LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, June 21, 1994
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Committee of Supply
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, I will have two separate reports from the Committee of Supply.
First, Mr. Speaker, in the section of the Committee of Supply
sitting in Room 255 of the Legislative Building on June 20, considering the
Estimates of the Status of Women, an alleged matter of privilege was raised by
the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). The following motion moved by the honourable
member for Radisson was adopted on a formal vote of the entire committee:
THAT the comments of the
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard), of Monday, June 13, to myself in
the Committee of Supply indicating "she needs a slap" that violated
my privileges as a member of the Legislature be reported to the House and that,
in accordance with the provisions of Beauchesne Citation 107, this committee
recommend that this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and
Elections.
Mr. Speaker: I believe a few words about process would be
helpful to all members at this point.
In this particular case, the report from the Committee of
Supply respecting the alleged matter of privilege takes the place of the more
usual raising of the matter in the House by an honourable member. No motion that the report be received is
required in this case, just as a report respecting grave disorder in a
Committee of the Whole House does not require a motion that it be received.
The Chair believes that the matter has already been the
subject of considerable debate and has therefore taken it under advisement at
this time.
Mrs. Dacquay: Secondly, the Committee of Supply has adopted
certain resolutions and directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit
again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon
Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
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 Southwood School seventy‑five Grade 5 students under the direction of
Mr. Rick Goerzen. This school is located
in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Driedger).
Also, from the Ramah Hebrew School, we have forty‑five
Grade 5 students under the direction of Mrs. Pat LeClair and Mrs. Alta
Sigesmund. This school is located in the
constituency of the honourable member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs).
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
* (1335)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Bell‑Wade Report
Release
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, one of the major problems with the
government's so‑called health care reform is the government has not
included the public, patients and nurses in the process. The government brought in their $4‑million
consultant, and that whole process was a disaster.
Mr. Speaker, the government has now commissioned 96 study
groups to deal with health care, with very little public representation on
those committees. The government is also
keeping from the public a number of reports that have been commissioned at
great taxpayer expense, such as the Emergency Task Force report. We know the government has spent $230,000, a
quarter of a million dollars, on the so‑called Bell‑Wade Report
which makes sweeping recommendations about the reorganization of St. Boniface
Hospital and Health Sciences Centre.
My question to the minister today is, why is the minister
refusing to make public this Bell‑Wade Report that has significant
bearing on so much that is happening in our health care field and costs the
taxpayers of this province one‑quarter of a million dollars?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, most of what the
honourable member has said is wrong. The
Bell‑Wade Report will be made public at an appropriate time when the
partners in the project are in a state of readiness to release the report.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the management at Health
Sciences Centre has just been restructured.
The management at St. Boniface Hospital has been restructured. Bell‑Wade recommends another governance
model, another structure be put in place between Health Sciences and St.
Boniface.
Why will the minister not make public a quarter of a
million dollar report that has a significant bearing on health care in this
province? What is he afraid of, Mr.
Speaker?
Mr. McCrae: The only thing that frightens me, Mr.
Speaker, is misinformation. The true
information does not frighten me because the true information tells me that we
will build a sustainable health care system that will last us for many generations. What the honourable member offers is the
death of the health care system.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister is
engaging in that kind of debate.
Will the minister advise this House how long he has had the
report? Will he tell us why he is
refusing to make this report public? Why
is he refusing to make public the recommendations about the restructuring of
those facilities, the reallocation of different surgeries from one hospital to
another, the recommendation that perhaps St. Boniface Hospital might be
downsized while surgery moves to Health Sciences Centre?
Why is the minister not dealing with this report? Why will he not make it public and allow the
public which pays these bills to have access to it, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the public pays the bills, and
the public is the group we are working for here in the government, and it is
the public who will benefit from changes that take place as a result of the
Bell‑Wade experience.
Mr. Speaker, I am not refusing to make that report
public. It will be made public at the
appropriate time.
* (1340)
Burns Committee
Conflict of Interest
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, there is continuing concern
about the government's handling of the Winnipeg Jets situation in terms of
deadlines and the status of the Burns committee and other matters, including
the exposure of the taxpayers of the province in terms of potential losses.
My first question to the Premier is in terms of the
situation with the Burns committee. James
Burns, the head of the Burns committee, is also apparently, Mr. Speaker, the
head of a nonprofit corporation, Jets Private Sector Inc., which has been in
operation for three years and may potentially be one of the options in terms of
ownership of the team.
I would like to ask the Premier, first of all, if the
Premier has assured himself that there is no conflict in the fact that Mr.
Burns is also the chair of the Burns committee, with this particular
arrangement, given the fact that the Private Sector Inc. could potentially be
an owner of the Jets in and of itself.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, we are engaging in exactly what
the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) said was not appropriate and was not
productive, and that is speculation based on speculation. I would just suggest to the member for
Thompson that he not try and create a political situation here for his
advantage just simply for the purpose of stirring up.
There is no evidence whatsoever that there is any situation
of conflict. That was speculation based
on speculation, and he has now tried to make political fodder of it, and I
suggest it is totally inappropriate.
Deadline
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking questions on
behalf of a million people in the province of Manitoba, and I will ask a
further question because there is continuing confusion. It is the Premier and this government who
signed the agreement that has exposed the taxpayers in this case. There is also confusion over the deadline.
In Estimates on May 2, the Premier indicated, and I
quote: "there is not a good reason
why you would want to extend that any length of time . . . ", referring to
the deadline. Apparently, Mr. Speaker,
the Premier is now saying that the deadline of June 30 applies only to the
option to purchase the Jets.
But, Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the documents signed by the
Premier, the letter of endorsation signed by the Premier, in fact, it states that,
if by June 30, 1994, the interim steering committee and the majority ownership
of the Jets Hockey Club have not reached an agreement for a long‑term
solution in a new facility or in the existing facility‑‑in other
words, tied into the question of the arena, that deadline applies in that
particular case.
I want to ask the Premier, what is the situation? What is the deadline and where do the
taxpayers of Manitoba stand in terms of the exposure of the Province of
Manitoba with the Winnipeg Jets?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the only confusion is that this
is being generated, fostered and perpetrated by the members opposite for their
own political purposes. I recommend to
them that, like everybody else, they wait for the Burns report, and then they
can operate on fact, which might be a novel opportunity for them.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I have asked questions on the
situation of the Burns committee. I have
asked questions in terms of the deadline.
I would appreciate an answer on at least one of those two questions.
What is the situation currently in terms of the
deadline? Which of the statements of the
Premier now apply‑‑the May 2 statement, the statements yesterday,
the document the Premier signed, the letter of endorsation? What is the situation in terms of the
deadline, in terms of both the ownership of the team and the Winnipeg Arena,
and where do we stand in the province of Manitoba as taxpayers in terms of any
exposure as a result of the agreement signed by this Premier?
Mr. Filmon: The situation remains that the only exposure
that the taxpayers have is exceeded, in fact, by double in terms of direct
revenues to the three levels of government.
Whatever exposure is contained within that agreement, the
people of Manitoba, in the form of direct taxation to all three levels of
government, get more than twice as much back, Mr. Speaker. That is the prevailing situation.
Winnipeg Jets
Future Status
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Premier. Yesterday,
the Premier was very forthright and frank that he did not favour the government
exercising the option to purchase the remaining majority shares of the Winnipeg
Jets for $32 million. He also indicated
that, to his knowledge, there were not other people wanting the benefit of that
option.
Mr. Speaker, my question today for the First Minister: I think the worst‑case scenario under
this arrangement would be that Mr. Shenkarow is out trying to sell the team
somewhere else, to someone else, and the taxpayers are still on the hook
potentially until 1997 covering all the losses.
What we know from experience is that when teams are going to leave,
oftentimes sales and attendance go down, so the losses, one would assume, may
go up.
My question for the First Minister: Can he shed light on Mr. Shenkarow's current
plans? Is, in fact, Mr. Shenkarow going
to do that immediately, in which case we can all stop pursuing other people who
might be interested in investing? Is he
going to do that as of the June 30 deadline?
One might assume from his recent change of mind that he is going to hold
to that deadline.
What current information does the Premier have about the
intentions of the majority owners, if any?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken to Mr.
Shenkarow lately. That is a question
that would have to be asked of him.
* (1345)
Investment Inquiries
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
secondly, for the First Minister, has the province, outside of the Burns
committee‑‑and, of course, this is being handled, I recognize,
primarily out of the Industry, Trade and Tourism department.
Have there been any efforts made or any contacts that have
come in from other investors, local investors who might want the benefit of
that $32‑million option? Has that
been pursued by the government? Have any
specific increases been made by local investors in that regard?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): When such inquiries have come to us, we have
referred them to the Burns committee, Mr. Speaker.
Burns Committee
Report Tabling Request
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, for the
last week or so, I have been asking, as all members have, when this report
might come down. We now know about the
June 30 deadline. Yesterday, the First
Minister indicated that it would be not only prior to the end of the session,
but that it would be prior to the June 30 deadline.
Can the minister indicate what his current knowledge is as
to when we might have that report, because I think a lot of things flow from
that in terms of what public debate we might have and what options we might
have. Can the minister, today, tell us
when we are finally going to get that report?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Soon, Mr. Speaker.
Goods and Services Tax
Impact on Employment
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Finance.
Manitobans are becoming angry and frustrated at the failure
of the federal Liberal government to live up to its campaign promise to abolish
the GST. Manitobans do not want a change
of name of a regressive tax or a change that will be an even greater burden on
consumers. I note economists have
estimated that Ontario could lose as many as 74,000 jobs by 1997 if a value‑added
tax is implemented and harmonized with the provincial sales tax in that
province, since it will transfer the burden more from business to consumers,
resulting in lower sales and fewer jobs.
My question to the Minister of Finance is, has the minister
any estimate of potential job losses in Manitoba that would occur from these
proposals?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the
number being quoted from Ontario is from a report that I believe is as yet
unpublished by the Ontario Fair Tax Commission, and we are anxiously awaiting a
copy of that report to see the basis of their evaluation.
We have looked at the kinds of assumptions that are being
put forward as it relates to impact on jobs, and we share the concern that
there will, particularly in the short term, be a negative impact on jobs
because any pressure on consumer costs obviously affects consumer spending,
which can affect our overall economic growth and our economy, not only in
Manitoba but right across Canada.
The principle of an impact in the short term on jobs is one
that appears to be certainly legitimate.
The actual quantification is something I do not have a number for as of
yet, Mr. Speaker.
Food/Prescription Drugs
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, the report of the committee has
come out, so I would ask the minister if he has now received an analysis from
his staff of the impact of the proposed extension of the tax. This is one of the proposals of the tax, to
food and prescription drugs. In other
words, can the minister advise how much more the average Manitoban will pay, or
how much will the average Manitoba family pay if this extension of the federal sales
tax occurs?
The Leader of the official opposition yesterday mentioned
our estimate of $170 million or $680 per family, even at the 5.3 percent lower
rate, so I wonder if the minister can comment on that today.
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, that
certainly is something we will be quantifying.
To date, the detailed text is being couriered to us. We have not received it. We have the press release and some summary
documents.
We are very concerned about that issue. Not only is there the direct impact of
extending it to food and prescription drugs, but there is some concern around
the whole exemption level for municipalities, universities, schools and
hospitals which can drive cost to governments.
There are concerns about impact on people who derive other benefits from
government, whether it is our Pharmacare programs, our social welfare programs
and so on.
So there are many aspects of potential cost to consumers
and governments as a result of some of the potential changes being recommended
for this renamed GST.
* (1350)
Elimination
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): I thank the minister for that information,
Mr. Speaker.
There will be a meeting of Finance ministers in a matter of
a few weeks or a few days, and I wonder if the minister is prepared to advocate
at that meeting, at which many tax issues will be discussed, whether he is
prepared to advocate the total scrapping of the GST or the VAT or any kind of
national sales tax, as was promised by the federal Liberals during the last
election and as Canadians and Manitobans want.
They want that tax scrapped.
Will this minister go to Vancouver or wherever this meeting
is held and urge that any revenue loss be replaced with fairer tax measures
such as repealing business tax loopholes or taxing family trusts, that is, to
bring a measure of progressivity to our tax system?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as in
reply to the first question, I believe this report from the committee addresses
some 20 alternatives, I think. We will
be doing a detailed analysis of the entire report and will be doing an analysis
of the impact on Manitobans.
Obviously, we are very concerned about the impact on
Manitobans. We have taken the position
so far that we oppose harmonization. We
opposed harmonization when the GST was introduced, and, really, all we have
before us today with the information we have been provided is the GST with a
new name, plain and simple, with the discussion now revolving around
harmonization and expanding provincial sales taxes into books, children's
clothing, service industries and potentially expanding into food and
prescription drugs and medical supplies.
We have opposed that in the past. We continue to oppose that, because we see no
good and valid reason to support that.
We will be looking for all alternatives to find what we think is a fair
and equitable solution for taxpayers in Manitoba, and we are certainly more
than willing to share whatever information we put in place as we proceed with
what is going to be a very challenging issue.
Illegal Grain Exports
Impact on Canadian Wheat Board
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Mr. Speaker, we are aware that even though
the Canadian Wheat Board has a monopoly on exports of western Canadian wheat
and barley, there is an increasing amount, in fact thousands of tonnes of grain
being exported illegally into the United States. This is an undermining of the Canadian Wheat
Board, which is a very important institute for western grain farmers.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether his
department is monitoring this situation as to the impacts on Manitoba farmers
and whether he has communicated with the federal government on the importance
of maintaining the Wheat Board or, in fact, if possible, strengthening the
Wheat Board's monopoly.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the
honourable member will acknowledge, I am sure, that this is largely the
jurisdiction of the federal government and its agencies, the Wheat Board. It does, however, perhaps offer some
indication to us that individual farmers are making every effort to move grain
into market where perhaps failure of the system, that is the institutionalized
system, has been unable to do so.
I do not have to call to the honourable member's attention
that we had a very serious situation this last harvest year, where we had a
great deal of grain that the Wheat Board initially was unable to place a price
tag on. So I have some difficulty in
faulting individual farmers who have sought to market this grain on their own
initiative.
However, the member is right. There are regulations in place, and I am
aware, the department is aware, that the issue is being taken seriously by the responsible
officials, and it is currently being monitored.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister
is condoning this illegal action.
I want to ask the minister if he will not agree that we cannot
afford to have the reputation of the Canadian western grain farmers put at risk
by farmers who are passing the Wheat Board, selling feed wheat as seed wheat,
who are selling different varieties of barley as malting barley and ruining the
reputation of Canadian grain producers.
This cannot carry on.
Will he agree that this illegal action has to stop?
Mr. Enns: I suppose I am wondering which court on what
occasion has decided that something illegal has happened. We are not dealing with O.J. Simpson here or
something else.
I am prepared to let the responsible jurisdictions, namely
the Canadian Wheat Board, Canadian Grain Commission and the RCMP, pursue the
investigations that they are currently pursuing.
* (1355)
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, as far as I know, any wheat that is not
sold through the Wheat Board‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, since our reputation as grain
producers and exporters is based on our quality and quantity and our honesty,
and since our reputation is being ruined by people who are selling grain
illegally into the United States and bypassing the Wheat Board and not
following standards, destroying our reputation, will the minister take a strong
stand and defend the Wheat Board and support them in their attempts to have
these illegal actions ended?
We cannot afford to have the Wheat Board's‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I know it is in the interests of
not just the grain farmers involved, but indeed of all Manitobans that every
opportunity be examined and taken advantage of for the movement of the grain,
what helps our economy, period, and to that extent, I will transmit this
concern to the Wheat Board and to the grain farmers involved.
Maintenance Enforcement
Backlog
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Justice.
The family maintenance enforcement court is a critical tool
for getting delinquent parents to pay support to their families. Currently, though, the court is backlogged to
the extent that one must wait until well into the summer for a hearing. Meanwhile, families go without. Families are exposed to eviction and are
faced with poverty.
So my question to the minister is, how can she justify
closing the court for sittings on July 14, July 28, August 18, August 25,
August 29, and what will be the impact of these closures on the backlog?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
The member knows‑‑and I am sure we will be discussing this
when we get into Justice Estimates, I hope it will be today‑‑exactly
the plans we have in Maintenance Enforcement to deal with the workweek
reduction. I think he will find there is
a plan in place and that the hysteria he is attempting to incite will not be
the result.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister explain to mothers like
Maureen Nolin of Winnipeg and her family why after two weeks and six messages
left, the maintenance office will not tell Ms. Nolin the outcome of her ex's
maintenance enforcement hearing, and will the minister explain why her own
office has failed to tell her what happened, as it promised to do by yesterday?
Mrs. Vodrey: I hear the other side calling, shame. I say shame also for bringing an individual's
case in here. I have no idea I have
permission to speak about that individual's case and do not intend to drag that
individual's case into this Chamber.
However, Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the member before,
if there is an issue where I can be of assistance or my office can assist, then
please let me know. I am glad to look
into the matter.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Ms. Nolin was promised an answer by
Monday, Mr. Speaker, and single moms in Manitoba are so desperate that they
want these issues addressed in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, given the worsening
conditions in the family maintenance office, tell Manitobans where the government's
legislation is, given that in the throne speech of this session, the government
stated that it would be introducing further measures to compel delinquent
parents to honour their responsibilities?
Where is that legislation, Mr. Speaker?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed, over several
answers, exactly what this government has done in the area of family
maintenance and exactly how our record stacks up across the country. In fact, we have a very good record, but it
is not perfect, and we understand that.
We continue to attempt to make changes and add to the developments of
the family maintenance enforcement office.
I have explained in this Chamber before the increase in the
number of staff, the $50,000 put towards computers, the money put towards the
automated voice so that individuals can phone up and find out the status of
their maintenance account. We continue
to work across Canada with other jurisdictions and with the federal government
in the area of maintenance enforcement so that we can make sure we have the
best amount of co‑operation across the country.
I know we will have further opportunity to discuss this in
Estimates. I look forward to it. The maintenance office in this province, I know,
works very hard on behalf of Manitobans.
* (1400)
Gross Revenue Insurance Plan
Continuation
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Agriculture.
My question to the minister is about the success of the
GRIP program here in Manitoba, where the average payment in 1993 was
approximately $20,800 per farmer, while in Saskatchewan, it was only $2,465 per
farmer.
In light of the fact that there has been some discussion
going on regarding the safety net programs in Manitoba, such as the GRIP
program, can the minister give us and our farmers some assurance that the GRIP
program will continue here in Manitoba for the foreseeable future?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the honourable member for Gimli for that question.
I think as much as, I believe, that is a news story
emanating from Saskatchewan, it is a legitimate question that perhaps
demonstrates better than anything else I can say this government's continued
commitment to our farmers, just that plain and simple.
It is understood, I think, by all that we had extremely
adverse harvest conditions last harvest year.
Thanks to the program that was initiated by my colleague, the now‑Minister
of Transportation (Mr. Findlay), the program did precisely what it was designed
to do, to support our farm economy, namely our cereal grain growers in their
time of need.
Mr. Speaker, that answers better than I can the kind of
ongoing commitment that this government has to the farmers of Manitoba.
Mr. Helwer: Mr. Speaker, I just have a supplementary to
the same minister.
In light of the Saskatchewan government's lack of support
for agriculture in that province and the loss of jobs in agriculture, and
seeing as agriculture is such a major industry in Manitoba and a major employer
in Manitoba, and also it is a major factor in the preservation of family farms,
can the Minister of Agriculture give us some assurance that in the discussions
of the new safety nets, the GRIP program will continue for many, many years?
[interjection]
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, the honourable members of the
official opposition may comment, but the fact of the matter is, Saskatchewan
dropped the GRIP program and has no particular future to offer to their farmers
in the coming crop year.
We in Manitoba have opted to continue the GRIP program, and
that is the position that I will be taking to the ministerial conference the
first week of July, that the GRIP program continue to be a major portion, a major
plank in our safety net program for Manitoba farmers.
Child Support Tax Treatment
Manitoba Position
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): My question is for the Minister of Finance.
On May 7, a group of custodial parents met in this building
to share their experience with Manitoba's Maintenance Enforcement Program. We formed a working group to prepare our
position on the taxation of child support payments for presentation next Monday
to the Federal Task Group on Tax Treatment of Child Support.
My question for the Minister of Finance: Will the department or this government be
making a presentation to the task group on Manitoba's position on the tax
treatment of child support?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): No, Mr. Speaker,
this is purely an issue of federal jurisdiction.
Ms. McCormick: My supplementary question then to the
minister: Does Manitoba not have
something to contribute to this debate, and is there nothing that Manitoba
parents would benefit from its government's position on this matter?
Mr. Stefanson: There is a case, I believe, before the
Supreme Court at this particular point in time.
It is an issue that falls under federal jurisdiction, and they are
dealing with the issue.
Maintenance Enforcement
Government Initiatives
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): My final question for the Minister of
Justice: Has Manitoba examined recent
legislative initiatives in Alberta with respect to renewal of driver's licences
and other provincially controlled licences and permits, and can she report to
this House when and whether we can expect a similar get‑tough approach to
defaulters in Manitoba?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
The member raised this question in Estimates last night. It surprises me it is asked again today. It was answered in Estimates last
evening. She asked particularly, was
this considered by the advisory council, and the answer at that time was no, it
is not by the advisory council.
I also understand that the Liberal opposition in Alberta is
very strongly opposed to this, so I am very interested in the member's question
today.
Gasoline Pricing
Increase Justification
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): My question is to the Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs.
This morning, Esso and Shell stations across the city
raised their pump prices of gasoline from 51.9 cents to 54.9 cents, a 3‑cent
increase per litre.
Mr. Speaker, given that the price of a barrel of oil has
actually dropped over the past year, can the minister explain why these
increases are occurring at this time?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): This
matter came to my attention a couple of hours ago, that, in fact, one oil
company had increased their price very substantially.
Mr. Speaker, that causes me, it causes our government some
concern, and I have asked my staff to look into the matter to see what
rationale was being used for that, and then we will see what further action is
taken after that.
Mr. Maloway: Would the minister then take this opportunity
to call in the presidents of these oil companies and have them give an
explanation as to why these increases are occurring? Mr. Speaker, just turning it over to his department
for monitoring purposes is not what we need at this time.
Mr. Ernst: As I indicated in the response to the
member's first question, the matter is under investigation. I am not jumping to conclusions. I am not flying off the handle. We are going to investigate and find out what
the facts are, and then we will act.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, on December 28, the minister
indicated he was puzzled about gas price differences there, and he promised
that he would get back to us. He was
going to have a look at it and get back to us.
Well, that was six months ago, and we keep hearing things from this
government like this. We want
action. We want action now.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, while the member did not ask a
question the third time he stood, what I want to say, though, in response to his
little outburst is that we are going to deal with facts.
This is not a simple issue of bash the oil companies or
nationalize the oil companies, as members opposite would have happen from time
to time. We will deal with the
facts. Once the facts are known, then
further action will be contemplated.
Bingo Revenues
Decrease
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, volunteer community charitable
fundraising organizations provide the financial backing of many community
projects. They raise funds by operating
bingos and Nevada ticket sales. Monies
are donated to many needy projects, such as hospital foundations, cancer
research and treatment, assisting transplant patients, as well as funding a
multitude of activities for young people, such as cubs, scouts and sports.
I have here with me today, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the
quarterly report figures for the last four years for the Transcona Optimist
organization. My question is for the
Minister responsible for Lotteries.
Can the Minister of Lotteries explain why after 20
successful years of operation, including the last three years, pre‑Club
Regent, Mr. Speaker, where bingo revenues averaged $120,000 per year, why is
the Transcona Optimist bingo revenue lucky to hit $40,000 in revenue figures
this year from a high of $120,000 per year?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, overall over the past year in
the province of Manitoba, bingo revenues, pure bingo revenues, have increased
about 6.2 percent. Notwithstanding the
fact that bingo revenues have increased, the associated revenue from break‑open
tickets has decreased. The break‑open
ticket game, by and large, has reached maturity. It is on its decline.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell him exactly what has happened in
the 20 intervening years the member referred to. In 1974 in this country, there were 35,000
registered charities. Today, in 1994,
there are 70,000 registered charities.
There is substantially increased competition. The Lotteries Corporation makes no
distinction. Anyone who meets the
criteria applying for a bingo licence is entitled to a bingo licence. We do not restrict those licences.
So, with the doubling of nonprofit and charitable organizations
in this country, many of them‑‑most of them, as a matter of fact‑‑seeking
bingo opportunities, there is fierce competition for the bingo dollar out
there, and that is the primary reason why that club is in the situation it is
in.
* (1410)
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, there has been no increase in the
number of fundraising organizations within my community.
Can the Minister of Lotteries explain why, since June of
1993, all of the Transcona community volunteer fundraising organizations,
organizations such as the Knights of Columbus, the Kinsmen, the Optimists,
community clubs and others, have seen their bingo revenues drop anywhere from
25 to 66 percent?
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the individual
circumstances around each of these organizations nor if the facts the member
alleges are accurate. I can tell you
that there is significant increased competition with regard to bingos from
charitable organizations right across the province. Some are doing better than others. Some are doing significantly better than they
did in the past. Others are not doing as
well.
There is significantly increased competition as a result of
more and more licences being issued and as a result of competition for a
limited amount of dollars with respect to bingo play, and it happens to impact
on some organizations who may not market their product as well as others.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the quarterly report indicates
that the drop in revenue has only occurred since Club Regent opened in June of
1993.
My final supplementary for the same minister is, what steps
is this government prepared to take to assist the volunteer fundraising
organizations, like the Transcona Optimists, who are on the verge of closing
their doors after 25 years of community service?
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, the member alleges that the
opening of Club Regent has had an impact on the bingo players in his community.
Not more than a mile away, the Manitoba Lotteries
Corporation operated a similar facility for bingo for the last 25 years or 20
years on Nairn Avenue, about a mile or so, perhaps two miles, east of the
present location of Club Regent.
Interestingly enough, also, Club Regent property was
purchased in 1986 by that government.
The members sitting opposite were the ones who purchased that site for
future development of that particular facility.
Winnipeg School Division
Funding
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the Winnipeg School Division,
like many other school divisions in this province, has been particularly hard
hit by the government's cutbacks in education.
The Winnipeg No. 1 School Division has received a reduction in
provincial funding over the last two years of $8.5 million, which represents 7
percent of their budget, not the 4 percent or 4.5 percent that the government
announced, but 7 percent over those two years.
Can the Acting Minister of Education tell this House the
impact of the $8.5‑million cuts on the Winnipeg School Division over the
last two years that have been imposed by this government?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Acting Minister of Education and Training): I
am happy to take the details of that question as notice for the Minister of
Education. That member knows it is the
board which decides how the money is spent.
Special Needs Funding
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Well, this government is responsible for the
impact of their cuts on school divisions throughout this province.
In light of the huge proportion of special needs students
that are served in the Winnipeg School Division, I want to ask the Acting
Minister of Education how her government can justify these kinds of rollbacks
in provincial funding to the pre‑1990‑91 funding levels in Winnipeg
School Division No. 1 in light of the disproportionate share of special needs
students that are served in School Division No. 1.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Acting Minister of Education and Training):
The member knows very well that this government has maintained a very
strong commitment to special needs young people and that they have, as we have discussed
at other times, certainly had that commitment maintained.
I will take the details of the question for the Minister of
Education, but I think the member also should open his eyes and look at the
changes across Canada, look at what is being required of school boards. Hard decisions are having to be made
everywhere, Mr. Speaker.
Funding
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the
Deputy Premier.
I want to ask the Deputy Premier if he today can assure
this House and the people of Manitoba that the 2 percent cap that was imposed
on school divisions throughout this province, which restricted their ability to
respond to the needs of students in their school divisions, will not be
reimposed for the coming fiscal year in the province, so that school divisions,
if they are not going to get support from this government, can ensure that they
can provide those services through alternate funding methods.
Will this Deputy Premier now make that assurance to the
House?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): The question is being asked of the government
that removed all of the education taxes from farmland, Mr. Speaker, and we are
pleased to have been able to do so.
As far as the question is concerned, I will take it as
notice for the Minister of Education.
Spruce Woods Provincial Forest
Prairie Habitat
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, tall grass, mid‑grass and
short grass prairie are all endangered habitats needing protection in Manitoba.
Unfortunately, there has been an incident where there were
thousands of trees planted by children near the Spruce Woods Provincial Forest,
west of Carberry, and I want to ask the Minister responsible for Natural
Resources how this could occur? Why was
the prairie habitat not protected, and why is this happening at the same time
that the government has just issued its report on endangered spaces for
Manitoba?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I want to indicate to the House that I am very proud of the program we
have basically established in the protection of the tall grass prairie wherever
we have the opportunity.
I think every member is aware that we have had a concern
about the decrease of this, and the program within my department has been very
active. We have been buying up more land
and protecting more of the tall grass prairie than we have at any given time in
the history of this province. We are
very active with that.
Related to the specific question that she raised on the tree
planting, that area, I am getting a report on it and will report back.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
The Grey Nuns‑‑150th Anniversary
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for St. Boniface would
like to make a nonpolitical statement.
Leave? [agreed]
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure today to
honour the Grey Nuns who arrived here 150 years ago.
À une heure du matin, le 21 juin 1844,
après un voyage ardu de 59 jours, quatre canots accostent sur la berge de la
rivière Rouge devant la cathédrale de Saint‑Boniface. Quatre Soeurs grises en débarquent et elles
sont acceuillies par Mgr Joseph‑Norbert Provencher. Ce dernier voyait enfin la réalisation d'un
rève qu'il caressait depuis plusieurs années, soit d'avoir l'aide de
religieuses pour aider à l'éducation des filles et des femmes de la Rivière‑Rouge.
Ces quatre premières
religieuses, les soeurs Valade, Lagrave, Coutlée et Lafrance, se mirent
aussitôt à l'oeuvre et, malgré les épreuves, leur travail progressa.
Bien que l'enseignement ait
été leur premier mandat, les soins prodigués aux malades prennent bientôt une
large part de leurs travaux. En 1846,
une épidémie fait ses ravages parmi la poulation de la Rivière‑Rouge. Les Soeurs grises ferment alors les classes
pour se dévouer au soin des malades et à l'assistance des mourants. Un rapport des dix premières années, soit de
1844 à 1854, enregistre 6000 visites aux malades faites par les Soeurs.
L'Hôpital général de Saint‑Boniface
est le fruit du dévouement de ces femmes de foi et de dévouement. Le plus ancien hôpital de l'Ouest canadien
possède aujourd'hui une position enviable à l'échelle nationale.
Monsieur le president,
aujourd'hui, nous reconnaissons et nous célébrons le 150e
anniversaire de l'arrivée de ces pionnières à la Rivière‑Rouge. De modestes débuts leur oeuvre s'est répandue
à travers l'Ouest et le Grand Nord canadien et elles ont acquis, par leur
inlassable travail et leur persévérance, une renommée internationale. La population du Manitoba toute entière est
fière de ces femmes de vision et de courage.
Les Soeurs grises ont été
plus que des enseignantes et des gardes‑malades. Elles possédaient les qualités pionnières de
courage, de foi et d'espérance. Mais
elles ont été particulièrement admirables pour leur dévouement et leur grand
amour pour l'humanité. Les Soeurs grises
sont une tradition enracinée profondément dans notre histoire et leur grandes
réalisations ont contribué sans mesure à notre société.
Monsieur le président, en
qualité de député de Saint‑Boniface et fier descendant du peuple métis
qui fut parmi les premiers à profiter du dévouement de ces braves religieuses,
c'est pour moi un grand honneur de les saluer aujourd'hui et de les remercier. Bonne fête, bon 150e aux Soeurs
grises de Montréal. Merci beaucoup.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock in the morning on June 21,
1844, after an arduous voyage of 59 days, four canoes landed on the bank of the
Red River before the St. Boniface Cathedral.
Four Grey Nuns disembarked and were welcomed by Monseigneur Joseph
Norbert Provencher, who was at last witnessing the fulfillment of a dream that
he had cherished for several years, that of obtaining the assistance of nuns to
assist in educating the girls and women of the Red River Settlement. These first four nuns, Sisters Valade,
Lagrave, Coutlée and Lafrance undertook their tasks immediately, and in spite
of the difficulties their work progressed.
Although education was their primary mandate, providing
care to the sick soon became a major part of their work. In 1846, an epidemic ravaged the population
of Red River. At that time the Grey Nuns
closed their classrooms in order to devote themselves to tending the sick and
caring for the dying. A report on the
first 10 years from 1844 to 1854 records 6,000 visits made by the nuns to the
sick.
St. Boniface General Hospital is the result of the
dedication of these women of faith and devotion. This hospital, the oldest in western Canada,
occupies an enviable position today at the national level.
Mr. Speaker, today we are recognizing and celebrating the
150th anniversary of the arrival of these pioneers in the Red River
Settlement. From a modest beginning,
their work spread across the Canadian west and the far north, and their
tireless work and their perseverance have brought them international
recognition. The entire population of
Manitoba takes pride in these women of vision and courage.
The Grey Nuns were more than teachers and nurses. They possessed the pioneer virtues of
courage, faith and hope, but they were especially admirable for their devotion
and their great love for humanity. The
Grey Nuns represent a tradition that is deeply rooted in our history, and their
great achievements have contributed immeasurably to our society.
Mr. Speaker, as the member for St. Boniface and as a proud
descendent of the Metis people who were among the first to benefit from the
devotion of these courageous nuns, I am very honoured today to pay homage to
them and to thank them. Happy 150th
anniversary to the Grey Nuns of Montreal.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Health have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join with the
honourable member for St. Boniface in calling attention to the 150th
anniversary of the coming to Red River of the Grey Nuns under the leadership of
Mother Youville at that time.
Certainly, the history of Manitoba is not told without
telling of the history of the Grey Nuns and their service to the people of not
only what was then Red River but what is now Manitoba and west and north.
The story of the Grey Nuns should be, I suggest, something
that should be commended to every single person in western Canada because we
can only be as proud of our country to the extent that we understand its
history, and it is indeed rich when you consider that dimension of its history
which has to do with the Grey Nuns and the totally selfless service to the
communities in which they worked. In
Manitoba they included Red River, but they were as far flung as Ste. Rose and
off to northern Saskatchewan and into the Northwest Territories.
I think of Sister Lagrave‑‑I believe I am
pronouncing that right‑‑who was really the originator of home care
in this part of the world. I mean, we
talk about home care today as if it is something new. Basically, government got involved in the mid‑'70s,
but Sister Lagrave visited in the homes of people in those early days and can,
in my view, be called the mother of home care in this part of the world.
I just simply wish to call attention to the richness of our
society, thanks in no small measure to the contribution made by the Grey Nuns.
* (1420)
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Norbert
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry)
has filled in the historic value of the Grey Nuns to our province.
Mr. Speaker, the Grey Nuns not only were the founders of
the health care system in our province, but they worked within the educational
system within our province for many years. I remember the convent within St. Norbert
where most of my sisters attended school.
After we moved into the new school system, the Grey Nuns did move into
the schools with us. I still remember
Sister Ritchot and Soeur Gauthier, who I just happened to meet the other day at
the consecration of la chapelle du Sacré‑Coeur in St. Norbert. Even though she is five foot nothing and 79‑years‑old,
she is still full of spirit, and she could still box my ears as she did back in
Grade 1 in those days. I know that she
told me that she was looking forward to meeting me this Saturday. I asked her if she and Sister Gauthier were
there, if they could please not box my ears this time, I would appreciate it,
but I did grow up to be a little bit taller.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Kildonan have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I, too, join with all members in
the House in commemorating the Grey Nuns' 150 years of charitable, health,
spiritual, educational, all‑around community work undertaken by this
order for the past 150 years. It
certainly serves as a strong historical indication of co‑operation in the
spirit of faith in this province. I
certainly join, and our party joins with all members in commemorating this
order and the work that they have undertaken.
I want to make a comment, Mr. Speaker. I met a hospital administrator at one time,
and I was very impressed with his efficiency and very impressed with the way he
handled himself. I said, you know, you
are obviously well trained and well educated.
He said, well, I would have to be, I was trained by the Grey Nuns.
So I join with all members of the House in commemorating
this momentous occasion. Thank you.
Winnipeg General Strike‑‑Veterans
Parade
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Burrows have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave? [agreed]
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Seventy‑five years ago today, on June
21, 1919, World War I veterans organized a silent parade to demand an
explanation as to why the Winnipeg General Strike leaders had been
arrested. They called it a silent parade
in order to emphasize their agreement with the strikers' policy of nonviolence.
On the one hand, there were thousands of unarmed veterans,
strikers and their supporters. On the
other side were the North West Mounted Police on horseback, hundreds of special
constables armed with clubs and revolvers and General Ketchen's mobile militia
units with armoured car and machine guns mounted on trucks.
The mounted police made four charges through the parade and
on the fourth charge fired into the crowd.
Mike Sokolowiski was killed instantly near the intersection
of William and Main. Steve Sherbanevich died
of his gunshot wounds two days later, two days after Bloody Saturday. Dozens more were wounded by gunfire or were
beaten by the vigilantes organized by the Citizens' Committee of 1000.
Several days later the Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council
brought the strike to an official end.
Some historians consider the General Strike a failure in
that the immediate goals were not achieved.
However, the strike leaders had a large impact, particularly in the
political arena, and their names, A.A. Heap, J.S. Woodsworth and R.B. Russell
have been immortalized in the names of a museum, a school and civil service
buildings.
By contrast, very few of the names of the Citizens'
Committee of One Thousand have ever been revealed, as if they were ashamed of
the role they played in putting down the strike and on Bloody Saturday.
To mark the 75th Anniversary of Bloody Saturday, a wreath
will be laid at the corner of William and Main Street at 2:30 p.m. today.
Commonwealth Servicewomen‑‑Statue
Hon. James McCrae (Minister
of Health): I would like to seek leave to make a
nonpolitical statement.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Health have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave? [agreed]
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, honourable members, if they
drive down Memorial Boulevard, will see a statue of three women representing
the army, the navy and the air force, and the contribution of Commonwealth
women to the efforts of World War I and World War II.
This past weekend I had the pleasure on behalf of the government
of Manitoba to receive for safekeeping from the Women's Tri‑Service
Association the statue for the government to look after in perpetuity.
I was pleased and proud to do so on behalf of all
Manitobans, but I wanted to call attention to the efforts of Beryl Simpson and
Margaret MacDonald [phonetic] in seeing to it that that statue was raised a
number of years ago.
They fundraised so that that could happen. They secured the services of a sculptor for
that and have taken a very great interest to ensure that all Manitobans and all
Canadians are aware of the service made to the world by the women of the
Commonwealth who took part in those services.
In that regard, not everybody realizes it, Mr. Speaker, but
some 65 different kinds of endeavours were undertaken by the women of those
services during those wars. I just
wanted to call attention to that today to thank Beryl Simpson and Margaret
MacDonald [phonetic], and to assure them, on behalf of all of the members here,
that all governments present and future will do the best we can to ensure the
safekeeping of that statue.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if you would canvass the House to see if there is unanimous consent for the
sitting of Committee of Supply on Thursday morning of this week. Subrule 65.(9) would apply, that is, there
will be no formal votes taken.
Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed? Unanimous consent? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Would you again canvass the House, Mr.
Speaker, to determine if there is unanimous consent for the conduct of
Estimates today in Room 255, that is to say, the Estimates of Decentralization
and, upon completion of Estimates of Decentralization, the Estimates of the
Department of Government Services?
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave‑‑is it to bring
forward the department of Decentralization?
Yes. Okay. Is there leave? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, it is Decentralization, and then
on completion of Decentralization, we would deal with the Estimates of the
Department of Government Services.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave, therefore, for altering the
sequence so, upon completion of the Decentralization, that we would do Government
Services? That is agreed? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), 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 departments of Decentralization and Government Services; and the honourable
member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of
Justice.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
DECENTRALIZATION
The Acting Deputy Chairperson
(Mr. Reimer): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering
the Estimates of the department of Decentralization. Does the honourable minister of
Decentralization have any opening statements?
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Yes, I
do, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.
Good afternoon. It
is my pleasure to present the budget Estimates for this government's
Decentralization initiative, an initiative that gives Manitobans living in
rural or remote areas the services they deserve and expect from their
government.
This initiative is in the final stages of completing the
original commitment to decentralize public sector positions to communities in
rural Manitoba.
As of March 31,
1994, 642 positions representing more than 90 percent of the original
commitment of 693 positions have been relocated to rural Manitoba.
The Decentralization committee, along with officials from
government departments and Crown corporations, are continuing to pursue further
positions and programs that qualify for Decentralization to fulfill the
outstanding commitments.
The Decentralization initiative is a success in the 59
communities that have received public sector positions under the program but
more importantly to the Manitobans who rely on the services this government
provides.
Decentralization proves that many government programs can
be operated effectively and efficiently in rural and remote areas. It is our belief that a healthy rural economy
is necessary for Manitoba to prosper.
The Decentralization initiative gives Manitoba's rural economy a much
needed stimulus with the transfer of people and their payroll dollars to local
communities.
A number of significant benefits can be seen through
Decentralization. Rural economies have
been stimulated and strengthened.
Program delivery is more efficient through the restructuring and
reorganization of staff and expansion of computer technology and program
relocations and consolidations.
Government services in rural Manitoba are benefiting from increased
input and are now more sensitive and responsive to local conditions and
priorities.
Under the Decentralization initiative $25 million in direct
payroll has already been transferred to rural Manitoba. Even if only one‑half of the net take‑home
pay is spent in rural Manitoba, the economic spin‑offs would lever about
$3.5 million in additional service sector wages and create about 125 additional
jobs in rural Manitoba.
The Decentralization initiative has created opportunities
for builders and 3,300 weeks of work for local trades through the construction
of $8.7 million of new buildings.
Tentative improvements to existing buildings amounting to $3.8 million
were also completed mainly using local trades.
Future jobs will be available to rural Manitobans through
the normal turnover of staff in decentralization positions, giving the young
adults living in rural communities the chance to live and work where they grew
up.
I would like to mention an aspect this program offers you
will not find on any balance sheet that is concerned with only numbers. Of all the positions that have been
decentralized, 299 government employees chose to go with their jobs outside of
Winnipeg. This could represent 299
families that become part of a community, volunteer in a local organization,
meet new friends, possibly being reunited or closer with family, meanwhile
reaping the blessings of rural living.
While they are becoming valued additions to their own new city, town or
village they are likely doing their job better just by being there.
Now Manitobans can walk into their office and talk to a
person who will help them instead of waiting for their telephone call to be
returned.
The Decentralization initiative makes a lot of sense to our
government, but it makes much more sense to the Manitobans receiving their
services right in their own home communities.
The $100,000 requested for Appropriation 27.4 for the 1994‑95
fiscal year should cover the expenses necessary to complete the original
commitment for Decentralization.
Thank you very much.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): I thank the minister
of Decentralization for those comments.
Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for the
Interlake have any opening comments?
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Yes, indeed, the Decentralization program, as
the minister has indicated, is almost at the end of its mandate to take people
out into the rural area and vitalize the economy in certain rural areas. As I had made mention, I looked over my
comments from committee Estimates last year, and we had indicated to the
minister and I will indicate again that perhaps decentralization is something
that we should be looking at even more and perhaps somehow developing it
further so that the jobs that are yet to be fulfilled, we can expand on that.
The minister has indicated that in some of the communities
that have received decentralized jobs, it has vitalized and helped their areas,
but there are a lot of other communities that have lost some jobs either
through decentralization or centralization.
Others have lost some positions through attrition and through other
causes. So I would think, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, that the minister might perhaps want to look with his staff and
the Crown corporations and the other government services to in fact see if
there are communities‑‑and they are of course listed by jobs in the
areas that have received decentralized jobs.
I think that perhaps we could expand on that.
I think that we should not stop at 693 positions, as is
indicated in Decentralization. I think
there is room out there and positions in communities that will, in fact, do
well with some more jobs in certain departments. I can name Natural Resources for one,
Environment for another, Housing for another, Highways and Transportation. In rural communities, those are some of the
important departments that we have that are related to rural Manitoba, and I
feel that perhaps we should really seriously look at making that number 793,
for an example.
So I think that if the minister feels that the
Decentralization program was such a success, then perhaps we could start
looking at some of the have‑not communities, some of the communities that
are in need of extra positions that did receive some positions. Perhaps there are not enough in that area for
that certain department or that certain area.
So I would think, and I would want to say and put on record,
that I feel there are communities out there in rural Manitoba that could use
more positions, that could use positions in certain government services that
are vital to their area and, yes, stimulate the local economy. We should not centralize the decentralization
of the positions just in specific areas.
* (1440)
A comment made to me today, just today, is that there would
be a great, great need and there is a great need for environmental people to be
in the central and north Interlake area.
It came up rather as a shock to me that the thought out there in the
communities is there, and that was not from a local politician. It was just from someone who called me today
to express his views on certain other items.
So again, if we want to say that decentralization is a
success, I would say let us make it a success to the communities that we should
be looking at that could use the extra positions, could use the economic
benefit. Even if some of the communities
have received one or two positions, let us start looking at whether those
positions in those communities could not, well in fact, get other government
services in departments out in their areas that may be vital to the area and
improve the local economy even more.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Thank you. We thank the critic from the official
opposition for those remarks.
Does the critic from the second opposition, the honourable
member for Crescentwood, have any opening comments?
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I thank the
minister for his opening comments in regard to Decentralization.
When this program was first announced by this government a
number of years ago, although the concept of decentralization of government
services was appropriate, we certainly did not have a problem with and do not
have a problem with as a Liberal caucus.
Some of our concerns centered around some of the programs
that were suggested for decentralization, such as Vital Statistics, as an
example. Some of the other programs and
services, such as the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, which I think
was to be decentralized to Brandon, it certainly made some sense, and we
supported those kinds of initiatives.
I want to keep my opening comments brief because I am
interested in getting into the question areas and having an opportunity to
follow up on some of the minister's statements in his opening remarks.
He talks about evaluation and balance sheets and the
success of decentralization, so I will be interested in hearing a bit more
detail in regard to how does one determine the success and really asking for
some evaluation of the programs.
With that, I would like to leave the comments short and
look forward to a healthy discussion and debate about, not only the
decentralized program as we have seen it to date, but any future plans that
this government has in regard to a further decentralization of government
services.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): I thank the
opposition critic for those remarks.
At this time we invite the minister's staff to join us at
the table, and when they have joined us, we will ask the minister to introduce
his staff.
We will be on page 151 of the Estimates book.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have with me
this afternoon Deputy Minister Winston Hodgins, also Robin Hall, from the
Decentralization unit, and also Mr. Barry Thornson who has joined our staff in
completing the decentralization initiative and the preparation of the audit of
the annual report.
Ms. Gray: I am wondering if the minister could begin by
telling us‑‑he referred to some successes of the program in regard
to the efficient program delivery and stimulation of local economy. I am wondering if the minister has an evaluation
or any written evaluation in terms of the evidence that has showed the positive
value of the decentralization program in the rural communities.
Mr. Derkach: There are actually two areas in the two
documents that the member may have, one in the annual report. If you go, if you were to turn to Appendix A‑‑do
you have a copy of that? This is a
summary of comments from various program managers with respect to relocations
under the Decentralization initiative.
Basically, it talks about some of the observations as they have been
seen by the various program managers, and it goes through just a few examples,
using Winkler, Brandon, Carberry, Brandon again, Carman and Russell. Then if we turn in the Supplementary
Information to page 12, basically a summary of economic benefits in rural
Manitoba which I guess summarizes some of the things that I referred to in my
comments.
On page 13 of the annual report there is an expansion of
the summary I referred to in the Supplementary Information of economic benefits
as they have been reviewed and summarized.
I can go through each of those, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, but in general what we have found from visiting the
Decentralization initiatives throughout rural Manitoba are several things: One, first of all, that there is an economic
benefit to the community. That does not
have to be restated, but I do believe that no matter which community you visit,
you will find that there is indeed an economic benefit to the community by
having, first of all, government positions there, the presence of government in
a community and also that service that can be accessed by the local area.
The next benefit, of course, is to the jobs that have been
created in those areas, whether they are jobs that have been moved from the
city of Winnipeg or Brandon, or whether they are jobs that have been added or
new jobs for members in the community, there certainly has been a benefit in
terms of the economy in that respect.
Another benefit, I think is‑‑from the anecdotes
that we have received from various departments‑‑it is obvious that
some of the units are operating with fewer staff than they had when they were
in the city of Winnipeg and are doing probably expanded work. I refer to two specific ones, one in Winkler
and the one in the community of Russell, where we have actually decreased or
not expanded the number of staff, but the functions that are being performed in
many cases have been expanded. Those are
just, by example, some of the benefits that we see.
I could go to Dauphin and tell you that the
Decentralization initiative that went to Dauphin from Education, being the
Native Education branch has proven to be extremely successful in that the staff
there are closer to their clients, and also it seems that we can address issues
much more adequately because there is a closer working relationship with the
clients of that particular branch.
* (1450)
I have personally talked to many people who have been
decentralized to various offices and my first question to them is, how do you
like living in rural Manitoba? I can
tell you that I have not heard any negative comments about living in rural
Manitoba. I do know of one case where a
single parent did come back to the city when her children moved on to
university so she could be closer to a university setting. I know of another one who asked for a
transfer back to Winnipeg because her husband got permanent employment in the
city and they were expecting a family so they wanted to be together. We tried to accommodate that as best we
could. Basically, there is a very good
attitude about rural Manitoba.
In addition, I believe there was a survey done with respect
to civil servants who might want to move to Manitoba, and it is my
understanding that in excess of 200 respondents were very positive about moving
to a rural setting.
Ms. Gray: The minister has referenced two examples in
Winkler and Russell where the organization is able to operate with less
staff. Can the minister tell us why? I am asking that question because is it
related to improved technology within the department or does it have something
to do with Winkler or Russell?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think there
are several things that happen. When you
move an office, when you move a complete unit like that, it gives any
department the opportunity to perhaps reorganize an office in the way it is
run. It also gave an opportunity for
those offices to upgrade their technology.
I think that is a very major factor.
The other thing‑‑I think it is not quantifiable
but certainly is there‑‑is that when you have people from a local
area working in an office I think there is a desire to make it successful. I know from some of the comments that have
been made to me, the work ethic has certainly been excellent in rural Manitoba,
not that it was poor in Winnipeg, but I think there was a desire to make the
initiative a success in those local communities. I think that has added to how those offices
are functioning.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this may be in
the annual report or the Estimates, but does the minister have the numbers as
to‑‑he has indicated how many positions. I think there is an indication of how many
staff have actually been decentralized to rural Manitoba. In terms of overall government staff years,
is there a net increase or a net decrease to positions outside of the city of
Winnipeg?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is a
question I cannot answer specifically. We
do not have those numbers right now in terms of net gain or loss. I am confident it is a net gain, but if you
ask me how many, I could not answer that question. We would have to go back to all of the
departments and see which positions were cut from their budgets, where they
were located, and then we would have to do the same with the Crown
corporations. We do not have that
information.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I thought that
the minister might have had that information, being part of cabinet, that there
might have been some total figures or numbers in terms of with some of the
changes and reductions in staff years what the impact was on rural Manitoba
with that.
I would also ask the minister, the Vital Statistics branch
or section, there was some discussion about whether that should be moved or
not. I think it is still in the city of
Winnipeg. Can the minister give us an
update? Was there a final decision made
on that operation staying in Winnipeg, and what were the reasons for that?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there has been
a decision made on Vital Statistics.
Vital Statistics will not be relocating.
They have been moved to a Special Operating Agency status, and also the
Vital Statistics branch itself has moved to the Department of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs. At this time I would
say that the branch or the Special Operating Agency will stay in Winnipeg.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not sure
of how many phases we have gone through with Decentralization‑‑one
phase. Is there a future phase in regard
to looking at the various departments and sections and branches and looking at
potential further Decentralization initiatives?
I ask that given that even a few years later I would hope or think that
our technology at the workplace has even improved over the last couple of years
within the departments, and that, in fact, there may be potentials for other
services and programs, or not even necessarily direct services, but other
branches that provide planning and evaluation of which they are scattered
throughout the 25 or 26 departments. Is
there any plan to look at a Phase II?
Mr. Derkach: Rather than a Phase II, I think what we want
to do as a government is fulfill our obligations as we enunciated them back in
1990 and then continue the process of examining departments on a continuing
basis, and finding sections of departments or branches of departments or units
within departments that can effectively be decentralized to rural communities.
Also, I believe that we need to look at how we can
reorganize some of our departments so that we can become much more efficient,
and in doing that sometimes it allows us the opportunity to decentralize units
as well.
So it is not going to be necessarily what you might term
another phase or a stage, rather an ongoing process that would be undertaken,
and a commitment made to ensure that we actively find positions for rural
communities where we can.
Basically that is where we are at right now. As a matter of fact, in completing the
Decentralization initiative, we are examining departments and finding where it
makes sense to decentralize. It does not
necessarily have to be out of the city of Winnipeg. It could be out of the city of Brandon, for
that matter, to local communities where it makes some sense.
In that way, I know there was a question in the House about
positions being decentralized to Birtle, which as Decentralization minister I
was not even aware that that move had already been made, because that is just
part of a department's reorganization, and perhaps trying to serve a particular
area better.
Now, we are involved in decentralization in that we work
with departments to try and identify positions, but in the end we leave it
basically up to a department and a community to decide where best that service
can be offered from.
So I think that is the process that we are going to embark
on following our fulfillment of the commitments that were made in 1990.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the
minister just elaborate as to what is the specific process that his staff are
using to ensure that the departments are looking within themselves to determine
if there is any potential for reorganization/decentralization?
Mr. Derkach: Our Decentralization unit, which is very
small, as you can see, do identify potential candidates for decentralization,
and when those are identified, we then enter into discussions with the
departments.
Then we are, of course, given an argument whether a
particular initiative can or cannot be decentralized. Indeed, it becomes a bit of a negotiation
situation.
In many cases, we learn why a department cannot
decentralize, and then we also help departments in making the decentralization,
if it is possible, a reality in terms of analyzing what the costs of it are,
how it could benefit more Manitobans by decentralizing, and showing departments
how you can actually, through example, for that matter, conduct the activity of
a particular branch from outside of the city of Winnipeg and do it as
efficiently and effectively as you can within the city.
It is a long process, and that is what our unit has been
charged with.
* (1500)
Ms. Gray: Have any communities actually approached the
minister or his staff to make suggestions about here is an opportunity where we
feel that we could provide as a community a particular branch or part of an
operation of government? Have any communities
approached the minister or his staff?
Mr. Derkach: Yes, they certainly have. One of the prime candidates, or some of the
prime candidates for that kind of discussion emerged in the Departments of
Natural Resources, Agriculture, Environment, Rural Development, and communities
certainly ask us, for example, for economic development officers, for the
presence of an I, T and T officer in a community, for the presence of a
community services worker. Those kinds
of things happen on an ongoing basis. We
try to respond as best we can to those kinds of requests. We try to do an evaluation to see whether or
not that recommendation is feasible at all.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell me sort of the roles
and responsibilities of the three staff?
What basically is involved in their job, or is it written somewhere in
these Estimates?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, as the member
knows, the Decentralization unit was a special unit that was put together for
the Decentralization Initiative. The
then‑director, Mr. Sid Reimer, was an individual who reported directly to
the minister.
When I came into the Department of Rural Development and
assumed the responsibility for Decentralization, we left the unit intact,
however, reporting through the deputy minister to me. Since the departure of Mr. Sid Reimer, we
have asked Mr. Barry Thornson to come on staff to assist us with
decentralization. He did that initially
by assisting us in the annual report.
We continue to use his services to help us with the
existing numbers because this is a task that cannot be done by one
individual. Although Mr. Robin Hall has
done tremendous work in Decentralization, as can be evidenced by the number of
positions that have been decentralized throughout Manitoba, he does need some
assistance in dealing with departments and negotiating positions and then also
dealing with Government Services to make sure that the space is there, dealing
with communities. So it is a fairly
involved task.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I was glad to
hear in one of the answers a few minutes ago that the minister talked about
looking at improvements to how we deliver government services and being more
efficient. I recall asking a similar
question in the Department of Education and Training this year, and the Minister
of Education indicated that he thought government was fairly efficient. I was a little surprised to hear that from a
former Minister of Finance because I think we have a long way to go in terms of
making government efficient.
Is there a role at all in terms of the Minister responsible
for Decentralization actually looking at efficiencies of some departments and
looking at high tech in terms of even looking at pilot projects to perhaps look
at staff moving out into rural areas?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is not a
specific task that has been mandated to the Decentralization unit, but I can
tell you that when we deal with many departments, because of sort of the
approach that is taken in terms of sort of stepping back and looking at how
departments operate, the unit can identify where certain functions can be
better managed or better delivered through amalgamations and through, perhaps,
technology. Those recommendations are
certainly fed up through the system.
Specifically in terms of how a particular department can be
reorganized and that sort of thing, that is not a function of our
department. It is more a function of the
central treasury and policy makers in government.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): I was not here for the minister's opening
comments or other comments‑‑
Mr. Derkach: I will read it again.
Ms. Wowchuk: No thank you.
You may take my opportunity to ask questions away if you read your
comments, but I have a few questions that I would like to ask regarding
decentralization. Some of them may go
back to the minister's opening comments, so I hope you will bear with me.
I guess what I want to ask about is that the process is now
a couple of years old, has an analysis been done by any department or by this
department as to the impacts? I asked
the question in Agriculture of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) if there
was an analysis done and what the difference in costs were; whether there were
cost savings to the department; whether there was an increase in cost; whether
it resulted in greater efficiencies in the department. Of course, we know that this brings service
closer to the people, and that is the objective of the whole process.
There is a possibility that there could be increased
costs. That is not necessarily a
negative, but what I am looking for is, who has done an analysis of the
process, and what would the minister's view be of it as related to cost and
those types of things? We talk about
being in a time of restraint, so I am wondering whether anybody has looked at
what the end result has been of the process up to this point.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that question
was also asked by the Liberal critic with respect to savings and that sort of
thing. I would like to point out in the
annual report on page 10 that there is a recap that has been done as to the
status of the Decentralization initiatives.
This was carried out by Mr. Thornson whom we asked to give us a hand
after the Auditor's comments with respect to Decentralization and the fact that
we should put an annual report together.
He did a fairly in‑depth analysis of the status of
decentralization and where we have been; what the operating costs and that sort
of thing are in relation to what they would have been had these positions been
in the city. On page 10 of the annual
report, you will find that halfway down the page there is a figure that speaks
to the savings in operating costs, which is $527,000.
In addition to that, when you look at the accommodation
cost comparison, you will note that there is a saving there of $171,000 on an
annual basis. Beyond that, we had
mentioned some of the analyses that were done and the economic benefits that
were accrued to Manitobans. If you look
at page 12 of the Estimates supplement, it does give you a summary of economic
benefits that have come to us as Manitobans.
Also, at the back, Appendix "A" of the annual report, it gives
you a sample of comments that have been put together for various program managers
about various initiatives throughout Manitoba.
* (1510)
So that basically gives you a flavour of some of the
impacts of decentralization. There are
also impacts that cannot be measured, and those, I guess, we would have to gain
by going out and speaking to those who are employed in rural communities and
what benefits they have found in working in rural Manitoba. We have some of those.
Also, I think we can take some comfort in that‑‑I
previously said that there was a survey taken in Manitoba of civil servants,
and the question basically was, if, for example, you had the opportunity to
relocate in rural Manitoba, would you be prepared to relocate?
Approximately 250 employees have volunteered for relocation
from Winnipeg to rural Manitoba under the decentralization initiative. That number far exceeds the 174 employees who
chose not to relocate with their positions.
So it seems to me that there is a will for people who are
working in departments now to relocate to rural Manitoba. So I think the overall impact has been a very
positive one.
Of all the employees who were relocated to rural Manitoba,
I think we had one, or have one, on a list whom we have not been able to place,
and that is out of 640‑some positions.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister said that there were 200‑and‑some
people who responded positively when asked if they would relocate to rural
Manitoba. How many people were surveyed?
Mr. Derkach: I believe this was sent out to the entire
workforce of the Civil Service Commission, if I am not mistaken. The whole Civil Service received the request.
Ms. Wowchuk: When you look at the whole Civil Service
Commission, if that is the response, it is probably not that high, but I am
pleased to see that there are people within the Civil Service Commission who
recognize that we in rural Manitoba do enjoy a certain quality of life that is,
in our opinion, quite good. But we do
need services there.
I am pleased that there are some civil servants who are
willing to take that move, although I would have hoped that in those numbers it
would have been higher. I do not know
where the government is going, but certainly I believe there must be some
discussion on whether there are other departments that can be moved, and
certainly there are departments right now that have no connection to the city,
that serve only rural Manitoba. So I
would hope that that number would be a little higher, and if there are other
plans to further decentralize, that the civil servants would be willing to go.
I guess that leads to my next question. Is the government looking at further
decentralization, and if it is, which departments are being considered at the
present time?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, just in
response to the first part of the member's question, the 250 whom I referred to
were in addition to the 299 employees who chose to relocate from Winnipeg. So if you add those two figures up, that
gives you a number in excess of 500.
The question that the member poses was also one that was
posed by the Liberal critic, and I have to say again that decentralization is
an ongoing thing now, where we will be re‑examining positions and
departments that could be good candidates for decentralization. That will be done on an ongoing basis, rather
than saying, this is the end of Phase I and now we enter into Phase II.
What we try to do is match a Decentralization unit with
services that are needed in rural Manitoba or could be offered from anywhere in
rural Manitoba. We take into account the
cost of relocation, the cost of operation, and we try to ensure that there is
some reasonable, if you like, cost benefit or benefit to service to rural
Manitobans.
Ms. Wowchuk: I have two questions, but first of all, the
minister said, from anywhere in rural Manitoba.
Of the positions, and I am sure he has answered this question before,
that were decentralized, the 642, how many of those positions came from
Winnipeg and how many were just moved around rural Manitoba?
Mr. Derkach: The 642 positions were all from Winnipeg.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess the reason I asked that question, I
am thinking about the positions of Crown Lands positions. There were Crown Lands positions in‑‑people
who were working in Dauphin, I believe, who ended up working in Neepawa now. That is why I was asking the question. Was it a matter of moving some people within
the province?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there are
several examples of that, where positions in one part of the province have been
move to another part of the province. We
do not credit Decentralization with that.
That is basically a departmental internal move, with one exception, I
have to say. There are some positions
that we have targeted for Decentralization from, for example, the city of Brandon,
where it makes sense to decentralize from Brandon to rural communities, and I
refer to Mental Health Services and also to Family Services. Those services can be offered better in
regional areas. The Decentralization
unit is identified as being able to provide services better in regional areas
by decentralizing from an area where there is a large number. If you are talking about positions moving
from one community in rural Manitoba to another, that is not Decentralization. That is simply an internal move of the
department.
Ms. Wowchuk: I thank the minister for that clarification
because it was the understanding that I had that those were in the total
numbers. For example, there were Housing
jobs in Swan River that went to Roblin and then the Crown Lands jobs from
Dauphin to the Minnedosa area. It was my
understanding that those were within the Decentralization numbers, and I did
not think that those should be credited to Decentralization because they are
not moving from urban centres to rural Manitoba. So that was the question. But if the minister says those are outside
those numbers then my question is answered.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, when you have
a reorganization of a major department like Housing, where we had all of those
little units all over the province, the department was reorganized into
units. There were some additions to
jobs. There were new jobs created and
there was also a consolidation of jobs.
Now, in those instances I would have to admit that probably
if there was a position moved from somewhere, I do not know where it might have
been, and the member used Swan River to Roblin, I would think that that would
have been used in addition to the Decentralization initiative. I can certainly check that out and give her
the precise answer on that.
* (1520)
Ms. Wowchuk: If we could have that information I would
appreciate it.
On another topic, it is my understanding that with the
proposed OSB plant in Swan River there is going to be need for more forestry officers
there to do the work. There is going to
be need for someone from the Environment department to be stationed in the
community. Is the Decentralization
Committee giving any consideration, and does the minister have any indication
as to the prospects of that, of additional jobs being moved into the Swan River
area?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not aware
that there is a greater need for natural resource officers, forestry officers
in the Swan River Valley at this time or in that whole Parkland Region. Louisiana‑Pacific is not a reality at
this time. We are just in the process of
environmental hearings, and if I can encourage the member to support the
initiative, certainly it may become a reality even sooner.
However, if in fact there is a request to enlarge the staff
at the Forestry Branch, we certainly want to see that the staff are increased
so that they are moved to rural Manitoba rather than increased within the city
limits.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated that if there was a
request, who would that request have to come from? Would it have to come from the people of the
area, or is it going to have to be a request from the department saying we need
additional staff in this area? I am
asking this because my understanding from talking to people on town council is
that there has been some commitment by government to put additional staff in
there within the Forestry department, and that is why I am asking whether this
group is giving any consideration to filling those positions.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that request
would have to come from the department itself because they would know what the
situation is and what their staff requirement is. I do not know what the staff complement is in
Natural Resources in the Forestry Branch in the Swan River area, but if there
is a need for more staff and that request or that initiative is undertaken by
the department, our unit, Decentralization unit, will certainly ensure that
those are going to be located outside the city and preferably in that cutting
area rather than here in Winnipeg.
Ms. Wowchuk: Moving on to another area. In the community of Dauphin, there was a
commitment made in the original proposal for decentralization to move the Vital
Statistics branch to Dauphin. To date
that has not happened and there is, of course, disappointment on the part of
the people in that community because they had anticipated that they would have
additional jobs where, in fact, they have lost jobs in the area. So how is the Decentralization Committee
looking at that, and are there plans to address that commitment made by this
government?
Mr. Derkach: Yes, there was a commitment made to Dauphin
under the Decentralization initiative, and I have not abandoned that initiative
yet, although, as I have indicated to the radio station there, we will not be
moving Vital Statistics. So I am looking
for another candidate, and I think there has been one that has been found that
will yield somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 positions. I am not in a position to make that
announcement now, nor can I give you any more detail on it, but I can tell you
that we are in fact happy that we have been able to find an initiative that
will yield about 20 positions in the Dauphin area.
I respect the fact that there have been changes in
government which have taken civil servants out of communities. That has happened throughout rural Manitoba,
not specifically in Dauphin alone.
Dauphin did have one of the highest per capita civil servant complements
in the province of Manitoba, so therefore there would be an impact there that
would be felt much more than in maybe some other locations.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
That is not to say that we are abandoning the community of
Dauphin in any way, shape or form. It is
an important centre in the Parkland area.
We want to ensure that there is a presence there of government employees
and service providers. It is for that
reason that when I was Minister of Education, I endeavoured to move the northern
and native education component into the Dauphin area. So we continue to work at it, and hopefully,
soon, we will be in a position where we can make some sort of an announcement
in that respect.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you very much, and we look forward to
that announcement. I am sure that the
people of Dauphin also will be waiting to hear about that long‑awaited
announcement for their community. I am
pleased that the minister does recognize that although Dauphin did have a high
number of civil servants there, Dauphin is a regional centre and serves a very
large area, and if you look at the surrounding areas, there are many
communities that are serviced by Dauphin that have no civil servants. So I do not think you can just say that there
is an overabundance of civil servants in the area. They do serve a very large area.
I also hope that the minister and this initiative will take
into consideration the other regions, and one of the areas I have a concern with
is the Department of Natural Resources and the number of positions that have
been eliminated in the Department of Natural Resources and, as a result,
reduced the quality of services and the ability to enforce the law in some
cases, the ability to provide services to our tourists. I hope that this group of people will look at
this as one of the areas where there is a possibility of moving some of the
staff. If the department is not going to
increase the staff, then look at the possibility of moving staff from the
department closer to the people that are using the resources. I again refer to the forestry industry which
is in my area and, as I had mentioned, law enforcement, game wardens and those
types of things. There is a need, so I
hope the department will give some consideration to the Natural Resources
department when they are looking at further initiatives.
Mr. Derkach: I cannot answer for the Department of Natural
Resources. Yes, there has been an impact
on departments like the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of
Rural Development, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Environment
probably, although I am not certain about the Department of Environment, but
there have been impacts on those smaller departments as a result of us
preserving positions and services in the Departments of Health, Family
Services, and Education.
So, yes, we have taken our toll. I look at the Department of Government
Services, and I know that in his department there have been significant
amendments or changes made over the years because, again, that is a department,
together with these others, that was reduced more severely to try and ensure
that the services in the three big departments would be maintained, our
priority areas.
But I can tell you that we are looking at positions in the
City of Brandon, for example, and how perhaps some positions from there might
better be delivered from communities outside of that area as well. So it is not just positions in Winnipeg. We are now looking at Winnipeg, Brandon and
seeing how we can move positions to smaller communities out of these
centres. If there is in fact greater
number of staff that is going to be awarded to the Department of Natural
Resources, I can tell you that my decentralization unit will be watching with
interest and will certainly be taking a proactive stand in making sure that
these positions are in rural Manitoba. [interjection]
Ms. Wowchuk: It is my fault. He has given me the floor. I have a couple of more questions, and then I
will let it go to the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), but I have two
more things.
* (1530)
An Honourable Member: I will not have any more questions left.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated that there is a major
announcement he is anticipating for Dauphin.
Are there any other announcements of substantial amount that the
minister anticipates will be made with regard to decentralization in the near
future?
Mr. Derkach: Absolutely.
I think the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) made an
announcement for me the other day that caught me by surprise. I was not particularly aware that had already
taken place, but nevertheless there are announcements, yes, that will be made
in the near future.
We have already made our commitment to Souris, and that is
one that you know about. It has been
outstanding for a long time. After four
years, we have finally been able to, I guess, reconfigure how textbooks are
going to be delivered in rural Manitoba, and the commitment to Souris is
certainly being fulfilled.
There are others, yes.
There is, just off the top of my head, I can think of Dauphin, I can
think of Emerson that we have not fulfilled yet, and I am sure there are
others.
Ms. Wowchuk: This is my last question.
When I look at the report here, the report indicates the
decrease in cost of accommodations. Has
a comparison been done on other costs such as telephone costs and other
things? It may be in the report, but I
have not had the chance to read through it.
What I am looking for is, has there been a shift in costs to departments
resulting in increased transportation? I
would not think the transportation would increase, but what has happened with
communication costs, telephones and things like that?
Mr. Derkach: I think it goes without saying, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, that there will be some increased costs; however, what we do is we
look at the overall impact in terms of increases or decreases in costs.
One of the other things that we have to remember is every time
you move staff to rural Manitoba, there will be some costs in travel because
services then are going to be much more available than they have been in the
past. The service was usually by
telephone in the past. Now it is, for
example, environmental officers visiting sites, contamination sites perhaps or
sites that have problems, whereas before they were not done on that frequent a
basis.
On page 22 of the annual report there is a breakdown of
increases and decreases of costs. If you
look at the chart, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you will find that travel is up
$112,000, telephone is up $78,000. The
cost of computers‑‑now this could be somewhat inaccurate because
you know I am sure that there were new computers added and more computers
added, so that is up $19,900. Postage,
Equipment Rental and Miscellaneous Expenses are up $46,800.
If you look at the decreases: Accommodation, for example, is $171,000 of
decreases; Salaries, a $300,000 decrease; the legal work that has to be done is
$144,700; and in Winkler specifically the marking of exams and tests has
decreased by $168,500; so the overall Net Decrease is $527,500, which I think
is fairly significant and certainly something that cannot be ignored.
We were not looking for this saving when we embarked on
decentralization. I think all of us were
aware that there would be some increased costs, but we needed to make sure that
services were available to rural Manitobans.
So in our best estimate we set aside $10 million, and to date, we
certainly have not accessed near, not even half of, what was allotted at the
time. So I think it has been a pretty
effective and pretty positive endeavour.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for the Interlake (Mr.
Clif Evans) to fill in the blanks left open by the honourable member for Swan
River (Ms. Wowchuk).
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know what to
say. I am just going to make a few
comments and I have a few local questions.
I guess my being co‑operative with my other colleagues has created
all the answers that I could possibly‑‑maybe they should have just
written their questions down and given it to me, so I could have got in on
this.
An Honourable Member: Well, just fill in the blanks, Clif.
An Honourable Member: I feel like he got the leftovers.
Mr. Clif Evans: I have just a few questions now, if I
may. Getting back to the original
decentralization format as such when it was announced and began, what I was
getting from the minister's answers to all the wonderful questions before was
that it is structured now differently than what it was some years ago. At one point, there was a committee in charge‑‑maybe
not in charge of decentralization, but a committee that was responsible for the
organization of the decentralization. Am
I correct in that?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Decentralization
unit has really not changed, except for the fact that Mr. Reimer has retired
and we have asked Mr. Thornson to help us.
However, there was a committee‑‑it was an informal committee,
if you like‑‑of ministers who worked with the Decentralization unit
in the beginning.
Once it was up and running, that informal committee
structure did not have a need to meet again because the minister and the unit
then embarked on the implementation of the program. But, in the initial stages, to put the
program together, there were several ministers who assisted in doing that.
Mr. Clif Evans: Is there still any sort of committee that
helps out with the Decentralization unit?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I should have
indicated perhaps earlier, but I thought it was understood, that within the
Decentralization Initiative there is an involvement of other departments. One of those is Government Services, which
does provide the space for us, and the other one is Executive Council, which
has a fairly important role to play in terms of the overall initiative. When there is a need, that group of
departments meets with the Decentralization unit to go over the space required,
a continuing process; indeed, Treasury Board is involved in that as well.
Mr. Clif Evans: So basically now and with the positions that
we still have to fill, according to the minister, then really when it comes to
decentralization of any type of a position, would I be correct in assuming that
why go to the Minister of Decentralization with a request to decentralize a
position when if there is a need or a request they would have to go‑‑let
us say a municipality would want a position or two made available for it in
Highways in an area. Why, then, would
they approach the Decentralization unit for this when in fact the Highways
department, the Highways minister or Executive Council has to make that
decision whether indeed somebody should be going or could be going?
Mr. Derkach: The reason for the Decentralization unit
being involved is to give an overall co‑ordinated approach to how we
utilize staff in rural Manitoba, where we can share space perhaps in rural
Manitoba, where services are needed perhaps, where there is a commitment to
decentralization and where that commitment could be fulfilled by staffpersons
from any particular department moving to that region.
Basically, our role is to identify, first of all, positions
within departments that could be candidates for decentralization and then to
match those up with the communities that have been given the nod, so to speak,
for candidates, for receiving decentralized positions. So by example, if we had committed positions
to Dauphin, it is unlikely that departments on their own would see this as a
priority in their workings, their day‑to‑day workings.
So the initiative would probably die if you did not have
somebody co‑ordinating it and driving it.
For that reason, you have the co‑ordination unit that knows that
there has been a commitment made to Dauphin and is continually working with
departments to identify the units or positions that can be decentralized to
that location.
* (1540)
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, but again then, all
this in which you talk about commitment to community and identifying and the
Decentralization unit co‑ordinating all this and identifying, this is all
still going back to the original‑‑the minister said earlier this is
the one and only phase of decentralization.
Whether it has moved along smoothly or not over the past four years is
another matter. The fact then is, these
are, as he talks about, just commitments to certain communities to identify
whether they in fact qualify for any kind of decentralized positions.
But let us not talk, and as I made mention in my opening
statement, let us not just talk of the 40‑some‑odd positions that
are left, that the minister has indicated there is still commitment to
communities which you will be making announcements. After these 40‑odd positions or the
commitments to these communities as he says are fulfilled, what is the next
step?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the next step is to
continue on with the co‑ordination of moving positions to rural Manitoba
where it makes sense, first of all, where you can build a business case or
where you can provide a service that is needed by Manitobans closer to that
region or within that region.
We have done, I think, a fairly admirable job in moving
positions to rural Manitoba to this point.
I cannot tell you that there is going to be another phase or another
major initiative to move another 600 positions out to rural Manitoba. I do not see that at this point. Rather, I see a more‑‑and
especially when you look at the number of positions that have been decreased in
the civil service as a whole, and the number that we have moved out to rural
Manitoba, there has been a significant impact.
So down the road, I see decentralization taking on a role
where we co‑ordinate, we identify and co‑ordinate the
decentralization of positions from major centres, Brandon, Winnipeg, to
communities where we can offer those services better. Secondly, we are going to be doing the same
with our Crowns and encouraging them to look at it in that way, and when we can
do that, I think we will be delivering services throughout Manitoba, closer to
the people and with new technology, and as the electronic highway becomes a
reality in Manitoba, we then are going to be able to even access more services
to rural Manitobans and to all Manitobans from anywhere in the province.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, then I would, I
guess, suggest or, if I may suggest and may sort of put a final touch to this
point of questioning, what should be done out there is the municipalities, the
communities should be made aware perhaps of this process that you are talking
about. You talked a lot of communities,
and I am sure‑‑and I know some of the communities in my
constituency are not aware of what we have discussed today as to the whole
process.
Now, if there is going to be a phase or another phase or if
not, then we should perhaps deal with that, make communities aware that we
should be‑‑that I could say to communities, you know, if we want to
identify your community for Decentralization, then let us make a direct request
to the Decentralization unit to become identified. What I am saying is, instead of dealing
through a department and then through Decentralization, why do we not deal with
it from the Decentralization unit into the departments and for future?
I am sure and I am well aware that it is just not clear out
there exactly how it is worked. This
commitment that the minister talked about, the other communities and a lot of
communities are saying, what about down the road, what is going to happen with
decentralization?
Mr. Derkach: As I said, it will be an ongoing
process. I cannot speak to what
government will do in the future. If
there is a window and if there are possibilities, I mean, there might be
another phase, but I am not prepared to make that announcement or to indicate
to you at this time that that is going to be the case.
I see an ongoing process where the Decentralization unit
will continue to work with communities and departments to identify and to
relocate where it makes sense.
Mr. Clif Evans: Just one or two more comments‑‑in
looking through the annual report, well, I do want to make a comment on the
annual report and on the supplementary information. I feel that it is a much better way to deal
with that part of the department, as before we were dealing with it on the
whole Rural Development basis, and then whoever's idea it was, I commend him
for moving that. I am sure it was
someone on the minister's staff who thought about it. If we could, down and in the future, expand
the Decentralization program, I would encourage that the department make better
aware of just how the system is going to work.
I mean, four years from the initial announcement about
Decentralization and the problems and the questions that were out there before
I think perhaps could be done away with in the future if just everybody was
aware of how the system works. I make
that comment just mainly due to the comments made to me over the past couple of
years about the whole Decentralization program.
The minister talked about all the positions that have been
moved, 642, and said they were committed to improving the economic base for
communities and perhaps providing services to the different areas. It is rather disappointing to see that out of
the 642 positions decentralized only seven were decentralized as such to
Interlake. You talk about commitment to
rural communities. I would think that
the commitment should in fact be nonpartisan and that we should perhaps deal
with the issues that are at hand, that being fulfilling the decentralization of
the services to all communities in this province.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not deal by
constituency, so when the member said Interlake, I was a little shocked,
because I knew there were more in Interlake than just the number he had
referred to.
Just by way of communities, we have Arborg with four;
Ashern with two, Gimli with 12, Selkirk with 20.
Point of Order
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to clarify this and
what the minister is trying to get into, I already have two pages here from
last year and we also have the annual report here with all the numbers.
My question was, in fact, and my statement was, in fact,
that if this program is supposed to aid and benefit rural communities
throughout this province, and if the minister wants, then what I will say is
give him the names of the communities in my constituency, Interlake, and he can
respond to that instead of talking about the whole Interlake.
* (1550)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of
order. It is clearly a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister, to finish his
response.
Mr. Derkach: The other community I wanted to mention was
Teulon with three.
I do not know the boundaries of the honourable member's
constituency so I really cannot respond to how many went into his particular
constituency.
We looked at it in a broad sense. We looked at matching communities with
services that could be provided from there and, yes, you could take any
community in rural Manitoba and say, well, why did you not give me any
positions in Crystal City or Pilot Mound or any of those.
What we tried to do was to identify communities within
regions. We tried to identify growth
centres where we could deliver services easily to communities. Where we could not, we tried to identify
services that could be delivered from anywhere in the province to anywhere in
the province, an example, Winkler with the Correspondence branch.
We did not look at it on a parochial basis constituency by
constituency, rather region by region.
Mr. Clif Evans: In closing, what I will do is provide the
minister and his Decentralization unit staff with a list of the communities
within Interlake constituency with questions as to what potential or commitment
there may be to those communities. I
know I will get a response to it. I
speak for all the communities that have received Decentralization positions and
I am pleased for them. The ones that are
in as close to my constituency, the Gimlis and the Teulons, I am pleased they
were able to, but there are services that are required in other communities and
the minister may have mentioned some. I
think that is the direction we should be looking.
I have no further comments.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass?
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just have one
question. I want to follow up a bit from
what my colleague was saying as far as how the decision is made where we should
be decentralizing.
The minister had indicated earlier it was the department
that identified positions, but I got the impression that if communities were
looking for positions they could lobby the Decentralization committee to get
these positions. I wonder if this is in
fact true, that the committee is influenced by lobbying, because if that is the
case, certainly as my colleague from Interlake has indicated, there could be a
lot more communities lobbying.
Is this part of the process? Are the departments influenced by communities
who begin to lobby to have services brought to their area?
Mr. Derkach: That is not how Decentralization emerged and
it is not the way that we would proceed in the future. What we try to do is ensure that within
regions of Manitoba there is a presence of government. We try to make sure that services that are
delivered in a particular region of the province have something to do with
either the activity within that region or they can be delivered to anywhere in
the province from that particular region.
I go back to Winkler.
The Correspondence branch is not something that only people in the
Winkler area involve themselves with. It
is a service that is taken advantage of by Manitobans right through the entire
province, but it is a service that can be delivered from anywhere.
If there are opportunities and if there are needs as
identified by the community, we are not shutting the doors and saying, well,
you cannot talk to me, you cannot talk to us.
Certainly, we have had communities in the past who have come and said to
me, we believe that we need this kind of a service, why not look at us as a
candidate for having a government service in our community? We respond as positively as we can to those
kinds of requests.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do have one
comment. I reminded myself when my
honourable colleague was speaking that the minister of course mentioned during
decentralization you identify whether there is space available of any kind and
what not.
That certainly brings to light the point of Arborg where
this government building is there, probably upwards of 30 to 40 percent sitting
empty, and the only thing that was sent to Arborg was MPIC in Decentralization,
which was appreciated by the community and surrounding area. However, we do have a government building
sitting in Arborg, and the four positions that were moved to Arborg were MPIC
positions and put in a different building that was made available for Autopac,
for MPIC.
So my point again is that this commitment and this
availability of everything else and services, you have space available, you
have all the resources available, just no jobs, and it should be
considered. Jobs were lost out of
Arborg.
Thank you.
Mr. Derkach: Just in response, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I
can tell my honourable friend that we have been approached by the community of
Arborg. Yes, we do try to utilize
government space when it is available as much as we can, and we are looking at
how we can perhaps meet some of the interest and demand from the Arborg
community and if that is possible, we certainly would be more than willing to
do that. But, it has to make sense. It has to be effective and efficient.
* (1600)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 4. Decentralization $100,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 27.4:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$100,000 for Other Appropriations Decentralization for the fiscal year ending
the 31st day of March 1995.
This concludes the department of Decentralization. The next set of Estimates that will be
considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates of the
Department of Government Services. Thank
you very much and thank you to the staff from the department of
Decentralization for coming out today.
Shall we briefly recess to allow the minister and the
critics an opportunity to prepare for the commencement of the next set of
Estimates? Two minutes.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Government Services.
Does the Honourable Minister of Government Services have an
opening statement?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present the '94‑95
fiscal year spending Estimates for the Department of Government Services.
It is an honour to be here.
In '94‑95 we did not participate in the '93‑94. We passed that year, but '94‑95 will
see continuing benefits emanating from cost‑conscious measures and practices
which the Department of Government Services introduced in the past two fiscal
years.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the department, through
rationalization of space and aggressive negotiations, has again reduced its
lease budget, overall budget for '94‑95.
Our planners worked with our clients to reduce space requirements and
maximize the use of government‑owned accommodation. Our leasing consultants were tougher than
ever in their negotiations. Existing
leases were carefully examined to reduce operating costs.
The important part is that kind of bottom‑line
performance was a result of co‑operation within and across departments,
which resulted in a reduction of $2.2 million in lease costs for '94‑95.
Last year Accommodation Development division initiated and
completed, and it was the first, a comprehensive inventory of all owned and
leased space. This inventory contributes
immeasurably to our ability to manage our portfolio and provide the base to
launch the accommodation cost recovery program.
The accommodation cost recovery program provides the public
with a fuller and more accurate accounting of the true cost of delivering
programs and services. It also involves
our clients in accountability for space costs.
This also contributed to the reduction in lease costs. Occupancy had been a free commodity. Our clients often within the departments did
not recognize the expense and certainly had no initiative to help reduce costs. We are changing the way we provide this
particular service. We are doing more
and more, and we are now doing it more cost‑effectively.
Two years ago the workshops had a target to achieve full
cost recovery on their operations within a three‑year time frame. In order to accomplish this objective they
significantly realigned their cost structure.
They now have the ability to anticipate future demand and the
flexibility to adjust quickly to meet it.
They are meeting their customers' needs on time every time. They have examined each process and project
and drive out unnecessary steps, procedures and costs. They know the meaning now of competition.
All the employees have received Total Quality Management
training and have been very active in improving service quality and suggesting
cost saving ideas which have been put in place saving time and money. This is reflected in the reduced cost, again,
to the client, which is the government and the different departments.
The workshop is right on track. In fact, they are well ahead of schedule
meeting their objective of full cost recovery.
Again, a very expensive part is the postal services. That is committed to providing low‑cost
mail services to their clients. They
have been aggressive and innovative in packaging and negotiating rates with
Canada Post, ensuring that we obtain the best rate available. They have identified opportunities to
consolidate postal services from another department to realize the full
economies of scale. Every branch in every
division in the department has adopted new principles that have fundamentally
changed the way this department conducts it business.
The physical plant within the Property Management Division
was among the first big institutional buyers in the province to recognize the
substantial savings that direct purchase of natural gas offered. It was certainly a new business for us to be
in but one that has provided us with about the lowest‑cost natural gas in
this market.
Fleet Vehicles, Manitoba's first Special Operating Agency,
wrapped up their second year successfully.
Internal operations have been thoroughly reviewed with a major effort to
modernize the fleet vehicles information system.
An important change to the rate structure has had a major
impact on individual departments and on government as a whole. The old system that charged a flat rate per
kilometre was replaced with a fixed class variable rate structure. The new structure more closely aligns the
cost of using a vehicle or the cost of providing it. Under the old system there was no penalty for
departments that maintained underutilized vehicles. Conversely, departments that managed their
vehicles well received no reward. The
new rate structure has caused departments to examine their vehicle usage and
seek their own cost savings.
We are now being talked to by governments across Canada and
provincial governments on how we are operating our Special Operating
Agency. As a result of the success of
the first operating agency on April 1, 1993, we did this with the Materials
Distribution, it was launched as another SOA.
That was the culmination of a major effort required to produce the first
business plan and charter. Under the SOA
framework, the agency operates with greater flexibility and autonomy, with the
emphasis on providing value‑for‑your‑money products and
services. We have not only saved money
but have first‑hand experience in the market and an accurate benchmark
for in‑house data entry functions.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, over the last several months the
department has been negotiating the procurement chapter of a much broader
interprovincial trade barrier reduction agreement than what currently
exists. This national agreement will not
only cover goods procured by government departments, as does the existing
national agreement, but in addition it will include services and
construction. Furthermore, it is
intended to cover Crown corporations and the MASH sector comprised of municipal
governments, academic institutions, schools and hospitals. While it does not appear that coverage of
Crown corporations will be as broad as we would like to see it, it will be a
step forward towards more open competition within Canada. I am optimistic that the agreement will be
signed in the very near future.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the common goal of our counterparts
and fellow negotiators in the provinces, territories and in the federal
government has been to reduce trade barriers by eliminating discrimination
based on geographic origin and through the open tendering process. I believe that the agreement makes some progress
toward realizing this goal. During the
next year we will be working diligently to gain additional input towards more
specifically delineating the agreement's application to the MASH sector. Through the implementation of a paid parking
program, security and parking has generated substantial revenues for the
government. Revenues have been further
enhanced by extending the program throughout rural Manitoba and additional lots
in the city.
With the introduction of electronic security systems, mobile
patrols and central monitoring, the Security Branch has eliminated in excess of
$100,000 in annual security contracts from its operating budget and has saved
the Department of Highways approximately $130,000 annually from its operating
budget for the security contracts. The
further development of Central alarm Monitoring and Security Dispatch Centre
has enabled security services to monitor fire alarms, elevator alarms and
building system alarms for Physical Plant.
This will eliminate $30,000 in the first year in fire alarm monitoring
contracts and dedicate it to telephone lines for elevators. The centre provides 24‑hour monitoring
and paging services for the critical staff.
Work‑alone contact is also provided for employees who work in
government offices after hours and weekends.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Emergency Measures Organization
is taking a lead in the province's review of mobile communications which are
especially needed during times of emergencies.
The Emergency Measures Organization is looking at how it is best placed
within government to better service during emergencies.
I am proud to say the Property Management Division is an
example of encouraging improvement through implementing the principles of Total
Quality Management. Staff and management
are sitting down and using their collective wisdom in addressing ways in which
the department can improve their service to the people of Manitoba. A quality council is well established, and
staff at all levels have become actively involved in generating ideas to
improve the way the department does business.
There are constantly 40 improvement teams at work at any one time. Total Quality Management brings about improvements
by all levels of staff sharing ideas and expertise. Total Quality Management has brought about
real savings and improvements to the department. For example, a one‑time investment of
$30,000 for installing an alternate energy plant to utilize a more economical
source of energy has resulted in annual savings in excess of $22,000 per year.
* (1610)
Total Quality Management brought about changes at both Red
River Community College, Agassiz Youth Centre, which reduced water consumption
and reduced chemical waste, an economic and environment improvement. Total Quality Management also brought about
improvements in the paper recycling program, safety apparel policy and service
vehicle parking. Hundreds of improvement
ideas have been generated and are underway to being implemented.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I believe these Estimates reflect
the economic approach my department, and especially in Government Services, has
taken in preparing its annual budget. In
closing, I would like to thank the employees of the Government Services for
their hard work over the past year and pledge that together we will hold the
line on spending while continuing to increase the quality of our service.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the minister for those opening
remarks. Does the critic for the
official opposition party, the honourable member for Selkirk, have an opening
statement?
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): I will be very brief. I just want to thank the minister for his
comments. As the minister suggests, we
did not have an opportunity last year to deal with this department, so there
are a number of issues we would like to raise.
Unfortunately, we do not have a great deal of time to do it this year.
There are some specific issues I want to talk about, the
proposal in Selkirk by a company called Jentan, who are interested in providing
energy for the Selkirk Mental Health Centre and perhaps even the Selkirk
Hospital and maybe even the Selkirk Recreation Complex. I want to explore that proposal with the
minister and talk about many other issues, but we will just develop those
issues as we go through the Estimates.
Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the critic for those remarks. Does the critic from the second opposition
party, the honourable member for River Heights, have an opening statement?
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(River Heights): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am pleased to
participate in these Government Services Estimates. The minister seems to have a mission with
regard to Total Quality Management.
Since there have been a number of articles now written and a number of
serious financial magazines which indicate that TQM in fact is a fallacy and
does not work, I think it is fascinating that he seems to attribute everything
that he is doing to a theory which in some economic circles seems to be dead
and/or dying. So I would like to spend
some time debating that particular aspect with the minister as we get into
Estimates.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable member.
Under Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is
traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of a Department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of
this item and now proceed with the consideration of the next line.
At this time, we invite the minister's staff to join us at
the table, and we ask the minister to introduce his staff present.
We are on page 74 of the Estimates books.
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Hugh Eliasson, Paul Rochon, Stu Ursel,
Bill Kinnear and Gerry Berezuk.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: It will be 1.(b) Executive Support (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $368,100.
Mr. Dewar: I just want to raise an issue here. It is fairly obvious there was an increase of
$3,000 in managerial. Can the minister
explain this increase?
Mr. Ducharme: Yes, last year there was an understatement of
$2,400 on the salary budget, so really there is only an increase in the
difference between those two. It was
$2,400, so that reflected‑‑you have to carry it through to this
year's budget. So it was an
understatement last year of $2,400 on the database.
Mr. Dewar: The issue was raising managerial one staff
year, and this year it is $95,500. Last
year, it was $92,300, which reflects an increase of about 3.5 percent. Who is the individual employed in this
position, and why did he or she receive such a large increase?
Mr. Ducharme: That would be my deputy minister.
Mr. Dewar: Well, considering that the rest of the civil
service took a 4 percent reduction in pay, how does this minister justify
increasing his deputy minister's salary by 3.5 percent?
Mr. Ducharme: Yes, but that was the amount I originally
told you about a minute ago in regard to 2.4 did not reflect his
increment. His increment should have
shown last year in last year's budget.
As you know, the staff throughout do receive increments and that was his
increment increase.
Mrs. Carstairs: Since this Executive Support also develops
the theoretical base upon which a government department operates, perhaps the
minister would like to explain what his government department means by Total
Quality Management.
Mr. Ducharme: I know the member for River Heights referred
to that as it is old and it is dead; however, I guess you could call it many
things, we just use that word. But what
we have done through our department since I have been minister about the last
three years is that‑‑and we have been getting our department people
together so that they can express their ways of saving money throughout the
departments‑‑they sit down on a continual basis and suggest their
ideas.
We have brought in people from the private sector on day
meetings, two‑day seminars.
Bristol Aerospace, we brought them in and they still use that word
because they are in the competitive field.
I feel that when you are dealing with supplying out of Government Services‑‑unfortunately,
Government Services is not a sexy department‑‑it is a department
where we save in departments of supplying services. It leaves those monies for other
departments. So it has been a way that
we have had our employees come forward.
I will give you a small example. We were using in this building and the Law
Courts, linen cloths throughout the building, just to use as a small example,
and one of our employees suggested at one time, why do we not use paper cloths
the same as everybody else. I am talking
about in the Clerk's Office, I am talking in the judges' chambers‑‑throughout. I said, well, that should not amount to a lot
of money. It amounted to a $12,000‑a‑year
saving. This was a result of just having
somebody at the table discussing things that they saw every day.
I just want to use that as a small example, but these are
the type of things that we have had happen in our postage department; we have
had happen in coming forward from our many, many departments where people normally
are not heard from. So what we tried to
do is we tried to gather people from all our different departments, put them
together and call it what you will. I
just keep using the words "Total Quality Management." Call it something else; however, I think that
continuing together and expressing other things that they feel can bring
savings is an excellent idea.
Mrs. Carstairs: I rather liked the linen cloths, I must
suggest, but I will do with the paper if it saves $12,000 a year.
What I get from the minister is that he is not
philosophically buying into a so‑called economic theory called TQM, but
has in fact, for lack of a better word, "commercialized" the
Department of Government Services, brought efficiencies to the Department of
Government Services, involved the staff of Government Services in helping him
to arrive at good decision making and in fact is employing a hands‑on
management skills style.
Mr. Ducharme: Yes, I agree with every word you say, because
unfortunately we do not get that message across. I briefly mentioned it in my brief remarks
that we now make all the departments throughout government accountable for all
their office space. Now is that not
remarkable? Finally, governments say to
an office that, hey, you will now be accountable. It will be charged to your budget, not just
fed through the Department of Government Services, and then we spread it
throughout and we ask for that on the other side of our department, on our cost
issue.
* (1620)
It is amazing at some of the spaces that now departments
have given up through that process.
That could not be done until we did our study on the total
utilization of every square foot throughout departments, and we found that‑‑I
do not want to pick on a department, and I will not mention any names, but you
can go to a department that might have supervisors who might show up once a
month, but they had an office downtown in a building, a 10‑by‑12
office, but they might only show up once a month. When they found out that that now reflected
directly in with their budget, and when they were told to come back with
reductions in their budget, they were starting to come back with office space.
Mrs. Carstairs: That is interesting, since some of them seem
to have bigger office space than some of the MLAs.
The interesting thing about what the minister is saying,
and I hope other ministers are listening, is that there was a consultative
process with employees. Is that
accurate, that in fact you were consulting with employees in the Department of
Government Services?
Mr. Ducharme: Absolutely.
What we have done is, we have given them the opportunity of joining
in. Where it was really successful again
is your Special Operating Agencies, where they now feel like they are part of a
little company and they feel like they are really contributing now.
You mentioned about the office spaces. Well, we fixed that too. We have now come out with a program that, not
necessarily because you are a deputy minister and not necessarily because you
are an assistant deputy minister do you have the same office space. We have now geared it to say that it is what
you do as an assistant deputy minister and what your requirements are, that now
there are maximum amounts but there are also‑‑and we have now
adjusted to the office spaces.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $368,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $39,200‑‑pass.
1.(c) Finance (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $644,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $166,900‑‑pass.
1.(d) Human Resources Services (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $450,700.
Mr. Dewar: I would like to ask a few questions about the
department's affirmative action program.
Would the minister provide us with an update of that program, please?
Mr. Ducharme: Is he asking for the numbers percentages‑wise
or what we do on training programs?
Mr. Dewar: Yes, you could provide us all that
information, please.
Mr. Ducharme: I can get you the numbers. The personnel do not have those numbers, but
I know we had them the last couple of years.
I can give you a breakdown on affirmative action, where they are placed
exactly. I know there is a list
somewhere. I have seen it before. I can get you those numbers.
We have been actually concentrating mostly on the training
sessions and the framework and additional training dealing with affirmative
action.
As you can probably appreciate, Government Services is the
type of department that is easily accessible for redeployment as you reduce
positions. It is one department that we
can retrain, and we have been concentrating on the redeployment of our
employees.
Mrs. Carstairs: Giving those numbers of the target groups, is
it also possible for the minister to provide how many of those are in
managerial and professional technical positions?‑‑because quite
frankly, it is not enough that you have 52 percent women, if the 52 percent
women are all doing clerical work. So I
would like to see a breakdown by job description.
Mr. Ducharme: I agree, and I will provide those, because I
know those numbers. I have seen them
before and I will provide you with those numbers.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass. (2) Other Expenditures $111,900‑‑pass.
1.(e) Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $336,200‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $61,100‑‑pass.
1.(f) Lieutenant‑Governor's Office (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $97,100.
Mrs. Carstairs: I really do not want to talk about the
Lieutenant‑Governor's office, I want to talk about the Lieutenant‑Governor's
house, which in my opinion is one of the most beautiful examples of its style
of architecture anywhere in this province, and quite frankly, the interior is
in need of serious upgrading and has been for the last 20 years.
Can the minister update us on when we are going to get
wallpaper which has been damaged by flooding in the living room and dining room
area replaced? When are we going to get
some air conditioning for the individuals who live in the Lieutenant‑Governor's
home, so that it truly is not only beautiful from the outside but is also a
pleasure for those who visit?
Mr. Ducharme: I am glad someone noticed, other than myself,
when I became minister three years ago‑‑well, not quite three years
ago. When I first sat down with Dr.
Johnson a few years ago, there was no means of‑‑if you take a look
at his budget it was kind of hat in hand that he asked about it. He would come forward and the Lieutenant‑Governor
of the day would say, well, I want this done, I want that done, and
unfortunately there was no real budget established for the Lieutenant‑Governor.
People think that the person who is there lives in the most
precious house there is. It is a
precious house as far as history and everything else is concerned, but
unfortunately it is not the most comfortable house to live in. So what we did was, and again I can get a
breakdown for the member, but we have established a 10‑year program.
We started working on, if you notice the rooms, some of the
bedrooms, we are doing some of the bedrooms upstairs. We did the entrance foyer room‑‑I
forget what it is called‑‑the Manitoba Room. We did some carpeting in the main room; we re‑upholstered
furniture in the main ballroom. We did
some wallpapering in the main ballroom.
I do not really think much of the existing one that we have. I have not got the figures handy, but last
year, and I believe the program is in approximately $135,000 to $140,000 a year
that we are doing now on that particular house.
As you can probably appreciate, anything we do is
ridiculous, the cost, but not ridiculous as far as keeping the house. For instance, we had lists of repairing art,
and I said why would we start repairing art when we still have carpeting to do
and wallpaper, as you have said, throughout the building. It is not just the wallpaper we have to
do. Unfortunately we have to do under
the wallpaper, and the leakage, and so when we do that then we will do the
wallpapering.
To give you an idea of the art. I went to the Art Gallery, and the lady‑‑I
forget her name over there who teaches‑‑suggested, why will you not
let us do it, and we will do it as part of our contribution to the house. So what they have done is they have‑‑and
we give them some art, and they redo the art, but the first bills I saw, or not
bills, but estimates, were ridiculous.
Now they are doing us a real, real favour by reconstructing some of the
art that is there, which is also a very, very important part of the house.
* (1630)
Mrs. Carstairs: Having lived in a vintage house myself, I do
have some idea of how much it costs to‑‑[interjection] Well, as the
member knows, I sold my house and left it up to the Langs to do it. But the reality is that it is a very, very
costly measure to do, but it does not get any less costly as the years go
along. It just gets more and more
expensive.
Can the minister‑‑I will ask if he has done any
other kind of outreaching, obviously to the Art Gallery was a very valid
one. Has he been in touch with any of
the major companies in redecorating, for example, to see if they would be
interested in giving a gift to the province, which is tax deductible in return,
for restoring that house to its optimum?
Mr. Ducharme: I have not heard, but it is certainly a good
idea. I wonder if we can do that with
the building that we are sitting in here today that is looking at, again,
about, I think, over the next five or six years‑‑most people do not
realize that there is a severe damage; we are not just repairing steps‑‑the
tune of about $8 million or $9 million we are going to have to spend here over
the next four, five years. Then the Law
Courts is the same way.
But that is a good idea.
As a matter of fact, the staff will take note, and maybe we can see if
some of our contractors around that are involved and a lot of people, even when
they are looking to help out, will maybe even do it on a different type of
scale. Maybe they will donate some of
the managerial skills that they have. We
have it in our department, but even if it was just donating that type would
save us money. Good point.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(f)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$97,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $62,500‑‑pass.
2. Property Management (a) Executive Administration (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $157,800‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $22,500‑‑pass.
Item (b) Physical Plant (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$17,951,900.
Mr. Dewar: I have a number of questions to raise
here. It was in 1992, the government
closed the Human Resources Opportunity Centre in Selkirk. Since then, the buildings and, I guess, the
equipment are unused. I was wondering if
the minister can tell us today the government's plans for those buildings in
that facility.
Mr. Ducharme: I remember the ad went out. The equipment was auctioned off in
April. Now we will market those
buildings and hope that they will be used for industrial use that maybe will create
some employment in the area, but we first of all auctioned all the equipment
off.
Mr. Dewar: I know that the government asked the town if
the town was interested in taking over the centre, and they declined. I think there are some local, not local, but
some industries interested in taking over the plant. Can the minister provide us an update on some
of the negotiations with those organizations?
Mr. Ducharme: Apparently, we have had about three people
approach us. As we do with government
buildings, we would now advertise for proposal calls and have them come forward
officially because, as you can appreciate, we are dealing with government
buildings. We tender out and make
proposals, ask for proposal calls when someone shows an interest.
Mr. Dewar: Are there any plans by the government to
utilize any of the office space? I know
that there is a need for office space in Selkirk. Has the government ever considered using this
space as appropriate office space?
Mr. Ducharme: I am informed no. However, we do have a plan to utilize some
office space in Selkirk. We are doing
that now but, no, we do not require it for office space.
Mr. Dewar: You mentioned that there will be some office
space. What departments are going to be
moving into Selkirk?
Mr. Ducharme: Some of the Family Services people are going
to the Selkirk mental hospital and that will relieve some office space, make it
available in the government building.
When that government building comes free, well, then we will ask
different departments out there, tell them that we have some office space
available.
Mr. Dewar: Is the minister aware of any plans to move
Highways jobs from Selkirk to Beausejour?
Mr. Ducharme: No, I am not aware of any of those. To the member for Selkirk, normally what we
will do is, once a decision is made by a department, they will come forward and
they will make the proposal. They will
ask us to look up and accommodate them, and then our job is to go out and call
for proposals and then take it to the Treasury Board from there.
Mr. Dewar: Do you know what the costs would be to the
government to move those jobs from Selkirk to Beausejour? I believe there are 30 employees that work in
the Highways department there.
Mr. Ducharme: All we would know is if you were moving some
jobs from one location to the other. We
would be providing the accommodation.
That is all we provide. The
department is the only one that can probably tell you what the costs would be,
but we provide the accommodation in the new offices wherever anyone goes
throughout the province. We provide the
moving, but I could not tell you.
Mr. Dewar: What plans does the minister have to upgrade
any of the facilities at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre?
Mr. Ducharme: We have an ongoing‑‑to give you
an idea, this year, and I think it is in my‑‑I mentioned it in some
remarks in the House one day, that we have the barrier‑free, for
instance. I can give you that
number. That alone is going to be three‑quarters
of a million dollars just to improve that part of the aspect.
Mr. Dewar: I want to explore this issue of Jentan
Resource Limited. Is the minister aware
of that particular company that is interested in providing steam energy to the
Selkirk Mental Health Centre?
Mr. Ducharme: We have only been approached by the
individual. We have told him what our
requirements would be if he did come in.
From here on in he goes back I guess until he makes complete proposals;
he goes back to find out where he is environmentally. We have only had a very, very brief, short
discussion with him on that building. We
told him what we would require him to do if he came in and now it is up to him
go back to the environment.
Mr. Dewar: From your initial discussions with this
individual, do you think that they will be able to provide your need in terms
of energy and steam?
* (1640)
Mr. Ducharme: I am told in the discussions, and these are
just preliminary discussions because we talk again about only the
accommodation, he has a problem with the load level for the remainder of the
year. He can only provide the costs of
the building for a portion of the year.
Mr. Dewar: I attended a meeting in Selkirk a month and a
half ago where this individual made a presentation to council and to the
community, and they suggested at that time he could supplement your demand in
the summer, but not for the winter, is that right?
Mr. Ducharme: Yes, that is correct. As you can probably appreciate, under the
buildings, we can have a lot of people who would like to get into the
government buildings and not pay the full share. Unless he can arrange something through I, T
and T, Industry, Trade and technology, or someone can come forward and help him
out and get started, start‑ups, we do not have that availability in Government
Services.
Our whole idea now is cost recovery. I am not saying the odd time someone from
Family Services or someone of that group that needs a thousand square feet that
is alongside a building, that we do not try to help them out, but in a larger
aspect like that, we do want to get our cost recovery, at least our cost
recovery on it.
Mr. Dewar: It is a fascinating proposal, but, of course,
it would be based upon the Government Services purchasing their energy that
they will produce.
How many employees currently are there that work for
Government Services that provide the service to the Mental Health Centre? How many employees are there in the power
plant now?
Mr. Ducharme: I am informed there are seven.
Mr. Dewar: If this plant were to be developed and if it
would meet your requirement, what would happen to those seven employees?
Mr. Ducharme: That is hypothetical, it is almost like an if
question. We really cannot tell you
that. We have to know what their load
levels are.
Mr. Dewar: What about the renovations to this building
that we are in now? I want to thank the
minister for taking me on a tour of the construction. I have had an opportunity see the huge amount
of work that is being done, but, of course, we raised the issue in the House
about the lack of a handicap access ramp to the front of the building.
Has the minister reconsidered his stance in that area and
will he now be moving towards putting in a ramp to allow handicapped Manitobans
to enter the building through the front door?
Mr. Ducharme: Now this was all looked at a few years ago
when we did the west, when we did all of the work on the west. We did meet with several groups, and we did
meet with, I am trying to think of the other group that we met with. It was considered that a combination of
parking availability on the west side, and as you can probably appreciate,
because of the lower level you can make the ramp that it is not a high level
type of ramp.
If you want to talk about the front or the south or the
north‑‑I still say the south part of the building is the best part
of the building and is the nicest part.
I think history states, I still think it is the front but anyway‑‑
An Honourable Member: Where the river is.
Mr. Ducharme: Right.
And history goes back to where the river lies. I will tell you when we get finished this
summer, it will be nicer looking than the north.
Anyway, we did look at a ramp and you would end up with a
ramp of 150 feet. No matter which way
you do it, to get the proper pitch you would look at a ramp that would be 150
feet. The only other way you could
provide access is an elevator. An
elevator could be provided, but how do you build an elevator in this type of a
structure?
So as you can probably appreciate, we all sat down with
these groups and they came to the conclusion that, hey, if we make sure of the
level to get in and out and parking is provided and a warm vestibule for them
to wait can be provided, it would be accommodating. They also were happy when we talked about
that if they looked at that, we also could accommodate them to be the first
time they could go in the gallery.
As you can probably appreciate, the Speaker was involved in
that. They might have not gotten the
entrance to what you would call the north side or the security side of the
building, some people call it the front side, they got the best seats in the
House.
If you take a look at where the handicap is in the
Speaker's Gallery, we took out all the seats in the Speaker's Gallery,
reconstructed the Speaker's Gallery, and they have an access to get to the
Speaker's Gallery. To be honest with
you, we sat down and we tried everything possible to provide them with what we
considered the best we could do in a building like this.
You know I have read off to you the barrier‑free
program that we started conducting in '88‑89 and the almost $3 million to
buildings. We have buildings throughout
the rural area, not only in the rural area but in the city of Winnipeg that
have no access at all. We now have two
to this particular building. People say,
well, they have to come in that way. But
if you take a look, the parking is close, the area to get in and out is
excellent. If it means that we have to
provide some more lighting, fine, we will provide more lighting if that was the
issue.
I am meeting with Mr. Lane and Mr. Martin in the next
little while. I believe Mr. Lane is
getting married or something, and I cannot meet with him right away, but I will
make sure that the Speaker is involved.
I will make sure that my total office staff is involved, and we will do
everything comfortable.
However, at this point, if you are saying to me, have you
decided on a ramp, even if you are doing the stairway, what we are doing now is
mostly a foundation change, and we have to replace the Tyndall stone or the
stone on those steps. A ramp would be
another issue, because the ramp would almost be a zigzag of 150 feet either
starting at Broadway Avenue, starting at Kennedy Street or starting at Osborne
Street to get to those heights.
Fortunately, the west side and the east side, you have the lower level
that is easier to get in and out of. You
saw how they have dug out all the stairs, you cannot get to the lower level
from the south or the north.
Mr. Dewar: I want to thank the minister for the
answer. I am pleased that he is going to
be meeting with the individuals who are raising their concerns with us.
I would like to ask what the total cost of the project is,
and when does he anticipate it to be completed?
Mr. Ducharme: Which one?
I have three going on, or I will have three going on this year.
First of all, if you take a look at the stairs, all three
stairs will be done. I believe the
contract for that is approximately three‑quarters of a million
dollars. Four stairs will be done. The reason for that was because of the
crumbling and the water getting in and crumbling the basement.
Also if you look at the front portico, after we get the
north stairs done, we are going to be doing what they do in Europe. We are going to be putting up scaffolding
covering the total front or north of the building, the north side of the
building and repairing all of that. If
you look under the roof, we have to take all the limestone on the roof off and
then restructure the roof and restructure all under the canopy and all along
the edges.
Then what we will do is clean it all up at the same
time. We are not just going to be going
there to clean it. That would be the
least of our worries because there is equipment now that will pressure clean it
with water that will make it look real nice.
The reason why we are doing all these projects this year is
because we do not want any going on next year at our 125th. That will be just the start of the
process. The major part will be the roof‑‑I
call them figurines, there is another name for them. Figurines and décor all throughout the
building will be done over the next five or six years.
Mr. Dewar: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Driedger) raised it. A concern that we
had when you gave me your tour was the condition of some of the trees and the
shrubs and whether or not you will be able to save them. Can you just provide us with an update on how
you are making out in that area?
Mr. Ducharme: As I told you when I took you around‑‑and
I offered it to the Liberals, and unfortunately Neil had another engagement
that day. I explained it briefly to
Neil. As a matter of fact, we are going
to take him around this week.
As you can probably appreciate when you are waterproofing
all the stairs‑‑[interjection] Are you going around? Okay, well, then I would appreciate you
coming. Would you like to go around and
look at it? It is very interesting to go
below the base and everything. But the
waterproofing, you have to excavate all along because it should have been done
in the first place. Unfortunately, it
was done at the top, and it was not done along the edges.
We will have to disturb some shrubbery and some trees. Mr. Brown‑‑you have met him‑‑he
would not take out a tree here unless it was absolutely necessary. I mean, this is his backyard, and this is his
pet. That has been handed down. He has been here over 30 years since Mr.
Churcher [phonetic] was here. He took
over from him. These people pride
themselves. And he says, Gerry, I will
put in every available tree and try to replace it.
* (1650)
Some of the trees are a little too close. Over a period of time‑‑it is like
building houses. You plant your tree,
your kids are one year old; you come back to look at it, and the person you
sold the house to is tearing them out 30 years later. You say, why are they tearing those trees
out? Well, that is the same thing that
happens here. We will take every
precaution in replacing the trees with as mature trees as we possibly can.
Mrs. Carstairs: I want the minister to know that I received
only two phone calls about the whole access debate that we engaged in. Both of them agreed with the minister that
the west side was in fact the better and more appropriate entrance.
One of them, however, did raise something. I will just bring it to the minister's
attention at this particular time.
Apparently the closest women's washroom to that west entrance does not
have handicap washroom facility. Many of
them, particularly when they are exposed to the cold, need to use the washroom
facilities as soon as they get into the building. So the request of this individual was, leave
my access where it is, where my parking is, but please give me a handicap
washroom in that particular area.
Mr. Ducharme: I talked to another individual‑‑what
is better than that is we spent $90,000 to build the ramp or the chair lift up
to the gallery. Beautiful‑‑I
do not know whether you have had a chance to look at it. However, unfortunately again, they have to go
down to the basement to the washroom, and you know how large the washrooms are
on that level. So what we are going to
do now is we are now looking at providing, as you said, the washroom close to
the vestibule downstairs and also look at redoing a washroom for them close to
the gallery.
Mrs. Carstairs: I have another question with regard to access
in the building. That is, there seems to
be every access to the building except for one rather important room. That is the Assembly itself. There is no access for a member to sit in any
chair in that Chamber, and that is clear with the present difficulties being
encountered by the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin). Is there any movement to make one of the
seats in that Chamber wheelchair accessible?
Mr. Ducharme: When we were doing the gallery, we started
thinking and started talking about the frightening aspects. That did come under discussion, and the
biggest problem is what side, where. The
discussions that I have heard was that you would probably make one of the first
rows, one of the upper benches accessible.
However, that is not as scary as say the Premier or the Leader of the
Opposition all of a sudden a stroke or something along those lines and in our
occupation that is quite possible, but we felt that we could become very easily
adaptable. We could do it very, very
quickly. So it is in hand that there is
a plan that if something unfortunate like that does happen that we would do
that.
Mrs. Carstairs: With respect to the security system in this
building, can the minister give us an upgrade on how it is working because my
sense of it is it is working extremely well since we have essentially limited
access to the building to the north side because we could certainly have a
disagreement. I happen to agree with the
minister that the most beautiful side is the river side, and that should in
fact be considered the front of the building and probably was at some point in
the history of the building, but any upgrade that you can tell us.
Is there a need to provide further security or is there a
sense now that we have achieved a security level which is appropriate for the
building and for the protection of all those who work therein?
Mr. Ducharme: I would have thought it was secure until last
week till one of the minister's offices‑‑somebody paid it a little
visit and jumped out the windows.
We have installed more and more camera equipment. I have a briefing note on it, but I know what
we have done. We have brought in more
and more cameras throughout the area. We
try to accommodate people going in and out.
I think the part that will need some upgrading a little further will be
the south side. We know, as a result of
the development that will be going on on the south side that was announced
approximately a month ago, that there will be more lighting, and there will be
more people utilizing the grounds. I
think the utilization will probably even help, because as you know if it is not
lit properly and people have places to hide and things like that, that is the
worst, the surprise element, even to the people in the security offices and
people that are going around the building.
No one likes to lock up the building, but however we do
have a building that belongs to the people of Manitoba, and it should also be
very well looked after. There are people
who will abuse the building if we do not carefully watch it.
Mrs. Carstairs: I have no difficulty with the present level
of security at all in the building.
Having been to the Quebec National Assembly and having to go through a
series of metal detector systems and other forms of security, I think that we
have been able to stay on the modest side of security. If we can remain there, then I would like to
see us not have to go any further.
What I really wanted from the minister is a sense of
whether he thinks that we now have an adequate level for most incidents that
are going to take place in this building.
Obviously, you are always going to have the occasion of a bizarre
individual who might in fact exhibit bizarre behaviour, but I am not sure no
matter what kind of security you have you can protect yourself against that.
Mr. Ducharme: We are not considering metal detectors or any
coming out of the building. I think we
are upgrading more of the laser type. I
can give you the upgrades for this year.
In '93, for instance, the security system was expanded to include two
new exterior CCTV camera locations which overlook the legislative grounds from
the top of the Legislative Building.
Those are the ones that are colour, right, and not black and white.
Additional initiatives have included the installation of
security alarms, again, this is out of town to the Thompson and Swan River
provincial buildings. In '94, as I
mentioned lighting earlier, the lighting will include upgrading of the security
system; again, in the Law Courts we are going to upgrade some more security
there. Basically it is the
lighting. That seems to be the worst
part about security; if someone has to park around the front of the building on
the river side, they have disadvantages.
Mrs. Carstairs: I am getting some elbows from the gentleman
to my left here with respect to a phrase that nobody seems to want to talk about
with respect to this building, and that is air conditioning. There have been, however, some substantial
innovations made in air conditioning in the last several years. At one point to air condition this building
would have been next to an impossible event.
It also would have been next to impossible in terms of the cost, but
there have been some new technologies.
Have those new technologies now been evaluated in any way
for this particular building so that it could become, particularly on the third
floor, a workable environment for people who have to spend long hours
here? I am not necessarily referring to
MLAs. I am, in fact, referring to staff.
Mr. Ducharme: Without admitting that I would be the first
minister to install air conditioning and probably the last, we have looked and
we have had people in to look at the building, along with a building that you
had mentioned earlier, and that was the Lieutenant‑Governor's house.
People do not realize, but even as we renovate the
building, if you will look at the ceilings that are dropped and that type of
thing, we are putting, I guess, over a period of time, we are trying to put in
the correct ducts and distribution so that we do not have to put those in and
tear them out the next time. Over a
period of time, when air conditioning is affordable, whenever, and I do not
know what the last figures were again, even under the new‑‑within a
couple of years ago, I am sure it was about a year ago, I think it was close to
$8 million to $10 million still to do the air conditioning. When your roof is falling apart and it is
crumbling, I guess we will do that and then maybe we can consider‑‑you
know, you get questioned in regard to some of the smaller things you do around.
* (1700)
We try to be very, very fair from the minister's office and
I am waiting for my special assistant to try and share the small amount of
carpeting we do there. We spend probably
on carpeting and painting, $60,000 a year.
When you consider that on an $800‑million building, that is not a
lot. The air conditioning, I guess,
someone will have to face that down the road.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour.
Committee rise.
JUSTICE
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order?
This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the
Estimates for the Department of Justice.
Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber?
We are on item 5, page 113, of the Estimates manual.
5. Courts (a) Court Services.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Madam Chair, I would just like to take a moment to introduce to the
committee Mr. Marvin Bruce who is the ADM of Courts, and Irene Young who is the
Director of Court Services.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Does Pat Dunlop report to Ms. Young? Is that the line of authority?
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I wonder if I might ask the members beyond
the critics that are in the Chamber if they could please carry on their
conversations in the loge. I am
experiencing great difficulty hearing the member's questions and the responses
of the honourable minister.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, yes, that is correct.
Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that there has been a statistic
that has been used from time to time that reflects the rate of default of
maintenance orders in Manitoba. I
understand that that rate, at least at some point in the past, has been
calculated on a monthly basis. I am
wondering if the minister has information as to the default rate in the last
four months.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the default rate has been very
difficult to establish an accurate number or a precise number, because there
are a number of variables that need to be considered. The default list reflects all accounts with
money owing at that day. The system
cannot distinguish between accounts with reporting provisions or new orders
from court where direct payments may have been made directly and the program
has not yet received confirmation, or orders varied provisionally that have not
been made final, or accounts with payments being made through garnishment or
pay assignments, or, finally, accounts where enforcement has been stayed and no
action has been taken to collect.
So the figures available would not reflect a proper picture
based on all of those variables that I have just spoken about.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering if the minister can advise
whether the same measurement of default rate, though, has been in place for
some time. In other words, were the same
problems inherent in the statistic back in 1992 as are there now?
Mrs. Vodrey: I understand that the numbers may now appear
higher because there are more variable orders now than there were in the
past. Approximately 20 to 25 percent of
the orders registered with Maintenance Enforcement Program provide for payments
based on the payor's income or employment status.
The program monitors at the highest rate, and the balance
is reduced once proof of income is received.
Some payors report on a monthly basis, and some orders require quarterly
or other reporting periods.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, given the caveats as to the ability of
the statistic to measure actual default, would the minister advise what the
default rate is for the last four months, what it has been by month?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not able to provide a number that
reflects people who are simply not paying anything or reflects exactly what the
default is. I understand the member's
question with all of these caveats, but you cannot just put aside all of the
caveats because they appear to factor into a number.
We are having great difficulty in providing that kind of
statistic which, I believe, is the basis of the question.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, just for the record then, would the
minister clarify that straightforward maintenance enforcement orders of
specified amounts at specified times going into default are not represented in
any figure?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am informed no, we do not have
that precise figure.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister advise how much monies were
recovered for Social Allowances in the last fiscal year?
Mrs. Vodrey: The total monies collected on income security
accounts in 1993, the total is $2 million.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is that for the fiscal year up to March 31,
1994?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, that is the calendar year to the end of
December 1993.
Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister have the figures for the
fiscal year?
* (1440)
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that we could calculate it for the
fiscal year. We do not have it available
today.
Mr. Mackintosh: I ask the minister if she could provide
that. I think that would be important
information, and then we can compare that to the expenditures and the cost
effectiveness of the program. Would the
minister undertake to provide that information?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I will undertake to provide that.
Mr. Mackintosh: There has been an extraordinary increase in
the amount of arrears owed by payors outside of Manitoba, particularly over the
last four months. I understand the
amount to have increased by 8.2 percent.
At the same time, it is my understanding that the officers assigned to
REMO‑in are the most heavily burdened by caseload. I am wondering if the minister could explain
why this is the case, and is that heavy caseload perhaps not responsible for
the tremendous increase in the arrears of payors outside of Manitoba?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am informed that additional
staff is not the issue here. The issue
is the enforcement of the order, and the enforcement takes place outside of our
jurisdiction. So it is not a matter of
staff in our jurisdiction; it is a matter of enforcement in the other
jurisdictions.
Mr. Mackintosh: I just remind the minister that the
experience in Manitoba has been the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and the same
would hold true for orders that are filed elsewhere. I would think, if there were someone on the
case all the time, that there would be more effective extraprovincial
enforcement.
Just an answer to a question from an individual: Italy, does it have a reciprocal arrangement
with Manitoba? I do not know if the
minister can provide that now.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not able to provide the answer, but I
will undertake to provide the member with a list.
Mr. Mackintosh: It appears that there is a very heavy
caseload for the REMO‑out officer.
I understand there are a couple that are working on that, but one of them,
in particular, has an extremely high caseload.
I am wondering what steps the minister has taken to deal with that
disproportionate load.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I would like to take a moment
just to correct the record, because in answering the last two questions,
obviously we did not hear the REMO‑out and REMO‑in correctly. I would like to correct the record for the
member and answer the two questions that he has provided.
His first question was about REMO‑in and the caseload
of REMO‑in. REMO‑in, where
the payor lives here in Manitoba, the caseload is somewhat high at the moment
in REMO‑in. However, we do have
additional staff in training, and that additional staff in training will be
able to assist, and we expect those caseload numbers to be brought down.
The second question was regarding the REMO‑out, where
the payor lives outside of our jurisdiction, and in that case the answer is
that the enforcement takes place outside of our jurisdiction. So it has been our experience that it is not
the number of maintenance enforcement officers but it is instead that there is
co‑operation in the other jurisdiction to enforce the payment.
However, I understand the member's comments that he has
just raised on that matter in terms of the perhaps number of contacts. So I hope that clarifies both REMO‑out
and REMO‑in.
Mr. Mackintosh: I have actually had some difficulty in going
through the information as to what REMO‑in and REMO‑out mean, but I
did get a memo from the Maintenance office which defined REMO‑in as in
brackets payor not in Manitoba. So that
would seem to contradict what the minister has just said, or is the information
from Ms. Dunlop faulty in that respect?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, REMO‑out, the payor is not
in Manitoba. REMO‑in, it is the
payee that is not in Manitoba, but the payor is in Manitoba.
Mr. Mackintosh: Perhaps the minister would just pass that on
to Ms. Dunlop. This relates to a fax of
May 25.
I recall the minister advising in Question Period on one or
two occasions that there were five new staff members at the maintenance
office. I cannot see where that figure
comes from. I believe at a later date
she advised there were two. I cannot
find that either. I am wondering if the
minister can provide the details of the staff changes this year over last.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the answer that I have given in
the past is that there have been five new staff over two years. There were three new staff added last year. There are two new staff who are being added
this year, and they are noted in the Estimates book, page 71.
Mr. Mackintosh: Have both of the positions now been filled?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that both were filled. One left, so now we are in the process of
filling an additional position.
* (1450)
Mr. Mackintosh: Given that we are looking at a net increase
of one, I understand that there are some junior people that are helping out on
a temporary basis. Is my understanding
correct, that they are students or in that kind of capacity?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, just so that the tone of what
has occurred is accurate, there are two new people to be hired. Two new people were hired. One of those new people has subsequently
left. We are in the process of filling
that position.
I want to make sure that the record accurately reflects the
fact that two people were in fact hired.
Occasionally, circumstances cause people to leave their positions. That is what happened. We are in the process of filling that. We expect it to be filled very shortly.
In addition then to the two new staff which are noted in
the Estimates book, we have three STEP students who are students on summer
employment. These students are working
to input data to make sure that the database is as up to date as possible.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister advise how long it takes a
new designated officer to get up to full speed?
What is the expected duration of that learning process?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am informed that it takes in
the range of four to six months for people to feel fully confident and to feel
that they have a complete mastery of the work they are expected to be
performing.
Mr. Mackintosh: I have heard about concerns for privacy over
at the office and understand indeed that a lot of people are obliged really to
go down to the office in order to make contact with their officer, for those
who can get away. I have heard it said
many times that there is a concern that payees or payors and the officers have
to meet in the hallway. In fact, I am
very familiar with that hallway over there.
I am wondering what steps the minister has taken or plans to take to
ensure better privacy for people.
Mrs. Vodrey: At the moment that area is undergoing some
major renovations on the second floor.
The renovations should assist the privacy issue. There will be a private room for
interviews. There will be a much larger
waiting area which also allows for some privacy. The counters will also have partitions.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am pleased to hear that and I look forward to
some positive feedback on that.
As well, there have been concerns about security and the
minister alluded to some changes in that regard. I am wondering if there have been any orders
issued by Workplace Safety and Health regarding security and what specific
measures are being taken to ensure the safety of people working in that office.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that there have been no orders that
have come from Workplace Safety.
However, we are aware of the security issue and as the renovations are
being developed, the officers are being consulted to make sure that their
security concerns can be taken into consideration as we are looking at the
changes to the second floor.
Mr. Mackintosh: Given the changes in the caseload over the
last several months and the changes in staffing, I wonder if the minister has
projections for over the next fiscal year to the end of this fiscal year on the
caseloads per officer.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am told that when the
new staff are fully trained, the officers are fully trained, we expect the
caseload to be in the range of 700 per officer.
That is the lowest number caseload per officer across Canada.
Mr. Mackintosh: I will be looking forward to seeing what the
actual distribution, in other words, the range is per officer, because I think
that can be more telling than averages.
I wonder about the computerization of the orders and the
documents. I understand that there had
been expectations at one point that the computerization would be completed by
now, certainly, I think some time ago. I
am wondering where it is at.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am told that the
enhancements are now being tested and that we expect the new system to be fully
operational by the end of the summer.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering if there is expected to be a
quicker turnaround as a result of the computerization of the office.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I am told that we would expect to see
improvement.
* (1500)
Mr. Mackintosh: I simply warn the minister that sometimes a
change in technology in an office and new procedures actually results in more
work or a greater delay, but I will look forward to seeing the results of that
on the understanding that there will be full implementation shortly.
I understand from the Detailed Estimates and responses from
the minister to questions in Question Period that an automated voice system is
being considered for Manitoba. I am
wondering what the status is of that.
Mrs. Vodrey: We will be putting out the request for
proposals for the automated voice response system, and we will be looking for
those proposals then to give us information so that we can take the next step.
Mr. Mackintosh: Does the department have a target date for
its implementation?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, our target date for the
operation would be the end of '94 or early '95.
Mr. Mackintosh: Does the department have a clear plan in mind
as to what use the automated voice system will have? Is it expected to simply have the officer's
voice on there and messages are left directly with the officer rather than the
two front line people, or is there some other plan that is contemplated?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am told that this is more than
simply an answering machine kind of process, but instead, through the automated
voice response, the individuals making inquiries should be able to access an
updated status of their file. They would
be able to access selected information regarding the enforcement action, and
they should be able to access this information.
We are looking for it to be operative over 24 hours a day
so that individuals are not then just forced to deal with the office during the
hours that a government office would be open but could access information at
other times also.
Mr. Mackintosh: I do not know what research the department
has done on this kind of system for messaging, but I understand the experience
in Ontario has been a mixed one. People
want to talk to people. Many of the
questions are about detailed issues and not the information that is recorded on
the voice mail.
I would urge the minister to canvass what is happening in
other jurisdictions so that we do not repeat errors here in Manitoba that have
been experienced elsewhere. I think that
the observation that people want to talk to people will serve to further
frustrate people who are trying to make contact with their directors. I am just wondering if the minister can
respond to that.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am told that the department
did research into this. They looked at
the kinds of calls which were coming into the office. I am told that 50 percent of the calls were
for information, the kind of information that will be available immediately
through the automated voice response system so that people who are just calling
to get an update will be able to have that updated information.
What that will allow, then, is that for the other 50
percent of individuals who do have a more complex request or who need some
additional kinds of information other than would be available to them on the
automated voice response will then have access to the maintenance enforcement
officers. So we look for this to be an
improvement.
We look for it to satisfy the questions that people have, where
they are simple ones, to get that information to them quickly and have it
available to them when they want to know the information but also, then, to
allow the maintenance enforcement officers to be available to people who are
asking for additional kinds of help and information.
Mr. Mackintosh: The Detailed Estimates state that one of the
expected results was consultation with community and legal organizations about
the enforcement program and obtaining views on how to improve the system. I am wondering what the minister means by
that.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am told that we have two
actions, which are, one ongoing and one about to occur. One is that we are sending a questionnaire to
the users of the maintenance enforcement system. We will be asking questions regarding the
operations of the system and look to get feedback from those people who are
users.
Secondly, we are working with Family Law. When we were in the Family Law section I
discussed this briefly. Family Law is
leading a consultation. They are having
discussion with women's groups as well as the legal community to look ahead to
change the legislation.
Mr. Mackintosh: In Question Period today I asked the minister
what legislation she would be bringing in.
Is the minister saying that she will not be bringing in legislation this
session? It was my understanding that
that would be the case under the throne speech.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, this has always been spoken
about as a process. Every answer that I
have given to date has spoken about the consultation with women's groups to get
a good view of what those changes might be.
The changes then to the act will not be brought forward this session,
but we do look to get information so that changes may be forthcoming in another
session.
Mr. Mackintosh: When does the minister expect the
consultations with community groups will begin?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am told we expect those
to begin in September.
* (1510)
Mr. Mackintosh: If the minister has asked for the users of
the system to comment, I hope she is ready for this.
In Question Period today, I asked questions about the
backlog in the court and what the department's understanding is of the effect
of what is called the Filmon Fridays on that court, the maintenance enforcement
court. Could the minister advise what
impact is expected?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am told that as a rule
it is usually in the range of four to six weeks for a case to come before a
master for these matters.
Generally, the scheduling is in the range of 10 to 12
matters for each docket, and the summer dockets will be commencing one‑half
hour earlier. So in that case, we have
room for 13 to 14 cases, which are more cases than the number 10 which is the
usual number of cases heard. So there
could be an additional four cases or almost 50 percent.
I am also told that there are still some spots available
through July for show‑cause hearings.
I am told that there is a spot‑‑I have specific dates‑‑on
July 7, a spot on July 11, two spots on July 21, three on July 25, and that
there are certainly spots available also beginning in August. So it appears that the question of no spots
available until latter July, there are in fact some spots available earlier
than that, and that this is not an unusual period of time. This is a period of time that I understand is
within the range that is quite usual.
I also am told that in looking across Canada, this is a
very good time frame. I am told that in British
Columbia, the time frame is four to six months.
So Manitoba is certainly endeavouring to provide opportunities well
before that.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I was certainly not pleased to read the
memo from Carol Abbott, the Director of Judicial Support, May 20, which set out
the reduced workweek. To find
Maintenance Enforcement on that list is one area of concern, of course, but I
certainly am concerned that the delay is going to worsen considerably. I understand that the‑‑
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey: On a point of order, Madam Chair, the
member's comments the delay "worsen considerably," that certainly did
not come from any facts which I have just put forward and put on the table, so
I think the member better clarify what he means and not continue to bring
concretely wrong information forward to Manitobans.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Justice does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Mackintosh: There was no point of order. Of course not. The fact is that there are many, many people
who are very concerned about what is going to happen to the delay in
maintenance enforcement court as the Filmon Fridays hit, and the reductions on
the several dates. That is just a matter
of logic, I would suggest.
By simply increasing or starting the sittings at one‑thirty
and therefore increasing the number of hearings by one or two will not be
sufficient, I do not think. That is my
opinion, and we will see what happens over the course of the summer, but I
certainly have reason for concern.
Finally, I have heard on some occasions, and I think on two
occasions that I brought to this House, that the minister's office has not
responded as it had advised, in this case, payees that it would. I am wondering if the minister has considered
designating a person in her office specifically to deal with complaints about
the Maintenance Enforcement office.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, all of the numbers of
issues and important concerns that come forward to my office are being dealt
with, I believe, in a very efficient way.
The staff in my office deal with‑‑and perhaps the member
cannot anticipate, but they certainly deal with a very wide range of
issues. All of those issues are
important, each one of them.
What I can say, however, is that the individual in question
phoned, I understand, quite late on Friday afternoon. The individual who took the call was very,
very concerned and made every human effort to reply to that call the next
working day, which was Monday. However,
the information was not available on Monday. It was certainly for no lack of
effort, and that individual will be responded to as very quickly as possible.
The individual perhaps now will say, when I have the
information, but because my office takes these so very seriously, they have
endeavoured to get back to individuals, and we will speak about Maintenance
Enforcement specifically, since that is the budget line that we are covering at
the moment. They recognize the
information as very important to individuals and have made every effort to
respond on the next working day. That is
the situation here. It was the next
working day in which the call was to be returned.
So I would like to remove any sense from the record that my
office simply let the calls from a Manitoban sit there and the concerns of a
Manitoban wait. That was certainly not
the case. The effort was made to get
that information by the very next working day.
Mr. Mackintosh: My final question regarding the Maintenance Enforcement
office is what is the position or the policy of the department for overtime of
officers?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, as I have spoken this afternoon
about the introduction of new staff and also the assistance of the three STEP
students, we now will be looking at our overtime and also wanting to re‑evaluate
what overtime is said to be required.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, in the meantime, would the minister
advise what the current overtime policy is for the officers?
* (1520)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the policy is, where there is a
clear and identified need to look at overtime, then certainly that will be
looked at, but I provide those comments with the knowledge and the facts,
again, that we have three STEP students.
We have now one additional person, and we expect to have another shortly
to return us to that complement of two new individuals within the Maintenance
Enforcement office.
Mr. Mackintosh: I have some further questions under the line,
but I will pass over to the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick).
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Madam Chair, much has been made about
Manitoba's position vis‑à‑vis other jurisdictions, and the caseload
distribution which the minister has indicated puts us in a favourable position
when we look at a national comparison.
Is the minister aware of a national study that was conducted by Nova
Scotia's maintenance enforcement program, which sent out a questionnaire to 12
jurisdictions?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the director is not aware
of that study, and if the member has a date of that study, perhaps she could
give us the information.
Ms. McCormick: Yes, I am pleased to do this. In fact, there is a response from Manitoba
which indicates that someone in the department must have had sufficient knowledge
of it to respond. This national survey
in fact puts Manitoba, I think, at or close to the bottom with respect to‑‑
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, will the member please give the
date of this study?
Madam Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Justice does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Ms. McCormick: I am pleased to put on the record that the
information contained in the provincial responses, some of it is current to
1990‑91; others include information from years earlier. There are some handwritten notes which
indicate 1994 data, particularly for Alberta.
Just to give a capsule summary, British Columbia's
maintenance enforcement program indicates they have 110 people on their staff
with their caseloads representing about 928 per officer for non‑REMO
cases and 995 for REMO out. They
collected in 1990‑91 about $17 million.
Alberta employs 113 people and has a caseload of 844 per
officer and collects approximately $4 million a month.
The Saskatchewan department employs 22 people, has a
caseload per officer of 540 and collects a total of about $11.4 million a year.
Manitoba, according to this information, employs 20 people
and has a caseload of about 1,250 per officer as the average caseload. That is Manitoba's response.
Ontario employs 340 people and they have not‑‑
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the member is putting extremely
dated information on the record about this province. I am not concerned about the other
provinces. I am concerned about the information
put forward about this province. She
indicates a study as May 1991. The
information I am providing to the House is May '94, and my numbers are quite
different than the numbers she is putting on the record.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Justice does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Ms. McCormick: Yes, Madam Chair, I will raise some questions
around Manitoba's position vis‑à‑vis a comparison between May '94
and May '93 at some point.
If I could just continue with this cross‑country
analysis. I believe we were at Ontario
with 340 staff; Quebec with 223 people employed, they say with persons who have
the powers of collector; Nova Scotia 27.5 and again the caseload averaging 744
per officer; New Brunswick employing 45 people and collecting about $9 million
a year in '88‑'89‑'90 information.
Now, when we come to the smaller jurisdictions, Yukon,
employing two people, has a caseload of 400 per officer; Northwest Territories,
employing two people, has a caseload of 350 per officer; and Prince Edward
Island with two people, again, having caseloads of 510 for the director and 340
for officer.
The only jurisdiction which appears to be worse than
Manitoba according to this cross‑country check‑up is Newfoundland, which
has a ratio of 1,600 per officer, although they do make note that they have
temporary help that they bring in when the numbers rise.
* (1530)
I am curious, given that when you look at Manitoba's
numbers comparing May 1994 with caseloads which appear to be in the 800 to 900
case range, with the exception of REMO‑in which has been discussed at
about over 1,100 and REMO‑out indicating an amount close to 2,000,
whether Manitoba in fact is sufficiently resourced to discharge its programs.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the member has now spent a
good deal of time putting information that is approximately three to four years
stale‑dated about other provinces, information about other provinces
stale‑dated by three to four years, on the record in the Estimates of the
Department of Justice in the Province of Manitoba. I see that as the looking backwards, old‑think,
inability to deal with the facts of today as demonstrated by the member for
Osborne (Ms. McCormick). I also think
too that if she feels that that information is so important, table it. Put it forward and let us look at what she is
saying so we have the full explanation of the figures that she is putting
forward.
Madam Chairperson, I am very happy to put some figures on
the record now that deal with May '94.
These are the current figures.
These came from interprovincial comparisons. They speak about Newfoundland with cases per
officer of 1,200; Nova Scotia, which the member points to proudly as having
done this study, cases of 1,000; Ontario, cases of 1,300; British Columbia,
cases of 1,656; and Manitoba with its caseload in the range of 800 in May,
which we expect with the additional staff to be reduced to 700. So it does put Manitoba with the up‑to‑date
facts with the up‑to‑date numbers available which I believe is what
the people of Manitoba want to know about.
Do the people of Manitoba want to continually hear facts
about other provinces that are so stale‑dated, or do they want to know
what their position is now? I believe
that they want to know now what is the position in Manitoba, and if they would
like to know a comparison, what is the comparison for today.
I am very happy to have been able to put that current
information on the record.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, I think there is an issue
broader than the raw numbers‑‑and we have to look at what happens
with respect to the assignment of responsibilities to enforcement officers I
think which makes Manitoba's position rather clear. For example, British Columbia employs 110 people: 16 enforcement officers, 17 enforcement
assistants, six enrollment officers, 13 mail inquiry clerks and a variety of
other positions, 12.5 legal counsel, six legal secretaries.
Similarly, when you look at other jurisdictions, Alberta
employing 113 people have, in addition to their collection officers, 29 support
staff who conduct word processing, filing and receptionist duties.
In Saskatchewan, there are 10 enforcement officers backed
by another 10 clerical and accounting people plus two management staff.
When you go to Ontario, there are 267 clerks and support
staff backing 50 regional enforcement officers, 18 legal counsel and five
managers.
We can continue with this, but I think the point is that in
Manitoba we have got maintenance enforcement officers with caseloads which you
know if the minister wishes to say are favourable to be compared, but we need
to find out in questioning what additional resources are put into the
maintenance enforcement officer positions to relieve them of some other kinds
of duties.
For example, I believe in 1990 there were two positions
which were called sheriff's officers whose responsibility it was to locate
people. These people worked full time to
obtain information on payors which payees could not provide.
My understanding is that these two positions were lost to
the department and that these duties of the locators now fall to the
enforcement officers. I would like to
know whether this is in fact correct information.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the member is putting forward
comparisons which are really not able to be compared. I am struggling with the point that she is
making.
I would say to her that let us look at provinces of perhaps
similar size or type. We could look at
Saskatchewan. Many times Saskatchewan is
referenced in relation to Manitoba. We
might look at a Maritime province like Nova Scotia. I would use those to compare cases and
caseload: 1,000 per officer in Nova
Scotia; 923 in Saskatchewan; 800, we look to have reduced to 700, in Manitoba.
Let us look at the amount of money collected. In Nova Scotia, with cases of 1,000 per
officer, a collection of $19 million.
Let us look at Saskatchewan, with cases of 923 per officer, a collection
of $17.9 million. Let us look at
Manitoba with 800, reducing to 700 cases, per officer, with a collection of
$31.2 million.
So the member has looked at provinces across Canada,
attempted to look at staff of varying job descriptions, but I believe that the
number or the issue is in the area of collection, how have we been successful,
how are we managing the cases, and I think that these numbers are important.
I can also tell the member, as I look at the information
that I have from across Canada, we in Manitoba are the only province where our
collected exceeds the arrears. So
although she has attempted to paint a picture across Canada of Manitoba in a
very negative light, she has not obviously looked into the numbers which give
those facts.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, I listened carefully to the
minister's answer, awaiting the answer to my question with respect to the
sheriff's officers who formerly worked to obtain information on payors.
My understanding is that in 1993 the sheriff's officer
positions were terminated and the duties that they were assigned were given to
designated officers. The sheriff's
officers, I guess, worked about 15 hours a day between the two of them and this
is now being absorbed by the designated officers.
Can the minister confirm that these sheriff's officer
positions were permanently lost to the department and that the duties were
assumed by the designated officers?
Mrs. Vodrey: In the past, I am told that there were three
sheriffs whose sole job did the locates for a period of time. Those positions were changed to positions of
Maintenance Enforcement officers, who now are able to do a much wider range of
function.
I am also told that the Sheriff's Office will in fact still
do locates for the Maintenance Enforcement office.
Ms. McCormick: My information indicates that in 1993, there
were a total of seven designated officers, and then in the latter part of 1993,
it increased to eight, and then in April 1994, it dropped to six. You have indicated in answering questions
from the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) that two additional people were
hired in May of 1994 and one has since left, so we are back to a status of, in
1994, seven designated officers.
Can you indicate to me how this nets out at an increase of
two positions from 1993, where the increase was allowed for a count of eight
designated officers?
* (1540)
Mrs. Vodrey: The number of officer positions: '92‑93 was seven; '93‑94 was 10;
'94‑95 is 12.
I have explained in terms of the 12 that two were hired, one
has since left and so we are looking to replace that second position, and I am
told that will be done very, very shortly.
Madam Chairperson: 5.(a) Court Services (1).
Ms. McCormick: I am curious with respect to the designated
officers, does the 12 include REMO‑in and REMO‑out?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, yes, it does.
Ms. McCormick: Does it also include someone who is
designated with responsibilities for Provincial Court?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told no.
Ms. McCormick: I think I have a need to identify whether the
three STEP students are included in this number.
Mrs. Vodrey: No, they are not.
Ms. McCormick: Does it include two former secretaries who
hold the title of designated officer trainees?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, it does.
Ms. McCormick: What is the lag time between when these
people are designated as officer trainees and when they will be carrying a full
caseload?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that where people are hired as
trainees as opposed to officers‑‑I answered the question about
officers being in the range of four to six months before they believe that
there is a complete mastery. People
hired as trainees do take somewhat longer.
They can take into the one‑year range. However, I am told that these individuals are
doing very well.
Ms. McCormick: I understand that the two secretaries who
became designated officer trainees left secretarial positions which have not
been replaced. Can the minister confirm
this?
Mrs. Vodrey: I think, for the record, there should be some
clarification here. The member has
referred to individuals as secretaries, had secretaries entered into
maintenance enforcement officer training?
There were two individuals whom we believe she had referred to as
secretaries; they were paralegals. This
was discussed under Prosecutions. Those
individuals moved from Prosecutions.
They moved to the Maintenance Enforcement program. They were paralegals. To say they were not replaced, they in fact‑‑the
member obviously was not available when we discussed that line. Crown Attorneys have been hired in
Prosecutions.
If the member is referring to secretarial positions which
are available within Maintenance Enforcement, not the individuals who have
begun training as maintenance enforcement officers but secretarial positions within
the Maintenance Enforcement office, those have not been filled because of the
movement to the voice automation.
Ms. McCormick: I would like to turn to some questions about
the voice‑operated system. Is it
correct that when the computer system is fully functional, it is expected that
designated officers will be producing their own documents, typing their own
correspondence and inputting changes on each file as required and that there
will be a corresponding elimination of secretarial positions?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I just want to make sure that
the member understands the secretarial positions that we are speaking
about. There were two which I believe
were referred to as secretaries, who we refer to as paralegals, who came from
Prosecutions. They are now maintenance
enforcement officers in training. There
were two internal secretarial positions within Maintenance Enforcement. Those secretarial positions are being
reclassified. They are being
reclassified to Clerk of the Court 2.
That is because, I am told, as a result of the automation then the
maintenance enforcement officers will not require the secretarial support that
had been anticipated in the first classification of that secretarial support,
which is why those positions are being reclassified.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, are the reclassified secretarial
people now with Clerk of the Court 2 included in the 12 count for the
designated officers?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, they are.
Ms. McCormick: Can the minister advise us what kind of clerical
backup now exists? How many secretaries
are available to support the officers?
What would be the ratio, for example, of officers to secretarial backup?
* (1550)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am told that there are four
secretaries which then are assigned to the 12 officers.
Ms. McCormick: Given that we have a ratio of three officers
to one secretary in the present scheme, what is the plan for the ratio once the
voice‑automated system is in place?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am not able to tell the member
at the moment exactly what the required ratio will be with that
enhancement. However, I can tell her
that there are support staff other than those classified as secretaries who
already work within the Maintenance Enforcement area. The functions that these people do will
continue to be required. We will have to
look at our needs when the voice‑automated system comes into place. There are clerical staff in the file
room. There are clerical staff in the
computer centre. There are clerical staff
in the telephone centre as well.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, I have a question now in the
area of REMO‑out. I have case
distribution information from August of '93 compared to May 6, 1994, indicating
that the caseload for REMO‑out has grown from 825 to in excess of 2,000.
Can you explain how the determination is made to assign
2,000 cases to one or two individuals?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told by the department that their memory
of the numbers in the summer of August '93 was in the range of 1,500, so I am
not sure of where the member has the 800 number from and it may be helpful for
us to know that. However, there has been
some growth in the area of REMO‑out.
As I answered in an earlier answer, the payor is not in Manitoba, so it
becomes the responsibility of the other jurisdiction to then provide the
collection, and we are not always able to have complete control over how well
they will do their own enforcement.
I read over today the amount of money collected in other
provinces. It is clear Manitoba does a
good job at collecting, at least a good effort at collecting from those people
who are here. The numbers, as we looked
across Canada, were lower in other jurisdictions.
So I again have to tell the member that we have to rely on the
enforcement in another jurisdiction in the REMO‑out cases.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, actually it is the REMO‑out
section that I have had the personal experience with, and I think that it is a
problem to assume that there is nothing that Manitoba can do with respect to
encouraging enforcement in other jurisdictions.
My own particular order was to be enforced in England. The documents were sent to the Queen's Court
in London, and I heard nothing for a very long time. After several attempts to get through to the
REMO‑out officer, I was told that they had in fact heard from England
that the payor was not at the address I had provided to them which in fact was
his mother's address and my children were communicating with him on a regular
basis at that address.
Without being able to get any detail of this, I asked for
the number of the London office and asked them to send to me directly the
correspondence upon which they determined that the payor was not at this
address and in fact was provided with correspondence straight from London which
indicated that he had written back in response to a letter: Dear sir, please advise us if this is your
correct address, in his handwriting returned to the British officer making the
inquiry: Dear madam, please be advised,
this is not my correct address. In the
intervening time, of course, once he realized that the order was to be
processed in England, he fled the jurisdiction.
My question is this.
The information which was transmitted from England back to Canada had
arrived in Manitoba several months prior to my obtaining the information
directly from England, and it gave the payor sufficient time to flee the
jurisdiction.
Is it justifiable to retain caseloads hovering around
whatever we want to use, 18 to 2,000, when in fact there is a benefit to timely
communication with the recipient?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, you may want to make a
ruling on this. I do not know. The member has in her comments provided us
with what is likely highly confidential information, information and
allegations, allegations made about an individual who is not in this House to
defend himself. The member has brought
forward details of a case and, again, put information on the record her
allegations, as if fact, before this House to remain in the permanent record of
this Legislature. I do not know whether
there is any ruling to be made on that.
However, I am not able to provide comment on a situation
which is brought forward by an individual before this House with allegations. I am not able to at this point confirm
anything that the member has said. I
would ask the member to remember, please, that our comments are all here
forever and ever for the people of Manitoba to read and where there are
confidential pieces of information that it would be very important for that to
be remembered.
I remember very well the member's speech from the throne in
which she wanted to respect individual's rights, in which ethics were an
important part. I am having difficulty
answering the details of her question with the information available to me.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, I will challenge the minister
then to put on the record information with respect to the time lines of the
response by the REMO‑out officer to recipients, or more awaiting
recipients. I would like information on
how long it takes this officer with 1,825 in her caseload, or whatever number
we are currently using, to respond when information on the status of orders
comes from other jurisdictions.
* (1600)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am informed that that
information is communicated quickly.
There may be exceptions. If there
is a particular case of concern, I encourage the member, as I have in all
cases, to speak to me, speak to my office, and we will make every effort to
assist, but my understanding from the maintenance enforcement office is that
that information is communicated as quickly as possible.
Ms. McCormick: I was asking for a time line within which the
department would find it acceptable to receive information on the status of an
order from another jurisdiction and then communicate it. Is it like a matter of one week, one month,
six months? What would be considered to
be an acceptable time line?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am informed the time frame is
a week to 10 days.
Ms. McCormick: Can the minister describe the process of when
the order is sent to another jurisdiction, is there a period of time within
which the status of the order is checked out, or is it simply a matter of awaiting
a communication from the receiving jurisdiction?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, there are two parts. The request would go out to the other
jurisdiction. We do have to rely on the
other jurisdiction to make that contact.
If the individual asks us very specifically then to follow up and to
find out what the status is within the other jurisdiction, then we certainly do
that. On the other hand, we also, as a
regular routine check, at least twice a year on orders where there has not been
any action or any response to make sure that the jurisdiction is still making
some effort to work on behalf of the payee who resides in Manitoba.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, do I understand that that
biannual checking is ongoing, or is there a time where the officers would give
up?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, The response I have is we never
give up.
Ms. McCormick: What would be your practice, then, to
communicate to, for example, myself as a recipient about the efforts being made
on my behalf? Would it have been reasonable
to expect that this biannual status would have been reported to me twice a year
in the intervening four years since I last had contact with Maintenance
Enforcement?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said in an earlier answer, and I stand
by it, I cannot answer a very personal question that the member puts. I cannot allow Estimates to become so
personalized as that. But responding in
a very general sense, I can say that jurisdictions often just do not tell
us. We make the inquiry, and we do not
get information back.
However, if the member is leading up to saying, would it be
helpful to let individuals know that every six months or twice yearly there has
at least been an inquiry made on their behalf, I think that would be a good
idea. That is something that we can
certainly look at.
Ms. McCormick: I am interested in learning in terms of the
number of increased enrollments that come in to the Maintenance Enforcement
Program? Can the minister indicate to us
what the month‑to‑month census indicates with respect to increase
in participants in the program?
Mrs. Vodrey: We do not have the statistics calculated
month‑by‑month. We have the
statistics calculated year over year.
Between '89‑90, it was an increase of 5.1 percent; '90‑91,
an increase of 7.6; '91‑92, an increase of 5.1 and '92‑93, an
increase of 6.1.
* (1610)
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, I have some questions with
respect to the growth of this program within the confinements of the space that
it is now occupying.
My knowledge of the maintenance enforcement facilities on
the second floor of the Woodsworth Building indicate that if a person goes to
get information and presents oneself at the wicket, there is no place in which
the person wishing to discuss their situation with the designated officer can,
in fact, go to have a private meeting.
This has been a matter of some serious concern to people in
dealing with the system. The presumption
is that it encourages telephone contact and not face‑to‑face
contact. Yet, many women who
participated in our consultation said the only way to get action is to go down
to the office and just camp out until somebody pays attention to you.
Is there a concern for the adequacy of the physical
facility with respect to allowing some privacy for communication between the
recipient and the officers who are to enforce the orders on their behalf?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I answered in an earlier answer, we are
undertaking renovations for the second floor.
We recognize that privacy and also security are issues to be considered. In my earlier answer, I spoke about the
renovations including a private interview room, also partitions at the wickets
to allow for privacy, larger waiting rooms so that there is also an element of
privacy.
So we are working with the maintenance enforcement officers
to deal with what are seen as security issues and also privacy issues, and we
look to improve the space.
Ms. McCormick: When can we expect these improvements to be a
reality?
Mrs. Vodrey: We certainly intend to have these changes
made by year‑end. I understand
that the floor plan is almost completed, but following that, tenders have to go
out and there is a process in government for looking at renovations of this
type.
Ms. McCormick: Could I have clarification of year‑end? Are we talking improvements achieved by the
end of the fiscal or the calendar year?
Mrs. Vodrey: We are speaking of the fiscal year at the
very latest.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, another area of
considerable concern to those who met to discuss the service for maintenance
enforcement was the hours in operation.
At present, we understand that the hours of operation are 8:30 to 4:30
and that there is very great difficulty in, in fact, connecting with the
officer who has responsibility for a specific file.
Has thought been given to expanding the hours of operation
to allow for recipients who are employed to have access during out‑of‑work
hours to direct contact with maintenance enforcement staff?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, as the member knows, we
are in the process of doing a survey, a questionnaire, to all of the
individuals who receive service or are users of the system. So we will have a look at what comes back
from that questionnaire and see if there is any indication of a need for change
on the side of the payee which the member speaks about. The payee, by and large, provides information
about where the payor may be or where the payor may be working, and if those
individuals feel that there is a need for other kinds of personal contact at
other hours, then that may show itself in a questionnaire.
Ms. McCormick: Perhaps the minister answered this question
in an earlier response to the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh).
Can the minister indicate when this survey will be in the
hands of the people who are the registered recipients in maintenance
enforcement?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, yes, I believe I indicated
August.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, is it intended to be a
universal survey or a random selection of recipients?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed it is to be a random selection.
Ms. McCormick: Can the minister give us any indication of
what the sample size will be?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, I cannot at this time.
Ms. McCormick: Will there be an intention on the department to
make the survey's availability known to recipients, for example, through some
kind of a media indication that the department is interested in people's
opinions, so, for example, a person could phone in and ask for a survey to be
sent to them?
Mrs. Vodrey: The basis of the survey was to be
random. However, as the member knows,
where people have concerns, then we certainly want to know what the concerns
are, and nothing precludes people from letting us know what their concerns are
or what ideas that they have might be and to make sure that we are able to look
at those also.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, I understand then that the
answer is affirmative, that if a person wanted to fill in the survey they could
phone the department and request that one be sent.
* (1620)
Mrs. Vodrey: No, I do not believe the member understood
the answer. What I said was, we will be
doing the survey, the questionnaire.
That will be done by random sample.
However, as in all cases where individuals have issues that they would
like to have considered or points they would like to have raised, that those
are issues which we certainly are prepared to receive and can be forwarded to
us at any time. They do not have to be
confined to the time of the survey.
Ms. McCormick: Will the design of this survey and its
implementation be done within the department or contracted out to an
organization with specialty in this kind of research activity?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am told that it will be
developed within the department.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, can you tell me, then, how the
sample selection will be determined?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, I can only tell the member that it will
be random, but I am not able to tell her the mechanics of the sampling at this
time.
Ms. McCormick: Can the minister advise what kind of
safeguards will be in place to ensure that only those people whose orders are
current or who are not "squeaky wheels" are recipients of the survey?
Mrs. Vodrey: I can only go back to saying that the survey
will be random, so we expect that it will be a survey which incorporates
concerns from the full range and responses from the full range.
Ms. McCormick: I would like to now ask for some information
on the use of federal garnishing orders with respect to the co‑operation
from Justice Canada, Supply and Services, and then I have some questions
specifically with respect to administration fees.
My understanding is that the federal Department of Justice some
time ago instituted a $435 administration fee where a federal enforcement order
is in place. Can the minister advise us
whether there was an impact on the department, the Maintenance Enforcement
Program's operation, when this federal administration fee came into being?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am told that we do not appear
to have an impact because the collection of the fee is from the payor. It is done by the federal government. It does not affect what is owing or paid from
our side.
Ms. McCormick: My understanding is that there is a great
deal of confusion in this area. For
example, where unemployment insurance is garnished, the payor may have not only
the amount of the back order garnished but also an additional amount of up to
$435 for the federal administration fee.
So the person has lost perhaps what they think is a double hit. Say the person was owed $435 in arrears and
then the administration fee is tacked onto it, so $900 plus or minus would be
taken away. The payor then understands
that they have made two payments when in fact they have only made one. Then the payor becomes hostile. The payee does not understand why the money
has gone to satisfy the administration fee and not come to the receiving
family. So an arrears situation can
continue despite the fact that the payor believes that the money has been then
paid.
Can you tell me in fact when the administration fee went
on, and whether or not the perception that this is creating a problem by the
people who are having difficulties on the receiving end‑‑just got
to think my question through here‑‑perceive that in fact there has
been an increased problem since this federal administration fee went on?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that this was a federal
decision. That it occurred in early
1994, to the best of our knowledge. That
the $435 is payable over five years; that it is generally a payment of $85 per
year for that administrative fee.
Ms. McCormick: The information I have been given indicates
that is not the way it is being administered, so I am very willing to go back
and check with Justice Canada to see if they are doing it over on a time‑payment
basis.
The final area that I would like to go into is with respect
to the load on the enforcement officers.
Can you tell me, by comparison to other aspects of your department
whether the staff turnover rate in the Maintenance Enforcement Program is the
same as, higher than, or lower than other aspects of the Department of Justice?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that we do not track staffing in
that way, though I am told that it seems that when people become officers, they
do stay. It is an impression only, but
Maintenance Enforcement tells me that it is their impression that the turnover
is quite low and that five years appears to be an average.
Ms. McCormick: 5.(a) Court Services (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $2,656,600. Shall the
item pass?
* (1630)
Mr. Mackintosh: Just one question. The Capital expenditure going to $95,700, if
the minister could just explain what that is for? What the largest area is that is receiving
that money?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the 18.5 increase is an increase
for the computer related capital purchases for the automated voice.
Madam Chairperson: Item 5. Courts (a) Court Services (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,656,600‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $1,012,400‑‑pass.
5.(b) Winnipeg Courts (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Mackintosh: Who comprises the Family Violence Court
Implementation Committee?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I would like to just take a
moment to introduce Greg Graceffo to the committee. He is the executive director of Winnipeg
Courts.
The implementation committee for the Domestic Violence
Court is a committee chaired by the chief judge, and it is her committee. I can tell the member who the representatives
from the Department of Justice are on that committee: Bruce Miller, the director of Prosecutions
for Winnipeg; Candice Minch who is a policy analyst; and Carol Abbott from
Judicial Services.
Mr. Mackintosh: We dealt with this item largely under
Prosecutions, I believe. I just have a
few other questions. Given the so‑called
Filmon Fridays, I am wondering what assessment the minister has done as to its
impact on the backlog and what steps is the minister taking to deal with the
backlog in Family Violence Court.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am told that cases which
were set down on those Fridays were all advanced. There have been no cases which have been put
back to September as a result of the workweek reduction days. No trial time has been lost. All of the cases which have been set down
have been accommodated and have been accommodated earlier.
Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that some court dates have now
been made available in October and November.
I am wondering where that came from.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am told that those would
be special sittings. Time would have
been found available from other sources and has been made available to the
Domestic Violence Court.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware whether there have been
any applications based on the Askov ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in
the Family Violence Court?
Mrs. Vodrey: None that we are aware of.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering if the department has
considered presentencing assessments of accused in domestic violence
sentencing.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I wonder if I could ask
the member to clarify the question. We
are having a little trouble understanding exactly what information he requires.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just to take a step back then, is there any
presentencing assessment done of persons convicted of domestic violence?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, in looking to answer, I
would start by saying that the presentence report is always available. The accused has to ask, and then it is
judicially determined case by case.
Mr. Mackintosh: If there is a presentencing assessment, who
conducts the assessment?
Mrs. Vodrey: The presentence reports are done by
Probation.
Mr. Mackintosh: Final question, I am just wondering of the
status of the court monitoring system.
Have there been a lot of complaints?
I know over the course of implementation of the recording of court
proceedings‑‑and I am wondering the status of that program.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am told that as of May
31, from January '94 to May 31, '94, we have completed 1,224 transcripts. We have 131 left. That is a 90.33 percent completion rate. In May, we transcribed 21,084 pages. It takes us, for a 64‑page report,
approximately 16 days, and that is a comparison to the previous nine months
that it would have taken.
* (1640)
Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that the Hearing Officer Program
comes under Judicial Services. On that
understanding, I am prepared to move from this item.
Mr. Kowalski: I just have a question about
transcripts. I noticed that the goal or
the objective is to have them within 28 days of receipt of request. Is that 28‑day goal, is there a
legislation or something, or is that just something that the department has
decided is a goal, 28 days?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, it is an internal target. It has been established by the management
services internally.
Madam Chairperson: 5.(b) Winnipeg Courts (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $7,348,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$1,540,900‑‑pass;
5. (c) Regional Courts.
Mr. Mackintosh: We have been putting off the issue of the
position at The Pas, and this relates to a question raised by the member for
The Pas (Mr. Lathlin). I understand that
there has been a deletion of a position, or at least in individual laid off,
and I am wondering if the minister can explain what took place there.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am informed that an individual
was hired as a casual employee with Regional Courts in The Pas, and the casual
status was on an if‑and‑when basis.
There was no guarantee of hours.
The individual, or the position, was an administrative secretary. There was no staff year in The Pas court
office for the position, and the funds to support the casual position came from
temporary vacancies in other areas of the province.
Now, we are looking across the province at the kinds of
work which needs to be done, and while there may be, and we expect will be,
some additional casual time available for The Pas court house, it is not
intended for recurring or for regular work, and casual relief may be required
for staff vacation and so on.
So the casual position expired June 3, '94, and my
understanding is that the individual who filled that casual position was aware
of her status and was given both verbal and written notice.
Madam Chairperson: 5.(c) Regional Courts (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $3,965,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$2,082,800‑‑pass;
5.(d) Judicial Services.
Mr. Mackintosh: Today I received an Order‑in‑Council
regarding John Enns as provincial judge, and it states in there that he retired
to pension effective May 1, 1994. I am
wondering if Mr. Enns was one of the individuals who has subscribed to the
retirement package which has been the subject of questions in the House.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, that individual was one of
seven.
Mr. Mackintosh: When are the effective dates, then? Is it May 1 for everyone, or are there
different dates, and if so, would the minister advise for those dates?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the other six individuals
have opted for a July 1 date.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the per diem of $365.10 per day that is to
be paid to Judge Enns the same rate that would be paid to the other six judges?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed the answer is yes and that that
represents 1/250th of a judge's annual salary.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is my understanding correct that the seven
judges are all coming back on an as‑needed basis and will be paid a per
diem?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I understand that this is
a process which is directed by the chief judge, that those seven individuals
will indicate their availability, and then they would enter into a contract with
the chief judge, as the chief judge establishes what the need will be.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is there a limit as to how many days per year
the judges will be able to work?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I believe, as I have
stated to earlier questions, the guaranteed number of days are 80, that judges
may in fact take part in. Anything over
that number of days is dependent upon the needs of the court, and that is
determined by the chief judge.
* (1650)
Mr. Mackintosh: Will these judges be receiving their normal
pension beginning on the retirement date?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, they will be drawing a pension from the
Civil Service Superannuation Board as of July 1, and the chief judge is
cognizant that the amount drawn between the pension and the number of days
worked does not exceed the amount of money or salary that a judge would have
earned before that judge had retired.
Mr. Mackintosh: Then, on top of that, will the judges be
entitled to the one‑time package?
Mrs. Vodrey: The one‑time window for the retirement
of these judges, the one‑time window which was accepted, does also allow
for one month of salary up to 12 months based on number of years worked, and
that would be paid out July 1.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister saying that there will be a
one‑time lump sum payment on July 1?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, yes, that is correct.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister table the detailed offer
that was made to the judges?
Mrs. Vodrey: The offer and the negotiation was spearheaded
and led by the Civil Service, and therefore it would be the Civil Service which
should provide the details of the offer.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister advise whether there exists
a legal opinion as to the appropriateness of not referring the benefit package
to the Legislature in accordance with changes made to The Provincial Court Act
a few years ago?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, it is the continued belief
of this government that this one‑time offer made to the judges was
outside of the scope of the legislation.
We have discussed in earlier answers, and I have answered on behalf of
government in earlier answers, that we believe that this is outside of the
scope of the legislation because it is one time and because it is a severance
package, and as we look at the legislation, that is not mentioned.
Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister have an objective as to
filling these positions?
Mrs. Vodrey: We know that if the seven individuals who are
planning to retire are available for their full 80 days, that would be the
equivalent of approximately two and a third judges. So we now have to work with the chief judge
to determine what she sees as the need, but we have always indicated that we
certainly will work closely with the chief judge in making every effort to meet
the needs of the court.
Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that there are six legally
trained magistrates that are called hearing officers who are available and
skilled to deal with many matters that are currently dealt with by Provincial Court
judges. I am just wondering what the
minister's position is as to the use of those hearing officers now to fill the
needs of Manitobans in the courts.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the judicial officer work
under the purview of the chief judge. She supervises the hearing officers‑‑I
am sorry. The chief judge is able to
look at how she wishes to use those individuals.
We will be interested in working with the chief judge to
look at her assessment of the needs of the court, but I have certainly made
that commitment before in this Chamber and to the chief judge. It is our intention that the courts operate
as efficiently as possible. We want to
make sure that the chief judge is able to express what she sees as the needs to
government, and that commitment to work closely with the chief judge remains,
but again, as I have said this afternoon, some of the assignment and the
assessment of needs falls strictly to the chief judge. She has to make those decisions, and then we
have to see what her assessment is.
Certainly, we will make every effort to work closely with her.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
* (1700)
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): The
Committee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, directs me to report the
same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye
(Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private
Members' Business.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑‑PRIVATE
BILLS
Bill 301‑‑The Misericordia General
Hospital Incorporation Amendment A ct
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), Bill 301, The Misericordia General
Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en
corporation le "Misericordia General Hospital," standing in the name
of the honourable member for Inkster.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, very briefly, as I had indicated
previously, this is a bill which the Liberal caucus had no problems with. In fact, our critic would like to put a few
words on the record. But I would have
only wished that we would have had this same sort of a co‑operative
feeling of passing a bill especially when we were dealing with the Grace
Hospital, as I am sure some of the individuals would be well aware of.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise
today and speak on second reading on Bill 301, The Misericordia General
Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act.
Today we have heard in this House from the député de St‑Boniface
(Mr. Gaudry) commemorating the 150 years of the Grey Nuns in Manitoba. Certainly, religious orders have played an
integral role in the development of our province and la Soeurs de la
Miséricorde are no exception. Not only
have religious orders played a very significant role in the development of
Manitoba and certainly in health care, but in particular the sisters here in
Manitoba have played a wonderful role in Manitoba, and I am sure they will as
we move into the 21st Century.
In 1898, the Sisters of Miséricorde travelled from
Montreal, from eastern Canada, to Winnipeg where they decided to open a mission
to assist single mothers, and this was in 1898, Mr. Speaker. Those happened to be the beginnings of what
is now, as we know it in the Wolseley constituency, the Misericordia Hospital.
We know that health care over the century has certainly
changed very much in Manitoba and certainly in Canada and in the world, and we
know that health care as well will change as we move into the 21st
Century. Certainly, the ability of
technology, the increased number of health professionals, the wide variety of
health professionals that are available, and certainly the complex issues, not
just medical but social, emotional and psychosocial issues that affect
Manitobans today are much different, I am sure, than what those sisters found
in 1898.
However, I am sure the one common thing is that in fact
people who are in the health care field, what the goal is always, is to provide
the best quality of care and service to individuals, to the clients. I am sure in 1898, the sisters, as they do
now in service through the Misericordia Hospital, have that same objective in
mind, and that is providing care and service to the people of Manitoba.
In 1969, the Misericordia General Hospital became owned and
operated by a corporation whose members were then the congregation of the
Sisters of the Misericordia. This bill
that I am speaking on today, of course, will allow amendments to the original
act of 1969 so that there will be a greater degree of flexibility for the board
of directors, for the corporation to appoint individuals to the board of
directors. Those individuals will not
necessarily be sisters but can be lay individuals from the community.
I think these sisters very much see this, as we move into
the 21st Century, that it is important that other community members outside of
the congregation have an opportunity to provide input and to serve on the
board, and this is why they have asked for this particular amendment.
As well, we also note in this particular bill that day‑to‑day
decisions of the board of directors, that there will be more authority given to
the executive to provide those day‑to‑day decision and that all of
the decisions do not necessarily have to go back to the corporation for
approval. So they are asking for a
greater degree of flexibility in terms of the authority that the executive of
the board of directors has.
I certainly, and my Liberal caucus, have no difficulty in
supporting this particular bill. We are
quite happy to see this particular bill go to the committee stage and look
forward to its passage.
I would just like to say in closing that definitely there
have been many changes in health care from the days of the mission that was
developed for single mothers to what we now see at the Misericordia Hospital,
including such programs as ophthalmology, their mental health day programs that
they operate and, as well, a brand new program, the Health Promotion Caravan, as
well as the many other services and supports that they provide to the community
in Winnipeg.
So we do wish the Misericordia Hospital well, and we do
support this bill. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading
of Bill 301, The Misericordia General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le "Misericordia General
Hospital." Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion? [agreed]
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑‑PUBLIC
BILLS
Bill 206‑‑The Coat of Arms, Emblems
and the Manitoba Tartan Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), Bill 206, The Coat of Arms, Emblems
and the Manitoba Tartan Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les armoiries,
les emblèmes et le tartan du Manitoba, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? Leave? [agreed]
SECOND READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 205‑‑The Child and Family
Services Amendment Act
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): This bill is identical to a bill by the same
title introduced by our previous member, our Family Services critic.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that Bill
205, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
services à l'enfant et à la famille, be now read a second time and referred to
a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this bill is
identical to our previous Family Services critic, the honourable member for
Wellington's (Ms. Barrett). However, we
believe there is still a need for this amendment. In fact, when we had this on the Order Paper
last year, a very interesting thing happened.
We were arguing that if the Children's Advocate made recommendations to
the minister, we would never find out what those recommendations were because
of course they would be confidential.
* (1710)
A very interesting thing happened. The Children's Advocate wrote a letter to
someone, a foster parent, I believe in Thompson, and said that he had made a
recommendation to the minister. In fact,
it was reported in the Sun on April 23, in an article by Riva Harrison and Dave
Rider, and it reported the contents of this letter. So of course we made use of that in Question
Period on April 22, and I asked the minister if the Children's Advocate had made
recommendations to the minister. The
minister was a little bit reluctant to admit it in his first and second
question, but finally on the third question the minister said, yes, the
Children's Advocate had made recommendations on a number of items.
Normally, we in the opposition would not find that out
unless, of course, by happenstance we came across some correspondence from the
Children's Advocate. It was actually
quite courageous of the Children's Advocate to put in a letter that he had made
recommendations to the minister when, under the legislation, he only reports to
the minister. I admire him. I commend the Children's Advocate for having
the courage to do that, but we cannot always rely on happenstance. We cannot always rely on letters that are
sent to us as opposition critics in order to find out what the recommendations
are that the Children's Advocate is making.
So, therefore, we believe the act needs to be amended so that the
Children's Advocate reports to the Legislative Assembly as does the
Ombudsperson, and that way all honourable members will find out what
recommendations are being made.
We know that in the past there have been concerns about
foster children and foster care rates, and those concerns have continued. In fact, last year we raised concerns about
the fact that the rates, I believe, were cut and also the funding to the Foster
Family Association was cut, but the main concern was the slash of foster parent
fees. This hacking and slashing by this
government has continued in this budget, but of course to a much lesser degree
because it is a pre‑election budget.
So, of course, you would not expect as many cuts in a pre‑election
budget, but nonetheless the cuts continue.
The group that has been the most adversely affected are
aboriginal people, because the foster family rates for extended families or
relatives have been cut. We got a very
interesting fax here from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, saying that
currently foster families in Manitoba receive approximately $20 per day per
child. The new policy change will pay
$10.97 for foster parents that care for children who are related to them, and
so the rate for relatives or family has been almost cut in half. We have asked questions about this in
Question Period as well, because we know that the vast majority of children in
foster care who are aboriginal are placed with aboriginal family members. This is a deliberate policy of the department
and a good policy and one that we support.
Of course, we cannot support the cut in rates because it is going to
adversely affect aboriginal families and children.
We have no way of knowing whether someone is raising this
with the Children's Advocate and the Children's Advocate is concerned, or
whether the Children's Advocate has written a letter to the Minister of Family
Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) and recommended that this be changed. We will probably never know that unless
someone leaks some correspondence or unless the Children's Advocate puts that
in correspondence to an individual and we happen to get a copy of that.
The other policy change is that a post‑adoption
registry fee has been assessed, and I believe that fee is $300, and we believe
that that is going to be a great deterrent to families and to children and
parents who want to be reunited, because either the parent adopted out a child
or the child was an adoptee. Once again,
we believe that this is detrimental to aboriginal people because large numbers
of their children were adopted off reserve and even out of province and out of
country. An end was put to that practice
after Judge Kimelman issued his report in which he described this practice as
cultural genocide, and so the minister of the day and the government of the
day, the NDP Pawley government, put an end to it soon after the report came
out. We have no idea whether the
Children's Advocate has concerns about the registration fee of $300. The Children's Advocate may feel that this is
discriminating against adoptees who are now searching for their parents, or
parents searching for their children.
But we probably will not find that out.
People may be complaining to the Children's Advocate and
asking the Advocate to intercede on their behalf. He may investigate, and he may write a letter
to the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), but we probably will not
find out if the Advocate makes any recommendations. So all we can do is raise questions in
Question Period and tell the Minister of Family Services that we disagree with
these policies which we believe most adversely affect aboriginal people.
There are other concerns in the area of Child and Family
Services. For example, I have the
results of some research done by an individual who looked at the number of
children in care and the rate of children in care and then compared Manitoba
with other provinces. I have a chart
here that says, interprovincial comparisons of rates of children in care, 1992,
adjusted for age differences in legal definitions where appropriate.
The rate for 1,000 under 18 for Manitoba is 15.0. I assume that means that for every 1,000
children under 18 in the province of Manitoba, 15 of them are children in
care. If you compare this with all the
other provinces, it is the highest of any province in Canada in 1992. The only higher areas were the Yukon and the
Northwest Territories. But this is a
disgraceful record for the province of Manitoba, and the Children's Advocate
may have concerns about this. The
Children's Advocate may have been contacted.
The Children's Advocate may have had a complaint come to him, and he may
have investigated it. We do not know
because, once again, the Children's Advocate reports to the minister rather
than to the Legislative Assembly.
Another current example is the problems of aboriginal child
care agencies and them asking for the province to intervene, and the province
took a number of months before they did anything. There may have been individuals who contacted
the Children's Advocate for assistance.
We do not know. The Children's
Advocate may have investigated. We do
not know that the Children's Advocate investigated. The Children's Advocate may have made
recommendations to the minister, but we will probably never know about those
recommendations unless someone sends us a copy of his correspondence.
[interjection]
Well, there are problems with never knowing, because these
are very important issues. We know, from
the many government investigations, that sometimes, occasionally, children's
lives are at risk and that occasionally individuals die. That is very tragic. If the Children's Advocate's recommendations
could prevent this, it would be extremely helpful and extremely important. We would like to know if the Children's
Advocate has made recommendations and, if so, what they are.
The Children's Advocate may be concerned about child
poverty in the province of Manitoba. In
1991, Manitoba had the worst rate of child poverty in Canada or the highest
rate of child poverty in Canada, with 26 percent of all children living in
poverty. That is 72,000 children in the
province of Manitoba. I happened to
mention this in Question Period recently, and the Minister of Family Services
(Mrs. Mitchelson) said, oh, no, we are not the child poverty capital of Canada
anymore. I believe in Estimates I found
out that we have now gone from first to third.
That is not because of anything that Manitoba has done. It is not because Manitoba has increased
social assistance payments for children and families or improved the Child
Related Income Support Program known as CRISP, not because of any of those
things, I am quite sure.
I am quite confident that the only reason that Manitoba is
third instead of first is because other provinces have lowered their rate of
social assistance, most likely the Province of Alberta and I do not know which
other province. We will know when the
National Council on Welfare issues their poverty profile update for 1993. Then we will know which province reduced
their social assistance payments which resulted in Manitoba having the third
worst record in Canada instead of the worst record.
Now there may be individuals who contacted the Children's
Advocate and said, we want you to investigate the problem of child poverty, or
investigate a particular family living in poverty. Someone may allege the amount of social
assistance is not enough to keep people sustained at an adequate level. Just yesterday in Question Period I asked the
Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) about their new policy directive
on basic needs.
* (1720)
We know that social assistance is basically a floor. It is part of Canada's social safety
net. It could be described as a
floor. I believe that now, because of
this policy directive, the floor is gone and people in poverty are living in
the basement. There is no longer a
floor.
In the past we always agreed as a society that it was a
good thing that we have people's basic needs met, but because there are no
special needs funds, the basic needs are no longer being met except on a case‑by‑case
basis.
I hope somebody goes to the public interest department of
Legal Aid and asks for a Legal Aid certificate and gets Legal Aid to appeal a
social assistance decision so that they can go to court and force this
government to do what they will not do voluntarily, and that is get rid of this
new regressive policy directive.
Before I finish, I hope that the Liberal critic for Family
Services will put her remarks on the record so that we know whether the Liberal
Party supports this amendment or not.
I would also be very interested in hearing the government's
position, but I doubt very much if the government will speak to this. They will, of course, just let it die on the
Order Paper because they do not have the moral fortitude to get up and debate
private members' bills, and defend the indefensible and tell us where they
stand on bills like this. We know that
if it ever came to a vote that of course they would vote it down, but the
chances of that happening are not very likely.
So with these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude
talking about my amendment to The Child and Family Services Act. We still think it is a good amendment. That is why we brought it back this year, and
we will keep bringing it back until we get this done and make a progressive
change so that all of us know what recommendations the Children's Advocate is
making to the Minister of Family Services.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that debate be now
adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): I wonder, Mr.
Speaker, if you would receive leave of the House to allow on Thursday morning,
in the House, Committee of Supply to consider the Estimates of the Department
of Housing and the Home Renovations Program, and in the committee Room 255, in
the morning on Thursday this week, continuing to consider the Estimates of the
Department of Government Services, followed upon completion of the Estimates of
Government Services by the Estimates of the Department of Finance. Then should there be time remaining the
Department of Highways.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, let us do one committee at a time
here. In Room 255, if I recall, leave is
already granted to do Government Services after Decentralization.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, what I am requesting is
unanimous consent to set aside all other agreements with respect to Estimates
and to consider in the House a section of the Committee of Supply, the
Department of Housing and the Home Renovations Program; and in Committee Room
255, the continuing Estimates of the Department of Government Services,
followed upon their completion, the Department of Finance. Following the completion of the Department of
Finance, if time remains, the Department of Highways.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, so is there leave to alter the sequence
to allow Thursday morning to bring forward the Department of Housing and the
Home Renovations Program? Is there leave
for that in the Chamber? Leave? That is agreed.
Now, is there leave to bring forward‑‑I
understand we are bringing forward Government Services; upon completion of that
Finance, and following that Highways and Transportation in Room 255. That is agreed? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, then I wonder if you would seek
unanimous consent of the House for the afternoon of Thursday next to consider
in the Chamber the Estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs; and in Committee Room 255, the Department of Labour.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to alter the sequence to allow
Thursday next to bring forward in the Chamber, Consumer and Corporate Affairs,
Thursday afternoon‑‑[interjection] Yes, Thursday afternoon to bring
forward Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the Chamber, and the Department of
Labour in the committee room. That is
Thursday afternoon next. Leave? That is agreed.
Are we proceeding with Bill 207 (The Workers Compensation
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail)? No.
Are we proceeding with Bill
210 (The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur l'aide à l'achat de médicaments sur ordonnance)? No.
Are we proceeding with Bill 211 (An Act to amend An Act to
Protect the Health of Non‑Smokers; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection
de la santé des non‑fumeurs). No.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 21‑‑Health Care Ombudsman
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that
WHEREAS the provincial health care system is large and
complex, which may be confusing to citizens when asking and using health care
services; and
WHEREAS at a time of crisis, people needing professional
health services and caregiving are likely to feel heightened distress and
confusion; and
WHEREAS serious criticisms, complaints and problems with
the health care delivery system should be reviewed by an impartial third party;
and
WHEREAS such as impartial third party may informally
resolve difficulties within the health care system and make recommendations to
prevent future problems.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of
Manitoba recommend to the government that it consider the creation of a Deputy
Ombudsman for health care, who would be accountable to the Speaker of the
Legislature through the provincial Ombudsman; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly further recommend
that the proposed Deputy Ombudsman for health care be authorized to investigate
and report on significant nonmedical criticisms and complaints involving
provincial health care facilities and services.
Motion presented.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on
this resolution today, because it really deals with two issues that are
integral. One is the health care
delivery system and how it responds to citizens of Manitoba, and the second is
the role of impartial third parties such as the Ombudsman.
We know that the Department of Health and that our health
care system in general in Manitoba is a very complex system. Not only do we have institutions and
facilities and nonprofit community‑based organizations, a myriad of a
variety of professionals such as occupational therapists, physicians, nurses,
home economists, nutritionists, and the list goes on, we also know that we have
a fairly substantive bureaucracy within the Department of Health.
So all of these combined create a very interesting health
care delivery system in Manitoba, and we know that our health care system is
also fairly complex because of the numbers and types of programs and services
that the province of Manitoba offers, because of the nature of technology in
this day and age in terms of what is available for people in the health care
system.
Mr. Speaker, given all of that and given that it is only
natural that there are going to be complaints, criticisms and concerns that are
brought forward by the people of Manitoba, we are suggesting in this resolution
that in fact there be a Deputy Ombudsman through the Ombudsman's office that
would specifically deal with nonmedical complaints and report through the
Ombudsman and the provincial Legislature as the Ombudsman now does.
* (1730)
When we look at, for instance, the annual report of the
Ombudsman's office, the one that we have received for 1992, it is quite
interesting to note that when we go through the 26‑some departments that
there are in the Province of Manitoba, that when you look at the Department of
Health, as an example, there are over 77 complaints alone that were dealt with
through the Ombudsman's office. When you
compare the number of complaints and the nature of those complaints in
comparison to other departments, Health is enormous in terms of the numbers.
The types of issues that are represented, Mr. Speaker, are
from vulnerable persons, for example, people who have mental health
difficulties who may be at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre, who may be in a
psychiatric ward at a hospital, adolescents who have been at the Manitoba
Adolescent Treatment Centre, individuals who feel that they have not been dealt
with appropriately by the Home Care program in the Department of Health,
individuals who feel that they have not been dealt with appropriately by a
hospital or a personal care home facility.
There are a great many kinds and types of criticisms and
complaints and concerns that get reported through the Department of Health, and
we are suggesting, because of the nature of the department, because of the
number of complaints and because of the complexity of the system, that we would
like to designate through the Ombudsman's office a particular person, a Deputy
Ombudsman, who would specifically look at the issues that relate to health care
in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, we had an example this past week where the
Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), we had made the suggestion, but we are pleased
that the Minister of Health also felt that it was necessary to go to the
Ombudsman in this case to look at an issue that arose within the Department of
Health. As many Manitobans know through
the Kreever [phonetic] inquiry, there arose some conflicting information, some
conflicting testimony between one of the senior members of the Department of
Health, that being the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. John Guilfoyle, and
the Deputy Minister of Health, Mr. Frank Maynard.
That testimony, because of the conflicting nature of it,
has grave implications for Manitobans.
That testimony, depending on what we find as a result of this impartial
third‑party inquiry, may have an impact in terms of Manitobans' ability
to trust the decisions that are made within the Department of Health. Manitobans need to know that if there is an
issue that comes up that affects their health, that they know that the right
thing will be done within the Department of Health.
I go back to an example of a couple of years ago of the
meningitis scare that we had across this country. There were cases of meningitis in some of the
eastern provinces in this country, and in fact, there were steps that were
taken in those provinces to do some mass immunizations of teenagers in regard
to the meningitis.
In Manitoba, we had the officials within the Department of
Health, the Chief Medical Officer of Health and his staff, who again looked at
that issue very carefully and made a decision that in fact in this province we
did not need to do mass immunizations regarding meningitis. I know that decision was made looking at a
number of factors. A decision was made
based on what was best for Manitobans, what was cost effective based on the
risk that was involved, and I have every confidence that a Chief Medical Office
of Health and staff in the department can make those decisions.
That is why Manitobans have to be able to trust their
health care system and, as an example, trust that decisions will be made
appropriately. That is why, when we have
an issue such as this where we have conflicting testimony and there is concern
expressed, there is a cloud of suspicion then a deputy minister perhaps or even
higher, that there was a decision made that was in the political interest as
opposed to the health interest of Manitobans.
Manitobans need to know that there is an impartial third
party that can look into that. In this
particular instance, we have the Ombudsman's office. What we are asking for in this resolution is
that because of the complex issues in health care and the number of issues that
come forward, that in fact we assign, we have a specific Deputy Ombudsman who specifically
will look at the health care system.
In Manitoba right now, we know that we are going through an
extensive reform process within the Department of Health, within the various
institutions in this province and within the nonprofit organizations as
well. I think many organizations, as
they regularly do, are reviewing their own mandates, their objectives, their
goals and their programs to ensure that the services that they are providing
are in fact the best kinds of services to meet the needs of Manitobans today
and in the future.
So as we go through this extensive reform process, I am
sure that there will continue to be criticisms, complaints and concerns that
arise in regard to the health care system and the delivery of health care in
Manitoba. I make that comment not as a
reflection on the present government, but a comment that in fact we always know
there will be concerns and criticisms that do occur within departments. Health care is no exception, and in fact
health care is very near and dear to people and health care is something that
people very much are concerned about. So
we know there will be complaints and criticisms, but what we want to ensure
that when those complaints and criticisms come forward, that there is a
mechanism to deal with those concerns impartially, fairly and expeditiously as
well.
Right now the Ombudsman's office has very many issues and
complaints that they are investigating, and the time frame for having to deal
with those cases and concerns gives rise to concern to a number of
Manitobans. The workload is very heavy
in the Ombudsman's office. So as we go
through this reform process it is going to be very important that people have
an avenue.
I know the Minister of Health has announced the creation of
an appeal body that will be looking at a number of issues related to health
care. One example is appeals for rates
in personal care homes. We also will
have an appeal mechanism for individuals who feel that they have been unfairly
treated by the Home Care Program.
I am pleased to see that the minister has put those in
place. The question then will remain, if
people feel that, in fact, after that appeal mechanism they still have not had
their issues dealt with, they can still go to the Ombudsman's office. We would suggest that there be a Deputy Ombudsman
there so that they, in fact, can get to know a department, get to know a set of
issues very well, and that they can handle all of the complex issues of a
nonmedical nature that are involved in the health care system.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to be in Portage la
Prairie this weekend. I was involved in
participating in the Manitoba Health Organization rural symposium. It was quite interesting, of course, because
the discussion centred around health reform.
Of course, during the coffee break and the fresh air break, the
individuals oftentimes talked about what was going on in their own communities
and the changes that trustees of hospitals and board members were facing in
regard to the future of the health care system.
There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that as we are going
through this reform process that the need is ever present, and even more so,
the need is there to ensure that Manitobans, whether it is a group of
individuals or one single individual, that their issues and complaints will be
dealt with fairly.
That is why we are asking for the creation of this health
Ombudsman. In this resolution I look
forward to comments from the members of government and the official opposition
on the creation of a health care Ombudsman.
I certainly would be prepared to hear some of the concerns by the
Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae). It
would be interesting hearing if he sees this as something feasible that we
could look into. I know in discussions
with the minister in Estimates in terms of trying to set up a system that is
transparent to the people of Manitoba, I believe that is what he sees as
important. We feel that by creating a
health care Ombudsman, it would assist in that transparency process. So I look forward to support for this
resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the history of
this resolution. It began back in 1988,
I understand, from the Liberal Party convention, and then it was put into
resolution form and advanced to this House by the former member for The Maples
and was part, I think in a rather quiet way, of the 1988 Liberal campaign. So it certainly has a long history and one
that attracted my attention when I was working with patients in the Patients Rights
Committee, later the Health Care Consumer Rights Committee of the Manitoba
Association for Rights and Liberties.
* (1740)
I think we have to look at mechanisms such as a health care
Ombudsman as part of a new era in empowering patients and giving patients
redress that apparently do not exist.
Back in 1988, when this idea was first brought forward by the Liberal
Party in Manitoba, there were not near the level of complaints and concerns
about health care in Manitoba, so I think it is even more incumbent on the
legislators in Manitoba to now revisit this idea.
I might say, on a preliminary note, that our caucus has
introduced The Health Care Reform Accountability Act, and that legislation
attempts‑‑well, it will require the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae)
to table quarterly reports regarding health care reform, including budget cuts
and bed closures and staff layoffs and community‑based services and, as
well, will require public meetings so that the public can be involved in the
process of health care reform and as well, though, extends the mandate of the
Ombudsman to cover health care institutions.
Now, we know that currently the Ombudsman for Manitoba does
have authority to deal with complaints from the consumers, the patients in
mental health care facilities. It is
interesting to note that in the new report we just received from the Ombudsman
for the 1993 year, of the 59 complaints received about the Department of
Health, 27 were related to psychiatric facilities.
I compare that to the caseload of the Patients' Advocate
for the Canadian Mental Health Association.
These are two entirely different kinds of functions. The Ombudsman function is very different from
an advocacy function, and I want to get into that, but the CMHA advocate, and
this is the latest knowledge I have, receives or deals with approximately 80
complaints in any one given time. We can
see quite a discrepancy there, 80 complaints in any one given time versus 27
complaints received by the Ombudsman related to psychiatric facilities.
We certainly know that the CMHA patient advocate is swamped
with work, and we certainly know, and I think members on this side know, of the
concerns and complaints that patients have currently about health care in
Manitoba generally. So I think we have
to look beyond simply an Ombudsman function.
The patients in Manitoba need someone on their side. That is not to say that an independent,
impartial investigation does not have a role.
It has a very important role, and that is why our caucus supports such
an initiative, but it must be supplemented by an advocacy office for patients.
I would suggest that at a minimum it should be there to
receive and deal with the concerns and complaints of people who are in the
psychiatric facilities. I would also
suggest nursing homes, but the ideal is that that advocacy office be available
to deal with the concerns and complaints of all health care consumers in the
province, because quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if health care providers do not
know from the users how their services are being received, we will never have a
truly effective health care system in this province. Even more importantly, the needs and concerns
of patients are critical.
It is an absolutely fundamental need of any health care
system that not only the physical or the mental challenges of a patient be
addressed, but the whole emotional needs be addressed so that the concerns and
complaints do not add to the burden on the family and the individual. There must be a response on a moral basis to
the needs of patients and consumers.
Of course, in Manitoba, we have had some experiences other
than the Canadian Mental Health Association model. We have patient representatives at St.
Boniface Hospital and the Health Sciences Centre.
Those programs are very effective. I think it is an important function of those
institutions, particularly the large hospitals, that redress be provided to
patients who have concerns and complaints.
Unfortunately, and there is always a balance here, those
programs report to the boards of those hospitals, so there is not an
independent redress available. That is
one thing, of course, the Ombudsman model addresses, but in the advocacy model,
we need an independent office.
The Law Reform Commission, back in 1979, and it is
unfortunate that it is back that far, in its report on emergency, apprehension,
admission and rights of patients under The Mental Health Act, recommended a
patient's advocate be available in all psychiatric facilities. Unfortunately, that recommendation has not
been put into place, and it is one that should be.
It is not enough, Mr. Speaker, that there be an Ombudsman,
and we know the experience of the Ombudsman's office. Depending on the complexity of the issue, it
can take quite a bit of time to deal with the complaint and get it resolved,
and many of the problems in the health care system, whether that be, my soup is
cold, to, why was my surgery postponed or cancelled, need immediate redress. Solutions must be swift. Even within the psychiatric facilities, the
complaints are often with regard to whether one is voluntary or involuntary and
problems about access to property and those kinds of matters that require quick
assistance.
We have seen in Ontario the development of the advocacy
office to deal with vulnerable people, to empower them, to provide redress, and
I think it is time that legislators in Manitoba looked to that model. Such a model, of course, would need
legislation so that there would be access to the facilities, to necessary
records and individuals, and penalties would be required for violation of
rights of access.
As well, advocacy is needed not just for people who are in
institutions but are using community‑based services. Advocacy, of course, must be sensitive to the
language and cultural values of all the people of Manitoba.
We all have concerns, of course, about health care costs,
but as I said earlier, if the providers know from users how services are being
received, we will surely have a more efficient and effective health care
system. As well, the individuals who are
currently in the health care system can devote their time to the duties set out
in their job descriptions. We know that
many health care professionals are dealing with complaints and concerns
throughout their days, and I know they would welcome a service such as an
advocacy office.
Of course, the most important concern, the well‑being
of health care consumers, will be enhanced if their concerns can be voiced and
dealt with. Malpractice which is growing‑‑and
I understand that Canada is following the trend in the United States whereby,
although our malpractice suits are at a lower level per capita than the United
States, it is growing at the same rate, although several years behind the
United States. So how do we deal with
this threat of malpractice? How do we
deal with this threat to the professional consumer relationship? How do we deal with the threat of costly
legal actions? Well, we have to nip the
problems in the bud. We have to nip the
complaints in the bud, and that can only be done if there is someone outside of
the bed, someone with health, who can deal with all the red tape, who can deal
with that very complex, huge black box that we now have as the health care
system, who can cut across lines and go to work for the patient and be on the
side of the patient.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the legislators should look
favourably on the concept of a health care Ombudsman, but never should they
stop there. Let us go and consider
effective services for patients. The
Ombudsman, I think, will only deal with part of the problem, and we have got to
move toward effective advocacy services.
Thank you.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in
the discussion today which I believe is a useful one. Both honourable members, the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) and the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), in
various ways are talking about the patient, empowerment and putting the focus
on the patient, and I really appreciate that.
That is what we need to have in any debate on health care, is a focus
where the focus should be.
* (1750)
We are all here representing our fellow Manitobans who are
or will be consumers, clients, users, patients, whatever we should call them,
but people who use the health care system.
I appreciate the honourable sentiments by which the honourable member
for Crescentwood is actuated in bringing forward this resolution because I
sometimes have the same feelings she does, I am sure, when it comes to a
citizen in dealing with a Hydra‑headed health care system. It has many, many dimensions, and it has‑‑I
am sure there are many mysteries associated with the health care system as far
as the ordinary citizen is concerned.
I can understand, as I said, what it is that motivates the
honourable member for Crescentwood in bringing forward this resolution. I have a little more trouble with a New
Democrat in this day and age talking about empowering patients, as the
honourable member for St. Johns has done.
I tried to listen to most of the things that he had to say although
sometimes my ability to do this is hampered by other things that go on in this
Chamber from time to time. I did not
hear him talk about what a positive development the self‑managed care
program in Manitoba is and what an empowering thing that can be. I would have thought that for a member
interested in empowerment that we would have heard a lot more from the
honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) about self‑managed care.
I also thought we would have heard more from him in regard
to the discharge policy of the various hospitals in Manitoba. He did mention cuts and bed closures and
staff layoffs, but he did not mention the fact that technology is making it
such that we can have patients discharged from hospitals sooner than in the
past. We can have them not even admitted
because the nature of their needs are such that we can look after them through
not‑for‑admission surgery.
The honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans)
often refers to outpatient services being provided at the Brandon Hospital and
elsewhere. The member for Brandon East
mentions it, but I wish the member for St. Johns would mention that because we
are talking about empowerment.
Patients do not like to spend all their time in hospitals
if they do not need to, and we are trying to put the patient first. But it disturbs me when we do that‑‑for
example, at Seven Oaks Hospital, on a couple of issues lately, we get nothing
but criticism from our colleagues in the New Democratic Party for putting the
patient first. I think I understand what
actuates them, but I do not think the rules of this House allow me to get into
a discussion of their motives and so I will not do that.
I do ask the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray)
to think about a few things in addition to a separate or a Deputy Ombudsman in
the area of health care. As a concept, I
do not have a problem with what the honourable member is suggesting, because I
know what she wants to get at and I want to get at it, too, and that is to
empower but also to be accountable.
Transparent, I think was the word the honourable member used and I agree
with that word. I think it is the right
approach, but the suggestion all by itself without more study is problematic
from the following points of view.
I do not know to what extent the honourable member has
discussed her resolution with, for example, The Manitoba Association of
Registered Nurses or the College of Physicians and Surgeons or the Manitoba
Association of Licensed Practical Nurses or any of the legislatively empowered
and sanctioned governing bodies for various professions, and you know we have
lots of professionals working in the health system. The honourable member for Crescentwood knows
that from her experience, if not from her more recent knowledge.
Certainly her experience tells her that we have all these
professionals, each with their own governing bodies, and to the extent that we
might create some kind of an overlap or a meshing of responsibilities, that is
something that, before we move too far along the line, we would have to work
those things out to make sure that we are not getting into territory which
traditionally has been occupied by the doctors, the dentists, the pharmacists,
the nurses, et cetera, and so forth.
While I have this opportunity to talk about those potential
problems that might stand in the way of actually setting up something, I should
say a word about the experience of the last few days and then also talk about
some of the other options that the public has in addition to or instead of what
the honourable member is suggesting.
In recent days, we have indeed referred a matter to the
provincial Ombudsman, and I believe that was an appropriate thing to do,
because we are basically dealing with‑‑we will find out whether the
Ombudsman thinks it was appropriate or whether there is some other avenue we
should have followed. Certainly a
question mark like the kind that has been raised, is raised, is something that
needs to come to a conclusion in that we need to find out whether there is any
merit or anything to substantiate the sorts of things that were said last
week. So without saying anything more
about the details of that matter, it was felt by me and I think by the
honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) and her colleagues and perhaps
the NDP as well that that was an appropriate thing to do in all of the
circumstances.
We do not maybe always understand or realize all of the
services that we have available now, and we do not always use perhaps or maybe
the public, and ourselves included, are not aware of the availability of the
services that are already there for us.
The member did mention that there are a number of
mechanisms available. I will very
quickly try to talk about what those mechanisms are. For example, we have a Manitoba Health Board
which has been very useful in recent months dealing with appeals coming from
people who feel aggrieved by the charges assessed at personal care homes.
Looking through all of those appeals, I can see that system
appears to be working because I see changes in assessments. That is always a good test of an appeal
system. Are there any changes or is it
just rubber‑stamping and no, it is not rubber‑stamping. Changes are being made, and I think that is
positive.
In fact, I get letters from people who initially had a
complaint or a concern to raise, and I get letters that say thank you but my
concerns have been appropriately dealt with by this appeal mechanism.
Ultimately, the honourable member mentioned one scenario
where, well, what happens when that appeal does not work? I mean, do we go all the way to the Supreme
Court? I guess that is the point where
we could debate that matter further. I
mean how far do you need to go? Is there
integrity built into that appeal process and if we are satisfied that there is,
then let us use that system and make it work.
If there is something wrong with the appeal system, then tell us as a
government and then we should respond by fixing whatever it is that is wrong.
Home Care appeals are now possible, and we are trying to do
that in a very expeditious and user‑friendly, to overuse an expression,
way. The Mental Health Review Board is
there for people who have concerns with their treatment in our mental health
institutions. Hospital boards throughout
the province represent the community and are there. As well, a number of hospitals these days are
putting into place a position called vice‑president or director
responsible for patient services, I think it is called, as opposed to director
of nursing.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable Minister of Health will have five minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now adjourns and stands
adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).