kinds
of proposals. Some will be committed to
the Health Action Centre program. That
is one that we discussed already. That
will come out of this $15 million, and other alternatives, as they prove to be
worthy of the funding shifts, can access this fund.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the Health Reform
committee's material that the minister provided for us, is this basically the‑‑this
is a list of the major reform committees that are currently underway with the
Department of Health, this list.
Mr. Orchard: Yes, Madam Chair, in essence, that is the
committee structure that is focused on the reform initiative, but appreciate
that we have got other areas where there will be committees at work within the
ministry that had been either there or part of the ministry's commitment to
normal function, if you will. But those
committees have been created since the reform process, if that is the question.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, whom do these committees
report to, or do they all report to different people?
Mr. Orchard: Those committees my honourable friend has at
hand report to the reform committee, steering committee. Incidentally, you
know, not that I want to discourage or dissuade my honourable friend from
asking questions, but we did deal with this pretty extensively at the start of
Estimates.
Ms.
Gray: I just have one more
question. You may have answered this as
well. I guess the one thing I do not see
here, other than where it talks about the committee dealing with provincial
cancer control, is the area of promotion of health, wellness and primary
prevention. Are there no committees that
are specifically dealing with that?
Mr. Orchard: Well, not specifically, but as I explained
before, each of those committees will have that component integrated in. We
have tried, and when we debated the Healthy Public Policy section of the
ministry, they have an attachment from pure community right through to Capital
Planning in terms of bringing the wellness, illness prevention, Healthy Public
Policy perspective to all aspects of the ministry, including the committee
structures that we have there. The
notable exception would be the Labour Adjustment Committee, where that is more
technical in nature, but most of the program committees will have the component
of education, prevention and wellness as part of their investigative mandate.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, with all due respect to
the minister, I really believe that if as a government you really want to deal with
a particular issue area that rather than trying to integrate it into other
committees, you will be further ahead if you actually have a committee
established with its own mandate that specifically deals with something such as
primary prevention and looks at planning over the next 10 years. It may not be plans that can be implemented
during this particular mandate of the government, but it is looking at long‑term
planning. I feel strongly that I think
somewhere there needs to be a committee, a group that is specifically looking
at primary prevention, that is looking at health promotion over the long term.
Mr. Orchard: Let me give my honourable friend the comfort
that she is absolutely right. That is
what we are doing. That is why we have
the Healthy Public Policy Programs Division of the ministry. That is the very focus that they are engaging
in and developing some sophistication around.
* (1610)
In
addition to that, as we plan through our varying programs we have, as part of the
program discussion, the aspect of wellness and prevention and education. So we do not end up with the sole focus being
fixing in these various program entities but rather the prevention component,
because all too often maybe we have inappropriately invested, if I can put it
that way, by concentrating on the efficiency of the program that is fixing and
curing the disease entity or the difficulty rather than on the prevention
side. We are putting in every one of these
programs the up‑front prevention and wellness aspect and the education
aspect as well as the treatment and follow‑up and palliation. That is
part of the program.
That is not the sole focus. In addition to that, the Healthy Public
Policy Programs area, under the Assistant Deputy Minister, Ms. Hicks, has the
education, wellness and the long‑term development of program and policy
initiative on wellness, on illness prevention, on education as a major focus
within the ministry.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I really hope we see some
results out of that division over the next year. I think it is very important that we do see
that.
Mr. Orchard: Well, are we speeding right along, because I
have an issue that I think we will want to debate this afternoon on the
personal care home per diems.
Ms. Gray: Speaking of prevention, does the minister
happen to have the information about the SYs, the public health program in
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, in the home economics
positions, of the seven SYs that are there, six are filled and one has been
vacant since a little over a year, May 1992.
We have been having the home economists, the other six, sharing the
workload in the
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us why that position
has been left vacant? I ask that
question because I know the minister is a supporter of these services. I have seen memos going forward from himself
to his staff in the department talking about the importance of the program and
to not have a diminution, if I can recall the term from the memo, of those
kinds of services.
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend is right.
Ms. Gray: I recognize the minister has been a supporter
of this program, and I am wondering why that position has been left vacant for
a year.
Mr. Orchard: I missed my honourable friend's
question. I was indisposed there for a
moment, to Madam Chair.
Ms. Gray: I am asking if the minister knows why that
position has remained vacant for a year.
Mr. Orchard: Well, it is rolled up in a number of issues,
not the least of which is a desire to manage our vacancy rate. I would suspect that it has fallen in part
into that directive that has been quite long standing from Treasury Board, and
I will, having been availed of this information, make further inquiries.
Ms. Gray: I would hope the minister does, just to
satisfy himself as to if he wants to see that vacancy remain. I mean, the reason I asked the question as
well is I would wonder why part of a public health program that specifically
deals with promotion of health and primary prevention, why the department would
allow that position to remain vacant for that period of time.
One
could make some assumptions that in fact they may wish to be using that vacancy
for something else, but if that was the case and the decision was made to
transfer that position and to be used in another manner, why that was not done
already. I would question if in fact it
is allowed to be vacant for‑‑to maintain vacancy rates there are
usually other positions around that would allow that, but I would hope the
minister would satisfy himself as to why that position has remained vacant.
Madam Chairperson: 7.(b) Health Reform $15,000,000‑‑pass;
(c) Manitoba Health Status Improvement Fund $3,000,000.
Ms. Gray: Both the member for Kildonan and myself
basically would like to know what the $3‑million dollar grant is, how
that breaks down.
Mr. Orchard: We are just digging up the ability to access
this fund. We have set these funds aside
to assist hospitals in implementing innovative programs and in terms of some
costs that they often will incur in terms of the Continuous Quality Improvement
or Total Quality Management program.
Would my honourable friend be interested in
the criteria of access? You just want to
know whether‑‑I think the question is, has there been access of
this fund by the hospitals?
One
project that we are close to approving to fund this year‑‑I cannot
be any more specific because an announcement will be coming, I guess, in the
next few weeks, is what I am advised. An example of last year, the LDRP, labour
delivery recovery postpartum, at
Madam Chairperson: 7.(c) Manitoba Health Status Improvement Fund‑‑pass.
7.(d) Hospital $930,770,500.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, between (d) and (e) there
are considerable questions with respect to the funding of hospitals and the
various breakdowns. I think I had asked
several weeks ago, and we had talked about bed capacities for the various
hospitals and the funding to those hospitals.
Do we have that information for us today?
Mr. Orchard: Well, as I have indicated to my honourable
friend when we touched on this subject I think earlier on this week, we have
not dealt with individual facility budgets, either in personal care or in the
hospital sector, but we can deal with how the budget, the reduction year over
year, 950 to 930 in terms of the Hospital program, medical program, and if we
wanted to roll in the Personal Care Home Program, I can give my honourable
friend probably a reaffirmation of a number of the topics we have discussed in
the last couple, three weeks as to how we expect each program to utilize or
deliver services with a lowered budget this year. That would be the kind of discussion that I
would think would be most productive.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, does the minister have
those breakdowns available for us now?
* (1620)
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, in general terms, I think it
is fair to say that the largest area of reduction in terms of the hospital
areas in this year's Estimates over last year's is the downsizing of the two
teaching hospitals. There was a
significant downsizing in both.
Part of the budget was transferred to other
facilities, yes, but there was a fairly significant downsizing of the two
teaching hospitals in terms of budgetary reduction year over year. I think it is fair to say that the largest
portion of that is at the tertiary hospital level, although I do not think
there is any hospital this year that will have an increased or even a level
budget year over year. Most will have a
decreased budget this year.
Of
course, that general communication of decreased budget was based upon
downsizing, implementation, where possible, of the opportunities presented in
the Efficiency Report. The recent
contract agreement with the Manitoba Nurses'
In
addition to that, we have made some specific requests of all hospitals and
personal care homes in terms of reducing their management budgets and to do
really a very pragmatic review and overview of their management dollar
commitment with the clear objective of reducing the dollars spent in terms of
management. All of those initiatives, some of them introduced last year in the
budget, but all of them part of this year's budget preparation, to lead us to
the reduced financial commitment in the hospital line.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, in reading past Estimates
debates, I know there has been an ongoing debate over the issue. Frankly, at
this budgetary line, it is probably the single largest provincial expenditure
in the entire province. It is $1
billion. It would be useful to have a
breakdown of the various component expenditures of that if we are to do our
jobs appropriately in terms of this Chamber.
Let
me give you an example. Let me give an
example to the minister. The overall
expenditure in grants to hospitals is $950 million last year, down to $930
million this year, roughly a $20‑million drop in funding, yet we know,
for example, that St. Boniface Hospital this year has publicly stated they are
reducing their budget by $25 million which exceeds this entire amount, the
entire $20‑million amount at this point.
It
is very difficult for us to do our job as legislators in terms of having an
understanding of what is happening. Now,
I anticipate the minister will indicate that part of that $25‑million
reduction of St. Boniface Hospital is the deficit financing that had been
encountered from previous years and the policy directives in that regard that
go back to the deficit financing moratorium put on hospitals, introduced in the
late '70s by previous administrations‑‑
An Honourable Member Mid‑'80s.
Mr. Chomiak: Mid‑'80s, pardon me, correct, by
previous administrations.
However, notwithstanding that, it is very
difficult for us to do our jobs in this Chamber unless we have more definitive
breakdowns in terms of the categories of expenditures. Frankly, it just does not make a lot of sense
to me. As someone who has spent
considerable time in terms of the Education Estimates, we have been able to
have the breakdowns in terms of individual school divisions and the related
expenditures on a division‑by‑division breakdown for years and were
able to determine program directives in program efforts as a result.
So
I am asking the minister, he has access to that information: What definitive information can he give us in
terms of breakdown to allow us to discuss this particular item with some degree
of information?
Mr. Orchard: Well, Madam Chair, I understand where my
honourable friend is saying that the school division budgets are made
available, but that is not the individual schools, because the divisions will
naturally allocate their budgets accordingly. There is no magic here.
When I was critic debating these Estimates, we
debated the line without having individual hospital budgets. They never have been part of the individual
debate, but the debate is always centred around whether the budgetary provision
is adequate to maintain level of service.
In
that regard, that is a very important debate.
I think it is the kind of debate that we definitely have to get into,
because my honourable friend is right.
My honourable friend is absolutely correct, this single line is larger
than any other single line in the Estimates of the province. There is no other single line that has more
financial commitment and more presence throughout the province.
It
also is‑‑as my honourable friend will follow from the reform
document, the Quality Health discussion paper and blueprint for change that we
tabled on May 14 of last year‑‑the portion of the budget that
consumes nearly 90 percent of our budget.
If we are intent about maintaining our health care system and its
ability to deliver needed services, and to maintain those services within the
fiscal capacity of the nation and the province, you have to go to your areas
which spend the most. That is where we
are.
It
is a very difficult series of decisions that all the partners and the
stakeholders have to make here. I can
tell you without any equivocation, I do not think there is a single hospital in
the
We
have taken and presented as much information around how we spend in health care
in
What you are seeing here, and I have a high
level of confidence that within the $930 million that we are spending this year
in hospital care, that we will maintain the level and the quality of service
for Manitobans within that budget. I am
convinced of that, and so are many others who are part of this budget
preparation.
We
also know that there are further‑‑
Ms. Gray: Will we get the same information on
individual hospitals?
Mr. Orchard: Pardon me?
On individual hospitals? No, not
on individual hospitals‑‑
Ms. Gray: Why?
We could ask for individual hospitals.
* (1630)
Mr. Orchard: Well, you can, but you know what the answer
is, so it is up to you. But if there
were difficulties with an individual hospital, let us discuss them.
Part of the figures that my honourable friend
the member for Kildonan bounces around in terms of budgetary targets, et
cetera, yes, that is correct. There are
a series of factors that are involved in those numbers. In some circumstances, deficits have been
part of it, both operating and supply.
This funding level is requiring, for instance,
the hospitals to absorb increased supply costs within this budget. There are contractual arrangements. Now mind you, the signed contract funding
arrangements are being provided within the budget, but there are a number of
areas where there has to be a very prudent use of resource within these
institutions.
With those challenges, we have confidence that
we are going to maintain our ability to deliver care. It may not be in the same fashion as we have
always done it. It may use fewer
resources, fewer people, fewer patient days, definitely, but the care itself
will be there.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate,
on a global basis, what the deficit carried into this budget year is for the
hospitals?
Mr. Orchard: Staff advise me that the carried‑forward
deficits of all of our hospitals are approaching $4.5 million from last fiscal
year. So in other words, of the $950
million, there was a $4.5 million overexpenditure.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister give us
an idea as to what the accumulated deficit is out of that figure?
Mr. Orchard: That is the accumulated deficit for the last
fiscal year.
Mr. Orchard: So the minister is saying that all of the
hospitals in
Mr. Orchard: In terms of the operating deficits from last
year, they are approaching $4.5 million, but there are carried‑forward
deficits that we are dealing with. In
terms of the accumulated information systems from the implementation of the
Unisys agreement, there were incurred deficits on information systems. We are
providing some one‑time funding to retire that carried‑forward
deficit, but that was accounted for, if you will, separately from the operating
deficits. The operating deficits last
year approached $4.5 million.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, and the $4.5 million will
not be paid by the ministry this year?
Mr. Orchard: That is correct. The deficits have not been paid, unless they
were incurred for legitimate and identifiable program shifts under the appeal
process. The appeal process still
exists, has existed for a number of years and has been utilized fairly
extensively since the no‑deficit policy of 1986.
So
that deficits have not been paid unless there were, in the review of that
deficit, circumstances which would legitimately lead to an increase in
funding. Otherwise the facilities have
been required since 1986 to pick up last year's deficit in this year's funding
allocation.
We
have extended the policy of no deficit which applied, basically, to the Urban
Hospital Council members, the teaching hospitals, the community hospitals in
That has been the only expansion of the no‑deficit
policy. In the past we have not had the no‑deficit policy applicable to
any but our Urban Hospital Council members.
It did not apply to our other facilities.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, in returning to my
original statement that the president of the St. Boniface Hospital has stated
publicly that that institution has to shave $25 million from its budget this
year, can the minister indicate how that could be the case, that it must shave
$35 million from its budget when the total deficits entering are only $4.5
million and when the total decrease in funding between last year and this year
is only a total of about $20 million?
How is it that that director has made the public statement that $25
million must be shaved from the budget this year?
Mr. Orchard: Two aspects that I want to deal with to try
answer that. One of them, my honourable
friend will recall, if he has read Hansard from last year, because we dwelt on
this issue for literally hours and hours in last year's Estimates.
Hospitals develop a budget based on
anticipated financial needs. That
projects supply‑cost increases and known salary‑cost increases, et
cetera. That is, if you will, the
starting point for budget preparation, and the Ministry of Health says, here
are the dollars that you have to operate with.
The management role is to attempt to deliver the program within the
budgetary commitment. That is the same
this year as last year.
So
that is one aspect of the cost reduction that would be in reference to St.
Boniface. The second aspect of that
statement, I believe, was made some time ago at a time when the projected
deficit for the St. Boniface General Hospital was looking like it would be
considerably higher. They undertook a
number of initiatives, and the deficit reconciliation at year‑end was
substantially lower than what was projected, quite possibly, at the time that
statement may have been made.
There is, as the third aspect of that
component, the reduction in budget to St. Boniface this year as their portion
of the reduction of $20 million. So
there will be three aspects to that figure.
I cannot give my honourable friend a breakdown of how much that would
be, and I cannot even verify the accuracy of the $25 million today. Certainly that is not the circumstance in
terms of the budgetary preparation today, because a number of initiatives have
been undertaken at St. Boniface which have reduced their expected year‑end
deficit for last fiscal year.
* (1640)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, the department goes
through a planning process with the executives of the hospital‑‑I
am not sure if it is a three‑year or a five‑year plan‑‑in
terms of their budgets. Can the minister
outline for me what information has been given to the hospitals, specifically
the urban hospitals in
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, my honourable friend is right at
the nub of the issue with the urban hospitals, and the common complaint‑‑and
it was a legitimate and real complaint that stemmed back in '88, '89, '90 and
even to a degree '91, and is to a degree still a legitimate concern, but we are
certainly much advanced on the issue now than we were then.
We
had a big problem three, four and five years ago when we were a minority
government. We could give best
projections of what the funding was in terms of hospitals, but until the budget
passed this House in a minority government, we could not be definitive. There was one‑‑I forget which
fiscal year it was, but we did not finalize budgets until March 31 because of
the passage of our Estimates and the assuredness that the financial authority
was indeed there.
That has led to the facilities saying to us,
look, we need to have some anticipation as to what our financial resources are
going to be for more than just one year ahead.
For the first time, I guess, we have ever gone to a three‑year
projection with the urban hospitals to indicate to them, as we sit today, here
is our best projection as to the resource that we believe will be available to
run your respective facilities. Those
financial targets have been shared with the urban hospitals and are shared as
information with the best accuracy possible.
Appreciate, and I think my honourable friend
can appreciate this, we have no ability to say‑‑and this has always
been the quandary government has been in‑‑what the '94‑95
budget will be. I mean, I have absolutely no authority as minister and neither
do my staff, because that budget does not have any accuracy or legitimacy until
it is passed by this Legislature. The
best we can do is give them the best projection as we see it. We have worked fairly extensively with
Treasury Board to try and get from Finance what their best projections are in
terms of revenues, longer term. They are
the best projections we have been able to provide.
We
have shared those best projections with our hospitals. They are using those in
their planning efforts knowing that if circumstances change, such as happened
to us November, December of 1992, in the significant lowering of federal
transfer payments, that even those projections can change and be lowered, but
it is given then a planning goal so they can do some very productive and, I
think, long‑term planning.
I
will tell my honourable friend I am not prepared to share the figures, and I
think my honourable friend can understand why, because I have no authority to
share those figures. I have no authority
to share them as anything but Estimates, and I will not do that because that
would be inappropriate discussion in this House. I will simply indicate to my honourable
friend that the projections we have given to the hospitals are that they ought
to plan their activities around a lowered budgetary commitment for this year
and the next two years.
Now, we think that is the real world. We see other provinces giving the same kind
of projections to their facilities. Let
me tell you why we are being definitive in saying that and indicating that to
the urban hospitals. In the past, I
think it is fair to say that the way budgets were struck as they were struck,
and if they were exceeded there would always be pressures and other
circumstances which would allow the institutions, and particularly in health
care, to receive additional funding.
That is of course why the previous administration, in 1986, put in the
no‑deficit policy.
But
we also have now a considerable amount of more sophisticated information and
process and ability to help the health care system plan around those reduced
budget targets. I mean, in one area
alone like‑‑and I have had a number of discussions with individual
hospitals in the last number of weeks.
With few exceptions, each and every one of them are experiencing fewer
patient days in this calendar year, and those fewer patient days are not
because of a lowered level of activity.
It
is in terms of bringing about opportunities from the efficiency report that the
Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation laid out about a year ago in terms of
average length of stay. It is in
changing process on how individuals are admitted. It is in changing more processes to
outpatient procedures. It is an impacted
technology. Laparoscopic
cholecystectomies are taking significantly fewer patient days, and all of these
are reflecting in a reduced level of activity as measured by patient days in
our acute care hospitals.
There is some comfort, I would not say a great
deal of comfort, maybe "comfort" is the wrong word. There is a willingness to acknowledge that
there is an opportunity to provide the same level of care with a reduced budget
commitment. That is why I say this year I have got a great deal of confidence
around the ability to maintain our quantity‑quality of service, if you
will, within a lowered budgetary commitment.
We
think with the processes of change that we have got in place within the
ministry, including the consulting contract with APM, that we think we can
indeed meet those lowered financial targets next year and the year after
without compromising the ability to provide needed health care services in our
hospital sector.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, to what extent is the reduction
from $950 million to $930 million reflective of the government's Bill 22, 2
percent overall reduction?
* (1650)
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, we are having quite a little
discussion here, so that what I am going to do for my honourable friend when next
we meet, I am going to give him an estimate of what the minus two‑‑if
it was able to be applied universally right across the system. You know, there are certain circumstances in
our acute care sector that disallows that.
We
will consolidate the best guess as to what that means to the $950‑million
budget from last year, because I think that is what my honourable friend wants
to get a sense of, and we will provide that to my honourable friend. It will not be a straight minus two. I think my honourable friend can appreciate
that, because the 950 is not all minus‑twoable, if you will. It is not all salary component. We will provide the best guess, and we will
provide that for Monday.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank the minister for that because my line
of questioning is incumbent upon having that information.
Ms. Gray: Just to clarify after the minister's
soliloquy, is he saying that he is not prepared to give us in committee an
indication of what the budgets were per hospital and per facility last year and
what those budgets are for this year? Am
I correct in interpreting his statements?
Mr. Orchard: Correct, Madam Chair. We have not, in these Estimates, and this is
now my sixth time, dealt with individual facility budgets in these Estimates,
and we had not beforehand. That is correct.
We have dealt with these lines in terms of the debate around their
adequacy to meet the service‑delivery goals, but we have not dealt with
individual facility budgets.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, tradition aside, because I
do not see what relevance tradition has to do with this particular discussion,
can the minister reconcile his unwillingness to provide that information with
his statements about openness and communication and his open government?
Mr. Orchard: You cannot get much more open than printing
for Estimates a reduction in funding and the process by which we expect it to
be achieved.
Ms. Gray: The minister is suggesting that by providing
a budget and saying total grants that are almost a billion dollars and not
allowing the committee an opportunity to see how that is broken down, that is
openness. I do not understand how that
can be. I would think, in this spirit of
co‑operation and openness that the Minister of Health likes to purport,
that surely to goodness with a billion dollars or close to a billion dollars he
would be prepared to indicate the budgets of the various hospitals. Is he also suggesting, if I asked about a
budget of a particular hospital, that he is not prepared to release that
information on an individual basis?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, that has not been the
detail of Estimates in the Hospital budget or the Personal Care Home budget.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister explain what that has to do
with this issue if we are looking at openness in government? Does it really matter what information has
been provided over the last number of years based on tradition? Are we not trying to change some of the
traditions in terms of how we do business as politicians, and should this not
be one of them?
Mr. Orchard: We certainly are. That is why this debate is so important at
this juncture, because previous debates have centred around, often but not
exclusively, the fact that the budget did not increase enough. Now we are dealing with a budget for the
first time that is decreasing. That
ought to be the focus of a very fundamental debate.
The
majority of the decrease, year over year, on these grants is in our teaching
hospital budgets because of the downsizing.
I think my honourable friend can appreciate that.
I
think we would be well served to talk about whether this is achievable, whether
this is a policy that ought to be approved by this Legislature, whether my
honourable friend has concerns about this budgetary provision, whether my
honourable friend believes that it is unachievable and has concerns about it,
because I am willing to answer those concerns.
However, I am not prepared to lay individual hospital budgets projected
for this year on the table. We have not,
Madam Chairperson, done that as a matter of course over the last number of
years.
Suffice it to say, Madam Chairperson, if my
honourable friend had some specific concerns from individual facilities or on
behalf of individual facilities, I would be prepared to deal with them, but I
am not here at this juncture to lay out for my honourable friend what a
particular facility's budget is projected to be.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, what is the minister
afraid of in releasing that information?
Mr. Orchard: It has nothing to do with afraid of. If I were afraid, I suppose we would just
have Minister of Health budget and have it at $1.8 billion with no detail. My honourable friend gets more detail than
probably ever before in the history of debating Health Estimates.
I
will pose the reverse of that question in terms of broad principles of how the
health care system can provide needed services within this budgetary
requirement. Is it possible or no? Those are the kinds of broad principles we
ought to be dealing with, because I can assure my honourable friend, as I
stated earlier in discussing this issue, there is not a single institution that
would not want to have more budget. This
is not an area where I am going to have the committee time tied up with an
individual lobby effort by individual members on behalf of individual
facilities for more money of $930 million.
I want to talk about principles behind the provision of care, how we can
organize it, how we structure it, how we deliver it, how we meet needs.
But
in terms of turning it into a lobby exercise as to whether hospital A's budget
is too big or too small‑‑like my honourable friend said the other
day, questioned the new construction at Virden and Minnedosa. What I assumed from that, that my honourable
friend, if they had the individual budget, would cough up and offer a million
dollars from each of those two budgets to put elsewhere in the system. I do not think that would be appropriate.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, can I ask the minister why
he is making assumptions as to what we might want to do with that
information. Why is he making those
assumptions? What are they based on?
Mr. Orchard: I am not making any assumptions.
Ms. Gray: The minister indicates he is not making
assumptions. He is making assumptions. I
do not understand why, with a billion‑dollar budget, the minister is not
prepared to share with us so that we can then in turn ask. It is only reasonable that one can ask the
most reasoned and logical and intelligent questions when one has a good deal of
information in front of you.
* (1700)
We
are accepting the fact that a lot of those budgets are being decreased. We are not disputing that fact. What we are asking for, the member for
Kildonan and myself, is basically a breakdown of $1 billion. Does the minister believe that the taxpayers
of
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee
Report
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.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
I
move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable
member for
Motions agreed to.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): House business, Mr.
Speaker. I would like to announce that
the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will sit Friday, June 25, that is
tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. in Room 254 to consider Bill 38.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: 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: Stand.
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
And
also standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans) who has one minute remaining.
An Honourable Member Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that that matter also 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: Stand.
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).
An Honourable Member Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
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).
An Honourable Member Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 209‑The
Public Health Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 209, The Public Health
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la sante publique, standing in the name
of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
An Honourable Member Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 212‑The
Dauphin Memorial Community Centre Board Repeal Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), Bill 212, The Dauphin Memorial Community
Centre Board Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil du Centre
commemoratif de Dauphin, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
An Honourable Member Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
SECOND
READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker: Bill 214 (The Beverage Container Act; Loi sur
les contenants de boisson). Are we
proceeding with Bill 214? No. Are we
proceeding with Bill 216 (An Act to amend An Act to Protect the Health of Non‑Smokers:
Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la sante des non‑fumeurs)? No?
Okay.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Mr. Speaker: The resolution of the honourable member for
Elmwood, No. 37. Independent Review of Immigrant‑‑
An Honourable Member Six o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: What is this?
Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Okay.
Res. 37‑Independent
Review of Immigrant Investor Program
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable
member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), resolution 37:
WHEREAS in 1991,
WHEREAS in 1992, the projected deficit is
expected to be in excess of $640 million, the worst in
WHEREAS the hands‑off, step‑aside
policies of the provincial government have led to record layoffs, closures, and
a doubling of social assistance usage in just two years; and
WHEREAS among the many other economic failures
the provincial government has presided over, it has failed to properly monitor
the Immigrant Investor Program; and
WHEREAS in one example, a businessman with a
number of previous projects which failed was allowed by the provincial
government to use the Premier as a reference for soliciting money under the
Immigrant Investor Fund; and
WHEREAS the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism has admitted that he and his colleagues have failed to monitor the
program due to adverse publicity, he has now requested an independent audit of
the program.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
make the audit of the Immigrant Investor Fund fully public so that Manitobans
can judge for themselves the merits of the program; and
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly request the minister to release all
relevant data concerning this program including meetings with cabinet ministers
and prospective investors and safeguards put in place by the minister.
Motion presented.
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today
to address this resolution, and because the resolution was submitted some time
ago, there have been some developments in the program, and that, of course,
should be understood by those of us in this House.
Mr.
Speaker, I have quite a few serious observations about this program and how it
developed and how it came about, but fundamentally there is a‑‑
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): No, no, not in private
members' hour, . . .
Mr. Maloway: Well, you can see that the government members
obviously are not interested in hearing any more speeches on the Immigrant
Investor Program. I can see why they are
not, because they have a lot to be held accountable for on this particular
program. This is one of the biggest
boondoggles that this government has involved itself in.
Point of
Order
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, would you
do a quorum call, please.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A quorum call having been requested, I would
ask all members present in the Chamber to please rise and the Clerk will call
out the members. All members, please
rise.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Mr. Evans (Brandon East), Mr. Santos, Mr.
Maloway, Mr. Evans (Interlake), Mr. Martindale, Mr. Gaudry, Mrs. Carstairs, the
Honourable Mr. Manness, the Honourable Mr. Rocan.
Mr. Speaker: Due to lack of a quorum, this House now is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).