LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
April 14, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Genevieve Bruce, Phyllis Simard, Madeleine Michaud and others who request the
government show its strong commitment to aboriginal self‑government by
considering reversing its position on the AJI by supporting the recommendations
within its jurisdiction and implementing a separate and parallel justice
system.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
John Herard, Veronika Stevenson, William Sinclair and others requesting the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider a one‑year
moratorium on the Human Resource
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Susan Stanton, Susan Lowery, Cathy Byington and others requesting the
government consider restoring the former full funding of $700,000 to fight
Dutch elm disease.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT the bail review provisions in the
Criminal Code of
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
* * *
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), 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
WHEREAS the Dutch elm disease control
program is of primary importance to the protection of the city's many elm
trees; and
WHEREAS the Minister of Natural Resources
himself stated that, "It is vital that we continue our active fight
against Dutch elm disease in
WHEREAS, despite that verbal commitment,
the government of
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the government of
As in duty bound your petitioners will
ever pray.
* (1335)
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): The
Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the
same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 76‑The
Pension Benefits Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay),
that Bill 76, The Pension Benefits Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les prestations de pension, be introduced and that the
same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon, from the
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Mr. Speaker: I inadvertently did not see the honourable
member for Burrows under Introduction of Bills.
Bill 65‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): I move, seconded by the member for Radisson
(Ms. Cerilli), that Bill 65, The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation, be
introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, the purport of my bill is to
change the schedule in the regulations of The Residential Tenancies Act in
order to change the rate at which costs of landlords are passed on to tenants
in order to prevent excessive rent increases.
Regrettably, this bill cannot pass until
the government proclaims The Residential Tenancies Act, something they have had
two years to do but have not done yet.
Motion agreed to.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Manufacturing
Industry
Shipment
Statistics
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, last year, unfortunately,
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, like we saw
last Friday with the labour force statistics and like we have been watching in
a number of other areas,
I would like to ask the Premier why
* (1340)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, as the member may well know,
there are a number of areas that may be particular to
The member may well know that, as well,
Versatile just got back into production after a shutdown of more than six
months, and they will just be beginning to see the shipments come through after
the end of February. Those were two
major items.
The good news, of course, is that
according to Statistics
North
American Free Trade Agreement
Sectoral
Briefing
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier will note that the
number of manufacturing jobs in
In 1988, in this Chamber, the Premier
talked about growth in manufacturing, and part of the increase in manufacturing
would be through the Free Trade Agreement.
He said in this Chamber that
Since that date, we have seen the Free
Trade Agreement and its operation in this province, and it has not been the
producer of the 10,000 to 15,000 jobs that the Premier indicated.
This week, the Ministers of Trade were
briefed on the free trade agreement with
Can the Premier advise us of the briefing
on all the sectors in trade that took place at the federal and provincial
meeting, and the impact on the so‑called six conditions that the
government of
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, there was a very lengthy preamble
to that question, and I will try and touch on all of the various points that
the member raised.
The member wants to be very simplistic in
looking at comparisons over the last couple of years, totally ignoring the fact
that there is a world recession on and that the biggest consumers of our
manufactured goods are the
The
The reality is we have had some major
changes with respect to the Free Trade Agreement with the
I might say that the position we continue
to maintain with respect to the free trade negotiations with
If the Leader of the Opposition is
suggesting that we pull away from the table and allow a bilateral agreement
which could have extremely negative impacts on
* (1345)
Public
Hearings
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, again, the
Premier did not answer the question. I
asked him what the sectoral briefing was on the free trade negotiations, and
the Premier failed to answer the question.
I guess he does not care about the sectoral impact of free trade or does
not know what is going on. He just has
an ideological position, and he will just go along all the way.
Mr. Speaker, we have secret negotiations
going on in hotels in
I would ask the Premier what success did
he have with the First Minister at the First Ministers' meeting and with the
Minister of Trade at this recent meeting yesterday on public access, and why is
this government not calling out for public input into the trade negotiations,
as the B.C. government is in public statements that they are making in their
Legislature?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I want it to be absolutely clear
that there is only one Leader in this Legislature who is ideologically hide‑bound
and absolutely fixed in stone with respect to the issue of free trade, and that
is the Leader of the Opposition.
He is the one who, without knowing
anything about it, without having any concept of what was on the table or what
was being discussed, said, I am opposed to it; now tell me what it is. He said, I am opposed to it; now tell me what
is on the table. That is blind ideology
if I ever saw it.
The fact of the matter is, this government
has taken the position that we have six conditions that must be met before we
will give our consent or our support to any trade agreement with
I would say to him, as well, that in the
discussions with the First Ministers in
In fact, parts of the draft agreement that
we have had have been discussed with various sectors in
Seven
Operating
Budget
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
I would like to ask the Minister of
Health: Does this mean that the costs at
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, without
the benefit of having my Estimates book in front of me because we will be
dealing with this this afternoon, but memory tells me that last year this
Legislature approved some almost $900 million dollars for hospital funding in
the
This year, I am seeking approval for in
excess of $950 million in hospital funding from the taxpayers of
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: That does not explain how a hospital could be
cutting‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
This is not a time for debate.
* (1350)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I would like to ask the minister very
specifically, what will be the impact of a $1.2‑million reduction on
beds, staff, services and patient care at the
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, a very insightful observer has
noted with interest that the last concern my honourable friend expressed was
patient care. That is the first priority
of this government in all of the decisions that are being made in the
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, for now
in excess of a month, has dillied and dallied in Estimates and has fixed on one
aspect only of health care, that being hospital funding. The whole department is a composite of home
care services, community‑based services.
All of those have not received one word of concern from the NDP who
claim to understand reform and to have a desire to move the system from
institution to community.
The only thing my honourable friend and
her New Democratic Party colleagues have fixed on in the last three and a half
weeks of Estimates is hospitals. Surely
the health care system in
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, since the administrator at the
Seven
Mr. Orchard: I congratulate my friend on her quick
learn. She put patient care first this
time, something we have put first every step of the way. That is why the budget in the ministry of
Health has increased at least in the greatest amount of any budget, other than
possibly Education the odd year, possibly Family Services the odd year, as a
commitment of this administration to the preservation of quality health care
services.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend wishes
to deal with health care reform without full explanation of what it really
means a la NDP. What I have indicated in
my opening remarks which have been reviewed extensively by her minions in the
caucus back‑rooms‑‑and we have clearly indicated that we
intend to put the patient first in health care in
Youth
Unemployment
Government
Strategy
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, just as the patient should come first, so should young people come
first.
I raised last Friday my very deep concern
about the loss of job employment opportunities for young people. When I gave a series of numbers, the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) from his chair kept saying wrong, wrong, wrong. I went, Mr. Speaker, to his documents, not
mine, his documents, and I compared the number of young people that would be
served by youth unemployment programs in the 1991 Family Services Annual Report
with the ones estimated in the Supplementary Information for Legislative
Review. This is the figure: In '91, 16,352 job opportunities would be
made available for young people; in 1992‑93, 13,400 job opportunities‑‑a
difference of 2,952.
Will the Premier tell us how his new
initiatives meet the needs of these young people who have an unemployment rate
of 18.6 percent?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the budget that we are debating in Estimates now contains the
CareerStart program that I think the member is referring to. The CareerStart program is maintained within
this budget at last year's level.
In addition to that, later this week, we
are going to be announcing the Partners with Youth program, a program that we
think will allow municipalities and nonprofit organizations across the province
to bring forward projects to employ many more youths between the ages of 16 and
24 in the
* (1355)
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the annual report of this
minister's department for 1990‑91 shows that 4,736 young people could
take advantage of CareerStart. This year
they are hoping 3,400 will be able to do that.
They watched the northern job corps disappear. The Youth Job Centre which provided for
10,348, they are now estimating will provide for 9,000. The STEP program which used to provide for
444, they are now saying will be 300, and even if you put in their new 700
Partners with Youth, they are still down by 2,952.
How can this minister say he is adequately
serving the needs of these young people whose unemployment rate in the same
period of time has jumped by 5 percent?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to getting into
more detail on that this afternoon as we pursue the Estimates process. The budget amount allocated within Family
Services for CareerStart in this budget is the same as last year, and we expect
we will serve the same number of young people this year, if not more through
that program. In addition, we are adding
a new program which I have indicated we will be announcing later this week.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this new
program will still leave the young people of this province with 2,952 fewer
employment opportunities. What is this
minister going to do for those nearly 3,000 young people?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Last year through the CareerStart program, we
were able to accommodate, I believe, every employer who brought forward a
request for funding. In fact, we were
able to go back later on after the initial intake and have some of the
employers access a second grant. We have
maintained that program at last year's levels, and we anticipate being able to
serve the same number of students.
As well, the federal CHALLENGE program is
on‑stream again this year and provides the same wage assistance that the
CareerStart program does, and while it perhaps is not going to be able to
accommodate all young people in
Provincial
Highway
Map
Exclusions
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker, our road structure plays an
important part in the promotion of rural
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach):
Can he tell us what impact the changes on these maps are going to have
on the economic growth of rural
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): I just want to indicate to the member‑‑and
I appreciate the fact that she has looked at the new map. I think it is a very nice map. As indicated by my colleagues, we have all of
I think it is a very positive thing we are
doing in terms of promoting tourism with the kind of map that we have. We have a cross section of pictures in there
that are going to be very positive.
In regard to the 2,000 kilometres that
were turned back, they are not on those maps, Mr. Speaker, and that was the
decision that was made over a year ago by this government. We have gone through a painful process with
the municipalities and have indicated many times‑‑the
municipalities did not like that necessarily, but we also compensated them for
the turn‑back of the roads to some degree. I do not know where the member has her
argument. That argument should have been
based over a year ago here.
* (1400)
Ms. Wowchuk: . . . arguments over a year ago‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
This is not a time for debate.
The honourable member for
Ms. Wowchuk: Since this government says tourism is
important to rural
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the member is getting a little
exercised about her question there. I
just want to indicate that if the member would want to take a little time and
compare the record of her administration when they were in power, what they did
with the highway program in this province, where the highway program was $100
million under my colleague who was Minister of Highways at that time, and by
the time when I took over the highway portfolio in 1988, we were spending $83
million on highways. Instead of just
keeping up and helping to develop the rural area, we went in the opposite
direction.
I am pleased that at least we are
maintaining this expenditure on highways in this province, not compared to B.C.
which has cut 50 percent of the highway programs and
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, this government is causing
absolute confusion with what they have done with the roads.
I ask the Minister of Rural Development
(Mr. Derkach): Will he request that
these maps be recalled and have these roads replaced, so we can go back to the
number system where people understand where roads have been and have those
roads put back on the maps?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the provincial map
is to show people where the highways are and where they are going. If the
member would put away the old maps, I will make sure that the members get the
new maps which show them exactly where the roads are and which are the
provincial roads and which are the PTHs in the province.
Bill 45
City of
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, Bill 45, an omnibus bill enabling
general exit permits from the City of
My question for the minister is: Has the minister responded to this motion in
any formal way? Will he table the
specific proposals he has placed before the Winnipeg Regional Committee to
develop a
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we have embarked upon a process
with the capital region municipalities to look at some regional planning for
the capital region. That is going to be
a long process. We have to address a
great number of issues. We have to build
a consensus from amongst the municipalities within the capital region because
the top‑down approach, the one endorsed in the original Plan Winnipeg,
did not work. That additional zone
municipality situation giving planning authority to the City of
Mr. Speaker, we have to build upon that,
and that is what we have started. We
undertook at our last meeting, at the end of February, the beginning of that
strategic planning process. We are
working toward that end. We will be
continuing it over the next period of time, but the building of that consensus
is not going to happen overnight. It is
going to take some length of time.
Minister's
Authority
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, will the minister acknowledge
that the new powers given to the minister in Bill 45 to alter city boundaries
and hence the tax base at will and by regulation with no public discussion will
seriously limit the ability of the city to fulfill its own planning
responsibilities? Will he consider
withdrawing those sections of Bill 45?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly disagree with
the preamble of the member for Wolseley.
Secession
Referendum
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that it
is government policy to give additional powers to the minister to determine by
regulation without public discussion and to determine who shall vote in
secession referendums and on what basis that franchise will be?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, when a regulation is passed, it
is passed by Executive Council, not by a minister. When a bill provides for power by regulation,
that regulation is a consideration of the entire cabinet.
Forestry
Environmental Mediator
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Environment.
The integrity of the environmental review
process is extremely important to maintain in this province, and we in the Liberal
Party have been pleased, unlike our other two counterparts, to consistently
speak in favour of the integrity and support of the Clean Environment
Commission's process throughout. Mr.
Speaker, whether or not we like the decision of the day, we respect the
importance of the CEC.
The CEC came up with a decision on
forestry in March of this year dealing with
My question for the Minister of
Environment is: Will he now respect the
request of the environmentalists to appoint immediately an environmental mediator,
which is provided for under the act, to deal with this issue and get the
parties back together, in particular since they have clearly shown that they
can reach an honourable compromise on this issue which is extremely important
environmentally and in terms of the jobs in eastern
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I, too,
respect the environmental process that is in place in this province, and I am
not sure why the member would want to characterize me as otherwise.
The recommendations that we have from the
Clean Environment Commission are recommendations. We have said that some of them are in effect
recommendations on policy which will be part of a larger debate.
The specifics of whether or not we can bring
in an environmental mediator, the suggestion is good; however, both sides have
to be willing to come to the table to mediate, and unfortunately, without going
into detail, Mr. Speaker, that does not appear to be possible at this time.
Negotiations
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, can the minister elaborate on
that last response, given that the party that pulled away from the table is the
same party that is suggesting the mediator?
Is the minister saying, from his answer‑‑do I understand
him, that the unions involved who had reached an agreement and are accused over
the weekend of committing some bad faith advertising, some untimely advertising‑‑who
is saying they are not willing to go to the table?
Will the minister do everything possible
to make sure they do get back to the table?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am not
going to negotiate in relationship to recommendations from the Clean
Environment Commission, nor do I choose to get into a debate, publicly or
privately, about the good faith or not on either side. It is my opinion that both sides have acted
honourably, but the fact is that there is an extreme amount of distrust between
the labour unions on one side and the corporation and those groups who are
environmentally concerned.
I have to say that unless there is a
willingness all the way around to come to the table for discussion, then that
cannot be forced. At the same time, Mr.
Speaker, I think that we want to be a little bit careful and a little bit
circumspect on how we view this type of process. I believe in an open, public process when we
are talking about public policy.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the
people of
Land
Division
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the minister's
commitment to an open public policy process, will he indicate today his support
for the April 10 agreement which called for the division of Nopiming into two
parks, one where forestry is permitted and one where it is not, with additional
lands being added to the wilderness park to make up for that loss of protected
land which appears to be an eminently reasonable solution? Will the minister commit publicly to that as
part of his public policy development?
* (1410)
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, if I
were to make a commitment immediately, I am sure it would be characterized as
the position of the government. I just
finished saying that we want the policy aspects of the recommendations taken to
a broader public debate. I would go this
far, however, to say that those are useful suggestions and those are the types
of things that need to be put on the table.
Without trying to characterize the
member's position unfairly, I believe that he is saying that he is interested
and that probably the Liberal Party is interested and looking at some of those
principles. If that is the case, then I
see a very fruitful public debate ahead of us where we can talk about those
broad policy issues and it can be a win‑win situation.
Abitibi-Price
‑
Feasibility
Study
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Deputy
Premier, who I also believe is on the Economic Development Board of Cabinet.
Following on the question of the member
for St. James (Mr. Edwards), this issue is obviously extremely important to the
people of
My question to the Deputy Premier is: Given that the First Minister (Mr. Filmon)
indicated on March 27 that the Economic Development Board of Cabinet had been
apprised of this issue, can the minister indicate whether in fact the
government has received or reviewed a feasibility study on the proposal for the
buy‑out of Abitibi at
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, let me say that we as a
government are very interested and supportive of further developments that
would support that community in the activities that have been carried out
there. There has been a series of
activities taking place, of work being carried out as it relates to that whole
activity which I do not think it would be fair at this point to express
publicly because there are negotiations and discussions taking place. We do not want in any way to jeopardize the
activities that are going on in that particular area.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, of course, the government and the
First Minister (Mr. Filmon) have chided us on many occasions for not wanting to
be positive. We are positive about
wanting to resolve this issue. We also
want to know what the government intends to do with respect to the input of
public dollars, taxpayers' money.
I assume, and perhaps the Deputy Premier
can tell us whether in fact they have reviewed the feasibility study on the
issue of public input into
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member for
putting forward a positive support for the operation at
There are currently discussions taking
place which I do not believe would be in the interests of the discussions or
the operations that should be disclosed.
I can tell you that we are anxious to see a resolve to the long‑term
activities at that mill.
Mr. Storie: It is not apparent to the public of
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Deputy
Premier is, tomorrow we are meeting with another group from
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member who
represents the area, and the ministry of I, T and T have been working, as well
as other individuals within government, to take a positive approach and to try
to make sure that all avenues are pursued to make sure that the operation of
the mill at
I want to assure him that every effort
will be put forward by this government, by my colleague the member who
represents that area and the Minister of I, T and T to make sure that all
avenues and all options are followed up and considered.
Health
Care System
Anesthetist
Manpower Review
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health. I want to raise the issue of
the field of anesthesia in this province.
Last week the question was raised by the member for
Mr. Speaker, the report has been given to
the Department of Health, and it is recommending that under the new plan, there
will be a decrease in anesthesia in community hospitals.
Can the minister tell this House how these
recommendations will coincide with his policy of moving care from large
institutions to community hospitals, because when you are cutting services, you
are cutting hospitals in the long run?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend has made a rather quantum leap in conclusion. The report that
my honourable friend the New Democratic Health critic indicated we had for 10
months was made available to the department on the 24th of March in draft form,
and the meeting we held with the respective facilities took place as soon as
possible, on March 30.
We are asking them to reply back to the
recommendations which are in that draft report, one of which indicates that the
sessional fees in terms of national ranking for compensation to anesthetists
are more than adequate, and part of the resolution is an internal reallocation
from sessional fees to fee‑for‑service, fee‑for‑service
being the problem that I have long identified in anesthesiology where the MMA,
in dividing the taxpayer pie, have left anesthetists in the
That reallocation would not compromise or
have the sort of consequences that my honourable friend is predicting.
Mr. Cheema: Can the minister tell us then whether he is
going to get in touch with his Department of Health and ask them to follow his
own recommendation, what he has said in the House, so that the
Those are very essential services, and
they are going to lose if they follow this drafted report which is dated March
24, as the minister has said.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the process that
is in place right now. That report which
says draft, I think my honourable friend would acknowledge, was given to the
CEOs at a meeting March 30. We are
asking them to reply as to how they believe the major recommendations, one of
which I have already shared today and last week, how that will impact on
service delivery.
In addition to that, we have made the
commitment that we would pick up one month of the shoring‑up that the
hospitals had found internally in their budgets last year in order to make the
month of April more smooth in its transition, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENT
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): May I
have the permission of the House to revert back to ministerial statements?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to
revert back to ministerial statements and tabling of reports? Leave? It is agreed.
Mr. Derkach: As the members are undoubtedly aware, I was
very proud to announce the Rural Economic Development Initiative or REDI this
morning. The REDI program is designed to
put video lottery dollars back to work in the rural economy to encourage
economic development and diversification in
Priority for REDI funds will be given to
communities who have organized and prepared a strategy for economic
development. The REDI program will focus
on commercially viable development that has long‑term economic benefits
for communities.
Our government has continued to
demonstrate its commitment to rural
* (1420)
REDI complements our government's current
economic development programs by providing the tools government and local
communities need to act on these initiatives.
Communities who are investing in their future through
The Infrastructure Development Program
will help communities meet the infrastructure needs required to attract
business. This program will assist
communities whose goal is to create projects specifically designed to expand or
attract new business by improving sewer, water and energy services,
transportation access, waste disposal facilities and telecommunications to
service those specific projects.
REDI also expands the current consultation
programs available to rural businesses through both the MBA Student Consulting
Program and the Feasibility Studies Program.
The MBA Student Consulting Program will enable business students to
provide consultation services throughout the year for rural businesses with the
assistance of the provincial government.
The Feasibility Studies Program will offer
cost‑shared assistance to rural businesses, local governments and local
economic development organizations who wish to retain the services of an
independent consultant. This initiative
builds on programs currently provided by the Department of Industry, Trade and
Tourism.
I am sure that all members will appreciate
the value of the programs we introduced to encourage innovative and unique
ideas. The rapidly changing world economy and marketplace demand that rural
Manitobans be innovative in order to remain competitive.
The Development Support Program is
designed to provide a one‑time contribution to fund innovative proposals
in nontraditional areas which will in turn create business development
opportunities. As members are aware,
REDI is also involved in a new initiative to work with and assist young people
in rural
As Minister of Rural Development, I am
very excited about the immense potential of the REDI program as well as other
programs we have established. Over the
past year, the people of rural
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I would hope that the government would show
some other initiatives that would really stimulate the economy, and it would
not all be related to the money that could be raised in the communities. I have to say that I am also disappointed in
the amount of money. When you look at
$2.4 million being the amount designated for the program, as I understand was
announced this morning at the MAUM convention, that is a very small amount that
will have very little impact on any of the infrastructure that is
happening. Municipalities have to match
the money, but they are going to be matching money that is already coming from
the communities.
The MBA Students Consultant Program and
the Feasibility Studies Program are expansions of programs that are already in
existence and cannot be considered new programs.
A comment that was made this morning that
I find very positive is that I hope this program will be implemented by an
independent commission rather than government officials themselves and that we
do not have any political meddling in it. We have a small enough amount of
money being set aside here. I hope that
it is not meddled with as we have seen.
We know that the minister carries a bit of a reputation for meddling. I would not like to see it with this program.
The minister mentioned this morning that
they are going to move the office to rural
We will watch this program very closely,
and again I encourage the government to put as much emphasis as possible to
promote the rural community. I hope that
they will put more into assistance for our young people. As we had an indication of this morning,
there has been a real cutback in the number of jobs for our young people.
I look forward to the announcement that is
going to be made that will create jobs for our young people in rural
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
There is the other issue in which one
would have liked to have thought that the minister responsible for lotteries
would have stood up to. That is the
whole issue of the video lotteries, where this particular money has come
from. What the government has really
done, Mr. Speaker, is put two issues into one and promote the one issue in
which they know everyone in the
What we have managed to avoid or what this
government has attempted to avoid is the issue of gambling in the
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we do not have
any qualms with programs of this nature going to benefit rural
Mr. Speaker, the program itself is
good. It is unfortunate that we are not
debating the other issue that this government has chosen to try to sidestep,
and that of course being one of gambling in the province. Thank you.
Committee
Change
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to move, seconded by the honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), that Mr.
Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to
consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and
the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be
granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Health, and the honourable
member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Family
Services.
* (1440)
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 the Department of Health.
When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 1.(c) Evaluation and Audit Secretariat: (1) Salaries on page 82 of the Estimates
book. Shall the item pass?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
I think there is one question that my honourable friend the member for
I gave some details on the doctors that my
honourable friend indicated had left the department, and she left the
impression that they were leaving because of chaos and low morale in the
department. I answered a number of
circumstances that I knew from my own personal circumstances. There were three individuals that I would not
want maligned as being one of the ones that may have indicated to my honourable
friend that they left because of chaos in the department and low morale.
Dr. Ian Johnson left on December 20, 1988,
the reason is personal. His spouse was
offered employment in
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not think I will
go back over this issue since the minister is choosing to ignore the facets to
the question I raised yesterday and has chosen not to answer the overriding
concern of ability within the department to provide expert advice in the areas
of community medicine and communicable diseases and so on.
So let me go on. There are a couple of other outstanding
matters from yesterday and previous days.
One is a list of all the studies that are underway in the department
with indication of the progress for each study.
Mr. Orchard: Well, that is what I was sort of, you know,
wanting to have my honourable friend here, but I guess he will be able to read
the Hansard.
This is Health Advisory Network: first, activity status as of April 1992,
Study No. 1,
Point of
Order
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
not to be at all unhappy with the minister's attempt to answer the question, I
am just wondering if the minister would‑‑I had asked for a list to
be tabled, and he has read, in the past, the Advisory Network reports and the
progress of those studies.
So I would hate to see the time of the
committee used up with a repeat announcement strictly of the Health Advisory
studies. I am just wondering if we could
save some time by having it tabled and then the member for The Maples (Mr.
Cheema) would also be able to see it and deal with it as soon as he returns to
Estimates.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of
order.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: The Teaching Hospitals' Cost Review is the
report which I have indicated is before the St. Boniface/Health Sciences Centre
Boards, and they are making their analysis on the report to the Health Advisory
Network.
The third report, Extended Treatment Bed
Review for
Report D, Services for the Cognitively
Impaired, it is expected the final report will be submitted to the minister in
May 1992, French translation to follow.
Northern Health Services, final report to be submitted to the minister
in May 1992.
The Rural Health Services, this report is
printed and ready for release. Health
Promotion "Choices for a Healthy Future," I have the final report;
French translation is underway. Health
Information System, the final report is printed and ready for release.
Alternative Health Services, four reports,
Palliative Care, the final report to be submitted to me in May 1992; French
translation to follow. Ambulatory Care,
the second report, final report to be submitted in May 1992; French translation
to follow. Report C on Midwifery, we are
expecting the final report to be submitted to a steering committee in June
1992.
* (1450)
Primary Health Care, initial review to
begin in May 1992. The rural Extended Treatment Bed Review and interim report
expected in June 1992. Northern Air
Medical Services initial review to begin in May 1992. Those are the Health Advisory Network
reports.
My honourable friend wants to have the
reports of the Urban Hospital Council.
First of all, I think it might be important that my honourable friend
knows the membership of the Urban Hospital Council. My deputy Frank Maynard chairs it‑‑
Point of
Order
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, first of all my request was not for the
membership of the committee. The
minister has provided that to us. We
have a list of the membership, and we have his press package that he produced
not too long ago. I had asked for a
complete listing to be tabled of all the studies underway in this department
which includes the Advisory Network and the Urban Hospital Council and a number
of other studies and task forces and reviews.
I was prepared to be patient for a time,
but this is getting ridiculous, and I think the minister does not need to eat
up time reading out his own press package that he provided to us and to members
of the media and to the public. I am
wondering if he could just respect the request that I made in all sincerity.
Mr. Deputy
Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will not read the
entire membership of the Urban Hospital Council, but my honourable friend the
member for
I think my honourable friend ought to
reflect on those phraseologies, those glib, political phraseologies. Because Major Edith Taylor, executive director
of
I think my honourable friend, in making
her glib, political statements, might consider the sensitivities of her remarks
when, in fact, it is not this exclusive old boys' club as my honourable friend
indicated.
Now, my honourable friend already answered
her own question. She said we already have a copy of the minister's press
release from which I was going to review the number of reports. If that is satisfactory, I shall not put that
on the record.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Let the record show that my request was not
treated with sincerity, and the intent and expression made with that request
was ignored by the minister.
Let me ask, since the minister was so
interested yesterday in indicating how co‑operative and open he is in
sharing information, if the minister could table for this committee and outline
the plans that were provided to the chairpersons of the boards and chief
executive officers of health facilities in the province of Manitoba this past
Saturday regarding wage policy for this government.
Mr. Orchard: No, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that information was
provided to health facilities throughout the
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am going to try to
maintain the greatest degree of calmness that I can, but here from opposition,
my honourable friend the New Democrat, is wanting to know the bargaining
position of management and wants it tabled for all and sundry to see when we
are entering‑‑MHO is entering negotiations with unions providing
health care service in the province of Manitoba. I want my honourable friend to quietly
consider whether, in the history of this province, New Democrats in government,
Conservatives in government, that ever before has there been a request from an
opposition party for the bargaining position of one side or the other when
bargaining is ongoing.
The New Democrats in government have
never, never released a bargaining position when their negotiations were
ongoing, and from opposition now my honourable friend with her usual glib and
phantom rhetoric saying, there are concerns that have been expressed to me. Well, my honourable friend is the most
concerned person I have ever run into without any identified attachment of
whence those concerns come from other than my honourable friend's mind.
I tell my honourable friend, I want it
clearly established, is the New Democratic Party now saying that policy of the
New Democrats in all bargaining is for one side or the other to be asked to put
their position on the table while the negotiations are ongoing? Is that the new policy demand that the NDP is
going to make? Because if that is the
case I want my honourable friend to state that unequivocally, because I want to
tell my honourable friend, I will not negotiate in public. I will not compromise the negotiating
position of MHO, nor would I, if I had the details of what the union demands
were, put those on the table while bargaining is commencing and ongoing.
My honourable friend, in making that
mistake, has really gone over the edge of trying to‑‑well, I do not
know what my honourable friend is trying to do.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is always
interesting when this minister has a burst of indignation. When it comes to questions pertaining to
anything that gets at the overall funding policies and budgetary policies and
strategies of this government, we spend hour after hour trying to ascertain a
general policy framework around funding for hospitals and health care
facilities for the
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister likes
then to cast the opposition's questions in terms of which they were never
phrased and cast them coming from a certain position, when they are objective
questions about overall budgetary policy.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I, at no point,
asked this minister for his government's bargaining position going into a set
of negotiations with labour around wages.
I asked for the overall plans with respect to hospital budgets and the
directions provided at a recent meeting as those budgets pertain to salary
negotiations. I did not ask for the
detailed plan of this government's negotiating strategy. I asked for overall policy and funding
directions.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is not
unreasonable to ask when this minister leaves this House and this province with
the impression that there is this 5 percent increase for hospitals, which never
seems to be the case, which is never borne out in terms of reality and actual
situations facing hospitals. We are
simply asking for some broad indication of how that breaks down and what hospitals
will be getting.
Now is it not interesting? We have tried asking this in a number of
different ways. We have tried asking for
the overall framework for reform and how hospitals fit into that. We have tried asking for the increase that is
going to each hospital. We are told that
that is just out of the question at this point in time, unless we wanted to
speed things along and get right to the line on hospitals in this set of
Estimates. We have tried asking
questions about specific hospitals, as we have learned about them. We have tried to piece together, bit by bit,
the plans of this government, and have been stonewalled. Our questions have been dismissed, out of
hand, by this minister. So, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, we keep trying.
Part of this overall funding issue for
hospitals is the question of, if there is an increase to hospitals, how it
breaks down in terms of supplies and how it breaks down in terms of
salaries. Now, since when is basic
information like that interfering in the government's bargaining and
negotiating process with the facilities and with the unions representing the
workers at those facilities? Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I am asking broad policy questions. They are in order, and the minister is
deliberately stonewalling.
* (1500)
I am asking because part of this whole
discussion has to do with what this minister is including in his numbers and
what they actually mean. When it comes
to the overall operating budgets, we do not know, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to this
day if there is an increase; if there is an increase, on what that is based;
whether there has been such exorbitant requests that there, in fact, is a real
increase in each and every hospital of 5 percent across the board. We do not know how that increase splits out
in terms of operating and wages. Now we
do not know, when it comes to the salary component of hospital budgets, what
part of that is provided in terms of the overall negotiating process and what
part has to do with meeting some other obligations, like pay equity.
Because, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are
concerned with this government and its policies on pay equity and how it chose
to go the court route before dealing with its obligations to meet its
responsibilities under pay equity legislation.
We know it has been the case in the past that this minister and this
government have dealt with their obligations around pay equity as part of
overall salary negotiations.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have expressed
those concerns in the past. They are
legitimate concerns in the present, and we will raise them in the future. To ask for that kind of broad plan and
information is quite in order, and for the minister to treat that request the
way he has just done is clearly a dismissal and an attempt to circumvent this
democratic process of Estimates and the legitimate role that we have in seeking
information about this government's budgeting process.
I do not think it is at all out of order,
and I would, with respect, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, ask the minister to provide
us with some of that general information.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, now my honourable
friend is trying to change her question, after realizing that she asked for
something that government and anybody in a bargaining position does not
provide. My honourable friend asked for
the details that the department shared with MHO last Saturday. That meeting, since my honourable friend
obviously has a "source," was to deal with the funding mandate that
government would provide to MHO as the employer in the upcoming bargaining with
several union groups. The funding
mandate was given, and from that we are asking MHO, as has always been the
case, to craft the best offer they can, given the difficult circumstances we
face, and not having unlimited tax dollars to draw upon, to try to come to a
negotiated settlement with the unions.
That process is not open to the kind of
information sharing my honourable friend is asking for. It never has been, it never should be, and my
honourable friend knows that requesting it is a significant digression from
policy that she herself lived by when in government. Government did not share their bargaining
stance with anybody else other than MHO and the management, and neither will
we, because the bargaining process is one that you do carry on with some
integrity around the process of confidentiality. Both sides respect that. My honourable friend is wanting me to break
it. I will not do that.
My honourable friend wants to talk about
the bargaining process, et cetera. What
we have told the MHO is that there are so many dollars that we can make
available at their disposal to achieve a settlement. We have also indicated that there will be no
additional dollars so that, should they settle for some higher figure requiring
more dollars, those dollars would have to come from the global budget.
Now, my honourable friend may wish to cry
foul in that, but I remind my honourable friend that if she does, then she
ought to explain how the New Democrats would handle the circumstance in
Manitoba differently from the New Democrats in Ontario, who at the last nurses
negotiation in Ontario, left the beginning pays at the same level, raised the
senior level of nursing pays rather extraordinarily, and then did not provide
one cent of funding for that settlement that they acceded to. The administrations there were left with an
agreement and no funding from government.
That led to significant layoffs and bed closures.
In addition, my honourable friend mentions
pay equity. My honourable friend
disenchanted with the implementation of pay equity? That is interesting.
Is she suggesting the
I simply tell my honourable friend that,
when she is asking that government, hence management, lay out the details of
their bargaining strategy in union negotiations, she is asking for something that
she never, never, never would have acceded to, would have dismissed out of hand
if she were in government, just as I have done.
I want to tell my honourable friend that I
am somewhat disappointed that this is the tactic of the New Democrats in opposition. You would not do it in government, you did
not do it in government, and you are asking me to compromise the bargaining
process by laying out the details of MHO's position as based on a meeting we
had with them as government on Saturday, April 11. Well, I cannot do that, Sir.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I repeat, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am asking
for general policy of this government with respect to funding of hospitals,
which has a couple of components, I remind the minister. When funding budgets, as the minister has
indicated in the past, one has to look at supplies, operations, salaries,
capital, all of that.
We have been trying to sort out in this
process, since the minister touts a 4 to 5 percent increase for each hospital,
yet we keep hearing from different hospitals that they are finding difficult
situations on their hands and must make adjustments accordingly.
We are asking for some very general
information about the minister's funding policy for hospitals‑‑how
it breaks down, what are the broad parameters, and yes, we did get concerned
when we read in a memo from MHO to all the boards and chief executive officers
of health facilities, and I quote: that
in 1991 the government indicated that it was prepared to fund collective agreements
out of an envelope. In 1992, we are
hearing that government is only prepared to fund a certain level, leaving the
facilities to find a shortfall within their budget.
* (1510)
That is a broad policy area. That requires‑‑Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, the minister just yelled out, and I just told you that, but let me
remind the minister what it took to get to this point. It took a lot of verbal abuse from the
minister, it took about half an hour.
I do not know why we cannot simply ask
questions and get broad information. The
minister does not have to go on in terms of these diatribes and attacks on
individuals, and we should not have to pull teeth in order to get information.
I appreciate that the minister finally
answered part of my question. The other
part I am still seeking an answer for, and that has to do with pay equity. He raised
I am asking this minister for Manitoba
what his policy is with respect to meeting his obligations under pay equity and
how that fits into his overall funding policy for hospitals.
Mr. Orchard: We have complied with the tenets of the
legislation. Having that be subject to a
court challenge, government is in discussions around that issue. By complying with the legislation,
irrespective of the court challenge, government funded in the base budget those
dollars. This government funded in base
budget those dollars required for pay equity that we believed met the criteria
of the legislation that we passed in this House.
In addition to that, we exceeded the
legislation with extension to beyond the 23 named facilities in the legislation
as passed in the House. That also was
base budget included in the global budgets of hospitals, contrary to
Now, that is a general policy to
date. We are finding ourselves continually
stressed for dollars in health care, and we are making best effort to provide
funds for reasonable settlements given today's economic circumstances. We are asking the MHO, as the employer, and
the bargaining group, from government's commitment to funding, which is not as
much as they would like to see, nor was it during the nurses' strike; however,
we ended up reaching an agreement very, very close to our original offer of
January 1.
We are asking again the managers of the
system to bargain as firmly as they can, and to craft the best possible offer
out of a commitment of government funding which we have given to them. Should
they exceed that, they will have to find the additional dollars from within in
their global budget because the finite resources of government are identified,
and we have given them a clear bargaining mandate. I am not prepared to share with my honourable
friend details other than that because I will not compromise that bargaining process.
Now, does my honourable friend want to ask
any more questions about the progressive policy on funding pay equity in
Manitoba when Ontario does not fund pay equity?‑‑and comment as to
whether who is right or who is wrong, because I will tell you, the taxpayers of
Manitoba would have saved a big chunk of money had we followed the NDP policy
of Ontario on pay equity, and not funded it.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, I just had one follow‑up question
to the issue of pay equity. Can the
minister tell us now, approximately what is the price tag for achieving pay
equity to meet the obligations from the court ruling and all facilities beyond
the 23?
Mr. Orchard: I will provide that detail.
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to raise a few
questions about the
So we have this press release from the
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I work in that
hospital. It is very painful to see
anybody lose jobs, but the issue here is where the cuts are coming, how they
are going to manage with them, very difficult resources. As long as the patient care does not suffer,
I think that is the issue here. The
patient care must be kept and we will be very watchful because there have been
some, about ten, summer beds increased, but that could change because I
understand each and every hospital has a policy which varies from year to year
and time to time, depending upon the circumstances.
So I want to make it very clear that that
has to be‑‑maybe the minister should have a good look at that, how
if there is an increased demand, if there is a problem, then those beds can be
reopened, to implement additional 10 short bed stays, one of the things to do
in this time.
Everybody in this country is looking for
those solutions where one can have a selective bed admission, and I think that
is one of the ways. That will save some
money. Definitely some people are going
to be laid off, and I have great sympathy for them, but to scare people for the
last almost two weeks, a lot of staff have stopped me and asked what am I
doing; I am working with them, why am I not raising the issue? I said I want to have a look at the facts.
The facts are telling something which is
very, very different and very, very away from the normal, what the member for
St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) was telling in the House and making us look bad,
especially me because I work in the institution. It looks very bad that a person who works in
an area will not raise an issue and show them they are uncaring. That is simply not true. I want to put it on the record.
I am going to send to each and every staff
member of that hospital, as far as I can do, to make sure that they know that
we are for health care, for patient care, and we will be very watchful. But I want the minister to make note of this,
one of my objections, which is for 10 bed closures, for extending during the
summertime, to make sure that, if there is an increase in the demand as we
shift from the larger institutions to the community hospitals, that could change. So I think that has to be kept in mind.
The other issue is of the people who have
lost their jobs out of this very unfortunate situation. In terms of their own livelihood, I think if
they can be given a chance in other institutions or within the Department of
Health, where there is a competition for similar positions, that it will be
helpful to get them back to serving the community again. Also, I think they could be a part of the
community care which is going to be a component once more reform comes. So with that, I will end my remarks and I
will see what the minister has to say.
I do not want to be seen in the House in
terms of saying that I am not raising an issue when it is being raised in my
workplace where I worked for the last seven years. So I would also send a copy of Hansard to the
board of directors and to Mr. Kalansky because it was very important for him to
communicate with us in a very open fashion and a very direct way, and, I think,
also the medical staff and other people, the nursing staff and the other
support staff, who have been led to believe that the disaster is going to fall
and patient care is going to suffer. We
should be very, very careful. This is
one example.
* (1520)
That is what the media was asking me
outside, and I made my views very well known on that. I think it is very, very tragic. So I would
again caution the member for
So we will be watching that. We are not giving a blanket cheque here, but
we are simply saying, let us be reasonable. People will not forget because some
people have put a lot of staff in a very, very fearful way; it was very bad
this morning because everybody was so afraid.
So I think most of the people will be very satisfied.
They may not be all happy with the staff
situation, but I would like the minister to make sure that people who got laid
off, that they get proper guidance in terms of reapplication within the
department, if there are new positions that are coming and within the community
care component or within the outpatient services. Those are very essential then.
If the message goes in that way, I think
that will help to ease the pain, but it may not solve the problem right
now. So I would like the minister to, if
he wishes to, comment on those things.
Mr. Orchard: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate the
very sensitive position my honourable friend is placed in. He is really wearing two hats.
He is wearing the hat in his private life
and personal life of a caregiver at an institution. There are expectations and pressures, I am
sure, that are put on him by his co‑workers to try and come to grips with
some of the rumours that were proliferating around the institution.
Then the second hat my honourable friend
has got to wear is one of an MLA who, as an MLA, has made the very
conscientious decision to try and be very objective in the criticism that you
lay on government's activities, including health care. You know, I have been there.
I mean, I have been in opposition without
the problem my honourable friend wears, of a career in health care
delivery. So I had a bit of the luxury
that I could take every single little rumour and, if I so desired, bring it to
the House without the concern of whether I was compromising the institution I
worked for, et cetera.
I appreciate my honourable friend's
delicate balance in that, because that is the by far easier political decision,
to simply take the shotgun out to shoot at everything, which happens, not from
my honourable friend, but from other sources.
So you know, I respect his concerns, his professional integrity in terms
of expressing his concerns about how the system is going to change and how
institutions are going to change.
Some specifics in terms of what I
understand to be the Seven Oaks action plan‑‑the member for
The number that is put forward in order to
achieve a balanced budget for 1992‑93‑‑there was a financial
target for reduction of approximately $767,000.
A number of the initiatives, and there are seven of them, compromise or
compose those initiatives at Seven Oaks to achieve a balanced budget for 1992‑93.
I want to read the second last paragraph
from the chairman of the board and the chief executive officer of
I think that is a pretty responsible
decision‑making effort that the board of Seven Oaks and the management
and the staff of Seven Oaks have attempted to come to grips with funding that
is not as high as they would like it to be or as high as we would like it to
be, for that matter.
The financial circumstances of the
province do not allow us to provide that extra money. So, Seven Oaks had undertaken some seven
initiatives. The implementation of an
additional 10‑day short stay unit, my understanding is that right now
Seven Oaks operates two 10‑bed short stay units. One of them operates 10 beds seven days a
week. The second one operates an
additional 10 beds five days a week.
I am informed that they will be operating
all 20 beds at five days a week. So they
will not be operating one 10‑bed unit on the weekend is my understanding. They have a management organizational review
and reduction‑‑incidentally, that first initiative is budgeted to
reduce their expenditures by $75,000.
The management organization reduction and
review is expected to reduce the budget by $422,000. That is where the majority of the layoffs, as
I understand it, will take place. There
are 10 management positions involved.
The net result was the accommodation to integrate management functions
and amalgamate positions thereby reducing 10 management positions, which
involves two director positions and eight manager‑co‑ordinator
positions in nursing, materials management and environmental cleaning.
You know, it is really quite coincidental
because yesterday, as I was attempting to leave the debate at the MNU, it is
almost prophetic‑‑not prothetic, I want to make sure that Hansard
picks it up right‑‑but a nurse, one of the shop stewards came to me
and indicated that, look, she understands the difficulty of changes that have
to be made and that a Health minister's job today in any province is a tough
one, but she indicated that there are areas where the hospitals can effectively
contain budget without compromising patient care.
The one area that the individual gave me,
and I put it through to the department to see whether this was accurate‑‑I
like to check the details because I had not heard of this one before‑‑but
the indication by this staff nurse was that Seven Oaks had a nursing management
system which maybe had half as many beds under the management purview of a
nurse manager than similar institutions.
She indicated that clearly that was a management position that, just
bringing it into line with other institutions, would not compromise patient
care and would be a significant budget saving.
It appears as if this individual must have
made that case to the management directly, because I had encouraged her to take
those kinds of suggestions forward because they are exactly the ones that we in
government are wishing our management within institutions to seek so that
changes can be made without compromising our ability to deliver patient
care. It seems as if the message that
she gave to me had already been received by board and senior management at Seven
Oaks.
That does not mitigate in any way, and my
honourable friend the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) alluded to this, the
personal effect of the individuals laid off.
I mean, that is a traumatic event for those individuals, and certainly
the system in general will try to accommodate redeployment of those
individuals, but it is a significantly different issue than if, for instance,
Seven Oaks, as was the pattern 15 years ago when budgets were asked to be
contained at the hospitals, to not consider management but to often have a tendency
to go directly to wards for patient care, close them and lay off nurses in the
most politically sensitive fashion possible in an attempt to have government
back away from asking managers of the system to make sure we are managing
appropriately.
It certainly appears as if, even though
these layoffs are traumatic for the individual so affected, the board and
management of Seven Oaks have some degree of comfort that it will not
compromise patient care. I have to say,
from my initial information, that I have to concur. It is a significant amount of saving,
$422,000 projected.
* (1530)
Going on to some other areas, and the
other significant area is nonmanagement staff reductions, I am unable, because
I do not have details around that although‑‑no, I do have the
details in here. In addition to the
management positions, other reductions have occurred in nonmanagement staff as
well. Specifically, five other positions
in the area of physiotherapy, occupational therapy, social work, dietetics and nursing
were deleted, and the layoff notices have gone out. There were some early retirements; there were
some vacant positions. It appears as if
there are seven layoffs in total, I think.
I will stand corrected if the figure is higher than that.
My honourable friend the member for The
Maples (Mr. Cheema) indicates a concern he has over the increase in the numbers
of surgical beds that are being proposed for summer bed closures. I share my honourable friend's concern. However, I do receive some comfort from the
statement that these decisions will not impact negatively on the quality or
volume of services offered at Seven Oaks.
So, quite possibly, we may be seeing the ability to add 10 surgical beds
over summer closure because of a combination of a lowered slate and shorter
length of stay, et cetera‑‑all management and patient care
techniques that have been part of our health care system.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess I would
have to close and respond from the information I have before me today that the
board and management of Seven Oaks Hospital have taken their responsibility
quite seriously and, I believe, have made changes, which are never easy to
make, and decisions, which are never easy to make, but have kept the patient at
the centre of their decision‑making process and appear to have been able
to achieve a little better than a $0.75 million budget reduction to maintain a
balanced budget position. I have done it
in what I think probably is a pretty reasoned fashion, contrary to the stated
questioning of critics of that process, both in the House and outside of the
House.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, about those surgical
summer bed closures, as the minister knows from his previous experience as a
minister and before that as a critic, each and every hospital makes those
decisions depending upon the last year's projected work and the occupancy rate.
Why I am raising the issue is that I think
when it is going to be for the changes in the teaching hospitals and some of
the beds are going to be reorganized‑‑I will be very careful to use
the word "cuts," because that could be used against me, that I am
favouring cuts, and I want to make it very clear that there are words one can
use and abuse, but it is just reorganization‑‑and when those
patients are going to be released into the community, and the community
hospitals are major components of the community.
So certain changes may very well have to
be made, because this is less expensive and that is what the health care providers
would like to see, and certainly, as the minister has said, that there are two
positions out of the department of occupational therapy, social work, dietetics
and nursing, three are already vacant and two individuals are going to be laid
off and seven from the initial management positions. They are quite senior positions, and I am
sure if opportunities are given to those people to serve in another capacity
from time to time, the positions come when the department has very experienced
people and a communication from the Minister of Health's department, personally
saying that we will try to accommodate.
We will be very helpful and very easing in these tough economic times.
That will really take some of the negative
things away. It will not solve the whole
problem, but I am sure it will help because it does‑‑because nobody
is out there to really accuse things, and they have pretty good understanding
of the system. That is why I was very careful because once you work with people
for almost nine years, day to day, it becomes very difficult to see those
people lose their jobs, but difficult decisions the management makes and you
have to respect their decisions based on the basic principle of patient care.
One very good thing that was happening at Seven
Oaks is that we have not seen any closing or backing of the emergency room
either for the last few months. There is
more efficiency and they have served 2,000 more patients over a period of a
year. It has been a very good and very
effective way and something is being done there.
I would have raised an objection if we
would have had a backup in the system, saying there are so many people waiting
in the corridors. That is not happening
now, because first of all, Deer Lodge has accommodated some patients out of the
third floor and also the fourth and fifth floors of Seven Oaks, and some
patients have been able to go into a personal care home, and the period has
shortened.
I think those things we must take into
consideration because that is one thing behind this process. If you see that not many individuals are
waiting in the observation unit, which is again 14 beds, that is also extra bed
capacity. So that caused the system to
back up because the patients cannot go upstairs.
So I think those freeing of beds and also
continuing to provide some of the services in terms of the psychogeriatric
which is very efficient and, of course, the development of geriatrics, which
has probably been a model in
As for the other issue which I think needs
to be implemented in other hospitals is a physician management team they have
at Seven Oaks. The physician is given a
responsibility in a department to make sure that if there is an average, for example,
of a five‑ to seven‑day stay for a given illness, the physician is
checking on the other physicians, and it is not in a negative way, but in a
very positive way, says something can be done. Maybe this patient should be
discharged or we can put something into the community.
More meetings are being done in terms of
the co‑operative care, which is working very well. Co‑operative care is that when the
patient's family comes in, you get the nurses, you get the hospital staff, and
everyone sits at the table. They are
trying to initiate admission‑and‑discharge planning in advance, and
that is helping.
We get into a situation where sometimes
the families have a difficult time to take the patients home, but, overall, the
message is getting across in a very positive way. The co‑operative care is another model
which has to be expanded. I am sure the
minister knows about co‑operative care and the physician management
system, which was picked up, I guess, from the States or someplace else.
It is just a
Probably that is why we are not seeing a
major, major reduction in terms of the patient care. That is the reason. There are a number of
factors that have impacted on many areas. I just want to let the committee know
and the individuals who read the Hansard and the media that there is a lot of
valuable information one has to put into context before the decisions are made.
Those people have to face the individuals every
day. Even if one day or two days in a
week you have a backup in the emergency room, there will be major trouble, and
I will be the first one to make a noise.
But that is not happening because something is right, something more
efficient is being delivered.
I think the community‑care
complement is functioning much better.
The north end has a population from the senior group more than some
other parts of the city. Those are some
of the things I want to put on the record and make sure that our views and our
comments on Seven Oaks are based on the facts and figures and not on the
numbers picked up by someone, who says in six months or two months just to make
the government look bad. People in the area are very frightened, and I think
they will get a message. It will not be
all positive, but eventually it will improve the situation and the patient care
will not suffer.
I think especially the selective bed
admission program has to be expanded. I
do not think we have any choice. Five
days admission or you want to give it any name, a short bed stay or selective
admission or nonweekend admissions, establishment of preadmission clinics,
which is being done at Seven Oaks, and I am not aware it has been done at other
hospitals.
The preadmission clinics, with the post‑discharge
clinics, along with the early discharge program in many illnesses, are being
very helpful. Patients are being sent
home even with the IV medications, the families are being trained, and people
are participating.
I think that is what is getting
across. They know that each and every
one has to participate. I can tell you
that you meet with so many individuals in the hospital setting who have no political
bias, and I think the message is getting across that things have to change. As long as we all know the facts, then we can
criticize if something is not going right.
* (1540)
I want the committee to know that our
comments are based on those facts, and if somebody or other individuals want to
twist them the way they want it, so be it.
We are not going to shy away from responsible opposition.
Mr. Orchard: I just want to say to my honourable friend that
there is a difference between criticizing and critiquing. Critiquing offers
both positive and negative comments around an issue and where the process needs
to be changed. A good critique will
accomplish that, and I think that is what my honourable friend is trying to
do. That makes for positive change in
the system.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, while I have the
floor, the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) asked for four pieces of
information yesterday, at least I believe he asked about the anesthesia report.
Mr. Cheema: Yes.
Mr. Orchard: That is the Atkinson report?
Mr. Cheema: I have the draft.
Mr. Orchard: Yes, I know you have a copy of the draft
copy. I realize that, but there has been
some indication, and I believe this may be stimulated from questions made by
the member for
A number of the terms of reference
required further clarification and, as a result, Dr. Atkinson engaged the
assistance of a local medical economist, Michael Lloyd and Associates. That may have caused my honourable friend
from
Second draft of the report was received
March 24, 1992. It was shared with the
concerned hospitals on March 30, 1992, hospitals and anesthetists for their
review and comment. We have asked the
hospitals to comment back by April 15, and we hope to be able to finalize the
report by the end of April. The cost of
the review to date is approximately $78,000 inclusive of Dr. Atkinson's
retention of services from Michael Lloyd and Associates.
Another piece of information that I want
to reconfirm, the allegation I think was made by the member for St. Johns (Ms.
Wasylycia‑Leis) last week that when we met with the administrator of the
hospitals and the anesthetists on March 30 that we ordered them to unilaterally
reduce the budget and respond in 36 hours. However my honourable friend gained
that information, I simply indicate to her it was not accurate
information. We did not mandate any
response in 36 hours as my honourable friend indicated. What we confirmed was that, as we had
indicated at previous meetings, we would not be providing any bridge funding or
supplementary funding to the hospital budgets for their topping up of
anesthetist services.
Second, the piece of information that the
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) requested was details around the Drysdale
Consulting contract. The contract period
was January 1, 1989, to March 31, 1990.
The contract amount was $36,000.
It was approved by Treasury Board in 1989, and there were additional
costs of $1,174.74 for mileage, meals, telephones, accommodations, incidentals
as expenses attached to the contract for a total cost of $37,174.74.
Now, the member for The Maples inquired
yesterday as to the actual expenditures of the Health Advisory Network. In 1988‑89 the actual expenditures were
$100; in 1989‑90 the actual expenditures were $193,300; in 1990‑91
the actual expenditures were $433,300, and I think it is fair to say, in that
year that that was when they retained Michael Lloyd and Associates on the
Teaching Hospital Review. That was the
highest annual expenditure that the Health Advisory Network experienced. For 1991‑92 the projected actual
expenditures, because we just finished year end, we believe will be slightly
over $213,000, and we are budgeting $250,000 of expenditures for this year.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
The last question I believe my honourable
friend the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) asked was for the Standing
Committee on Medical Manpower, SCOMM, we budgeted a little over $290,000 in
1988‑89 and spent $280,200. In
1989‑90, we budgeted a significant increase. That was the year that we budgeted
$703,700. The committee put a number of
programs in place, but because they triggered in partway through the year,
their actual expenditures were $482,400.
In 1990‑91, the budget was increased again to $724,800. The actual expenditures in '90‑91 were
$619,600. The budget for '91‑92
was increased again to $746,500 and it is estimated that they will spend
$700,000 of that budget. We are
budgeting a level budget this year of $746,500.
Mr. Cheema: I just want to ask two or three questions on
the issue of anesthesia. The report the
minister has indicated, I had a copy of the draft report as of March '92, and I
think there was one report that was in 1989, but that was by the anesthesia
section through the MMA. That report
gave a lot of information, and from that report I did raise probably about 10
to 12 questions in Question Period alone for a period of four years. The basic
concerns were expressed at that time in terms of the shortage during '88 and
'89, and also the possible retention of the anesthesia manpower in
Now from this report, there are a couple
of issues which are quite serious in terms of the future of the community
hospital, in terms of the Seven Oaks and Concordia hospitals. The report has made some recommendations, it
is in a draft form, but I would like the minister to have somebody pay more
attention to that issue because it says that the people who are serving in the
community hospitals, their compensation packages in terms of the services they
have provided in the past, will be taken away. They are given a six‑month
self‑grace period now, and they will be renegotiating again, but that
does not go in line with the change in the health care reform, if there are
going to be beds taken, if the beds are going to be reorganized from the
institution to the community hospital so the community hospital may end up
doing more work. I think those things
must be taken into account.
* (1550)
The other issue here is the age of the two
or three people who are serving these hospitals and if their working
environment is not adequate it will cause some difficulty for those
hospitals. In a way this report is treating
the teaching hospital in a different fashion as compared to the community
hospital, and that is where the problem is.
Those issues were brought to my attention and I raised them today in the
House. I would like the minister to look
from an overall reform point of view rather than only from the teaching
hospitals where the support is mostly concentrated. I will see if the minister wants to respond
to those comments.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am always
willing to listen to my honourable friend's suggestions on this one. I will tell you straight out that this
frustration with anesthetists' salary or ability to earn income in
To try and put the problem in simple and
short and general terms, the way various specialists have had their
compensation levels set has been at the sole discretion of the MMA as the
bargaining agent, the union, for doctors.
For whatever reason, over the past 20 years, some groups have done well;
other groups have not done so well.
Unfortunately, anesthetists in
An example I have often used is for one
procedure, our fee schedule in
Our efforts have been in negotiations with
the MMA to try to correct that problem, but suggestions that we have made in
agreements that have been turned down by the executive of the MMA would have
made a significant contribution to resolving this problem. But that is past history. You cannot have 20‑20 hindsight. I am sure even the MMA executive that
rejected the offer in late 1989 would love to accept it today. But that is not in the cards.
We tried when we settled in the fall of
1990 to have a portion of the 3 percent increase, a greater portion of the 3
percent increase, dedicated to anesthetists.
That was rejected by the MMA as a bargaining position put forward by government.
They acceded to some increased fee schedules to rheumatologists, pediatric,
cardiac surgery, and, I believe, geriatric medicine, but they refused to put a
greater portion of the 3 percent towards anesthetists' compensation, and so the
problem persisted.
That is general background. Specific background: we had problems commencing spring of 1990,
where we funded an arrangement with
I mean, I will be very blunt: they created the problem, and the pressure on
the system from anesthetists led government to provide extra monies, which was
outside of the negotiating process. That
is not proper. If we have to solve
problems directly with specific professional groups in medicine, then you have
to ask yourself: Do we even need to
bargain with the MMA? Why do we not just settle with all the groups
separately? That is not what the MMA wants,
on one hand; but, on the other hand, they do not want to come around the issue
of rectifying a problem they created for anesthetists.
The long‑term solution is in
negotiations with the MMA and with completion of fee schedule reform. An interim solution was attempted to be
achieved, starting in December of 1990, approximately, wherein we began the
process which led to the engagement of Dr. Atkinson and the subsequent report
that came to the board.
The essence of that report is to approach
the problem in terms of the availability of trained anesthetists. The report makes suggestions on how the
training program at the Faculty of Medicine can deal with that. The main comparison done in this Atkinson
report was to compare our compensation package at our community hospitals,
teaching hospitals, with national averages.
If you use the national average, if I
recall, of anesthetists' billing $40,000 and above, our current compensation
level compared favourably. The
consultant also put in a comparison of $100,000‑and‑plus billing,
where we fell into relative disparity in that particular comparison. We have always used the $40,000, but that is
a moot point at this time, wherein the comparison showed reasonably for
There is another problem: community versus teaching hospital. The community hospital problem is that their
volume of off‑hour, if you will, requirement for anesthetists is low
compared to the teaching hospitals in most cases, so that retaining fee for
service in the community hospitals may have an anesthetist on call all night or
on standby all night without earning any income because there was no
demand. That led to a sessional fee
system at the community hospitals, it is my understanding. The fee‑for‑service schedule
remained in place at the teaching hospitals because their increased volume did
not compromise, to the degree that it did at the community hospitals, the
ability to earn income.
One of the recommendations, given that we
have a reasonably favourable comparison nationally on the sessional fees at
community hospitals, is a redistribution of about one‑fifth of anesthesia
funding by changing the assignment and value of sessional fees. That reassignment was to go to enhance the
fee‑for‑service compensation rates, which does what my honourable
friends says, moves from community to teaching hospital, but comes around on
the larger issue, the relative compensation issue.
* (1600)
I have never said that this is a perfect
solution. We are expecting comment back
from the facilities, and, hopefully, we can come to some interim
solutions. As I indicated already, the
long‑term solution is in the negotiations with the MMA and, more
importantly, with fee schedule reform.
Within the $250‑million‑plus budget that we routinely make
available to physicians of
Mr. Cheema: I think that, in terms of the whole lagging
behind and the payments for the anesthetists in
I am sure everyone knows it, but how to
solve it in the long run, that is going to be a major question. Right now, we were able deal with the
situation for two years or so, and now this situation came back again. Within six months there is going to be again
some difficulty of adjusting and renegotiating.
Ultimately, I think the basic question is
going to come here: As taxpayers, do
they have a control on $250 million or more?
If they do not have any control, then why people who are not making
decisions, why do they get blamed? That
is the issue here. It was not under
somebody else's control, but the decision was made with a collective agreement
within their own association who divides the money and that is their wish, and
that is how they would like to be.
But, ultimately, these are the
circumstances where we end up. The
mistakes which were made 10 years ago, somebody is paying for them now, and if
we do not correct the system now, somebody will be again accusing some people
right now. So I think, other than
anesthesia, there has to be a major focus in terms of how the money is going to
be divided, rather than saying money, how the financial resources are going to
be divided, and whether the government should have control or should not have
control, is going to be quite an interesting public debate‑‑very
much so, because that is one of the public education campaigns, to tell people
who is spending their money, and how it is being spent.
So if we look at the whole issue of the
payment for the anesthetists in
Ultimately the public suffers. Still the responsibility comes to the
government anyway, whether we do it or not.
That is not the issue here. It is
just that somebody can wait for four years, say, well, we will have a committee
next year, and the next election is going to come and then the problem is going
to come back again, saying to the other administration. I think it is fair to say that there has to
be a reorganization of the whole funding formula, and that has to take place
whether we like it or not, whether the professional group is in agreement or
not, whether it is in their favour or not, but I think it will probably take
some heat from them also, because right now it is a question of, there is $1
and everybody is trying to get around that dollar.
It is very tough for them to make that decision,
so there has to be some provision. I do
not have all the answers. I do not have
that answer because it is very tough for me personally, for reasons quite
clear, being a member of the MMA you do not want to be seen too much from
outside, but I think it is very important to make those views known that this
is a real problem and that is why when the issue comes in the House, the issue
is being a politician, but that is not the real issue here. The issue is the funding formula which has
been in place for so long. That message
never gets across because the message is only picked up that there is a
shortage, but why there is a shortage, that is the issue here.
I think the report has pointed out some of
the issues very clearly. They have been
outlined in the past also, but it is a matter of taking a responsibility and
saying, well, that solved the problem.
The fee schedule reform, that will take care of‑‑at least to
some extent, but still there is a gap and the gap has to be filled and that was
filled for the psychiatrists, because the same situation they were facing so
there was some extra incentive given to keep them here, and that worked. Ultimately, the same situation with the
anesthetists may work for a short while, but the larger problem has to be
resolved.
I want the minister to know from our point
of view, from a public point of view also, that that message is not there. That message is there that the government is
not paying right now. The problem goes back a long time, before any of the
decision makers who are even at the table.
In the meantime, there is going to be this
gap for two or three years, and those gaps have to be resolved, the issue of
the community hospital has to be taken into account in terms of the age group,
the type of professional capabilities, their work capacity, and also you do not
want to really alienate or cause a problem for people who have served the
community for a long time. Those things
must be taken into account before the decisions are made. I just want the minister to know that those
are the real concerns from our caucus, that those issues must be resolved so
that in two to three years time, we should not be discussing the same thing
again, at least in a matter of principle, that should be resolved.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again I
appreciate my honourable friend's observations on this because, again, he has
taken an internal risk because he has a professional group that would expect
maybe an advocacy role rather than a system‑wide role, but look, and I
want the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) to listen, because I
am actually going to be complimentary to the previous government, and this may
ruin the balance of the week.
The previous government recognized this
problem within the MMA and creatively tried to solve the problem in part by in
the last settlement I think that they achieved with the MMA they established
what was known as a shoring‑up fund.
There they allowed a greater percentage increase to some of the relatively
underpaid disciplines within the specialty groups represented by the MMA. That was really the first time that
government as the provider, taxpayer dollars to the MMA, had some influence in
terms of distribution of those increased dollars in the basic budget.
* (1610)
We introduced the concept at our first
negotiatings of fee schedule reform. Now
I am not certain whether that was not on the table with the previous
administration as well. I simply do not
know at this stage of the game, but it may well have been advanced to
negotiations as well, though we insisted a fee schedule reform be part of what
we do. I will give you the reason
why. I make the case, and this is a case
that I tried to make in terms of trying to bring some sense to this, it is an
easy argument. The reason why we have
lost as government‑‑and the previous government lost, and it was
their fault because the NDP were blamed for shortages of anesthetists by the
general public. I probably blamed them
as a critic because I did not understand the system as well as I do now.
My honourable friend is right, government
carries the can when there is a shortage of a given professional discipline
regardless of the background causing that.
In this case the anesthetists were relatively undervalued in the
distribution of the fee schedules since about 1969‑70. Okay, the previous government tried to come,
in part, to grips with that by a separate funding mechanism. That is the first time it was ever attempted. I have made the case, and this is the case
for fee schedule reform, of how much advantage is it to
Within the system of health care, that is
what fee schedule reform means. I mean,
you cannot have one professional group compromised because of the fee schedule
and thereby leading to a potential compromise of the entire system. If government created the problem, I would
accept blame and I would go in and fix it. But my hands in some ways are
partially tied in that it is a negotiated agreement that has led us to the
circumstance we are in. Well, I am only
going to leave my hands tied for so long before I take what I perceive to be my
honourable friend's advice of taking initiative to solve the problem, and if it
is not going to be solved co‑operatively, government will have to
consider unilateral action to resolve this relative disparity.
Fee schedule reform offers us the greatest
opportunity, and in meeting with the president of the Winnipeg anesthetists I
pointed out to him that I need, and I being government, the support of the
anesthetist to drive the process of fee schedule reform at the MMA level,
because appreciate, the MMA does not want to get into fee schedule reform
because that means some people there that have done exceptionally well may lose
in fee schedule reform. MMA is like any
other union. They only want to create
winners within their membership, and they only want to see the bottom people
brought up. They do not want to see any
members who are maybe exceptionally well reimbursed see that compromised in any
way. I understand that, but I also have
to be responsible for the overall monetary policy of government and the overall
funding made available for service position by physician.
If the current system with the sole
empowerment of the MMA is not working, then I have to seek ways to change
that. I would hope and I would think
that if I approached it reasonably that both opposition parties may well
agree. I am not asking for that
agreement, because I think we can resolve the problems of fee schedule reform.
I want to give you an example which really
drives me around the bend. We have
rheumatology as an underserved medical discipline in the
Now, when you have that many individuals,
we need to have more rheumatologists, more trained specialists in that
professional discipline. Their fee
schedule, and bear in mind that you are generally, not always, but generally
dealing with seniors, an office visit will often take a half an hour. The fee schedule for that leaves a
rheumatologist with an income potential of some $540 in a full day. That is the income potential that a
rheumatologist has.
That is why we insisted in that fall of
1990 settlement that rheumatologists receive a 20 percent increase out of the 3
percent for their office visits. There
were two purposes: first of all because
they were undervalued for the contribution they can make; and secondly, we
hoped that it would assist in the recruitment effort nationally.
Now I do not think we have had a whole lot
of success, because we are probably still not there but, clearly, fee schedule
reform ought to be a mechanism by which we can recognize those kinds of service
delivery requirements of the general population.
We have not been able to date, and that is
where we want to take the system. We do
not think that that is an unreasonable public policy position to take in terms
of physician compensation. The quicker
we can get to fee schedule reform, the quicker we will resolve some of these
problems, including anesthetists.
Now I say to my honourable friend, I know
he is right when he says we have patchwork solutions, which I admit openly that
this is what we are doing, that we are going to have the problem keep rearing
its ugly head. I want to tell you that
at the time we commenced this study in the fall of 1990, I fully expected that
we would have fee schedule reform completed by now.
We have been danced around as government
in choosing the consultant until we have only just recently, I believe, agreed
to the consultant. Now I see some
consternation in staff‑‑I think we have just recently agreed to the
consultant. Well, I mean, that is an
important first step.
Now let us get on with the job in an
expeditious fashion so that we can resolve this problem that government,
previously and this one certainly, did not create.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, just while we
are on the issue of anesthesiology, I need a clarification from the
minister. He indicated that what had
happened in the meeting on March 30 was an indication to heads of departments
and hospital administrators that there would be no, and I am trying to remember
the words the minister provided today, no supplementary funding for topping up.
I believe those were the minister's
words. My understanding of those words
is that that in essence means the end to the special agreement that had been
arranged and arrived at about a year ago in order to address the then critical
situation or explosive situation facing anesthetists in our hospital system and
that in effect it was a rollback to the previous situation, and that caused the
very grave concerns following March 30 and worries about how to implement that
within a 36‑hour period or to adapt to that situation in a 36‑hour
period.
Then I believe the minister and his
department then agreed to hold off on that decision until the final report of
the consultants was in after, I assume, response by the community. Is that
generally the situation? Could the
minister indicate if in fact‑‑I mean, I do not have any reason to
doubt the anesthetist whom I spoke to that there were certainly strong feelings
and some very tense moments in that period of time. I am wondering what has been done to redress
that kind of situation and to get things back on a decent working relationship.
Mr. Orchard: First of all, to attempt to put accurate
information in the public purview, my honourable friend may well understand
that there has been three sources of income for anesthetists: pay for service, which is primarily at the
two teaching hospitals; sessional fees provided by government at primarily the
community hospitals; and hospitals have provided, I believe the period of time
was April 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992, a topping up of both fee for service and
sessional fees out of their global budgets.
It was in discussions with government
during the last fiscal year that we would give consideration to trying to find
additional remuneration for last year as well as for this year. We did not find
the additional money. We indicated we
would make best efforts; we could not do that.
As we indicated, we had given them indications on previous meetings, but
on the March 30 meeting we indicated clearly that we would not be able to
provide any of the topping‑up money that the hospitals had provided from
within their global budgets to the anesthetists. We could not even consider reimbursing them
for that topping up.
We have not reduced the commitment that
government has made in terms of the sessional fees, et cetera. The hospitals made the decision that they
could no longer continue with the topping up from within their global budgets
when government indicated that they would not be able to consider it in this
fiscal year.
The hospitals made the decision to inform
their anesthetists that the topping up would not be available as of April 1.
Government did not direct them to do that, they made that decision. I am not arguing with the decision, I am
simply telling you the mechanics of the decision. Government did not mandate them to make that
decision.
I am told, and although I was not present
at any of the discussions, one ought to be cautious of indicating rumours, my
honourable friend indicated, and certainly the letter from the president of the
anesthetists, that the government had mandated the hospitals to not pay the
topping up. That is not accurate.
I am assured by my associate deputy
minister that was not directed to the hospitals on the March 30 meeting. Subsequent to that, I believe it was on the
9th or was it on the 8th?‑‑Thursday of last week, the day the issue
broke in Question Period‑‑or Wednesday? It was coincidental but my deputy had
arranged a meeting with the president of the
During the course of that meeting we
explained our position, government's position, to the president, because he was
under some wrong impressions that government had mandated XYZ.
As a consequence of that meeting, we
agreed to pay for the month of April the topping up, if you will, that the
hospitals had provided out of their in‑globe budget. We agreed to pay that for the month of April
with the full understanding that on April 30 the problem would not go away,
that the problem would still be there of approximately $170,000‑‑no,
I am wrong there‑‑$1.3 million in total that the hospitals had used
from their global budgets to top up anesthetists.
We agreed that we would provide one month
of that figure for April to ease the transition, but at the end of April the
circumstance that existed as of the 1st of April would return, and give the
anesthetists the opportunity to discuss the direction government was taking,
the direction facilities were taking. As
I indicated to the physician, the head, the president of the Winnipeg
anesthetists, in my office, I needed to recruit his support to advance fee
schedule reform, because it is too easy for the MMA, without pressure from
their members, to dance around the head of the pin and never get on with the
study.
If there is pressure from both government
and from a professional group, then I think we can move rather quickly on fee
schedule reform and, hopefully, resolve the problem as it ought to be resolved,
internally. So that is the best
capsulation that I can give my honourable friend of the circumstances
surrounding anesthesiology.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Just a quick question on the fee schedule
study. The minister indicated that he is
getting close to or there has been an agreement achieved in terms of a name to
head up that study.
Is this the same area that the minister
indicated in last year's Estimates that there might have been an individual
from New York who was prepared to‑‑or that there might have been
some agreement to move in that direction?
What happened? Could the minister
explain what happened to that suggestion and how soon we can expect to see this
individual named, the new individual named?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, I think at Estimates time last year we
had some discussions through the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation‑‑I
believe was the reason for the contact with one of the leading physicians in
the U.S., advisor to the U.S. Congress out of Washington, around their
remuneration system. We approached that
individual when he was in
The information is that we have
tentatively agreed to a consultant firm out of
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you to the minister for that
information. I would like to revert back
now to a topic we addressed earlier, and that is the situation at
The minister and the member for The Maples
(Mr. Cheema)‑‑I was going to say the associate Minister of Health,
but I think we will stick to the member for The Maples for now. Although I think the member for The Maples
should check back to some press releases he has put out in the last year or so,
suggesting that the government and this minister have had a very heavy‑handed
approach with medical professionals, a destructive force in our health care
system. So it is an interesting
metamorphosis of the member for The Maples.
If the minister would like more details, I
can refer him to a press release I just happened to see in my file on
anesthesiology that goes back about one year ago from the member for The
Maples.
Now, on the issue of
To the member for The Maples, if he had
been, and I am sure he was, listening and talking to nurses yesterday at the
Manitoba nurses' union conference and to the large contingency from that
hospital, he would have heard some very emotionally expressed concerns from
nurses who had just been told of a $1.2 million reduction in the Seven Oaks
General Hospital.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I want it
clearly noted that these concerns, this issue was brought to our attention by
nurses who were genuinely concerned, who had been told of a $1.2 million
reduction, who brought that concern to our attention yesterday, and unless the
minister‑‑I was going to say two ministers‑‑the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) are
going to suggest that these nurses are lying, I think that we have to at least
give some recognition to the concern expressed.
Point of
Order
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, on a point of
order, I have never, never said those words about any profession. I may say those words about politicians‑‑I
will continue‑‑if I find they are wrong. I never say that about anybody. If I say things, I apologize.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): The honourable member
did not have a point of order.
* * *
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member for
Maples (Mr. Cheema) should listen to what I was saying. I was clearly indicating the concerns
expressed at our meeting yesterday from nurses from the
* (1630)
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, our
overriding concern is still very much present.
We are trying to piece together bits and pieces based on different
reports coming forward. Now, if the
minister would simply tell this committee and the Chamber what percentage
increase is going to each hospital, we could perhaps put to rest some of these
concerns and worries that members of our communities have, that some members of
this Legislative Assembly have.
When one looks at the information that we
have received today of about $800,000, we are still looking at a roughly 2
percent reduction from the hospital budget of
Point of
Order
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the member
tell us in this committee: Has she
talked to the hospital board, or the executive, and can she give me substantial
evidence other than what I have here? I
will put my seat on the line. I will put
even my seat on the line if she can prove that there are more cuts than
this. She is telling us that we are
telling lies? I am telling you
lies? That is absolute nonsense. I cannot even sit in this committee
anymore. It is becoming almost insulting
in this committee to say that and being accused for not taking care, and saying
something which is not right?
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): The honourable member
does not have a point of order, and I think everyone will have the opportunity
to put their comments on the record.
* * *
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I just want to indicate again that I at no
point made any statements implicating the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) on
anything. I simply have indicated so
that the member for The Maples could hear where‑‑[interjection] I
have simply indicated where that information came from so that individuals here
would know that I was not making them up, that they were not old, that they
were generally expressed to me yesterday at the meeting.
I think that is only responsible to
indicate the source of one's comments, to raise those concerns, and to try to
put it in context and get the information to relieve those concerns. So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what I did
yesterday, what I did at the forum, what I did after hearing those comments,
what I did in yesterday's Estimates, what I did in today's Question Period, and
what I am doing now, are all consistent and out of concern for a community
hospital that is very near and dear to my heart as well.
I am not trying to distort anything,
exaggerate, I have simply, because that is my job, brought here information
that was made known to me: To seek
clarification. Today we have indication
that it is not $1.2 million, that we are looking at about‑‑I forget
the number, I do not have it in front me‑‑close to $800,000 in
reductions to the
That is certainly a relief to me. That is quite a bit less than $1.2
million. I am certainly glad to see this
and I appreciate this information. I
hope that there are not more cuts coming; I certainly hope so. All I am asking for is information about the
overall budget and trying to figure out, if a hospital the size of Seven Oaks
has to cut even $800,000 from the budget, how can they be getting a 4 or 5
percent increase? Is that not a simple
and straightforward question? I know the
minister in the past has said we will get to that under Hospitals.
Perhaps we can deal with some of this
tension right now by providing that information and addressing all of our
concerns.
Mr. Orchard: I think this debate over the last couple of
days has been rather enlightening. My
honourable friend is justifying her use of $1.2 million because an individual,
who has to be a nurse, indicates that is what she was told and passed it on to
her. Of course, my honourable friend
brought that to the House, hoping that it would cause a great deal of concern,
because then the $1.2 million would be the figure that would be accepted as
gospel.
I simply want to say that that is
interesting. It is sort of like my
honourable friend saying last week that government had this report on
anesthesiology for 10 months‑‑those were the words my honourable
friend used in the question‑‑and that we met with the hospitals on
March 30 and gave them 36 hours to make a bunch of decisions. That was not accurate. The report we received on the 24th of March;
we met as soon as we could with those board chairmen and heads of
anesthesiology, which was March 30.
My honourable friend put false information
on the record on that issue. But, no, it
was false. You mean to say that your
information that we sat on that report for 10 months, you are saying right now
as you sit across from me, that that is the proper information? Is that what you are saying about the report
on anesthesiology?
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I would be glad to clarify for the
minister: This outlining of events
around the anesthesiology study were based there on real people's concerns and
comments. Now, if the minister disagrees with that, then he has a serious problem
in terms of relations with good chunks of our community.
Very clearly, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, it is the strong belief among many members of the anesthetist
community in Manitoba that the study done, that the study embarked on by John
Atkinson from Ottawa and Arthur Scott of B.C. was done within about two months
of being hired, and that in fact considerable time was needed by this
government and through the help of Michael Lloyd and Associates to refine and
amend and rewrite that report. Now the
minister is saying that is not true.
I will accept that. I am simply indicating to him what has been
reported to me from reputable members in the community. I am not about to suggest and put on record
that those people are lying; that those reports and those feelings are not
legitimate and not real. I simply on the
basis of information that is not to be dismissed and should be treated
seriously, ask questions. For the minister to try and dismiss all of those
concerns because they do not coincide with his understanding of the facts is
not doing anything to build better, more productive relations between this
minister and health care professionals in the
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that has
nothing to do with the issue that my honourable friend brought incorrect
information to the House, and after having it clearly identified to her that
she was wrong she now insists on saying, well, you know, there are other
reasons why I was wrong. I am not going
to admit I was wrong. I am just going to
continue to put wrong information on, and if I get caught, well so what? I mean, that is not the way to be a critic.
You were dead wrong by saying directly
that government had that report for 10 months.
You were wrong, and you made that statement to create the impression
that government sat on reports, right?
That accusation you have made on many, many occasions of this
government, and that at the last minute with 36 hours left in the year, we
forced the hospitals to make certain decisions.
Again, wrong. I mean, wrong.
There is an obligation in this House that
honourable members at least try to bring factual information to the House. If I mislead the House in the fashion that my
honourable friend did on Wednesday of last week my resignation would be
demanded. I do not have the luxury of
putting false information on the record. I do not have it. Today my honourable friend used a figure of
$1.2 million at
* (1640)
So I do not even know whether those
phantom sources exist. It is another maligning of everybody out there that my
honourable friend does by saying, well I have these sources that are saying
XYZ. Okay, fine. I will accept that, but I want to tell you
how important it is to have accurate information. I mean, I have to have accurate information;
I cannot make decisions; I cannot come to conclusions; I cannot sort of direct
policy making and decision.
My honourable friend justifies her action
by saying that, you know, at the nurses' union meeting yesterday we heard these
concerns raised about reductions, layoffs, et cetera, and some of them told her
that there was $1.2 million. Well, okay,
maybe accept that, but does that give you automatic cause, without asking the
board as my honourable friend the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) has
suggested. He asked you the direct
question: Have you contacted the
chairman of the board of Executive Directorate to see whether in fact those
allegations are accurate before you come to the house and state them as matters
of fact with the hope?‑‑and here is what I find troubling with the
New Democratic Party process.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party got
caught when he was Leader of the Second Opposition party on several occasions
bringing incorrect information to the House.
One of them was empty hazardous waste boxes at the Cadham Lab, pictures
of it and this great expose. He was
going at government that we were storing in an inappropriate and dangerous
fashion hazardous waste. Well, they were
empty shipment boxes. When he was caught
with that piece of bad information his statement to me was, well, you know, I
do not really mind that because I am going to get the headline on the front
page of the Free Press, and when the story is finally corrected, if it is
carried at all, it will be buried in page 30.
I have made my impression that things are not right in health care by
getting my false information as a front‑page story. That is what I describe as the leader's
disease in the New Democratic Party.
My honourable friend the member for
I have not heard my honourable friend even
say for one minute that she had wrong information. It was just that the people who told her
believed it was right, therefore it is all right to bring it to the House,
because it does what her Leader said he wants do, get the headline, get the
chaos, get the fear going in the system. Then when the truth comes out at a
later time, well, nobody may report it, and if it is, it will be buried on page
30. That is a very good way to
contribute to the reform of the health care system, by leading the discussion
with false information.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Now, I want to deal with another issue
that came up at our debate yesterday.
Recall the very emotional presentation by the nurse whose aunt was
discharged‑‑and the impression was clearly left‑‑from
the Health Sciences Centre with no continuing care to back the person up. I said I believe that sounds inappropriate
and if I was to receive details of that person's aunt's discharge, or name, I
would check it out. I am not at liberty
to release the name of that individual, so I will be very, very direct in
saying that I am not dealing with the individual, I am dealing with the
circumstances, because, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, false information was put on
the record, inadvertently, I do not know.
That individual was in the Health Sciences
Centre for significant surgery. That
individual wanted to go home on the weekend to supervise her farming
operation. The physician agreed that she
could, providing dressings could be changed.
The son and daughter‑in‑law who were living in the farmyard
caring for the farm operation said that it was fine for her to come home for
the weekend. The daughter‑in‑law
came in and learned how to change the dressings completely in accord with the
patient, so that the dressings could be changed. They were supplied by continuing care. The individual went home for Saturday and
came back midafternoon Sunday, readmitted herself to the Health Sciences Centre
and was later discharged with home care support appropriately.
It was the patient's decision to leave the
hospital for that weekend. It was the
family's decision that the leave would be appropriate and that they would care
for this individual, in this case the mother.
The impression left by that individual yesterday at the MNU was that the
person was kicked out of the hospital with no community support to support that
discharge, clearly to leave the impression, as my honourable friend tries to
leave with incorrect information, that there is chaos in the health care
system.
I have said consistently this system works
and works very, very well thanks to dedicated professionals. I am going to provide my honourable friend
with a copy of this letter so that she does not bring that case to the House in
home care as another false piece of information about how badly the system works.
That was incorrect information; it left the wrong impression; it was headline
news on at least one of the television stations, with incorrect information.
I hope to correct that this
afternoon. When I hear those
circumstances, and they appear to be inappropriate, I investigate because if
the circumstances were correct somebody would have been in difficulty for
improperly managing a patient's care. That was not the case, yet the
professionals at the Health Sciences Centre were maligned by that bad piece of
information at a debate that we were at just yesterday morning.
That is the kind of misinformation that
promotes the fearmongering my honourable friend thrives on in the New
Democratic Party and does not do one single thing to make an improved patient
care service in the
The leader's disease is alive and well in
the New Democratic Party, but it is not contributing to the kind of credibility
that our health care system, care delivered by caring professionals working
substantially with incredible effort to make care delivery possible in
Manitoba.
What kind of feelings do they have when my
honourable friend the New Democratic critic for her narrow political agenda
paints that wide brush about how horrible the health care system is? How do the
98 percent of circumstances or 99 or 99.5 percent of the circumstances of
patient care which are delivered appropriately and perfectly, how do those
people, those caring professionals delivering that care, feel when they are
broad‑brush tarnished by the narrow accusations, often based on false
information, from my honourable friend?
How do the caring professionals feel in those circumstances? I suggest to you, not very good.
So my honourable friend, when she
justifies her bringing incorrect information to the House as being because
someone told her, that is not good enough.
I cannot do that. My honourable
friend the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) does not do that anymore. He got caught a couple of times, and I got
caught a couple of times as critic.
I got the living bedevilment beat out of
me by Desjardins a couple of times because I took the bait. I came in here with half the side of a story,
and I went ranting and raving at Desjardins, and my God did I regret it,
because I had only half the story. The
other half of the story made sense to what was going on, and with regret I had to
admit I was wrong. I did not do it too
often after that, because it is not very, very reinforcing of one's credibility
if you constantly come to the House with false information.
So I simply say to my honourable friend,
if that is the way you want to play the game, fine. You maybe get your opportunity, as your
Leader has told me he likes to do, of getting the headline or the news item on
radio or television and then when the truth comes out and it is retracted,
well, it may never end up in radio or news and if it is in the newspaper it will
be buried on page 4. I have made my
point. I have scored because I have this
story about chaos in some part of government.
* (1650)
Well, that is some honest and open means
of integrity of achieving the Premier's office in the
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, I want
the minister to know that since he has been shaking this piece of paper at me
from the Health Sciences Centre, that we did not, I did not encourage someone
to present at the nurses' union false information. I had no more of an inclination or
understanding of that individual's circumstances than the minister did, and for
him to wave this at committee now and suggest that I might be behind this, he
is totally misrepresenting my actions and my involvement in any of those issues.
Let me say very clearly that I was very
careful first of all to ask the minister questions in Estimates yesterday, to
try to get information based on what had been told to me by nurses, who are
living very much with a lot of worry and fear and concern about doing their
jobs adequately. Let me indicate I was
very careful to say in the House today that these were reports and information
from staff as reported to them by the administration.
I at no time tried to leave the impression
that I had all the information. In fact,
I have constantly done the opposite, to say I am still piecing together piece
by piece this whole funding policy around hospitals, and I am still no further
ahead in terms of trying to understand the government's policies and programs
around this whole area than I was 20 hours ago when we started Estimates.
So I am going to have to keep asking
questions in order to understand what is happening with respect to our
hospitals and how it all fits into the health reform agenda of this government.
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have done
nothing but brought forward the concerns as expressed to me by nurses. If I have done anything by relaying those
genuine feelings and concerns and fears and worries to the minister or to the
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) or to anyone else, I would be happy to
apologize. I will apologize right now,
but I at no time tried to leave the impression that I was doing other than
bring that information to get some understanding of what was happening.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not want to
ever not be sensitive to the concerns of those who are working in the field and
who are dealing with an incredible amount of pressure and stress on the job
because of fewer resources, more acutely ill patients, more trying experiences
on the job. I know from talking to those
nurses how hard it is to do their job the way they set out to do it and still
go home and be good and responsible mothers and fathers, parents and grandparents.
I hope that the minister will listen to
their concerns as well. If they are
telling us information they are getting from administration about cuts to their
hospitals, then I think we have to try to get to the bottom of it and
understand where it is coming from and what it means. I am not going to say to those people that
you have totally misread a situation, that you have clearly not had the facts,
that you are lying, whatever. Maybe
there is more to it; we do not know.
We know, for example, that there is a $27‑million
budget reduction exercise for urban hospitals that covers a two‑year
period. We have tried to find out how
that breaks down for each hospital and for each year. It may very well be, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
that the target for
Again, the minister says he is prepared to
do that if we just get to the Hospital line.
I would suggest that today or this week would be a good opportunity, so
we can get the information out on the table, so that hospitals, administrators,
the staff, right from the medical practitioners to the nurses to the LPNs, to
the aides, to the orderlies, to the nutritionists, to the dietitians, to the
maintenance people, can be put at ease in terms of their worries and concerns.
I know that, when I have raised these
concerns in the past, the minister has often said, all I am worrying about are
workers and unions. The implication was
there today in Question Period. By framing a question and asking about, in a
very objective way, the impact of a monetary value in terms of beds and staff
and services and patient care, the minister likes to chastise for not putting
patient care first.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is my
understanding that patient care happens when you have the appropriate number of
beds, the adequate level of staff and the resources to provide the services, so
that you have quality patient care. I
make no apologies for bringing those concerns forward because they are in the
field working hard to provide a good service, to be the kind of caring,
compassionate professionals that they were taught to be by going through the
nursing program, or whatever training program they went through, and why they
entered that profession to begin with.
Let me conclude, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
if the member for the Maples (Mr. Cheema) is offended by anything that has been
said, or the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), or anyone involved with the
administration, by this dialogue, by this debate, by this profile of the issue,
then I would be happy to apologize, but I will not apologize for bringing to
this Legislature the voices of individuals who are not often heard in the
system who do not feel they are part of the decision making, who are not
included in those inner circles, despite the pretense being created or the
suggestion being made that they have every opportunity to avail themselves of
that process and of being part of that decision‑making process.
We have heard too often, not just
yesterday from nurses, but on a day‑to‑day basis from many
professionals and workers in the system that they have not been able to find a
way to voice their concerns to get the necessary information, to put their
worries at rest and to feel that they can carry on providing quality patient
care. I hope that the minister
understands the situation and is prepared to address as soon as possible the
overall question that we have been asking day in and day out about hospital
budgets, funding levels, any bed reduction targets and how all of those
individuals' specific decisions fit into an overall health care reform agenda.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is exactly what I have
indicated is in the plans of government that may well even be before Manitobans
this month in terms of the reform plan.
It will bring together these system‑wide changes so that my
honourable friend will not have the luxury of talking about a bed here or a bed
there. She will have to talk about a
system. It is going to be interesting to
hear what the comments are going to be.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my concern about
my honourable friend's comments in the last period of time, and I ought not to
do this because it may help her with her credibility if she were to take my
advice, but when you bring those issues to the House without so much as a
discussion with the board and the management of the institution, you perpetuate
the very rumours that you picked up on because you were deemed to have some
credibility in this whole system.
You are the Health critic for the first
opposition party. What you say is not as if it is some average citizen on the
street. What you say is listened
to. From that standpoint, one would hope
that you will offer some comment that enhances the position you are
taking. When you make statements which
turn out to be not accurate, you have not only damaged yourself but you have
compromised‑‑how do the people that you have brought those
allegations against improperly and incorrectly feel about those allegations?
You said my staff sat on a report for 10
months. They did not. I mean, you are maligning people when you
make those accusations and that is why‑‑I mean, I do not care if
you do it. I expect that. I am in the
political game, but you might consider the sensitivities of the people that you
have improperly provided information about.
* (1700)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
The time is now five o'clock and it is time for private members'
hour. Committee rise.
FAMILY
SERVICES
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order? This section of the Committee of
Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Family
Services. We are on page 61, Manitoba
Developmental Centre, 5.(c).
Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber?
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): Madam Chairperson, I
wonder if I might, before I get specifically into the Manitoba Developmental
Centre, ask a few questions on some of the Community Living and Vocational
Rehabilitation Programs payments to External Agencies that were handed out to
critics yesterday, if I could ask some questions on those grants to External
Agencies in this general area.
The Ten Ten Sinclair Housing Inc. has
received, from my figures from last year's Orders‑in‑Council an
increase of approximately 3 percent while some other agencies have received
less and some have perhaps received a bit more.
Is that a reflection of a particular
situation at Ten Ten Sinclair, because I know they have had financial
difficulties in the past?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Yes, the
agencies that are providing service are generally showing an increase of
approximately that amount in their budgets.
Ms. Barrett: Is Ten Ten Sinclair one of the agencies that
is working with the department on the service and funding agreements?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we have not started working with them on
that particular issue in any detail.
Ms. Barrett: But they will be undertaking that process at
some point in the future.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I think it is fair to say our priorities
are with some of the other organizations we work with, and as we progress we
will be addressing that with Ten Ten.
Ms. Barrett: The minister's answer has engendered a question
from me. Can the minister share with us
what those priorities are? On what basis
does the minister and his department work with these external agencies in
establishing these funding agreements?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Our priorities have been the larger agencies
that we are involved with. In the case
of Ten Ten Sinclair, they also are of course involved with other government
departments as well.
Ms. Barrett: One other question on this sheet of external
agencies, the Concept Special Business Advisors Inc., I could not find that
last year in the external grants. I am
wondering if it was in last year. If it
is a new agency this year, could the minister explain exactly what those funds
are used for?
Mr. Gilleshammer: It is not a new agency. It is one we have been working with, and
there is a shift from funding them on the per diem basis only to the operating
grant plus per diems.
* (1440)
Ms. Barrett: On the next page, the page that starts with
Association for Community Living and ends with Community Projects, the two last
items old Grace Hospital loan payment and Community Projects. I did not see them in last year. Again, could I ask the minister if they were
there that I did not see them or if they are new what those monies are to be
used for.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The old
Ms. Barrett: Madam Chairperson, one comment I would have is
that there does not appear to be, as far as I can tell, in the other items on
this particular page any increase in grant funding from last year for any of
those organizations, while other organizations on the earlier page, which are also
Community Living and Vocational Rehabilitation Programs, many of them did have
increases.
I am wondering if the minister can explain
why organizations such as the ACL and the League of the Physically Handicapped
and the CNIB and the volunteer centre, all of which do have as one of their
main components assisting individuals to make the transition from a hospital or
an institution into the community or help provide services to enable them to
stay in the community rather than returning to or going into more expensive
care facilities, receive in this budget absolutely no additional funding when
even the minister's own, or the government's own, inflation projections are at
approximately 2 percent.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I guess there are a variety of grants that are
part and parcel of the grants list, and some of them are more along the lines
of general purpose grants as opposed to specific service provision. In doing our budget and having the difficulty
of accessing additional funds, we have tended to give a slight increase where
there was specific service provision as opposed to the general purpose grants.
Ms. Barrett: I appreciate the distinction there. I would like then to revert back if I may for
one final concern I have on the earlier page, which I understand is the
specific service provision agencies, the Independent Living Resource Centre,
which had $177,200 last year, has been reduced to $100,000, and it would appear
to me to be virtually‑‑no, sorry, it has been increased; I had it
wrong. Get my columns straight here.
I do not have any further questions on the
external grants. I appreciate the chance to ask those questions.
I am just changing my positions here. I do have some questions on the Manitoba
Developmental Centre, if I may. My understanding
from last year's Estimates is that there was a slight decrease in the number of
residents at the MDC and that this year there appears to be virtually no change
in the number of residents. I am
wondering if the minister can respond to that and say if those 570 or 574
residents are the same residents that were at the beginning of the year, or if
there has been some movement in and out of the resident population at MDC.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would like to introduce Mr. Steve Bergson,
who is the Director of the MDC complex.
Last year at the beginning of the year
there was a population of 579. There
were seven admissions, 23 readmissions, 24 discharges, 11 deaths and a year‑end
population of 574. That sort of gives
you an idea of the changes that occurred during the course of the year at MDC.
Ms. Barrett: Could the minister shed some light on the 23
readmissions and the 24 discharges, in particular the readmissions. How long had they generally been away from
MDC, what were the reasons for their coming back and the discharges, to what
facility were those discharges made?
Mr. Gilleshammer: On the discharges, of course, it is an attempt
to have individuals who are ready to rejoin the community find a place in the
community with a family or with the group homes that are available. In some cases it does not work as well as one
would like, and these people are readmitted.
At other times, there are other people who perhaps have been discharged
in a previous year that are part of the readmissions.
The readmissions tend to be as a result of
a number of reasons: It may be behaviour
problems, and I use that I suppose in a broad sense of individuals who have a
difficult time in coping; secondly, there may be some medical problems whereby
the individuals are better served by being back in the institution; thirdly,
there may be parental problems, whereby the continuance of that individual with
parents is not possible.
Some of the readmissions, of course, are
discharges that have taken place within that year or the previous year. Some of the admissions, of course, are a
result of family circumstances or health problems or problems within the
community, so it tends to be a very individualized situation.
* (1450)
I can recall of one case that did receive
some attention, where there was a desire on the part of the individual to
participate in the community and live in the community and a number of attempts
were made to accommodate that person.
There were problems. The parents,
for instance, felt more comfortable having the client back in the institution;
at the same time, there are community groups who would like to see us make the
living arrangements work. So there is a
lot of pressure from time to time brought to bear on individual cases once they
are discharged and are later readmitted.
There are a variety of reasons, but
basically those three: the behaviour problems, medical problems, and parental
preferences and problems.
Ms. Barrett: Most of the individuals who are discharged, do
they go back to their families, or do they go to the I believe it was called
the cottages, where there is an interim kind of physical group of residences
where individuals who are seen by the staff at MDC as being ready or getting
ready to be discharged are established?
Is that where the people who are discharged go to generally, or are
there other areas that take them?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The people who are discharged from the
institutions by and large go to community residences. In some cases, it may be a family home, but
community residences probably are the most common place for them to be housed.
Ms. Barrett: When an individual is readmitted, is there a
combination of voluntary and involuntary readmissions? What is the process for coming back into MDC? If an individual is in a community residence,
would it be at the request of the community residence head or what is the
process for readmission then?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There are certain legal obligations that have
to be followed, but basically it will be a recommendation by family or staff in
their analysis that for whatever reason there is difficulty coping and people
are readmitted.
Ms. Barrett: I am wondering if the minister can tell us
the average length of stay in the institution and the average age of individuals. It appears from the statistics that he read
in earlier about the admissions and the readmissions and the discharges and the
deaths and the final total that there is not a whole lot of movement. I would anticipate that the vast majority of
the individuals in MDC have been there for a fair length of time and that the
population is continuing to age. I am
wondering if that is an accurate assessment of the situation.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can give an age breakdown if that would
help. People between 18 and 20 years of
age, there are 10; between ages 21 and 24, there are 21; between ages 25 and
30, there are 102; between ages 31 and 36, there are 105; between ages 37 and
42, there are 108; between ages 43 and 49, there are 72; between 50 and 55,
there are 40; 56 to 64, there are 60; and 65 plus, there are 56. It gives you an idea of the age range, the
composition of the 574 clients.
Ms. Barrett: I am not quite sure how to ask, what kind of
statistics to ask to get the second part of that question. It looks like the age curve is skewed older
rather than younger, and I am assuming that individuals in MDC have a fairly
extensive stay. We have all agreed that
there are not enough community supports in place to be able to put many of
these individuals into the community. I
know that there is disagreement among various elements in the community as to
whether, even if there were a lot of resources, everyone from MDC would be able
to take advantage of them. It does seem
to me that the age of the residents is getting older. So there are not as many younger people
coming, so the age is getting older, and that people are likely once they come
into MDC to stay in MDC. Is that accurate?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think it is accurate to say that these are
long‑term residents and, because there is not a great deal of change in
those numbers that I read before, that the population is aging. Whether it is older is a relative thing. These are long‑term stays and there are
fewer and fewer young people coming in, I would think. If you look at the difference between age 24
to the next group I gave you, it is the difference between 21 and over
100. I suspect, and I will have the
staff confirm it, that people who are coming out of the school system are being
accommodated either at home or in community residences rather than seeing MDC
as their destination.
Ms. Barrett: I would like to ask another general question
about the residents at MDC and I suppose at
Mr. Gilleshammer: We currently have two residents at MDC who
have been found guilty of a criminal offence.
It is not unusual to have two or perhaps three individuals within the
population of almost 600 who have some sort of offence and it has been deemed
that that is the place they should be.
Ms. Barrett: How many people are currently being held at
MDC under Lieutenant‑Governor's Warrant?
Mr. Gilleshammer: None.
Ms. Barrett: I have no further questions in the area of
MDC.
* (1500)
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Can the
minister tell me if the same levels, one to five, are used at MDC as are used
in community placements, and does he have the breakdown for the 574 residents
at MDC?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There is a different description given, and I
can give the member some numbers. There
are some that are described as borderline and there are 22 of them; the second
category is mild and there are 77; the third category is moderate and there are
74; the fourth category is severe and there are 225; the fifth category is
profound and there are 176, to make up that population of 574. Generally there is a distribution through all
of the age groups in determining that number.
Mrs. Carstairs: I would assume that when we look at discharges‑‑the
last annual report was 19, I think the minister said it was 24 for '91‑92‑‑that
we are looking primarily at those that would fit in the borderline, mild to
moderate range.
Mr. Gilleshammer: That would be so in some of the cases, but it
would depend on the type of community residences that are available and the
type of client that they are able to receive.
Mrs. Carstairs: When the whole Welcome Home initiative was
going at full force in '86‑87, one of the difficulties‑‑and I
talked to staff about this with regard to The Vulnerable Persons Act‑‑was
the relationship and what rights did the parents have vis‑a‑vis the
fact that many of them were in the care of the Public Trustee. What is the attitude at the centre now with
respect to involvement of parents in making decisions with respect to whether
their family member would be discharged even though they have no technical
legal rights over that particular individual?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Parents are consulted wherever possible and
encouraged to be involved in the process.
Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell me if
they have any breakdown as to where in fact these 574 residents are
living? How many are in the buildings
per se? How many are in the cottages?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that there are 204 residents in the
cottages and the remainder in the three main residences.
Mrs. Carstairs: The last time that I visited the MDC the most
profound patients were in the buildings, and I can only assume that is probably
still the case since the cottages were not really equipped to look after the
more profound patients. There was also
no air conditioning in those buildings.
Is that still the case at MDC?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that three of the cottages are air
conditioned with another three coming on stream this summer, and that the three
residences are now air conditioned.
Mrs. Carstairs: I do not know who was the minister when that
happened but thank God. The last time I
was at MDC it was 104 degrees one day and these very profoundly mentally
retarded people who were living there, I felt sorry for the staff, but I felt a
heck of a lot more sorry for the clientele.
The readmission and discharges‑‑I
really just want a feel for this. There
were 23 readmissions in '91‑92 and there were 24 discharges. Are these the same people or is there any
relationship between these two groups of numbers whatsoever?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that it is coincidental that the
numbers are fairly similar. There is
some overlap, but the majority of them are different individuals.
Mrs. Carstairs: This discharge column will potentially
disappear or be very difficult under the ideas that are being debated with
regard to The Vulnerable Persons Act, because one of the provisions would be
that you would need a court order to readmit.
At the present time readmission is relatively easy to do at MDC. What alternatives are being debated and
discussed for the care of those individuals who now can be admitted to MDC
because they have the technical and competent people to deal with it, but would
not potentially be easily readmissible under a change in the act to meet‑‑I
mean, this is no condemnation of the government; this is just simply to meet
what we know is a Charter case?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The whole idea or at least one of the ideas is
that these residents and these individuals should be living where they can be best
accommodated, and one of the effects of the legislation is that there may be
more impetus to accommodate them within the community. It will be a challenge before government and
the department and the advocacy groups to identify those areas where these
people can live.
Madam Chairperson: Item 5.(c) Manitoba Developmental Centre (1)
Salaries, $20,799,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures, $2,991,500‑‑pass.
5.(d) Special Employment Programs.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): I was wondering if it is appropriate now to
ask questions dealing with the closure of the Human Resources Opportunity
Centre in Selkirk. Would that be an
appropriate line?
Madam Chairperson: It is 5.(d)(3) Human Resources
* (1510)
Mr. Dewar: I just want to first of all express my and my
community's dismay and disappointment with this minister's decision to close
the training plant in Selkirk. It is my
understanding that the program has been very successful, and the closure
without consulting or without asking any of the affected groups will hurt those
individuals who need this type of training the most in these tough economic
times.
I want to ask the minister, why did the
minister pick Selkirk as the centre to close?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have had some opportunity to talk in Question
Period about this issue before, and I appreciate that we may have more
opportunity to go into some detail here.
We have undertaken to review all of the training and employment
initiatives with the thought that we have to direct our funding to where it is
the most effective and cost efficient, and as a result determination was made
that the Selkirk Human Resources Opportunity Centre will be closed at the end
of June.
I think we had to look at the
appropriateness of the training as we attempt to train people for the 1990s,
and we also looked at the cost and the cost of updating the facility and
equipment so that the skills training that could be directed to the workplace
in the 1990s could be taken into consideration.
The majority of the clients served by this
HROC in Selkirk come from
I want the member to know that in looking
at all of the demands which are placed on this department, demands that we talk
about from time to time in daycare and social allowances and programming for
child welfare and on and on, we deal in this department with some 180,000
Manitobans, most of them who could be described as in some way vulnerable. As we add to our budget we also have to look
at ways of doing things more effectively and efficiently and make tough
decisions. One of those difficult
decisions was to close the Selkirk HROC and redirect some of that money and
redirect some of that training elsewhere.
Mr. Dewar: The residents of Selkirk do not share that view;
they see this as basically a political vindictiveness. Will the minister provide me then with the
department studies which demonstrate that Gimli or Winnipeg is more cost
effective than Selkirk?‑‑if you stated that is the case.
Mr. Gilleshammer: You know, I have always been very pleased with
the level that we are able to debate these issues in here in Estimates. I certainly would not want the member to
portray this as a political decision because we have to look at the demand for
training and the way we can best do that given the costs, so I am pleased to
provide the member with some figures that show the cost per participant per
day. The cost we had in Selkirk was the
most costly per participant. It was
costing us $72 a day in that training facility and many of the other training
centres were doing the training that they did for anywhere from $30 to $48 to
$56 a day. So there was a difference and
it was a more costly training process that we were embarking on there. That was a major factor in making that
decision.
Mr. Dewar: I was wondering if the minister could tell us
how many trainees were enrolled in the program in Selkirk.
Mr. Gilleshammer: In the 1991‑92 year there were 37 at the
beginning of the year, others were added and some left during the year. A total of 247 were served during the course
of 1991‑92.
Mr. Dewar: The minister provided me with some information
about the cost effectiveness of Selkirk, saying that it is approximately $72,
other centres were $30 to $48. Can you
explain why?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The nature of the structure of the HROC
varies in some of the other HROCs in that the board who is responsible in most
cases for the activity and the hiring in the centre will set those rates. In Selkirk one of the differences is that
those positions were part of the Civil Service as opposed to others who are
hired by those individual boards. That
is a cost of salaries plus materials that are used in the production of the
product that is being made in Selkirk as compared to some of the others. Some
of them are probably spending less on the goods and services that go into
production. I know in visiting the one
at The Pas last fall that one of the activities there was a paint shop for some
of the other government departments and private enterprise in that area as well
as some work being done on reupholstering. So you have to factor in the cost of
the supplies in Selkirk that tended to be higher there than the other HROCs.
* (1520)
Mr. Dewar: Can the minister provide us with the number of
trainees who went on to find jobs after successfully completing the course at
the Selkirk training plant?
Mr. Gilleshammer: In '91‑92 there were a total of 188
leaving the program. Sixty‑five
went to employment; 15 went to further training; 28 completed and were seeking
employment‑‑for a total of 108.
So the percentage of successful leavings was deemed to be 57 percent.
Mr. Dewar: What about the success rate at the Gimli
training plant or the
Mr. Gilleshammer: The percentage of successful leavings in
Interlake was 78 percent. In
Mr. Dewar: It is my understanding that Gimli and
Mr. Gilleshammer: There is a turnover in the program with people
exiting, and the advice of staff is that we will be able to accommodate within
those two programs that I have referenced.
Mr. Dewar: Of course, one of the reasons individuals are
in the training plant program is that they have little financial
resources. I was wondering if the
minister will be providing the trainees who are in Selkirk now with
transportation allowances to get to either Gimli or to
Mr. Gilleshammer: The department, of course, will try its very
best to accommodate the clients who come before it to receive the training in
other centres.
Mr. Dewar: Does that mean the department will provide
financial support for those seeking transportation assistance, or not?
Mr. Gilleshammer: For those who were in process in the Selkirk
plant, we will accommodate them.
Mr. Dewar: That deals of course with those who are
currently in the program. What about
those who will be requiring this service in the future?
Mr. Gilleshammer: As we plan for the programs that we offer in
this area of the department and other programs, we will attempt to accommodate
people in the most cost effective way and appropriate program that we can.
Mr. Dewar: The Selkirk local of the Manitoba Metis
Federation estimated that 40 percent of the trainees in the program over the
years were Metis. Will the minister
comment on this estimation?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have not done an ethnic breakdown of the
people served within the Human Resources centres that we fund.
Mr. Dewar: When exactly is the final closing date of the
training plant in Selkirk?
Mr. Gilleshammer: June 30.
Mr. Dewar: Will the minister confirm that the training
plant is currently being dismantled?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would point out to the member that the
facility falls under the Department of Government Services. My understanding at this point is that some
of the staff and some of the equipment are being moved over to the Corrections
Branch. It is not my understanding that
the plant is being dismantled.
Mr. Dewar: Has the minister been approached by groups
from Selkirk and what has been his response?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, I have not met with any
person or groups from Selkirk. I know
that we have been trying to arrange a meeting with, I believe, the mayor and it
may be some time later this week.
Mr. Dewar: I have just a few more questions. What is the government planning on doing with
the abandoned site?
Mr. Gilleshammer: As I indicated to the member, it comes under
the auspices of Government Services. I
am sure the department will be looking at options where it may be used within
government or if there is interest from the private sector that may be a
possibility. It will fall under the
jurisdiction of Government Services.
Mr. Dewar: My final question to the minister is: Will the minister consider delaying the
closure of the training plant for a year until he has a chance to meet with the
mayor of Selkirk or any other group interested in seeking alternatives to the
closure?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have made our budget decisions after due
consideration and will be proceeding with those decisions.
Madam Chairperson: 5.(d) Special Employment Program.
Ms. Barrett: I have just one question on the Expected
Results for the Human Resources Opportunity Program on page 78. The Estimates from last year stated that the
Human Resources Opportunity Centres and programs would assist 1,550 individuals
through the opportunity centre. This
year it is reduced by 250 to 1,300. I am
assuming that reflects the closing of the Selkirk facility, and I am wondering
if the minister can tell us if that is based on the fact that he anticipates
fewer individuals needing these services or if he expects to be able to assist
those individuals in other areas.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I think it is a combination of refocusing
some of those resources on other areas and accommodating the anticipated need
within the existing facilities and redirecting some to other areas.
* (1530)
Mrs. Carstairs: Since we seem to be dealing with this, we may as
well finish this section, I guess, and move back to some of the other sections.
I am concerned about the establishment of
programming and what kinds of evaluations, if any, are done of the programs on
an ongoing basis. I am going to give the
minister a very specific example. I took
a look of one of the so‑called curriculum guides for one of these
programs being taught in
It was supposed to be training a teacher
aide, but they are talking about psychology.
Not only were they dealing with Gestalt and Freud‑‑I mean,
the thing was a myth. There is no way
that anybody was going to be able to teach that kind of curriculum in this kind
of a program. It read well, but did not
mean anything. Who does the kind of
evaluations of whether this is legitimate programming, whether it is in fact
taught or not taught, and what kind of evaluation is done after it has been
taught?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I could not agree more with the member that we
have to have a curriculum in the HROCs and HROPs that make some sense for the
client base that we are serving.
I have not sat in on those classes, but I
attended at
We are in the midst of doing some analysis
and looking at the programs offered by these HROCs and HROPs. We have contracted out to a private firm to
do some of it for us and department staff are also doing some, and the evaluation
is going to examine several issues, including the program rationale and the
program relevance.
I think at times the programming is
written for the professor or the teacher, but in the actual delivering of the
program it has to be delivered at a level that is comprehensible by the
student.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell me‑‑the
minister may not know and maybe not the present group of staff here‑‑why
is this part of the Department of Family Services? Why is it not part of Training. Why is there this overlapping in
bureaucracies?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, it is an excellent question. I think that in looking at training programs
across government there are times when some rationalizing is done, and I am
always interested when I go to federal‑provincial ministers' meetings to
see in various provinces what ministries are put together. Of course, at the federal level it is Health
and Welfare, and at some provincial levels it is Health and Welfare. In this whole area of some of the employment
programs, in some cases Corrections is added to that mix.
In
It reminds me of a school system once that
had a preponderance of university entrance courses and no programming for what
we now see as the general course, or the occupational entrance or the special
needs children, so in historical terms it was a way of ensuring that there was
programming for the social allowance recipients. I think it is an area that we have talked
about, and one that possibly will see some changes in the coming years.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, just to put it on the record, I do not
believe the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) should have this either. I mean I think it is time that we looked at a
training in post secondary education model for this province and to remove
training from being little bits here and a little bit some place else without
any co‑ordinated approach whatsoever to the way in which it is handled.
I am pleased to hear the minister say that
there is some evaluation going on to bear hopefully some fruit on relevance and
rationale of what these programs are.
Can the minister tell me what types of funding come for the Human
Resources Opportunity Program and Opportunity Centres from the federal
government, if any?
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Mr. Gilleshammer: The HROC and HROP programs are cost shared at
a 50 percent level under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell me then who decides on
the curriculum, and who would be ultimately responsible for the evaluations of
that curriculum?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The course design, the program design and
evaluation is done within the department in consultation with other departments
and some of the training that they do.
As well, at the Human Resources Centres there are advisory boards that
do bring some information forward to the minister and to the department.
Mrs. Carstairs: When a decision is made to stop a program, for
example, at Selkirk, what kind of input if any is required from the federal
government in that decision‑making process?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That decision is made within the
Mrs. Carstairs: So you get permission from the federal
government then to have X number of spaces and they will cost‑share
those, and then it is completely up to the province as to where those spaces
will be located.
* (1540)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Basically, the department and the
Mrs. Carstairs: What availability are any of these programs to
those who are on unemployment insurance?
Mr. Gilleshammer: By definition, these programs are for people
who are in need or who are potentially in need, and as a result people who are
just entering into that U.I. phase generally are not eligible, but as the time
runs out on it they can become eligible and enter these programs.
Mrs. Carstairs: At that point, it is my understanding that
Manpower might also have some input into the curriculum because they will not
allow students to go into programs for which they have not had an acceptable
perusal, if you will, of the program. At what point does the mix then take
place between the provincial government and the federal government?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Under the Employability Enhancement agreement,
CEIC has $6 million and we have $6 million targeted for individuals who enter
the Gateway Program and the Single Parent Job Access Program.
Mrs. Carstairs: I would rather leave that, but I will get
back to it, because the minister has opened a whole new avenue. There is only $4.3 million in the budget, and
he says both of them are putting in $6 million.
So just let it sit there until we get back into this section.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mrs. Render): Shall item 5.(d)(1) Branch Operations $774,200
pass?
Some Honourable Members:
Pass.
Mrs. Carstairs: Pass, but I think perhaps we have to do it in
two parts.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mrs. Render): Item 5.(d)(1)(a)
Salaries $652,900‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $121,300‑‑pass.
5.(d)(2) Youth Programs $3,544,600. Shall the item pass?
Ms. Barrett: I would like to start with the Expected
Results. Last year in Estimates the minister stated that they expected to
employ 435 students in summer positions under STEP; this year it is 300. Last year they expected to place 11,000
students through referrals from 44
The minister has heard questions from both
opposition parties, particularly the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans), since the budget came out about the concerns of the opposition
regarding the employment opportunities, the job creation programs, the re‑education,
the education programs available to the youth in our province, particularly in
these days with the youth unemployment rate at unconscionable levels. The
special employment programs generally, in the youth programs in particular, are
designed to alleviate some of that stress, not all of it, but some of those problems
that young people in Manitoba have faced and are continuing particularly to
face.
I am wondering if the minister can explain
why‑‑in light of this enormous stress on the young people of
Manitoba today; in light of the fact that thousands of people, many of them
young people, are leaving the province because there are no job opportunities,
there are no training and education opportunities‑‑why, in light of
the fact that the minister speaks about and the government members speak about
the youth of Manitoba being our future and the need for training and upgrading,
et cetera, the minister has chosen this year to decrease most of the funding
under the youth programs? It is not that
the minister has not known about the problem that is facing
I would like to ask the minister a general
question as to why under most of the expected results in this category he shows
a decrease in the numbers of young people who are to be serviced under programs
in this youth programs area.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would point out to the member that if she is
comparing the expected results this year to last year, there are some
increases. There were some changes made
last year with programming that changed which shows some decreases and some of
them are estimates. Maybe the best
example, is the Youth Job Centres. We
fund and help to create Youth Job Centres throughout the province and last year
there were 8,864 placements. In 1990,
there were 10,348, but last year there were 8,864. We are anticipating and projecting this year
that there would be 9,000 placements made.
Again, that is an estimate based on what the private sector is going to
do.
In the STEP program last year there were
some 273 students employed. We are
anticipating that there will be 300 of those employed this year.
* (1550)
In the departmental budgeted positions,
last year there were 930 students employed.
This year we are anticipating that there will be 950 students employed.
Under the CareerStart, last year we had
3,003 students employed. We are
anticipating that probably there will be 3,550 employed this year.
As well, we have created the Partners with
Youth program which will show an increase of 700 students or youth employed
under that budget line.
This year's figures, I think, are not only
comparable but show some increase over last year. If you compare them to a couple of years ago
there is a difference. If you go back into
the early '80s, there is a significant difference in that they were much lower
then. It depends on which years you want
to compare.
We have maintained CareerStart, as I have
indicated, at last year's levels, the Manitoba Youth Job Centre program‑‑it
is an estimate. It is difficult to say
how many students will access those 44 offices across the province. As I have indicated, there will be a new
program that we think municipal level governments and nonprofit organizations
will be accessing, and we will be announcing that program later this week.
Ms. Barrett: The numbers that I put on the record in my
original question were numbers that were the estimates from last year's
Estimates, and those are the only numbers I had access to.
In the case of the Manitoba Youth Job
Centre, it was estimated in July of last year that 11,000 students would be
placed. So the estimate of last year was
11,000, and you are saying to me that, in effect, 8,800 were placed. So again the actual was much lower than the
estimate, and I would suggest that probably has something to do with the
problems faced by private employers in this province.
So I would like to ask the minister why
the actual placement in the Youth Job Centre last year was so far under the
estimate that was given in July when we actually dealt with Estimates?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Projections are made from year to year and
are often based on the previous year's numbers.
I can tell you that there are a lot of students who access jobs that do
not register and go through the process with the Manitoba Youth Job Centre.
I can tell you in areas of my
constituency, which has a high tourism component, that certainly they access
the CareerStart and they access the federal CHALLENGE program, but they make
direct hirings of students without going through the job centres simply because
there is a demand in that particular area where hundreds and hundreds of
students are hired who do not show up on these statistics. That service is provided for people looking
for employees and students who are looking for work. So there is another side to it as well, in
that the employer and the students make direct contact.
I can tell you from being in the national
park during the spring break that many of the private entrepreneurs there were
going through their interviewing and hiring process at that time and were not
waiting for the Youth Job Centres to open and start providing that
service. So that is only a part of the
figure. There are others who are hired without showing up on these statistics.
Ms. Barrett: I am sure, in 1990 and in earlier years, that
was also the case, but there has been a significant decline in the actual
number of students and young people who have been placed through these summer
offices just from 1990 to '91, almost, well, 150, which is a fairly substantial
decrease. I think that it is not just
that individual students are finding independent, private placements; it is
that the economy of the province has decreased as well substantially. This decline in the uptake, in the youth job
centre, I would suggest, reflects the fact that private business and other
organizations in this province just do not have the resources with which to
hire individuals through this position.
The youth of the province are finding it much more difficult to gain
employment.
The minister stated that, under the STEP
program, the actual number of students placed last year was 273. The estimated figure in July of last year was
435. That is a substantial decrease in
the actual uptake of the STEP program, and I am wondering if the minister can
explain that decrease, and why he thinks that there will be an increase from
the actual placement last year to this year.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Those decisions are made within the various
departments, according to what their needs are and what ability that they have
to make jobs available or funds available for jobs. As the member well knows, departments have
tremendous demands on their resources, and there are times when the money simply
is not there to be hiring on the Student Temporary Employment Program. Again, it is an estimate of what we feel the
departments are going to be doing in this coming year.
Ms. Barrett: So the minister feels that there will actually
be more money available in these department this year to provide STEP
positions? He is suggesting there will
be 27 additional students able to be placed over the actual from last
year. Maybe the actual figure is
difficult to estimate, but he is assuming there will be more students placed in
the STEP program, even though there is a substantial decrease in the figures
under the budget item.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Let me say to the member that we are hopeful
that departments will find those positions to hire students in Natural
Resources and Highways and other areas where they have budget issues that they
have to account for as well. Again,
through preliminary discussions with other departments, we would foresee some‑‑give
us some reason to assume there may be more hirings there.
Ms. Barrett: We will be watching that as carefully as our
eyes will allow us to do so, particularly in light of the downward slope from
estimated numbers last year to actual numbers last year and what is estimated
this year.
I would like to ask a few questions on the
CareerStart Program. Again, the minister
is now stating that the estimated number of students who will be uptaking their
CareerStart Program is now 3,550, which is an increase of 150 over the printed
figure in the Estimates book, and 550 over the estimate and actual for last year. Can the minister explain why he thinks that
there will be that increase in uptake in this program?
* (1600)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Again, this is an estimate on what the
employers are going to be seeking this year, and we are at a stage where there
are the applications flowing in. We are
in the middle of a process right now, and we are optimistic that there will be
a good uptake in the CareerStart.
One of the facts of life is that many of
those employers apply both for a CareerStart grant or grants as well as the
CHALLENGE program with the federal government, and we go through a process of
trying to ensure that people are not accessing both programs, but indications
are that we will be able to accommodate a few more students there this year. Again, as I say, we are in the middle of that
process, and those are our projections.
Ms. Barrett: Can the minister share with us the average
number of weeks to be worked per CareerStart applicant? They must have an estimate of how many weeks
they anticipate on average each CareerStart applicant will have of employment
this year.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The average is in the area of 10 weeks and, of
course, you are looking at students of different types. High school students perhaps are limited to
six or seven weeks in some cases, although in some areas they may be out in
June and not going back until September.
University students tend to look for
longer‑term employment as university classes are now over. I know some students are going to be finished
their programs and their exams in the next week or so, but employers perhaps do
not need to bring them on stream until sometime in May, so it varies, but the
average is around 10.
You have students who access some of these
who quit the job because perhaps it is not suitable, and there is maybe a time
lag before somebody else is hired.
Sometimes, if weather conditions play a part in it, jobs will either
start later or terminate earlier. Construction
is a good example of that. I know that
the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) would like to be building highways
today, but because of the weather is not able to do so. So there are a number
of variables, but probably around 10 weeks is an average.
Ms. Barrett: Is that the number of weeks that it is
anticipated students will actually work?
That is my understanding of what the minister is saying. What is the number of weeks that the
employers are requesting?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, again, it is an average of the number of
weeks that students work. There is a mix
there of high school and university plus the other caveats I put on it of
people perhaps not starting the position as early as perhaps they had
anticipated, or the position ending earlier.
There is a cost to the employer, so it is not a complete freebie to him
or her.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
It is like our Canada Assistance Plan
funding I suppose, where people encourage us to spend more because we get more
back. There is still a cost. So there are a lot of variables that come
into play in making those decisions.
Ms. Barrett: There certainly are some parallels between
the decrease in federal funding for a variety of programs and the decrease in
provincial funding for this program.
My question specifically was: How many weeks are employers requesting for
CareerStart, employers having been an employer who had CareerStart students for
two summers? I know that there is a cost
to the employer. I also know that there is
an enormous benefit to the employer and that many employers who are accessing
CareerStart students do so with the understanding that there are changes that
take place, that some students who might have the skills that would fit with
this particular organization will not be available as soon as possible, but
when you put in your application there is a request for a certain number of
weeks per application.
Can the minister tell me, on average, how
many weeks of employment potential CareerStart employers are requesting to be
funded for?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The maximum number of weeks that employers are
eligible for is 16 weeks. Probably the
average of the requests is around 13 weeks and the actual is around 10, but
that tends to vary somewhat from year to year as the reality of the job situations
come forward.
The member made some reference to the
Canada Assistance Plan and we have consistently accessed more funding through
that Canada Assistance Plan year over year to the point where we recover, I
believe, in excess of $300 million now through that Canada Assistance Plan. So that has been on the increase as our
programming and our own budgeting has increased. It is one of the building blocks of the
relationship between the Canadian provinces and the federal government, and it
is one that concerns us in terms of decisions that were made in three of the
provinces, but that program has been very beneficial to this department.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, I have absolutely no quarrel about the
beneficiality of the Canada Assistance Plan program historically and share the
minister's concern over the potential disintegration of that major building
block. We have discussed Canada
Assistance Plan particularly in Child Day Care already in these Estimates.
I would like to ask the minister if he can
tell us the average number of weeks worked by CareerStart students in '91‑92
and in 1991?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The figures that we gave you were the average
for 1991, but it is too bad, I suppose, that some provinces are looking beyond
the Canada Assistance Plan and beyond the other cost‑sharing plans to put
in special payments and charges for families for things like health care. I would hope that does not become the wave of
the future. It does point out the
difficulty that provincial governments are having in funding these social
programs and points out the means that are being taken in areas where spending
has been high and where taxes are at their limit and people are finding new
ways of taxing for these programs.
* (1610)
Ms. Barrett: Madam Chairperson, the potential situation the
minister is referring to, I am assuming, and I put heavy emphasis on potential
situation, is as a result of 10 years of Conservative government, and a
government that came in last fall finding a billion dollars in deficit, very
dissimilar to the situation facing the Filmon government when it came into
office almost four years ago with an operating surplus, not a half a billion
dollar deficit as it is now facing. Let
us just be accurate when we talk about the background of situations which have
not yet occurred.
My question to the minister on the average
number of weeks worked in CareerStart, he is telling me that the estimate for
'92‑93 is 10 weeks and the actual for '91‑92 was 10 weeks, if I
remember the actual small bit of information that was in the minister's latest
response. Can the minister tell me what
the average number of weeks worked in 1990‑91 was?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The numbers would be similar to what I have
given you.
Mrs. Carstairs: Before I begin to deal with the whole programs
in general, can the minister tell me if there were in fact any Northern Youth
Corps positions for the previous fiscal year?
Mr. Gilleshammer: No, there were not.
Mrs. Carstairs: When I was in Question Period earlier, I gave
a figure of 16,352. In fact, as a result
of the minister's figures, the figures are even worse because he gave us some
government placement figures which would have brought us up to 17,832. If one compares, I will give him his 950
government placements for this year plus an additional 150 for CareerStart, you
come up with a total of 14,500, which means that over the last two years there
has been a decrease of 18.7 percent in the number of opportunities available
or, if you would like the raw figure, 3,332.
Obviously, this is not a particular
section of the minister's budget that is getting the kind of attention that it
deserves. I would like to know if there
was any debate in the preparatory stage of this Estimates process about the
very severe increase in unemployment of young people between the ages of 15 and
24.
When this government came to office in
1988, those figures were already very high.
They have increased some 5 percent in the last two years, so that we are
now looking at an average unemployment rate between the ages of 15 and 24 of
some 18.6 percent, with a 22.7 percent unemployment rate for males between the
ages of 15 and 24. Was that part of the
budget debate over the last two years when it basically was decided that this
youth employment program initiative would be cut by some 18.7 percent?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, I want to assure the
member that the budget process is very thorough and very difficult, that
departmental staff are asked to bring forward some of the ideas within the
department that might be areas where we can reduce funding, and also we have to
look at areas where we want to expand programming. We are under, I suppose, a constant barrage
by advocacy groups and opposition critics to add more funding to all areas of
the budget. I wish I could say that
there was some area of the budget that was not providing needed services and
required funding.
You look at the list of people who are
receiving grants on the grants list, and you wonder there where perhaps you
could spend less. I know it appears to
be a popular move across
Just in the social allowances area, we
were lobbied extensively and within the department looked carefully at all of
those new program initiatives, whether it was the program for the handicapped,
or taking a look at the other areas of the program where we have to spend more
money, and also look at this area where we would like to spend more money as
well.
At some point you have to evaluate where
the greatest need is, and even at that we are spending close to 9 percent more
money. You look at some of the other
departments across government, where there have been major reductions in
positions and reductions in other areas, and Family Services has come out quite
well in terms of the total budget.
You know, these are extremely difficult
decisions, and I want to assure the member that a debate and discussions do
take place and all of these decisions are very, very difficult.
We talk to municipal levels of
government. This morning I was at a bear‑pit
session with the MAUM officials, and it was not that long ago, in fact last
Friday afternoon, we met with the executive of UMM. Their recommendations are for more capital
being spent on infrastructure and development; at the same time they are asking
us to keep taxes down.
The taxes on property and farm land as it
relates to education are always a part of the equation. To access more funding, we are either going
to have to find that from within, create more taxes‑‑and you get a
very clear message, and all governments are getting a very clear message, that
increased taxes are not in the cards.
The other alternative, of course, is to increase the deficit, and we are
seeing government after government across this country trying to stay away from
those immense deficits.
I recall my first meeting in Ontario with
a minister, who was appointed at the same time I was, talking in rather
enthusiastic terms of how an $8‑billion deficit was necessary. Then shortly after that the minister was
changed, and the deficit was rising to $10 billion, $12 billion and $14
billion, and they were scrambling desperately to find ways of being able to
contain it.
All of these things come into the equation
when we talk about where our funding is going to be placed and where our
priorities are.
Even in these really difficult times, we
are maintaining our CareerStart Program at last year's levels and maybe a
little above; we are creating a new program; we are hopeful that in the STEP
program that other departments will be able to provide more programming. I wish we could do more. Through the Manitoba Youth Job Centres, we
hope that the training programs that we give to those young student managers is
going to allow them to go out into the private market and encourage business
people and others to hire more students, that they are going to be able to
place more students. We would like to do
more.
I think the Partners with Youth Program
that we are going to announce later this week has a lot of potential in
attracting more funding from private groups on projects, whether it be
municipal governments or entrepreneurs or nonprofit organizations out there
that want to get into some of the infrastructure development and some of the
environmental projects that we would envision that would leave behind something
tangible. So this is a new direction
that we are looking at that we are going to announce shortly. We hope it will be a welcome addition to the
youth programming that we currently have.
* (1620)
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, not to let the minister put things on
the record that I am sure he would be ashamed to read later on, the deficit of
this province has increased. It is up to
$531 million. It has not decreased. It has increased significantly over last year
in terms of so thick the cuts to this particular program, and it is a cut to
this line, is not helping this government keep the deficit in control, because
the deficit is not in control. Let us
face facts. I mean, there is $2,100 less
being spent in this particular section than was spent last year.
I would like to specifically address the
STEP program because I am very confused.
In 1991‑92, you required staff years 117. Now you need staff years
at 89. If one looks at what those
salaries would be for those staff years, they would have increased by 9.8
percent, going from an average of $1,834 to an average of $2,033. This does not make any sense to me. Perhaps the minister can make sense of it. If you are trying to find it, it is in this
book on page 77.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Within the Department of Family Services, we
have reduced some of the STEP staff years that would have shown up last
year. Those staff years are based on a
full year and the students, more than one, can occupy that particular staff year.
Within the budget that we have, and we
reduced that because the uptake last year was not as great as we thought it
would be, there is a reduction of some 25 staff years within that. But we would still be able to accommodate
some 300 students within the STEP program.
Mrs. Carstairs: My concern is that in reducing the staff
years, if one takes 117 staff years and divides it by 214,000 you come out with
a staff year component of 1,834. Now you
do the same thing, and you come out with a staff year of 2,033 which is a
percentage increase of 9.8 percent.
These are not permanent people. They are not even subject to Civil Service
guidelines. Why would there be that kind
of an increase?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the dollar amount shown there is
not the dollar amount that funds those staff years. The staff years are funded by the departments
that use them. This is additional
funding that is used for special needs.
Mrs. Carstairs: That is different, because normally when one
sees the figure next to staff year, it is in fact the figure for the staff
year. But if it is for special needs,
and you are anticipating there is going to be more people that are going to be
covered this year than last year, how come your special needs has gone down so
much?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Those special needs funded three specific
programs that will not be operating at the level they were operating at last
year.
Mrs. Carstairs: It was my understanding that there were only
two special initiatives. One was
disabled students and the other was the Quebec Exchange. Is there a third program that is not
mentioned in the Detailed Estimates, and in what way are those three programs
not going to be offered at the same level?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There were four components within this
particular line. The Disabled component,
the Quebec Exchange, the AIESEC program and the Shad Valley Program. Those latter two programs, the last one being
for gifted students, and the second last one was an international work
exchange, are going to be funded within other departments if they are going to
proceed.
Mrs. Carstairs: I am very familiar with the Shad Valley
Program. Can the minister tell me which
particular department is now looking to fund that?
Mr. Gilleshammer: One of those will be found within I, T and T
and another one within the Department of Finance.
Mrs. Carstairs: In light of the other information that in
fact the staff years component on page 77 did not correspond with the amounts
of money, is that also true for the Manitoba job centre, Volunteers in Public
Service, Manitoba CareerStart? How are
they broken down?
Mr. Gilleshammer: This appropriation appears different than most
others in that the dollar figure is for staff salaries as well as the operating
component of that.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is it possible to get a breakdown for each of
the categories, if not today, sometime in the future, as to what is staff years
and what is the operating part?
* (1630)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we will provide that for the critics.
Madam Chairperson: Item 5.(d)(2) Youth Programs $3,544,600‑‑pass.
5.(d)(3) Human Resources Opportunity
Program (a) Salaries $1,216,600‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures
$168,200‑‑pass; (c) Financial Assistance $166,500‑‑pass;
(d)
5.(d)(4) Employability Enhancement.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, again comparing the Estimates book for
this year to the Estimates book for last year, again in the context of the
horrendous unemployment statistics that the youth of Manitoba are facing this
year, can the minister explain why the Single Parent Job Access figures,
estimate to estimate, and the Gateway Program, estimate to estimate, are the
same from last year as to this year, and why there has been a decrease of
almost 100 clients‑‑grant funding to support clients under
community‑based employability projects?
The Estimates last year said 325; the Estimates this year say 230.
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have held the expenditure for the Single
Parent Job Access and the Gateway Programs at last year's level, and we have
done some evaluation of where we have been more successful. Some of the community‑based
employability projects that were part of the programming last year will not be
part of it in this budget year.
Ms. Barrett: Can the minister explain what parts of the
community‑based employability projects will no longer be part of that
line item?
Mr. Gilleshammer: In evaluating the projects, that there were
fewer of them that will be accommodated, we have looked at the ones that were
more successful, and we will proceed with those. Some of the others will not be
part of the program.
Ms. Barrett: Not a great deal of clarity, but can the
minister give to us a list of the projects that will be funded under the
community‑based employability projects line and also the corresponding
projects from '91‑92.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can indicate some of the approved Community
Based Employability Projects from last year.
Some of those groups may not be bringing forward projects in this budget
year. So I will give you a list of some of the organizations and project
names: Anishinaabe RESPECT was one of
them; Association for Community Living in Beausejour; Association for Community
Living in Interlake; Children's Home of Winnipeg; Resources for Women; Native
Employment Services; Premier Personnel; Salvation Army Addictions and
Rehabilitation Services; Sara Riel Incorporated; Trainex Industries; Waso
Incorporated; Winnipeg Boys and Girls Clubs; and Youth Employment Corps.
Again, those were last year's
Employability Projects.
Ms. Barrett: Those are from last year, and are those same
projects all going to be funded this year, have they all put forward funding
applications for this year as well?
Mr. Gilleshammer: They have not all come forward at this point
with a project and the evaluation and decisions have not been made at this
time.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, I would like to ask the minister, again,
if he could clarify why it was felt that this money that went to these projects
last year was not effectively spent. I
am assuming that is what they decided, because there will be fewer projects
funded for far fewer clients. Can the
minister tell us why he chose to eliminate this funding from this line?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Again, it is basically a decision of where we
want to put our funding. In some cases
these programs or programs similar to them will be brought forward as
applicants under the Employability Projects.
For instance, we talked about Premier Personnel yesterday, I believe it
was. There are some possibilities, I
think, of finding some funding from another area of the department or from
within this area if that becomes a priority.
Again, I guess government cannot simply go
on from year to year doing, not only the same thing it did the previous year in
trying to add new programs and enhance these without making some decisions and
changes. So there will be some difficult
decisions to make in terms of which projects are funded and which ones will,
you know, meet the guidelines of the program best.
At this time, some of them have not
reapplied and some have.
Ms. Barrett: Even if all of those agencies reapplied this
year, there would be fewer funds and fewer positions available because the
department has made that determination.
* (1640)
I find it interesting that, again,
comparing the figures that we looked at last July in the Estimates, for this
area there has been a reduction of over half a million dollars from the
estimated expenditures in this Employability Enhancement program line, to the
Estimates of this year, and almost half a million dollars less in the actual
amount spent in this line to the Estimates for 1992‑93.
I find that very interesting in light of
the fact that every single person who accesses the programs under this line is
a recipient of social assistance. When
80 percent of the funding increase in the Department of Family Services in 1992‑93
is going specifically to maintain the mandated social assistance recipients'
funding, that at the same time that there is that enormous increase‑‑an
acknowledgement on the part of the government that our economic situation, for
a variety of reasons, is not improving and will not improve for the most
vulnerable people in our province‑‑at the same time that he is
recognizing that we need to put all of that additional money into basic maintenance
of social assistance recipients, he is cutting access to programs that are
designed to assist people on social assistance to get off of social assistance.
How can the minister explain the cost
effectiveness, the long‑term viability, of that approach? Why is he cutting half a million dollars out
of programs such as this, and at the same he is adding 80 percent of his
additional funding into social assistance payments, which are not designed to
enable people to get off social assistance as these programs are? What is the logic behind that movement?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have indicated to the member that there are
difficult decisions that are made in terms of expending more funding within
this department, that we simply have not been able to add additional funding to
each and every line within the budget.
In the whole area of training, and we were talking about that earlier,
there are other departments which are providing some training and coming
forward with some new training programs in Labour and in Education.
If the member is saying, are we doing
everything we would like to do within the department, there is always more in
every aspect of this department that we could do and we would like to do, but
we have to work within certain budget limitations. We look at the success rate of some of these
programs and make determinations that perhaps we can do a little less here, so
we can do a little more somewhere else.
Overall, we have increased the total
budgeting for the department in excess of 8.5 percent, some $51 million. The member, you know, consistently comes back
to the fact that $40 million of that is for social allowances, and that is the
reality of it. A portion of that is on
the increase in rates, but there is then some volume increase at the provincial
level, a greater volume increase at the level of the municipal organizations
that fund social allowances.
We have been able to basically maintain
most of this program with some program adjustments that are taking place, and
we will look more carefully at the programming that is brought forward. The
member, I think, wants us to provide more money in some areas. Well, we cannot simply keep adding without
looking at what we are doing.
Ms. Barrett: Can the minister share with us the success
rate, estimated or actual, for these various programs that he is reducing in
this line?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can give some general evaluation of the
programs that we are talking about here.
This dates back to the previous year's programming. It indicated 68 percent of all completers
were either working or were enrolled in further education or training, 49
percent of completers held at least one job after program completion with an
average wage of $7.91 per hour. That was
in '89‑90. Social assistance
dependency decreased 90 days after program completion, and 21 percent of
completers who received income support were enrolled in further education or
training. So I do not have a breakdown
per program here, but I believe we do have that information in the department
where those programs were evaluated.
Ms. Barrett: I am wondering if the minister could give me‑‑I
know this is going back to a different line‑‑but the number of
individuals who are on social assistance in the
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that on the provincial social
allowance list we have between 26,500 and 27,000 cases.
Ms. Barrett: In the minister's earlier discussions with the
member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) on the Human Resources Opportunity Centre
closing in Selkirk, he stated that the success rate for HROC in Selkirk was
approximately 67 percent, and the program in
* (1650)
It does not appear that these programs are
simply a revolving door where the students come in, the clients come in for the
program, leave the program and then immediately go back onto social assistance
or come back into accessing these kinds of programs. There appears to be a fairly substantial
success rate.
So I am wondering, if that is the case,
and the success rate appears to be similar to the Human Resources Opportunity
Centre in Winnipeg that is remaining open, why the minister would choose to
decrease by half a million dollars the funding for these external programs, a
very high percentage increase year over year, when it would appear that they
have at least as good, if not better, success rate than other programs that are
continuing to be funded.
Mr. Gilleshammer: As I indicated before, we do have to evaluate
the success rate of the various programs and how they are delivered, and make
decisions on not only which ones are the most appropriate and most successful,
but also take a look at the type of training that is leading people to either
further training or employment, and make some difficult decisions.
The ideal solution, of course, would be to
have thousands of dollars for each individual who is on social allowance to get
them retraining, and then have them access a job to enable them to look after
themselves. That would, of course, lead
to a tremendous increase in the social allowance line of the budget for the training
component of it.
We are cognizant of the fact that some of
the training programs are more successful than the others, and we have to make
those decisions and decide which is the most appropriate training for the
1990s.
Ms. Barrett: In the evaluation that has been undertaken by
the department in this area, I would assume, given the fact that the Single
Parent Job Access and Gateway have been maintained and the community‑based
employability projects funding has been decreased, that those first two seem to
be more effective.
My final question is: What happened to the Job Access for Young
Adults Program that had a quarter of a million dollars last year and nothing
this year?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The two programs where we have had the most
positive feedback are the Single Parent Job Access and the Gateway Program, and
those applicants who were served in the Job Access for Young Adults will have
to access those other two programs for their training. But we have had very positive feedback on
those two in particular, and anything that I have seen or heard about the
Single Parent Job Access or the Gateway has been very, very positive.
Mrs. Carstairs: If they have been so positive, and if it was
decided for some reason or other that community‑based employability
projects were not as effective, why was the money from community‑based
employability projects that was going to be cut, not been put into Single
Parent Job Access and at Gateway so that more clients could be handled in this
successful way?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That goes back to, I suppose, my comments
earlier. We have to look at the entire
department and where we place our funding priorities. There are other demands that are out there,
and we will proceed with Single Parent Job Access and Gateway with the funding
that is available and I think be able to accommodate as many applicants there
as we had before. As I have indicated,
we are also introducing a new program, the Partners with Youth as well this year. Certainly there is some decline in the amount
of dollars for the community‑based employability projects, some of which
are funded in part by the federal government.
We will have to take a close look at the projects that come forward and
see that they are in fact being successful.
We are not sure at this time whether all of those organizations will be
applying for projects this year. We will
have to not only look at the projects, but at the total cost that it is going
to be to government.
Mrs. Carstairs: The minister points to some success with these
clients, and if one just takes the dollar value and the number of clients it
would look as if the training component costs about $40 to $100 per
client. It is not obviously easy to do
it exactly that way, but one looking at dollars and one looking at clients.
Has any long term study been done on a 48
percent success rate, if that is the success rate for this thing, as to what
that means in reducing numbers for social assistance? Forty‑eight percent of them find
jobs. That presumably means that of the
1,050 clients served, 525 of them go off the welfare system and find themselves
as employees. Is this not a very cost‑effective
program or has that kind of study and evaluation not been done?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that in the analysis that the
department has done there is a three‑ to five‑year payback on the
funding invested in training here. Of
course some of these clients are able to access employment initially and then
perhaps be back in the system again if that particular position is lost for whatever
reason. I think one of the facts of life
is that sometimes the training is not as portable as we would like, or is as
broad as we would like so that they can access other positions. There does appear to be a payback over a
three‑ to five‑year period.
Again, there is a significant number of dollars put into the training
component; for some it is successful, for others it is not.
Madam Chairperson: 5.(d) Special Employment Programs.
Ms. Barrett: I would just like to ask the minister if he
has actually done that evaluation of the three‑ to five‑year
payback and figured out what the cost effectiveness of those programs at that
time frame is, as it relates to the cost of social assistance.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, the department has done a study on that.
* (1700)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., and time for private
members' hour, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members'
hour.
Committee
Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): 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 Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the
committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Six o'clock.
Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock? Is it agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: It is agreed.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned
until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).