LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, April 7, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Charles Brown, Patti Cohen, Charlene Skraba and others requesting the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the
Criminal Code to prevent the release of individuals where there is substantial
likelihood of further family violence.
Mr.
Clif Evans (Interlake):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Agnete Fjeldsted, Jessie
Chappil, Helga Jonnasson and others requesting the Minister of Housing (Mr.
Ernst) consider reinstating local housing authorities with volunteer boards.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Beth McFee, Dave Bain,
Margaret Moar and others requesting the Minister of Justice call upon the
Parliament of
Mr.
Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and
it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of
the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but
nonetheless it exists in today's world; and
It is
the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most
vicious of crimes; and
Programs
like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and
necessary funds to deal with crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper
the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli). It complies with the
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out
that accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family
violence, be released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger
to society at large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear
in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba
may be pleased to request that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon
the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the
courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a
substantial likelihood of further conjugal or family violence being
perpetrated.
*
(1335)
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but
nonetheless it exists in today's world; and
It is
the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most
vicious of crimes; and
Programs
like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and
necessary funds to deal with crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper
the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid). It complies with the privileges
and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out
that accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family
violence, be released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger
to society at large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear
in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba
may be pleased to request that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon
the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the
courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a
substantial likelihood of further conjugal or family violence being
perpetrated.
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). It
complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out
that accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family
violence, be released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger
to society at large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear
in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba
may be pleased to request that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon
the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the
courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a
substantial likelihood of further conjugal or family violence being
perpetrated.
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes). It complies with the privileges
and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an examination
of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal people; and
*
(1340)
The
AJI delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the justice
system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and
The
AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self‑government and
the right of aboriginal communities to establish an aboriginal justice system;
and
The
Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of Canada, among many
others, also recommend both aboriginal self‑government and a separate and
parallel justice system; and
On
January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report, the provincial
government announced it was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the
recommendations; and
Despite
the All‑Party Task Force Report which endorsed aboriginal self‑government,
the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system,
an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are
solely within provincial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, 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.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Oak Hammock Marsh
Ducks Unlimited Complex
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, dealing with the Ducks Unlimited
complex at Oak Hammock Marsh, the government has had a number of different roles. On the one hand it has been a proponent of
the project with $1 million in funding from the provincial government to the
project. It is also a legislator in
terms of changes to The Wildlife Act last year. Thirdly, it is the custodian of
the Clean Environment Commission as the government of the day for licensing
purposes.
A
number of groups locally, nationally and internationally are now very concerned
and very opposed to the project at the Oak Hammock Marsh and are raising a
number of concerns on the international stage.
Yesterday,
we learned that according to ID consulting group the size of the project that
was originally licensed by the provincial government has indeed increased from
8.6 acres of land to 45 acres of land, certainly five times greater in size
than the original project that was licensed by the Clean Environment Commission.
In
light of the role of the government to be the independent body to protect the
public on this environmental process, would the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today
agree to suspend the project, to suspend the funding, and have the project
returned to the Clean Environment Commission so that we can have a review of
the licence that is provided to the project and public input into an ever
increasing project in terms of the scope?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Opposition quoted today as
talking about credibility and integrity.
It is exactly those two issues that one should be examining when one
responds to the question that the Leader of the Opposition has put
forward. The fact of the matter is that almost
all of the questions that come forward from opposition members as well as the
basis upon which organizations half the world away make their decisions is in
fact incorrect information. This is yet
one more story that finds itself rooted in information that is absolutely and
totally false.
The
works facilities that are represented in the Ducks Unlimited plan and
development have in fact been less than that which was presented to the Clean
Environment Commission. In fact, in 1989
the original plan called for 3.5 hectares, and only 2.35 hectares have been
covered by parking lots or works that have to do with this facility. In addition, there was an area of upland to
be stripped of topsoil and replanted with native vegetation, always part of the
plan and continues to be part of the plan.
A
detailed work plan and schedule was presented to the Citizens Advisory
Committee for this matter of stripping and replanting with native vegetation to
in fact return and restore the area surrounding that facility to its natural
habitat and its natural circumstances.
That is what is the 18 areas that has been wrongly referred to by the
Sierra Club that is now being parroted incorrectly by the Leader of the
Opposition.
*
(1345)
Oak Hammock Marsh
Ducks Unlimited Complex
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have the original licence
calling on a three‑cell sewage treatment facility for .8 hectares of land
and that has grown in size now from 1.9 acres of land, according to the report,
the engineering report is now 10 acres of land, again on the one part of the project
at all that was not referred to by the Premier and has grown over five times.
It
begs the question, if there is nothing to worry about in terms of the original
licence, why would the Premier not agree to suspend the money? Why would the Premier not agree to suspend the
licence and have it go back to the Clean Environment Commission? If what the Premier is saying is correct,
then I am sure the Clean Environment Commission and the public will be able to
see what the Premier has said.
Mr.
Speaker, dealing with inconsistencies, on two occasions now the project has
been given permission to proceed with accelerated construction at the site
requiring amendments to the original licence.
In fact, on March 24, 1992, again the government gave permission to
amend the licence for a more fast‑track construction and development of
the complex at Oak Hammock Marsh, with increased construction, decreased time period,
in a very sensitive period of time that even the Clean Environment Commission
identified in their original licensing report.
I
would ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): How
can we have changes and amendments to the agreement for faster construction, quicker
construction, more intense construction with trucks and tractors on the one
hand and no referral back to the Clean Environment Commission to deal with the
issue of the expansion of the complex according to the ID consulting group as
we have seen here today?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Again, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition
would like to have the public compare apples and oranges rather than talk about
what has really occurred at the construction site.
I
believe that he is probably well aware that it was the Department of
Environment that ordered the size of the sewage cells to be increased so that
any discharges could be properly contained.
That was done very much with an eye to the protection of the environment
to make sure that the area was not damaged beyond any area that we had
understood was to be included in the construction site.
I
think the member, in all honesty, would have to accept the fact that it only
makes common sense to allow construction to occur early before the migratory
birds appear on site rather than to force the construction to be delayed. If he somehow disagrees with that, perhaps he
would like to elaborate.
Mr.
Doer: Mr.
Speaker, I would refer the minister back to the original Clean Environment
Commission report that dealt with that issue.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a further question. On
page 92 of the ID Systems Ltd. report, dealing with the vegetation and wildlife
investigation on the proposed construction area, it talks about water
quality. It talks about potential
contamination with hydrocarbons should fuel or oil leak from construction equipment. It talks about the increased sizing of the
project and its potential effect on the short term and long term of the project.
Now,
we have a simple question. If the
independent report is showing a five times increase in the size of the project
and if the government is so confident in their position, why will they not
refer this back to the Clean Environment Commission so the public of Manitoba
can be sure that they are not ramming this project through, that all the public
can have a complete and accurate input into this project that the government is
sponsoring with $1 million of our taxpayers' money?
Mr.
Cummings: Mr.
Speaker, I am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition would choose this
approach to misrepresent again what is happening at the Oak Hammock site.
In
the presentation of the Clean Environment Commission, it has been reported to
me that Ducks Unlimited presented the area that they were to take topsoil from,
presented their reclamation projects in the committee which was advising and
which was reported to as recently as July 4 last year, prior to the beginning
of the construction. The committee which
included the Sierra Club, the Friends of Oak Hammock and Naturalists, indicated
that this‑‑and I could quote the feelings that they put on the
record at that meeting where they said this last document is great: This is what the advisory committee wanted to
see; the replacement of vegetation is good; the process of re‑establishment
of vegetation on site should be documented because it is an excellent
demonstration of a project well done.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Letter Tabling Request
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, when our federal government first announced that it was
going to be entering into discussions with the
*
(1350)
My
question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. Given our respective interests in protecting
Manitoba from the implications of any such agreement should it be signed, will
the minister today undertake to table the letter of concern that he said
yesterday he had delivered to the federal government, so that we might join
with the government in protecting the long‑term economic interests of
Manitobans from the impacts of this agreement?
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): In
terms of the letter that I sent the Honourable Michael Wilson yesterday, the
fundamental purpose was twofold to address some of the obvious concerns in the
draft document that all provinces were provided with a few weeks ago, but
equally and probably more importantly to again put on the record, our six
conditions that we have indicated on many occasions in this House, that we
oppose a North American free trade agreement.
The
only way we would ever support a North American free trade agreement is if
those fundamental six conditions are, in fact, met. I will not reiterate them for the benefit of
the House, as all members, I am sure, know them. I will certainly take the honourable member's
question under consideration.
Mr. Storie
I hope we are on the same side on this issue.
Departmental Review
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, this side has asked on many occasions for the minister to
table any studies that the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism has done
with respect to the implications on a sector by sector basis or on an agreement
basis. I ask the minister today whether
in fact the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism has prepared any overview
of the implications of this agreement for cabinet.
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): The
answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.
Departmental Review
Tabling Request
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, on March 26, the First Minister (Mr. Filmon), in an answer
to a question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), said that when such a
document was tabled with cabinet that he would be prepared to share it with the
opposition. Will the First Minister now
live up to his commitment?
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, the submission that was made in the House back in July of 1991,
clearly outlined the parameters of the detailed work that was done. I have outlined on many occasions that for us
the single most important source of information in compiling a position on this
issue has been the consultation process that we undertook with Manitobans, with
individual sectoral organizations, the various groups of academic institutions,
with labour and so on, in terms of formulating our position. Our position, in terms of the research that
was done, was made very clear with the position that was stated here in this
House.
Point of Order
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr.
Speaker, what is the minister‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member does not
have a point of order.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Cultural Industries
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I share the
concern of the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). I am a little surprised to hear that the
minister is unwilling to table the information that he is basing his decisions
on when he is asking the rest of the House to support his position.
I do
find that in reading the agreement that there are increasing items of
concern. I note in the exceptions one of
the concerns the people in this province have had, the people in this country
have had, is the lack of any protection for cultural industries. The
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): The
answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. It is
covered under the very first condition that we have attached to any potential
support and that is that there be no renegotiation and no opening of the Canada‑U.S.
Free Trade Agreement. The federal
minister has indicated that on several occasions as support for the cultural industries
and we certainly support that position.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr.
Speaker, given that the first condition has been violated‑‑there is
no question now that it has been violated‑‑is the minister saying
that he is prepared to withdraw support?
*
(1355)
Mr.
Stefanson: Mr.
Speaker, at this stage none of the conditions have been violated. There is no agreement. What has been provided to provinces is a
draft text with positions of all three countries with some agreement in some
areas, all kinds of issues where they totally disagree, some issues that are
not even addressed at this stage.
Clearly we are not dealing with an agreement at this stage whatsoever,
so none of the conditions have not been met at this particular point in time.
We
will continue to stand by our conditions and one of them is, as I have said,
that there be no opening and renegotiation of the Canada‑U.S. Free Trade
Agreement, and the cultural industries are protected by that very point.
Departmental Review
Tabling Request
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. In this agreement virtually all of the
conditions have been violated, so I would ask the minister: Will he table his research, will he table his
information that supports his position that his six conditions have not been
violated, because the agreement clearly states otherwise?
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, I think what is happening is not unlike what has occurred across
Oak Hammock Marsh
Sewage Treatment
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the treatment of sewage at Oak
Hammock Marsh has been one of the largest concerns with respect to the project
and now we find out that we are going to have 10 acres of sewage lagoons at Oak
Hammock Marsh. To realize this there is
going to be over 100 staff and some 200,000 visitors who are going to have to
have their sewage treated. The concern
about this is they are going to be using a sewage treatment that is not proven
to be effective. It says in the report
from the Clean Environment Commission that an artificial marsh system will be
designed and that this method is not widely used and will serve as a
demonstration project.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Environment:
Why is the marsh being used as a demonstration project? Why are we taking this risk?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the risk
is in the mind of those who say unless something has been used widely that it
is unsafe. In fact, to show you the
confidence that the people who are recommending this have in the process, quite
clearly they believe that the third cell will, in fact, be very much the same
as any cell within the marsh and will fully support habitat.
Ms.
Cerilli: My
supplementary question for the minister is:
Who will be responsible for guaranteeing that this lagoon‑sewage treatment
system will not leak?
Mr.
Cummings: Mr.
Speaker, the licence very clearly states the requirements that the construction
will be meeting requires the production of samples that will demonstrate the
impermeability of the construction, and it will not be licensed unless it meets
those standards.
Ms.
Cerilli: The
minister did not answer the question.
The question is very straightforward.
Who is responsible for guaranteeing that this sewage‑lagoon system
is going to work?
Mr.
Cummings: I
believe the member opposite subscribes to the sky‑is‑falling
theory, and that is that if there is any possibility of anything going wrong,
it will. That seems to be the approach
that she is taking to this matter.
Perhaps that is more a matter that she hopes that will be the case than
really her own personal desire; but I can tell you that the standards upon
which we are imposing the construction of this system will be carefully
controlled and monitored and constructed to those levels that have been
demonstrated that it will not leak.
If
the member is asking for a guarantee that it will not leak, obviously that is
the guarantee. It will be in the standards
that we imposed during the construction and that we make sure the contractors
live up to.
*
(1400)
Dutch Elm Disease Program
Scientific Opinion Tabling Request
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): On
March 17, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) in reply to a question
said that he had cut his Dutch Elm Disease prevention program on the advice of professional
foresters who, and I quote, recognized that the drought cycle had been broken
and that we could bring it back to the 350,000 level without jeopardizing the
program.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources if he would
table that scientific opinion. Would he confirm
that such opinions may, in fact, chart the past course of droughts, but they do
not in any way predict or pretend to predict the future?
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): I would be glad to check with the department
to see whether or not that opinion is available to me in written form.
The
specific reference that I was making to in response to that earlier question
was a conversation that I well recall and that I was reporting on, that I had
with foresters of my department and the City of Winnipeg at the time that we
were planting a tree‑‑which we do every spring on Arbor Day on the grounds
of the Legislature, when those comments were made to me as we were standing
around chatting about the beautiful spring day it was and the tree. I will undertake to examine whether or not
that specific information is available to me in that form.
Ms.
Friesen: Could I
then ask the minister if he will at the same time consult with the
meteorologists of Environment Canada who are prepared to predict weather ahead
of time, but only up to about 90 days?
Will he review with them the scientific basis again that he claims is
the basis for his reduction of the program?
Mr.
Enns: Mr.
Speaker, I have many people consulting me from time to time. At 7 o'clock this morning I might report to
you and honourable members of the House, I was in
I
might also inform the House that yesterday morning at 5 o'clock, the Winnipeg
floodway had to be put into service, just on a very short‑term service,
because of a building up of an ice jam upstream from the floodway gates. Mr. Speaker, all of this tells me that there
is a bit more water in our province and that helps the health of our trees.
Mr.
Speaker, I am currently, and I would like to be very straight, examining with
my forestry officials to see whether or not we can maintain what is being
recommended as an appropriate reaction to the ongoing difficulties with the
Dutch elm disease program in
Ms.
Friesen: Mr.
Speaker, I think we all share the minister's hopes for more rain.
Mr.
Speaker: Question,
please.
Ms.Friesen: I would like, in this case, to ask him to
consult again with the city forester on the high costs of the past drought in
the more than 5,000 dying and diseased elms which last year had to be left on
urban riverbanks and which constitute the real and continuing danger to the
urban forest.
Mr.
Enns: Mr.
Speaker, I know that I can consult with any one of my rural colleagues who will
tell anybody and everybody in this province that this drought did not start in
1988. In fact, it was there in '84, '85,
'86 and '87. That government that she represented
saw no need to increase the $350,000 provincial funding to fight Dutch elm
disease. It was this government under this
Premier (Mr. Filmon), under this Minister of Natural Resources, that recognized
that difficulty and doubled the money to $700,000. We did that for two years which caught up
with some of the problems.
We
have now‑‑not reduced‑‑brought it back to the same
level that the New Democratic Party government thought was appropriate, $350,000. In addition, we are of course concerned about
Dutch elm disease throughout the province, so we are adding five additional
municipalities who will qualify for that support which that government never
thought about, Mr. Speaker.
Department of Health
Regional Operations‑St. Boniface
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Health.
Mr.
Speaker, last fall, regional home care and mental health workers were
temporarily moved out of their offices at 233 Provencher and
Mr.
Speaker, can the minister give us the status of the renovation of the St.
Boniface office and tell us when these community workers will be back in their
community office providing services?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I cannot give my honourable
friend that information today, but I will certainly endeavour to provide it to
him before the close of today's proceedings.
Mr.
Gaudry: Mr.
Speaker, given this government's stated commitment to bring health care to the
community, what other health care services is the minister planning to move
into the renovated St. Boniface office?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, first and foremost, the intention was to upgrade the facility to
provide a more acceptable working environment and that, by itself, will no
doubt increase the productivity and the output of services, community‑based,
out of that office.
Mr.
Gaudry: Mr.
Speaker, to the same minister, is the minister committed to ensuring that all
community health care services decentralized into St. Boniface will be provided
in both English and French?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, we very much, not only in St. Boniface, but where appropriate in other
areas of the province where there is a requirement for services and care
providers to operate in our second language, the French language, that appropriate
recruiting assures that to be the case.
That is not only in St. Boniface, that is in other communities including
your own, Sir.
Health Sciences Centre
Bed Closures
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (
The
Premier (Mr. Filmon), in fact, might be interested to know that yesterday the
Minister of Health said the 1988 promise of not closing beds without the
benefit of a comprehensive review was only good for one term in office, the
minority years. Also, yesterday in
Estimates, the minister decided to distance himself from his March 23
confirmation of the government‑directed 240 bed closures at St. Boniface
and Health Sciences Centre.
I
want to ask the Minister of Health, based on his previous statements that this
government would not allow permanent bed closures because of budgetary
constraints, how many beds have been closed permanently by this government at
the Health Sciences Centre because of budgetary constraints?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we spent from approximately 2:30
in the afternoon yesterday until five o'clock.
We spent from eight o'clock in the evening until midnight. All I wanted from my honourable friend the
member for
Now,
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we tried to get around the issue of reform of the health
care system. No reform of the health care
system can take place if you have flip‑flopped and reversed a policy on
covering deficits in hospitals because you cannot allow your institutions to be
out of control. Secondly, I indicated to
my honourable friend clearly and equivocally, we maintained that 1988 promise‑‑period
and paragraph.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis:
Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health, why have none of the 61 beds
closed last summer at the Health Sciences Centre and extended to March 31 of
this year‑‑because of and I quote the Health Sciences memo: the need to contain health care costs‑‑been
reopened? We are past March 31. Are these 61 bed closures in addition to or a
part of‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, in the language that my honourable friend uses which is, I believe, in
the memo from the Health Sciences Centre in an effort to contain health care
costs, that means to avoid incurring a deficit at the Health Sciences Centre, a
policy, I remind my honourable friend, she voted for at cabinet 1986‑1987. Of course, they are now flip‑flopping
on that policy.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, let us deal just for a short minute with the information, because
I heard one of the New Democrats, who is as ill‑informed as they can be,
indicate that in 1987‑88 there was a bigger increase to the
hospital. The increase to the Health
Sciences Centre in the last year the New Democrats were government, was 7.1
percent at a time when revenues grew at 19.3 percent. Who was treating the hospitals appropriately
because today our revenues are 2.5 percent and our funding increases‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
*
(1410)
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis:
Mr. Speaker, considering last July we asked the minister about the
summer bed closures at Health Sciences Centre, the minister said he knew
nothing after he had received a memo from the Health Sciences Centre outlining
those extended bed closures, those closures which have now become permanent.
I
want to ask this minister: Is this
backdoor secretive, blame someone else approach which has characterized bed
closures by this government today, is this how the government is going to achieve
its target of 440 bed cuts for
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, the way we are going to achieve reform of the health care system in
the province of Manitoba is increasing the funding to the ministry of Health by
5.7 percent at a time when the revenues of the Province of Manitoba are growing
at 2.5 percent. I contrast that to the
increase in health care provided by my honourable friends when revenues grew at
19 percent the last year they were in government, and they provided about a 6.5
percent increase in health care funding.
Mr.
Speaker, I do not need to point out to the mathematicians in the New Democratic
Party our funding increase to health care is double the rate of revenue growth
of the
The
second thing that we are doing in terms of reform of the health care system, as
I have indicated to my honourable friend in Estimates in my opening remarks and
again yesterday, is that we will move the services and the budgets with the
patient to the most appropriate location of care.
If
that means that it is not going to be used in an $800‑a‑day
teaching hospital bed and can be provided in a $200‑a‑day rural
hospital or personal care home, so be it, Sir. The patient will receive the
appropriate care; the taxpayers will save the $600 a day.
Women's Directorate
Staffing
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
The
other day I received a very disturbing letter from an individual who is
appealing to the Civil Service Commission a decision from the minister to
cancel the open competition for the Assistant Deputy Minister for the Women's
Directorate. She tried to justify the
cancellation by saying that there were no qualified individuals for that
particular position.
I
want to give to the minister and Premier (Mr. Filmon) a copy of the highlights
of a resume from one of those individuals and ask them to review it and ask the
Minister responsible for the Status of Women to come clean and tell the House
why she really and truly did cancel the open competition.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible
for the Status of Women): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, it was a Civil Service board; I was not the person who made the
determination. It was a Civil Service
board that determined who the candidates were that should be short listed or
interviewed, so it was not my decision.
Somebody
has appealed the process. That appeal
will follow the normal process through the Civil Service Commission, and they will
make that determination.
Staffing Investigation
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier, given
the circumstances surrounding this particular hiring of Ms. Harvey and the
cancellation of the open competition and in fact appointing someone who did not
even apply for the position, will the Premier today agree to have an
independent investigation into the whole matter?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the member
for
In
the past, direct appointments were made for similar positions by the previous
administration. In fact, the member for
You
can criticize the individual whom she chose and say that individual is not
competent, and if you choose so, you are going to have to talk to a lot of
people who believe that the individual in place is indeed competent and very
capable of doing the job.
Government Positions
Hiring Process
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised at this coming from the Premier, and I would ask the
Premier, is it now government policy that if a minister chooses to open up a position
for open competition, that if they do not like the candidates for whatever the
reasons might be, possibly they do not think along the same lines of this
particular government politically, whatever the reasons might be, that all they
have to do is close the competition and appoint the individual whom they would
in fact like to be in that particular position?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): In
senior positions within government, surely the member for Inkster‑‑[interjection]
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the member for
They
always have been, and they will continue to be, no matter who is in
government. No matter who is in
government, they will continue to be at the prerogative of the government. That
is the case in which the minister acted, and she acted totally within her
rights and within the ability of government to make those appointments.
Paddlewheel Riverboats
Lower Fort Garry Trip
Mr.
Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr.
Speaker, tourism is the third largest industry in this province. Unfortunately, due to the incompetence of
this government, tourism is declining almost as rapidly as plants are closing
and moving to the
My
question is to the Minister of Tourism.
What efforts has he made to ensure that the Paddlewheel Queen is able to
operate at Lower Fort Garry this season?
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, my staff has certainly met with the owner of the Paddlewheel
Queen. I will take the specifics as
notice and get back to the honourable member.
Mr.
Dewar: Mr.
Speaker, the number of tourists to the Fort has dropped every year since this
government has been in power.
Will
the minister now review his marketing strategies and meet with representatives
of the Fort and of the Paddlewheel Queen so that this conflict can be resolved
prior to the tourism season?
Mr.
Stefanson: As
I said, Mr. Speaker, my staff and actually myself, at a meeting that I attended
with the Tourism Industry Association, met with the individual who owns the
Paddlewheel Queen. We are certainly well
aware of the problem that he is faced with out at Lower Fort Garry. We are working with him to resolve that very
issue.
On
the issue of research, I think, as I have indicated in this House before, we
have done extensive research this past fall, in the fall of 1991, and I am
confident that it will show positive results in 1992 for tourism in
Mr.
Speaker: Time for
Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): I
wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the
honourable First Minister have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Some
Honourable Members:
Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr.
Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House today to remind all honourable
members and all Manitobans that Thursday, April 9, will mark the 75th
anniversary of the capture of Vimy Ridge by Canadians during the First World
War. Few of those brave men who fought
the battle for Vimy Ridge are still alive today, but the legacy of their valour
and courage lives on.
The monument
atop Vimy Ridge in
Abroad,
*
(1420)
Recent
events in the
Canadians
working together to overcome adversity have had a dramatic impact on world
history. The example provided by events like
the victory at Vimy Ridge should provide us all with renewed hope as we strive
to meet the challenges of today's world.
By working together toward a common goal, Manitobans and Canadians can
make a difference.
Today,
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are making preparations to commemorate an important
victory won on the field of battle. We owe
it to those who fought on Vimy Ridge to ensure that the significance of their
accomplishment and their sacrifice is not forgotten.
On
behalf of my colleagues in government, I offer
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like leave to make a nonpolitical
statement.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the
honourable Leader of the Opposition have leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr.
Doer: Yes, I
would like to rise today and join the Premier and other members on
commemorating the anniversary of the Vimy Ridge battle, a battle that was
fought years ago and decades ago. I
guess we all have in our minds the images of those surviving veterans going up
to the military plane to go across to
This
was to be the war to end all wars, and yet we see so much loss of life and yet
so much pride in the victory that took place at that great battle. It was a victory in this war that has been
documented well. I would suggest that
all members read the Pierre Berton book on the war, on the Vimy Ridge struggle,
where many other forces were unable to take this strategic ridge. The British and the French were unable to do
so, and a unique Canadian force was able to do it, not only to achieve victory
but to achieve it by noon when years had passed by when no other force could
take this ridge.
Mr.
Speaker, we commemorate the heroes of the soldiers involved in that great
strategic battle. Historians have said that
this is one of the original achievements of
This
was a battle that brought world recognition to the ingenuity and heroism of
Canadian troops. It was also a battle fought
by troops from different provinces and different regions right across
Mr.
Speaker, we are not here to glamorize war.
We are here to pay tribute to the great ingenuity of the soldiers who were
involved in that battle, to mourn for the loss of life on all sides in a battle
for a ridge, a ridge that was supposed to be the key in a battle, in a war to
end all wars.
When
we pay tribute to those soldiers and those great Canadians in terms of that
war, we just want to say that we on this side and all members of this House
should be doing everything we can for peace and a world of peace, where we eliminate
poverty, where every country is given opportunity, where children can grow up
in a democracy that allows all of us to have peace in our world.
Today,
we not only commemorate the battle, but we pledge ourselves for peace in our
world. Thank you very much.
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne):
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
Mr.
Speaker: Does the
honourable member for Osborne have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr.
Alcock: I would
like to join the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer). You know, the phrase that we use on November
11 all the time is "lest we forget," and for someone of my generation
who escaped both great wars, it is easy at times to forget the price that was
paid to provide for us the kinds of rights and freedoms and abilities that we
have.
It is
a little shocking when you move outside of this country and you see people
living today, in 1992, around this world, who do not have any of the rights and
freedoms and abilities that we have in this country. We have them because of the willingness of people
many decades ago to make very great sacrifices.
When
the Premier stands in the House today and asks us to demonstrate or to continue
to provide our ongoing respect for those who made those sacrifices, I think all
members of this House, all members of this province in this country will join with
him.
* * *
Mr.
Jack Reimer (Niakwa): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement?
Mr.
Speaker: Does the
honourable member have leave?
Leave. It is agreed.
Mr.
Reimer: Today,
the
The
Muriel's
design was selected from 399 designs submitted for the
I ask
all honourable members to join me today in recognizing the achievement of
Thank
you.
Mr.
Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement?
Mr.
Speaker: Does the
honourable member for Selkirk have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr.
Dewar: It is
both appropriate and natural that Lower Fort Garry be recognized by the Mint as
a symbol of this province.
Built
in the 1830s, Lower Fort Garry is the oldest stone fur trade post in
The
fort declined as a trade post in the 1870s but, fortunately, was not torn down
and has been restored. In fact, its
restoration is still continuing. It is a
major tourist asset to this province.
Mr.
Speaker, in summary, on this side of the House, we are pleased that the Mint
has recognized Lower Fort Garry with the issuing of this 25‑cent piece.
Thank
you.
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Does the
honourable member for St. Boniface have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr.
Gaudry: Yes, Mr.
Speaker, I had the pleasure this morning of attending the ceremonies in the
rotunda that was done by the government.
I think it was very well done, and congratulate them in doing so.
I
would like to join them also in congratulating the artist, Mrs. Hope. I think it was well deserved. In all the competition across the province
being chosen to represent Lower Fort Garry, and it is the fact that we are
celebrating
Again,
I would like to congratulate the artist who did the design of the quarter for
* * *
*
(1430)
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Mr.
Speaker: Does the
honourable member for
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis:
Today, April 7, is World Health Day, and I think it is an important time
to reflect upon our achievements and to make certain commitments. These are interesting and challenging times
for all of us on the health front, and there is no better an occasion like the
World Health Day to remind ourselves of the work ahead of us and to commit
ourselves to working together.
I
would like all of us to join together in commemorating this day and doing three
things: Number one, reminding ourselves
of the World Health Organization definition of health which stresses health and
well‑being, goes far beyond the notion of physical health and suggests
that what we are really talking about is mental, emotional, psychological,
social, economic as well as physical well‑being.
Secondly,
Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful opportunity for all of us to reaffirm our
pride and our commitment to our health care system in this country, one of the
best in the world, and to express our determination to fight to preserve our
system of medicare.
Thirdly,
this is a day for us to recognize our responsibility on the international
front, for sharing our resources and energies and ideas in troubled spots
around the world to help end poverty, economic depression, ill health on many
different fronts worldwide.
For
those three reasons, I commend everyone in this House observance of World
Health Day.
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before I move the supply motion,
I would like to announce some House business.
I would like to announce committee meetings dealing with annual
reports. Already scheduled, the
Municipal Affairs Committee to consider the annual report of The Forks Renewal
Corporation. That is for Thursday, April
16.
Also,
on that same day, I am announcing‑‑and this is going to be new
information to House leaders across the way‑‑I would like to slip
in Economic Development Committee to consider, hopefully, the conclusion of the
1990‑91 Annual Reports of the Channel Area Loggers and Moose Lake
Loggers. That is the same day, Thursday,
April 16, at 10 a.m. in the other committee room.
Also,
Tuesday, April 21, 1992, Economic Development Committee to consider the 1989,
1990 and 1991 Annual Reports of Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd.
Thursday,
April 23, I will call tentatively Public Utilities and Natural Resources to
consider the 1991 Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation. That is an announcement. Indeed,
if it cannot work out, I will postpone that later.
At 7
p.m. that very same day, Public Utilities and Natural Resources to consider the
Annual Report of the Crown Corporations Council.
Tuesday,
April 28, 10 a.m. in the morning, Public Utilities and Natural Resources, to
consider the 1990 Annual Report of the Manitoba Telephone System, and that same
committee to consider also Manitoba Telephone System will sit Thursday, April
30, that same week.
Those
are the announcements for now, Mr. Speaker.
I hope in the course of the next week to be able to complete the list of
committee hearings.
Mr.
Speaker: I thank
the honourable government House leader for that information.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that Mr. Speaker do now leave
the Chair and the House resolve itself into committee to consider of the Supply
to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion presented.
MATTER OF GRIEVANCE
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
I was
somewhat surprised with the response that I received earlier this afternoon to
the questions that I had put forward. I had somewhat anticipated to see some
leadership coming from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the province on this whole
issue, but unfortunately the response that I received has been one of the status
quo when it comes to political appointments for the last number of years in the
province of Manitoba.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it is long overdue that, as elected officials, we be more
responsible with our actions and that we start treating the Civil Service in a
much more professional manner. The
Premier, today, had an opportunity to really take a step forward, I believe,
had he decided to agree with our caucus, the Liberal caucus, to have an
independent investigation into the whole matter, because I believe that there
has been an injust‑‑that something is wrong here, and I wanted to
go over a number of the things that have occurred regarding this particular appointment.
Prior
to myself doing that, I wanted to make reference to a resolution that I was
going to be introducing, Mr. Speaker, but it is No. 48, so chances are it will
not come up in the session, unless of course we are in here until
September. I have not ruled it out
completely, but it is a resolution which I believe would go a long way in
restoring respect for politicians.
I,
like no doubt many other members of this Chamber, when we knock on doors during
the election, are quick to find out that there is a lot of criticism towards
politicians, and that, Mr. Speaker, comes primarily because a certain segment
of the population believes that politicians are corrupt, that politicians think
of only themselves, that when they think of politics, they think of patronage,
whether it is hiring for a job or giving out a contract. So I think that we need to have some serious
debate inside this Legislature regarding how these contracts are awarded, how
appointments are being made.
Resolution
48 deals with one of those issues, Mr. Speaker. It deals with the appointments
to boards and commissions and agencies.
Now this is not something that has been new to the Chamber. We have in fact introduced this previously in
prior sessions and been somewhat surprised in the sense that the government of
the day outright opposes this particular resolution. The New Democratic Party does not support
this resolution, and I guess we are asking for both the official opposition and
the government to take a more open‑minded approach to the whole question
of appointments to boards, commissions and agencies, that the system can change
if the will is there to change it.
I
know when I had read last year some comments from the Leader of the New
Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) and I believe it was the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
regarding this resolution, they said, well, who are the Liberals here trying to
kid? The Liberals in
(Mrs. Louise
Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Our
position has been very clear that there is a better way of filling
appointments, whether they are boards, commissions, agencies, whether it is
reinforcing the need to have a Civil Service that is endorsed from the
government. The government's actions
have a severe impact on civil servants, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you make appointments based on other
criteria, not using merit and competence as the primary criteria, in fact, you are
doing a disservice to the Civil Service.
The
other resolution, which no doubt we will be able to deal with, deals with the
issuing of government contracts. I would
like to encourage the government, because this one no doubt will come up, to
debate this once again with an open mind and to come to the debate with the
idea that there is nothing wrong with reforming, starting off within the
province of Manitoba, that, yes, the argument could be made on the
appointments, that all three political parties have made the appointments, all
three political parties have had the government contracts. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, again I would argue
that the government should think in terms of a
*
(1440)
Having
said that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to move on to the questions and talk
about the appointment of Ms. Harvey as the Assistant Deputy Minister for the
Manitoba Women's Directorate. We at first found out about it through a letter
that was sent to myself and‑‑[interjection] Well, when the minister
says, one of our supporters, it is irrelevant who sent us the letter, even though
it was somewhat amusing to find that the government took such great offence at
the fact that the name was blacked out. They had an assumption or they believed
they knew whom, in fact, the letter came from.
Well,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to touch on that aspect of it too, a bit
later. I can assure the member for Portage
la Prairie (Mr. Connery) that what I talked about earlier today, as he looks
into my eyes, was not the individual whom he thinks it was, that, in fact, I
would encourage the member for Portage la Prairie to check with the Minister
responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) and find out who the
individual was. He might be enlightened,
might be surprised, in fact, might support us‑‑[interjection] I
will, I will indicate to the member for Portage la Prairie who it is, because I
am going to go through some of the highlights of this particular individual
that were sent to myself. The letter was
dated, to this particular applicant, on February 26. The meeting occurred, from what I understand,
I believe it was in November of '91, with the five candidates.
The
letter itself‑‑I am going to quote right from the paragraph, and I
do not believe I have to table it because it has been previously tabled. I want to read from it. It is coming, Madam Deputy Speaker, from the
Civil Service Commission, in which it is told to this particular applicant: that I also wish to advise that the decision
has been made to cancel the competition as the government has chosen to make an
appointment through an alternative method.
Then
we had an O/C which was dated the 26th of February. So the date that the letter was sent out was
the date of the O/C in which Ms. Harvey be appointed as Assistant Deputy
Minister of the Manitoba Women's Directorate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this particular individual was not even one of the
five candidates, because the list had been short‑listed to five
individuals, and this Ms. Harvey did not even apply for the position.
That
has offended a great number of people, of organizations. I know we were in committee one evening with,
I think it was Bill 5, and we had one of the presenters who was from the
Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women, and a part of her
presentation‑‑and I quote from the presentation. Again, this is
public information because she had tabled the information: that the cancellation of the competition for
the assistant deputy minister position with the Women's Directorate and the
political appointment of Theresa Harvey to that position, a person completely
unknown to the women's community of
Madam
Deputy Speaker, this particular presentation was from an organization known as
the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women. Suffice to say that there was a considerable amount
of opposition, not only to the appointment of this particular individual, but
more so in how the individual was appointed because the government had decided
to go ahead and have an open competition.
I commend them on doing that. I
was glad to hear that they had an open competition for this particular position.
What
I find, what many other individuals and the Liberal Party find unbelievable is
the manner in which this open competition turned into a select choice from the
minister responsible, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I
was, as I said during Question Period, surprised to hear the comments from the
Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson). Her argument has been, the reason why Ms.
Harvey was selected was because none of the candidates who applied for the
position had the qualifications. None of
them met the criteria for this position.
Then,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I received a letter that was sent to myself and attached
to the letter, it had a resume of this particular individual. I know the member for
I had
given the individual a call and had asked if she would mind if I were to raise
the question today in the House and explained to her why I felt that it was
necessary to raise it. It is a question of integrity, it is a question of
believing in our Civil Service and the system, and I believe that Ms. Torchia agrees
with me because she allowed me to use her name.
I
want to just comment on some of the highlights of the qualifications of this
particular individual. I want to say right
from the onset, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not saying that this is the
individual who should have been hired.
What I am saying is that this is one of the individuals who deserved the
right to at least be heard, to at least be given a fair chance at the position.
I
want to go through some of the highlights of her qualifications: 15 years of experience in the field of
women's issues including affirmative action, sexual harassment and abuse; Canadian
pioneer in the development of courses which enable women to be employed in
alternative occupations; 20 years of outstanding management, program
development and instructional experience with demonstrated skills in
supervising efficient, well‑run departments‑‑in fact, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I believe that the department that she was responsible for had
more employees and a larger budget than the one she was applying for‑‑poise,
self‑confidence, speaker on women's issues and alternative occupations;
awarded best innovative program Focus North conference, Thunder Bay, Ontario in
1980; nominated for YM‑YWCA Women of Distinction Award, Winnipeg, May,
1991.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, in terms of organizations or committee appointments: advisory committee member of WINGS, Women in
New Growth Situations; member, Coalition for the Education and Training of
Women; the Red River Community College representative for Focus on Education
for Women; member, Education and Training Sexual Harassment Education
Committee; member of the Women's Advisory Committee, Apprenticeship Branch of
the Department of Labour; member of the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities
for Women; member, Board of Directors of Jocelyn House; member of the Board of
Directors, Women's Employment Counselling Services; member of the Board of
Directors and Production Advisor, Women's Productions of Thunder Bay.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, this is one of those individuals, and I could go on in terms of
the work history, I think, that every member in this Chamber would be fairly
impressed with. I believe that not only
is this individual worthy of having a legitimate open competition for this
particular position, so were the other four individuals who applied for the
position. I believe that a number of
those other applicants, the top five who were selected, should have been given
the opportunity to be able to compete fairly for the assistant deputy minister.
For
the minister to stand in her place and say that these individuals just do not
have the qualifications‑‑and today what does she try to do‑‑she
tries to say, well, it was not my decision.
It was the Civil Service's decision.
Now, realizing that she has erred, she is now trying to say, it was not
me. It is time that the Minister
responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) starts being a bit more
responsible in living up to some of the responsibilities that have been given
to her‑‑[interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker, to the member across the
way, I am being responsible. I am
bringing a matter in which a number of professional civil servants and
individuals in Manitoba who came before an open competition, who had qualifications‑‑I
am standing up for the need to ensure that there is credibility in the Civil
Service, that the government support the Civil Service, is an honourable thing
to do.
*
(1450)
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would even suggest that it is a credible thing for government
members to do also, that all members‑‑and I look to the member for
I
believe that the member for
It is
a serious problem. We have civil
servants for whom we like to think appointments are based on their merit. We have a commission that has the hiring
authority, and ultimately delegates it out to the different departments in
hopes‑‑underline the words "in hopes"‑‑that
the departments and ministers will be responsible.
Well,
we have seen some cases where that has not been the case. We have seen some cases where the hiring
authority has been withdrawn from a department.
I think that the hiring authority should be taken away from the Minister
of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), that the Civil Service
Commission‑‑[interjection] Well, for the minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns), I have to say that, because the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
disagrees with having any sort of investigation. The Premier is content just to leave it lie
in hopes that the media do not publish anything, in hopes that the issue
withers down the vine and never again to surface.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I do not want that to occur because I believe that it is a very
serious issue, as does the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), and that is why he
is so contentedly listening to every word I say. I think because of that‑‑to the Minister
of Natural Resources‑‑I believe, because of the Premier's inaction,
that the Civil Service should withdraw the hiring authority of the Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson).
Unfortunately,
Madam Deputy Speaker, if an opposition party had the power or the authority to
have the Civil Service investigate this particular incident, we would do
that. You know, having said that, maybe
that is something that should be done.
Maybe an amendment is necessary to the legislation that would allow
opposition parties or individuals, under some circumstances, the right to
request the Civil Service to investigate in an independent fashion what has
gone on within a department, when there is something that is so obviously
wrong, as we have seen in this particular department, because unfortunately
with this particular minister, it is not the first time.
We
have seen controversial appointments from this minister on numerous
occasions. Every time we raise the
issue, whatever that appointment might be, the minister will stand up and
filibuster in answer and try to justify side‑stepping the Civil Service while
at the same time the Leader stands up and defends her. He defends her by not taking any form of
action whatsoever, Madam Deputy Speaker. [interjection]
Well,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would not say he has to necessarily cast her adrift. What did he do for the former Minister of
Education?
An
Honourable Member:
Handed greater and more challenges.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Well, the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and I might disagree on that.
I
would think that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) can take some disciplinary actions
for the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, for some of the things
that she has done.[interjection] The member says, like what? If I had leave of the House, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I think I could probably go until five o'clock, private members' hour,
and give ample examples as to why this particular minister should be questioned
for some of the actions that she has taken.
After
I talk to the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery), I encourage all
members‑‑or maybe they will even put it on the Conservative caucus
agenda and allow the member for Portage la Prairie the opportunity to speak his
free mind, because I am sure that the member for Portage la Prairie will be truthful
on this, at least within the confines of a caucus wall, and who knows, maybe
even the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), because, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I do not believe for a second‑‑[interjection]
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that the government has done a service to the
Civil Service Commission, that the government should implement damage control
at this point in time, that the government, through the Premier (Mr. Filmon),
should have some form of an investigation.
If he disagrees with what we are suggesting in terms of an independent
Civil Service investigation, tell us what actions he is willing to take.
If he
tries to justify this one particular action of the minister‑‑well,
to review some of Hansard and some of the other appointments that have been made,
some of the other commitments that have been made, and I only cite the
secretariat's office, I cite the outreach office, all appointments that have
been called into question and have been substantiated, not only from the critic
from the Liberal Party, but a number of outside apolitical organizations.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I can honestly say I did not know Ms. Torchia. I do not have any idea if she is even
politically affiliated. [interjection] I do not know if the minister wants that
on the record, so I will not put it on the record, but I believe that the
government, the Premier (Mr. Filmon), should go ahead and take some action on
this issue, that the government in reviewing‑‑and that is why I
gave a copy to the Premier and to the Minister responsible for the Status of
Women (Mrs. Mitchelson), was to go over that particular resume.
I
know that there were a couple of other individuals who were bandied around from
the government, that being the former MLA for Ellice, Ms. Avis Gray, and a
school trustee, Anita Neville. The government
ruled them out of order, no doubt for whatever‑‑[interjection]
well, after careful consideration, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
says.
Let
me just say, Madam Deputy Speaker, a report that came from the Manitoba Civil
Service Commission which was a review‑‑after I quote from it, I
will give it to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)‑‑of the
recruitment, selection and classification process within the Manitoba Civil
Service, March '91.
*
(1500)
This
is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
This is what I would like to quote from:
Ministerial Interventions‑‑that is where I want to go, and
it reads: The control that ministers appear
to have over who gets approved for selection causes some concern. There is a perception among managers and
employees that not all appointments are made on the basis of merit because
there is too much ministerial intervention in the hiring process. The minister knows whenever there is a
vacancy and can ensure that an individual of the right party colour will be
hired, or that an individual of the wrong party colour will not be hired. I am suspicious of ministerial action.
This
comes, Madam Deputy Speaker, from a senior manager. Then it goes into a
conclusion, and I would encourage all those ministers who are interested in
following up on this to read that report because, once again, what it does is
it reinforces what we have been saying in the Liberal Party for the last four
years.
The
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) said that he had tabled the report. I am sure that he has many more reports. Encourage the ministers and the Conservatives
backbenchers to go over that report, live up to what that report is saying, to
start respecting and having faith in our Civil Service and the manner in which
individuals with merit are given the opportunity to be able to compete for
positions.
You
know, the government members will walk out, and you know what they will say,
Madam Deputy Speaker? What they will say
is the member for
What
I call into question, and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) says
that he noticed that, and I am glad to hear that, because I do not call into
question that. What I call into question
is the manner in which the government fills positions.
Now,
Madam Deputy Speaker, we want to be a responsible opposition, and all you need
to do is listen to the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) during the Health
Estimates, and you will see that the Liberal Party is in fact a responsible
opposition. Not only am I criticizing, I am also suggesting alternatives.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would encourage the government to start having more
faith in our Civil Service for Civil Service appointments. I would encourage the government to look at Resolutions
27 and 48, resolutions that I have been given the privilege to introduce on
behalf of the Liberal Party. I would encourage
that the government act on those resolutions, that the government act when it
comes to restoring some confidence back into the Civil Service.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, to say, well, the Liberals have done it federally, the NDP
previously have done it provincially, that we are all the same when it comes to
political appointments, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer)
when he stood up on the resolution, he said that. I heard the Leader of the New Democratic
Party say that.
The
Liberals have been worse nationally, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)
says. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have
always said that the Liberals, the NDP, the Conservatives, all political
parties in the past have abused it. All
of them have abused it, but that does not justify‑‑[interjection]
The member for Flin Flon says I am a man ahead of the time; I thank him for the
compliment.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I believe that what we need in this province is leadership,
leadership that has been demonstrated from the Leader of the Liberal Party
(Mrs. Carstairs) when she starts endorsing and promoting resolutions of this
nature, leadership that is lacking when it comes to the New Democratic Party,
because I heard what the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) had to say when it
comes to patronage. [interjection] Yes, but you support patronage.
[interjection] The Leader of the New Democratic Party says he does not support
patronage. Well, I would suggest to the
Leader of the New Democratic Party to pull Hansard on commenting on the Liberal
resolution regarding patronage and the comments he said regarding Mrs.
Carstairs.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a lack of leadership from the government and the
official opposition when it comes to trying to change the attitude of political
appointments, patronage, government contracts and so forth. It is long overdue that this Chamber‑‑and
both sides seem to take liberty trying to say so‑and‑so had an
appointment, so‑and‑so had an appointment from the Liberal
Party. Is that how they justify their positions? The Leader of the New Democratic Party
supports what the government is doing regarding Ms. Harvey? Is that what he is saying?
Madam
Deputy Speaker, let us change the system.
If you disagree with what has happened in this particular instance of the
Assistant Deputy Minister of the Women's Directorate, then let us start moving
toward changing it. I would encourage
the Leader of the New Democratic Party from his seat to stand up and to put his
position on the record when it comes to appointments.
We
have seen the position from the Premier (Mr. Filmon), albeit very unfortunate
and sad, but it is equally important that Manitobans know who is the
alternative to this particular government.
I
would be more than happy to allow the Leader of the Opposition to ask a question,
if I could have extra time put on or just have leave for it. At the end of my grievance, I would be more
than happy to field a question from the Leader.
How much time do I have left, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Well,
Madam Deputy Speaker, only five minutes left and the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) says I still have not made my case.
I do not know how to respond to that, other than I hope that the
minister will read Hansard because he obviously has not been listening.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I did want to conclude my remarks by saying that it is high
time that we start recognizing individuals for what they bring to the Civil
Service, and that the government, more than any other political party, for
obvious reasons, has to take the lead when it comes to the filling of vacancies,
whether it is within the Civil Service, whether it is with the department
heads.
The
government will argue that political patronage is needed, and I would even
concede to a certain degree that there is a need for some very limited number
of positions. Other than that, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I think it is long overdue, that we need to see reform within
the
Thank
you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will now be
more than happy to answer any questions from the Leader of the New Democratic
Party (Mr. Doer).
*
(1510)
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Before you put the question, Madam Deputy
Speaker, House Business, I was in error in announcing one of the committee
meetings.
April
23, Public Utilities and Natural Resources, re MPIC, that meeting will be
called for 9 a.m. instead of 10 a.m.
* * *
Madam
Deputy Speaker: It
has been moved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), seconded by the
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that Madam Deputy
Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into committee to consider
of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Agreed?
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a Committee of Supply to consider of the Supply to be granted to
Her Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the
Chair for the Department of Health, and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
HEALTH
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This afternoon this section of the
Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the
Estimates of Health.
When
the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1.(b) Executive
Support: (1) Salaries, on page 82 of the
Estimates book.
Shall
the item pass?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): I have some information that the member for
The Maples (Mr. Cheema) asked for yesterday.
I do not know whether this is all the information he needs or not, so
what I will do is, I will give him‑‑one of the things he asked for
was approved beds per 1,000 population of all hospitals, 1988‑'89. I have that information. The Canadian average is 6.8; it ranges from
7.7 in
What
I have in terms of the teaching hospitals, and I want to indicate to my
honourable friend that I could not‑‑I want to give him a small
caution on the comparability of the information between provinces. I have teaching hospital utilization comparison. I have information on
This
is excluding pediatrics in
The
third piece of information I have is the utilization comparison of public
general hospitals, and I use
The
next piece of information that my honourable friend asked for was the occupancy
rates and average lengths of stays for hospitals. What we have done is, we have used the MHSC
annual statistics '89‑'90, because the information my honourable friend wanted
was in the chart.
What
we have done is, we have taken the under 15 bed and just used the total at the
bottom of the chart for category 1, but each hospital is listed. It gives occupancy percent based on rated
beds, and that is on pages 31 and 32 and 33.
I will give that information to my honourable friend.
The
last piece of information that my honourable friend asked for was rural
hospitals operating room procedures, a sample of selected hospitals. We have two things here, and I do not think there
is any problem with giving you this sheet.
Let me explain. We did it by
hospital A, B, C, D, E, F. We did not identify
the hospitals, because apparently we have a standing agreement with the
hospitals that before we release specific information like the types of
procedures offered, surgical procedures done, we have to get permission of the
hospitals, but I have the hospitals identified underneath.
I am
going to delete that for the day, because we do not have permission of the
hospitals to release that. I have
operating room procedures from six hospitals in obstetrics and gynecology; urology;
general abdomen; orthopedics; ear, nose and throat; dental, plastic. I have the total surgeries per year, and I
have the operating room hours per week total and the number of operating room
hours.
We
will give that to you as soon as I can attach names to the hospital, if we get
that permission, so you can identify what hospital does what.
*
(1520)
Now,
there was one other piece of information my honourable friend asked for, and it
was on the weekend occupancies. The occupancy
levels of hospitals on weekends, we cannot get this information readily because
the reporting of occupancy rate is calculated over a seven‑day
period. It is not over Monday to Friday,
and then a separate assessment for Saturday to Sunday.
We
can obtain it by asking each individual hospital, but I will discuss that with
my honourable friend. In discussion, staff
indicate that the occupancy levels decline on Fridays and Saturdays in surgical
wards as, of course, patients are discharged, and the occupancy level rises
during Sundays in anticipation of surgery being performed on Monday.
These
fluctuations in occupancy levels are not reported to occur on medical units but
on the surgical units, so I will give my honourable friend‑‑and I
think there is a copy of this for the opposition critic‑‑I will
provide this information to my honourable friend, but I would like to discuss
the further detailing of the weekend.
Would you want more information? Because what I would suggest is maybe
we could pick‑‑because we have five categories of hospitals: 15 bed and under, 16‑30, out of the
MHSC statistics, 30‑60, 60‑125 and then over 125. Maybe what we could do to get a sample is to
pick a hospital out of each category and see if we could develop, in a
reasonable period of time, weekend statistics.
Unless
my honourable friend is compelled to have the information, we have to go to
each individual hospital to get it and it might take some amount of time.
That
information will be available very shortly.
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think this
information will help us in many ways to determine how the reform is going to
take place and how you are going to regionalize some of the centres and have
special centres in some of the communities and how some of the services are
going to consolidate within the community hospitals in Winnipeg.
The
other issue which is very important is that issue of weekend occupancy, from
twofold. Number one is that there has been
talk and it has been done in many countries and the
That
will not deny these acute admissions, it will not deny the urgent admissions,
but certainly if our elective procedure, if somebody needs to come on Sunday
afternoon, if that person can come on Monday morning, have the procedure done
and go home and then you can definitely have very selective admissions, that
has been very effective. So I think it
is very important to look from that angle.
The
second is the occupancy rate in certain hospitals or in certain places. There has been‑‑I want to be very
careful in this, I do not want to raise unnecessary fears‑‑but I
think it is worth discussing what people tell.
There has to be some discussion that occupancy at weekends sometimes may
be related to social problems or social situations or, for example, somebody is
living alone, does not have a family member, that person comes to the hospital,
so their admission may be totally a social isolation problem. If we can provide some of the services dealing
with those special problems, we can definitely improve the system. I am not blaming anyone here, but I think it
is just the pitfalls of the system. It
has been a problem in some institutions that the patient comes to a hospital,
and you do not have social services that are on call 24 hours a day, and they have
to be compassionate.
Certainly
there are a lot of people who get into that system of caring. You go through all the process and you end up
admitting a patient, and that may or may not be suitable for accurate
admission. Still patients are being
admitted in some circumstances on social isolation. They may have two or three more diagnoses,
but that is the total condition of a given patient.
If we
can look into that aspect and have some correlation with the Department of
Family Services, some co‑ordination can be provided. That I think will save‑‑not only
save but continue to provide equal care in the community that can be
viable. I think that is one of the
issues why I raised those two specific concerns, because it is like a bad
admission, it is going to come. It is a
matter of time.
As
long as the information is there, then the public is well informed. The health care providers know why this is
being done. The pre‑admission
clinics are there; you have post‑discharge clinics; in‑between
assessments are being done. That will also eliminate a duplication of tests if
they are being done.
If
you have every person going to a pre‑admission clinic for elective
surgery, you are eliminating a lot of the duplication of services. That is a given fact. There were improvements when the forms were
introduced in the lab system there. The
health care provider has to put exactly what is required, so that has saved us
a lot of money and a lot of hassles.
Now,
if we have a pre‑admission clinic in a given hospital or in a central
location, that will, first of all, have a control; second, it will save
overnight admission; third, data collection will be much easier and the patient
care will not suffer. There are
definitely admissions being done; elective surgeries are being done; they will
be done in the future. Those kinds of issues
have to be a package of the health care reform.
It will not affect the health care services.
I do
not think anybody will deny it, even the health care providers, because it
saves them time as well because not every health care provider wants to put a
patient in the hospital. As the minister
knows full well, the practitioner would love to work outside the hospital
because it is comparatively less work, less responsibility, as compared to the
institutions; but, if your patient is being admitted, you have to take care of
the patient, you cannot abandon the patient.
I
think the balance can be achieved. Those
were the two reasons behind my questioning for the weekend admissions. That kind of information will be very, very
useful, and it has been done. I mean, in
The
second thing is the admissions in some of the hospitals. For example, in the
small communities or in some hospital where you have a high rate of alcohol or
drug abuse or family violence, some admissions that are also being co‑ordinated
are based on those results. It is common
on weekends in some places, and that is not to isolate any community or given
hospital; that is all across this nation.
I
think if there could be a person designated in a given hospital to take care of
the social aspect of the medicine, which is a very essential part of that,
whether we agree or not. It is not a
question of even agreeing; it is a question of whether we have a policy. We have social workers in the hospitals; we
have social workers working in the community; but their role is not well
defined in terms of taking care of responsibility and taking care of the
patient in the community and saving hundreds of dollars. I think that is a very valid point, and it
will save us a significant amount of resources.
The
other issue is why we raise the issue of bed occupancy. I remember that in 1989
when we were debating the issue I said about a particular hospital‑‑that
was
*
(1530)
If
the people will be told in a given community your occupancy is that much at a
peak level so why do you need extra beds?‑‑I think can be done very
effectively. Information is very essential,
but it must be scientific. The data is
available to the Manitoba Health Services Commission. You just have to put each and every hospital
separate and look from that aspect. I am
sure the hospital boards would like to proceed in that way, because they do not
want to have a bad name in the community as well.
If
the hospital board knows where the government is coming from, and how they are
going to improve the system. So I just want
to put those things on the record and wait for the minister's response and
see. Does the minister believe that those
are the areas where we could move in terms of the health care reform?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate my honourable friend's comments and I guess I
am interested in exploring. No doubt
some of my senior staff have got further information on the preadmission, post‑discharge
clinics, because right off the top I can see those as being a valuable
opportunity to reduce, say, overnights for patients going into surgery the next
day.
I
guess there are a number of questions I would have immediately about whether
they are attached directly to each hospital, and the organization, but
intriguing concept, I can see a value to it.
When
I give you an example personally, when I went in to get the plate put into my
blow‑out fracture, I sort of tested the system because my honourable
friend made the case about duplicate testing.
On the way in to
When
I went to the hospital to get my surgery done I presented my lab test X‑ray
and lab test to the admissions clerk and promptly was put through the same
routine again‑‑blood work and X‑rays. That was three or four days later. People had told me that this is a waste of
taxpayer dollars. Subsequent to that, we
have had some pretty serious discussions with the hospitals on the admitting
process to try to eliminate that, because that is just a plain stupid waste of
resource.
Some
hospitals have already taken that initiative several years back. If you come with your X‑rays and the
information you need for admission, it is accepted if it is even several weeks old,
providing you are a healthy individual without the possibility of additional
medical complications upon admission.
On
the issue of, for want of a better kind of a language, the social admissions to
hospitals where, because of single person living circumstances, admissions
occur. We know those occur. What we are
trying to do in terms of forestalling that as much as possible is to try to
develop, if you will, a quick response capability, 24 hours a day, in the
Continuing Care Program. Currently, we operate five days a week, basically nine
to five if you will. That is not exactly
accurate, but generally we are certainly not a 24‑hour admission program.
We
think there is merit to making that part of a reformed health care system. I am pleased to see my honourable friend recognizes
that as a reasonable service enhancement to his part of the reform
process. It requires co‑ordination
and that has always been our traditional difficulty, if you will, or challenge within
the ministry because, four years ago, when I came into the ministry, we had our
separate streams and separate ADM and commission responsibilities which
involved institutions primarily and insured services. Then we moved over to the department for the
community services. The reorganization
brought together program lines under one ADM so that now, in continuing care,
we are very much communicating with the acute hospital side so we can
accomplish that kind of greater utilization of the resource and forestall or
prevent admissions to the hospital.
The
reorganization of the department was an essential first step in trying to
achieve some of the things my honourable friend sees as valuable program
initiatives to take on and continue with the reform of the health care
system. The admission and discharge
clinic, I am intrigued with that. I will
certainly give my honourable friend the commitment to pursue that idea because
I think that can have a substantial opportunity.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, if the member for
Can
the minister tell us then‑‑we have talked about the community
support in a basic principle and also the restructuring of the hospital, but we
have not discussed the issue of, for example just picking a number, if so and
so beds are going to be moved out of a given hospital, you are going to have a
space. Does the government have any planning in mind to make sure that is a
part of the outpatient services within the given hospital so that that kind of
enhancement can be done, so that we do not end up in a situation where you have
to spend extra money, say, in a few years time because, once you leave a space
open in a given institution, it is going to be used right away. It does not matter whether you have a plan or
not.
We
should have a plan in mind that that kind of space is going to be used for the
outpatient surgical procedures because that was done in
I
would just like the minister to be careful in that situation, because sometimes
it is too late if you leave the decision in the hands of self‑interested
groups.
Mr.
Orchard: Well, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, my honourable friend is ahead of the thinking process that
I have, but the caution is well received.
I know what he speaks of because, in one of the institutions, when a
brand‑new facility was built and the old facility was to be left vacant,
that was the agreement. Subsequent to that, it was filled in an office role
function which had, you know, if you want to be blunt about it, nothing to do
with patient care. That certainly was
not envisioned in the overall development plan, so I understand what my
honourable friend is saying and take his caution seriously. We will try to forestall that natural desire
to build bureaucracy and expand office space.
Mr.
Cheema: Can the
minister tell us, out of the exact support staff, is there any position which
is vacant?
*
(1540)
Mr.
Orchard: I will
tell you what I will do. There is one position
that has been vacant; it has been vacant for a couple of years now. I have a special advisor position that is
attached to the ministry. I had it
filled once for about 10 months or a year, and I have not filled in subsequent
years.
I
tell you what I will do, to avoid all of the questions here, is simply give my
honourable friends the breakdown so that they can see where the vacancies are
and where the SYs are in each of the program areas. As we get to those program areas, any questions
you might have in terms of the vacancy rates or plans for improvements, I will
attempt to answer them.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, the position of special advisor, was that position being
occupied by Dr. Wade in the past, or was somebody else in that position? Was Dr. John Wade the special advisor?
Mr.
Orchard: No. What I am speaking of here, we had John Wade on
a contract as special advisor, I guess, officially to the deputy minister‑‑was
that not the arrangement we had with Dr. John Wade? [interjection] Oh, no, yes,
that is right. No, he occupied the
executive director of Research and Planning position‑‑sorry.
When
I came into the office in '88, there were three political staff positions. There was an executive assistant, a special
assistant and a special advisor. I at
one time had all three positions filled for about a year, but I have not had
the special advisor position filled now for probably two years.
Mr.
Cheema: The
minister had one more person working in his department. He was out from
Mr.
Orchard: That was
Dr. Larry Wiser. We had a one‑year
contract with him, and that was all we engaged his services for, for the one
year.
Mr.
Cheema: Can the
minister share with us his work? Is
there specific project that he was given so that we can gain some valuable
information or learn from his one year of service in the department?
Mr.
Orchard: He was
on a national committee for us. I am probably
going to get the name wrong, but the Canadian council on technology assessment
I think is what it was called. We
utilized his services for that year to represent
Mr.
Cheema: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, can the minister tell us, this first position, the managerial
staff, is this a position of the Deputy Minister of Health?
Mr.
Orchard: I am
sorry, I was catching another answer. I missed
the question.
Mr.
Cheema: I am just
asking, the position No. 1, is that a deputy minister position?
Mr.
Orchard: In the
minister's office?
Mr.
Cheema: Yes, in
the Executive Support.
Mr.
Orchard: In
1.(a)? Is that not me?
Mr.
Cheema: No, not
you. They will not pay you that much;
they should, probably.
Mr.
Orchard: Well, I
thank my honourable friend, but no, that is my deputy minister.
Mr.
Cheema: We know
that the MLAs and the ministers are underpaid, and I have no hesitation of
putting that on the record. I think it
is really a disaster to see that the people who take a responsible job, give up
their other jobs partially or fully, take responsibility, take all the heat and
work 80 hours a week‑‑in some cases some minister has to work that
much and is paid $2 to $3 an hour. That
is very sad.
I
have no problems saying that the minister's salary has not gone up in this
province for a long, long time, but that is besides the point. I think that is up to the three parties to look
into that issue. It is very sad to see
that the department had the minister get less salary than people who work
within the department. It is unheard‑‑it
is not even a corporate structure or any way in any management position
anywhere in this country or anywhere in the rest of the world. It is unheard when you see that the Minister
of Health is less paid than the deputy minister. That is pathetic.
Mr.
Orchard: It is
sort of that saying, "Only in
Mr.
Cheema: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I will ask the minister the last question. I am sure the member for
Mr.
Orchard: $94,900.
Mr.
Cheema: Last
question again‑‑I will make sure this is the last. The amount which was paid to Mr. Reg Edwards,
can the minister tell us the amount now?
I think during the last three or four times, it was‑‑
Mr.
Orchard: I think
you have Mr. Kaufman.
Mr.
Cheema: Yes, Mr.
Kaufman, sorry.
Mr.
Orchard: Look, I
am going to have to check the update on that to find out the ongoing saga and
status of the Kaufman contract, what has been described by some as an obscene
attempt at endrunning the electoral system, but I will not comment on it in
that regard. No, I do not have the
finalization of that, but I will give my honourable friend an update Thursday.
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Since
the minister is unwilling to come forward with respect to his directive to
urban hospitals to cut some 440 beds or to come clean in terms of the entire
hospital system in the
I am
wondering if the minister could give us some information now here in Estimates
that he was unwilling to provide in Question Period about the situation with
respect to those summer bed closures that became extended bed closures, that
now still appear to be bed closures after the deadline for extended bed closures. What is the number? How many remain closed? How many have become permanent? What are the minister's plans with respect to
addressing the situation there?
Mr.
Orchard: Well,
you know, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know how many times I have to make
this kindly suggestion to my honourable friend, but that kind of detail I do
not have here today because we are not in the hospital line, but you know, to really
help my honourable friend move her little agenda along, I am going to try to
have for Estimates on Thursday the answer to the 61 "summer closures"
at the Health Sciences Centre so I can give my honourable friend some sense of
that, because I do not know.
If we
are going to deal with all of the Estimates and go all over and wander all
over, let us make that rule. Then we
will just pass the whole shebang at the end, if that is what you want to do,
and then I will have about 150 staff out here waiting to answer, you know,
little bits and pieces and questions.
We
have a process in Estimates so that you do not abuse the time of professionals
who are serving the Province of Manitoba, and they are not serving it very
well, I submit, when they are here answering or listening to my honourable
friend and myself politically talk around issues. Now, if you want to get into the hospitals,
we have a very simple process to do it.
Pass the Estimates. I will get my
staff in for hospitals; we will get into the hospitals.
*
(1550)
Now,
let me give my honourable friend a little example, again from the Health
Sciences Centre. I think the explanation
yesterday was lost on my honourable friend.
But you know, last year, about this time of the year, when we were
undertaking our discussions with the Health Sciences Centre and all the hospitals,
they were asking for a budget‑‑and let us just pick for pure,
simple number figuring so we keep it good and simple‑‑for $100 from
the government to run their hospitals. Government said, I am sorry, we can only
provide $95 to run your hospitals. Of
course, the case was made that the $100 request from the hospitals was a bare‑bones
request, the absolute minimum they could operate under. Fine.
We budgeted $95. The $5 difference
was the "cutback" that my honourable friend keeps talking about.
Because
I do not have the numbers from
The
Health Sciences Centre in particular said, we do the most complex surgeries; we
are down to urgent and emergency scheduling of surgeries; our elective slates
are cancelled. I mean, it is a tough
situation. I said to staff, this is
serious; get me some analysis. I can
share that analysis with my honourable friend again today, as I did Monday two
weeks ago, as I did last night, which shows that the complexity of cases is not
as severe as what anecdotically we have been told.
To
reinforce that, let us deal with the area of surgery called knee and hip
replacement‑‑complex surgery, yes; emergency and urgent surgery,
no; elective surgery, yes, 95 percent‑plus elective bookings for hip and
knee replacements. Amid this horribly
difficult budgetary situation at the Health Sciences Centre, where they were
only able to operate if they got their $100, somehow they managed to do the
entire elective program and a few tens of thousands of dollars more expenditure
in not 12 months but nine months on an elective program. What does that tell my honourable friend as
one who looks at the system?
Bear
in mind, my honourable friend's question is about the status of 61 summer bed
closures. If that was extended just to December
31, those summer bed closures, that is the entire period of time that this
whole elective surgical slate on knee and hip replacements was accomplished in
nine months versus 12 months. How did those summer closures impact upon the
Health Sciences Centre's ability to do that major hip and knee replacement surgery? I suggest, to even the most uninformed
observer, the answer would be no impact at all.
I am
going to get my answer, and I will have it for Thursday for my honourable
friend on the summer bed closures. I
will have that for her, but does a light come on with my honourable friend's
thinking about where hospital budgets are driven, who has control over them,
how they are used and the case that the Health Sciences Centre is allegedly
making to my honourable friend with her memos, et cetera? Like I said to you yesterday, and no doubt
you probably did it this morning, did you ask them, are you running a deficit
this year? If so, how big is the deficit? If so, did that contravene the policy of the
Howard Pawley government? Then,
furthermore, did you tell them what you will not tell the House, that you have
now reversed yourselves as a political party on that policy because I have
not? So I will get my answer from my
honourable friend.
When
my honourable friend comes here defending the hospitals and defending them for
more money and defending them for government now to cover their deficits, I
just want to remind my honourable friend‑‑and that is where I got
into the difficulty with the honourable chairperson of this committee where I
used the word "hypocrite" a couple of times and withdrew it. I do not want to do that because that is
inappropriate, and I apologized for that, but you cannot go to the hospitals
today with the promise that deficits are all right, we would cover them if we were
government, when you did not do it when you were in opposition.
When
you talk about health care reform, and my honourable friend says that the NDP
believe in health care reform, they have not told us what that means a la NDP
policy interpretation. They said on the
one hand they disagree with what is happening in Ontario and on the other hand
compliment the process there when the process, by outside observers of it say,
it is chaotic, but the NDP in Manitoba agree with that chaotic process of
change in Ontario, the sheer blunt instrument of cutting funding. My honourable friend agrees with that when it
happens in Ontario, tries to make a case out of it when it happens in Manitoba,
and indeed it is not happening in Manitoba because we are giving them more
money, not less, more money. We went
through those figures time and time again.
Now,
if my honourable friend honestly believes in health care reform, my honourable
friend ought to look at the Estimates of expenditure of the ministry of
Health. I am asking this committee and
this Legislative Assembly to approve $1,792,036,200 in expenditures, and that
is not the lotteries‑funded program or capital program. With those added in, it turns out to be $1,860,688,400.
Now,
if you say you are intent on reforming the health care system, where would you
pick up $10 million? Well, we could eliminate
all of administration and finance of the department, and we would get $14
million. Is that an appropriate place to
go? If we eliminated all of the Healthy
Public Policy Programs, just eliminated them‑‑poof]‑‑gone‑‑$16
million. If you are going to really do
some reform and you are going to take money away for that reform, well, there
is a $72‑million pocket of money in Continuing Care. How much of that should we take away and put into
"NDP reform?" None, I suggest.
Well,
we could go into Provincial Mental Health Services. Well, we are moving
aggressively on reforming that system; we are going to change the way the $45
million is spent. Okay, so far we have
really, in terms of $1.8 billion, nickels and dimes in relative
comparison. So let us go down. Let us talk about Health Services Insurance
Fund, total $1.5 million. Where is the major
expenditure in that? Is it the
board? Is it the Health Status
Improvement Fund? Is it the Medical,
even though the Medical is approaching $300 million? Is it Pharmacare? It is big; it is $260 million, almost‑‑no,
Personal Care Homes is $260 million.
Pharmacare is $56 million.
Ambulance is $6 million. We could cut the whole ambulance program and
put the money into reform. That would be
a logical thing that an NDPer would do. Northern Patient Transportation, almost
$3 million. Where is the major
money? In the hospital line: $946,828,200.
*
(1600)
Naturally,
you are going to put your maximum pressure on cost containment on your maximum
cost area. That is why, in 1986, the government
that you sat around the cabinet table on passed a cabinet submission, with full
approval of the Howard Pawley cabinet, to disallow deficits in hospitals. Do you remember that? Did you protest that policy? Did you say, I object, hospitals should be
allowed to spend every nickel and more, that we should never try to constrain
the deficits in hospitals; did you argue with that in cabinet? Well, of course, I have no right to ask you
what you did in cabinet when that passed, but you were a cabinet member who
passed that.
You
are saying today, you said yesterday, your bench mate the Brandon member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) said on Thursday in Brandon, you said in a
press release last month: Give Brandon Hospital the money to cover their
deficit. You have abandoned the policy
you put in place. You are willing, as an
opposition party who says they believe in health care reform, to allow the
largest single program line in the ministry of Health, almost $1 billion out of
$1.8 billion of spending, to simply run amuck with no financial controls on
them. Let them spend, spend, spend, and
then you say you are going to reform the health care system. Well, you know, get with it.
That
is why I have asked you time and time again:
Have you abandoned your no‑deficit policy in hospitals that you
put in place in 1986? You refuse to
answer that. Therefore, I cannot have a
meaningful discussion on health care reform because you are not serious about
it. The member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema),
the Liberal Party are serious about it.
They understand the dynamics.
They support the no‑deficit policy in hospitals; they would
maintain it. You do not. So how in the world can you presume to have
the intellectual capacity to talk about reform in the health care system when
you are going to allow hospital budgets to run in a significant deficit that
the taxpayers of
When
my honourable friend gets her information from her sources at the Health
Sciences Centre, her alleged sources at the Health Sciences Centre, ask some
questions: Are you running a deficit? Why are you running a deficit? What are you doing to manage that
deficit? What are you looking at in
terms of your operation at the management level? What are you looking at in terms of a co‑operative
approach to purchasing, as I mentioned yesterday? What are you doing to look at a system‑wide
approach to personnel function? What
have you got in terms of a capital redevelopment staff in the Health Sciences
Centre? Ask some of those questions
before you fall victim to the easy answer, hey, give them more money, because
that was not something you did when you were in government.
It is
not exactly honest for you to leave the impression that you would do it if you
were government today, because (a) I know that is not an honest analysis, and
(b) no other New Democratic government in
My
honourable friend cannot allege to support health‑care reform and then
say, hospital deficits are A‑OK with us, the NDP, us good old boys in the
NDP party now that we are in opposition. It does not make sense, and it is not
intellectually honest.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I am glad the minister is finished his tirade. I think he should pause for a moment and
consider how foolish he is looking before the public, what an embarrassment he
is in front of his own staff, how silly he can be, and what a mockery he is
making of our Estimates process.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I think this committee should pause for a moment and
consider the violation of parliamentary process and democratic legislative
process and the whole purpose of our Estimates and budgetary review
process. Time and time again, this
minister insists on ignoring the question and turning around and suggesting
this is a period for opposition to be answering to his questions. Well, it is just absolutely silly, and he is silly,
and he is beginning to look silly in front of a lot of people‑‑[interjection]
It may be, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) suggests that that is
my opinion. It may be only my opinion,
and if it is, fine. I think my opinion
counts.
The
point here, for all members concerned, is respect for this committee and this
process, and not a snubbing of one's nose, or thumb, whatever the expression
is, at the process, where all members are respected and where there is a
legitimate role for opposition to question government about their spending plans. We are here to ask questions, and it is
interesting now, the Minister of Northern Affairs has asked them. He maybe should have been here for the past
12 hours that we have been at health care Estimates, asking question after question
after question and getting not a single answer, no answers relevant to the
questions posed, and that is the whole purpose of being here, for the opposition
to ask questions and get information.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, we are not‑‑the interesting thing about this
whole debate and the whole tirade that we have just heard from the Minister of
Health is that we have not at any moment over the past dozen hours in Health
Estimates passed judgment on this minister and his decisions, because we do not
know what those decisions are, because we have a minister and a government who
will not come clean with its agenda, its programs, its directives. So we cannot pass judgment, we cannot make comment,
we cannot be constructive, we cannot add our views, we do not know what we are
dealing with. We do not know what this government's
agenda is when it comes to something as vital as health care reform.
We
have to persist in asking those questions so we can know from whence this
government is coming, and to try to establish whether or not there is a basis
for trust, a basis for trust between this minister and members of the Assembly
and a basis of trust between the minister and the public at large. I appreciate the fact the minister today says
half an hour ago in response to my question about extended bed closures at the
Health Sciences Centre that he will get me that information on Thursday. That is fine and I appreciate that. He could have stopped there. He could have given me the answer and we
could have proceeded in a constructive question and answer period. However, he chose to go off on his own
tangent, his own tirade, his own silliness.
Beyond
the fact that the minister promised to provide us with a little bit of
information on Thursday about extended bed closures at the Health Sciences
Centre is clear after only being at this about a dozen hours that the minister
is being selective about what information he intends to provide.
When
the minister does not want to provide the information and let us know the facts
and come clean with the government's agenda, the minister says he cannot
possibly answer that question, the appropriate staff are not here. My goodness, how unreasonable of the
opposition to even ask that. But when he
wants to answer the question, when it is coming from his friend, the other
Conservative Minister of Health, or critic of Health, he is prepared no matter
how detailed the question. He has information
at his fingertips or finds it very quickly, in short order, so I would expect,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that if the minister can provide this kind of detailed
information as he did today on very specific questions about precise occupancy
rates and average length of stay in hospitals and approved beds per thousand
population for all hospitals in Canada, and utilization comparisons and so on
and so forth, then I expect that the minister on Thursday will be able to
answer and provide us with simple information in response to our question for
what is the budgetary increase for each hospital. A simple question I would think, would not
you? A fairly simple question.
So I
trust that that will be forthcoming, that that will be provided to us no later
than Thursday.
I
raised the question time and time again of bed closures because people in this
province would like to hear some answers. As we have pursued this it has become
increasingly clear to me that there is a hidden, secret agenda, for which the
minister will never be forthcoming, about which we will never hear any details,
over which this minister and this government will never take any
responsibility, but the decisions have been made and those decisions will be
executed.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, this whole issue of summer bed closures is a prime example
of why we are still asking the same questions a year later, why Manitobans
everywhere are worried, why this minister and this government has not
established a relationship of trust either in this Assembly or with the people of
Manitoba. Last spring when we first
heard about summer bed closures at hospitals, we raised the issue in the
Legislative Assembly. The minister told
us then, and that was on June 13, and let me quote, "I cannot indicate to
my honourable friend the answer to that question, because I simply have received
no recommendation from the Urban Hospital Council on the issue of summer bed
closures."
*
(1610)
I
wish my friend to my right could hear this because he is forgetting the kind of
strategy of this minister and the tactics of this government when it comes to
implementing something on the sly.
Shortly after that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we heard more details about
those summer bed closures and how they were being turned into extended bed
closures. We raised the matter again on July
9 and 10 last summer. The minister said,
and I am quoting from the July 10 Hansard.
"Yesterday,
when my honourable friend asked me the question, I answered to her that I had
not been informed; nor had the commission, and my commission staff were there,
my associate deputy minister.
"Mr.
Speaker, my answer today is the same as my answer yesterday, and indeed at the
opening of the newly renovated Health Action Centre, where the Province of
Manitoba invested some $600,000 in a community health clinic, Mr. Jim Rodger
was there, and Mr. Jim Rodger gave no indication of impending disasters, as my
honourable friend would like to have us believe is happening."
Well,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we did not know it at the time, but we know now today
that a couple of weeks before that statement, the minister and his staff has
received detailed information in the form of a memorandum from the president of
the Health Sciences Centre outlining in very precise numbers the summer bed
closures at that facility and the extended bed closures at that facility, the
Health Sciences Centre. I refer specifically
to a memo dated June 26, 1991, a couple of weeks before the day July 9, 1991,
signed by Mr. Rodney Thorfinnson, President, Health Sciences Centre to Mr.
DeCock, Associate Deputy Minister, Manitoba Health Services Commission, a memo
entitled Extension of Summer Bed Closures, with some very specific information
that I referred to listed in that memorandum.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, it seems to me that we are dealing with an absolute lack of
openness and honesty from this minister on such an important issue as closures
of beds in our health‑care system.
The minister states on July 10, 1991, that neither he nor any member of
his staff nor anyone in the commission or the commission's staff knew of bed
closures, summer bed closures or extended bed closures. We know now that was not the case. I do not know how we go from here, when we
know that this minister is not prepared to be straightforward and honest about
questions that are posed to him either by us or by anyone else. We are not getting straight answers. We are not hearing the facts, but they are
happening anyway. We cannot sit by any
longer, and the member for Maples (Mr. Cheema) should not be sitting by either.
When
the minister tells us he has‑‑when he is confronted with certain
facts about pending bed closures, to suggest that he takes no responsibility
for it because it is being decided by the Urban Hospital Council, or it is
being reviewed by this hospital, or it is someone else's responsibility, or it
is someone else's decision; and then turn around and it becomes clear that he
knew about them, he was behind them, he is part of it, and it is a done
deal. Exactly as I said yesterday,
decisions made without any openness, any trust established, any opportunity for
scrutiny, any opportunities for us to comment either positively or negatively.
If
this minister would come clean and come forward with the information, we could
be helpful and constructive and responsible just as he has been suggesting, but
we do not have the facts, we do not have the information. For the member for The Maples, how do we put
our agenda on the table of health care reform and make suggestions and comment
and appreciate decisions being made by this government when this government
will not fess up to those decisions, will not tell us exactly what they are,
will not tell us what is behind them, will not come clean on any aspect of it? I
do not know how the member for The Maples can sit by and accept that kind of an
agenda, that kind of devious, tactical maneuvering, manipulation, back room,
backdoor‑‑
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Order,
please. I would like to remind all
members that we should refrain from impugning any motives. We have been trying
to refrain from using some of that language, so if we could tone it down just a
little bit.
Point of Order
Mr.
Cheema: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I would reply to all the issues that the member for
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. The honourable
member does not have a point of order.
* * *
*
(1620)
Ms.
Wasylycia‑Leis:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
I do not know, maybe the member for The Maples is missing what is happening
to us, but he should realize that it is very hard to proceed and go through 40
hours of Estimates when we are not getting straight answers. I find it very difficult to be a part of this
process when I have been lied to. It is
very hard to feel confident that we are not wasting 40 hours of our life and a whole
month ahead of us, when the minister last summer could not even be
straightforward about the fact that he knew, his department knew, his
commission knew, his staff knew about these summer and extended bed closures.
As I
said, perhaps we could have understood then if the minister had been
straightforward. We could have seen that
in fact some of these bed closures were extended, because they made sense from
the point of view of the services being provided on a day surgery basis and in
other ways. That is the kind of information
we need, so we can see if this is really a reform, this is really a plan where
services are still guaranteed, where quality patient care is not going to
suffer.
Until
we can re‑establish some sort of basis for trust, it is going to be very
difficult, let me just say that. It is
going to be very difficult. However, I
will try to pursue a line of questioning.
Yesterday,
the minister would not respond to our questions about either the 160 beds being
suggested as reduction targets for the Health Sciences Centre or the 240 target
for Health Sciences and St. Boniface or the 200 beds targeted for community hospitals. Today, he has not been terribly forthcoming
about whether or not the extended summer bed closures have become permanent bed
closures at Health Sciences Centre and whether or not those 60‑some beds
are part of the 160 or in addition to the 160.
I would still be interested in getting some information along those
lines. I would like to know from the
point of view of communities in the city of
We
have heard and we would like to hear something from the minister so that we are
not simply fearmongering. I raised this specifically
because it does impact on my own community and the member for The Maples' (Mr.
Cheema) community, and that is the concerns around the
I
would like to try once more today to ask the minister if he could give us the
breakdown for the 200‑bed target for community hospitals and indicate if
all community hospitals will share in that target equally or if different
hospitals will be hit harder than others and on what basis those decisions will
be made.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: I
would like to, at this time, inform the committee that there is an order that
is dealt with within the Estimates and that has been going line by line.
Today
we are dealing with 1.(b), which is Executive Support. The questions being
asked pertinent to the hospitals would be further added to Section 5, Health
Services, (b) Hospitals and Community Health Services, wherein we would have
the staff available to answer those questions.
We are probably going to stay on this same area as long as we stay
within this, and I understand we are asking for some decorum on how the
questions are coming forward, and I understand where the members are coming from.
I
think we will have to ask for all members to try and stay within the lines that
we are dealing with, and I think I will be looking for further advisement at a
later time, but we will leave it at that for now.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, in short answer to my honourable friend, no, and secondly,
you know, I have agreed to give my honourable friend some information on summer
bed closures that I do not have right now.
My
honourable friend says I never answer any questions for her and I do for the
member for The Maples, and I have the information with the questions to my
honourable friend the member for The Maples, and I seem to be able to have
those developed to present to him.
Well,
I want to tell you exactly why. The
member for The Maples is asking for statistical information that my research branch
can provide. My honourable friend the
member for The Maples asked about some operating room times in rural hospitals.
That information can be pulled together by the research department; that is
what they are there for. That is what
this area of the administration of the department is designed to do.
My
honourable friend the member for The Maples asked for occupancy rates at
hospitals and lengths of stays in hospitals. Well, that information fortunately
is in pages 31 through 33 of the Manitoba Health Services Commission report and
was easily summated. We could not
provide my honourable friend from The Maples a response on weekend admissions
because, as I explained, that is too difficult to pull out. We do not have that information.
Now
if my honourable friend finds it offensive that the member for The Maples asks
genuine questions and gets answers and does not dance around on the head of a
pin trying to create political issues but genuinely tries to find out
information from Research and Planning and it is provided to him, if my
honourable friend finds that offensive, I apologize to her. I am sorry to offend her for providing
information about approved beds per 1,000 population across
The
questions my honourable friend wants to get into in terms of the increase in
budget hospital by hospital for this current year is in the Estimate process on
page whatever of our Estimates, page 88, under Health Services Insurance Fund, Hospital
$946,828,200. Every time my honourable
friend is asked a question about current budget, I have given her the same answer: Would you consider posing those when we get
to the Hospital line when I have the appropriate staff here?
When
statistical information on past expenditures has been requested, my research
department has that and I provided it. I
provided it for
I
said, that is not accurate. I corrected
her with some specific historic examples.
My honourable friend did not accept that information and, in her next
series of questions, used the phraseology again, base line budget
reductions. Now my honourable friend
says, we cannot in the NDP trust this Minister of Health because this Minister
of Health will not give us good information.
Well, when I give you good information which refutes your
misinformation, your incorrect information, your false information, do you
correct that on the record and in the language of use that you use in posing
the next question? No. You will not
accept facts when I give you facts, and you have the audacity to say to me that
I cannot be trusted?
When
you get information which refutes the falsehoods you put on the record, do you
change your errant ways? No. You insist on putting them back on the
record. So you want to talk about frustration,
I share your frustration. I share it in
exact coin opposite to what you are.
That is why from time to time I find the debate with the critic for the
Liberal Party refreshing, because my honourable friend understands health care
reform. He understands some of the
directions that have to be undertaken, he has done his homework, and he is
willing to provide constructive criticism on the process. He has provided advice on opening the process
to public consultation which, sir, I have indicated I am prepared to do in a
public discussion paper similar to mental health reform‑‑
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Order,
please. At this time I would like to
remind the members to please choose your words carefully, so that we do not run
into any problems. Falsehood is one of
the unparliamentary words.
*
(1630)
Mr.
Orchard: Sorry,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson. Thank you. I apologize for using that terminology. When inadvertently incorrect information is
presented by my honourable friend and I correct it, I try to do that to provide
the correct information. That does not seem to help.
I
share my honourable friend's frustration, but I share it with this now pathetic
excuse that we just heard that, oh golly gee, we cannot possibly lay out what
our reform plan is, because we do not trust the government. What absolute balderdash. What you have just told this committee and
all those who read this Hansard is you do not understand health care
reform. You have no agenda for health
care reform; you have no ability to critique a plan that I laid out in my
opening remarks which said the services will move with the patient to lower‑cost
institutions and to community‑based care, and when that happens the
occupied bed in the higher cost institution will be retired from service.
That
was two weeks ago plus one day. That is
the parameter of health care reform. It
is reinforced by day surgery, it is reinforced by continuing care, it is reinforced
by support services for seniors, all of which were mentioned in my opening remarks. That is a plan for health care reform.
I did
not hear my honourable friend say, no, that is wrong. I did not hear my
honourable friend say anything, but my honourable friend then comes along with
this feeble excuse that the reason we will not answer whether we flip‑flopped
and reversed on the no deficit to hospitals budget is because they are
opposition, and they do not have to answer that. Oh, I agree with you. You do not have to answer that, but you
cannot with integrity discuss reform of the health care system if you have reversed
your position on a policy which disallowed deficits in the hospitals. Because when your hospitals consume $950
million out of $1.8 billion and your policy is now to let their budgets run out
of control to feed the deficits that my honourable friends, your alleged
sources at the Health Sciences Centre are not telling you that they have
incurred, then you do not understand health care reform.
It is
not me that is looking foolish in the eyes of the public out there, it is the
New Democrats, because by their silence, their refusal to answer the question
about deficits in hospitals, whether they have changed their mind on the policy
they put in place in 1986, shows that they are living in the past and afraid of
the future, and they have absolutely no constructive criticism to offer to
reform of the health care system in Manitoba.
That
is what it demonstrates, because do you think the Liberal Party through their
critic are not taking a risk in some of the suggestions my honourable friend is
making to me in presentation of legislation and in questions in the House and
in debate in Estimates? Of course they
are, because I could run from this room and I could say, well, you know, the
Liberal Party is willing to do XYZ, but you know what? There is a maturity of understanding about
the challenge that is in front of us, and the challenge my honourable friend‑‑and
I have to commend his words to all members of this House, because he said when
we introduced the first discussion paper of the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation.
My
honourable friend, the New Democratic Health Critic (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis)
made about five sentences of positive comment and then went on a tirade on
totally unrelated issues. She was reminded
by the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), the Health critic for the Liberal
Party, that this is not exactly the time for narrow, partisan, cheap political
initiatives, because this issue of preserving our health care system is so
important, we cannot get into this narrowed nonvision old‑think that the
New Democrats are demonstrating that is not even in tune with what New
Democratic Party governments are doing in Ontario, Saskatchewan and B.C.
They
say they disagree with what they are doing in
I
will provide my honourable friend with information in current budget for
hospitals when we get to hospitals, personal care homes when they get there,
home care when we get there. When my honourable friend asks historical
questions as the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) has, I will provide that
information as my research department can.
Now,
I want to deal with some cute language that my honourable friend used on summer
bed closures. My honourable friend said,
the first we learned of summer bed closures last year. What abject fabrication of the facts, because
for 20 years that I have researched the issue there have been summer bed closures,
there have been seasonal bed closures at Christmas, there have even been
seasonal bed closures at Easter time.
All
the time that my honourable friend was in cabinet there were those summer bed
closures, and she tries to leave the impression that it is a new phenomenon, a
new phenomenon that they just discovered last summer. Well, that is balderdash, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, and that is some of the cute trick cheap politics that is going to
discredit my honourable friend and relegate her to the sidelines in health care
reform.
My
honourable friend complains about me providing answers to the member for The
Maples (Mr. Cheema). If you asked those
kinds of questions you would have got those answers, and you would have got
them today presented in the same fashion, but you did not, because you did not
know what questions to ask to understand the system to provide advice on
reform. I cannot help you in that regard. I cannot help you and I cannot help you do
your homework, but I suggest you get at it, because you are not being very
productive, and you are not showing a very good image for the party that claims
to be the saviour of medicare and the founder of medicare, and all of that
rhetoric which means nothing in Ontario, Saskatchewan, et cetera, today.
So I
will answer your questions, always have, and I always will. My honourable friend may not like the
answers. I cannot help that, because I
am not going to give her the political answer that she wants to spread in her
handouts that the NDP print and circulate widely, which are not exactly
accurate information, paid for by the taxpayers, to send across the length and
breadth of the province.
I
cannot give her those kinds of answers.
She has to create, herself, those incorrect answers, because I am not
going to give her them.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, without resorting to that tone, I want to let
the minister know a couple of things. Number one, I will worry about my image,
and you worry about yours. Maybe we can
get somewhere if we start on that basis.
Secondly,
the minister may feel my questions are not genuine, but he should tell that to
the people who are feeling the impact of changes to our health care system
without the benefit of knowledge and understanding. He should tell that to the individual we have
heard from who spent five days waiting in an emergency hallway because there
was no bed in that hospital to be transferred to.
He
should tell that to the individual who waited 10 days on a stretcher in an
emergency hallway, waiting for a bed to be opened. He should tell that to the dozens and dozens
of other individuals who write to us with their concerns, who are feeling the
impact of pressures on our health care system, and who do not see the benefit
of a truly reformed health care system that the minister talks about.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate your words of caution about sticking to the
line that we are on, Executive Support. However, I want you to know, that I am
raising these questions here because, in fact, this is the centre for decisions
being made in this regard.
The
decisions with respect to hospital budget reductions, the decisions and the
directives being sent out regarding bed reduction targets are coming from this
line, from these people, from the minister and his deputy minister. They are executing decisions no doubt taken
by Treasury Board and cabinet, by this government as a whole.
But
they are implementing those decisions.
They are taking the directives forward.
The deputy minister, the key person in this line of Executive Support,
is the messenger for this government, and one of the key forces behind this
whole strategy. It is the deputy
minister who has been out conveying these specific bed reduction targets.
*
(1640)
It is
the deputy minister who has been pulling numbers out a hat based on, I would
assume, Treasury Board and cabinet directives.
It is the deputy minister who is masterminding the whole strategy with
respect to hospital budget reductions and hospital bed reductions.
So I
do not believe that we will be any more fortunate in terms of getting answers
if we hold all of these issues to line 5.
In fact, our bigger concern is that by then the decisions will have been
made. Our only chance is to raise the
issues now, while we have the information, to try to convince the government to
reconsider or to at least slow down the process until there has been that
opportunity for legislative scrutiny, for public input, for professional
advice, for community reflection.
However,
I do not believe we will have much more luck in terms of getting answers today
or on Thursday or next month for all that matter. We have asked specific questions about bed
cuts and budget cuts for hospitals. The
minister says those are politically phrased questions. They are pathetic questions. He has put all kinds of innuendo and impugned
all kinds of motives around these questions and been very judgmental about this
line of questioning. He is free to have
those opinions, and I do not take them personally. Although he may want me to, but I do not.
The
fact of the matter is, they are very important questions, public policy
questions, on the minds of the people of
I
would like to try once more to see if we can establish some trust in terms of
previous comments and decisions and ask the minister, in terms of this whole
issue with respect to summer and extended bed closures, if he could now tell us
when he or members of his department first received the information from the
Health Sciences Centre about the summer and extended bed closures that began
last summer and were extended to March of this year and now appear still to be
closed.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I shall attempt to get that information.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: I
appreciate that answer. I am wondering
if the minister could tell us, with respect to the role of the deputy minister
in this whole area‑‑I do not want to jump to any conclusions, I
would simply like to know the role of the deputy minister with respect to the
health reform agenda and if there has been any change in terms of his
responsibilities as a deputy minister and in terms of the whole health care
reform agenda.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, the deputy minister is the senior officer of the department
and as such has administrative responsibility for all initiatives in the
ministry including the reform agenda.
The changes my honourable friend is referring to are delegation of
certain of the signing authorities that my deputy minister normally had to
other senior members in the ministry.
That would allow my honourable friend to understand that the deputy
would then have a greater amount of time to work on the agenda of health care
reform, of moving with the system.
Also,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, although I am not particularly‑‑how would I
put this genteelly and not sound critical‑‑pleased with the amount
of time commitment my deputy has out of province. My deputy is the senior Deputy Minister of Health
in
He is
doing that because his work, in his opinion, is respected pre‑eminently
across the length and breadth of this province, even though my honourable
friend made very close to disparaging remarks about my deputy minister just a
few minutes ago, even though he is not here to hear them. That was her choice.
My
deputy is very well thought of nationally and has been called upon by the
Council of Ministers and the Council of Deputy Ministers to chair several, and
to be a member of several, national committees dealing with the whole issue of
medicare in
The
changes my honourable friend referred to are changes in signing authority which
were passed. Her Leader made comment to me
about it about two weeks ago, and it was done for the reasons that I have
indicated to my honourable friend.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, I have just one quick final question on this
matter and pass it over to the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema).
I am
not sure what the minister is referring to in terms of negative reflections I
made about the deputy minister. I made some
very objective statements about the deputy minister being at the centre of this
whole strategy and the mastermind of the strategy for implementing the
government's agenda. I have yet to make
a disparaging remark about the deputy minister, so it is interesting that the
minister would read that into what I am saying.
He is obviously somewhat defensive about his own deputy minister, and we
will get into that later. I certainly
have some questions about the practices of the deputy minister, and I will be
quite blunt about them, and I would be happy to do it when the deputy minister
is here.
Let
me just ask one final question, and that is:
Can I take it from the minister's remarks that in terms of the whole government's
health care reform agenda on the staff side, the key player, the key person for
the government, the co‑ordinating person heading up the effort is the
deputy minister?
Mr.
Orchard: My
honourable friend was a minister of government at one time, and I believe the
major initiatives that were undertaken in the ministry for which she had
responsibility, the key and the senior executive officer then was her deputy
minister.
I
indicated to my honourable friend, my senior executive officer is my deputy
minister, and he is responsible ultimately for all decisions and all programs
and all implementation across the ministry, as I am as minister.
He is
the senior executive officer of the bureaucracy of the Department of
Health. He is supported by a very
competent senior management staff that has been built and put in place over the
last several years, and I will rank my deputy minister and my senior staff, who
are here with me today, and others who will be here as we proceed through this
Estimate process, with any staff of any ministry of Health anywhere in Canada.
I say
that very, very sincerely, not because some of the individuals are here today,
but because it is accurate.
I
know it is accurate because I have seen the kind of abilities we have on the
national scene as a smaller province in
That
is why my deputy minister is representing the
My
honourable friend reinforced my concern that she has some lack of understanding
of the competence of my deputy minister with her comments that, yes, she is
going to get right into some of these specific issues. I sincerely hope she does, because I want to
hear what they are, because I will defend the actions of my senior staff and
this ministry because they are competent and they are dedicated to the process
of change that this ministry of Health is embarked upon, that this government
is embarked upon.
*
(1650)
They
are dedicated to it because they are long‑serving professionals, and the
majority in the Ministry of Health understand the challenge and the need to
undertake those changes to preserve the system that we all value, that being
the health care system of the
I
look forward to discussions with my honourable friend about her specific
concerns that she may have about my deputy minister, because I would be glad to
dispel any of these myths and allegations my honourable friend may wish to
make.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I just want to be very careful in what I am going to
say. I understand that over a period of
four years whatever we say is sent in a mailing to different organizations, and
then it has been told that if you would have been speaking for four hours, the
so‑and‑so party spoke only for 20 minutes and they may not be doing
their job properly.
The
member for
You
have spent a lot of time talking, and I have paid a lot of attention to see
what you are going to say. I want to
learn from you, your experience, your meetings with many groups, and your
organizations, abilities and everything, and see how you can translate it into
the real meaning of what we are discussing here. In my views‑‑and I will never,
never attack anybody who is working for a particular government. That is their staff. We support our staff, they have to support
their staff in a way that the government people who are working for NDP and
other governments in the past. You do
not shoot the messengers. That is very
sad because you have to look at people who are giving a very, very valuable
service to our province.
I
will not go more into that, then I will be blamed that I am defending the
government. I am defending civil
servants, whether they are part of this government or any of the future governments,
because they are taxpayers and they do not like what is happening here
today. I do not think they will be very
happy to read your comments.
But
let me just put into the other perspective that why‑‑I mean we keep
on‑‑it is only one page and the Executive Support we are discussing
that we want to focus attention. We want
to get the information for the minister, and we are not changing our path. I am not changing. I am not going to change my path. It is focused; it is very well focused. We are seeking information and then we will
make a decision on behalf of the taxpayers.
That
is why the public campaign is more important than all three of us here because
they are the real judges because they know.
If the member for
Even
though I understand the Question Period seems to be the focus of our attention,
that is going to change because the media even in this Assembly, they
understand what is happening. I mean,
the viewpoint that we are taking here is a very, very positive one, and they
are going to play a major role. I invite
them to come and play a major role. Tell
us where we are wrong. Tell us what policies that we are putting on the record.
I
understand this is a question from the minister, but do we not have to have the
answers? Do you think as a professional care
giver I will be very happy when I go and meet with the groups whom I work with
every day? Do you think it is very easy? It is not easy because I face patients and
professionals every day, and nobody has pulled my tie so far and taken me to the
side and said I am doing something wrong.
They are saying, well, if something has to be done, we just want
information.
The
health care professionals are really fed up because of this political nonsense
because, after all, they have the interest, too. Their money is being spent and they want tax dollars
spent in a wise way. So I want those
things on the record because I understand that because this is going to go into
some union membership, and telling them that so‑and‑so member is supporting,
not supporting your cause. I work with
all of them every day, and I spend about four to five hours in the given hospital,
absolutely. What they tell you, you are
saying, they are telling you of this and that.
I meet with them every day, and they know what you want to hear and what
you would like them to say. But, in
essence, they know what is going to happen, and they understand the system.
I
would invite the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) to be‑‑let
us just discuss to see what would you do, what the government will do, what we
will do, and how you are going to fund it.
If tomorrow, for example, the government falls, you become the Minister
of Health, how would you do it? For
example, two members defect tomorrow and they have a snap election, if you become
the Minister of Health, what are you going to do? Are you going tomorrow to become
"everything is fine?" I mean
the change of the chair is going to make you the best person possible. It is not going to be you, or we are going to
criticize the same way we are doing to the Minister of Health.
I am
just asking you, I am not accusing you in any way, I am simply asking you to
tell us that when you accuse me that we are co‑operating, I will co‑operate
for the taxpayers any time. I do not
care what you and somebody else is going to say. We care what is good for the people. Reform has to come. It does not matter whether you like it or
not, the system has to change, and as long as the goal is noble, do you think
anybody is going to tolerate the cut in subsidies? Nobody.
Would you think that the Liberal Party will support a cut in
subsidies? I think somebody has to be
out of their mind for thinking that we are going to tolerate it, but as long as
we understand and the people understand, the system has to change. We have discussed for the last 12 hours‑‑a
very good discussion‑‑how much money has to be spent, and what has
been happening in the rest of the world, and how we have to change.
But
then we keep on going back to the same problem again. We go one step forward and 10 steps backward,
we have not even touched the basic part yet.
We cannot even make a decision here.
Even the basic process, even the three of us here are having
difficulty. So you want the system to be
changed too quickly and then too slowly, and maybe in one week, two weeks, three
weeks, this is a process, it will take some time. That is why even when they were asking about
mental health‑‑this system has to change tomorrow‑‑we
know it is going to take 240 years. That is one aspect, the rest of the health
care will take some time.
I am
just putting our comments on the record because these experienced politicians
have taught us that we should also be sending the material to the people,
telling them what we are saying, and they are reading it. We may not have the perfect language, we may
have 20 grammatical mistakes, but the message is getting across. One of the messages is that let us take the health
care away from politicians, and that is a good example that if we can continue
to do that, and when the public can start and then we will see who are on the
side of patients and taxpayers and not on a special interest group.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
The time is now five o'clock and time for private members' hour. Committee rise.
FAMILY SERVICES
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 Family Services.
We
are on page 59, item 3, Income Security and Regional Operations, (b) Income
Maintenance Programs.
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Madam Chairperson, just before we ended
yesterday there was a discussion about some information that the minister felt
he might be able to provide today. I wonder
if he was able to put that together.
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Madam Chairperson, yes, I indicated one of
the things we would provide today was a booklet that has been developed over a
number of months that deals with board development. It is entitled "The Roles,
Responsibilities and Functions of the Board," and we are in the process of
sending this out to some of the boards that come under the jurisdiction of this
department. I think that it is something
we have talked about before, and I have certainly talked with various boards
about the need to have some program in process to in‑service board members
so that they understand the duties that they are responsible for, the legal
obligations that they accept when they are appointed or elected to a board, so
I am pleased to be able to table these or present them to the critics, and
would do so at this time.
Madam
Chairperson, on some other issues, a question was asked of the appeals to the
Social Services Advisory Committee, what number of individuals have legal
representation. I have to tell the
member for
I
believe the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) had asked for some interprovincial
comparisons of major program areas of the department, and some of the
information that we have in that area has been supplied to us on a confidential
basis by other governments. We do have
some information, I believe, that we can make available in due course.
The
member also asked for the 1992‑93 grants list. We are preparing that and will have that, I
would hope, the next time we meet or certainly early next week.
The
Board Development Guide is the one that I have passed on to the members at this
time. The member for
Mr.
Alcock: Out of
all of those requests yesterday, the minister is only prepared to give us his
Board Development Guide. I must say I am
disappointed. I would have thought that
the department would be a little better prepared for the Estimates process, but
it seems to be becoming the pattern.
I
just noticed on this board development guide that, frankly, on a very brief
glance seems to be of rather high quality.
There was a project some, what, about six, eight years ago, a joint United
Way/Social Planning Council of Winnipeg project to provide training to
volunteer boards.
*
(1520)
It is
something that has been recognized for a long time, and certainly it is
important if we are going to allow volunteer boards to take on the
responsibilities that they do take on that they have high quality information
to make board members truly aware of the responsibilities.
I
will reserve final opinion until I have had an opportunity to scan this. But what I see going through the tables of contents
and such, it seems to very complete and it certainly speaks of some quality of
preparation and thought. If it lives up
to its binder, I will be quite pleased to stand and tell the minister that he
has done something in his two years that seems to be a step in the right
direction.
I
would however ask him, given that this board training is a priority of his, I
note in the table of contents here that an evaluation section under the board
manual: agency evaluation program,
evaluation, board evaluation, board member evaluation with a series of work
sheets‑‑diagnostic check list of agency health, how does your
agency rate, think about how your board is doing, board or committee member
self‑evaluation‑‑have any of these things been used by a
board yet, to the best of the minister's knowledge?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Madam
Chairperson, I make no apologies to the member that after we adjourned at
midnight last night that we did not have staff work through the night to
prepare some of that information for him.
But we will provide information on a timely basis. I am sure the member will not find it offensive
that we do have other work to do from time to time and are not going to put
that aside to do some errands for the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
But
we have made a commitment to provide that information, we will be doing so in
due course. The board evaluation guide
has been developed over a number of months by the department, taking into
account some of the suggestions and input that have come from a variety of
sources. But at this point in time I do
not believe that all of the information in there has been truly field tested
with existing boards in recent times.
I do
believe that this document will be well received, and I can tell you the
department will be prepared to make the changes that no doubt will happen as
boards have a chance to put this to some use as they have their board in‑services. I see the boards that represent many of the
areas that the department funds similar in many ways to boards that are
responsible for governing our schools and our credit unions and other
organizations. I think that the in‑servicing
is an ongoing thing as board membership changes and relationships change, and
this is simply a developmental guide that can be used to make boards more effective.
Mr.
Alcock: Can the
minister tell us what this cost?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: The cost
to date on the copies that have been developed and printed is about $9,000.
Mr.
Alcock: Is there
an expectation that agencies that are funded by this department utilize this
guide?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: In
the true partnership that government develops with various boards, it is our
expectation and hope that they will find many, many items of value in here to
make those boards more effective in their work and provide the services that the
public expect from them.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, let us try to narrow that down. Would there be an expectation as
part of a service contract that the board of an agency entering into a contract
would implement the roles and responsibilities and functions of a board as outlined
in this guide?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: It is
not our expectation to test boards on a quarterly basis to see if they have
read the Board Development Guide.
Rather, boards have been crying out for assistance in helping to become
more effective, and the department in its partnership relationship with boards
feels that there are many, many concrete ideas here that can be used to develop
boards.
The
member might appreciate that there are boards that operate extremely well
because of the fact that they have been in place for a long time, and perhaps
the board has matured to a point where they are extremely effective. On the other hand, there are times when there
are new elections and appointments to boards where boards may struggle from
time to time and use the assistance of the department and the Board Development
Guide, and the department would be very much open to assisting them with any development
that they wish to embark on.
Mr.
Alcock: So
then, am I to assume from that that this is simply provided as information and
that agencies will not be evaluated or will not be part of the expectations of
government that they implement the processes defined in this guide?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Well, the
member is, I think, trying to set up a scenario that would be confrontational
between government and boards. This is
intended to act as a guide, a support, a source of ideas to help them in the
very important work that they do.
Mr.
Alcock: In the
spirit of great co‑operation then, is the minister saying that there is
no expectation that they utilize this?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: I will
say to the member again that the boards have been asking for assistance and
guidance, and the department has brought together some ideas from a number of
sources that is called The Roles, Responsibilities and Functions of the Board,
a board development guide. We fully
expect that boards are going to see this as a valuable tool that they can use
to develop their boards and board members.
In the spirit of partnership, we think that they are going to find a lot
of valuable information here as a resource that they will be able to use as
boards, occasionally take that time out to perhaps go on retreats, or strike
board development days where they perhaps get together for two days to say, as
a board, how can we do things better?
What is perhaps missing from the manner in which we conduct our
business?
They
may even want to bring in a facilitator and somebody who can work with
them. The department, I believe, is
willing to extend that hand if there are areas that they feel that they would
like to gain further insight into, or if they want further explanations. But this is a board development guide, and I
think the member will recognize that boards are in various stages of evolution.
I
might just mention to the member that the guide has been endorsed by the
Volunteer Centre, the United Way, the Winnipeg Foundation, and the Society for
Manitobans with Disabilities, people who have boards of their own and people
who work with other boards, and this is intended to be a very positive instrument
that can be used as boards struggle to make important decisions.
I do
not know whether the member has ever been appointed or ever elected to a board,
but I would just tell him that boards often have very important funding decisions
to make, staffing decisions to make, policy decisions, and there are times when
boards become very frustrated that they seem to be spinning their wheels and
unable to make decisions.
This
guide is designed as a support and resource to them and, as I have indicated by
the four examples that I gave the member, it already has been endorsed by some
very prominent groups within the city of
*
(1530)
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, I can, just for the minister's information, inform him that I have
indeed chaired a number of boards and worked with other boards in an attempt to
help them develop their board management systems. Like I said when I started these remarks, the
manual seems to address most of the areas you would expect a board to
address. So I am not at this point‑‑although
I did say I would reserve judgment on the manual until I had had a chance to
peruse it in more detail. Generally it seems
to be a quality piece of work.
Now
the question though was a little different.
The minister told us last night that a branch of his department has
spent two years, I think as he put it, developing the legal language to try to
understand the relationship between the department and the agencies that it
funds. He pointed out what a difficult
process this was, and that was why after two years they were unable to effect a
single contract, but they were getting down to the point of refining the
language and beginning to understand the detailed nature of the relationship
between government and agencies.
My
question for the minister is really simple:
Is this manual a guide? Is it
something that is being proffered to the agencies to assist them in making some
of their own decisions about how they operate, or are the operational
suggestions in this going to be part of that description of that relationship between
the contractual relationship between the government and the agencies?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: This is
clearly a document separate from a contract that is signed between government
and a board which deals with the funding and service agreements. The bold letters on the front here call this
a Board Development Guide, and that is what it is.
Mr.
Alcock: I thank
the minister for that response. I think
it is very appropriate for the government to put out some perspective on good
board operation and this one may well serve the task.
Now
perhaps, I would like to return to the question of why this department comes to
these Estimates so completely unprepared to have a discussion with the
House? Why is it, when we have asked for
this grants list year over year that they come into this Chamber without having
that list ready to present? Why does the
minister have to make somewhat‑‑I am looking for a better word than
"silly"‑‑perhaps ill‑founded suggestions that
people should be running off to work all night?
You would have expected that they would come into this Chamber with that
document already prepared, unless it is the minister's firm intention not to release
any of that information and not to allow examination of any of that information
until after the budget is passed.
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Well,
Madam Chairperson, as I understand the process, we come here to present our
Estimates and answer the questions that honourable critics, or acting critics
have for the minister. If the member is
asking us to, besides spending time preparing the Estimates for our department,
we should also be spending time anticipating what the questions might be so
that we could have that information at our fingertips, I think the member is
going too far. In fact, it was a total
surprise to me that the honourable member would even be back to Family Services
Estimates after his Leader removed him from that responsibility last year.
I
have indicated that the information that had been asked for by critics will be
made available, and I recall the member saying one complimentary thing at a
previous Estimates, that he was pleased that the department was responding in
such a positive way when he and the other critics asked for information about
the department.
The
request was made last evening for that information. I brought back a booklet today in response to
one of those, and I have answered the other four questions indicating some time
frame at which we would release that information after we were able to put it
in a form that was understandable for members.
I take some exception to the member suggesting that the department and the
many civil servants that work within the department are not prepared for
Estimates. We are prepared. We are prepared to answer your questions, and
we are prepared to look at any requests that members have for additional
information.
I
have indicated that that information will be made available and some of it can
be made available more timely than other information. The member will just have to be patient and
wait for it.
Mr.
Alcock: I do
recall a time when I was much more complimentary about the willingness of this
department to share information. That
coincided with the entry of this minister into this department and
unfortunately has never been repeated in a single Estimates since.
There
were two kinds of information asked for.
The minister has made it quite clear that he is not prepared to release
any of the financial information for review in the Chamber until, I think he
referenced his time frame, the time frame he gave us on the record was, in due
course, which is the kind of time frame that is a little difficult to quantify
or to hold the minister accountable to.
But,
there was other information. If I
understood his response about the interprovincial comparisons, he is saying there
is not a single piece of interprovincial information that can be shared with
the House because it has been gathered on a confidential basis. Is that correct?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: I said
earlier today that we would make the grants list available this week. I may have said yesterday, in due course, and
we will make every effort to get it here this week.
The
other question on interprovincial comparisons of major program areas, we have
some information. We want to put it in a
more comprehensive package for the member so he can have a look at the programs
that are offered vis‑a‑vis programs like daycare in other provinces
and social allowances. Rather than give
him bits and pieces of information that we can share, we thought it would be
more helpful if we put it in a manner in which he could understand.
Mr.
Alcock: Well, I
appreciate that I do not have the breadth of knowledge or perhaps the
inquisitive ability of the minister, but if he could have just provided the
information, I would sort of work my way through it and see if I could not
ferret out an understanding that would be more perhaps consistent with my own understanding
of how the world works rather than waiting for the minister to doctor the
information and present only his view.
I
would like the raw information. I do not
want something that the minister has seen fit to put together to suit his own purposes. I think the second role here, at this time,
is to review the actions of the department and to do that one looks at two
things, expenditure plans and the operational actions.
One
of the ways you look at the operations activities of the department is to
compare it with operations in other provinces. I think it is quite incorrect
and improper of the minister to message, doctor or in any way alter that
information before presenting it to the House.
Mr.
Gilleshammer: I think
it is important, Madam Chairperson, that you realize that the terminology the
member uses is his own interpretation of that and words that I did not use.
I
indicated earlier that we have documentation that has been provided by other
governments and provided to us in some confidence. I know that the member would like us just to
forward those documents to him, but we have received them in confidence in
terms of some of the work the department does and will not provide that to him
without the permission of that other government.
We do
have other information. I am sure the
member could even do research himself to find some of those comparisons in the Toronto
papers or the Winnipeg papers that from time to time carry information on
programs across the country, but we want to take the time to provide
information that will be of benefit to the critics and we will be doing so in
due course.
Mr.
Alcock: Now, am
I to read, in due course, as a euphemism for later this week? Are we going to see any interprovincial information
before the end of this week?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Yes.
Mr.
Alcock: In what
areas?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: We
will provide some information on some of the social allowance programs that we
offer in this province as compared to programs offered in other provinces, and
I believe that we have something that could be prepared and presented to the
House later this week.
*
(1540)
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, is Social Allowances the only program area for which this
department has interprovincial information that it is prepared to share this
week?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: No.
Mr.
Alcock: Perhaps
the minister could expand upon that now and tell us what additional information
he is prepared to provide this week.
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Well,
we will be making every effort to compile some information that reflects on a
number of programs across this department.
I am sure that when we next meet, hopefully on Thursday, for this
Estimates process where we look at the expenditures of the department that we
will have some documentation that can be made available to the critics.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, the minister did not use the word "hopefully" when he
made the commitment to have information made available before the end of the
week. He also indicated that he would
provide some social allowance information and some "other information." He said that there would be other information
in addition to the social allowance caseload comparisons that would be
available before the end of the week.
What other information? What
branch, what department, what program area?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: We will
do our very best as time allows us to compile information across a number of
programs that the member might be interested in. If on Thursday when we next meet there is
further information that he feels he requires for his examination of this
department or for the edification of his Leader, we will again be bringing that
back probably as early as next week.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, we will await the provision of that information. I am sure my Leader, should she be back in
the House next Thursday, would permit me an opportunity to finish that
particular discussion with the minister.
When
we ended last night, we were talking about Social Allowances, and the question
I had raised with the minister, simply stated, was: Could the minister tell us how, in his vision
of the Social Allowances Program, this service works in a manner that allows
people to achieve independence?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: I am
pleased to be able to spend some time talking about the vision of the
government in relation to the Social Allowances Programs and how we see
recipients gaining independence and going into the work force.
The
provincial social allowance recipients by and large are long‑term
recipients, who either have not worked in very recent times and in some cases
it appears that perhaps will not be able to access work in the longer term, and
of that 27,000 cases, I believe between 11,000 and 12,000 are disabled
recipients.
I
will tell you that, in meeting with some of the advocacy groups who represent
the unemployed, and having an opportunity to visit some of the churches and
some of the other facilities in the city and elsewhere where these people
gather, it is in many ways disheartening to listen to the stories that people
who have been on social allowance for a long, long time, to listen to their
plight and realize that for many of them accessing employment probably is not
in the near future, if ever.
Where
there is, I suppose, more hope is the employables and people who have been
employed and who have to access assistance on a short term. In some cases these people are accessing assistance
for two months or four months or eight months, some of them a little bit
longer. These are the people who, by and
large, want work and have had some work experience in recent years, but through
perhaps a lack of skills or a lack of mobility, a lack of opportunity, often
are in circumstances where they are unable to access employment at that particular
time.
We
have to look at some of the things that we can do as government and work with
some of the groups in retraining. This retraining
tends to cut across a number of government departments. The Workers Compensation Board, the
Department of Education, our educational institutions, the Department of Labour,
this department‑‑all provide some opportunities for training and
retraining for people who have had some difficulty in obtaining work. I think it is safe to say that most of these people
want to work and want the opportunity to have a job and to have income and not
rely on either municipal government or in some ways provincial and federal
governments to provide them with their income support.
There
are a number of things that government can do, and I will get into some of the
training that takes place within this department just a little later. One of the things that we recognize is that
there needs to be some incentive for people on social allowances to retain some
of their earnings while they work their way into the work force. I think
*
(1550)
A
second part of the solution is the liquid asset levels. This is, I think, one
of the pieces of information that we can put together for the member to help
him understand social assistance, the liquid asset levels that exist across
I may
have our liquid asset levels here, and I can give you some information on
that. For single people, the liquid
asset level, I believe, was $400 prior to our changes. Now that has been changed to $1,000 for the
nondisabled, and for disabled cases it has been set at $2,000. So this is a fairly substantial increase in
liquid asset levels. As well, there have
been liquid asset levels for the second person in the family and each additional
dependent where there have been some adjustments for that to a family maximum
of $3,000 in the case of the nondisabled and $4,000 with the disabled cases.
So
there has been quite a positive increase across the liquid assets scale that we
use, and I think it has been well received by social allowance recipients who
want the ability to retain some of their income so that they can make those
major purchases and not have to spend all of the income that they get. I say that recognizing that their ability to
gain income is somewhat limited.
That
again, I think, moves us into about the middle of the pack when we look at the
liquid asset levels in other jurisdictions in the country. For instance, a single parent with two
dependents, the new
So
this has been seen as a positive move on the part of the department and the
government in recognizing the need to adjust those liquid assets. Again, it responds to some of the advocacy groups
and the issues that they have brought before government. That is, in terms of
social allowances, one of the pieces of information that we will put together
for the critics so that they have an opportunity to make those interprovincial comparisons.
I
would like to turn next to the training programs. I have indicated that the training programs
do cut across a number of government departments, but probably the most
successful one that we have has been the single‑parent job access which
provides group pre‑employment preparation sessions, work experience and skills
training placement for sole‑support parents. Again, this is a group of people who access
social allowances because of low income and through the single‑parent job
access program we are able to train a number of people. It is estimated that in 1992‑93 we
should be able to provide training for 710 people within that particular
program.
I
might also mention the Gateway program.
It provides participants with a combination of classroom instruction and
on‑the‑job training in high‑demand occupational areas. Some of that program, I believe, is offered
through South Winnipeg Technical school and some other facilities. It is anticipated that we will be able to
serve about 110 clients in that area.
Some
of the longer‑term programming that the department has spread throughout
the province is the HROC programs and the HROP programs. These are situated not only in
I
would tell the member that just a few months ago I attended a graduation
exercise in St. James at a particular program there. I think in the two graduating classes there
were close to 40 young women who had taken some training. I had the opportunity to have a graduation
dinner with them and talk to them and listen to them, and probably the greatest
single thing that they gained from the program that they took was a feeling of self‑esteem. Some of them were going to go directly into
the work force; others were going to go on to other training programs at Red
River Community College and other training institutions and I think were
leaving there with a sense of self‑worth, a sense of purpose. I admired the work the staff had done with a group
of people.
The
staff and some of the students mentioned when they first came into the program
how they felt very insecure, extremely unsuccessful, unemployed; some of them
had problems with the use of alcohol and other substances, and this program, I
think, was one in which they participated and brought them to a point where they
recognized that they had to take some responsibility for their training and
some responsibility for getting on with their own lives.
It
was just very interesting to listen to the comments not only of the instructors
who were very dedicated and committed to the work that they did with
individuals who were disadvantaged as far as employment went. The feeling of pride the students had was
certainly matched by the pride that the instructors took in the program. That particular graduating class of nearly
40, I think, accounted for some 500 graduates of this particular Human Resources
Opportunity Centre.
These
centres and programs are also located in other areas of the province. I have attended the one in Brandon, also the
one in Dauphin. The training is
different in some of those centres as they try and provide skills for the
candidates that present themselves and give them the skills to get into the job
market.
As
well, the department is also working with individuals in the community and
provide some grant funding to selected community‑based organizations for
the delivery of training and employment projects targeted to social assistance
recipients who are either youth or physically, mentally or emotionally handicapped. Some of these have been very successful.
A
local town councillor in Minnedosa who is in charge of that area of the town
council and I think a councillor known to the member across the way headed up
one of these projects and speaks very highly of the manner in which they were
able to train some of the local people and find them employment at the
completion of those programs. So,
basically that is the work the department does and I would again mention that
the government thrust in terms of retraining and educating and assisting these
clients also takes place in other government departments. We, by and large, are working with the
unemployed who are accessing social assistance.
We also have our youth programs, and I think the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) in the budget speech referenced a new program, Partners with
Youth that we will be bringing forward and announcing some of the details of
later this month.
In
very short time then, this is a picture of the training programs that the department
is responsible for.
Mr.
Alcock: I thank
the minister for that answer. I have had
some experience with earlier versions of those programs that allow people to
develop some skills, both in the classroom and then on the job and certainly
found them to be of high quality and quite useful. I believe there are a number of people currently
working in the department who came into the department in exactly that way and
have performed extremely well and have become very valuable staff in the
department.
A
couple of questions. Now the minister
mentioned 710 people being trained through‑‑I am not certain if I
am confusing two things, the Gateway program or the overall training that is
made available, but, as a proportion of the total caseload in the province‑‑and
I am not expecting the minister to answer this now‑‑but perhaps if
he could provide us with some information on the proportion of the total
caseload that is enrolled in training in this province, and a similar
relationship to caseload in all other provinces, so we have some sense of what
our relative position is in this country.
*
(1600)
The
second thing, given that the minister seems to be particularly fulsome in his
answers today, perhaps I could just prompt him with a few other little questions
and that would be the question of special allowances. When the minister is looking at
interprovincial comparisons, can he tell us what the special needs allowance is
in other provinces, what it is in this province, and when the last time was
that it was increased?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Madam
Chairperson, the 710 number I referred to was the Single Parent Job Access
Program, and that is the estimated number of persons to be served in this
budget year. The member is looking for some estimated totals of people who will
be served by the department, and I will give him some numbers.
The
estimated total persons served under the Canada‑Manitoba agreement on
employability enhancement for social assistance recipients will be 2,457; the
estimated total persons served under the Human Resources Opportunity Programs,
3,925; the estimated total persons served under the Human Resources Opportunity
Centres, 1,300, for a total of 7,682.
I am
not sure, I have just indicated that within our own jurisdiction that the
training takes place in a number of different areas within the
The
final question, I believe, was on the special allowances that social assistance
recipients receive. That is up to $150 and
I believe has been at that level for some time.
I would also indicate that if there are extenuating circumstances where perhaps
the department or the worker has to look at unusual circumstances, there is
some capability to enhance that.
Mr.
Alcock: Perhaps
I could ask the minister to be just a tad more precise than "for some
time." When was the $150‑level
established?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: It dates
back to about 1970.
Mr.
Alcock: The
minister says probably 1970. That is far
enough back to make the point that I wanted to make.
The
question is, why is it‑‑and I have wondered about this before‑‑that
governments have not been increasing that allowance in some way, not at this
point, although, I mean, presumably when it was established, it was seen to be
a reasonable fund to cover those exceptional expenditures people might
have. I need not go through the
inflationary calculations to suggest how inadequate it is today, but the
question that always perplexing me is, why have they not over the past while
simply increased it by let us say the rate of inflation for the past three
years?
When
the minister sits down to make the decisions, presumably there is a
presentation to the minister of the various expenditure items in the budget,
and presumably there is some decision taken in accordance with Treasury Board
guidelines to increase or decrease expenditures. Why is it that there has never been an
increase in this particular item?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Madam
Chairperson, the department on an annual basis brings forward ideas in the area
of social allowances and has to make decisions on the rates that are paid to
social allowance recipients for their general needs and also for their housing
needs, and in doing so will look at the various economic indicators and will
make a recommendation to government. Government makes a decision on those
things.
From
time to time, we do embark on a number of reforms and this year, of course,
decides the 3.6 percent on the basic rates and the 3 percent on housing, we
also embarked on some changes in some other areas. One was the creation of a new program for the
disabled.
Again,
the member might say this is an issue that has been around for a long
time. Governments I think have been
lobbied and petitioned before by the members of that community, and the groups
that represent social allowance recipients, to address the special needs that
the disabled will have, disabled people who are on social allowances.
The
member, I suppose, could apply the same question to that. Why had this never been addressed
before? This was a time when we had, I
think, listened and studied, in the short time that I have been here, to a
group in the community that I felt, and government felt, had a legitimate
need. That had been brought to
government and displayed, and we embarked on a new program. So I suppose the time was right and it was
the right thing to do.
*
(1610)
The
liquid assets is another area. I believe
those asset levels have not been changed since the 1960s when liquid asset levels
were set. I may be wrong on that date,
but it was a considerable time ago that those liquid asset rates were set. Again,
after a good deal of study and information brought forward by the department,
it was determined by government that it was time to move on those because the
interprovincial comparison showed that we were near the bottom of the pack as
far as liquid asset rates go. We then
made another major change in the social allowances. I readily admit that advocacy groups and recipients
bring forward other ideas.
We
recently received a report from the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg talking
about poverty lines and had a very interesting conversation with them about how
poverty lines are set. Again, one knows
that there are needs out there that will have to be addressed and levels will
have to be adjusted from time to time.
The special allowances, I think, has been seen as a portion of the total
social allowances that recipients receive.
The advocacy groups have indicated from time to time that perhaps that
is one area we could look at next. I
think these issues are before government and will be dealt with as government
is able to do so.
From
the position of opposition, of course, it is easy to call on the government to
increase spending and to get into this spend, spend, spend mentality. I know that opposition critics from time to
time will call on the government to adjust these rates and do so without any
responsibility for raising that money or facing the taxpayer and saying, where
can we find the money that we need to spend on these programs? At the same time I do not think the member
recognizes that there are other competing forces that are at work so that other
departments have some of their needs looked after as well.
We
recognize that there are other areas of the social allowances that will be
looked at from time to time, but the basic criteria is that we look at the
needs for housing and for basic rates on an annual basis and that is
adjusted. While we have not made any
adjustment this year it is not to say that it may not happen in subsequent
years.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, I would like to pursue this for a second with the minister,
because I think it is not something that the minister needs to feel
particularly politically defensive about.
Obviously if the rate was first established or the fund was first
established in 1970‑‑and I do not recall the exact date that I was
given, but it is of that order, it is 20‑plus years. It was set presumably at that time. Well, if it was '70, it would have been the
early days of the Schreyer government who saw fit not to increase at all during
their term.
We
went through the
It
just surprises me that a fund that is established to deal with exceptional
expenditures would never have been altered.
I am wondering what kind of advice the minister has been getting from
the department when he makes those kinds of decisions year over year not to
adjust this particular fund. On what
basis is that decision made?
Does
he believe that the fund is not serving a purpose and that it does not provide
the things it is supposed to provide, or is it the belief of the department
that people in this circumstance only have needs that require $150 worth of
support, that is sufficient to meet their needs? What is the basis upon which that decision to
not alter that fund is made?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Madam
Chairperson, if I have in any way given the member the impression that I am
defensive about the Social Allowances Program, I would like to correct that
misapprehension that he has. I am very
proud of the changes and reforms we have been able to make. These reforms that I have indicated just earlier
are ones which I think were long overdue, and this government can take a great
deal of pride in creating a new program for the disabled, adjusting the liquid
asset levels, adjusting the basic needs at a level probably double the rate of inflation.
I
know that members do not like comparisons with other jurisdictions, but I am
sure, just as we read the newspapers and receive documentation, that the member
will also be looking at what other jurisdictions are doing in terms of their
health care, their education funding and their social services funding. If in any way I did give the member the
impression that I was defensive, I want to correct that impression. I think the department and the government can
be very proud of the substantial changes that have been made that benefit some
11,000 disabled recipients, all of the recipients on the provincial level who
accessed a 3.6 percent increase and the response we have given to the liquid
asset levels.
The
member is zeroing in on a very small part of the social allowances that
recipients are able to access on an annual basis. I have indicated that recipients can access
up to $150, but that there is some capacity to access additional dollars if they
require it.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, I shall not pursue this any longer. It seems to be not producing any sort of
answer, which is rather unfortunate.
I
think what I will do at this time is allow this line to pass and let the member
for
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(b)(1) Social Allowances $238,489,100‑‑pass;
3.(b)(2) Health Services $13,649,200‑‑pass; 3.(b)(3) Municipal
Assistance $77,369,900‑‑pass; 3.(b)(4) Income Assistance for the
Disabled $8,000,000‑‑pass.
Item
3.(c) Income Supplement Programs: (1)
Salaries $734,000.
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
Can
the minister tell me if the 55 Plus benefit levels are indexed as they were in
past years but were not last year?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: The 55
Plus program is being maintained at last year's levels.
Ms.
Barrett: Madam
Chairperson, can the minister explain the rationale for not returning the
indexing to that program?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: The
55 Plus program has had a history of having been reviewed annually by
government since it was first put in place I believe in 1980, and there have
been times when that program has been maintained at a certain level. Pardon me, the program does go back to the
mid‑'70s, and from 1974 to 1980 it was maintained at a particular
level. At that time for the single
person it was $23.46. Then in 1980‑81
the amount of the 55 Plus payment was doubled, so on that one particular year
there was a 100 percent increase in that.
*
(1620)
Then
from 1981 to 1986 there was no increase in it.
It was maintained at a constant level.
I will just give you some other examples. In 1987, there was a 4.5 percent increase; in
1990, there was a 4.8 percent increase.
For this year we are maintaining it at the level we had it last year, so
the changes historically in the program have been looked at on an annual basis. For this particular year the maximum
quarterly benefit‑‑and I should have pointed out that I was talking
in terms of quarterly benefits‑‑is $111.60 for a single recipient and
$119.90 for each married spouse. So we
are maintaining that program at the level it was at last year.
Ms.
Barrett: In effect
there is a decrease in the spending power of individuals who are eligible to
receive those programs.
One
other question on CRISP and 55 Plus‑‑in the last year's Estimates,
on July 23, the minister stated that CRISP and 55 Plus are targeted for
Killarney and Carberry, and they anticipated opening these offices by October
1. Can the minister tell the House or
tell me if that has in fact taken place?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: The
offices are now located in those communities and are open, just within, I would
say, recent months. The Killarney office
was opened in October; the Carberry office opened in December; and the services
provided are accessed through those offices.
Ms.
Barrett: Can the
minister tell me how many of the staff that were working delivering the
programs out of
Mr.
Gilleshammer: I am
told that there are two people who once worked for the department in
Ms.
Barrett: So there
are 24 individuals providing those services in Carberry and Killarney who were
not last year providing those services in
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Yes,
those people did not move with those positions when they were relocated, and
the normal Civil Service options were pursued by those people.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
It
was interesting listening to the minister try to explain the rationale for not
indexing the 55 Plus program. He tries
to justify it by saying, well, in 1980 it had a substantial increase, in
another year it had a substantial increase, and in an attempt of trying to be a
good government they increased it one year by 4 percent and in another year by
such and such percent, but the fact remains that there has not been an increase
in the last couple of years, indexing to the 55 Plus program.
I
would ask the minister, is it the policy of the government that whatever the
program might be that it is a better policy to re‑evaluate how much
monies are going out for a particular program every so often as opposed to
giving them some sort of an annual increase based on CPI or any other base?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Madam
Chairperson, as the member may be aware after four years here, we do have an
annual budget exercise and all government expenditures are looked at on an
annual basis, and that has not changed.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Madam
Chairperson, the minister avoids the actual question. The question is: Is it better to wait every year‑‑let
us use an example.
The
government chooses not to increase it whatsoever for the next three years and
then, just prior to an election, give it a 25 percent increase; whereas on an
annual basis, using as a guide or as an example CPI, cost of living index,
increasing it 3 percent this year, 4 percent the next year or 2 percent, whatever. If it wants to use inflation as a guide,
whatever it wants to use as a guide‑‑but instead of waiting every
so number of years that go by, then giving it the increase as opposed to giving
it an annual increase.
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Madam
Chairperson, the government obviously has to make choices and decisions every
year based on the income that government anticipates, the revenue, and the
expenditures that government feels is warranted within every department and within
that department there are difficult choices to make.
I say
back to the member, if we had not created that program for the handicapped who
are on social allowances, that $60 a month‑‑$8 million‑‑would
the member sooner have seen us build a new highway with that? Would the member choose to use it on farm support? I mean these are tough decisions that have to
be made year after year after year, and it is easy in opposition to ask government
year after year to increase expenditures everywhere. Within this department we
have to look at our expenditure levels.
I say
to the member, in my opening remarks I referenced that this department deals
with some 180,000 Manitobans. I say to
him that most of them are vulnerable Manitobans. These are people who are on social
allowances. These are people who are
part and parcel of the child welfare system.
They are people who are mentally handicapped, some of them in group
homes, some in institutions‑‑a tremendous number of vulnerable
people. We had an increase in our
funding of close to 9 percent. I think
the government feels, and this department certainly feels, that we have fared
very well in accessing close to 9 percent of additional spending for this
budget year. Within that we have to make
the choices of where that money is spent.
If I
can just maybe give the member, with respect, a little history lesson, that if
you go back 10 years or so there was a lot of concern and a lot of talk about
the poverty levels with the aged, concern that society had tremendous
responsibilities to people who were growing old and who did not have savings
and did not have the ability to access income.
Since then, since the '70s and the '80s, the reality is a lot of pension
plans have kicked in and senior citizens, even though there is poverty there at
all levels in all areas of the province and all levels of society, no longer
are the seniors seen as the top priority.
Recently
there have been studies tabled talking about child poverty and the need for new
resources and new programs to deal with child poverty. I say to you, that is sort of the next frontier
that this government, the Government of Canada and other provinces are going to
have to face. We have had some studies come
forward on child poverty recently which shows, because of certain demographics
in
The
federal government has recently recharted a course that they were on to put a
lot of funding into daycare. In the last
federal budget the federal minister, the Honourable Benoit Bouchard, is saying,
we are going to refocus that money on the needs of young people. While the full‑blown program has not
been announced yet, I believe he has committed to spending some $400 million to
tackle the whole question of child poverty.
*
(1630)
I
guess what I am saying to the member is there are a lot of places for us to
spend those tax dollars, and decisions and judgments have to be made. I think the member will see across the
country and across
I am
not sure just how the federal government is going to do that, but they are
committed to a new payment to replace the old Family Allowance payment, and I
think it is $144 per child per month.
They are also about to embark on a nutrition program and I am told will
be largely targeted on reserves. So that
$400 million I think is going to be helpful in beginning this fight on child
poverty. Maybe the pendulum has swung a
bit about where government is going to have to focus its resources.
I say
to you, given the numbers of people this department serves and the numbers of
vulnerable people across the province, even though we have increased our budget
by close to 9 percent we are not able to give everybody within the department
that type of increase, and we have to make those judgments.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Madam
Chairperson, I am going to just try once again on this. I will try to be very clear.
In, I
believe it was '74 since the program's inception, there was no increase until,
I believe the minister said 1980. Now I could
be off by a year. [interjection] I am right.
Then in 1980, it was doubled. As
a senior, living between those years, I would hazard a guess that it would have
made life a bit easier had I received instead of the doubling from '74 to 1980,
receiving the doubling of the payment in 1980 from '74 prices, that it would have
been more beneficial as a senior to have received a percentage increase as
opposed every year whether it is two, three, whatever the percentage might have
been, and then it would not have necessitated having the doubling of the
program.
I
would just ask the minister is that normally how programs within the department
are handled, instead of an annual increase that it is more so a wait and see as
the years go by, and then if we re‑evaluate, well, it is massively
underfunded, so we are going to give it a 20 percent boost in the arm. Is that how it is usually done within that
department?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Madam
Chairperson, I would concede that there is more than one way to do things. We have to look at what the departmental
priorities are. In the past, this
government has made daycare a priority by virtually doubling the amount of dollars
that have gone into daycare in the past five years. Certainly, the shelter
system has been a priority with a tremendous amount of new funding going in
there, an extra $500,000 this year.
I
think priorities change from year to year.
Some programs are adjusted. Some
of our grants are increased. Some of our
grants are decreased. Some of our grants
disappear, new grants come into being. I
think government is always going to reserve the right, because we budget on an
annual basis, to make those decisions.
Ms.
Barrett: If
I may ask a couple of questions that are not specifically on this category but
within the general purview of people.
Again on social assistance.
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Certainly.
Ms.
Barrett: One
of the recommendations that have been made by social assistance groups and
other community groups in particular, but not narrowly defined by the people
who are concerned about women's safety and security, has been the issue of
telephones being paid for by social assistance.
They have never been seen as a necessity‑‑and the government
has as a general necessity‑‑although virtually every household in
the province has access to a personal telephone.
I am
wondering if the minister has considered, or will consider in the near future,
the possibility of putting telephones in as part of the basic necessities of
life and adding basic phone rates into the amount of money that social
assistance recipients get every month.
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Madam
Chairperson, this a challenging question that you ask on telephones because I
am sure that you can make a case for an individual who does not have one that
perhaps from time to time may find the need for one.
In
looking at this‑‑and it is something that we have looked at‑‑I
think on the provincial caseload, we have found that about 18,000 of our
27,000, which is close to 70 percent of those individuals, do have a
telephone. Telephones are provided for medical
reasons, if that case can be made; others will use exempted income for
telephones.
I guess
the member probably could make an excellent 40‑minute speech on the need
for a telephone in everyone's home, and given her past record, it would be
tremendously interesting.
There
is a danger that you start itemizing individual household appliances, or
conveyances, or other things, and you know say that the next important item is
that every household should have this particular appliance.
It is
an issue that has been presented to the department and one that comes up for
discussion from time to time. There are
no plans today to make that sort of an add‑on to the system. It is something we have looked at, and we are
doing some more research on it as well.
Ms.
Barrett: Madam
Chairperson, yes, just a brief far less than 40‑minute comment on this issue. I think the minister does himself and his
department a disservice when he puts the idea of a telephone in as the opening
wedge for additional "appliances," I believe was the word he used,
being seen as necessities. I think that
a very strong argument can be made that, in order for individuals to be able to
have any opportunity to get off social assistance and into the work force, one
of the specific things they need is access to a telephone so that they can
respond to job requests, they can communicate back and forth.
*
(1640)
The
medical exemption is a very valid one, as is the exemption that I know is
sometimes given to social assistance recipients who have proven that they are
victims of abuse.
I
think that the telephone serves the function in‑‑to go back to the
minister's comment about expanding the definition of necessity too much by
starting with a telephone is that I do not believe there is anyone who says
that indoor plumbing at this point in the city of Winnipeg, given our climate,
is not now a necessity; that access within one's lodging to gas or oil or electric
cooking facilities is not now considered a necessity; that electrical lighting
is not now considered a necessity.
I am
making a very extreme case here, but I do believe that at a certain point in
time in not beyond the realm of what we either know personally or our families
know, in many cases those things were not considered a necessity. Times change.
Our social system changes. The
fact that we do consider those things necessities today means that we have
changed and we incorporate into our basic definition of what is required,
additional things as we move through our history.
I
suggest that in the case of a telephone, we are well beyond‑‑no
government in
I
would like to as well ask another question on something that I do not believe
would cost the provincial government any money.
So I am sure the minister will be very open to this suggestion. It is a suggestion that I am sure he is
familiar with because it comes from the organization called WORD and one of
their‑‑[interjection] WORD, the Winnipeg Organization of the Responsibly
Disadvantaged. Several members I know
have discussed issues with this group.
One
of their concerns and one of the recommendations that they have is in the area
of transportation. My understanding is that
disabled Manitobans can access transportation services if they get approval
from their worker and are allowed two free trips a month if they get prior
approval from their worker, which is 24 trips a year.
The
recommendation that is being made by WORD, which I think has a number of
positive aspects behind it, is that at the beginning of each fiscal year or
anniversary date or some beginning that is agreed upon, the individual would
have those 24 trips that he or she could draw on without asking for the prior approval
of the worker, and this would also allow the individual the flexibility of
determining when they would use those trips, rather than having it being
narrowly defined as twice a month, if there could be without any additional
cost a change in this policy. I am
wondering if the minister has given this any thought and if he would consider
giving this recommendation some serious consideration.
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Madam
Chairperson, I would like to go back to the telephone issue first. You know, there are many ways of looking at
it, and I did not want the member to start comparing telephones to microwaves
or fridges or stoves or other appliances.
I did indicate that almost 70 percent of our provincial clients do have
them.
I am
saying that when you bring in a new program there is a cost. The estimated cost of making phone services
available to all of those clients is in the neighbourhood of $5 million. If the member is asking for five million new
dollars, then we will be up above 10 percent in our spending and, again, there
is a cost, or if the member would say the priority should have been telephones
as opposed to creating a new program that cost an equivalent amount of money,
that is a decision you have to make.
I do
not know which the member would recommend, whether we should cut something else
out to create a new program, but I am just saying that we have embarked on a
number of new things that are a cost to government in the increased rates, in
the new programming, in the liquid assets changes and so forth. I think we have done a good job in providing
additional resources there. What the member is saying is, do more and provide
more resources. I say to her that we
have made our budget for this year and these are our limitations.
I
recognize there are other issues that advocacy groups and critics bring forward
in the social allowances area that we will take the next months to look at and
perhaps be brought forward as ideas in another budget. Again, we have to balance that off against
the costs.
If we
forgo increasing the rates because we want to do it through a dedicated fund
for telephones, that is a big decision we have to make, and again then we would
be making a decision for all recipients, whereas by adjusting the rates then
they have the freedom of choice within those rates where they want to spend their
money. It is a difficult decision.
The
transportation issue is one the member has brought up. Yes, we have met with
advocacy groups, among them WORD, and I am just trying to think of the name of
the president and the leader of that group.
It just escapes me for the moment, but we have met and I would not be
surprised if the member has met with the president and other members of that
organization.
I
appreciate the apolitical way that they have always approached these
suggestions and ideas that they bring forward. I know that they do represent a
significant number of people out there.
I was sort of pleased with the dialogue that we had from time to time
with that organization, whether it was in my office or as I met them somewhere
in the building, outside the Chamber here or on the front steps, that they do
present some good issues, and I think have been able to move on a number of
those issues, one being the recognition of the needs of the disabled, and the
other the liquid assets. While I do not
believe they represent all recipients, they are one of the groups along with MAPO
and SACOM and others who bring forward ideas and help us to plan our
priorities.
Along
with the telephones, another issue is transportation. I think we are going to
be able to do something in that area in the coming months that may allow for
more flexibility and choice on how they use the funding that is available for
transportation.
Madam
Chairperson: Item
3.(c)(1) Salaries $734,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $244,100‑‑pass;
(3) Financial Assistance $13,405,000‑‑pass.
Item
3.(d) Regional Operations: (1) Salaries
$20,582,300.
Ms.
Barrett: Madam
Chairperson, I have a couple of questions on the Salaries line for Regional
Operations.
*
(1650)
When
I looked at the last year's Estimates as far as the staffing is concerned there
has been a bit of a change from last year's Estimates to this year's adjusted
to next year's Estimates, particularly in the managerial category where there
is a reduction of seven for this next year.
In the Professional/Technical where it was estimated at 379, there actually
was 382 and it is now down to 379, a minor change, a continued, slow but steady
reduction in the Administrative Support from 106 to 103 and now down to 101.
My
question is twofold‑‑one, work force adjustments, a definition,
please; secondly, where particularly the managerial spots that have been
eliminated through attrition or whatever cause‑‑where were those
SYs located?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: The
regional operations, of course, encompasses our staff in the Social Allowances
office and other regional offices that provided some of the employment programming. We have downsized in some areas of
Ms.
Barrett: Madam
Chairperson, is the location of those staff in
Mr.
Gilleshammer: I
believe all of those positions were located outside of
Ms.
Barrett: Can the
minister share with us the exact locations of those managerial positions?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Yes, they
would be located in Brandon, Winkler, Churchill, Killarney, Steinbach,
Thompson, Dauphin, Teulon and The Pas.
Ms.
Barrett: Those
are the managerial positions that were decreased. Does that mean that there has been a sizable downsizing
of those regional offices, or were there other managerial positions in those
offices?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: That
varied from one community to another. In
some of those communities, it was a free‑standing office with one person
in it that has been closed. In some of
the larger centres where there was sort of a government building, they would
have been housed within that facility.
Ms.
Barrett: Can
the minister very briefly say which of these locations meant the closing of an
entire office then?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: I think
the one place where it was freestanding was probably
Ms.
Barrett: So just
to recapitulate this. These staff year decreases
all were related to the rationalization, if I can use that phrase, of the
CareerStart Program?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: The
change is made in the employment services areas of our department.
Madam
Chairperson: Item
3.(d)(1) Salaries $20,582,300.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, I notice that the time is drawing to a close here, so I thought
before the minister left the Chamber and we adjourned these particular
proceedings, perhaps I could ask the minister for a few items that he could
bring forward on Thursday, and then we will consider the review of this item
and the passage of this particular line.
I
just wanted to clarify with the minister, given his commitment earlier to bring
forward stuff this week, by "this week" does he mean by this next
Estimates period Thursday after Question Period?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Yes,
I expect we are doing Estimates on Thursday, and when we meet then we would
have some information for the member.
Mr.
Alcock: I would
note that this is Tuesday, five o'clock, so we have got a whole day. Nobody has to work all night. The minister made a specific commitment to
have the grants list available this week.
Does this mean we will see the grants list at the start of Estimates on
Thursday?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: I made
that commitment earlier this afternoon and will abide by that.
Mr.
Alcock: Well, the
minister has made a lot of commitments that have tended to be a little more
flexible in their execution than his initial statements might have
indicated. I understood him to say that
we will see in this Chamber at the conclusion of Question Period, at the
beginning of the Estimates, the grants lists.
I appreciate hearing that.
I
would encourage the minister to take the next 24 hours and see if he cannot get
his department organized and come back into the Chamber with the information so
we can conduct a proper review of the Estimates of the department rather than
having to help him shape up the information that he has provided.
I
note, as the critic for a great many departments, that I have an opportunity to
see other departments in action, and they do seem to manage to come forward
with the information that they are expecting the House to pass on. I would hope that the minister can encourage
this department to do the same.
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Madam
Chairperson, I have indicated that we would attempt to have that ready for
Thursday when we meet. On Thursday I
fully expect at some point in the afternoon we will be able to provide the
member with that information, but I must say, what a tremendous disappointment
the member is to me when he refers to civil servants in such a negative way,
people that I think work very, very hard for the government of Manitoba and the
department. As a former civil servant
himself, with a career of not much note, I would think that in his time when he
worked with departments and other members of government he would have a higher
regard for them.
I
cannot help but reflect on his comments yesterday, when we talked about a new
program that is going to provide some advocacy for children, and he referred to
a civil servant as a political hack.
That was his estimation of someone who is going to be hired to work with
children and to protect the children of this province.
He
continues to disappoint me in his reference to the members who work so hard for
the government in
Madam
Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour, committee
rise.
Call
in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees):
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has
considered certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to
sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creak (Mr. McAlpine), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 39‑The
Mr.
Speaker: On
the proposed motion of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creak (Mr. McAlpine),
Bill 39, The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi consituant en corporation "The Salvation Army Grace
General Hospital," standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington.
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
Before
I was elected to the House in September of 1990, I was executive director of a
small organization called Women in Second Stage Housing, which provides
services for women and their children who have left abusive relationships. I took over that position from a woman who
had served in that position for over a year, who was a captain in the Salvation
Army and who had done remarkable service for that organization and who then
went on to work with the Catherine Booth Bible College in establishing a program
for educating young people in the field of social work.
I
have since that time had the opportunity to attend several of her classes in social
work and listen to and participate in the process of education of those young
people in the field of social work and have been very impressed with the
calibre of those students, the dedication that they bring to the principles and
philosophies that underlie the profession of social work and other helping
professions and the commitment that they show, not to the least as a result of
their participation in the work of the Salvation Army to the causes that we as
social workers, and I hope legislators, all espouse.
So,
Mr. Speaker, just a few brief words that I wanted to put on the record in
commemoration and congratulation to the work that the Salvation Army has done
in many areas, not just the Grace Hospital, although that has been a remarkable
institution as well, but just some personal understandings of the work and the
people who have lived and worked and followed the precepts of the Salvation
Army. With those few remarks, I close my
comments on this bill.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the
House ready for the question?
Question
before the House, second reading of Bill 39, The Salvation Army Grace General
Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en
corporation "The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital."
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
SECOND READINGS‑PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 52‑The Pas Health Complex Incorporation Amendment
Act
Mr.
Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): I
move, seconded by the member for
Motion presented.
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
act as the sponsor for this bill concerning the operation of The Pas Health
Complex. The bill is
straightforward. It would allow for the
expansion of the membership of the board of directors to add two new members so
that The Pas Health Complex could be represented by a good cross‑section
of the community.
So,
therefore, I would urge all members to support this amendment.
Mr.
Speaker: The
question before the House, second reading of Bill‑‑the honourable
Minister of Urban Affairs.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that debate be
adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 16‑The Health Care Directives Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill 16,
The Health Care Directives Act; Loi sur les directives en matiere de soins de
sante, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? Leave? It is agreed.
Bill 18‑The Franchises Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), Bill 18,
The Franchises Act; Loi sur les concessions, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
Mr.
Jack Reimer (Niakwa): It
is my pleasure to stand today and talk on Bill 18, The Franchises Act, as
introduced by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). In essence it is to regulate the sale of
franchises in
The
growth of franchises is well documented in the fact that right now they even have
trade fairs where the franchises are put on display, if you want to call it,
where people can walk around and they can literally shop for a franchise if
they are interested in going into business.
Franchising offers one of the easiest ways, if you want to call it, and
one of the quickest ways of an individual to go into business, because they are
taking advantage of a tried and true and a proven system of doing business
because of the parameters and the guidelines that are put out in
franchises. An individual has the
opportunity to take advantage of the management, the marketing, the exposure,
the buying power of having a franchise, and the availability of going to the
public in the selling of a commodity, a service or a product.
*
(1710)
So
franchising becomes a very lucrative and a very big business in the sense that
a lot of people have to be aware of what they are getting into. What this proposal is, that has been brought
forth by the member, it is in a sense going to regulate the sale of franchises
here in
The
prospectus in a sense will describe the conditions of the contract between the
franchisee and the franchiser, but it does in no way ensure that the franchisee
will understand the liability that he or she would be creating through the
contract. In essence, the franchisee would still have to be aware of the legal
contents and the contract that that person has been involved with in taking
over that franchise for whatever that commodity is or service or product.
The
franchisee or the prospective franchisee, in essence, would have to and should,
you would hope, get strong legal advice or strong accounting advice as to the
viability and the ramifications of what that person is getting involved with in
the franchise. The franchise can be in
various commodities.
One
of the biggest ones that I guess we are very, very familiar with is naturally
the McDonald's franchise, which is a world‑renowned and worldwide
franchise. It should be noted that is a
relatively new franchise, because it has not been around that long. In fact, the man who started that franchise,
I believe, started that after he retired from his job as a milk‑shake‑maker
salesman. He got into that as an
afterthought in a sense of having a burger franchise.
That
is just an example of how things can grow, and how things can become very
prosperous when a person sets about a certain amount of parameters and ideas,
and it is a good idea and it works for itself.
In
bringing forth this bill by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), his intent is
to really place additional burdens on the Securities Commission, and the fact
that the prospectus being put forth cannot deal with all the details that can
become part of a franchise.
A
franchise agreement can be one page; it can be two pages. A franchise agreement
can be actually the size of a telephone book at times, because of the
requirements and the conditions and the guidelines that are set out between the
two parties. It becomes an agreement of
understanding in a sense that the two people or the two parties have to come to
an understanding. The understanding is
usually brought forth with consultation through lawyers or through accountants
or through business advisers or through people who are in lending institutions
to evaluate the franchise.
A
strong franchise is one that a person would have a track record to look at and would
know that the strength of it is more or less in the proof in the pudding, if
you want to call it, because of the fact that if the franchise has been around
for a while, there is a track record.
There is the availability of talking to people that are involved with
the franchise or who have had experience or success with the franchise so that
the franchisee can evaluate it much more readily than to look at a prospectus
and think that that is going to tell him or her or the company that this is the
only condition or the only parameter to make judgments on. The individual must look at his own or her own
availability of getting the experience or getting the exposure and getting the
advice that is made to make it happen, if you want to call it.
Here
in
So
even
What
it does is put the burden too much into the bureaucracy, if you want to call
it, with a misunderstanding of interpretation because of the prospectus that is
required. A prospectus cannot provide
the total wherewithal for the individual to make decisions on. In
Ontario
is in the process of looking at some sort of direction regarding franchises
because, as mentioned, franchises and franchising have become such a big,
lucrative business venture that the government in Ontario is now looking at
some sort of indication on that. What
Ontario has done is going to provide money to Laurentian University to do
research on the area of franchising, to give a better understanding not only to
the government of Ontario but, I imagine, to all of Canada in the sense of
which way franchising is compounding and affecting the business.
An
Honourable Member: Look at
Mr.
Reimer: That is
right. They did not franchise though.
*
(1720)
I
should mention that the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) had the opportunity to
bring forth legislation of this nature when he was in government, when the NDP
were in government, but there was no movement at that time to be overly
concerned about the consumer in a sense of franchise protection or franchise amendments. It seems that the member is now bringing
forth this type of legislation for the sake of change only, without being able
to even sell his own caucus when they were in power and had the opportunity to
make changes. The government at that
time, which was the NDP government, had the member in caucus with them and at
that time it would appear that the bill had been brought forth before, but
would not clear through their caucus. I
would think that the member, he presented the bill in the previous session of
this legislature to this government, and I would think that it had been
proposed to the government of the NDP when they were in power also, but I guess
there was also a concern or other concerns that it did not get past the caucus
and it is now being brought forth as a private member's bill for this
government to consider.
This
government is concerned naturally about the welfare of business and the welfare
of all businesses, whether they be in the franchise business or all
business. A healthy business climate and
environment is very, very conducive to work, to jobs, and to the creation of
wealth within this province which government exposes and gets its tax base
from. Any type of tax revenue through
any type of successful business has to be available to anybody who is
interested. The business environment,
whether it is franchising or private business, must work in a very co‑operative
way. So as the member for Niakwa I am
very concerned that all my constituents are well served.
Mr.
Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Mr.
Speaker: On
the proposed motion of the honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), Bill 25,
The University of Manitoba Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Universite
du
An
Honourable Member: Make it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Six
o'clock? Is it the will of the House to
call it six o'clock. Agreed. Okay, that is agreed.
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30
p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).