LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
OF
Thursday, June 10,
1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Eliette Levreault, Gisele
Labossiere, Suzanne Delaquis and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Health Program to the level
it was prior to the '93‑94 budget.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Debbie Pittet, Gilbert
Pittet, Ryan McKimmie and others requesting the Minister of Health consider
restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94
budget.
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Santos). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr.
Chomiak). It complies with the
privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1005)
Mr. Speaker:
J'ai examine la petition et celle‑ci est conforme aux privileges
et pratiques de la Chambre et respecte les regles de procedure. L'Assemblee desire‑t‑elle que
l'on procede a la lecture de cette petition? (entendu)
(Translation)
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition (Ms. Friesen). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk:
La petition des citoyens, ici soussignes, de la province du
VU QUE le
VUE QUE au‑dessus de 55,000 enfants
se fient au programme dentaire pour enfants; et
VU QUE nombre d'etudes ont demontre
l'epargne due aux couts attribuables des programmes preventifs de soins de
sante tels que le programme dentaire des enfants; et
VU QUE le programme dentaire pour les
enfants est en vigueur depuis 17 ans et a ete reconnu etant tres effectif en
epargnes realisees et de necessite primordiale pour les familles habitant des
regions isolees; et
VU QUE le gouvernement provincial n'a
consulte ni les pourvoyeurs ou les clients du programme avant d'annoncer la
coupure de 44 ou 49 dentistes, garde‑dentaires et auxiliaires qui
administraient le programme; et
VU QUE le programme preventif de la sante
fait partie composante du plan de la reforme de la sante.
PAR CONSEQUENT vos petitionnaires
supplient l'Assemblee Legislative du Manitoba soit sollicitee de demander au
Ministre de la Sante de considerer a restaurer le Programme Dentaire des
enfants au niveau dont il beneficiait avant le budget 1993/1994.
(English version)
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
I was wondering if there might be leave to revert to presenting
petitions?
Mr. Speaker:
Is there leave to revert to presenting petitions? (agreed)
PRESENTING PETITIONS
(continued)
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Jerry Primrose, Charlie
Joe Hart, Violet Turner and others requesting the government of
* * *
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Anne Hofer, Susan Hofer,
John Hofer and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to
consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to
the 1993‑94 budget.
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Acting
Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Fourth
Report of the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources
presents the following as its Fourth Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, June 8,
1993, at 7:30 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Mr. Tom Stefanson, Chairperson; Mr. Oz
Pedde, President and Chief Executive Officer; Ms. Heather Nault, Vice‑President
Corporate and Regulatory Affairs and Corporate Secretary; Mr. Barry Gordon,
Vice‑President Network Services and Mr. Bill Fraser, Vice‑President
Finance provided such information as was requested with respect to the Annual
Reports and business of The Manitoba Telephone System.
Your committee has considered the Annual
Reports of the Manitoba Telephone System for the years ended December 31, 1991,
and December 31, 1992 and has adopted the same as presented.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Laurendeau:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Motion agreed to.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Video Lottery
Terminals Economic Impact‑Legions
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):
My question is to the First Minister.
Mr. Speaker, for some time now, decisions
have been made by the provincial government dealing with gambling and lotteries
in a back‑room kind of way and announced in a rather ad hoc fashion by the
provincial government, with no discussions about the economic impacts and a
retroactive review of the social impacts of gambling.
Today, Mr. Speaker, there is a report
dealing with the impact of video lottery terminals on jobs in legions and army,
navy, and air force veterans' organizations.
I would like to ask the Premier: Has he reviewed the economic impact of this
situation, and will there be jobs lost in the legions in
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the
Minister responsible for Lotteries (Mrs. Mitchelson).
Social Costs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): One would have assumed the cabinet would have
reviewed the economic impacts of the decisions prior to the government
announcing the decisions being made.
Mr. Speaker, the government has announced
a social impact study which will be completed by the end of June. This study will evaluate the social
implications of the changes in gambling.
I would like to ask the Premier if the
study indicates that there are negative social costs to gambling in
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question.
Mr. Doer: It is not hypothetical. They have already made the decisions,
announced the expansion for September 1, 1993.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
Premier: Does he have a contingency
plan, for the social cost implications, that includes the freezing of gambling
expansion if the social costs are identified by the study that the government
had? Presumably, that study should have
been done before they expanded gambling, not in midterm. That is not hypothetical, that is real.
Do they have a contingency plan to deal
with the study they expect in June, when they have already announced the
expansion in September?
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, the question is certainly hypothetical, and the member is
certainly hypocritical.
It was his government that brought in
gambling in a big way to
* (1010)
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's Citation 489 is
very clear that the word "hypocritical" is unparliamentary. I would ask that you have the First Minister
withdraw that, and answer the very serious questions that are being asked about
VLTs and the impact it is having on legions, army, navy, air force, and society
in general.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. On the point of
order raised, the honourable opposition House leader is indeed correct.
"Hypocritical" does show up on the unparliamentary list. (interjection) No, it does not show up
on both lists. I would ask the
honourable First Minister to withdraw that one word.
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker:
I would like to thank the honourable First Minister.
School Division
Boundary Review Government
Polling
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
Mr. Speaker, the government and this minister and ministers before have
bounced the issue of boundary review for school divisions in this province all
over the map.
First, they promised in the last election
that there was going to be a boundary review.
They reconfirmed that in the throne speech. Then they said that they were going to have
to delay it. Then they said it was on
again, then they said it was off. Now,
finally, they are saying there is a better time to consider it, this Minister
of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) just said.
We know what is causing the confusion now
and the delay, because the government seems to be governing by focus groups and
polling.
We understand this morning that the
chairperson of the Winnipeg School Division said that the public is being
polled to determine whether there should be a boundary review, how many
trustees there should be on the review, and so on.
Will the minister now come clean to this
House and confirm that polling is in fact taking place and that she is not
making an imminent announcement as she said, but she is awaiting the results of
the‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I can certainly
tell the member I have absolutely no knowledge of any polling being conducted,
but perhaps the member may have some knowledge from other groups which may be
polling.
School Division
Boundary Review
Government Polling
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
I want to ask the Premier's position on this then. He probably knows about the polling. He has not told his Minister of Education for
very good‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Question, please.
Mr. Plohman:
What is the Premier's position on the issue of boundary? Is he simply waiting for the results of the
polling that is going on that he is undertaking right now, or is he confirming
that the Minister of Education is indeed making an announcement imminently on
boundary review?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the member is talking about with
respect to polling.
* (1015)
Mr. Plohman:
I understand why he would not want to talk about it.
I want to ask the Premier whether in fact
he will confirm today that he is also polling on the performance of his Education
minister, and will he promise today to release the results of that poll when it
is completed and abide by the results‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Mr. Filmon:
Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, and that is the kind of drivel that has put
the New Democrats in the position they are in this province with no
credibility. No‑talent drivel,
that is all we get out of that side.
Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation
Premium Increase
Justification
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
On May 6 of this year, the minister
unveiled his plan for no‑fault injury insurance in the House, and the
presentation included very fancy graphs forecasting that personal injury claims
costs would be going through the roof but for this plan.
MPIC has now applied to the PUB for a 9.5
percent increase in insurance premiums, which will give them a $33.6‑million
boost in revenues. That is double the
$17.7‑million loss for last year, Mr. Speaker, and the quarterly report
tabled yesterday shows that claims costs, year over year, actually declined by
more than 5 percent in the last year.
It is now obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the
application to the PUB is part of the bigger PR scam to scare Manitobans into
no‑fault insurance.
My question for the minister: On what is this minister basing his need, and
MPIC's, for a 9.5 percent revenue increase, when the fact is their claims costs
are going down? The fact is, that will
net revenue double what last year's loss was.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged
with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):
Mr. Speaker, MPIC is quite capable of defending its rate structure in
front of the PUB, but I am quite puzzled by the Leader of the Second
Opposition, when he says our claims costs are going down. Does he mean it is okay for us to only lose
half as much as we lost last year?
Mr. Edwards:
The fact is they are asking for double the money of their loss last
year, and claims have gone down by 5 percent, Mr. Speaker.
No-Fault Auto
Insurance
Claims Costs
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): My second question for the same
minister: When this government unveiled
this plan to move to no‑fault, again, the graphs showed that the future
would have spiralling claims costs.
What was the government basing its
projections on when they made those bell curves in that nice‑looking
pamphlet, Mr. Speaker, and will they now be spending another $200,000 to tell
Manitobans that, in fact, they were wrong?
In fact, the claims costs have gone
down. In fact, the 9.5‑percent
revenue request out of the PUB is an absolute scam based on the current
financial projections in their own quarterly report yesterday.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged
with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to be too abusive to the new Leader at
this juncture in his tenure, but it is obvious‑‑I would give him
the benefit of the doubt that he just does not understand the figures that were
put forward, because if he thinks the people of this province are going to be
fooled by the idea that we can only lose half as much this year, then his credibility
just went down the toilet. (interjection)
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) apparently would like to answer some questions
here. You will have an opportunity, I am
sure.
The honourable Leader of the second
opposition party now has the floor.
Mr. Edwards:
Mr. Speaker, I think the people of this province are asking why a
government spends $200,000 selling them something without telling them the
details. That is the question of credibility,
and that is the tough question for this minister.
Revenue Transfers
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my final question for this
minister: He is basing it on the Quebec‑style
program. The Quebec Crown corporation
now has had increased profits and is sending those profits into the general
revenue of the province. It has become a
form of taxation in
My question for this minister: With the additional revenues, is that his
plan? Is he modelling on the
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged
with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):
Well, again, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to ridicule the new Leader of the
second party, but when he was out campaigning, I explained in this House before
that the legislation under which MPIC operates does not allow government to
strip any profits out. I have no
intention of changing that.
I wish he would quit putting incorrect
information on the record about the amount of money the corporation spent to
put the information in front of the public.
He is wrong.
Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation
Public Utilities Board
Application
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Minister responsible
for MPIC.
Last year, the corporation filed its final
position with the Public Utilities Board as late as October, because cabinet
refused to allow the corporation to cap agency fees at 3 percent, causing rate
increases to be higher than they would have been originally.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the
minister: Why does MPIC have to file for
an increase now in the face of the no‑fault legislation which is before
this House?‑‑because what is happening now, the way it is
happening, it gives every appearance of a pure political ploy.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged
with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member for
I think if he were to check the records,
he would find that MPIC filed in early June last year, and I would venture a
guess it was around the 12th of June, which seems to me is pretty close to the
time we are at right now.
Mr. Speaker, I would think that of anybody
in this House, the long‑serving member for Brandon East should recognize
that no one should assume anything in terms of legislation coming out of this
House in the same manner in which it goes in.
An Honourable Member:
What about Sunday shopping?
* (1020)
Mr. Cummings:
That is exactly my point.
Legislation, until it is passed and proclaimed, is not law. It seems to me only fair and reasonable‑‑(interjection)
Mr. Speaker, it would be foolhardy on my
part, or anyone else's, to assume that the public is going to be fooled by the
kinds of comments that we are getting on the other side.
If the corporation cannot prepare its
books and proceed under the existing legislation as they have done, then how is
the public to judge the veracity of the records that have been presented? The fact is this is a logical progression,
and the amendment will be filed, if necessary, in the fall, the same as last
year.
Mr. Leonard Evans:
Mr. Speaker, we seem to have one standard for Sunday shopping and
another standard for this type of legislation.
NoFault Auto Insurance
Legislation
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister then: Why did the minister and MPIC spend, I think,
probably about $200,000‑‑a large amount of money, anyway‑‑to
advertise no‑fault insurance, saying that it is going to save millions of
dollars, and now argues that he must file for an increase because he is not
confident that the legislation will pass?
I hope he is getting the support of his
own caucus. Is there some problem in not
getting the legislation passed?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged
with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):
Well, Mr. Speaker, given that the official opposition is on record as
supporting this legislation, I think we can expect the corporation to be
bringing forward its amendments this fall.
There is a lot more in the application
that goes before the Public Utilities Board than just injury compensation. I think the member for Brandon East is
probably more aware of that than anyone else in this House. That is only one portion of what is included
in insurance cost that goes into the rate structure in this province.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and open
process. The Public Utilities Board and
those who wish to intervene will have an opportunity to ask questions, put
interrogatories on the record, and all those will be dealt with in due course
at the public hearings.
Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation
Agent Fees
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a straightforward question.
Is the minister now ready to cap brokers'
fees this year to ensure that Autopac rates will be kept as low as
possible? Will they stand up to the auto
insurance brokers lobbying on this matter on behalf of the motorists of
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged
with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I presume the member is then
saying that he would prefer to have a government‑run bureaucracy handle
the Autopac renewals in this province if he does not want to use the existing
system.
Mr. Speaker, it is very apparent to me the
members are grasping for straws to try to find something to criticize about the
program MPIC has embarked upon.
The process is open. The process is clear. The interrogatories can be filed with the
PUB, and when the legislation is passed in the exact form it is passed in, then
the corporation will file its amended application.
Irrigation
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, a review of the Pembina Valley Water Co‑operative's
environmental impact statement on the
My question for the government is: What assurance can they give that the water
freed up from the diversion would not allow for increased irrigation, would not
be allocated for increased irrigation from the aquifers in the area?
* (1025)
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I regret that my friends in the
opposition, it seems at all levels from both parties, simply have not
recognized how water prudently and responsibly used can aid in the economic
development of one of the most productive regions of our province.
If the honourable member wishes to cause
me some embarrassment about acknowledging the important role of irrigation in
providing jobs and added‑value product to the things this province can
produce, she is simply on the wrong track.
What the report alludes to is that,
regrettably, because of the chronic water shortage in the area, I have been
forced to break my own Water Rights Act on several occasions for important
communities like Winkler and Altona when they have come in desperation and
asked for further access to current aquifers, which are already being drawn to
full maximum levels.
In the community of Winkler, I just
authorized three additional wells a year ago by which, against the better
advice within the department although we had no alternative, we are in fact
taking water out of that aquifer beyond its sustainability, at about 130
percent.
What this and what the report and what the
member draws to our attention is, the proposal that is currently before the
Clean Environment Commission would allow us to more responsibly manage those
aquifers.
Ms. Cerilli:
Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain that with irrigation as the sixth
of the priority uses or the sixth allocated use for water, does this government
think it is appropriate to transfer water from one region, adversely affecting
that region, to supplement another region that has depleted its water supply
from irrigation?
Mr. Enns:
Mr. Speaker, ground water is generally, in fact, totally, not used for
irrigation purposes. There is one
exception, one long, outstanding licensee that has had access to it out of a
gravel pit or source, but ground water is not used for irrigation purposes.
Mr. Speaker, the honourable member keeps
raising the question of irrigation.
Allow me to introduce to honourable members the fact that it is not this
government. Previous governments, indeed
the federal government, have acknowledged that in this particular part of
It was none other than the Honourable John
S. Plohman, Minister of Natural Resources, supported by the Honourable Eugene
Kostyra, then Minister of Finance, along with the federal Minister of
Agriculture, then the Honourable Minister Wise, who commissioned this $1‑million
report at taxpayers' expense to indicate how 250,000 acres could be irrigated
in southern
Ms. Cerilli:
I would ask the Minister of Natural Resources, if this current project
is not going to benefit irrigation interests, then why is the irrigation
association spending $300,000 to advocate for the project?
Mr. Enns:
Mr. Speaker, the Pembina Valley Co‑operative, consisting of some
15 municipalities in the southern part of
NoFault Auto Insurance
Private Insurers
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, again, I want to follow up on
the answers of the Minister for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
Another aspect of the
Mr. Speaker, my question for the
minister: Can the minister tell members
of this House what the projected income gain of the private insurers in
* (1030)
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged
with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):
Mr. Speaker, obviously the Leader of the Second Opposition does not
agree that $55,000 maximum will cover 90 percent of the population of this
province. If he disagrees with that,
then I hope he has figures to back that up and bring it to committee.
I have inquired as to how much additional
or, if you will, income insurance upper‑income earners have been taking
out in
The member wished to follow up on his
previous questions. I would like to
follow up on my previous answer. The
corporation spent about $90,000 putting the information in the hands of the
province.
Mr. Edwards:
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that this is a reduction in benefits for
thousands and thousands‑‑
An Honourable Member:
No.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, it is.
Income Replacement‑Seniors
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Now, my question for the minister: On what basis will people 65 and over be
denied income benefits, reducing 25 percent per year until age 68 when they
will get nothing? On what basis will
that be done, regardless of what actual income they had prior to the accident,
regardless of any of that? Has the
minister sought a legal opinion as to their ability to defend this age
discrimination?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged
with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):
Mr. Speaker, the member has tried to imply that this is regardless of
their record. They will receive income
replacement based on the status that they are within at that particular
time. If they are employed, they will
receive income replacement.
Let the member not characterize this as
being a reduction in benefits. There are
many times under the tort system where a person may receive $2‑million or
$3‑million worth of benefits being awarded in the court, and the person
may not have that much insurance, so it is a crap game.
Mr. Edwards:
Mr. Speaker, if it was a crap game before, it is sure a crap game
now. The fact is, and the minister knows
this, this is a cost‑cutting measure on the backs of injured motorists in
this province.
Claim Cap
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): My final question for the minister: The minister's propaganda machine has told us
it is all about personal injury claims.
That is the problem. Eighty‑nine
percent of personal injury claims are six months or less, whiplash claims for
under $10,000. He knows that.
Why has he thrown the baby out with the
bathwater? Why did he not do what
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged
with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):
Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly apparent where the Liberal Party
stands on no‑fault insurance in this province. They are dead set against it.
I would not be so foolish as to attempt to
put into place the type of very convoluted no‑fault system that went in
in
Barley Marketing
Minister's Position
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake):
Mr. Speaker, opposition to the unilateral decision of the federal
government to open the border to barley is growing steadily. Yesterday, 30 farm leaders from groups such as
the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, pools and the Wheat Board Advisory
Committee have all called for a change on opening the border to barley.
I would like to quote: "'We cannot stand by while one of the
marketing systems which was designed by farmers, and which serves the majority
of producers . . . is weakened by the Government of
Will the Minister of Agriculture join with
these groups and support the marketing board system?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, just for the member's knowledge,
the Canadian Wheat Board will still have an opportunity to sell in the
Mr. Speaker, I am positive the Wheat Board
will sell in the
The member does not recognize the fact
that 11 of the 19 members on the barley commission supported the study that was
done, supported the fact that there are additional market opportunities in the
I would also like to remind the member
that since the oats was taken away from the Canadian Wheat Board, the sales to
the
Mr. Clif Evans:
Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question as to whether he
supports the marketing board system.
Plebiscite
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake):
I would like to quote from the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board
Advisory Committee: "'A barley
plebiscite would give all producers a right to choose a marketing system that
would be right for the industry as a whole.'"
My question for the minister: Will this minister add his support to let
farmers decide whether or not barley should be removed from the Wheat Board,
and why will he not support the request for a plebiscite?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer in
Mr. Speaker, if the member would pay
attention to the federal timetable, the ultimate plebiscite will come up later
this year called the federal election.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake):
I would like to table the news releases and the reports from the farm
leaders.
Why does this Minister of Agriculture
insist on ignoring the wishes and needs of
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, there is no question there is a
divergence of opinion. I can quote, 11
out of the 19 members on the commission supported the study. I can show him a list of farm organizations
that support the initiative. He has a
list that does not support it.
So people will make their decision. If they want to sell barley to the
People believe in choice in this world,
Mr. Speaker, and farmers need competition.
They need more sales to the
Personal Care Homes
Fee Schedule‑Means
Test
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health confirmed that personal
care home administrators will be administering and implementing the new massive
increases to residents in nursing homes.
There are two fundamental changes
here. First, massive increases and a
means test. Second, the administrators
would now be forced to do not only the collecting, but the calculating, et
cetera.
My question to the minister: Can the minister advise this House whether
these people will be forced to submit their income tax reforms and statements
of income to these nursing home administrators?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, I indicated the answers to that
yesterday. My honourable friend might
want to refer to the transcript of Hansard.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, why, less than 60 days before the implementation of this
massive change, is the minister refusing to answer questions such as, what is
the definition of family income? What is
the lowest threshold for the increase?
How many are going to be forced to pay this massive, almost doubling of
the rates?
These are very valid concerns for
thousands and thousands of Manitobans.
Why is he refusing to answer, if he has a policy in place?
* (1040)
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend uses a lot of rhetorical flourish in terms
of his preamble and his alarmist intentions of questioning.
As I have explained to my honourable
friend, the increase to $46 parallels
Mr. Speaker, I have explained to my
honourable friend that the increased charges will only be applicable to those
with the ability to pay the additional costs.
The alternative, quite frankly‑‑and it appears as if my
honourable friend is in favour of the alternative‑‑that those very
same taxpayers my honourable friend claims are being impacted by all sorts of
decisions nationally, provincially, municipally, and do not have ability to
pay, he wants them to contribute taxes to sustain people in personal care homes
who have the ability to pay.
Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting change
in position on this issue that my honourable friend appears to be putting
before the people of
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the minister either does not care or does not
know. He has not answered any of the
questions, nor has he told the thousands of Manitobans what is going to happen
and whether their income tax forms will now be submitted to these
administrators.
My final question to the minister is: Can the minister advice this House whether
people who have been panelled for placement in nursing homes will also be
required to pay these massive increases and submit their tax forms or whatever
to hospital administrators, who now, I suppose, will be forced to administer
this program as well?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend might be reminded of the history of
the per diem charges for panelled patients who are resident in hospital. That initiative was brought in I believe in
1985 by his colleagues on the front bench.
Mr. Speaker, we did not disagree with that
policy when it was brought in, even though we could have politicized the issue
because it was appropriate. That policy
brought in by the NDP in 1985 will be followed consistently.
Child and Family
Services
Hiring Policy
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
What is new is the fact that the director
said there was, in fact, no policy.
This government is supposed to have a
policy with respect to itself and its agencies.
Can the Minister of Family Services
explain why this agency does not have a policy?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, government clearly does have a
policy on hiring. The agency, as it
appeared yesterday, indicated that they do not have a policy. They are independent of government. They have an independent board who
administers that. Clearly, the executive
director of that agency said they are prepared to put one in place.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, this agency is so independent
that its director is appointed by the minister himself, and all their funding
comes from this government.
This government has said clearly the
agencies have a responsibility for ensuring appropriate service. Why does this minister not direct the agency
to put a policy into place and why has he not done that already?
Mr. Gilleshammer:
Mr. Speaker, agencies that receive their funding from government have boards
that make those decisions. The director clearly indicated that while they did
not have a policy and plan in that area, they are now prepared to proceed with
one.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Family
Services, responsible for ensuring that children get appropriate delivery,
direct the director, whom he appointed, to put a policy in place today?
Mr. Gilleshammer:
Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the director has indicated they will
proceed with a policy in the near future.
Poverty Rate Reduction
Strategy
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
In particular, that report monitoring
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) if he has reviewed this U.N. report and if he could tell us today what
concerns he has with respect to it and what steps he is taking to ensure, at
least in
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, this report was discussed with
ministers from across the country at a meeting I was at in
I can tell you that besides dealing with
the rates on an annual basis, we have brought in a number of enhancements‑‑income
assistance for the disabled, the supplementary benefit which was introduced
last year, the exemption of children's trust funds, the assistance for school
supplies, the passing through of the GST credits, the increased liquid asset
exemptions, the head‑of‑the‑household policy which was an
issue that was around for many, many years that we addressed last year.
We moved ahead with the municipal
assistance regulation. We have modified
and improved the wheelchair transportation for social reasons. We have also‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister then, considering that
Mr. Speaker, we are tired of the same
propaganda from this minister. We would
like to hear some concrete steps of how this government is addressing this very
serious situation.
Mr. Gilleshammer:
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to go into a little more detail on these
initiatives to give the member a better understanding of some of the
enhancements we have brought to the system over the past number of years.
For instance, the increase in the liquid
assets was an issue that was never addressed by the previous government, where
individuals were not allowed to accumulate any funds in their bank accounts
that they were able to get through exempted income. We have massively extended that liquid asset
exemption limit so that recipients can now keep money for major purposes.
Also, we have extended the health card
benefit, and this is an initiative other provinces are very interested in, that
individuals who are on social assistance and are moving into the world of work
can now keep their health card benefits.
We fully expect that this is an initiative
that other provinces are going to follow.
It allows particularly single parents‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The time for Oral
Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable member for the Interlake have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add our congratulations. Last night, we saw the result, the
championship of the Stanley Cup, the 100th Anniversary, won by the Montreal
Canadiens. We add our congratulations.
Also, on the hockey team itself, we have a
Winnipegger by the name of Mike Keane, so we here would like to add our
congratulations to him. As a matter of
fact, I had him in the playoff pool this year, and he did very well for
me. So we add our congratulations, not
only to the Montreal Canadiens, but to Mike Keane.
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable Minister of Health have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement? (agreed)
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my
honourable friend in congratulating les Canadiens for their superb victory last
night, four in a row after a first defeat.
I will tell you, it makes easier the harsh
memories of my high school days where I was the lone supporter of les Canadiens
in
Committee Changes
r.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by
the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render) for the member for
I move, second by the member for
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Prior to orders of the day, yesterday the
House agreed that we would sit this morning from 10 till 4:30. What we did not do was get unanimous consent
of the House that we do not sit tomorrow, so that when this House adjourns
today at 4:30 p.m., it will sit adjourned till 1:30 p.m. Monday. (agreed)
House Business
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before I move the motion to go
into Supply, also there has been an agreement between the parties that in the
event that‑‑we would treat the Estimates hours today as if they
were past ten o'clock Monday evening.
So that would be invoked then from the
point we go into Estimates till 4:30 p.m. today.
Mr. Speaker:
That is agreed? (agreed)
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy
and Mines (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 presented.
* (1050)
MATTER OF GRIEVANCE
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity under the rules of the
House to have my grievance.
With initially some hesitancy, but on a
matter of principle and a matter of injustice in terms of what is happening
with HIV patients in this country, these patients who got the disease through
the tainted blood, and what the federal government has done last year, they
gave them a four‑year package, and they left them in the cold.
We are not saying it is the fault of this
government, which I have said consistently.
It is the fault of the federal government because what they did is
almost criminal. If somebody else was
doing it, I think that they would face‑‑if it was not a part of the
government, somebody who was in the private sector, could face a jail
term. I think it is that serious.
The same thing happened in
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of
this House will agree with me on that matter, because it is a matter of
principle. We must speak when the
injustice is being done, and especially, we have about 23 Manitobans who are
part of that injustice where the federal government has really given up their
responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about each
and every person here. We are talking
about their families. We are talking
about their children, their parents, their friends and their communities. Such an action the federal government has
done, only paying $30,000 per year for four years, and they have given up their
responsibility, and now these patients across this nation are left in a very,
very difficult situation.
Mr. Speaker, we have raised this issue a
number of times in this House. We
understand on this side of the House, and I understand the minister and the
government also know full well that this is an issue which has to be dealt
with. These are our citizens. They are part of our province. They are part of our country. When an injustice is done, we cannot run away
from responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, it is really sad that
whenever there is an election‑‑for example, in
As you know and other people know in this
House, this issue is not a political issue.
This is an issue of human decency and human injustice which was done to
these people, because they are getting blood which is a necessity for their
survival. They were never told this
blood was tainted with the HIV virus.
When they came to know, it was too late.
We have horror stories, Mr. Speaker, the stories of all these families. They have no income. They have lost their livelihood. They have lost their families, and many are
really down.
Who do you go to for help? You go for help to your family, and if your
family cannot support you, where do you go for help? You go to your
government. The government, whether it
is the provincial government or the federal government, one of the governments
have to take responsibility, especially when it has always been made known that
there is only one taxpayer. The same
taxpayer is funding the provincial government.
The same taxpayer is funding the federal government, so we as a society
have a moral obligation.
We cannot say that we are the second best
country in the world if we cannot even correct an injustice to all these people
and their families and their lives and their future. They know their life span is very short. The treatments which are available today are
not going to cure their disease. Their
life is being prolonged, and they are trying to maintain their standard of
living.
We have an international conference going
on in
Mr. Speaker, if we are not going to
correct what has gone wrong in this country‑‑and I can go through a
number of stories, a number of reports, but I would like to focus on some of
the things that are happening in our province in terms of some of the people
who are here in this province of ours, Manitoba.
Originally, there were 25 families
affected initially. Out of the 18
infected hemophiliacs that remain in
Mr. Speaker, it is really sad. They must have thought, the federal
government must have an idea that some of them may not survive that long. That is really a moral issue, and I think
that is very, very unethical. Out of
these 25 families in
Two of them have gone on welfare for the
last few days. So government is going to
end up paying ultimately anyway through that social assistance program. They will pay for the expenses, but who is
going to be taking care of their families, their wives, their children? It is very, very difficult to live when you
know you are going to die eventually and you have no future, and when you see
your children around you, they see that.
When you are caring for a person who is already so much down and when
they see no hope and when they are being kicked around by the federal
government, the provincial government should take some responsibility now in
the interim basis. That is why we are
asking them to do it.
* (1100)
We are simply asking the Premier (Mr.
Filmon), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard), all the members on the government side to show compassion. Be reasonable with these families. Give them something until the federal
government comes to the table, and then the negotiations can proceed. We are not asking you to write them a blank
cheque; we are asking you to do what is right.
Right is to make sure that citizens of this province are being
protected.
Whom are they going to go to? They cannot go to other organizations. They cannot go out of the country. Where are they going to go ultimately? I think we have a moral obligation. We feel very strongly in this House, on our
side of the House, and I am sure‑‑I have talked to many members on
that side of the House‑‑they also feel very strongly. The one question that comes to their mind,
well, if we give financial assistance at this time, the federal government will
not do anything. I think that is not
right.
Let us put a package together for only an
interim basis, give them something for a while and then on the condition that
the federal government must bear responsibility.
It is really sad that this weekend we are
having a convention for the federal government.
We are going to have a new Prime Minister, but so far, out of the five
candidates, no candidate has made a statement about all these very, very
fundamental issues. There are so many
families.
If these people who are going to lead this
country do not have any compassion, do not have any heart, I think we are
really in a very, very bad state of affairs.
It is very sad because ultimately it comes down to at the end of the
day, it does not matter which party you belong to, which side of the House you
sit on, it depends on whether you can support somebody when they really need
it, when they have no support system and especially when they got the disease
through the tainted blood which was given to them without their knowledge that
this blood was not safe. It took a House
of Commons subcommittee for so long to come up with a recommendation.
Finally, they came up with the
recommendations. They were asking for
the compensation package. But in a way
they failed also. They did not pinpoint
how much of a compensation package should be given; they did not pinpoint who
is ultimately responsible. They simply
came up with a statement, let us give them a compensation package.
But everybody is running away from the one
notion that these patients are not going to survive. And I think that is immoral and almost
criminal. I think it is so sad. We feel really strongly for these
people. We have heard their stories on
CJOB radio. We have heard many of these
stories on Mr. Peter Warren's show.
One person is 18 years old, and she was
telling, on the Open Line show, that she has to change her father's diapers
because he has lost control. He cannot
go to the washroom; he cannot do his daily activities; and they have no other
financial sources. So what are they
going to do? They cannot just commit
suicide, but they are dying on a daily basis.
I think that kind of life is even more dangerous than a person who has
to go all of a sudden. It is very, very sad, Mr. Speaker.
I feel very strongly on this issue because
ultimately the government is going to be judged on all these issues; we cannot
run away from the responsibility. There
are hundreds of clips‑‑not even one editorial in any major
newspaper in this country that has not spoken on their behalf. Not even one editorial.
Some of them have even gone as far as
having a criminal investigation done to make sure these people are punished who
were part of the system at that time.
They knew that the blood was not safe, but these people were still given
blood.
If those things can happen in a modern
country like this country, where can we expect justice? So when we stand up and say, we have the best
health care system, we have one of the best social policies in the whole world,
and if we cannot protect our vulnerable citizens, those policies have no
meaning. I think that is so sad.
Those policies have no meaning as far as I
am concerned because if you do not have a deep‑rooted social conscience,
and if you are not compassionate, especially when all the ingredients are right‑‑it
is not somebody trying to cheat, somebody going to go and run away with the
money, or you are going to give them tons of money and they are going to buy
luxury things. They are just going to
buy the basic necessities of life, and I think we have to show some compassion. We have to be on their side.
I am asking the ministers of this
government, I am asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), the Minister of
Industry and Trade (Mr. Stefanson), in the meantime, for a package, and it will
help your government's popularity. It
will definitely, no question.
It will satisfy you personally when you go
home and have a look at your own families.
When I go home and when I think that if I were a patient in the same
frame of mind, how am I going to manage my own life? How am I going to take care of my own
children, my own family? Can I support
them? What am I going to do? So with these patients, we should put
ourselves, if not exactly in their shoes, but at least try to walk the same
line they are walking. Go and visit
them. Find out what kind of serious
problem they are facing.
I mean, we must take care of these
people. They are part of our province;
they are part of our community; they are part of our culture; they are part of
our habitat; they are part of everything this country stands for. It is not hundreds of thousands of people. Only 18 of them are left so far. Seven of them have already died.
I am asking, I am requesting and I am
pleading on their behalf that the government should come up with an interim
package. At the same time, the federal
government should be taken to task for giving up the responsibility, because,
as the minister said very clearly yesterday, what they have done was so
unconscionable. It is so unacceptable,
because simply giving up your responsibility when you have to and then leaving
them in the dark, especially the thought that if they were so serious, they
should have gotten everybody around the same table. They were not. They all had a malice feeling about the whole
process. They thought, we will give them $120,000 for four years, but it was
not done in a way that would have helped in the long run. These patients were
left in very, very bad shape.
We know we are going through rough
economic times. We know we are having a
difficult time. Who are we? We are part of the same community. If we are not going to be taking care of our
own people in this country, in this province, in this city, who is going to be
taking care of them?
Mr. Speaker, I cannot overemphasize more
than that in saying that it is not something which can be classified as giving away
something or handing over something or being too unreasonable. It is simply
asking what is right and what is a must.
I think you should imagine what is happening in their lives, what is
happening in their homes, what is happening with their children, with their
wives.
There are stories of people. I was watching one time, it was on CBC I
guess, that a husband and wife both have the disease. They have a 12‑year‑old
child. They were concerned that they are
going to go, who is going to be taking care of that 12‑year‑old
child. If there is no financial package
attached, how are they going to be taking care of their responsibility? Ultimately we will all end up paying.
I am simply requesting, pleading on their
behalf. I am not blaming the provincial
government at all. We have not done that
because what the federal government has done was totally wrong, absolutely
wrong when the Canadian Red Cross is under their jurisdiction, when they knew
what was happening, so they should compensate for these patients, but they are
not doing it. They signed a contract for
four years and they gave up the responsibility.
You have new ministers, but none of the five candidates‑‑one
of them is going to be Prime Minister of this country‑‑had made
this statement. Where is the compassion?
Where is the reality? Are we going to
run away from those things?
We have talked to them. I am sure many of the members of this House
have heard their stories.
I got a letter from
This person says: I am 29 years of age, married, and I have two
young children. I have a son who is four
years old and a daughter who is two years old.
The disease that was injected into my body has dramatically affected my life. Not only am I suffering from a debilitating
and fatal disease that has no known cure, I am unable to work, and I will
undoubtedly be unable to witness my children go to school for the first time,
let alone share in their experience of graduation, their marriage and birth of
their children. Mr. Speaker, he further
says: I am faced with the reality of
financial hardship. I have lost a lifetime
of earned income, approximately $35,000 annually, and cost of medication
approximately $1,600 per month.
* (1110)
He says his wife is only 26 years old,
faced with the reality of raising two young children alone.
The impact of this disease for my family
members has been devastating. My two
young children are faced with the loss, not only their father through death,
but of the primary, secondary and symbolic loss of their family structure and
unit. The impact that the loss holds for
my children is one of the greatest daily tragedies I bear.
Mr. Speaker, can there be a more tragic
story than this? These people are on the mentally, physically, emotionally
lowest scale possible in the human dimension that anybody can be, especially
when it is not their fault. These people
had never known that this was happening to them. If they had known, they would have gone further. If it was a private agency, they would have
taken the agency to court.
The law should protect these people. Who is the law? The law is the people who are making the law,
and we are one of them here in this country and in this province. If we are not going to protect our own
citizens in our own community, in our own city, who are we going to be
protecting? They are caught in the
middle. They are caught in the middle of
an insensitive, inhuman approach by the federal government, absolutely what
they have done. It is unheard of,
especially when people talk about the good things in this country.
Mr. Speaker, in five years time, I have
never been so touched by any other issue as this issue because we have talked
to so many people. You hear their
stories, horror stories, and especially their life span is very short. We do everything for ourselves. We do everything for our families to make
them happy. We sacrifice for our
families. These people also have the
same feelings, but the environment has been created for them. First of all, they had disease. Now they have been given a death sentence
simply because of incompetency at the initial stage and now the insensitive
approach by the federal government.
Wherever elections are being called, they
are being given compensation packages.
Is that not sad? I am sure this
government‑‑I know them; they have a good heart. I know they have a good heart. They are here to help people. I am asking them to use that compassion for
an interim basis until you come up with negotiations with the federal
government. We are not asking you to
just sign a contract which is going to be binding for life. We are asking you to do what is right on an
interim basis and then let the federal government deal with the real
issue. The issue is that they have no
right and no authority to leave these people, and the provincial government, in
a very serious situation.
I think it was very important for us to
explain from Day One to make sure that the public out there is not blaming the
provincial government for the mess. I
wanted to do that. It is so important,
because when you hear the story, you hear only one part that they are not being
compensated, but nobody goes there to explain whose fault that is.
So, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that by
spending some time today, we have in this House done some justice to the
cause. I would give full credit to the
government that they have tried to explain, but we are asking them to, in the meantime,
come up with an interim package, make sure that these people are protected
because some of them are not going to survive by the September meeting. They are not.
Seven of them have already died.
So, it is very, very tragic. I am sure when we go home, we look at our own
families, see how much we do for them, how much we do care for them, and we
like to be helpful as much as we can, in the same way, I am sure, the people
who are involved, who are victims of this mess by the federal government, they
have the same problem. They like to be
with their families.
But it is tough to go through this disease
alone, but once you have another burden, I think it really causes more of a
horror on a daily basis hour by hour. I mean,
if my father were involved in the same problem or one of my kids or somebody
else I know or one of the family members were involved, we would do everything
possible.
It is very sad what the federal government
has done and we are simply asking this government, we are not asking them to do
what is not right, we are asking them to do under the circumstances‑‑you
are stuck with the problem until the September meeting. No question about that. That is very clear.
If we can help them in one way or another,
because through Social Assistance they are going to get some help, no question.
Their medication is covered. Some of
their other things can be covered, but how about the others in the surrounding
structure? There are a number of other issues one can raise. What is going to happen with the others who
got the blood through the same disease, same pattern? We are opening an area where there could be a
lot of lawsuits. It could be a long‑term
problem for the federal government.
Well, if the government is not going to be
protecting their citizens, it is not a question of a huge policy, it is a
question of what is morally right and what is ethically right. If you go through the reports in the House of
Commons committee and other reports, it is very clear they had some knowledge
as of '84 that something was wrong there, but they never took any action. One reason why is it is too expensive to do
that testing, but that is wrong, absolutely wrong.
Mr. Speaker, without taking further time,
on behalf of those who cannot come here today and speak. The government of
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into
a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the
Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for
* (1120)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel
Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This morning, this section of the
Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the
Estimates of Education and Training. When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 4.(b) on page 39 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when we
were last together, I was asked for information on the dates and locations of
the public meetings being held by the implementation committee on Francophone
governance, and I have a list of those to table today.
In addition, I was asked some questions
under the line of the Bureau De L'Education Francaise, and one of the first
questions was to table the places where the public meetings were being
held. That has been done.
The second question was around the
nonparticipation of French immersion students in the Youth Parliament held for
Francophone students. This particular
parliament is an autonomous, nonprofit youth organization within the
Francophone community. This organization
is funded by the Secretary of State, and every year interested Franco‑Manitoban
students elect a cabinet. This cabinet
is responsible for the administration and management of this organization.
The Conseil jeunesse provincial, a
nongovernment Francophone organization, provides the technical advice. Targeted clientele are students from Franco‑Manitoban
schools. However, it should be noted
that a few years ago, in 1991, an invitation was forwarded to the French
immersion students to apprise them of the well being of this organization and
to encourage French immersion students to form a similar organization. Some French immersion students did
participate as observers.
Then a question was asked regarding budget
line 16.4 (a)(2) in the area of Management Services, and the question related
to the 1992‑93 budget line, which was $15,400 dollars. That was budgeted for in the book for various
professional fees required by the branch; $7,900 of that was budgeted for '92‑93
planning and policy procedures development purposes, including manuals
preparation for the three community colleges to assist with college governance
transition, but these tasks were accomplished internally with the assistance of
Manitoba Finance. So no college
governance professional fees were paid out of that budget line. However, the actual professional fees paid
out of that budget line, in fact, totalled $21,405, and I am prepared to table
today a list of exactly what those contracts were paid from that budget line.
* (1130)
In 1993‑94, the $7,900 was
eliminated as nonrecurring, and the remaining $7,500 is budgeted for various
professional services such as audit reports on Workforce 2000, labour market
information reports, as well as for various financial and administrative
management information systems requirements by the Student Financial Assistance
Branch for transition to their loans program.
I believe that covers all the information promised for today.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to ask some questions about the
professional fees paid. They are not on this line. How do you want to handle it? But they are subsequent to the‑‑
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a line which we
passed a day ago.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it was a line which we
passed while awaiting this. It would
seem to me a courtesy for the minister to at least answer some questions on
something she has tabled.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just as long as it is
on the record that this line has been passed, but we are prepared to answer
questions to assist the member.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that was, in fact, how
I introduced my question: This line has
been passed; would the minister entertain questions?
I wanted to ask about the $1,500 for the
Centauri Systems, Design of Labour Market Information Bulletin. Which Labour Market Information Bulletin is
this? Does the minister have an example
of the design?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a Manitoba
Labour Market Information Bulletin, April 1993.
It is a monthly bulletin. I have
a copy of the bulletin for April 1993 which I am prepared to table for the
member.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am familiar with
that. I am questioning that it was
$1,500 for design. Does that mean it is
actual layout, printing and production, or is it $1,500 to design that cover?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that
money was for layout, for cover and for table redesign.
Point of Order
Hon. James Downey (Minister of
Northern Affairs): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know the minister has
agreed to answer questions on items that have been passed. I hope the members opposite appreciate the
many, many staff, the way in which they are going through these Estimates, that
it costs the taxpayers to sit here when they are going through the Estimates in
the manner in which they are‑‑all over the place, no pattern, no
line by line.
The department cannot operate effectively
and efficiently in this manner. In fact,
it is a tremendous cost to the taxpayers, the manner in which they are dealing
with these Estimates, and I‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. The honourable
minister did not have a point of order.
The honourable member for Wolseley had
requested permission to move back to that line, and the minister has stated
that she will answer it this time, but it is up to the discretion of the
committee whether they wish to revert back.
If the committee decides they do not want to or if the minister decides
they do not want to, then we will not.
* * *
Ms. Friesen: I asked labour market information policy
because that particular member of staff is there. (interjection)
I was speaking to him. He has already mentioned me.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thought the
intervention of the Minister of Northern Affairs was uncalled for. We are going line by line. The minister had agreed to this. The question which I asked was about labour
market information, and she has that staff at the table now. I really do not think that his intervention
has furthered the process in any way. If
he wants us to move very quickly, then I think it would be better if he kept
his mouth quiet.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to ask
about the auditing assistance for the Core Area Initiative Program and which
audit that was and whether that has been tabled anywhere else.
Mrs. Vodrey: This was done as part of our internal audit
process. Occasionally an internal audit,
where there is an area of very narrow scope and depending upon the volume then
we do contract out. This was contracted
out and has been received by internal audit.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
4.(b) Access Programs $9,926,000.
Ms. Friesen: We are now looking at the Access Programs and
at the end of last time, when we were looking at ACCESS, the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I believe, had raised some questions about a daycare
program at KCC which was intended to facilitate the accessibility of students,
both at KCC and in ACCESS programs, that would enable them to attend programs.
One of the problems I think he raised was
that that particular daycare has been essentially caught in the squeeze in the
change in policies and does not have at the moment any funded spaces. So I am trying to follow up on that question,
and I do not recall whether the minister had begun her answer at that stage or
whether we had dealt with that issue.
Mrs. Vodrey: Of the centre that the member is referring to,
it is operated by a private board. That
private board has made their decisions, and I believe the questions around the
daycare spaces are best addressed by my colleague the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
Ms. Friesen: I assume that the minister has an interest and
a concern in enabling students to attend from the ACCESS programs and that
daycare is one of those elements of public service which enable a broader range
of students to attend ACCESS programs. I
am wondering if the minister has made any position on this to the Minister of
Family Services and what she intends, in terms of her discussions around the
cabinet, in developing these kinds of public services and, in particular, this
one, which is quite focused and is in an area where there are not many daycare
services available.
* (1140)
Mrs. Vodrey: The area of child care is one of great
interest to me. I moved to
However, the answer, in terms of changes
in that policy, is one that the member will be familiar with. Decisions had to be made and they were very
difficult decisions. There were
decisions made within the Department of Family Services which, again, had to be
made. Any further discussion that the
member may wish to have around the rationalization or reasons for that decision
making would be best addressed to the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer).
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, as the minister knows, those
Family Service Estimates are completed.
I am concerned about the overall public policy, which I am sure the
minister is too, which enables students to be considered for ACCESS programs
and to access the programs or to have access to the programs that are offered
through community colleges. Funded
places in child care facilities are one element of that.
I would assume that the Minister of
Education, who is concerned about the broadest possible access to community
colleges, if indeed that is her policy, would have some specific interest in
this at this daycare which was to be at KCC or is at KCC.
It is experiencing difficulties, and
again, I ask the minister, from the perspective of educational accessibility,
the role of daycares in enabling a broader range of students to have access to
the educational facilities that the public provides, that she would have some
specific policy elements on this that she would be able to discuss with us.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, as I have said to the
member, this is an area of interest to me and importance, and I have spoken
with the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer). Any further
questioning on this area should go to my colleague the Minister of Family
Services.
Ms. Friesen: I am glad to hear that the minister has spoken
to the Minister of Family Services on this.
Could she tell us what kind of policy, what kind of concern she conveyed
to him at that time?
Mrs. Vodrey: I do not think the member paid attention to
the answer. However, I have said that
the area of child care is an important one and the area of training of child
care workers is an important one.
My colleague and I have had those
discussions. Any further discussions
around the policy of funded child care spaces should go to my colleague the
Minister of Family Services.
Ms. Friesen: But I did listen to the answer. The minister spoke, first of all, of her
personal concerns about the general area of child care. Then she said that she had spoken to the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and she referred me to him.
I picked up on the second element which
was that she had spoken to the Minister of Family Services. I understood that she meant that she had
spoken to the Minister of Family Services about KCC and about the general
availability of child care positions at KCC, funded positions which would
enable a broader range of people to have access to the college.
So that was my question and I do ask that
question again.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the issues relating to
funded spaces should be addressed to my colleague the Minister of Family
Services.
Ms. Friesen: I will convey that to the people at KCC who
are very concerned about the relationship between Family Services and Education
and the public policy that is being developed for accessibility to community
colleges.
Earlier in the Estimates process, when we
discussed at the beginning under Planning and Policy, I did ask the minister
for some numbers on ACCESS enrollments.
I wonder if the minister has now been able to prepare those.
The numbers I asked for were enrollment
patterns, I believe, and also the enrollment patterns of the three or four
elements of ACCESS enrollment, that is, those people who are enrolled as women,
as immigrants, as aboriginal students.
If the minister remembers, one of my
concerns at that time was that the changes in policy in this area were, in
fact, leading to a program where only students who had alternative sources of
funding could be accepted into ACCESS, and that this was increasingly meaning
that students only funded by bands would have access to certain programs. This did, at that time, to me, seem to change
the orientation of the program.
The minister said that she would provide
such numbers so that we could see whether in fact there was such a change in
policy.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I have that information for
the member now. I would just ask if you
could make some additional copies for the other members here.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Thank you.
Ms. Friesen: While we are waiting to look at those numbers,
I wonder if the minister perhaps could give us‑‑now that I believe
that she has her staff here for ACCESS and post‑secondary education‑‑some
historical background, the reasons for the development of the ACCESS programs,
the years in which it was developed, and the enrollment patterns historically.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am happy to read from the mission statement
in terms of ACCESS programs: "To
provide post‑secondary educational opportunities to residents of
"To develop the capacity within the
province to respond with greater flexibility, effectiveness and efficiency to
the diverse learning needs of adult learners, in particular those individuals
of Aboriginal ancestry and immigrants."
I have, in addition, some information
regarding each of the programs from years in which they began. With the BUNTEP program, from 1976, the
number of graduates has been 106. With
the
* (1150)
Ms. Friesen: I know we do not have point of informations,
but I just wanted to get those numbers down correctly. Are those cumulative numbers, so that from
1976 to 1992 graduation or '93 graduation?
Mrs. Vodrey: These are numbers to the end of 1990‑‑(interjection) Right, cumulative numbers
to the end of 1990.
We were at University of Manitoba ACCESS
Program South, from 1982, number of graduates, 19; the Special Pre‑Medical
Program, from 1979, number of graduates, 19; the Professional Health Program,
from 1982, the number of graduates is 9; the Northern Bachelor of Social Work
Program, from 1984, the number of graduates is 24; the Winnipeg Education
Centre in the area of education, from 1978, the numbers are 97; Winnipeg
Education Centre, Social Work Program, from 1981, the numbers are 52; and from
the ENGAP or the Engineering Program, which began in 1985, there have been no
graduates.
From the community colleges ACCESS Program
North, from 1979, 66 graduates; community colleges ACCESS Program South from
1984, 30 graduates; from the Southern Nursing Program from 1981, 77 graduates;
from the Electrical‑Electronic Program from 1985, 19 graduates; and from
the Civil Technology Program from 1985, 47 graduates; and the Northern Nursing
Program from 1983, 65 graduates; and the ACCESS North Program from The Pas, we
do not have any figures because it was transferred to college control in 1988.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I would like to ask the
minister first of all about the changing nature of enrollment as a result of recent
government policies.
I think the public concern is that by
reducing the $1.2 million to ACCESS this year that the people who do the
selection for ACCESS are having a much smaller range of people from which to
choose. In some cases, there is only one
funded person under the ACCESS program, whereas previously, a much higher
proportion, not always a majority, but certainly a much higher proportion of
people were funded directly by ACCESS, so that you are selecting from a smaller
range of people and those who can find funding through various means, whether
it is through bands, whether it is through particular arrangements with local
municipalities, or whatever.
I think the range of selection is an
important issue because one of the successes of the ACCESS program has been due
to the very careful selection from a wide range of people bearing in mind the
goals of the program to address equality of condition and equality of access
for people who would not normally consider themselves as candidates for university.
So it is that $1.2 million in
reduction. It is the question of a
smaller range of people who can be selected and the nature then of selection
for these programs.
Mrs. Vodrey: As the member knows, there are presently 712,
I believe, students currently in the ACCESS program. We have said from all of our discussions that
it would be important to see those students through the program and that our
commitment is not one which would leave students currently in the program as
happened with the federal government last year, who left students within the
program without funding and how the provincial government came forward and
supplemented that funding to allow those students to remain in the program.
We have currently 712 students. We want to make sure that with the money we
have available those students are able to finish their program. As the member knows, we are taking in new
intakes as well. We spoke about that the
last time we were together to say that our commitment to ACCESS programs
remains. It remains as a commitment to those students who are currently in the
program and it remains to allow us to take in some new intakes.
The number of new intakes is perhaps not
as large as the member might like to see.
However, the commitment remains to take in those students and to see
that there are people studying in a number of areas who are funded intakes.
I would say to the member again, with the
amount of money that is available, we have made decisions which support
students who are currently in the program and which allow us to also take in
new intakes.
Ms. Friesen: That did not exactly answer the question. The question I was asking was, the focus of
the program had been twofold. The two
aspects of it that I asked were about the nature of selection and the
opportunity that the selectors in all of these institutions had over the past
history of the program to draw from a number of categories. Now they are being, it seems to me from the
policies of this minister, that the range of categories they can draw from has
narrowed because they can only consider for the most part those people who
already have funding. That was the issue
I was addressing because selection is crucial to the success of these students.
The numbers that the minister has given me
of the students who have graduated in various programs since the 1970s, I think
it is a creditable record for any province under any government.
What concerns me very much are the changes
in this program that are being brought about as a result of the federal action
of two years ago and now the action of the government this year. I wonder if the minister could perhaps look
at it from that perspective of a reduced range of selection and the effect that
could have on graduation rates and success.
* (1200)
Mrs. Vodrey: The criteria for entrance into the ACCESS
programs have not changed; they have not changed from the year before. The
criteria for funded intakes into the ACCESS programs remain; the undereducated
and economically disadvantaged are two of the selection criteria by the
province. Other selection criteria
include a residency in
In addition, we also look at selection
decisions made by program directors in the institutions, and students must be
admissible to the institution and meet the selection criteria in order to be
funded.
Our process of selection remains the
same. We have still continued to take
intakes in, and those funded intakes will be required to meet these particular
criteria.
Ms. Friesen: I suppose, to put it kindly, the minister is
not understanding the question I am asking.
Yes, there are funded intakes, but as I understand it, there is only one
funded intake in each program now, which is down from other years, and that the
majority of people who now are accepted into these programs must bring funding
from other sources, from band funds or from other sources.
In speaking to students at the Winnipeg
Education Centre yesterday, it seemed to me that that is exactly what has
happened at the Winnipeg Education Centre in the most recent intake, that
students who can be funded by ACCESS‑‑that is, who can be selected
very broadly under the criteria that the minister has offered and that can then
be offered money by ACCESS‑‑have been reduced in many cases to only
one person per program. That is my
concern.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member does not seem to have understood
and has not received accurate information from the people that she has been
speaking to. There is, in fact, more
than one individual being admitted into some programs in the ACCESS program,
and I would point to the Northern Bachelor of Social Work, which, under our
funded intakes, is accepting four. Of
these individuals, they are not receiving funds from the bands.
There are, in fact, other numbers of other
funded intakes who would receive the other kinds of funding that the member
speaks about. That other funding might
be band funding which she seems to be looking at specifically; it might also be
Canada Student Loan funding. It may be
funding available to those students from any number of sources. In terms of our funded intake, we have
maintained a commitment and, in fact, have in some programs certainly been able
to admit more than one student.
Ms. Friesen: Then perhaps we can go through it program by
program and the minister could tell us how many funded students were admitted
last year into a program and how many funded students are admitted this
year. I am speaking specifically of
students who are admitted and funded by ACCESS and no other source.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as the member knows,
we have had to make budget decisions. If
she is looking to make a comparison then she may as well just say that is what
she wants, but as I have told her, we have with the money available to us
continued to support those students who we have admitted into the programs and
we have also taken in new intakes.
The Brandon University Northern Teacher
Education Program has had two funded intakes this year; the
So I entirely reject, first of all, the
line of questioning that was offered by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)
the other day that somehow there has been an abandonment and lack of concern
for northern people, because we have continued to fund the intake of those
students within the ACCESS program of our funded intake.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think the minister
knows that my line of questioning is that the focus of this program has
changed, that the basis of selection has changed and that when the basis of
selection changes, then the nature of the graduation rate from the program
comes into question. All I am trying to
get at, and the minister has given me some numbers for this year, that there
has been a funded intake, and I am sorry I missed the number she gave me for
BUNTEP, that the Professional Health Programs have had a funded intake of two and
the Northern Bachelor of Social Work has had a funded intake of four.
I wonder if the minister could continue
with that list and give me the numbers from the year before or two years before
or whatever the cumulative numbers have been.
For example, in the health programs I am sure that there was a funded
intake of at least five, if not seven in earlier years. So it seems that in that one, although the
minister thinks that a funded intake of two maintains a commitment, in her
definition of commitment, yes, it does.
She has a line on the budget.
The broader question I am asking is the
focus of this program, the future of this program and the fact that
dramatically reduced funded intakes, which is I think what we are facing in
some of these programs, means that the basis of selection is different and that
the future of the program becomes different.
Again, what I tried to ask the minister at
the beginning under Policy and Planning was:
Does she recognize this, that there is a change in the focus and function
of the program? Is it time in fact to
begin to review this program and to look at the changes that the government is
making de facto? What we are getting now
is a real series of difficult situations both between students and within
institutions, very difficult conditions that the people who work in these
programs face, not understanding I think or not knowing what the next step of
the government is going to be.
So I am looking at the actions of the
government in reducing the number of funded intakes to, in some cases, one, and
the uncertainty that this brings both to students, the questions that it raises
about the future of the programs and the government's policy and planning
process in this area.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have been over
today the fact that the selection criteria remains the same, and I have read
that into the record. I have also
explained our commitment in terms of maintaining the program, because we have
not only continued to support those students who are currently in the program,
the federal government did not. The
We have this year, with the money
available, made it clear that we have continued to support students who are
within that program. We have, in
addition, taken in new intakes. Now
there is only a certain amount of money available. With the money available, we have in fact
made sure that we have assisted those students who are in the program and made
sure that we have made the opportunity available for students who would be funded
by us, new students to come into the program.
The member seems to not want to look at
the federal government's role here. They
have changed their role. The province
stepped in and made sure that those students who would have been left without
assistance had that assistance.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when I began the
discussion of ACCESS, I hoped that we did not need to get into this continual
blaming of the federal government by the minister. I said that I acknowledged the federal
government had made changes two years ago, and that did make a significant
difference to the program.
* (1210)
Let us put that on one side, I said, and
let us look at what this government has done in response to that. In the first year they did pick it up, and in
the second year they dropped it. It
seemed to me, having made that connection, that we could at least put that
argument on one side. I know the
minister believes that the action of the federal government was, as she said in
her own press release, unconscionable.
I agree with her, but it seems to me that
if it is unconscionable for the federal government to reduce by $1 million two
years ago, it equally is unconscionable for the provincial government to
reduce, as it says in this Estimates sheet in front of us all on page 83, by
over a million dollars here. I am not
quite sure what distinction the minister is drawing.
That would be my response to that
particular action. We still have to deal
with the fact that, although the provincial government two years ago did pick
up what the federal government had cut‑‑I have said that in the
House. I have said it here. This is the
second time or third time that we have said it.
This year the provincial government decided that it was not going to
continue to pay that money that the federal government had dropped. So the provincial government, this year,
according to the Estimates book in front of us, cut more than a million dollars
from ACCESS programs.
One of the effects of that cut has meant
that fewer funded students by ACCESS can be brought into these programs. In some cases, as I understand it, and the
minister has not, so far, provided me with any alternatives, in some of these
programs the number of students being funded by ACCESS is down to one. As I understand it, there are at least three
or four programs where that is the case.
For the minister to talk in plural terms about continuing to admit
ACCESS students is perhaps taking an overall look and is really not looking at
the broader principle that I am addressing, that fewer students are being
funded by ACCESS, in some programs down to one.
That does affect the nature of selection. That is the second area that the minister
does not seem to want to address.
Yes, the academic criteria and the employment
criteria remain the same, but in addition, an additional criteria has been put
on students‑‑you must bring funding with you. You must be in some way eligible for another
program. You must either be Metis and
have money available through Pathways, you must have money available through
your band, you must be able to find monies, perhaps from your spousal support,
if that is possible, or from other sources such as being eligible for Canada
Student Loan.
As the minister knows, some of the people
who are indeed ineligible for ACCESS programs in some ways may indeed not be
eligible for Canada Student Loans because, in earlier days, perhaps under The
Private Vocational Schools Act, we discussed some of this or that section of
the department, people perhaps with limited education got themselves involved
in large student loans and then had to drop out and now find themselves five or
six years later with a debt that makes them ineligible for further student
loans and essentially has cut them out of the whole educational stream. So those students are not eligible to be
funded by ACCESS, and they are not eligible for other kinds of funds
either. They are one group. That is what I meant by the basis of
selection is that students now have an additional criteria that they must be
able to fulfill.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, into the
ACCESS programs, we have always taken students who are funded by other means,
as well as students whom we fund.
The member has asked in her question,
would there be some distinction between the action of the federal government
and the provincial government? I would
say yes.
The federal government had students whom
they had funded in the program and were not going to fund any more. Those students would not have had funding to
complete.
The province made the commitment to assist
those students. The province has continued with its commitment to see students,
who are in the program, through the program.
Therefore, what we have done is, with the money available, assisted
students who are in the program. We have
continued to take in new students, maybe not as many as the member would have
liked to have seen in the program, but perhaps she would have then, with the
money available, liked to have funded new students and left those students
currently in the program with no funding.
Ms. Friesen: The issue we are addressing is the cut of over
a million dollars to ACCESS. The
implications of that have been that a greater proportion of students, and that
was actually what I asked the minister a couple of questions ago, if she could
tell me the numbers of students who were funded by ACCESS last year, the number
of students who will be funded by ACCESS in this coming year, so we could
perhaps at least begin to look at the changes in proportions of students who
are ACCESS funded and again address that issue that I was dealing with of
selection and the prospects for the program.
I accept the grandfathering distinction
that the minister made. I still think
that the minister has to deal with the fact that she has cut over a million
dollars from a program which was very successful. I believe the way in which the universities,
the colleges and the ministers have dealt with this reduction in a million
dollars that in fact we are changing the nature of the program. We are now funding students who are, for the
most part, a large majority not funded by ACCESS but have to find other
funding.
If I am wrong on that, I certainly stand
to be corrected, but that is certainly the argument that we find from students
in the program. It is the argument that
we hear from the universities. It is certainly the public perception and if
that public perception is wrong, then I think it would be very helpful if the
minister would give us those numbers which would prove that was wrong.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, again, the member refers to
the reduction in the budget line, which the member will see is the amount of
money that was reduced by the federal government. The provincial government has maintained its
commitment and we have looked to provide some assistance so that Manitobans who
are currently within the ACCESS programs are able to complete their education
through the ACCESS programs.
In addition, we have made sure that there
are some students who are now in the ACCESS programs as new intakes which may
not have been available in the past. The
member is asking for the numbers from last year and the numbers this year, and
I am happy to provide them for her. She
will see a difference and she will see that we have put a great deal of our
money into supporting those students who are currently in the program.
However, in an effort to make sure that
the community did receive the message of the interest in ACCESS programs of
this government, we did continue to fund new intakes. Perhaps had there been no new intakes, then
perhaps the question could be raised, but in this case, there were new intakes.
In terms of the programs, and obviously
they are not lined up in exactly the same order, the University of Manitoba
ACCESS Program North‑‑last year into the University of Manitoba
ACCESS Program North there were 11 students and in the University of Manitoba
ACCESS Program South there were three students.
This year, we were not able to accept students into that program.
* (1220)
Mr. Deputy Chair, let me make it clear
that those would be funded intakes.
However, in the nonfunded intakes, there certainly will be 10 spaces
available. As the member knows, that is
funded through a number of different areas.
In the Special Pre‑Medical Studies
Program last year there were eight.
There will not be students entering that program from the funded intake
this year. There will be eight nonfunded
programs.
From the Professional Health Program, last
year there were two students, and there will be two funded intakes into that
program this year. From the Northern
Bachelor of Social Work Program, last year there were 11 funded intakes. This year there will be four.
From the Winnipeg Education Centre and the
Education Program, last year there were 11; this year, there will be one. In the Winnipeg Education Social Work Program
last year there were 11; this year there will be one. In the Winnipeg Education Centre's Social
Work Program last year there were 11; this year there will be one. Into the ENGAP program or the Engineering
Program, last year there were five; this year there will be three. In the community colleges ACCESS program last
year, north and south combined, there were 14 students, and this year there
will be four. In the Southern Nursing
Program, last year there were 11; this year there will be five. In the Northern Nursing Program, last year
there were 11; this year there will be three.
In the ACCESS North Program, last year there were five; this year there
will not be students taken in, funded intakes; there will be 15 unfunded
intakes. In the BUNTEP program last
year, there were seven and this year there will be two.
So as I said to the member, yes, the
numbers will look different because with the money available, we had to look
at, one, supporting students who are currently in the program. Perhaps the
member would have not liked those‑‑the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) seems to have trouble with this.
Perhaps he would have liked those students to not receive funding. We looked at the funding available, making
sure that those students who are currently in the program have received support
to finish their program of study, but we have in addition, with the funds
available, made sure that there were intakes into a number of the programs,
funded intakes into a number of the programs.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister
for that list. That is what I asked for
some time ago. We could have eliminated some
of the circular discussion we have had, because in fact we are looking at‑‑
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey: A point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. In providing the information, the staffperson
present had to record the information.
It was information that he knew.
He wrote it down and provided it as soon as I had it.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was not clear on
that earlier. I thought the minister was
only going to give us in earlier ones, the ones where she had the least
decline. I did not realize we were
waiting.
* * *
Ms. Friesen: It seems to me that we have had in the region
last year‑‑and this is not looking at it over a three‑ or
four‑year period; I realize that the minister may not have those numbers
here today. Would it be possible to have
access to the numbers of ACCESS‑funded enrollments since the beginning of
each of these programs?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that
would be very difficult to provide, that some of the programs did not go
through a system of record keeping, so we would not be able to provide that
information. However, I have provided
the comparison for the member today, and I have also given her the actual
number of graduates from each of those programs from the years in which we were
able to get that information. I do have
information on the enrollment in each of the programs for '92‑93 and the
projected enrollments for '93‑94, if that would be helpful.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate that
these programs have been funded in a variety of ways which have changed over
the years. It seems to me some of that
has stabilized, well, shall we say since 1988 or '89. Is it possible to have comparable numbers of
enrollments funded by the ACCESS programs going back to '89?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed by the
staff members present that even to go back to 1990‑91 would involve a
very long amount of work. It would
involve a manual entry into each of the records and a manual tabulation. In the years that the member is asking to go
back to and certainly before that, the data has not been reliable.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, so the numbers the
minister has given today are the only ones that are available, or is there a
year available before that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed the
information that I have provided this afternoon is what is available and that
can be compared in a fairly reliable way year over year.
Ms. Friesen: There are quite dramatic changes in the numbers
that the minister has given me. We are
looking at, in terms of funded places, 107 to 25 I think, approximately, if I
took down all the numbers correctly, so we have less than 25 percent this year
of ACCESS‑funded students than we did the year before. Just to be on the safe side, could I get a
sense from the minister about whether last year's numbers were extraordinary in
some way? If that is the only base line
we have, was that unusual?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the numbers
which we have been discussing this morning, some of them, as I have said, are
fairly complicated and in different kinds of groupings.
I can tell the member that last year, when
we were looking at those numbers, of the total number of students who were enrolled
in the ACCESS programs, provincial funding supported 58 percent of those
students. Band‑funded accounted
for 19 percent and other funded accounted for 22 percent. The province's commitment is very substantial
in light of the other types of funding.
Though the member has pointed to a
reduction in numbers of new students coming in, I can tell the member that the
enrollment in 1992‑93 was 726 students, and of those, the province
supported 58 percent of those. In 1993‑94,
the enrollment will be 712 students. I
am also informed that enrollment level is really fairly stable as an enrollment
number over the past five or six years.
* (1230)
The province has maintained its commitment
to those students who are currently within the program. When we look at the province's record of
funding the ACCESS students, it is strong. We had reduced the number of
students this year, however, that has reduced the total enrollment somewhat
also. The province has remained committed
to supporting students in the ACCESS programs.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
The hour is now 12:30. I am just
going to canvass the committee to see what time we would like to break for
lunch.
Mrs. Vodrey: I would suggest a quarter to two, halfway.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Quarter to two.
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
I would suggest we have lunch at 12:30 or now and then come back in a
half an hour and get on with it. If the
minister has any reason why that is not appropriate‑‑this is lunch
time.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was looking on
behalf of all of us present, including the staff, to have a break at about
midpoint through the Estimates this afternoon.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not care which way, but it seems to me that
the Speaker was in here doing a survey of the members, and I thought he came to
the conclusion that it would be 12:30 to 1 p.m., so if the Speaker of the House
left with the impression that we were breaking until 1 p.m., personally I do
not care, but I am just conveying that information to you, as long as we do not
get our wires crossed with the Speaker.
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):
I was of the understanding that we would break from 12:30 to 1 p.m.,
similar to what the member for Brandon East has indicated.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. We ran into this
problem last year at one committee, and it was the will of the committee that
was finally abided by within the rules of the House and the rules of the
committee. At this time, I will canvass
the committee again.
Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital):
If the minister has requested a quarter to two, I think the minister's
request should be‑‑we go along with it.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Then we will carry forward with the‑‑
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Chairperson, I think the committee should decide, not the
minister. We have requested that the
committee adjourn now for a half an hour, that we come back and that we can
have a short break at around two or 2:15.
If the minister so desires, for staff or for herself, that is fine.
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of
Government Services): There is only one member of the whole
committee who has been here continually, and that is the minister, so I would
suggest that‑‑(interjection)
No, I am saying continually since Day One, is the minister, so at least give
her the discretion of when she should call break.
Mr. Jack Reimer (Niakwa):
I will accede to the will of the minister in regard to a quarter to two.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
The Chair is going to rule that the committee, on the whole here, would
like to wait till quarter to two, then to‑‑
An Honourable Member:
No. Did you canvass all of us?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Yes, I have spoken to all the members throughout this, and I find the
numbers are saying that the minister will have her wish.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, I would like to have a vote, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
The honourable member for Dauphin has requested a vote.
All those in favour of breaking for lunch
now, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Carry on.
Ms. Friesen: The minister says that the government has
supported 58 percent through ACCESS funding of students in these programs, but
the projections obviously, when only 1 or 2 or 25 percent of the enrollment is
going to be ACCESS funded, is that this proportion is going to change and that
it is going to change very quickly.
Again, I go back to the questions, and the
context in which I have been asking these questions is: What is the future of this program if only 25
percent of the intake is going to be, or less than 25 percent in fact, is going
to be funded by ACCESS directly? In some
cases, we have already seen that some programs have not admitted anyone. I think the minister suggested here ACCESS
North, and I think there was one other, ACCESS South, which had no funded
ACCESS students this year. I believe we
have also seen a freeze in the Engineering Program for one year, at one point,
on admissions.
So, again, there seems to be‑‑once
the government has decided to limit its commitment, shall we put it that way?‑‑limit
its commitment by a cut here of over a million dollars to this program, that it
brings for the students, for the populations affected and for the people who
work in these programs some very serious concerns about the future of it. I think we have some of the numbers to
substantiate that, that the proportion of government‑funded students or
ACCESS‑funded students is being reduced very dramatically.
So, again, I want to ask the minister to
give us some sense of what her directions are for next year. Is this going to be, for example, the
projection for the next couple of years?
Are we looking at one or zero and sort of moving those figures around in
each of the different programs, or are we going to look at some kind of overall
perspective on the ACCESS programs? Are
we going to look at freezes in acceptance of ACCESS students as we have done
this year and in other years in certain programs?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the percentage that I gave
the member of 58 percent provincially funded students was as of December 31,
1992, that is, December of the year of less than six months ago. So I think that that number is quite a
reliable one in that it is very recent.
As I gave the member the total enrollment
of '92‑93, the projected enrollment of '93‑94, yes, she will see
there is some reduction in that enrollment because there has been some
reduction in intake. However, the intake
has continued; there still has been an intake; and those students will still be
taken in as funded students.
* (1240)
When we look at the commitment of this
government to the ACCESS programs, I would remind the member that the
commitment is $9.9 million.
Ms. Friesen: The question I am asking the minister is, what
is the trend here? Yes, there may well
be‑‑I was not questioning her figure of 58 percent of six months
ago, but that is an overall figure for all the students in the program.
I am looking at the future of the
program. The way in which you look at
the future of a program is to begin with the intake year and to see what kind
of projections one can draw from that.
There are a number of concerns I have
about that. One is, what proportion are
going to be funded by ACCESS? Hence, the
other side of that coin is, how many students, what proportion of students are
going to have to bring with them other kinds of funding and, hence, have a
different basis of selection than those ACCESS students and the program have
had in the past?
Mrs. Vodrey: The trend that the member speaks about is
reduced federal funding. That has been a
trend that has been very much identifiable.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
In terms of our commitment, again, I have
explained to the member what it is. I
cannot look ahead and say specifically what that funding will be in the
following year other than to say that we have made the commitment to see
students through. We have also made a
commitment to bring new students in.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the minister has said
that she retains a commitment to students in the program. Could she tell us what reductions there have
actually been in the funding of those students who remain within the program?
A year ago, I believe, those students were
required to take, in some institutions, a proportion of what formerly had been
a bursary as a loan, and I believe there have been further reductions to some
students in some programs this year.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the reduction that
the member is referring to, the student bursary is being reduced to some
students who have been receiving more than others. So the reduction will be to those students
who have been receiving more than others and who have been in the program for
three years or more.
The reduction is from $6,000,
approximately $6,000, slightly more, to $3,744.
Now, again, notwithstanding this particular reduction which does now
bring all students onto the level playing field, the Student Allowances in '93‑94
will total an average of $10,600 per funded student. That money, that $10,600 is all nonrepayable
money.
Ms. Friesen: I divided my question into two parts, and I am
not sure if the minister's answer is responding to both.
Last year, I understand, that reduction
from $6,000 to $3,700 took place and the students were required, if they needed
it‑‑although God knows who did not need more than $3,700 to see
themselves through one year‑‑were required to take that in a
student loan.
I understand that there has been an
additional cut this year to some students.
Am I right in that or are we looking at the same amount? As I understood it, it was from students at
the Winnipeg Education Centre where there had been a reduction of, I believe,
it was over $100 per month in addition to last year.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the changes that I have been
referring to is one in the area of the grandfathering which we have spoken
about. There has also been a change
instituted this year in terms of the process of application for student loans,
in that in the past ACCESS students followed a somewhat different process than
other students who were applying for the Canada Student Loan.
So we have now had the ACCESS students
follow exactly the same process in application as all other students applying
for Canada Student Loan, and exactly the same criteria will apply to ACCESS
students as for all other students applying for the student loan. This was required to bring us into compliance
with the auditing procedures and request of the Canada Student Loan.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister explain to me the earlier
process, the one that had to be changed?
What different process did ACCESS students follow last year for Canada
Student Loan?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the past, students
in the ACCESS program simply automatically received a loan without assessment. The high level of need was assumed, but there
was no assessment. That was not true for
any other student who was applying for the Canada Student Loan. So this year, we have now required that
ACCESS students follow the same process as all other students to have an
assessment to look at need. I am advised
that some students may have been able to access the Canada Student Loan with
perhaps not a need, certainly not a need established.
Now we are requesting that the assessment
take place, however, for those students who in the past through the bursary
received the $6,000 and who now are on the level playing field with other
students at the $3,700 bursary. We have
asked the Student Financial Assistance to take into account that change in
their circumstances.
* (1250)
Ms. Friesen: I understood that as the minister read out the
criteria for ACCESS students, that one of them was financial need, absence from
the labour force or absence from school for some time. Presumably, that was why the assessments were
not done because the need had already been established because they were in an
ACCESS program.
Is there something that changed with the
admissibility of ACCESS students such that the need would not be there? I am not quite sure what changed in between.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the ACCESS students
did receive funding through the ACCESS program to assist in the area of
need. Yes, financial need was one area
to be considered and, yes, ACCESS students do receive the living allowance, the
rental subsidy and are certainly able to collect under the ACCESS programs up
to $10,400. Then when students determine
that they have need in addition to that, they have applied for the Canada
Student Loan.
Now what occurs is that with that money
available through ACCESS as financial assistance, when they apply for further
financial assistance now we are asking, as happens for all other students who
apply for the Canada Student Loan in Canada, that they now are able to look at
the amount of money available to them and establish need for further funding.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister has
already told us though that some students, those who had been in the program
three years or more, were cut from $6,000 to $3,700. How many of those students in fact were
affected by the new rules that she claims that Canada Student Loan wanted to
apply? Is there a connection there? Are these the students who were affected?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am advised that none
of those students were affected by this change.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the minister
tell us who was affected and what proportion of the ACCESS students this has
affected?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that all the applications have
not been received yet. As the member
knows, some of the programs do not begin until the fall. So we do not know what financial need has
been established by all ACCESS students at this point, and we probably will not
know that until the fall.
Ms. Friesen: There have been intakes at the Winnipeg
Education Centre. From talking to those
students, I know there is tremendous concern about the financial instability of
the program and of their own personal cases.
I wonder if the minister has heard from them‑‑in fact, I
know she has‑‑whether she has been able to have her staff speak to
them and to deal with the tremendous uncertainties of people who have entered a
program without adequate funding, without, it seems to me, any idea of where
their funding is coming from for next week, let alone for the rest of the
year. It is a relatively small group of
people. It seems to me, it would not take long for the minister to find out
what the issues are there and to deal with them.
This has been one of the most successful
elements of the ACCESS program, generally, with high graduation rates, high
employment rates. I would think it is
one that the minister would be very proud of and would want to ensure that
there was success, and that students were dealing first and foremost with their
studies and not with the kind of financial anxieties and difficulties that they
are finding themselves in, to the extent that at the moment they are camped
outside their classrooms, an attempt to draw attention to this.
I know they have sent letters to the
minister and she has acknowledged them.
Has she yet been able to deal with the issues which they are bringing to
her?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for those students
from the Winnipeg Education Centre, the ACCESS students who would be applying
for the Canada Student Loan, I am informed that they certainly have been
receiving the priority in terms of the area of assessment, and we are looking
to assist those students as quickly as possible.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give us a date? Could she give the students a date when their
situation will be dealt with and when they will know what their financial
situation will be?
Mrs. Vodrey: I can say to the member and to the students
that their applications are receiving a special handling within our Student
Financial Assistance Branch. They are
being processed very quickly, but as the member knows, it is a matter of when
the students applied themselves, in terms of when the student put in the
application. Those applications that are
in, again, are receiving a priority handling in terms of processing and it will
be done very, very quickly.
Ms. Friesen: I think the minister must bear some of the
responsibility for this. One of the
reasons I believe that the applications had not been put in till now is that
the Education Centre did not know how many people could be funded, what their
intake was going to be and, in fact, what basis of selection they could
make. People who receive acceptance, who
go through quite a long series of interviews‑‑in fact, it is almost
sort of six months of selection processes that they have to go through, and yet
they could not give notice to their employers, those who were employed.
They did not know whether they had been
accepted. They did not know what date
they were starting. Classes were, even
for those students who were in the existing program, two to three weeks late in
beginning so that other elements of the school were disrupted. The additional problem has been the
application for a student loan which leaves a considerable financial
uncertainty for people who are starting a program for which they have been
looking forward to, they are enthusiastic, they want to get down to work.
For many people it is a chance that they
could only have dreamed of, to be accepted there and to be on their way to be a
social worker or to be a teacher. So the
uncertainty, first of all, of whether they are going to have money to complete
this year, the uncertainty about the programs, about whether they will be able
to build upon the investment that they are making now in this program, simply
is not there. We are only dealing here
with one microcosm, with one very successful institution, which I am sure the
minister is very proud of. Yet what the
minister's policies are doing are leading to an instability and to serious
problems, I think, both for staff and students, about their immediate financial
issues and the long‑term future of this institution.
Again, I have been asking these questions
broadly of the minister in the whole context of the ACCESS programs. I am trying to narrow it now to a specific
institution and a group of students who I know have contacted the minister and
are very, very concerned about their future.
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me start by saying that any start date
issues, we were asked by the universities and the colleges and the institutions
which offer ACCESS programs to consult with them when any changes were being
made. We did that. We did take the opportunity to make sure that
we had spoken with all of the institutions, and the institutions in fact were
very co‑operative and worked very hard to look at reducing their own
administrative costs to free up the greatest amount of money available to
assist ACCESS students.
Had we not gone through that process, then
perhaps we would have continued to have money available for administration and
not as much money available to actually directly assist students. In terms of any time‑frame difference,
I can tell the member very confidently that we spoke to the institutions, we
worked with the institutions. As a
result of that process, as much money as possible has been available to assist
students, and we were able to maintain the level of assistance. Things such as rent subsidy and so on is
available to those students.
I would like to look now at the amount of
money available for students in terms of financial assistance, first of all,
through the ACCESS programs. As the
member knows, a student through ACCESS funding would have available up to
$10,600. That is bursary, that is
nonrepayable funding. In addition to
that, students may also apply for the Canada Student Loan. They would apply for the Canada Student Loan
based on need as all other students would.
They also, if their need is high, may apply for the Manitoba Student
Financial Assistance, and then there is also for the most needy of students, we
have maintained in our student Financial Assistance Program bursaries for the
most needy of students, plus there are the Princess Anne and Princess of Wales
bursary programs.
* (1300)
So the money available to students is
through a number of stages. There are
significant amounts of assistance available, and as I have said, students in
the ACCESS programs in the past were not required to establish need. Now they are, as all other students, going to
go through the process of assessment. We
have just checked with our Student Financial Assistance office. The students' applications are being assessed
as quickly as possible, but if students are concerned and would like to know
exactly where their application is, they might like to call our office at 945‑6312
and speak to Katie Kroeker.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will pass that
telephone number on to the Winnipeg Education students. I am sure they would like to hear from the
minister directly on that as well.
So, essentially, what I understand the
minister to say is that the late start, the disruption that has been brought to
the Winnipeg Education Centre and perhaps other areas, the lateness in the
selection and notification of students, which has resulted in their later
applications to Student Loan, was in fact due to consultation. Yes, consultation is very important. I am certainly glad to see that the minister
is in consultation with universities.
Given that most departments, including
this one, wrote to institutions and societies and associations across the
province some months before the budget on the changes that were likely to be
expected and not to expect anything more or in fact even to budget for
something less, why did that process of consultation not begin earlier? Surely, you cannot bring consultation for
late delays. You simply have to look at
the date when the consultation began.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we certainly consult
on an ongoing basis with the universities, and I do meet regularly with the
Council of Presidents of Universities in
In terms of the very specific decisions
around the ACCESS programs and the discussions, there was a certain amount of
money available as a result of the budgetary process. We wanted to make sure that the universities
and the colleges and all institutions where the ACCESS programs were being
offered fully understood the situation and to make sure that there was
maintained an intake and also support for students in the program.
During the process of consultation, we
looked at how we could make the most money available for actual program needs
to meet the needs of students. That is
exactly what happened. That was the
process that was undertaken in regard very specifically to the ACCESS
students. However, I can tell the member
on an ongoing basis, we certainly have contact with the presidents of
universities regularly.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if that co‑operation
exists on a continuing basis, and if these budget decisions were known as they were
on the date of the budget, why did it take another two months essentially
before any admittance could be made to the Winnipeg Education Centre?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because the
discussions were ongoing.
Ms. Friesen: The minister referred to an audit by the
Canada Student Loan of the process of application that have been earlier in
place‑‑or perhaps not an audit but an auditor. I wondered if that auditor had produced a
report and whether that report was available.
Mrs. Vodrey: The Government of Canada does a series of
audits as part of their ongoing series.
They did a series of audits, I am informed, across
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I understood from the
minister that there was a specific direction from Canada Student Loan that
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that the
Government of Canada, through this audit, was not speaking specifically to
Again, there did not seem to be an issue
of major concern. However, they did ask for a tightening of procedures to bring
our process into compliance with the strict interpretation of the Canada
Student Loan.
Ms. Friesen: Would the minister table that letter from
Canada Student Loan?
Mrs. Vodrey: This information was not communicated by way
of letter. It was communicated to our
staff who again are the administrators of the Canada Student Loan Program at an
Intergovernmental Consultative Committee on Student Financial Assistance.
Ms. Friesen: Are there minutes from that meeting that would
be available? If such an indication was directed
to all provinces, then I would think that would be available in the minutes.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we would have to check
the minutes of those meetings of which we are participant with other provinces
across
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give us the approximate
date and some way of identifying that meeting?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I understand it was
approximately some time in the fall of '92.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the minister
tell us the name of the committee and perhaps the location where it met?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I gave the member the name of the
committee. The committee is the Intergovernmental Consultative Committee on
Student Financial Assistance, and we believe that meeting was held in
Ms. Friesen: Perhaps I can conclude the section on ACCESS,
although not necessarily passing the line yet, but perhaps this line of
questioning, to ask the minister again about the future.
* (1310)
I have asked it many times and I am trying
to reflect the concerns that I hear about ACCESS across the province, amongst
students, amongst staff. Again, I am
asking the minister to perhaps allay those concerns that people have. It is a very constant concern for students
who are in second, third year, who are not sure that they are going to be able
to complete. It is a concern for staff
because they do not know how to plan for the future. It is a concern, I think, for the whole
community of
I draw the minister's attention to the
fact that even the numbers she has given us show that over the last couple of
years graduation rates have both remained‑‑in fact, in some places
remained stable and in some cases increased.
I mean this is good news. This is
a good program and yet we see diminished support, less commitment for programs
which have been models for other provinces.
I am sure she is aware of the kind of
modelling that both
I am sure she knows that when you can take
in five or six students into a medical program, you are quite likely to turn
out three doctors a year at the end of that, and that was the plan. That is
what has been happening, but students do not always complete even though the
completion rates in ACCESS programs have been higher than they have been in
university programs generally.
So in terms of completion, in terms of
creating professionals in medicine, in engineering, in teaching, in social
work, particularly from the aboriginal community, but not exclusively, these
have been enormously successful programs.
People now are concerned about their future and they are concerned about
the level of support. I have asked the
minister over and over again about the future and how she is addressing that
future.
I do not necessarily expect her to lay out
the plans for the next three or four years, although I would be delighted and
so would the students and the staff if she would, but what I do want to hear
from the minister is whether there is any concern about the future and whether
she has any plans or any process to address that future and those concerns that
are there amongst Manitobans.
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have explained to the member, our
commitment has been evident through our action, our action to support those
students who are currently in the program, our action again this year to support
students who are currently in the program and our action to take in new funded
intakes. I think all three of those
areas speak to an interest and a commitment in terms of the ACCESS programs.
I cannot tell the member what the next
year financially will bring to this province and to
So I will say to the member again on that
side, I cannot hypothesize and would feel that would be wrong for me to do so.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, does that mean that we are
in fact waiting for another budget and then another series of consultations and
exactly the same kind of delays and difficulties that we have been through this
year for ACCESS students next year?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said, I would not presume to
hypothesize on the budget. However, I
would say what she has called difficulties perhaps is an indication of how she
might go about this‑‑or she or her party. We have been consultative. We have worked with the institutions.
The institutions have been satisfied with
that, and we believe that, as a result of that, we have been able to take in 25
new students and we have been able to maintain a strong commitment to those
students who are in the ACCESS program.
That process, which she seems to have had difficulty with, is certainly
one which we believe has been of assistance to students in the ACCESS programs.
Ms. Friesen: What I have difficulty with is the fact that
this year the minister has taken in 25 ACCESS‑funded students and last
year there were 107, and that there is a diminishment, a decrease in the funds
for ACCESS by over a million dollars this year.
That is the record of the government. That is what the minister has to contend
with. What I do not see is how it fits
with the overall economic prospects of this government as outlined in their
policy directions for
Those teachers, those doctors, those
social workers are amongst the keys to those aboriginal partnerships that this
government, any government, in
I want to go on to ask about the sections
on this line which deal with the Churchill research centre. This section of the budget is not broken out
for that, and I wonder if the minister could tell us what the historical record
of funding is for the Churchill northern research centre, Northern Study
Centre.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the historical level of
funding for the Churchill Northern Studies Centre has been $100,000, as I have
reported when we last discussed this.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, is that $100,000 last year's
grant, and is it $100,000 for this coming year's grant?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us what that
allocation is for? Does the minister
know how that breaks out in terms of capital funds or salaries?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, it is considered to be core
operating funding. It includes salaries
and other operating dollars.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister know what proportion of the
total funding of Churchill Northern Studies Centre this is? I know, for example, it is funded by other
agencies, obviously, and that at times the national consortium on Universities
for Northern Studies has funded it.
There has been federal funding in it.
Is there additional funding that comes from other
* (1320)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we provide $100,000, as I
have said. The centre also receives
approximately $156,000 in user fees, and they also receive about another $5,500
from other private donations. In total
we funded approximately 38 percent.
Mr. Plohman:
Just briefly on the Churchill Northern Studies Centre, the minister just
said that $100,000 is about 38 percent of the total budget, and that the
$100,000 was provided last year as well as this year.
What was the figure provided previous to
that? Does the staff have any history of
the funding over the last, even say, five years? I believe it was higher at one time.
Mrs. Vodrey: The funding for the Churchill research centre
was a low of $25,000 in 1984, I believe.
That was when the member's party was in government. It is now at $100,000. It was $100,000 in '92; $100,000 in '91;
$100,000 in '90; in '89 it was $165,000; $165,000 in '88; it was in '87
$320,000; in '86, $105,000; in '85, $105,000.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister tried to provide the committee with information that would
seem to indicate that there was the policy by the previous government of gross
underfunding of this agency. Then after making that comment, she proceeded to
provide information that there were massive increases following that. That is a
terrible misleading piece of information, whether deliberate or otherwise by
this minister. I cannot understand why
she would choose to put it in that way.
I would ask the minister: Can she give us any indication of what has
changed in terms of the needs and the work being done by the Northern Studies
Centre that would warrant these rather significant decreases from 1985, 1986
and '87 and '88 by this government? Why
have they stopped funding, or decreased the funding in a significant way that
they have?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member seems to have trouble with the way
the facts were delivered. Perhaps he is
embarrassed by those facts, but let me tell him, as he has asked for, what the
centre does, what the work of the centre is.
I am happy to do that. Researchers from
Some studies are being conducted out of
the centre that are relative to issues such as global warming, changes in the
redistribution of wildlife, and also results on research of polar bears that
has been undertaken by the Canadian Wildlife Service. The centre also
contributes to the development of what we would say is a positive image in
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, the minister gave us some figures for previous years of provincial
funding, and she said also that the $100,000 represents 38 percent of their
total budget at the present time. Can she indicate whether the partners
providing funding to this study centre have‑‑what the trend has
been over the last numbers? Have they
dropped their funding as well? The
percentage of the total by
Mrs. Vodrey: One of the reasons that we are interested in
looking at a business plan is that the centre has found it very difficult to
develop and to attract external sources of funding on a dependable basis. The member has asked in terms of any
changes. I will tell him that our
funding has remained constant for the last five years; however, the user fees
have certainly varied. In 1989 the user
fees were $203,683. Those user fees
dropped in 1990 to $109,832. In 1991
they were $116,193, and then the user fees in '92 were $156,113.
Our commitment has been stable over the
last years, but the ability to attract those other sources of funding, and in
the way of user fees in particular, has been an unstable part of the funding
for the centre. In response to that, we
have asked for a business plan, and I have explained to the member, we expect
to receive that plan June 30 this year.
Mr. Plohman:
So what the minister is saying is that the core funding, the stable
funding from the province, has been dropped to $100,000 in 1989 and remained
there for the past five years. Before that it was higher and the minister had
given us those figures. As a matter of
fact, it reached a high of $320,000 in '87.
Since then it has dropped to $100,000.
That may be the reason why they are unable
to attract other users, because the core funding, the basic integrity of the
organization is threatened by the underfunding of the province. That is what I
am asking the minister, as to whether in fact there could be some justification
for the decrease?
* (1330)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, just let me clarify for the
member what he thinks was such large core funding when his party was in power
in '87. His core funding was
$105,000. The other funding that was
made available that year was a renovation grant. So the core funding from the time that his
party was in government was $105,000, and $104,000, and as I said earlier, at a
low of $25,000.
We have maintained a commitment over the
past years of $100,000, and with that commitment, there has been a fluctuation
for the centre of their ability to attract user fees. In response to that, we have requested a business
plan and we expect to look at that business plan and see what has been
presented by the centre.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, just to clarify here for the record, the minister has said, during
the five years that her government has been in office, it has been $100,000, and
the five years prior to that, it was at least at $105,000. You consider inflation, there has been a
substantial drop in the amount of funding by the province during this
government.
The minister has indicated that there is
some variation in ability to receive fees from other sources for specific
studies. She calls them user fees. Can
the minister indicate: How many core
staff are there in place as a result of the funding that the province is now
providing, and has there been a drop in the number of staff over the period of
time that we have been talking about, from 1985 down to 1993, two five‑year
periods here? Has there been a drop‑off
in staffing because of the decrease in funding, particularly by this
government?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, while we are looking for the
staff numbers, let me just say to the member, and go over those funding amounts
again so that he is clear and it is also clear and accurate on the record: 1984, $25,000; 1985, $104,250; 1986,
$105,154; 1987, the education grant, $105,000; 1988, when our government came
to power, $165,000; 1989, when our government was in power, $165,000; and then,
since 1990, the grant has remained stable at $100,000.
I understand that we do not have the
staffing information available to us today, but we will get them for the next
session.
Mr. Plohman:
I imagine the minister does not have any reason or rationale why they
dropped the funding from $165,000 established by the former government in '88
down to the $100,000 that she has it at at the present time.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, when that change took place
there had to be an examination of exactly what the work was being done there
and also what the benefits were, and certainly we have maintained a commitment
at $100,000. But in that time we also
had to look at other needs in the area of education, and we looked at the total
needs of education and the funding needs of education in that area. As I have said, we have maintained the
commitment at $100,000 over these years of very difficult financial decisions.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am going to leave this. I just want to ask the
minister to provide the core staffing levels over that period of time, the 10‑year
period. If she could bring that to the
next committee, we would want that information.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, I said to the member, I
am happy to provide that in the next session.
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Deputy Chair, I just wanted to clarify one thing under the ACCESS
section, and suffice it to say that the questions that the member for Wolseley
has been asking, I think, are all very valid questions. Certainly her issues are some of the issues
of our Liberal caucus. I could repeat all
those questions, but I would imagine I would get the same responses from the
minister. I think in the interest of
time and moving on to other areas that I will not repeat those questions. I did want to ask a point of clarification,
and I may not have heard correctly. The
minister had indicated that in 1992‑93 there were 726 students that were
registered, 58 percent were funded by the province. Then she went on to say that in '93‑94
there were 712 students, and she said that the commitment by the province for
funding had been maintained. Can the
minister tell us what percentage that would be?
Mrs. Vodrey: We do not have that figure available because
the 712 would be an estimated enrollment, because it would be for the school
year coming up, the '93‑94 school year.
So what we have done is taken the students who are within the program,
added the intakes which we will be looking at this year, and removed the
students who have graduated and said that would be the number of students that
we would expect to have in the program.
We do not have all the registrations yet because, again, it will be for
the next school year.
Ms. Gray:
If the 712 then is an average number, can the minister still tell us,
based on those projections, what is the percentage of students that she feels
would be funded if there were 712 students enrolled?
Mrs. Vodrey: We cannot know that number yet because we do
not know yet who the students are who will be applying and their eligibility
criteria, so we would expect to know that information in the fall when the
applications have been processed, but they are not all processed at this time.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell us what is the maximum amount of dollars that
would be available to fund these students, however many there may be?
Mrs. Vodrey: The amount of money available is the
$9,926,000 which is available in this budget line. There is $9.9 million which is available in
ACCESS programming.
Ms. Gray:
Is the minister telling me‑‑surely all of that money‑‑can
she break down those dollars? How much
of that money is actually going to go to students in the program?
* (1340)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in the past of the budget
line, approximately 40 percent went to direct assistance to students, and the
rest went into the supports that the students require, as well as
administration. This year because we
have asked all of the institutions to look very carefully at the administrative
costs to make the maximum number of dollars available for students in terms of
the student assistance, we expect closer to 50 percent of that amount of money
will actually be available to students, the rest of the money available for the
supports to students in the ACCESS program as well as administration.
Ms. Gray:
If the percentage then of that amount of money may be close to 50
percent, as the minister has indicated, with that particular amount of money
then what would be the maximum number of students that could be accommodated
and given direct assistance?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we are looking to provide
the member with the information. The
difficulty we have is that we do not know accurately how many students will be
graduating because they have not all completed the courses at this point, but
we would have to look at the number of people graduated, of those graduated
students how many were funded, how many were nonfunded, look to add in the new
funded intakes that we expect to take and that way get a percentage.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell me, what is the maximum amount of funding that one
would give in terms of direct assistance, what is the maximum amount of dollars
that is considered direct assitance to any one student? Is there a maximum?
Mrs. Vodrey: What I have been using as an average number of
maximum amount of support is $10,600.
The amount of support could go as high as $16,000 depending upon the
number of dependents that the ACCESS student claims, and then, in addition to
that, students would be eligible for Canada Student Loan, Manitoba Student
Financial Assistance, and if they were among the most needy of students, the
Manitoba bursary.
Ms. Gray:
So if the average may be around $10,600, then what is the maximum number
of students that could be accommodated if they were all given that amount of
money, given that you have almost 50 percent of your total budget of $9 million‑some
available for direct assistance?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am trying to answer the
member's question, but I can say we do not have those exact figures. We do not have any reason to think that the
pattern will change significantly this year from other years. So in terms of the amount of money, I cannot
be any more specific at this time because we do not know yet who those students
will be. We do not know yet who the students will be who will be graduating.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
The hour being 1:45 p.m., the committee will take a half hour break.
Mrs. Vodrey: Half hour or fifteen?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Do you want fifteen?
Mrs. Vodrey: Fifteen is fine with me‑‑(interjection)
An Honourable Member:
Half an hour.
Mrs. Vodrey: Okay, half an hour.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Half an hour.
* * *
The committee recessed
at 1:46 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed
at 2:17 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
The committee will come to order.
We are on item 4.(b) Access Programs $9,926,000.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to ask about
the
I wondered if that was included in this
line or whether it is included in another line or indeed is it included at all. What stage are we at with that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the
Ms. Friesen: Is there anything in this Estimates here that
we are now looking at that is a possible allocation to the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is no funding
allocation through this line for the
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Item 4.(b) Access Programs $9,926,000. Shall the item pass?
* (1420)
Ms. Gray:
I just added. When I look at the
direct assistance if it is up to 50 percent and on an average of a little bit
higher than the minister stated at $11,000 per student, that means, according
to my calculations, that there could be provision for approximately 400‑410
students. Would that be correct in terms
of if all those dollars were used for students?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on an estimated basis
that may be correct, because there are about 414 students this year.
Ms. Gray:
Therefore, of the 726 students last year and if 58 percent of those were
funded which would be about 350, that means technically you could be funding
more students this year than you did last year.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the number that I have
as of December 31, '92, is 389 students, accounting for 58 percent.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
4.(b) Access Programs $9,926,000‑‑pass.
(c) Student Financial Assistance (1)
Salaries $1,549,700.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there has been a major
change in this department and this is the switch to a loan program as opposed
to a bursary program. The minister has
maintained all along that she has maintained some money as bursaries. I wonder if we could look at that amount and
how many students it is going to provide for, at what rate and what proportion
of the budget it is.
Mrs. Vodrey: We are looking at approximately 600 students
qualifying for the bursary program. The
amount would be about $2,500 per student for a total of about $1.5 million out
of the $10 million.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us how this has
changed from last year? How many
students were receiving bursaries last year, and how much money was that?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that it would be approximately
the same number of students who would have qualified for student financial
assistance at that same level.
Ms. Friesen: So 600 students in
Mrs. Vodrey: It is approximately 600 students, or
approximately the same number of students who would qualify for support at the
third level this year as qualified for support at the third level last year.
Ms. Friesen: How much was given at the third level last
year? What I am trying to do is to draw a comparison of what has changed for
students in
Mrs. Vodrey: The money available at the third level this
year has increased. Last year, it was
$1.1 million and this year it is $1.5 million.
Ms. Friesen: Well, I am obviously not posing the questions
in the right way. Can the minister tell
us how life will have changed for students in
There are 600 students who had loans,
there are 600 students this year who have bursaries of $2,500 each. As I understand the minister, there will
still be 600 students who will have nonrepayable bursaries of $2,500 each this
year. Since she has allocated more money
from $1.1 million, I guess, to $1.5 million, she is anticipating more students
who will be at that level.
Now, the rest of the students in Manitoba‑‑it
seems to me there were more than 600 students who were being served by this
division‑‑those students must now move to a loan program. So can the minister explain to us the
differences there? What has happened?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the
changes, first of all what has not changed is that the student's first level of
assistance is in the form of the Canada Student Loan. We discussed this
afternoon that there is a system of assessment for students to receive the
Canada Student Loan based on need.
Where students find themselves in need of
further financial aid, then the second step is the
Of those 4,400 students, those who have
the loan rebate, we have made it clear that we will still honour the loan
rebate for those students. For other
students, they will move into a guaranteed student loan. As last year, for those students who have an
additional need for further assistance, they will then move into the
Ms. Friesen: How many students does the department anticipate
are going to fall into the second level, where I assume that the change is the
most dramatic?
* (1430)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we anticipate that
approximately 4,600 students may progress to the second level. That slight
increase is because the first level of assistance available, the Canada Student
Loan assistance, has not increased in a significant number of years. Therefore some students may then progress
into the second level.
Ms. Friesen: An additional 4,600 students in
Does the minister have any‑‑could
she tell us what kind of financial arrangements are to be made for that loan,
what rate of interest? Is it to be
locked in until the period of repayment? When does it begin to be repaid? Is it cumulative? Is it added on to the Canada Student
Loan? Which one takes precedence in
terms of repayment?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the Canada Student Loan is a
separate negotiation to the
For the Manitoba Student Loan,
Ms. Friesen: As I understand the minister, students must
essentially have two different sets of negotiations, one with Canada Student
Loan and one with
Mrs. Vodrey: The two loans are kept separate.
Ms. Friesen: I am looking at this in the perspective of the
student. In looking at the repayment
schedule, from the
Mrs. Vodrey: I am advised that the payment schedule would
be worked out by the bank with their knowledge of the student's position.
Ms. Friesen: The federal government, I believe, is considering
going to one or two banks for its new proposals for Canada Student Loan. How is that likely to affect the student's
position at the end of a grant? The
provincial government, I gather, is retaining the option of a variety of banks
and credit unions?
Mrs. Vodrey: We have had no confirmation from
Ms. Friesen: Just to clarify, the minister said she was
looking at‑‑does that mean the policy is not settled yet or was
that just a figure of speech?
* (1440)
Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly, the plan and the policy is to make
this available to all banks and credit unions. It is just being negotiated with the Canadian
Bankers' Association now, and then as soon as that is concluded and we are able
to pass the regulations which we look at doing as quickly as possible, there
will be all banks and credit unions.
Ms. Friesen: Are credit unions members of the Canadian
Bankers' Association?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, they are not members of the Canadian
Bankers' Association, but they have approached government and we have had
discussion with them already.
Ms. Friesen: So there are two parallel negotiations going
on, with the Bankers' Associations and with Manitoba Credit Union Central?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, certainly we look for
the final outcome for everyone to be under the same set of regulations, the
same kinds of rules. As it happens
though, to open up to the numbers of lending institutions, credit unions are
not part of the Canadian Bankers' Association.
Therefore, the negotiations with credit unions are occurring just
concurrently with the Canadian Bankers' Association.
Ms. Friesen: When does the minister expect to have the
written versions of the plan and regulations that will be available to
students?
Mrs. Vodrey: I expect to have that very shortly.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is that likely to be
before the beginning of the school year?
Are students, for example, going to know the terms of repayment before
they undertake a loan?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, before the beginning of the school year.
Ms. Friesen: What will be the arrangements for repayments
if students leave
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, seeing as the terms
are for other types of loans, the student would then look at transferring the
loan to another branch of that particular lending institution.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister have any evidence yet‑‑and
I do not know whether this would be the pattern within applications. Can we
tell yet from the pattern of applications whether this is going to deter
students or whether applications will remain the same and students will simply
be assuming $20,000 to $30,000 debt on graduation into an economy with rates of
18 percent youth unemployment?
Mrs. Vodrey: We do not have enough information to look at a
pattern at this time.
Ms. Friesen: In the cycle of the department, when would that
begin to appear?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that it
really could be as long as a full cycle, because at this point we are still
just getting in the applications for the Canada Student Loan.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister said there would be two negotiations taking place with
regard to student loans: one with the
federal government and one with the provincial government for student loan
repayment, the Canada Student Loan being one and the other being the Manitoba
Student Loan.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not sure from the member's question if he
is asking if a loan is negotiated. One,
the Canada Student Loan is negotiated and then following the award of the
Canada Student Loan then the Manitoba Student Loan would be negotiated.
Consolidating the loans at the end of the
period of study, yes, there would be two:
one for the Canada Student Loan because that is repaid at a fixed
interest rate; and the other would be for the Manitoba Student Loan because that
is at a floating interest rate, a prime plus 1 percent at a floating interest
rate.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the floating is at prime plus one, and the fixed
interest rate of the federal loan, initially, is it at prime plus one, but it
stays wherever the prime was at that time or is it higher than that above
prime?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the amount that the
federal government has negotiated is at 9.5 percent, and that is the level that
students look at repayment at.
Mr. Plohman:
Has the minister made any representation to try to have these two
programs co‑ordinated so that there does not have to be different
policies for each one?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is not any
province in
Mr. Plohman:
Is there any move to review‑‑I mean, the federal bureaucracy
is very cumbersome. We are talking 9.25
percent. It would seem to me that we are
talking about an interest rate that was set a couple of years ago and certainly
does not reflect today's interest rates and is really not fair for the students
involved.
Is there any move at all to have theirs
put onto a floating interest rate with the provision that they could be locked
in at any point in time that the student so desired, like many loans can be
done at the present time with banks or credit unions?
* (1450)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, during the discussions
that I have had with the federal government so far around the Canada Student
Loan, this has not been raised by Manitoba and I have not heard it raised by
other provinces. However, it is a point
that could be raised in future meetings.
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in
the Chair)
Mr. Plohman:
It certainly could, Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, but does the
minister feel, as occupying that position, whether in fact it will be? Does she feel it is an important enough issue
at the present time when we are dealing with a prime rate of 6 percent and
students are paying 9.25 percent? It is
not very fair for the students involved. It would seem to me to be an urgent
matter. Is the minister intending to
raise it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, as I said, I
negotiate with the Government of Canada and represent to the Government of
Canada, in the interests of Manitobans, a number of issues and certainly try to
take the issues raised by Manitobans always to discussions that I have as
minister or that we have at a working level in terms of the staff.
I said in my last answer, that is
certainly an issue that I would be prepared to take forward.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, well, you said it could be taken forward. I am glad to see that you have clarified
that.
Do you feel that there would be general
support? Madam Acting Deputy
Chairperson, is the minister chairing the council of Education ministers, or
who is doing that at the present time or is responsible for that?
Mrs. Vodrey: My colleague from the
Mr. Plohman: Can every minister contribute to the
agenda? Is it difficult to get it on, or
is it just done on a basis of a‑‑I am talking about who is chairing
the council of ministers. What process
does the minister use to get on the agenda?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member
asked if this had been raised with the Government of Canada. I said that during meetings it had not been
raised with the Government of Canada.
The member now asks if it can be raised at a meeting of the Council of
Ministers of Education which is chaired by the honourable David Cooke, and yes,
it could be.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister says two options, one through the Council of Ministers and
one directly to the federal minister responsible and she intends to raise this
with both. Is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am prepared to raise it in both places. As I said, at meetings that we have had with
the Council of Ministers of Education and also the meetings we have had
directly with the federal Minister of State who is responsible for the Canada
Student Loan, I have raised on behalf of
Mr. Plohman:
In that spirit, does the minister intend to protest the removal of the
six‑month interest‑free period after graduation and perhaps
recommend that it be increased where students are unemployed following
graduation, considering the economic situation that many of them find
themselves in with job prospects very bleak?
Mrs. Vodrey: At the meeting that I had with the former
Minister of State who was responsible for the Canada Student Loan, I raised a
number of issues on behalf of students in
It was not a meeting where we had an
opportunity to discuss in detail issues relating to the Canada Student
Loan. However, we now will have the opportunity
at a next meeting that that minister may call‑‑and I do not know
when that will be‑‑on behalf of ministers, but at that point, yes,
these matters can be raised.
Mr. Plohman:
We know they can be and the minister has given assurance that she will
raise it with the federal Minister of State.
I hope that she will also raise it with the Council of Ministers because
it may be difficult to achieve any changes with the federal policy unless there
is a common front by ministers from across the country.
Of course, with the potential change in
government or election at least, this makes it very difficult. However, it would seem possible that this
does not have to be done at the political level. Perhaps it can be done through senior staff
that work on these kinds of things.
Is there any chance that this is in the
works at the present time, or are we going the opposite way, making terms
tougher for students rather than an easing off considering the impact at the
present time on employment prospects?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair,
Mr. Plohman:
Would this be something, though, that is normally dealt with by
ministers as opposed to final decisions being made by senior staff?
Mrs. Vodrey: As the member knows, ministers are the ones
who do have the responsibility in the long run, and this is likely an issue
which may be dealt with at the ministerial level. However, if it is appropriate we may look at
raising it at the working group level.
Mr. Plohman:
It would seem that the working group level is where it should be raised
so the details are prepared prior to the minister's having to deal with
it. This is a good time to do it. With an election coming, it might as well be
a productive time for the bureaucracy.
Then when the new government, whoever it is, is in place and a new
minister or the same minister after an election, then at least there is
something there to deal with. I am just
saying that the minister should endeavour to have this referred to the senior
staff so that the work can be done, working committees can get the work done.
While I am saying that, I think the
minister has to also have a policy that is clean in this area herself because
she does not have a great deal of credibility in advocating certain things
without making the changes.
An Honourable Member:
Oh, come on, John.
Mr. Plohman:
Before I was so rudely interrupted, Madam Acting Deputy Chair, I was
saying that the minister would not have a great deal of credibility in dealing
with the federal minister and other ministers if she does not have the action
taken and a policy in place that is responsive.
So she can enhance her credibility with dealing with the federal
minister and the federal government and her counterparts in other provinces if
indeed she has looked at some of these things herself. This is why I intend to raise a couple of
things.
Now, the floating rates is good, and the
six‑month grace period is good. It
is better than what the feds have, and it could be perhaps longer considering
economic conditions. So I want to ask
the minister whether she herself and her department are looking at the idea of
under certain circumstances extending that six‑month interest‑free
period, and whether she is looking also with her staff at a provision that
would allow a locking‑in of that interest rate before they begin to rise,
so that if an individual student wanted to say, I would like to lock this loan
in right now at the interest rates or maybe paying a penalty of 1 percent or
whatever because they believe the interest rates are going to rise over the
next number of months, through whatever information they have‑‑that
is their choice, they make that decision‑‑that that option is
available to them?
* (1500)
So, those two minor‑‑well, I
would think they could be major improvements:
one, extending the six‑month period under certain conditions of
unemployment or whatever; and locking in at the choice of the individual
student.
Mrs. Vodrey: At the moment, because we have just created
our Manitoba Student Loan program, our guaranteed loans program, we have not
looked at an extension to that six months.
In terms of locking in at an interest rate, the student may be able to
negotiate that with their individual bank.
Mr. Plohman:
So there is nothing inhibiting a student from locking in.
Mrs. Vodrey: Nothing would stop students from negotiating
directly with their bank or attempting to lock in with their bank.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister has said that its floating rate, prime plus one has been
established through the
Mrs. Vodrey: Again the student may be able to negotiate
with the bank. He may be able to
negotiate a freeze. We as a government
would not be negotiating that. However,
the banks in terms of their agreement, if the student turned the loan into a
consumer loan, then the bank could not come back to the province for loss, in
terms of the guaranteed student loan.
Mr. Plohman:
Right, so under a guaranteed student loan program, it is better if the
province negotiates the terms with the banks instead, and they have an
agreement and these are set and the students are the benefactors theoretically
of the negotiation by the province. In
this case, the floating rate prime plus one, that obviously had to be
negotiated by the province. Now we are
talking about what kind of provisions could be negotiated for locking in,
because we are at very low interest rates relatively speaking now and the
expectation would be perhaps that there might be some increases.
Some students might want to choose to do
this. Why would not the government have
that provision in place, so they would not be penalized and have to pay
interest rates of 14, 15, 16, who knows what percent when the bank rate goes up
and the floating rate goes with it, rather than leaving the student up to the
mercies of having to deal with this on their own?
Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly in the negotiations that we have had
and obviously that Canada has had, we would either be looking at a fixed rate
which the Government of Canada has, and the member says rightly that is
probably not the most advantageous to the students right now or the floating
rate which we have been able to work out on behalf of Manitoba.
At the moment those seem to be the two
options that we would have as a government on behalf of students. If students wish to negotiate further, they
certainly would be able to do that with their local banker. That may be the case where the banker in some
cases may know the student very well, and even with Canada Student Loan, Canada
has always put forward the position that the students should develop a
relationship with the bankers so that with the development of the relationship,
if other negotiations are required, then they could be more easily worked out.
Mr. Plohman:
By the Province of Manitoba utilizing its expertise and its interest of
the student being kept as foremost consideration and therefore entering into
some discussions on what would happen when locking‑in occurs, insofar as
interest rates, that would not in any way deter a student from developing a
relationship with the bank in terms of his or her financial needs as
circumstances warrant.
This does not pre‑empt any
relationship developing. All I am saying
is that the province could ensure that there were certain conditions that would
apply when a student desired this option, and I am asking the minister whether
she will attempt to move in that direction, to ensure there are some provisions
that would protect students in those circumstances.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member may be asking for a mechanism
which, if the government did negotiate a lower than market rate or perhaps a
specific fixed rate or a rate which locks students in, the province would have
to subsidize in some areas then if there was a change in circumstance. For the province to have to subsidize, I would
be concerned about the amount of money then available for the Student Loan
Program.
I think what the member is bringing
forward may have another side to it which may not work out to be as beneficial
to
* (1510)
Mr. Plohman:
Well, the minister is only looking at one way of negotiating this. That is that the government would pay the
difference if the interest rates went above a certain level.
That is not really what I am suggesting at
all. It is just simply a group
negotiation on behalf of students by the government to simply get the best
interest rate possible when locking in occurs, and that there would be certain
guidelines in place. That is all I am
suggesting.
I think rather than leaving the individual
students to their own means, this would be advantageous to them, to have it
done on their behalf as a group. I
wonder if the minister would look at that, because I note that the Canadian
Bankers' Association representative at an advisory group meeting where
discussions were taking place with the Government of Canada mentioned parental
cosigning of loans and a premium on loans as two criteria which the banks might
impose before agreeing to guarantee student loans.
It would seem to me that if that is what
they want to do with the province as well, it would be very difficult for
students. This is
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not able to say in relation to what the
member referred to from the Canada Student Loan. I do not know what part of negotiations that
is from or exactly to what he is referring.
I can tell him that in terms of the
Manitoba Student Loan, the banks did not want co‑signers‑‑I
beg your pardon, the Royal Bank whom we have begun our negotiations with and
with whom the interim relationship is with while we are negotiating with the
Canadian Bankers' Association.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister is saying that there will be some negotiations with the
Canadian Bankers' Association, not with specific banks, but they have not got
to that point yet.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, as I said, the
interim negotiations were with the Royal Bank, and with that we have begun
negotiations with the Canadian Bankers' Association to extend the availability
of the Manitoba Student Loan to other banks, and we also will be extending that
to credit unions.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister is not aware yet whether they will put in certain
conditions such as cosigning or special premiums on the loans.
Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, what we have negotiated with the
Royal Bank is the prototype. That will
be used in all circumstances. Secondly,
the cosigner virtually in the Manitoba Student Financial Assistance program is
the province.
Mr. Plohman:
Just one more question on the issue of locking in interest rates. Is the minister saying then that she does not
like this option of discussing with the banks some specific conditions that
would apply under those circumstances and will not be doing that?
Mrs. Vodrey: We are in the first year of this new
program. We expect to have ongoing
discussions throughout the process, but as the member can be, I am sure, aware
of, we will be conscious of the cost that any such changes to the program would
be to the province.
Mr. Plohman:
Is the minister saying she is not going to be making this a priority at
least, if at all? I am not sure that she
even agrees with the concept of negotiations on behalf of students for certain
provisions to apply for locking in loans that are previously floating.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, what I have said
this afternoon in this discussion is that we believe that we have been able to
arrange with the financial institutions a reasonable circumstance around the interest
rates, and it is a more favourable one than
As I said, we are in the first year of
operating this program. We expect that
we will be having conversations with the financial institutions. But as I said as well, the member would like
me to commit to a particular concept or course of action which potentially
could be very costly to the province and, perhaps, have less money available
for the Canada Student Loan.
So what I have said to him is, for any
changes that would occur, they would certainly be made with a cost factor in
mind.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, the minister said that her arrangement right now is more fair than
the federal one, and it happens to be at the present time, because the federal
government is being very unfair in charging 9.25 percent when their borrowing
rates are much lower than that, several percentage points. It is ridiculous.
Now, I agree with that. But I am talking about
But if it was a good agreement that did
not cost a lot of money, does the minister agree in principle? That is all we are asking her. Would she pursue this?
Point of Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Perhaps you could clarify for me
whether or not I have a legitimate point of order, because I am not trying to
grandstand as other people do when they bring in a point of order. I am very serious about this.
Is it in order for a member to repeatedly
ask the same question over and over and over when the answer has been given
over and over and over, and substantive issues are waiting to be discussed by
those who are sincerely interested in getting on with some matters of
importance here?
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mrs.
Render): The minister does not have a point of
order. Just for the minister's
clarification, the member can ask as many questions as possible. If he does not
seem to understand, I guess the minister has to keep repeating.
* * *
Mr. Plohman:
Madam Chair, I think that the matter of understanding is not the issue
here. The minister's answers are not
very clear as to where she stands on particular issues. On that basis, I am pursuing it further. We have to do this all of the time. I mean, we are very patient because we
realize that the minister does not give clear and straightforward answers, so
we have to pursue them, and we do. That
is what I am doing right now.
The minister has not clarified her
position on this.
* (1520)
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mrs.
Render): The minister, for clarification.
Mrs. McIntosh: We do not all realize that‑‑
Mr. Plohman:
There is no such thing as a point of clarification.
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, I wish to‑‑
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mrs.
Render): Is this a point of order?
Mrs. McIntosh: No, it is a clarification. I wish to indicate that I am not included in
his "we" all at this table understand certain things.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mrs.
Render): The Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs,
you may only interrupt on a point of order, not for clarification.
Mr. Plohman:
I am going to ignore those little interruptions from a person who did
not know the rules.
Could you just indicate, Madam Acting
Deputy Chairperson, through you to the minister, whether in fact there is any
representation being made on the issue of extending the six‑month free‑of‑interest
period after graduation?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: No, we have not been looking to extend that
six‑month interest‑free period, because it would become very
costly.
In relation to the previous questions that
the member has asked, I would remind him that those are hypothetical questions.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it does not matter if the minister thinks they
are hypothetical. I am asking her
position on the particular principle, and that is of course of locking in
interest rates for students and provisions that could be put in place through
negotiation by the province.
As far as the issue of extending the free
period from six months to beyond, depending on circumstances, with certain
criteria in place, I think that the minister has to be aware that many students
are not finding jobs readily available or even under difficult circumstances
finding them available at all. Therefore, it makes it very difficult to pay
back these loans, and that is why under those economic conditions, when people
are not working, there might be circumstances whereby the interest‑free
period could be extended.
So I ask the minister to consider that and
consider some negotiations on that as well in light of the circumstances at the
present time. I ask the minister to
consider that. Will she consider
undertaking some negotiations in that area?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, as the member knows, interest rates now
are at the lowest they have been in many years, and those rates are beneficial
to students.
In response to hypothetical increases,
should they occur in the future, then we would certainly have a look at options
at that time.
Mr. Plohman:
That has to be in place before interest rates rise, because students
would want to lock in early. Of course,
they would also want to take advantage of the current provision of a six‑month
free‑interest period and have an opportunity to extend that if necessary,
and that is what I was asking the minister about just now.
I know that we are speaking on behalf of
students who are finding it very difficult to attend university, to graduate,
and then to get a job, under current economic conditions. It has always been difficult, but I think
under the present circumstances, with the recession that has lingered in this
province, there sometimes have to be special provisions put in place, and that
is why I am pursuing this. It is an
important issue, contrary to what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs said.
She talked about my wasting time on issues
such as this when there are many more important issues and substantive issues
to deal with. This is pretty darn
important for the students in this province, and that is why I am raising it,
and that is why I am spending time on it, and that is why I am asking the
minister to consider ways to improve, not just to simply go about in merrily
the old way that the department has done things in the past or whatever is in
place at the present time. We are asking
her to consider unique circumstances because of the unique economic conditions.
So we are imploring the minister to in
fact take a proactive position on this and not sit back and wait till a huge
amount of pressure mounts but in fact to do something now. It is a good time to do it when interest
rates are low. Do it now and make sure
those provisions are in place.
I want to ask the minister another
question dealing with the impact of a removal of bursaries and loan
rebates. The minister has announced that
the vast majority of students in
How many students were on that program, received
benefits from that program over each of the last two years? I think that might give us an indication of
what we could expect as to how many students are going to be impacted this
year.
Mrs. Vodrey: I do not know how to account for the fact that
the member does not know the information that I have just given this afternoon;
4,400 students, as I said earlier today, did receive the
Mr. Plohman:
I thank the minister for being so patient in providing that information
again. So that is 9,000 students we are
talking about that are going to be impacted.
Does she know how many rural‑‑
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey: I have to clarify for the member, the total
is, we are projecting for this year approximately 4,600 students in total. The member asked in his question what last
year was and what this year is, and there was no intention for him to add both
years together. There is one year and
then the next.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It was just a matter of clarification.
* * *
Mr. Plohman:
Well, the minister combined the loan rebates and the bursaries in the
4,400 and in the 4,600. They were a
combination of both of those.
Okay, I understand the minister. She is nodding her head. So these are a
combination of both of those. There are
600 students who are impacted by the bursaries this year, so we are looking at
about 4,000 students, as the minister would be able to relate in previous
questions by my colleague. How many of
those are rural students?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we do not keep records on
Student Financial Assistance by separating the applications from rural versus
urban students.
Mr. Plohman:
Does the minister have any documentation on the number of rural students
total then in the post‑secondary institutions versus urban?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, we do not keep records for students
from rural areas. I can tell the member
that program allowance levels are adjusted to reflect living costs away from
home, but we do not keep a record of the loans awarded by that particular
category he has asked for.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, I would suggest the numbers would be quite high proportionally
from rural areas, and I believe the minister should have that information,
considering that the applications would clearly show that. Whether it is tabulated and kept is another
thing. I do not know why it would not be
kept.
Can the minister indicate whether there
will be any change in the criteria for eligibility other than the fact that
they will not be able to get bursaries now, but for student loans? Will there be any change in the income levels
for eligibility? Will there be an
allowance which would take into consideration that students would no longer
receive bursaries and therefore perhaps make it a little easier for them to get
loans?
Mrs. Vodrey: The criteria will remain the same and the
needs assessment will also remain the same.
Ms. Friesen: I just wanted to follow up on that. Since students now have to go for a Canada
Student Loan first, and since the criteria for Canada Student Loan have changed
to now having to have an 80 percent course load, has that affected in any way
the Manitoba Student Loan. For example,
those people who fall under that second category that the minister has spoken
of, must they be taking an 80 percent course load?
* (1530)
Mrs. Vodrey: That change in course load has not been
confirmed and is not in place for the Canada Student Loan at the moment.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is widely believed
that it will be implemented for this coming year. What assumptions is the minister working on
for this coming fiscal year, and is the new program in Manitoba intended to
accept the same criteria as the Canada Student Loan, so that if Canada, for
example, did do that, would the Manitoba Student Loan program have the same
entrance requirement?
Mrs. Vodrey: We are operating on a belief of no change at
this point because it is still just speculation around the potential
changes. In terms of the Manitoba
Student Loan then, we have not looked at that because that has not happened for
the Canada Student Loan at the moment.
Ms. Friesen: Is the principle of the Manitoba Student Loan
to be the same principles as the Canada Student Loan?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the criteria for the
Manitoba Student Loan is that it is needs based, that it is supplemental, that
it does expect that students will provide a certain contribution, and parents
where possible, but beyond that I am not able to tell the member about any
proposed changes because we do not yet have any idea what the proposed changes
of Canada will be and we do not know whether they will be acceptable to
Manitoba.
Ms. Friesen: The way the minister has spoken of this as
Level I, Level II, Level III, what I am understanding from that is that one
cannot even apply for a Manitoba Student Loan until one has a Canada Student
Loan. So whatever gatekeepers,
essentially, are established by the Canada Student Loan will effectively be
applied to the Manitoba Student Loan, so that if Canada for example goes to an 80
percent criteria for Canada Student Loan, students would first of all have to
fulfill that and then they would go to Manitoba. There is no way somebody goes directly to a
Manitoba Student Loan.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member is correct
that the Manitoba Student Financial Assistance does come following the Canada
Student Loan. We do not know what the
changes in the Canada Student Loan might be.
The member's point is that if a student is unable to qualify for the
Canada Student Loan, would that mean that they could not have Manitoba Student
Financial Assistance, but we do not know yet if there would be any changes for
the Canada Student Loan that would require Manitoba to make further changes in
terms of assisting students.
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in looking at this particular section under the
staffing, it refers to one Managerial position and two Professional/Technical
as well as a number of Administrative Support.
Can the minister tell the committee the classification of the managerial
position and the professional as well as what type of administrative support
are those 44 SYs involved in? What are
their classifications or sort of a breakdown of what they do?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the classification of
the manager is SF1. I am sorry. I would have to ask the member to repeat the
other part of her question regarding the administrative support.
Ms. Gray:
I will repeat the question, but first of all, the minister will have to
translate what SF is.
I just want to know the classifications of
the two professionals and the types of positions that were involved in
administrative support. I am assuming
they are things such as AY2s and clerical, but I do not know that.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, SF1 stands for senior
officer.
In the Professional/Technical area, one is
a classification PM2, that is a program planning analyst and the other is an
F13, a financial afficer.
In the area of the Administrative Support,
the kinds of work that are undertaken are awards clerks, which are the largest
numbers, also program information officers, system information clerk, program
information clerk, student services officer. There are also investigative
auditors in that group of 44 and a word processor and secretary to the manager.
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister mentioned audit investigators. I see under Activity Identification that
there is an audit and investigation of the program assistance.
Two questions on audit: What are the results of regular audits that I
am assuming are being done in regard to minimizing program abuse; and also is
there any other kind of auditing that is done on this particular branch,
auditing from either outside the department or within the department but
outside this branch?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the second
part of the question first, the audit, there is an internal audit which is done
as part of the normal audit cycle. The
last one was done three years ago. Then
the Student Financial Assistance Branch was audited by the Provincial Auditor
two years ago.
In terms of, then, the work of the audit
section of the Student Financial Assistance Branch, it does exist to ensure
that Manitoba assistance awards or over awards are kept to a minimum through
the performance of the investigative audits which would be an award greater
than perhaps might have been, and the majority of referrals to audit are made
by application assessment staff where discrepancies are noted in the student
information which is recorded.
* (1540)
Ms. Gray:
I would then ask the minister:
The audit that was done three years ago by the internal audit, could she
give us a quick synopsis of the essence of that particular audit and any
outcomes? As well, the Provincial
Auditor's audit that was done two years ago, what was the nature of that? What were the outcomes and recommendations?
Mrs. Vodrey: Under both audits, I am informed that the
audits indicated things were‑‑the systems and the management and so
on‑‑the areas looked at in audits were going fine. There was one area which was noted and that
was the area in the accounts receivable process. That was noted in the provincial audit as
well as in the internal audit, and that particular process has been rectified.
Ms. Gray:
Does this section of the minister's department work at all with the
student aid branch, i.e., the branch that it is in Family Services?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, they do not.
Ms. Gray:
There is no relationship at all with, possibly, students who are
ineligible for loans, et cetera, and they may get referred to the student aid
branch?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is one program
called the special opportunity for social assistance recipients or the SOSAR
area and in this area the students are, I understand, identified by Family
Services. Through Education and
Training, we look at the educational cost, tuition, books, supplies, and they
receive assistance through a Canada Student Loan. Family Services provides for those students a
living allowance. I understand that
those students, again, will have access to the same amount of assistance in the
'93‑94 year and to date, '92‑93, approximately 400 SOSAR students
have received assistance from Manitoba Student Financial Assistance Branch.
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the next question‑‑I am sorry if the
minister has already answered it, but‑‑has she tabled earlier or
has she indicated to us what the criteria is or how the maximum amount of
student loan is determined in terms of what is taken into consideration?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in calculating the
Canada Student Loan award, we look at the resources that are available to the
student and we look at the costs of the particular program and cost needs of
the student in that year, and that is how we establish the need for the Canada
Student Loan. So in the area of
resources, we would look at income of the student; we would look at parental
income if the student was a dependent; we would look at the student having any
dependents, being married or single.
Then in the costs area, we would be looking at the costs of the
program. In that costs area, we would
consider issues such as tuition, as I was saying, books, supplies, we consider
a living allowance, which also includes transportation and rent, and if the
student has children, we would also factor in daycare.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell the committee in regard to a student who is
considered a dependant, and then they look at parental income, what is the
definition of a dependant?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I have the criteria for the
independent status. Where a student does
not meet the independent status, they would then be a dependant.
For the independent status, an applicant
must have been a member of the labour force, employed or seeking full‑time
employment for at least two uninterrupted 12‑consecutive‑month
periods. The applicant has been out of
secondary school for four calendar years.
The applicant is divorced, widowed, separated, with no dependent
children. The applicant's parents are
both deceased. An applicant has no legal
guardian. The applicant is married or
living in a common‑law union. The
applicant is widowed, divorced or separated with dependent children or is a
single parent.
That is the independent status granted. That one has been defined because the
question has come most frequently, and I remember in this discussion last year,
where there is a young person, how does that young person establish their
independent status for the purposes of establishing need as opposed to being
told that they would then be dependent or fall into a dependent age range?
* (1550)
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, so if an individual who wants to be a student
is, let us say, living at home, whether it is the family farm or in the city or
whatever, but there is no financial assistance from parents because of choice
of parents, for whatever reason, does that person have any recourse in terms of
receiving assistance, even though the parents may be financially able according
to their income to assist, for whatever reason they have decided not to?
I guess there would be two
situations: one, the person is still
living at home, the potential student; and secondly, if the student was not
living at home, they would be considered independent already. Correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: The principles of the Student Financial
Program do look at student contribution and, where the student is a dependant,
does look at parental contribution.
An exception would be where there would be
a verification of family breakdown and that the family could not support the
student in that way. So where a student
can document family breakdown, parental information and contribution may be
waived. Parental contribution, though, as set by the Canada Student Loan
Program, is calculated as a portion of the family disposable income, taking
into account, however, the family size.
Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask the minister about the savings
that she appears to be making in this department and how they are being
achieved. There is an increase, no, it
is a slight decrease in staff costs.
There is a decrease in Grants/Transfer Payments, a small decrease in
Transportation, and a decrease in Communications.
Could the minister tell us about the
implications for the program of each of those decreases?
Mrs. Vodrey: In the area of the grants and transfer
payments, that difference will not have an effect on the money available for
students, because now that we have moved to the Manitoba Student Loan,
guaranteed loans program, the amount of money that students would need to
access would be available through banks as opposed to directly through
government. So the money that is
available here is the money that is available to service the interest rates on
the loans, as well as continue the commitment that government has for the loan
rebates. The member asked if there would
be an effect on students in that line, and there would not be an effect on
funds available to students on that line.
In the area of transportation, the
reduction, again, was undertaken as part of the reduction that we looked at
across all of the department to effect savings to make the most efficient use
of the money available and to maintain as large an amount of funds for direct
programming assistance.
In the area of communications, that also
was an area where we looked for general cost‑saving measures. Those reductions were found in the area of
telephone and in some area of public communications. So again we look to become as efficient as
possible.
Ms. Friesen: So that the new figure under Expenditures,
Grants/Transfer Payments will cover only interest and loan rebates. Loan rebates means that third level?
Mrs. Vodrey: No.
Ms. Friesen: No.
Okay. What are you applying to
loan rebates then?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the loan rebate refers to
the commitment which was undertaken with students in the past, which would have
been the guaranteeing of their student loan which was received as a loan but
which becomes nonrepayable. We said to
students, where that commitment was already undertaken, that commitment would
be honoured by government.
Ms. Friesen: So that essentially what this new figure
covers is interest rates for the new intake and essentially the grandfathering of
existing students in the program?
Mrs. Vodrey: The amount listed on the line for this year
looks at our bursary commitments, looks at the spring and summer students,
looks at the debt servicing, looks at the loan rebate commitment and looks at
the study assistance.
* (1600)
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister just define again study
assistance? That is the third level,
okay.
Is it possible to have a breakdown of that
number, of how much is going into each of those five areas?
Mrs. Vodrey: I have some figures. Again, they are estimated figures because we
do not have all of the enrollments and so on for this year.
We have prior bursary commitments
accounting for approximately $1.5 million.
We have students who began programs in the spring session and that would
include students who entered into private vocational schools, for instance, or
programs which should not have the September intake, at approximately a million
dollars.
We have the loan rebate commitment which
we are following through on at $4.5 million.
We have the study assistance which is our third level of support, the
bursary support, at $1.5 million. We
have debt servicing at approximately $.3 million and we have future losses
estimated at approximately $1.2 million. That comes to the $10 million, but
again there may be changes within each of the areas depending upon the exact
call on the funds.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, how much of that loan,
the spring session, was for the private vocational schools?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that for
that spring‑summer session, the majority is for the university courses
which are being offered in that time.
There may be some for private vocational schools. We do not have that breakdown, but I am
informed the majority is, as the staff knows, for university.
Ms. Friesen: Of the categories that the minister has given
us, some of these will be one‑time‑only events in the sense that
they are prior commitments. I am looking
at the future projections here. Which
ones are going to diminish and which ones will presumably disappear by the next
budget?
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the
Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what will
disappear is the prior bursary commitments and also the spring session, which
we used this year to accommodate.
However, what will go up then will be the debt servicing and what will
go up would be the future losses.
Ms. Friesen: So the loan rebate amount is not a flexible
one or not a diminishing one.
Mrs. Vodrey: In the area of the loan rebate we expect that
that will have diminished significantly by '97‑98, but again that is very
much at the call of the students.
Ms. Friesen: Is there a finite date for students to repay
their loans? What are the time
limits? Maybe I should rephrase it.
What are the time limits on the repayment
of student loans and on the rebates?
Mrs. Vodrey: In the area of the loan rebate, the loan
rebate is to reduce the Canada Student Loan.
It is our commitment to pay on behalf of a student the Canada Student
Loan, so that one is our assistance to the holders of the loan. Again, it is at the call of the student when
they are finished and they come to the point at which the terms of their loan
would be repayable. Then there would be
a call on our loan rebate commitment.
However, we believe that commitment should
be, with the loan rebates that are presently committed, winding down by '97‑98. In terms of the Manitoba Student Loan, the
repayment schedule is 114 months or 9.5 years.
* (1610)
Ms. Friesen: That has no relationship to whether the
student has a job or not? That is .1 and
.2 of that is‑‑does the interest clock start ticking the six months
after graduation whether or not they have a job?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, the interest costs for the students would
begin six months following graduation and would not be dependent upon the
student holding a job at that time.
Mr. Plohman:
I notice in this line, of course, the member for Crescentwood mentioned
the audits. I have had a number of
students who have called me over the last couple of years about audits that
were going on. I am sure that we can all
appreciate that if in fact certain information was provided that was not
accurate or if when students sign the form they commit to making a declaration
about their income being true and correct and if there is any additional income
that they will report it.
However, in many cases it would seem to me
that students receive additional help from a grandparent or a parent by way of
a gift or whatever might be the case, and if it is put into a bank account, it
shows up when the audit takes place.
That seems to be deducted from any bursary or any loan rebate.
I want to just put the question and just
see how this works because if students receive the maximum in the loan and
bursary, they obviously qualify by being in need by at least that amount, some
far more, it would seem, than others, but at least qualifying for the maximum
amount. There would be varying degrees
of need above the loan and bursary that they get, depending on their financial
situation.
There may be a greater need for additional
income because they were so badly in need of loans and bursaries that this does
not even begin to meet all of their needs.
When audits occur, it seems to me that if a certain amount of unreported
income or cash is found by the audit, it is automatically deducted from the
amount of bursary that is granted or from the loan rebate.
My question is why, if a person is
qualified far beyond the maximum, why is this deducted dollar for dollar? I mean there has to be varying degrees of
qualification over and above the maximum.
Why is it automatically deducted dollar for dollar for, say, they
received a $400 gift for Christmas from their parents or grandparents or some
other friend or whomever, and they did not declare it and it was found in an
audit, why would it be deducted dollar for dollar automatically?
Mrs. Vodrey: Because it is unreported resources. We expect students to put forward the
resources that they have available, and that income then is resources which are
available to the student to assist as their contribution in the process.
Mr. Plohman:
It occurred after they applied, but they make a commitment on signing
the form that they will report any income above that. I understand that. I believe that most students are not
deliberately trying to defraud the government or trying to get away with
something. In many cases, they are just
not aware that they had to report it, but be that as it may, they are required
to report it. The point that I am making
here is that if they have qualified by well above‑‑(interjection) The minister says we do
not know that.
Yes, you do know that. You just simply look at the application and
you know what income they had reported at the time, you add the $400 and you
see if they still qualify, and if they still qualify there is no need to deduct
it. If they would not have qualified,
then I can see deducting it. Are you
assuming that they must have got a bunch of other income they did not report,
therefore you have to be penalizing them to the full extent?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the way the process works
is that that kind of income received after an assessment would then require a
complete reassessment in the light of the new information. With that reassessment it may be that the
student would still qualify. That is
what the member's concern is. If the
student is very needy, they might still qualify. However, this income in reassessment might in
fact then be sources of funds available of which they would not qualify to such
a great extent, but through a reassessment, we would be able to determine that.
Mr. Plohman:
If it worked the way the minister just described, then I would say that
that is exactly what I am advocating and it is reasonable. However, it seems to me that in the cases at
least that I have become aware of, that it has been every dollar that they had
not declared as taken off of the bursaries, if they were just at the maximum
but not a dollar over in terms of their income.
So as soon as this additional income was found, it came right off of
their award.
I cannot believe that occurs in every
instance that it is just dead on. There
had to be a little reserve above in varying amounts, as I said earlier. In some cases, the person, if there would
have been a higher max, then they would have qualified for thousands more
perhaps because of their financial situation.
Is the minister correct in saying that it
is only after reassessment, and if they still qualified at that point, they
would not have any deducted, because the cases I have seen, they have had the
dollars deducted exactly as they were found?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I am correct in
describing the process and the reassessment that takes place. If the member has a specific case which he
would like us to have a look at, then would he please bring it forward?
Mr. Plohman:
I have in several cases brought those forward or called the staff or
else sent a letter to the minister, but there has never been any relief
whatsoever, not even a dollar.
So I assume on that basis that they all
fit under the criteria that the minister talked about now, but I think it would
be interesting for the minister to just examine this on the basis of the
maximum award received and to see whether in fact it is being applied that
way. It seems almost like it is a
penalty, like a sentence. You are found
guilty; therefore, we are taking all of this away, rather than just a portion
that was justified on the basis of what they qualified for in light of the new
information.
It is difficult to talk in generalities in
this, I know, but the principle has been established by the minister and we
will look for that in the future.
I wanted to just ask her how many dollars
have been found by way of audit. How
many audits have been conducted of individual students, and in how many cases
have the students been required to pay back money?
* (1620)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, students who do make
application, the member has referred to them primarily as kids and, of course,
we know that people seeking post‑secondary education now are of all ages
and ranges of ages. I think that is an
important point, one which I also made to the federal minister.
In terms of numbers of students who have
been audited: 1988‑89, 265 audits, the recovery was $430,800; 1989‑90,
361 students were audited, the recovery through the audit investigation was
$740,600; 1990‑91 there were 390 audits and the amount recovered was
$914,600; 1991‑92 there were 362 audits and the recovery was $612,700.
Mr. Plohman:
Now, this is all on the basis that there was unreported income or there
could have been other problems with this, that the students had received and
then did not attend, perhaps, the institution.
There could be various potentialities.
Or is it only unreported income that we are dealing with?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, in this area, the
unreported income may lie in the area of gifts, as the member has said. It also may lie in the area of part‑time
earnings. It may lie in the area of
unreported assets, bonds, trust, cars or vehicles which students have failed to
report.
Mr. Plohman:
When this takes place, there is a review done to get it correct, an
assessment, as if the student were starting from scratch with this new
information, all circumstances at the time of the loan that took place plus the
added information being superimposed on that situation, then, a determination
made of the qualifications of that individual had they reported that income.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, that is correct. With the new information, there is a total
reassessment.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, there is an issue, I
am sure, which has been raised with the minister before, and it is about
graduating students who have subsidized child care spaces. They used to be
allowed six weeks to find a job and to maintain a space. Now with the job situation difficult for
students, that period has been reduced.
Could the minister tell us what her policy is on that and whether she is
responding to those concerns?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I believe the member
is raising an issue that falls within the department of my colleague the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and at this point that minister
would be the best person who could discuss any changes in terms of the amount
of time child care spaces are available while a person looks for work.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, but my concern is
also an educational one, and the ability of students to repay their loans
depends upon their getting a job, and it seems to me that allowing six weeks to
find a job is not an extraordinary amount. It does seem an odd time in the
economic history of
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, again, from the point of view of the
Department of Education and Training, from our point, it is six months before a
person begins to pay back the student loan.
In terms of the amount of time that a person may have a subsidized child
care space or a child care space with very limited parental contribution,
again, that falls within my colleague the Minister of Family Services' (Mr.
Gilleshammer) decision making as the area of daycare falls within his
department.
Ms. Friesen: I would have thought that the Minister of
Education, having invested a certain amount in loans for these students and in
their education and the public provision of that education would want to ensure
that the time available for the finding of a job not be diminished. That is what has happened. It is the change
that is a concern.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I know that the whole
area of funding for daycare and daycare spaces is a complex one, and I would
not begin to presume to answer questions regarding the policy of child care
spaces and the funding and subsidy of child care spaces in the Estimates of the
Department of Education.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, just one other point on the audit.
It is also my understanding from talking to students that have been
audited that they are not able to provide additional positive information that
helps their case at the time. Is that
correct, that the negative information that, in other words, hurts the case
because something has come up by way of the audit in terms of income or other
information is then part of the reassessment?
Is the student notified at that time and can they provide any additional
information that may help their case to offset that negative information if
they had it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I do not think the
member is accurate. That is why we do
have the appeal board. Through the
appeal board, students may put forward other information which may assist them
in their case.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, that comes after the fact, and we will get to that I guess in the
next line of the department. But I am
talking about if circumstances should change that affect the audit's findings,
such as their roommate moved out and they now have to pay more rent, for
example, than originally they had intended to pay because they were projecting
they would have that roommate with them the whole year.
Could they provide that immediately upon
the audit? Would that impact on the
findings in terms of whether the money had to be paid back?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, that information may
or may not affect the award that the student is given, depending upon the whole
circumstances, but I am informed that after audits we have increased awards,
too.
Mr. Plohman:
Could the minister tell me in how many cases the award has been
increased, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson?
They have done‑‑the numbers were given to us‑‑362
in '91‑92 and 390 in '90‑91, for example, and the minister tells us
that the department found $914,000 in '90‑91 and $612,000 in '91‑92. How much did they get back or did they give
out?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I am happy to look to
provide that information to the member at the next time we are together, but I
think it is important for him to know we certainly are looking to be fair to
students and to provide the ways for students to access the funds available and
to help students make sure, at whatever post‑secondary areas they are
interested in looking to study in, that they have the funds available to do so.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Rose): Order, please. The hour being 4:30 p.m., as previously
agreed, committee rise. *(1120)
HEALTH
Madam Chairperson (Louis Dacquay):
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Health. We are on item 1.(b) Executive Support (1)
Salaries, page 77 of the Estimates manual.
Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Madam Chairperson, just prior to the commencement, we had talked
yesterday when agreement was made that the Estimates hours would be established
as they are today and extended as they are today that we would make provision
for some kind of a lunch break for participants in the debate.
I am wondering if we just want to set a
time, say one o'clock till 1:30 or something, or should we just go on? Just for the convenience of staff, I am
wondering if we wanted to set a time for a break or if they thought it was
necessary, at least for staff purposes.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Madam Chair, I am at the will of the
committee. We can either break for 15
minutes or so at one o'clock; that would be fine. Whatever the committee wishes. Let us be flexible. We might be in the middle of a good
discussion and have flexibility five minutes either way, 10 minutes either way.
Mr. Chomiak:
I will agree with the minister.
Perhaps we will target say for one o'clock for a 15‑minute break at
least so we have some idea of where we are going and people can have some
target for which to move to.
I discussed with my counterpart in the
Liberal Party letting him lead off because of some time allocations we are
making here, but I will commence my questioning insofar as he is presently
occupied following his last current speech in the House.
I will commence, Madam Chairperson, by
returning to the Connie Curran contract.
I would like to ask the minister, the $3.9 million, give or take the
I am wondering where in the Estimates allocation
this funding is coming from since there is line and provision in the Estimates
book under 10.(p) I believe for Lotteries Funded Programs, but there is no
allocation in there specifically for this particular contract unless it arises
out of the Health Innovations Fund or one of the other categories.
Mr. Orchard:
10.(d) would be the appropriate line.
Mr. Chomiak:
Did the minister say 10.(d)? So
it will come out of the Health Services Development Fund.
In the Connie Curran contract the
consultant indicates that she will be saving something like $45 million to $65
million. I am wondering if the minister
could give us a breakdown of where he sees that because, presumably, the
contract was entered into on the basis of these extensive savings, amongst
other things, in the health care system?
I wonder if the minister can outline where
he sees that $45 million to $65 million in savings deriving from?
Mr. Orchard:
That number was the basis of the contract that we have signed. Of course my honourable friend has availed
himself because for the first time, as I have mentioned before, the contract
was made public, including to the opposition, when signed.
The $45‑million to $65‑million
global budget goal was a result of preliminary discussions that Dr. Curran, on
behalf of APM Consultants, had with the two respective hospital administrations
and is a goal which they believed was an achievable goal within their
respective institutions.
Hence they were very desirous that
government would support the retention of the consultant to try and achieve
those kinds of global budget savings within the two institutions because,
predicated on that are two, I think, quite important factors.
I look forward to the next number of hours
that we have to discuss this contract of getting further clarity from my
honourable friend in terms of his thoughts on those, because the level of
activity in our hospitals, as my honourable friend well knows, to be maintained
with the restructuring undertaken by APM‑‑the past record of the
involvement of APM in 100 other hospitals in the United States indicates that
there is significant increase in the hands‑on caregiving time by nurses
within the restructured environment.
I think my honourable friend can see that
there are some significant advantages that the two respective hospitals saw in
engaging the services of APM. If my
honourable friend recalls, one of the major issues that for instance nurses
have been so concerned about is that they spend less and less time with their
patients and more and more time in noncare‑related duties in the
workplace.
The APM experience shows that clearly that
amount of hands‑on caregiving time can be increased by the process of
restructuring and work simplification.
That is a very positive goal and objective which we all believe is
achievable for patients.
* (1130)
The objective of the work restructuring
project is to make a more effective resource personnel utilization within the
hospital to avoid unnecessary process steps and tasking throughout the whole
structure of the hospital, which allows the budgetary savings that are there
but will not reduce the level of activity.
The same number of procedures, inpatient, outpatient are expected to be
undertaken with the targeted budget reductions.
I
know my honourable friend has some trouble with that because, since even well
before the announcement the New Democrats have consistently appeared to oppose
this contract although they have never taken that definitive statement as to
whether they would cancel the contract, et cetera, et cetera.
They appear to be opposed to it, and I
have never for sure clarified whether their opposition is because of country of
origin of the consultant, because they seem to be locked in on this anti‑American
fixation that the New Democrats thrive on or whether they are against the
achievables of the contract, i.e., reduction of budget, maintenance of level of
activity and increased opportunity for hands‑on care.
Now if it is the first, that they are
simply anti‑American, I can accept that, but I have some pretty serious
misgivings as to where my honourable friends the New Democrats would be coming
from if they are opposed to caregiving staff having more opportunity for time
with patients to provide care.
I would have a lot of difficulty if my
honourable friend believed that we should not seek out efficiencies in
operation which would reduce the request of government for global budgets of
those two institutions without compromising the level of care activity. You know, the antithesis of that is that my
honourable friend wants to continue to spend inefficiently and then come to the
House every day and say, well, you know, you should spend more and more here,
there and everywhere. Well, where does
the money come from?
Here is an opportunity to level and
actually decrease the amount of budgetary commitment without compromising care,
in fact improving care.
Now, during the course of this debate in
discussions this afternoon we will get to the bottom of that, I hope, with my
honourable friend, so that I can understand the New Democratic Party
position. If it is simple anti‑Americanism,
well, fine. I mean, that is a bias that
my honourable friend can enjoy and live with.
But if it is against the improvement of health care in
Mr. Chomiak:
The minister said that the $45 million to $65 million savings came from
preliminary discussions that have been held.
Clearly the minister decided to enter into this contract on the basis
that $45 million to $65 million can be achieved from the two teaching hospitals
from savings of those budgets. The
Minister said this resulted from preliminary discussions.
Does this minister have any empirical
data, any data that was submitted to him that would somehow point to where that
money would come from and how those savings would be achieved?
I mean to target a figure of $45 million
to $65 million specifically and then to go on with rhetoric about how much can
be achieved, where work efficiencies, et cetera, you know we hear that over and
over again in the House. But what we do
not get from the minister is any empirical data that would show where that
money would come from.
It is easy to stand up and say we are
going to spend better; we are going to spend more efficiently; we are going to
have nurses spend more time on patient care.
It is another thing to show where those hard savings, the real money is
going to come from and how that consultant is going to achieve those ends.
That was the basis they entered in the
contract, Madam Chairperson, that is the basis that they are flogging this
contract. That is their end goal. Can the minister indicate what empirical data
he has to demonstrate that will be the case? As to why he entered into this
massive contract based on that very point?
Mr. Orchard:
First of all let me again bring my honourable friend back to the genesis
of this contract because my honourable friend wants to paint the picture that
this was a sole initiative of myself as Minister of Health. That is what my honourable friend has been
attempting to do from square one.
Now, my honourable friend has been told
this and I know my honourable friends statements outside of the Chamber and the
whisper campaign he engages in on behalf of his party says differently, but it
is not accurate.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak:
I do not think it is appropriate for the minister to accuse any
honourable member of engaging in a whisper campaign outside of the House, Madam
Chairperson.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Kildonan does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Orchard:
Well let me go be more direct. My
honourable friend engages in a mail‑in campaign where he preys upon the
fear of Manitobans based on misinformation on health care reform, to what? To ask Manitobans to contribute to the New
Democratic Party $50, $100, $200. Not $5
and $10 as the party of the little person might ask for, but $50 minimum they want
to give to Dave Chomiak on behalf of the NDP.
That is the kind of whisper campaign that
is not a whisper campaign, it is in print.
And it is obscene and it is abusive of those people that he claims he is
trying to protect. That is the kind of
background on which we are going to have a debate as these Estimates go
through.
Now to reinforce the position, my
honourable friend finds it kind of offensive that I say he is a whisper
campaigner. The New Democrats are famous
for this, and I will give my honourable friend an example. 1981 election‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak:
Is the minister speaking on a point of order, or is the minister
attempting to answer my question on Connie Curran?
Madam Chairperson: No, the honourable Minister of Health is
responding to your question. I ruled
that there was indeed no point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak:
On another point of order, the question was about Connie Curran's
contract and the $45 million to $65 million, and I fail to see how the
minister's response in any way relates even remotely despite the minister's propensity
to play debating points and try to score debating points in this Chamber. It does not even closely resemble, it does
not even come close to any aspect of the question, Madam Chairperson.
I would ask that you ask the minister to
deal with the questions that are asked.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
The honourable member for Kildonan does not have a point of order. The honourable Minister of Health, to finish
his response.
* * *
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I am dealing directly with my honourable friend's question
because my honourable friend's question for which he seeks information, which I
will provide, was based on a false premise that he is trying to create in a
whisper campaign in the community.
My honourable friend the New Democrat is
trying to say that this contract with APM was the idea of myself as Minister of
Health, and he is trying to say that it was forced on, in his whisper campaign
in the community, the two teaching hospitals.
My honourable friend knows that is not the
case. My honourable friend knows that
the CEOs of St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre and the boards wanted
government to engage APM on their behalf to undertake this work restructuring.
My honourable friend knows that, but my
honourable friend uses the classic approach of lack of forthright statement in
an unparliamentary language‑‑we all know what that is, and I cannot
use it‑‑to try and tell Manitobans an entirely different message
when they know that they are not telling Manitobans the truth. And my
honourable friend persisted in it again today in his preamble to the question
indicating it was my concept, my idea to engage APM.
I agree with them. I think it is one of the best opportunities
to fundamentally rethink what we do in our hospital institutions that has come
to this province in 25 years.
I will make a prediction to my honourable
friend that as this process proceeds in
* (1140)
And our medicare system under the current
financial environment, the amount of taxes that we are able to generate from
wealth creation in this country of ours is not sufficient to maintain the continued
growth in health care expenditures.
My honourable friend ought to refresh
himself and go back to the introduction of Estimates in 1986 by a Minister of
Health who wanted to engage this kind of fundamental change and refocus but did
not have the political support of the NDP in cabinet, Howard Pawley et al. But read the introductory remarks to
Estimates, and do you know what?‑‑they are not dissimilar to what I
have been saying.
I have to give Mr. Desjardins credit for
understanding the challenge to preserve and protect medicare. We had our differences. We had big differences on certain approaches,
et cetera, but fundamentally you will not find me against the process of
meaningful restructuring of health care.
As a matter of fact, you go back to some
of those earlier Estimates and you will find me being an advocate for the kind
of reform in the mental health system that we are engaged in. And from opposition I was providing that
suggestion to government just as my honourable friend the member for Kildonan
has often suggested progressive change for us too.
An Honourable Member:
Maples.
Mr. Orchard:
Maples. I am sorry. The member for The Maples, I am sorry. I apologize profusely.
Now my honourable friend says on what
basis did we participate in the signing of the APM contract. It was on the basis that the hospital
administrations and boards believed that the engagement of APM Consultants
under the leadership of Dr. Connie Curran could achieve greater efficiencies in
the hospital, maintain the level of services in their hospitals, allow an
opportunity for more patient care time by nurses and other caregivers, and have
the opportunity to reduce the global budget requirement that they were going to
ask the taxpayers of Manitoba for by $45 million to $65 million.
You know how they gained their belief in
the achievability of those goals? By
consulting with some of the best academic health centres in the
They also found that in 100 hospital
contracts, and this we also had confirmed ourselves before we signed the
contract and participated in the funding‑‑my honourable friend
might, when he reads through the contract, be wanting to comment on the go/no‑go
points of decision making in the contract.
At any time with very short notice,
government can curtail their efforts. If
APM is not delivering, we can curtail our efforts with no penalty. We have built in holdbacks. The go/no‑go decision‑making
point, I think my honourable friend ought to ask other consulting firms if they
have similar provisions universally in their contracts. He will find them to be not all that common
an initiative that a consultant puts into a contract, and they are there
because of the confidence that the consultant has in being able to deliver what
they have indicated their expertise is capable of doing.
In the 100 hospitals in the
Now, I do not know whether my honourable
friend thinks that is significant, but the CEOs of the two teaching hospitals
thought it was pretty significant, that a track record that was 100 percent
delivered seems to point that when they say they can do something they are
willing to commit it to print, they are willing to sign a contract to that
effect, a contract with go/no‑go points in a number of occasions in the
contract and are willing to have a 20 percent holdback, so that if the
achievables are not there they do not get paid the full contractual amount. I
think that gave the two hospitals considerable confidence that, in fact, they
could deliver.
Now, one of the things that I am going to
get‑‑and I am going to have my office go up and get it because I
want to, in the course of this afternoon, share some of the information that
APM shared with the hospitals and coincidently and subsequently shared with us
in terms of the things they are able to change in restructuring the work
activities of a hospital. My honourable
friend can tell us this afternoon as I get that information whether he agrees
that that is an appropriate goal or not.
One of them off the top of my head is, the
one example was that it took something like, I think it was, 11 order steps and
procedures to order an aspirin for a patient.
APM reduces that down to three steps.
Now I do not know whether my honourable
friend believes that we should have 11 steps to order an aspirin in a hospital
or whether it should be three. The CEOs
at the hospitals think it should be three if three gets the aspirin to the
patient quicker and at less cost. Now I
guess my honourable friend does not agree with that. I do not know. Maybe he will tell us this afternoon.
Observation was made that, for instance,
there are often more job classifications in our hospitals than there are
employees, very narrowed job classifications.
For example, the Japanese multinational corporation called Nissan that
makes those cars; they make boats; they make electronics; they make everything;
apparently, they have four job classifications for their entire industry.
So one of the goals is to narrow the job
classifications. Now what does that mean for the worker? I mean, let us think about it. Today's environment says you are narrowly
trained to do a narrowly focused duty in that institution.
Part of the APM approach of work
restructuring is to give more duties to individual workers. In other words, they have a wider spectrum of
duties that they can undertake.
That means that there are fewer job
classifications. There is more
flexibility around the duties entailed by a given employee, but let us think
about what that really does. In a
changing health care provision environment, answer the simple question. You the New Democrat, who alleges to be
concerned about the working person, ask yourself if a person with essentially
one skill set has a greater opportunity to maintain their job in a rapidly
changing environment of changing roles, and changing focus, and changing policy,
and changing arrangements of care giving, are you better able with one skill
set to maintain your employment or do you have a greater opportunity for
employment redeployment if you have several skill sets? It seems pretty obvious to me that you would be
better protected as a caregiver, as a worker in a facility, if you had several
skill sets to offer to your employer.
That is part of the restructuring.
That is going to be good for people
affected by the change that is going through our health care system today, not
bad, but good. It will not prevent all
layoffs, no, of course not, but it will provide a greater opportunity for
employees to maintain their job in a changing delivery environment of a
hospital.
I want to know if my honourable friend is
against that? Is he against an
opportunity for working people that he alleges, on behalf of the New Democrats,
to have at the bottom of all his decision making? Is it better to have working people with more
skills or less skills? Every day in the
House we hear my honourable friends, the New Democrats, saying to our Minister
of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) you have to expand skills training. Ha, this is part of the APM work
restructuring. My honourable friend is
in favour of it when it is not APM, but I guess they are against it when it is
APM in the restructuring contract at the two teaching hospitals.
You see, Madam Chair, and I hate to take
this amount of time because I know my honourable friend has many valuable
questions he wants to further pose, but I just get absolutely confused as to
what New Democrats stand for. I mean, on
one hand they will ask for more skills training and decry government because we
are not providing enough varied skills training opportunities, and here we have
a circumstance where we are going to have multiple skills development of
workers in health care, and they appear to be against it.
* (1150)
Now I know, and I will accept, and my
honourable friend could even make this candid confession if he wishes, if he
did not understand that was part of APM, and his opposition was one of
ignorance to APM, I can understand that.
That is what this debate is all about, to try to give my friend some
information so that maybe he would understand the wisdom of this contract and
the benefit that it will be to the preservation and maintenance of medicare in
Maybe my honourable friend would be able
to do, as is so often urged on us when they are wrong, to admit they are wrong
and change their focus.
Mr. Chomiak:
The minister used 20 minutes to justify his position, to justify the
entering into the contract, to not answer any of the questions that I asked
him, Madam Chairperson, to, in his usual controlling fashion, treat the
legitimate questions as he does many people who come to his office for
assistance in his fashion. I accept
that. I am not going to be drawn in by
the minister's attempts to play political games in this Chamber.
It is clear the minister alluded to two
sort of provisions. It is clear there was no empirical data that would justify
the $45 million to $65 million savings other than the fact that the minister
said that the HOP health centres in the States had been canvassed and those by
the two teaching hospital CEOs, and those had indicated savings of 8 percent to
17 percent, and that the minister had checked with 100 hospitals with a go or
no‑go provision that had this in the contract, and they were all
satisfied or expanded the contract. Can
the minister, therefore, table those results, please?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, most of‑‑it is my understanding‑‑the
investigation to check out the deliverables and the deliverable capability of
this firm was done by telephone call, et cetera. That is where we received our
assurance. I know my honourable friend
might not think that that is adequate, but the two teaching hospitals and their
administration boards thought that was adequate, and we were so satisfied with
the information we received from satisfied customers.
It is not something that I can table for
my honourable friend so he can peruse, although I do hope to be able to provide
my honourable friend with the presentation that Dr. Curran has made and we can
go through it page by page. My
honourable friend can tell me what should not be done in that presentation that
he disagrees with because it is based on some of the information I have already
shared with my honourable friend.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, if the minister does not have the information, it is very
clear he has no data that he can provide us that would serve as the basis for
the reputed main purpose of entering into the contract, that is savings of $45
million to $65 million in the two teaching hospitals. It was done via telephone conversations and
the like, and the minister keeps insisting that we provide our‑‑at
least one thing I must admit, the minister is at least soliciting viewpoints
which is something he generally does not do amongst the public. At least he is asking our viewpoints with respect
to the health care system.
Perhaps the minister has turned over a new
leaf and will now begin to listen to the some of the concerns that have been
raised by the vast majority of Manitobans concerning what the minister has
entered into.
In Clause 1(3) of the contract, page 7, a
number of project agreements have to be executed and delivered on or before May
31, 1993. Can the minister please table
those agreements that presumably have been entered into?
Mr. Orchard:
No, I cannot, Madam Chair. As I
indicated to my honourable friend just the other day, that is what we are in
the final stages of development.
Mr. Chomiak:
We have missed a delivery date, is that what the minister is saying in
terms of this consultant? Have we missed
a delivery date in terms of the contract, this greatest contract probably in
the history of the universe as implied by the Minister of Health? It had all of these no‑goes, have we
now missed our first major delivery date?
Mr. Orchard:
I am indicating that the deliverables are intact. The process is
intact. The May 31 sign‑off is not
intact, but the process is agreed to, is proceeding at each of the institutions
as projected in the agreement.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, so the May 31 date has been missed. The project agreements have not been signed
as per the contract. The consultant has
been paid, but the process is somehow continuing. So that is fairly clear now that we have
established that this greatest contract, this greatest negotiation that has
ever been entered by the Province of Manitoba, probably the biggest consulting
contract in provincial history, and the May 31 project agreements that the
entire project is based upon have not been agreed to.
It is unfortunate that we are commencing
in terms of this contract already on that basis of the failure to achieve the
goals of the initial category of the contracts.
In Clause 7.2 of the contract on page 34,
there are five categories of expenses that are eligible for reimbursement under
the agreement: air travel, lodging,
local transportation, meals and other miscellaneous expenses such as telephone,
telecopy, air courier. Will the minister
undertake that, when the contract is completed, all of those expenses will be
provided to this Chamber?
Mr. Orchard:
Those provisions are paid for by the respective institutions.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister advise me where those respective
institutions receive their funding from?
Mr. Orchard:
From the Department of Health, the line‑‑I will get it for
him in the Estimates so he makes extra sure.
It is called the Health Services Insurance Fund.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, so the minister is saying, no, he will not provide
that information to this Chamber.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, my honourable friend knows that the expenses are part of
the hospitals' responsibility. They are
not part of the contract and the specific funding line by line; we are under a
global budget at the hospital.
My honourable friend also knows that there
is a maximum to those expenditures of $800,000 and they cannot be exceeded.
There is a further clause in the contract which says, best efforts will be
provided so that it is less than $800,000.
I have a lot of confidence that the people
at both those respective hospitals are going to ensure that the expenses are
those that are required to carry out the agreement as part of their
contribution to the agreement.
Mr. Chomiak:
So, again, the minister is saying, no, that he will not provide that
information. I think it is curious, because
the minister and the
Mr. Orchard:
Is my honourable friend referring to page 33?
Mr. Chomiak:
Clause 7(1), page 33.
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, that is right, the hospitals are responsible for the expenses. That is what we have been saying all along.
What does my honourable friend find so baffling about that?
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, what I find so baffling is the minister's refusal,
since
* (1200)
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, you know, my honourable friend‑‑I guess he is
singular in his issue, which is fine. We
can spend the next 50 hours talking about this contract if he wants. It suits me fine. But my honourable friend would have
absolutely no questions to pose unless we give him the contract. The contract has maximums specified as to
what the total financial commitment by the province, by the hospitals, is. Now, my honourable friend uses those numbers
to his advantage.
Will my honourable friend then
congratulate government should the Estimates come in less? Will he stand up on his hind legs and
congratulate government? I mean, I would
hope so because we have given my honourable friend his only issue. We have handed him a document of a
consultant's report, of a consultant's contract which has the deliverables, the
specifications, what is expected, et cetera.
Without this contract, Madam Chair, feature how dull Estimates would
be. My honourable friend would have no
questions, and, you know, I guess maybe there is a lesson here. I have got to
give my honourable friend a few more reports, maybe if I can find some that he
might be interested in, so he latches onto them and asks questions, because
otherwise my honourable friend is barren of an original thought.
Now, my honourable friend is concerned about
$800,000 of expenses between the two hospitals, fine. I mean, that is a point he can make‑‑a
point he will make. Fine. But let us talk about whether there is value
in the contract, and then let us talk about whether my honourable friend would
cancel the contract, would not proceed with it.
Because I think‑‑again you see where we are at, Madam Chair,
is this interesting opposition‑government Estimates debate warp that we
get into where everything government does is wrong but yet opposition never
says what should be‑‑no, I will not say opposition because one of
the opposition parties does give alternative suggestions.
The New Democrats are singular in being
against everything and for nothing. Now,
that is an interesting position to be in. Where I would like to be‑‑because
I can give my honourable friend no more information than what is in the
contract which he has before him, which has been the reason he has had some
questions. Now, having provided my honourable friend with the contract, its
parameters, its cost, et cetera, I would be interested in getting into what my
honourable friend disagrees with in the principles behind the contract and the
deliverables behind the contract and whether the contract will be good, bad or
in between, whether the New Democrats are opposed to the essence of the
achievables in the contract.
That is a debate which will tell
Manitobans who wants to attempt to improve health care and who just wants to
sort of slide their way maybe into government someday, like Bob Rae did in
Ontario, with no plan and with a disastrous result for the province.
You know, in this day and age, Manitobans
are a little more intelligent than simply to accept carte blanche that because
a party is against everything, they would make good government. I mean, today's day and age demands that if
you are against something, you better state what you are for to replace it, or
else you lose your entire credibility.
My honourable friend is attempting‑‑I
know the New Democrats put a lot of faith in this individual as one of their
bright stars, and they put a lot of faith in his ability to establish
credibility in health care. Well, you
know, Madam Chair, my honourable friend cannot do it by being against
everything government does, when so many organizations are supporting what government
is doing, and never offering an alternative so people can value‑judge who
is right and who is wrong, who has a better process.
So we can talk about all of these things
and my honourable friend can alarmingly state this, that and the other whatever
conclusion he wants to come to on the basis of my answers, and he can
incorporate it into his fundraising letters to the impoverished Manitobans that
he wants to‑‑(interjection)
Well, the impoverished party members of the New Democrats from whom he is asking
$50 minimum, $100 minimum, $200 minimum, whatever, so my honourable friend can
engage in his whisper campaigns.
That is maybe great stuff for the party
faithful, but there is a tremendous number of Manitobans out there that are not
adherents to the New Democratic Party.
They are adherents to people with principle that state what they will
do, that lay out plans and visions and action plans for the future, as we have
done in health care and other areas of this government.
If my honourable friend thinks that he is
going to sneak into government, the back door, by being against everything and
for nothing‑‑forget it, not in today's environment. You will not have the credibility and the
support of people who are looking for good government. Good government is not simply against
everything. Good government is one which
will recognize the problem and provide reasons, solutions and not be afraid to
lay them out for debate, not be afraid to put them before the public and let
the people decide.
Now, my honourable friend may well choose
to do that over the course of these Estimates and then we will have meaningful
and significant discussion around health care, its future and some of the
changes that are ongoing presently. We
will find out whether my honourable friend has any concept of the challenges
before the health care system, whether he really understands, in his new role
as critic, and whether the New Democratic Party of Manitoba really understands
what has to happen and what has to be engaged and what has to be undertaken in
terms of change in the health care system to preserve and protect medicare.
That understanding, if my honourable
friend has it, and with some integrity would help him to achieve his goal of
being government. Saying nothing and denying
everything will not.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I can understand the minister's reluctance to want to
deal with the contract. He has
indicated, firstly, he does not have any data to indicate where the $45 million
to $65 million in savings will come; secondly, the first major project
agreements that were supposed to be entered into and agreed to by May 31 have
not been agreed to‑‑the minister has admitted that today, they are
not even there, the first major task of the contract; thirdly, he is refusing
to make public something that is done generally throughout government, the
expenditures‑‑the out‑of‑pocket expenses and the travel
expenses and the air travel of the consultant‑‑he is refusing to do
that. That is fine, and I think it is recognized for what it is worth, and
certainly I can understand why the minister is now reluctant to talk about
specifics of the contract.
In a newspaper article dated May 15, '93,
a chart appeared on the front page of the Free Press that laid out the scenario
of expenditures in health care that talked about a dollar spent in the present
system versus 88 cents in the present system which is based on Ms. Curran's
analysis and presumably will somehow achieve the $45 million to $65 million
savings. I would like to ask the
minister, is this ergo since this is the working chart that Ms. Curran shows,
together with the maple leaves on all of her charts that she shows on her
overhead projections, does this chart therefore indicate that we can and should
look for a 12 percent overall global reduction in the hospital budgets (a) at
the two teaching hospitals, and/or (b) at all of the hospitals? Can the
minister elaborate on that, please?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, as I understand that chart, that is a chart which reflects
on average what has happened in hospitals that APM has worked in, and I think
is a compendium of the 8 to 17 percent that I gave to my honourable friend.
My honourable friend shakes his head
no. I guess he knows the answer then.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I am shaking my head because I wanted to indicate
that the article said, and I quote: Only
25 cents of every hospital dollar is spent on patients, preliminary
Mr. Orchard:
I believe it is both, Madam Chair.
Mr. Chomiak:
Given that minister's answer, Madam Chairperson, is the minister
therefore saying that we can expect a 12 percent global reduction in hospital
budgets based on a projection of Ms. Curran's work? I mean, is the minister saying that?
* (1210)
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, what I am saying is the contract specifies on page
2(c): The consultant has represented to
Manitoba on the base of its preliminary analysis that annual financial savings
in the range of $45 million to $65 million per annum should be realized within
the health care system in the province of Manitoba by adopting and implementing
the consultant's recommendations as regard the restructuring of operations at
St. Boniface Hospital and Health Sciences Centre.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, this same consultant, who has said that these savings
will be achieved, has provided a chart to the public and to the press that
indicates that reduction expenditures in hospitals will go down from $1 to 88
cents, with an increase in patient care.
So this is not a trick question for the minister. This is simply an attempt to understand what
is meant by this chart and where we are going.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I know this is not a trick question. My honourable friend is now trying to understand
the essence of the contract which I have been trying to explain to him for the
last hour. The contract says $45 million
to $65 million. My honourable friend has
the contract in front of him. Those are the global dollars that are specified
in the contract.
Now, the experience that this consultant
has had leads to that chart as an average because hospitals regardless‑‑my
honourable friend may think there is something unique about the way hospitals
are organized. Hospitals are not
organized significantly differently just because of the 49th Parallel. They do
a lot of the same things in the same fashion, because the North American
medical model is just that, it is basically the North American medical model,
and the experience in the
The analysis which led us to sign the
contract leads the consultant plus the administration of the hospitals to
believe that there is not a significant difference in many ways to the
organization of patient management within the hospitals,
So it was on the integrity of past
experience that chart was developed, and my honourable friend now recognizes
and has acknowledged what is the purpose here.
Increased level of patient care, using 88 cents of a dollar that we
formerly spent the whole dollar on. I
appreciate my honourable friend understanding that is the goal, increased
patient care.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, in a roundabout way we may have achieved a first in
the Estimates. The minister in a
roundabout way may have answered the question, and I want to determine whether
or not, in fact, that is the case.
The article says: Our health reform scenario suggests hospital
dollars should be pared back to 88 cents, with 30 cents spent on patients‑‑(interjection)
Mr. Orchard:
Compared to what now? Give the
whole story.
Mr. Chomiak:
Well, I am prepared to table the chart that Ms. Curran provided to the
minister. He can have it, he can have a look
at it and we can discuss it all afternoon.
I am trying to understand, therefore, the
minister saying we are removing‑‑presumably for every dollar that
we spend on hospital care, we will now spend 88 cents, but direct patient care
will go up to 30 cents.
Is that what the minister is saying? Because that is what the article says, and
that is what I believe the minister, that is what I think the minister said in
his original answer. If the minister
likes, I could make it simpler, I could have this article photocopied, although
I think it is a standard one that Ms. Curran has used in all her presentations
that I have seen.
Does the minister understand the question?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, the minister has always understood my honourable friend's
question. It is only now, after about
the tenth repeat of the answer that it appears my honourable friend understands
the answer.
Mr. Chomiak:
I assume from that response of the minister that he is answering in the
affirmative.
Mr. Orchard:
If my honourable friend is asking a question about the answer, I think
the question was answered in my previous answer to his previous question, which
was a repeat of the answer to probably the last 10 or 15 questions on the same
topic that my honourable friend has posed over the last three days, wherein the
answer has been consistent and now my honourable friend finally understands the
answer.
Mr. Chomiak:
I hope the minister feels good about that response and feels that he has
scored some more points somehow in terms of that response.
I will ask the minister for clarification
again. Is this minister saying that
hospital expenditures will be going down approximately 12 percent to achieve
goals of what the article says of an increase to, say, 30 percent on patient
care from the present, whatever it is, 20 or 24 percent, and that, therefore,
is the goal that is to be achieved by Ms. Curran?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, that chart represents the statistical, analytical
evidence that my honourable friend asked for earlier on about how did we arrive
at agreeing to engage this consultant.
Those were the figures that the hospital saw in terms of the results of
the consultant working within hospitals of similar undertaking in the
That is the statistical and analytical
analysis which was confirmed by the hospitals in discussions with client
hospitals in the United States that they, in fact, had delivered it that
slightly less, slightly more, depending on the circumstance, but in that
general range and in those general areas, that is what the consultant was able
to deliver.
That is why in the contract it is written
into the contract with APM, that between the two hospitals, St. Boniface and
Health Sciences Centre, that there will be an achievable savings in the range
of $45 million to $65 million. I cannot
tell my honourable friend whether that is going to be a range of 8 percent to
15 percent. I presume it is 10 percent
to 15 percent or thereabout. So it may
well end up exactly like that chart, or it may end up slightly less, or it may
end up slightly more, but the minimum achievable is $45 million and the maximum
achievable is $65 million. But the end
result is, as my honourable friend said and as I have said every step of the
way, it will result in increased commitment to patient care.
So if that helps my honourable friend
again understand (a) the statistical analysis that he said did not exist in
terms of what the consultant could do which he decried me for not having a few
minutes ago when, in fact, he had it in front of himself, which is fine. My honourable friend, I hope that is a good
enough answer because it is what is anticipated to be deliverable at Health
Sciences Centre and St. Boniface.
(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
* (1220)
The reason that it "appears to be
deliverable"‑‑I want to help my honourable friend here because
my honourable friend will maybe understand why we believe in this process and
believe that it is a worthy one to engage in.
I have a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen, it was February 26, 1992, so
it is a little over a year ago. The then‑Minister
of Health in
Here is the important thing that I want to
share with my honourable friend. Ms.
Lankin said there is an incredible waste in the system and at least 30 percent
of everything done in hospitals has no proven benefit. You see, 30 percent may be too high a
number. I am not arguing with the number
and I am not finding fault with the statement of the number because there is
some integrity behind a 30 percent inappropriate spending in our health care
system in
But my honourable friend will see that
that identification in the APM identifies that there is 12 percent of potential
waste in hospitals, not the 30 percent of everything done in a hospital. There
is no proven benefit as indicated by the Honourable Frances Lankin in
It is this process that I cautioned my
honourable friend around a little earlier on in that he is so vehemently
opposed to‑‑well, I do not know whether he is or not. He appears to be opposed to this contract,
and if it is because it is American, fine.
I mean that is a different issue.
But if it is for what the contract can deliver, I simply offer my
honourable friend a little caution, because there may well be other provinces
that engage this consultant to do exactly the same thing.
It may be a little difficult for my
honourable friend to explain if one of those provinces happens to be governed
by associates of his political stripe.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, the minister indicated in the previous response
of something that I also heard Ms. Curran indicate on one of her briefing
briefs, wherein she indicated that the 11 steps in some hospitals could be
reduced to three. I ask the minister, is
that not a management decision? Does
that not reflect on the capabilities or does that not reflect on basic
administrative practices that are undertaken by hospitals?
Why does it take Ms. Curran to come in and
tell us that we need to reduce steps for the delivery of an aspirin from 11 to
three? The point is it is a generic
management issue. The point is good
management can reduce steps in any process in any kind of an institution, be it
a hospital or be it any other kind of an institution. But the minister seems to‑‑and
Ms. Curran used the same example. My
answer is good management at any institution or any level could achieve those
same reductions in savings and administrative steps.
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not have a basic disagreement with my
honourable friend on the point he is making.
That is exactly right. The
process in terms of engagement of this consultant is to identify and to
facilitate those kinds of improved management structures.
I want to just go back and revisit with my
honourable friend a little bit.
Basically‑‑and this is an overstatement of the fact, and I
will admit that before I make it‑‑but if we are on a scale of one
to 100 in terms of significant and fundamental review of how we deliver
medicare in the last 25 years, I think it is fair to say‑‑and I
would be 90 percent accurate in saying this‑‑that the system has
simply grown and grown and grown and grown.
The response has always been to
government, when there has been a difficulty encountered at our institutions,
that government regardless of who it is, whether it was the New Democrats in
1981 to 1988, us since, us before that, the NDP before that, if there was a
problem in an institution, the problem was we needed more money. That was the easy response.
You know, I want to tell my honourable
friend, regardless of political affiliation, every government did the same
thing. They would probably give them
money. That is why 88 percent of our
budget in
So I just want to say to my honourable friend
that amid all of the challenges that are before government, and I sit in
Question Period, and I hear my honourable friends the New Democrats say put
more money into education. I hear my
honourable friends the New Democrats say put more money into family
services. I hear my honourable friends
the New Democrats say put more money into agriculture. My honourable friends resist change in
agriculture, the method of payment, everything. They simply resist everything,
but my honourable friends have to understand that in Canada, as a nation as we
speak today, between the federal government, 10 provincial governments and the
two territorial governments we are going to borrow $55 billion of money to
finance programs that my honourable friends are asking should be increased from
opposition.
I want to tell my honourable friend in
cold, hard, light‑of‑the‑dawn economic language that the $55
billion that we are borrowing this year to support health care in
Now, let us figure it at 8 percent
interest, which is maybe achievable.
That is $4 billion.
Now do you understand why the managers of
the health care system no longer come to government as they have in 25 years
and say when we have got a problem, government give us more money? But rather
when we have got a problem the managers of the two teaching hospitals said to
this government we think we have got a solution. The solution is a restructuring of what we do
in our two institutions, guided by the expertise of APM and Dr. Connie Curran,
and the end result will be $45 million less money that we are going to ask you
for to finance our operations, which will allow us to maintain the level of
patient care and increase the quality of patient care.
That is real request, real management,
responsible governance of health care by Mr. Jack Litvack and Mr. Rod
Thorfinnson, their respective boards at Health Sciences Centre and St.
Boniface. They recognize that if they do not do this‑‑
An Honourable Member:
You do not even know what you are talking about.
Mr. Orchard:
You know, my honourable friend the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak)
said this is just a standard speech. My
honourable friend then must be saying, ergo, that Canada can borrow $55 billion
this year, next year and the year after and the year after, and never have to
ever diminish a single service, that we can go on and even borrow a hundred
billion dollars and accede to all the requests irresponsible New Democrats in
opposition would make to spend even more, and have absolutely no effect on the
ability to deliver program and to care for people. My honourable friend surely
cannot be that absolutely naive.
* (1230)
Now, if this is a standard speech, I want
to hear my honourable friend the New Democrat's standard response. Do you think that you have some magic corner
on intelligence that says, from opposition, you can demand more spending and
increase borrowing when the people who have been used to‑‑and I am
not saying this critically and negatively to our CEOs at our hospitals, but the
standard response at the start of our term in 1988, all during the '80s, all
during the '70s was if you have a problem, you kick up a fuss and you get more
money from government. Government goes
out and borrows it, because we have been running deficits since 1970 and the
blessing of this
My honourable friend is saying, from
opposition, he has the unique knowledge and the unique perspective as a New
Democrat that Jack Litvack is wrong; Rod Thorfinnson is wrong; Peter Liba as
chairman of the board of St. Boniface is wrong; Chris Chapman as chairman of
the board of the Health Sciences Centre is wrong in coming to government and
asking us to support them in an effort to reduce their demand on the treasury,
to stop the borrowing of money which compromises our ability to deliver care in
the future.
My honourable friend says those people are
wrong, and he is right, that he can go out and borrow, that he can urge
government to spend more. Well, take a
break and look at Ontario and ask yourself why, for an eight‑week period
of time, Bob Rae put Michael Decter in charge of negotiating the social
contract with union workers, the majority of which, all of which are public
sector unions to take not $100,000, not $1 million, but $2 billion out of the
pay package of Ontario civil servants.
Why? Because they cannot go out and borrow that money this year.
Now, my honourable friend is going to
somehow avoid that issue, avoid that reality.
I do not know how. Because
Manitobans are not avoiding that issue.
That is why I say to my honourable friend when he stands up and he does
not give us any suggestions as to what we should do to replace what we are
doing, that is a better mousetrap if you will, where he is only simply against
and that everything we undertake in government is wrong, Manitobans kind of
take a look and say, oh, well, golly, if that is right, then maybe the New
Democrats have all the answers‑‑oops!‑‑until they pick
up The Globe and Mail or any newspaper which talks about the difficulties of
governing in Ontario or if they happen to avail themselves of a Regina Leader
Post or a Saskatoon Star‑Phoenix and they find out the realities of
government under New Democrats in Saskatchewan are just as difficult and more
difficult than what they are in Manitoba.
So I want to tell my honourable friend he
had better get into the 1990s and he had better start thinking about the future
instead of living in the past. New
Democrats in this province have become afraid of the future and living in the
past, and that is why I, in jest, indicated NDP no longer stands for New
Democratic Party, it stands for new dinosaur party.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I want to remind the minister he became more
animated and more philosophical with his colleague the Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey) and his colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) and he does
not have to show them how tough he is or what kind of clever debater he is,
something that he attempts to do. He can
simply answer the question, which he failed to do again for the umpteenth time.
(interjection)
The Minister of Agriculture laughs. He was not even here when the question was
posed. The Minister of Agriculture ought
to pay attention as well, because these are issues that significantly affect
all people in the
The minister indicated that there were
more job classifications in some of our institutions than employees. I wonder if he might give me some examples of
that.
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, Mr. Acting Chairperson.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, is the minister indicating by that response that
he will table that information, or is the minister indicating that he will
provide it orally, or will the minister engage in another long diatribe in
which he will periodically spout out the odd response to the odd question?
Mr. Orchard:
No, Mr. Acting Chairperson.
Mr. Chomiak:
I missed the minister's response.
Could he repeat it, please?
Mr. Orchard:
I indicated, no, to the last part of my honourable friend's question.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, the minister indicated that there were more jobs
classifications in some institutions than employees. Can the minister give us some examples of
that.
Mr. Orchard:
I have already agreed to that, Sir.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I assume that the minister will be tabling that
information in the House to allow us to deal with it during the course of this
debate before we end Estimates.
Does the minister have any kind of a
projection on the number of job losses and/or job positions that will occur as
a result of this restructuring process?
Mr. Orchard:
No, none that I can share with my honourable friend.
Mr. Chomiak:
Can the minister give us a brief update of the status of the projects,
the actual on‑the‑ground projects as they were occurring, despite
the fact that the deliverables are beyond May 31? Could the minister give us the status of what
is happening right now in the Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface Hospital
in terms of what the consultant is doing there?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, as I have indicated before, the deliverables are
basically established. There has been,
as I indicated to my honourable friend, I think it was Tuesday or maybe it was
Monday, when my honourable friend was questioning the contract, I think there
have been seven people in place working with management in terms of
establishing the integrity of the $45 million to $65 million deliverable goals.
There has been a significant amount of
work and presentation at the two respective hospitals, so that there is an
understanding of the process, what is involved in the process. It is my
understanding that as of, I guess, the end of last month or maybe during May
that there is agreement with all of the major players at those facilities that
the APM initiative is one that has integrity.
They have established arrangements to work towards the goals as outlined
in the contract.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, one of the projects undertaken by the
consultants is a review of home care operations. I am wondering what background has been
demonstrated by this particular consultant that will indicate her ability to
review and make recommendations in the
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I must apologize to my honourable friend, I
missed the question.
Mr. Chomiak:
In one the contracts, one of the five projects entered into by this
consultant, is a review of home care operations. Can the minister outline for us what the
consultants' background and experience is with respect to home care
operations? It is fairly clear that the
consultant has extensive experience in institutionalized base care, and I am
wondering if the minister can outline for us what her background is with
respect to the home care operations.
Mr. Orchard:
The principles which guide work restructuring have application beyond
institutions, and it is that expertise that we think will be of value in the
review of the home care program.
Mr. Chomiak:
The minister indicated that a hundred hospitals have been consulted by
his department, and that a savings would be achieved at 8 percent to 17 percent
at institutions that Ms. Curran had worked at in the United States which
justify the decision to hire her to attempt to decrease the expenditures in our
two teaching hospitals from $45 million to $65 million, and that justified the
contract. At the same time they have
entered into a project with her to review home care. Can the minister‑‑it is a simple
question‑‑give us the background and her experience in the delivery
of this kind of a service in her vast and varied experience, and extensive
experience, of these activities in the
* (1240)
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, lest my honourable friend and I‑‑and
I did err in not correcting my honourable friend. My honourable friend has inappropriately
translated, in error I know, and has made a statement that we contacted a
hundred hospitals in the
Secondly, my honourable friend, the answer
I have given him, the work restructuring philosophy and approach has application
beyond the institutional delivered care model and management model, and we
believe has an ability to help us make our home care program more effective
within existing resources as well.
Mr. Chomiak:
Yes, and I accept that comment of the minister. In fact the minister had not said that he had
contacted a hundred hospitals. The
minister had said that some hospitals had been contacted, and as I understand,
the minister is not providing me with any other written data to indicate what
the responses were. Presumably they were all verbally by the telephone that the
minister received assurances from people at those hospitals.
But I do acknowledge that that is what I
believed the minister indicated. If one
looks at all of the contracts, the five projects entered into by Ms. Curran,
the review of Home Care operations is the one that most resembles a contract to
be a contract.
The end product appears to be a suggestion
of, perhaps, an additional process or an additional procedure to follow this
contract, because Ms. Curran is going to provide, quote, a road map, end of
quote‑‑it is from the model.
I am wondering what the next step the
minister sees in terms of the Home Care review undertaken by Ms. Curran,
because, appreciate this, Ms. Curran says that initially they are going to do
an analysis. If Phase I asks the
questions of where we have been and where we are now; Phase II asks,
quote: What do we want to be in the
future? Phase III is, quote: What is the road map?
It looks to me, unlike the other contracts
that have been entered into, more like a consulting contract to create an
additional long‑term contract. I
am wondering if the minister might comment on that.
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I guess I am going to have to await further questions
from my friend to know where he is wanting to head his line of questioning, and
where his perceptions are. I am simply
saying to my honourable friend that we believe there is an application of
principle on work restructuring which will be beneficial to our delivery of the
Continuing Care Programs, which we believe will make us able to provide more
patient care for the same kind of resource exactly as they do in the hospitals,
with an increase in patient care out of the budget, less duplication, less
paper shuffle, less process steps and more care.
We have some confidence that that, in
fact, will result from this contract with APM on home care, and that that
blueprint will be very beneficial to providing continuing fine service out of
the Continuing Care Programs.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister give me some examples of what
he means in where we are going with respect to this? The minister is well familiar with our Home
Care and Continuing Care Programs.
He is familiar with our institutional‑based
program. He engages a consultant who has
virtually no experience, as I understand it, in an area of this kind. Can he outline to me where he thinks we are
going?
Mr. Orchard:
To an improved health care system.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, throughout the Health Reform document the
phraseology is repeated over and over again that we have to move from the
higher priced, institutional‑based care to the lower cost, community‑based
care, et cetera. Presumably this figures in that process, although the minister
has not made it clear that it does.
Can the minister give me an example of
where he sees home care changing in the future to accommodate these
changes? Can the minister indicate where
he sees those changes taking place?
Mr. Orchard:
In work restructuring the purpose is to eliminate unnecessary steps in
terms of ordering service, providing service.
That is what work structuring is about, to try to simplify the process
by which you move from a request for service to the service being delivered.
Anytime you can streamline the process,
make the management of that care delivery process more effective, you end up
with more resource dedicated to caregiving.
That is where I see this process being able to move, so that as I indicated
in my first answer to my honourable friend, we have confidence that we can
emulate with the budget and Continuing Care a greater amount of that budget
ending up in hands‑on care delivery for Manitobans and not wasted in
duplication of inappropriate steps to achieve service delivery. That is the essence of work restructuring.
Work restructuring is a very interesting
concept. It is not based on the status
quo being all right. It is a rethink of
how you accomplish tasks. It does not
accept that because Home Care is a good program that Home Care cannot benefit
from improvements, improvements that will lead, we believe, to more care,
better care, higher quality care.
Again, I do not want to put words in my
honourable friend's mouth, but I would really like to know if he thinks that is
a laudable goal in Home Care because that is the goal we have.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Chomiak:
Does the Minister see more of this Home Care, Continuing Care being based
out of the institutions, the hospital, rather than community based as is more
presently the case?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, that depends on a lot of things. Right now we have a pretty significant
component of institutional‑based continuing care through VON.
Mr. Chomiak:
Is Ms. Curran examining that particular delivery model?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes.
Mr. Chomiak:
Will the recommendations made by Ms. Curran be implemented within the next
year or are these simply recommendations that will be utilized in a further
study?
Mr. Orchard:
In which area?
Mr. Chomiak:
The Home Care project.
* (1250)
Mr. Orchard:
It would be the whole process of, not only in Home Care, but in the two
teaching hospitals in terms of management layers or the management
structures. In terms of purchasing, it
is the intent in all of these contracts that as workable solutions are
identified that they are implemented as soon as possible. So that if a concept which were to improve
the effectiveness of any of the programs is identified by the task forces
looking at issues and the recommendation for change has integrity and meets the
goals of the contract, implementation starts immediately. So there is a varying time line as to
implementation of decisions that emanate from this process.
Mr. Chomiak:
I could be reading it wrong, but it seems to me that while most of the
other projects, specifically the St. Boniface Hospital project and the Health
Sciences project, are staged in that fashion, in that manner, this one is
staged more as an end product that will be presented to the minister, in fact,
at the end of this period for implementation.
Is that not the case?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, the purpose of having the investigation is that
if there are reasonable‑‑we are not gathering a whole series of‑‑let
me put it to you as simply as I can. We
are not having consultants work within the varying areas, the five of them, to
identify a whole series of achievables, to present a nice package which at the
end of a year or whatever the time frame is, then we start implementing.
I said, as ideas come forward from the
investigation, the task force input, the people input from these respective
hospitals or programs, that as good ideas come forward, have integrity, are
demonstrated to meet the goals and objectives of the contract, they will be
implemented including in the Continuing Care Programs.
Mr. Chomiak:
That is not the way the contract reads.
It is clearly not the way the contract reads. The way the contract reads is that Ms. Curran
will be developing‑‑and the minister may not think it is important,
and members of the House may not think it is important, but it is significant
since Home Care is crucial to the entire reform process as stated by the
minister. But the Home Care project
calls, in the first phase, for the development‑‑(interjection) The member for
The minister said that Ms. Curran is going
to be restructuring this program as she goes along, but that is not the way the
contract reads. That is not the way the
contract reads, and I will have to stay on this all afternoon. This is not a trick question either for the
minister, or political question, it is our attempt to understand what the home
contract says and what the home contract is going to do, because the way I read
it is not the way the minister has answered the question.
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, nor have I been giving my honourable friend
trick answers.
Mr. Chomiak:
Thank you. Score one for the
minister, another debating point.
Mr. Acting Chairperson, the contract says
in Phase I that it will take one to two years.
They are going to gather data and they are going to use the data in
order to implement a process. They are going to have a seminar and a
retreat. That does not sound to me like
a contract that is going to make specific recommendations.
Mr. Orchard:
Well, Mr. Acting Chairperson, I cannot give my honourable friend any
more information as to what the process with the Continuing Care Programs will
be. As the program is under
investigation, as Health Sciences Centre, St. Boniface administration, the
purchasing aspects, as the other four components, as ideas emanate which meet
the goals and objectives of the program, make the program better, they will be
implemented.
I do not know how much more simply I can
put it to my honourable friend. If he is
not satisfied with that I guess I cannot satisfy him today, but if my
honourable friend‑‑I cannot understand what my honourable friend's
trouble is.
Is my honourable friend saying that we
should not accept and implement good ideas as they come up through the
investigation process, that we should wait for a year or two years, as he says,
before we do anything? I mean, I do not
think my honourable friend is saying that.
That is not what we intend to do.
If we have reasonable suggestions on how we can make the process more
effective for the people receiving care, we will implement them.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, there is no magic in this. The minister started
a process of his reform last year in which numerous beds were cut and hospital
sizes were slashed, et cetera. The
minister brought in this consultant now, in May of this year, for a yearlong
contract to restructure St. Boniface, to restructure Health Sciences Centre, to
do a purchasing contract, et cetera. The
minister has also engaged the consultant to do a home care study. If one reads the schedule appended to the
contract which is presumably the basis of it, and I am going to read from Phase
III, the final phase of the consultant's contract:
There is going to be a retreat following
the gathering of data, and a month and a half to two months later a second
retreat will be held. The second retreat
will draw on six major resources:
database created in Phase I and any refinements, the information
gathered from interviews conducted in Phase II, the deliberation of the Phase
II retreat, the results of the follow‑up assignment, the results of the
work restructuring projects being conducted at St. B. and Health Sciences
Centre, the expertise of APM staff which will be brought to bear in the design
of this retreat.
The goal of this retreat will be to
develop a road map for implementing change.
Phase III will answer the question, how do we get from here to there, et
cetera, without having to read through the rest of the contract, although it is
relatively short.
The point is, Mr. Acting Chairperson, that
clearly the home care changes, the way this contract reads, will not be
implemented until the end of all of the other projects, which means a year down
the line, which means two years after the changes have occurred in the hospital
care system, which means the home care system will not be changed in time or to
be put in place prior to the implementation of the reforms of the
minister. That is the way the contract
reads. Now, if the minister is telling
me something different, and he is, clearly‑‑
An Honourable Member:
Are you still on the contract?
Get on to health care, David.
Mr. Chomiak:
The member for
But the home care reforms will not be
occurring until after all of this has occurred.
Is the minister indicating that I am reading the contract wrong, that I
have read verbatim into the record?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I can provide my honourable friend with no
greater elucidation to his investigation.
Mr. Chomiak:
It is clear from the minister's response that that is the case, unless
the minister can state otherwise. It is
in black and white writing that that is the way the home care project will be
proceeding.
I wonder at this time, Mr. Acting
Chairperson, if we had better break for the lunch period that we had discussed
by mutual consent earlier.
Mr. Orchard:
I agree with my honourable friend we should break, but I cannot agree
with my honourable friend because my honourable friend received the answer to
his question. It was not the answer he
wanted. I cannot give him an answer that
he wants because I do not know what answer he wants, but the answer I gave him
is the accurate answer. If he cannot
accept that answer because it does not fit the answer he wants, I do not know
how to help him.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr.
Sveinson): Order, please. The hour being 1 p.m., as previously agreed,
I am recessing the committee until 1:15 p.m.
The committee recessed
at 12:55 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed
at 1:15 p.m.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
Madam Chairperson: Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Health.
Item 1.(b)(1).
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Madam Chairperson, I just want to ask a few questions on this famous
name, which has been probably mentioned in this House more than‑‑second
to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), I think she has become very famous,
Connie Curran.
First of all, I did not get it very clear
who really got hold of her. I think that
is a fair question, because there is a misconception that the government is
responsible or the hospitals are responsible.
I think we are walking into a very gray area, and that has left a lot of
questions. Basically, I just want to
know who actually got in touch with her.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, let me go right back to square one. I do not think I have ever explained how we
got acquainted with Connie Curran in the first place in the
Back in December of 1989‑‑you
can go back further, in January of 1989, Ministers of Health had been
attempting to hold an informal meeting where we do not have the full complement
of translation, et cetera. It is an
informal meeting where we try to focus on sort of a national agenda.
* (1330)
I suggested at that meeting that
At any rate, we, the
What I am attempting to do right now is
get her C.V. so I can distribute it to both honourable members.
The nurses of
Subsequent to that, on a couple of
occasions‑‑and I cannot even indicate what the occasions were‑‑Dr.
Curran came to other symposia or meetings in Manitoba and again impressed all
those or the vast majority of those who listened to her presentation.
Subsequent to that, the ministry started
discussions with Dr. Curran to find out whether there was a possibility of her
assisting the department. At the same
time, both of the teaching hospitals started discussions because, I think it is
fair to say, probably senior management in each of those institutions had heard
presentation at the National Nursing Symposium, 1990 and other venues where she
had been in the province to make presentations.
They started discussions with Dr. Curran
about working with them to restructure their hospital operations, both Health
Sciences Centre and St. Boniface.
We were aware of those discussions and did
not work them or discourage them in any fashion, but it was after pretty
substantial discussions with the hospitals and Dr. Curran that the hospitals,
their administrators and their boards concluded it would be a significant but a
worthy investment to engage APM to undertake work restructuring within their
respective institutions.
It was at that juncture, the ministry got
involved and we agreed to fund the contract on the condition that the two
teaching hospitals fund the expenses.
In addition to that, the ministry decided
there would be additional benefit to have the expertise of APM consultants, the
group that Dr. Curran is involved with, to undertake three other areas of
investigation, including the two hospitals.
The third, fourth and fifth were an investigation into how we can
restructure our management within our institutions‑‑all of them‑‑like
all of our Urban Hospital Council or our major hospital institutions.
Secondly, advice on how we might be able
to achieve some better management, subsequently savings in terms of our
purchasing across the health care system.
So that is a fourth addition to the menu of deliverables, and then the
fifth one we added in terms of having her expertise on work restructuring focus
in on our Continuing Care Programs.
But to answer my honourable friend, there
is a conception, and it is fostered by the New Democrats, that government was
alone and singular in engaging Connie Curran and in essence‑‑I do
not know whether their whisper campaign says such, but probably they are even
saying that we forced it on the hospital.
It was very much by mutual agreement. In fact I would be so blunt to say that I
think the hospitals believe so strongly in the benefit of having APM and Connie
Curran in, that should the province have not used lottery revenues to pay the
$3.9 million contract, I suspect, in part or in whole, they would have engaged
the contract and found the resources from within, they believed so much in the
process.
That would have been inappropriate. Because of necessity with global budgets,
which are declining, that would have taken dollars away from patient care to
fund $3.9 million or whatever they would have arranged in terms of costing.
At that juncture, we said, okay, we are
coming to the table with Lotteries money because we think it is an appropriate
investment that meets the broad goals of the Health Services Development Fund
and concurred with the hospital, on the condition that they pay the expense
area of the consultant, provide office space and other issues that were related
to the contract, but it was very much a decision that the hospitals themselves
wished to undertake.
We concurred, after our investigation,
that it would be a good investment of Lotteries resources, scarce resources, to
help restructure our institutional side of health care delivery.
Mr. Cheema:
Madam Chairperson, I think it is very essential to establish the facts
here. First of all, a person of her
capabilities and knowledge, how she came in contact with the Ministry of Health
in
I know that she was also the speaker this
year. So, you know, she has the
credibility in terms of the nursing work which has been done in this country
and in the States. Can the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) tell us the contract of such magnitude, not in terms of
dollars and cents but in terms of the future policy direction in major hospitals,
the government is going to base and they are going to make decisions now. What kind of investigation has the Department
of Health done other than the hospitals which seem to be satisfied with her
performance in the past? Because
ultimately the government is going to be responsible if this person does not
come through with what she is saying.
Mr. Orchard:
I want to provide to my honourable friend, and I think this in part will
answer the questions, I want to provide Dr. Curran's CV and I want to provide
some of the publications that Dr. Curran has done. I cannot give my honourable friend specifics
as to which groups we contacted and talked to about some of the institutions
that Dr. Curran had worked with. But
within the ministry, individuals within the ministry, were familiar and had
availed themselves of some of the papers written by Dr. Curran and we are
confident in her abilities. I would like
to have a couple of copies of these made so that my honourable friend could see
the extensive experience that Dr. Curran has brought to health care.
I would want to wait until my deputy gets
back unless‑‑do you know which ones of the academic institutions we
contacted to talk about the engagement?
We can get my honourable friend several of the organizations, the
hospital organizations we talked to, who had engaged the services of APM and
Dr. Curran, so that he can get a flavour for the academic credibility of some
of these institutions. Was Stanford not
one of them, one of the institutions that we contacted?
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
These were very significant players in the
health care field in the
* (1340)
I make no bones about it and I never
have. This was one of the longest
discussion and most intensive discussions we had internally, because we knew
that if we agreed to engage a consultant for $3.9 million in today's
environment that we were going to receive all kinds of legitimate criticism
about the size of the contract.
I think by engaging them and making that
commitment and tabling the contract, we have demonstrated that despite all the
political risk and all the opportunity for disinformation to go out‑‑I
mean there are even billboards about it now that some of the unions are putting
up‑‑that we have confidence that this will be very much a fit with
the whole reform document because this gets right to the basic issue of how our
major institutions spend and how they can spend more effectively.
We decided to take the political risk as
government of engaging this individual and her firm with all of the opportunity
for the negative political characterization of it because we just think that it
is one of the best opportunities to rather quickly engage in a process of
shifting and restructuring within our institutions. What gave us confidence was the fact that
both Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface at the senior management level,
Mr. Litvack, Mr. Thorfinnson, and at the board chair level, Mr. Liba, Mr.
Chapman, they believe that in today's environment this was a sizable investment
but a worthy investment to make.
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, the minister has said that her work and her
company, APM's work, is going to have a significant impact on the Health Care
Reform package, but actually when the package was released we did not hear
anything about her. I just wanted to
make sure. Was the discussion going on
at that time? If the discussions were
going on, then I think it would have been much better if she was a part of the
package, together, so we would have been able to sell this package in a much
better fashion.
Right now it seems like there is a
perception there is something happening at the back door, and that may or may
not be fact. That is why I think it is
very essential to establish those facts today so at least all the billboards
and all those activities which are going on outside this House and all this
campaign of collecting money and saying, you know, somebody is coming and
destroying your health care system‑‑it does not matter what you say
here in this House. People who are going
to read that, they still believe to some extent, they think something must be
wrong. You cannot just put the
propaganda, just like that. I think it
is very essential to put those things clearly on the record how she came into
contact with
My question is, again, to the
minister. If during the health care
action plan she was being consulted or the talk was going on‑‑and I
understand it is very, very risky at that time if you did not have a contract
with her or did not have the contract fully formalized within the hospital as
well as a policy of the government‑‑why that was not made, you
know, public at that time?
Mr. Orchard:
Well, my honourable friend's question is very legitimate, and the answer
is very clear. I just give my honourable
friend the absolute assurance that as we developed the Action Plan for Health
Reform which was tabled on May 14, we had no concept of engaging Dr. Curran in
this work restructuring process. That
followed subsequent work she did with St. Boniface and with Health Sciences
Centre. So the whole concept of a
reorganization thrust within the hospitals was notable in its absence from the
Health Reform document because, quite frankly, at the time we were unaware of
the firm's capability. I did not know
that she was engaged with a firm called APM, and I had met her at the nursing
symposium and was impressed with the message, and I believed her expertise was
solely in terms of nursing skills and not in the broader picture of
management. So we did not have any sense
or intention of this contract when we created the May 14 document.
We circulated parts of that document as it
applied to nursing or hospitals or institutions to a number of people prior to
its publication. I believe on the
nursing issue, I think, we contacted and we sent the nursing portion down to
Dr. Curran to find out if there was anything that would be unachievable in the
Health Reform document as it applied to nursing, but there was no intention, or
no understanding of the ability to come in and do the management restructuring
at that time.
Similarly, Dr. Jack Wennberg and Dr.
Philip Lee from San Francisco‑‑Philip Lee from
Then across
But to answer my honourable friend's
question unequivocally, at the time we developed the May 14 document, we had no
concept that we would be engaging a year later in an agreement with APM,
principal of which is Dr. Curran to undertake restructuring at our two
hospitals. My honourable friend's
question is legitimate. I give him that
assurance.
But No. 2, I also want to point out how other
events since the document have changed.
For instance, when we put out the document, the Centre for Health Policy
Evaluation, we had a pretty significant input into some of the statistical
verifications, et cetera, and some of the development of what we actually do in
health care and what opportunities there are for change. The centre at the same time was developing
the hospital efficiency report.
That came out subsequent to May 14 but
clearly offers us a significant reform goal which was only alluded to briefly
in terms of the May 14 document because there are some length of stay
variations that are in the health reform document. I make no equivocation about it. With the distribution of that efficiency
document on hospitals from the Centre for Health Policy Evaluation, we very
much have used that subsequent to The Action Plan to stimulate some of the
changes that are occurring in the system right now, St. Boniface in particular,
with the downsizing of surgical wards as one of the examples.
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister tell us because it is a major
undertaking‑‑and we trust that investigation was done properly and
there were hospitals of comparative size and comparative cities that were being
evaluated at the same time‑‑has she ever contributed to a
development of a public policy in terms of a health policy?
Has she done any work in that area? Because it is very important from your point
of view and our point of view in this province to make sure the person is
definitely trying to improve the quality of care and all those things. Does she have the same kind of social
conscience in terms of what is directing the policy of the Canada Health Act?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, good question because I think that at the start
is the initial reaction. That is an
initial reaction that is easy build on and reinforce with billboards and some
of the NDP campaign against the American consultant and the Americanization of
our health care system. It is pretty
easy to get that sort of fear of what the person may well recommend to‑‑it
is very easy in today's environment to play on fears, rather than to play on
action and result.
This is the first time that APM and Dr.
Curran have taken on a restructuring initiative outside of the
If there is one thing that has kind of
dismayed Dr. Curran, it is how personal the debate can become in
* (1350)
The one thing that Dr. Curran has
commented on I think to the people she has worked with, is that there is much
integrity in the Canadian health care system that really would serve her
country well.
It is like any other initiative. You might recall the debates leading up to
the elections last fall, presidential elections in the
Well, neither extreme, as is often the
case, is accurate. There are areas that we can learn from in the American
system to make our system better, and there are areas that the Americans can
certainly learn from, from our system, to make their system better.
Just recently I was to
I think I can say without equivocation
that Dr. Curran in many ways would like to see the United States have a health
care system that was based on the five principles ours is based on, because she
would see an awful lot of benefit in terms of its management, in terms of its
ability to deliver care to a broader spectrum of Americans, many of whom are
without insurance or are underinsured right now.
There are advantages that she sees, I
think clearly and unequivocally, in terms of the relative comparison of outcome
and health status improvement comparisons between the two countries. We get
better results for less investment of dollars, and secondly, and what is going
to become an increasingly important debate in this continent, is the impact of
health care spending on our ability to compete in the global market. I use that example of Lee Iacocca with
Chrysler. It is very real.
This is why
So I think that there is a great opportunity
now, when all of us are challenged to do more with less resource, to borrow
from the best ideas, regardless of where they come from.
In this case, the Health Sciences Centre,
St. Boniface believed that in terms of meeting management restructuring and
process restructuring in their institutions this firm and this particular
individual were the best that were available and encouraged and we agreed in
terms of the engagement of them.
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I think it is very clear and it is somewhat
reassuring that a number of facts, as I said, have to be established in the
whole process. First of all, the
contact, and second, the credibility.
The third one is that, as the minister has
said, this person, it is the first time she has worked on a project outside the
country. If we compare the spending per
capita of all the industrialized nations, she is coming from a country where
they spend more than anybody else, but still there are 30 million people who
are not insured and their health status is not better than ours, or some of the
countries like Japan and Norway and Sweden.
They are doing much better.
So I think there is room for a good
learning experience and to combine the both.
That is why I said, if Bill Clinton thought the Canadian system was the
best they would have grasped it the first day and put their own on the campaign
platform and would have the five basic principles too, but they did not do it
because they know that something is going wrong, so they have to come up with a
policy. Why would they invest millions
of dollars in the investigation when they have some 29 years of experience
right here in this country?
So they want to come up with a policy that
is going to be workable, and from that point of view we could probably learn
many things and I think that is very reassuring. One thing that is very positive is that this
contract, and the minister made it very clear when it came out the first time,
is not binding. I think that is very
smart because you have confidence, but things can change very quickly.
As long as the person understands the
psyche of the Canadian health care and not try to touch that aspect, I think we
are okay.
I am sure the Health Sciences and St.
Boniface administrations are not foolish.
They know exactly what they are doing.
They are the individuals who have credibility. They have worked very hard, and they know
they have to manage.
The question here is whether this could
have been sold more easily in terms of the public perception. I think that has to change, and I think by
raising this issue at least we can come to grasp some of the fundamentals of
the whole problem in terms of establishing more credibility.
My next question is, in this contract are
they going to be taking into account what is happening to the Health Policy
Centre? Because our Health Policy Centre
is doing many studies and, as the minister said, they are very credible
studies. If this company is going to be
taking into account their work plus the work of many other organizations plus
the Health Advisory Network's whole ideas which have been put forward, and
taking into account The Health Action's basic plan‑‑and then if
they are going to try to mandate that whole thrust of this government, I think
then we have a real goal. But if they
are just going to be concentrating on one aspect, then I think there could be a
problem.
I just wanted to make sure that there is
some kind of mechanism put in place to make sure there is ongoing consultation
by this company with the Centre for Health Policy and with the Ministry of
Health, of course, because ultimately they are responsible and the major
stakeholders, in terms of the various health care providers so that they feel
at ease and make sure they are part of the system.
The best thing that I heard was that when
the presentation was made‑‑that was about two months ago‑‑the
staff there said they were very impressed because they said: your time with the patient is going to
improve. You are going to be spending
more time with the patient, less paperwork and less time spent on something
which you were never trained for. So I
think those things, if you take them into account in there, will help us. I just wanted to make sure that this company
is going to take into account what the minister has said over the last five
years and not certainly follow a very rigid line which could be very dangerous.
* (1400)
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, as long as I understand my honourable friend's
concern, that being: Is APM and Dr. Curran
going to undertake their work at the two teaching hospitals in such a fashion
that what they recommend fits with the intent and the integrity of the The
Action Plan? Yes. I mean, that is conditional. That is just a foregone‑‑we would
not be here if Dr. Curran and her firm did not fully buy into the reform
direction as stated in the Health Action Plan.
Secondly, in terms of a relationship with
the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, the Centre for Health Policy and
Evaluation is attached, as much as possible, and that is, and I give him a
qualification on the answer, but as needed and on a priority basis can provide
the hospitals and the consultants at the hospitals with comparative statistics
that may be relevant in terms of developing processes of change.
So there is an attachment, but I want to
caution my honourable friend that there is no direct additional contract work
or support work from the centre attached to this process in the hospital. They are there to back up, as are staff in
the department, to provide the information as needed to make decisions, and the
centre is part of that information loop, if you will.
I also want to caution my honourable
friend that the work of APM at the two teaching hospitals is a very broad
undertaking, but it is also very focused on the organization of work around
patient‑service delivery. So, from
the standpoint of being singular in focus, it is singular in focus from that
standpoint, but appreciate that takes quite a broad perspective within the
hospital. I mean, they are very complex
organizations. So the undertaking,
although, maybe can be stated in fairly simplistic terms, the undertaking is
quite broad in its nature and goes right from admissions, through testings,
through discharge, through actual procedures and involves input from all levels
of caregivers and support staff and management within the institution.
So I have to tell my honourable friend
that it is singularly focused on that restructuring within the
institution. I guess I probably should
stop now and let my honourable friend pose more questions.
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I think for part of the questions I got the
answers, but ultimately it does not matter whether you are focusing on one
issue in terms of the restructuring of the hospital. All those things are based on many factors,
factors in terms of the hospital stay, hospital employees, hospital health care
providers and also ability to pay and the taxpayers' money.
The ability to pay is going to be taken
care of because that is one of the aspects.
Secondly, the patient's quality has to improve, and that is going to be
happening. The third thing is in terms
of the input from the health care providers because that is a fear. That fear is sometimes, most of the time, I
should say, is probably based on fearmongering, but sometimes is based on the
statistics.
When the Health Policy Centre had good
data, and if that data cannot be used now‑‑for example, the
restructuring is done‑in two years' time they come with a study and the
study says, no, that was not very good, so it looks very bad then. I think if everything can be given to them in
terms of if they want to use it, that is fine; but, as long as every effort is
being made to make sure they are well informed of what is expected of them in
terms of not only a restructuring but the basic thrust of this government, the
Health Action Plan based on the social policy of this province, I think that is
very important.
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I now think I have a better understanding of the
assurance my honourable friend wants.
Today we have maybe a year‑and‑a‑half‑old
analysis of how effectively in certain areas a program delivery‑‑like
length of stay around eight program areas‑‑how effective the Health
Sciences Centre is, how effective the St. Boniface Hospital is.
Subsequent to that, we have engaged in
partnership with the two hospitals and APM to make a series of improvements
within the system inclusive of which is length of stay, if that is the
appropriate one to be improved. I think
what my honourable friend wants to know is, will the Centre for Health Policy
and Evaluation have the ability to, after the fact, analyze what those two
hospitals do to show whether we improve, for instance, length of stay, whether
morbidity, mortality had changed and, hopefully, had improved in those kinds of
analysis.
If that is what my honourable friend is
wanting the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation to be able to do, yes, I
can give him that assurance that is definitely part of it. I do not know how to put it simply, but that
is not a direct attachment of the contract itself. That is a goal that we have tried to build in
to all of our changed process so that we can make sure that before and after
change we achieve the goals in health care and health status improvement that
we thought we could. We do not want to
be doing things that are not working, and we want to know if it is not working.
If my honourable friend wants the
assurance that the centre will have the ability to tell us how well those two
hospitals operate a year and a half from now with a significant amount of
change as coming from APM, yes, we anticipate to be able to do that.
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I think it is, again, very important from the
minister's point of view and this policy's point of view because, ultimately,
in 1994 or 1995, the whole thing that is happening right now is going to have
an impact for a longer time to come. You
want to sit back in five years and say, we did the right thing. We are not saying they have a separate
contract‑‑no question. I
mean, they have a contract to focus on the restructuring, but everything has to
be based on one principle, and that is your social policy. Thus, we want to make sure that social policy
is protected by all the good things that you have.
We want this health policy to approve this
kind of thing, and say that it is on target, that we think it is going to work
out. There could be a few problems, but at least as long as the major stakeholders
plus the policymakers and the government are satisfied to make sure the long‑term
plan will work. That is my main concern
in terms of whether it is a question that if somebody can come here and have
all the credibility, all the good things in the right words, but still not do
the job.
I mean we have all the good governments
here, too. We have had many Ministers of
Health, and every minister has had the best intentions, but now we are in a
mess, so we want to do the right things.
I think that is our underlying concern, to make sure that those things
are taken care of, that the social policy of this province and this nation are
being protected. It does not matter who
is doing the work. I think that as long
as you are satisfied from that point of view, I do not think it is going to be
a bad thing to do.
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I appreciate my honourable friend's statements,
because they are‑‑
Mr. Cheema:
. . . we will all pay for this.
Mr. Orchard:
No, you will not‑‑I am interjecting on an interjection.
But my honourable friend has expressed, if
I can paraphrase, the concern that the activities of APM are in agreement with
the social policy as expressed in the Canada Health Act and medicare. I just give my honourable friend the assurance
that, were they unable to deliver change which is reflective of the maintenance
of those principles in the medicare act, and our ability to deliver quality
care and have an opportunity to deliver that at a lower cost, or a combination
of lower cost, higher quality and more volume, any number of options we have,
they would not be here.
They are working within the social goals
in health care that we have outlined in our Health Action Plan.
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, just a final comment on this issue, because I am
sure the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has asked many questions on the
whole issue, and this has been a part of discussion in this House, and in terms
of media also.
But I think we wanted to make sure the
real questions are being answered in terms of the social policy and make sure
that nobody is being threatened on the wrong assumptions. Just assuming that somebody who is coming
from the south side of the border is going to kill things‑‑I think
that was the first perception; second, the credibility of the company; and
third is the durability of the company; and fourth is that we are going through
the Health Action Plan.
* (1410)
Then I think, ultimately, the
responsibility of the government is to make sure things are done right, and not
only done right for now, but afterwards also.
I am personally satisfied, and I am really hopeful this will function,
because if we are combining all those things, especially when the timing is
right, because when the Health Action Plan is taking place, everything is
changing to a certain extent, so this could really fit into the whole
goal. I think that would be very
helpful.
Mr. Orchard:
Well, my honourable friend is absolutely right. I mean you could not have an environment
where the need for change is understood by so many people, and the willingness
to engage in change, even though it is of risk for individuals who are needing
change, the understanding of the need for that, I believe, in a growing
percentage of Manitobans is there. This
is the time to be undertaking very significant change.
I have to say that the only people who do
not seem to agree with that are the New Democrats in Manitoba, but they will
understand in the end goal that change is very necessary because as they look
around at the rest of Canada, they will see that change is very much a part of
every health care system and every government in Canada.
The opportunity here of the changes as
fostered by restructuring and the initiatives of APM will complement the goals
as outlined and stated in the Health Action Plan.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Chomiak:
The minister provided us with a list of various committees and the
makeup of those committees, et cetera, regarding some of the activities taken out
under his health initiatives.
I want to refer specifically to one of the
committees that is mentioned in here, and that is the Provincial Health Care
Labour Adjustment Committee.
I wonder if the minister can give me some
general background with respect to when the committee was set up, what its
budget is and whether or not we are going to see a definitive‑‑and
I recognize the nature of the committee from the terms of reference‑‑how
long he will see the committee in place.
Mr. Orchard:
There is not a budget. These
people are all on the committee without compensation. Their goal is to attempt an interface with
the federal government where the federal government can be a partner in
assisting labour adjustment and to work with the institutions and with the
I wonder if I might ask my honourable
friend, now that it appears that we are no longer going to deal with APM, and
my honourable friend did not conclude as to whether he agreed with the goals of
APM‑‑I realize they do not like the American side of it, and I
realize they are concerned about the cost, but is my honourable friend
satisfied with the goals that APM has undertaken, and would he have suggestions
that we should try and modify those goals?
Mr. Chomiak:
I wonder if the minister could outline as to what specifics this
Provincial Health Care Labour Adjustment Committee has achieved at this point?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I guess I have to conclude from my honourable friend's not
providing an answer that he does agree with the broad goals of APM and their
restructuring contract at the two teaching hospitals and the other three
areas. What he disagrees with is that it
is an American firm. I have to conclude
that, in the absence of a different answer from my honourable friend, and I
appreciate his changed position.
This is not government's committee. This is a government that has membership‑‑I
will go through it so you understand. There are 26 members. Manitoba Health has one representative on
that committee and that is Ms. Hegge.
The hospitals have 10 representatives.
Manitoba Health Organization has one representative. There is one federal government
representative, a representative from Manitoba Labour, one consultant and 11
people with union representation on the committee.
It is not the department's committee. It is a committee of all of the above to
attempt to facilitate labour adjustment strategies that are appropriate
circumstance by circumstance.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, what specific programs, systems or committees are in
place by this government to deal with the retraining of those whose jobs have
been cut as a result of the minister's health initiatives and to assist them in
seeking other types or other kinds of employment within or without the system?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, not that I am trying to avoid my honourable friend's
question, but that is why the membership of the labour adjustment committee is
so diverse. I mean, you have a representative
from the management umbrella organization, MHO. You have 10 representatives
from hospitals, and I am assuming‑‑I stand corrected if I am wrong‑‑that
those are management positions from the hospitals. You have 11 union representatives, and then
the balance of the committee is one representative from the Department of
Labour, one representative from Manitoba Health and one representative from the
federal government.
The purpose of Labour, federal government
and the Ministry of Health to be there is to facilitate an interface with any
programs that might assist in retraining, for instance, but let us understand
that the management representation and the union representation are attempting
to facilitate redeployment and opportunities as the system shifts.
As I have often chastised my honourable
friend‑‑and I almost get so I hate to do that‑‑my
honourable friend talks about the downsizing in the two teaching hospitals
which has caused some layoffs, yes, but there were also additional positions created
when beds were commissioned at Concordia, Municipals and Deer Lodge. That represented an increase in numbers
employed.
This committee‑‑and I will
tell my honourable friend that I believe I am correct in this. My honourable friend might recall the commissioning
of the Concordia beds and the gearing‑up and the staff hiring for
that. That occurred before this
committee got in full sway, and so there was not as much opportunity for
redeployment of staff from the two teaching hospitals to Concordia as there
would be should that shift have occurred now.
The purpose of having the unions around
the table is a very deliberate one, because appreciate, within government we
have had an extraordinarily successful downsizing of the civil service, if one
can call downsizing a civil service extraordinarily successful. But there has been significant redeployment
of individuals who occupied positions that were eliminated over the past
several years because one union governed the redeployment across departments.
The difficulty, quite frankly, that we
faced when we moved to our funded institutions, i.e., hospitals as a current
example, is that the contracts are by local.
Each local never, I think it is fair to say, designed their
redeployment, their bumping, their seniority on the basis of any other scenario
but continued growth of employment within that institution. When they were faced with downsizing those
institutions, they found that there was not an easy mechanism for redeployment
of staff from one hospital to a second hospital, because there was no mechanism
to intercede, if you will, or facilitate new staff moving from local union
contract A to local union contract B, because as you can appreciate, local
union contract B had their own bumping and redeployment seniority process.
* (1420)
That was a problem that confounded the
nurses union and they are trying to work through and work around, and we are
trying to help them as much as can to do that.
Other unions had the same sort of difficulty. So that is making the change maybe not as
easy to facilitate as it could be on affected staff, not because of everybody's
desire to have that happen‑‑I mean, we all want that to happen‑‑but
there are pragmatic difficulties in the way that the union contracts are
structured that mitigate against that at the present time. Now those are being worked through, and I
think we will see increasing success of effort.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I will remind the minister, we are still awaiting the
figures of the number of staff and beds, et cetera, that have been shut down,
as well as those that the minister talks about having been increased. So we are still awaiting the tabling of that
information.
Will any of the $15 million that has been
set aside for health reform be plugged into retraining or redeployment or
assisting the hundreds and hundreds of individuals who are being affected by
the cuts?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I want to‑‑since my honourable friend has
raised the issue‑‑share with him as of May 1, so these are some
several weeks old, but they will be quite current‑‑There were in
the system, deletion notices issued to 647 positions. Of those 647, there were 375 employees who
were redeployed either internal or external to the employing organization. I do not have the breakdown, but I think it
is fair to say that probably the majority would have been internal
redeployment. The shift is coming. There is an opportunity, I think, as we
mature the process, for more external.
Here is the important figure that I want
my honourable friend to utilize in some of his mailers to his party members,
that there have been new positions created of 197.4 in terms of EFTs and what
the net result was, was of the number of positions eliminated, deleted in the
various shifts in downsizing of 647, there were 171 employees laid off, the
balance of which we either redeployed or found new positions.
Mr. Chomiak:
Can the minister indicate the time frame from when that figure was
arrived at? He said that it is a cut‑off
date of May 1. Can he indicate what the
start‑up date for that is with respect to those positions? Can he indicate the parameters from which he
is speaking? Is he talking about the
entire health care system? Is he talking
about only institutions? Is he talking about
institutions in home care? Is he talking
What are the parameters of the positions
that he is talking about?
Mr. Orchard:
Time frame‑‑November 1, '92, to April 30, '93.
Mr. Chomiak:
Will the minister answer the second part of the question which was: Which hospitals and institutions and health
facilities are we talking about? Is this
across the system totally? It is across
the system completely,
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, those are the figures which are inclusive of the
downsizing at our two teaching hospitals of 240 beds plus some other layoffs
which were undertaken in other facilities.
So those are provincial numbers I have shared with my honourable friend.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, the 197.4 new positions, can the minister give us a
breakdown as to where those positions are located?
Mr. Orchard:
You want the 197‑‑which ones did you want again?
Mr. Chomiak:
197.4 new positions that the minister referenced.
Mr. Orchard:
Okay. I will provide that, but I
do not have it here.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the minister, at the same time, will also
provide some analysis of the 647 positions and locations.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, Health Sciences Centre, 281; St. Boniface, 167;
Grace, 28; Misericordia, 66; Deer Lodge, 9; Concordia, 15; Rehab Centre for
Children, 18; Brandon General, 63.
In terms of redeployment, internal,
external: Health Sciences Centre, 239;
St. Boniface, 62; Grace, 21; Misericordia, 1; Concordia, 10; and Brandon, 42.
Mr. Chomiak:
I thank the minister for that information.
I return to the initial question, and that
is, will any of the $15 million in terms of health care reform be utilized to assist
in the retraining and redeployment of individuals affected and/or to be
affected by the minister's initiatives?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, that is a potential use of it, but appreciate that is
why we have the federal government at the table as well, because there are
federal funds and I have to tell my honourable friend clearly and unequivocally
that we are going to access, to the maximum amount possible and available,
federal contribution on retraining before we use resources provincially to do
same.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I appreciate what the minister says, but then the
bottom line therefore is if adequate resources are not found from the federal
government, and we know how difficult that process can be, is the minister
saying he will utilize part of that $15 million for those purposes?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, that is a potential use, yes.
Mr. Chomiak:
The minister indicated in reply to a question from the member for The
Maples (Mr. Cheema) about CT scanners about data analysis that he would provide
us a little more definitive information Thursday. I am wondering if the minister has access to
that information at this time.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, what was the question again?
Mr. Chomiak:
When the Assembly last met, on page 3996 of Hansard, the member for The
Maples asked the minister about the CT scanners. The minister outlined that there would be
some general information about what the committee had gathered, and he said he will
try to get more specifics as to when recommendations and report from the
committee will be and will get a better handle on the definitive time for my
honourable friend for Thursday.
* (1430)
Mr. Orchard:
I would like to provide this information to my honourable friend. We expect to have the CT‑MRI committee
submit to the provincial imaging committee in July of this year, a five‑year
plan. The provincial imaging committee
overall plan is expected to be made available to the ministry in January of
1994.
In the meantime, it has been confirmed as
of April 16, 1992, that, and I will give my honourable friend a direct quote
from the radiology consultants report:
Currently a waiting list analysis is in progress. Initially, it was believed that there were
6,000 patients on the waiting list and many of them with serious illness. On analysis, there were only 2,500 patients
awaiting examinations with delays from three to eight weeks. On analysis, two‑thirds of the patients
had appointments requested by their physicians or at the patient's convenience. Only one‑third of the patients were
experiencing delay and almost all of them on study would not benefit medically
by an earlier examination.
I think that was some of the additional
information my honourable friend wanted.
Mr. Chomiak:
So the one‑third who were experiencing delay, presumably, the
medical diagnosis was that the requirement was not of an urgent nature, and a
review by the committee confirmed that viewpoint. Would that be roughly correct?
Mr. Orchard:
The radiology consultant's report indicated that the third of the
patients who were experiencing delay, that it was the opinion of the consultant
that their medical status was not compromised by that delay.
Mr. Chomiak:
I wonder if the minister might table a copy of the report for members.
Mr. Orchard:
I did in May of last year. My
honourable friend has it.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I am now turning to the minister's blue book, Health
Action Plan, page 23, and I will attempt to not go over questions that were
asked by the member for The Maples.
On page 23, the minister states in his
plan that the process of home care will be carefully monitored and
evaluated. I am wondering what systems
or what processes are in place to do that home care evaluation that is
mentioned in the Health Action Plan book.
Mr. Orchard:
That monitoring and analysis is done on a rather regular basis by our
senior management.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I take it from the minister's response then that it
is simply part of the ongoing process that the department is already engaged
in, and therefore nothing additional has been put in place or nothing
extraordinary, nothing special, has been put in place in order to monitor the
system as a result of the significant changes that are being carried out at present.
Mr. Orchard:
No, Madam Chairperson, that would not be an assumption my honourable
friend could make.
Mr. Chomiak:
I wonder if the minister can enlighten us as to what the results of the
most recent monitoring and evaluation have demonstrated.
Mr. Orchard:
The reason I indicated that my honourable friend's conclusion would not
be right is that in the process of the first‑year changes wherein we
downsized the two teaching hospitals, there was a weekly monitoring exercise
involving the facilities and staff and the families of individuals affected to
assure that we were able to provide the appropriate support and care.
To the best of my knowledge, the process
did go quite smoothly, as expected. I
think my honourable friend might have to concur with that because I think he,
as critic, probably received very little negative feedback.
Mr. Chomiak:
Does that mean the minister is not going to share the information with
us of the monitoring and evaluation carried out to show what the status is of
the various components?
Mr. Orchard:
In a monthly analysis by staff as to the process, any potential
difficulties were remedied.
If my honourable friend is seeking a
status report, I think you can get no better status report than the fact that
shift happened without my honourable friend being contacted about some
potential problem. The process went
smoothly. The monitoring of the process
weekly demonstrated that and facilitated that, and enabled us to make that
shift with I think rather a significant lack of challenge and problem.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, the minister's assumption is wrong in terms of the
contacts that have come to my attention. Therefore, I again repeat, if the
system is working as well as the minister suggests, why is he therefore hesitant
to provide us with the analysis?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, my honourable friend would not know what to do with
an analysis if I was able to give it to him, because my honourable friend said
that what I just stated, in terms of the transition of the 240 beds and the
individuals who were moved and supported in other environments, that it did not
go smoothly. I indicated to him that it
had gone smoothly with relatively few complaints.
Now, my honourable friend is saying that
is not the case, that he received all kinds of complaints. Well, that is very interesting, Madam
Chairperson, because my honourable friend was so serious about those complaints
he never passed any of them on to the ministry for investigation.
If my honourable friend has some
complaints after the fact, kindly share them with us, and maybe, had my
honourable friend had those complaints, we might have been able to help
him. But what I suspect is that these
are phantom complaints that my honourable friend is creating out of the blue,
because he certainly never took them serious enough to provide them to my
office for remedy.
Mr. Chomiak:
Quite obviously, the minister did not read page 23 that I am referring
to in the Health Action Plan, which refers to the general policy and not just
the bed closures, but that is consistent with the minister's replies and the
minister's responses in terms of this Chamber.
The minister knows full well when specific
complaints are brought to this House, the minister stands up and accuses whatever
political party bringing those complaints of politicizing and fearmongering.
I quite understand the minister's debating
techniques and the minister's ploys that he uses in order to avert attention
away from the real issue, and so consequently, I am not going to play that
game. I am not going to play that game
with the minister, Madam Chairperson, and I will not play the game with the
minister in this House as he continues to try to play it.
My question with respect to Home Care,
Madam Chairperson, is, as I indicated in my opening remarks, the reason this is
significant is that Ms. Havens, at a seminar I attended, indicated that
medically unstable‑‑(interjection)
Perhaps the member would care to listen to the question before he attempts to
respond on behalf of the minister.
* (1440)
Madam Chairperson, at a conference that I
attended on the minister's reform plan, Ms. Havens indicated that in terms of
Home Care, medically unstable people will now be entering the community, and I
am quoting.
I have mentioned that in the House to the
minister, who refused to answer the question before, and that is the context as
to why I am asking what the status is of the home care system that is in place,
because now, according to the ADM, medically unstable people will now be moved
from institutions into the community.
I am wondering what programs or what
processes are in place to ensure that those people are accommodated adequately.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I listened with disbelief to my honourable friend make two
statements.
My honourable friend said two questions
ago that contrary to my statement about the downsizing of the 240 beds and the
process going quite smoothly, my honourable friend said, oh, quite to the
contrary, it received a lot of complaints.
Then when I said, that is interesting that
you have received a lot of complaints, because they were so important to you
that you never passed any of them on to my office so I could expedite them,
which has been the process that has been engaged in by almost all other MLAs in
this House, and when my honourable friend is embarrassed by saying, on the one
hand, he has had all kinds of complaints and then is caught with his hand in
the cookie jar not passing them on, and I say to him, why not, he says, well, I
am not going to engage in that game.
Game?
If you are receiving complaints that people are not getting adequate
care, and you keep them in your hip pocket, and you do not advance them to try
to get them remedied, who is playing the game?
My honourable friend is serious about what
he is stating, that he receives many calls.
I hear New Democratic Party questioners say, we have received numerous
calls, numerous complaints. Do you know what? I probably had about eight letters from New
Democrats in the last year of complaints, and every single one of them we have
followed up on. The rest of them are
either ones where they do not care enough for the people, or they do not exist
as complaints.
I think my honourable friend is right when
he described it as a game, a game he is playing of disinformation, of phantom
complaints, phantom phone calls, phantom people that he does not have the
ability to give me their names so we can resolve the problem that he alleges is
there.
I think my honourable friend is playing
the game, and that game is not helpful to seniors who might perchance, even
after the six months he has been critic, tend to believe what he says.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, the minister did not answer the question. I think he got caught up in his rhetoric and
his flourishment. I think he totally
missed the question, as usual, or perhaps is unable to answer it.
Will the minister answer the question?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I answered my honourable friend's question. It is he who is saying he gets lots of phone
calls and apparently lots of complaints, but he has not considered them
important enough to act upon.
Mr. Chomiak:
What accommodations have been put in place as a result of this
monitoring and evaluation to deal with the medically unstable people who are
going to be put into the community as a result of the minister's health reform?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, any medically unstable person who is discharged from
hospital will have, with few exceptions, support from VON to assist in whatever
medical condition can be ameliorated in the home community or the home
environment.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, is that any different than has happened in the past?
Mr. Orchard:
That is what VON has been doing in conjunction with our acute‑care
hospitals for approximately 12 years.
Mr. Chomiak:
It is curious, then, that at that particular seminar Ms. Havens did
refer to the fact that we will be seeing a new type of patient in the community
and that was, quote, medically unstable, end of quote. The minister is saying, therefore, that the
department is not responding to this new type of patient that is going to be
placed in the community.
Mr. Orchard:
I guess I am a little frustrated with my honourable friend, because I
sense from my honourable friend's question that now he is saying reform,
because of a public meeting in which we had senior staff there sharing the
process of change and some of the initiatives in that change, my honourable
friend picks up on one phrase, will put it into his whisper campaign, future
communication to the party members for fundraising purposes‑‑yes,
he is nodding his head in the affirmative that he will put it out that we are
discharging medically unstable people into the community. He will put that out as if it is a new
phenomenon in order to get some of his party members to donate $50, $100 or
$200 to re‑elect the NDP.
Madam Chairperson, medically unstable
individuals have been discharged from hospital with the support of VON since
almost the initial inception of the Continuing Care Programs. (interjection) No, no, they are
medically stable, but they require medical assistance to remain stable, and
that medical assistance can be provided in the home more economically and more
equitably than in the hospital. If they
did not have that support, they would become medically unstable, but the
support from VON keeps them stable. The
definition is, at it always has been, that without that support they would be
unstable.
My honourable friend is twisting that
around in his fundraising letters to get money out of his party members by now
accusing government of discharging medically unstable people. It is a false accusation my honourable friend
makes, but that will not change him from doing it, even though he now
understands.
Now, let me tell my honourable friend that
over the 15 or 16 years that the Home Care Program has been in place,
increasingly complex medical needs are being met in the community by the Continuing
Care Programs. That will advance. That will continue so that more medical needs
will be met through the Continuing Care Programs in the future for more
individuals with earlier discharge or nonadmission to hospitals.
That, Madam Chairperson, is what at one
time I thought the NDP believed in: to
move away from the institution wherever possible. That is exactly the direction we are
embarking on and facilitating and working with the acute care hospitals to
further refine, mature and advance that process.
Now, does my honourable friend understand
the nature of the comment by Betty Havens, and does he now consider it to be
adequately explained, or is he still wanting to believe for his propaganda
purposes that something was being done inappropriately?
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, it is curious.
The minister, and I thank the minister, finally answered the
question. I had asked on at least two
occasions in the House, but the minister could have done his blood pressure
much good by trying to address the question and not his own defensive position.
If the minister could have addressed the
question and answered it‑‑(interjection)
yes, and the minister can be assured that I will not be asking that particular
question again because for once the minister has replied, has responded and has
satisfied a concern that was raised by myself.
Had the minister undertaken that in the first place, we would have
solved ourselves a lot of difficulty by going back and forth.
Again, I do recognize the minister's style
and the minister's approach to this particular Chamber and to the
representatives of the people of
I am turning now to page 33, Madam
Chairperson, where there is a listing in the minister's health reform package
that talks about cardiac care, open‑heart surgery waiting lists, and
gives the lists from August, June and April, 1992. I wonder if the minister has an update as to
the waiting lists at Health Sciences, St. Boniface centre as at this point in
time.
Mr. Orchard:
I will attempt to provide that, but what I also would like to indicate
to my honourable friend that, I think it was about three years ago the Fraser
Institute did their analysis, and they found our waiting times to be fairly
long in terms of cardiac surgery. In
their most recent investigation and analysis they found them to be, I think,
amongst the most improved in
* (1450)
Mr. Chomiak:
I am turning to page 47 of the minister's plan, and I am looking at the
Physician Resource Policy Development.
Can the minister indicate what of the four steps have been put into
effect?
Mr. Orchard:
I am going to ask my honourable friend to rephrase the question because
I am not sure I can provide him the information as he requested.
But I want to share with my honourable
friend part of the conclusions of the Fraser Institute's, or part of their
stated analysis on waiting lists, et cetera.
And I will quote directly from the document, page 26: Our study shows an overall reduction in the
waiting times and in the waiting list in
This reduction is probably the result of
our 1991 survey picking up on unusual backlogs in hospital caseloads, which
were at least partially attributable to the 1991
That was a hypothesis they advanced, but I
like to give credit to the system in terms of its ability to operate
effectively. I think that simplistic
analysis does not tell the good work that our acute care hospitals have
undertaken and the planners of care delivery in those hospitals in terms of
better management of waiting lists and waiting times because there has been
improvement in a number of areas.
I would also like to indicate to my
honourable friend that‑‑and this is an offer to both him and the
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema)‑‑if you wish to have some
information on the appropriate access review group and their studies, Dr. Ross
Brown has indicated to my office that he would be glad to sit down and provide
you with some information as to what the committee is finding and doing, et
cetera.
Mr. Chomiak:
I thank the minister for that offer.
Will that therefore allow us to have an update as to the status of
waiting lists across the system in
Mr. Orchard:
I think that would be an interesting discussion my honourable friend
might have with Dr. Brown.
Mr. Chomiak:
I return to my initial question on page 47 to the Physician Resource
Policy Development and to the status of the four policies that the minister
agreed to at the January 28, 1992, ministers' conference.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, you realize of course that he is soliciting $50 and
$100 and $200 from those who theoretically cannot afford to pay. I mean, that is the New Democrats.
I do not know why I ever was so remiss as to
not have my Health Action Plan with me, and I am going to have to get a copy,
because I do not quite have each and every page memorized.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, my next several questions are in fact on the Health
Action Plan, so I am wondering if the member for The Maples wants to go on with
a line of questioning, or I can turn to other lines of questioning while the
minister obtains his Health Action Plan.
Mr. Orchard:
Maybe we should take just a two‑minute break.
Madam Chairperson: Is that the will of the committee?
* * *
The committee recessed
at 2:58 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed
at 3 p.m.
Madam Chairperson: 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I was under the impression we were awaiting the minister's
obtaining a copy of The Action Plan, so I could continue my line of questioning
on The Action Plan.
* (1500)
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, there was a question‑‑maybe whilst we
have a temporary pause here‑‑there was a question in terms of the
Health Advisory Network, and we have a budget provision that we believe will
require $80,000 this year to complete the current activities of the Health
Advisory Network. That budget provision is part of the Manitoba Health Board,
the budget attached to the Manitoba Health Board.
Secondly, there is a question about how
many pediatricians who requested admitting privileges at Children's Hospital
have not received them yet, and what is the plan to deal with them. I think really what the question was, was how
many pediatric surgeons, because all pediatricians, I am led to believe, had
admitting privileges at Children's before consolidation. To date, there have not been any of the
pediatric surgeons who have been refused admitting privileges since the
consolidation. There are some
applications that are still in process of approval or consideration, I guess I
will put it that way, and some surgeons who may not have yet received their
approval given the process.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I will return to my line of questioning with respect
to the minister's health reform plan page 47 Physician Resource Policy
Development and before initiatives agreed to by the minister at the January 20
ministerial conference, if he could give us an update status of those four
initiatives.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, the reductions in terms of entry class size are in
place for this fall in
We were just trying to recall whether it
was late February or early March, but either February or March of this year
deputy ministers participated in a telephone news conference, I guess. It was
organized out of
I will tell my honourable friend that that
was a very deliberate strategy because early discussions that I had with the
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) in terms of some of the change that the new
government in the United States is engaged in, in health care‑‑I
mean, he made the observation it is a plan that has been around 29 years. There were also some significant challenges
in the
We faced the same kind of dynamics in
January of 1992 when we tabled the Barer‑Stoddart audit report, a copy of
which my honourable friend has no doubt perused. There were a number of suggestions in
that. The one that was seized on, of
course, was the downsizing of medical schools because that was sort of the
issue of interest in the media.
In developing and working with our
respective universities' faculties of medicine in terms of achieving the
downsizing in the provinces that were downsizing‑‑us being one,
Alberta and Ontario being the other two‑‑we deliberately agreed to
have a national announcement in terms of downsizing. It was very deliberate because if it is made
in isolation in
The announcement was made at the same time
facilitated by the Ontario Ministry of Health so that it was a joint
announcement of Ministers of Health across Canada so that we could reinforce
that, in more and more ways, as Ministers of Health, regardless of political
affiliation across Canada, we are trying to develop a cohesive approach to
resolution of problems using quite similar solutions province by province.
We thought the signal of a joint press
conference with participation of a number of provinces was a very appropriate
signal that the health care system was changing from sea to sea in Canada, and
there was some consistency of approach province by province to try and take
some of that penchant for politicization of change that we so often see, and, I
would be very direct with my honourable friend the member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak), that he has tried to make a hallmark of his new career as Health
critic on.
* (1510)
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, in the minister's response, he referred to the fall
class sizes. Was he also referring in
terms of the national concerted action that took place in late February, early
March to all four components of this program, as listed on page 47, or was it
only .1, because it was not clear from the minister's answer.
Mr. Orchard:
Postgraduate was part of that as well, and the visa initiative is
individual.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister provide us with the news release
from that postconference if it is available?
Mr. Orchard:
I will attempt to track that down for my honourable friend.
Mr. Chomiak:
Page 54 of the Health Action Plan deals with one of the significant areas
of cost increase in the health care system, most notably, the increase in
private fee‑for‑service laboratory costs of diagnostic services.
Page 55 of the plan indicates there is a
study by the Urban Hospital Council, as well as a development of protocols.
Underneath that is again a suggestion for five policy options. Can the minister
outline what the status is of each of those five policy options?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, it is fair to say that all of them are in process of
review, in varying stages of ability to take action. I think in terms of elimination of
duplication of testing prior to hospital admission, I believe there is a
consistent admission approach across the Urban Hospital Council membership now.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, so the minister is saying that, with the exception of
the last sentence of his answer, all of these five options basically are still
being reviewed by the department and no course of action has been undertaken on
any specific one?
Mr. Orchard:
The investigation into how we achieve the tenets of those five processes
are, yes, under discussion.
Let me give my honourable friend an
example: Currently, in No. 4, my
honourable friend may well know, and if he does not I would like to indicate to
him, that laboratory fee schedules are part of the MMA agreement. We are in our final year of a four‑year
agreement and hence, the direct reference there that consultation with the
Manitoba Medical Association is ongoing. We have not come to any conclusion or
resolution as a result of those discussions around laboratory fees with the MMA
and would hope we see some progress in that as the year goes on.
Mr. Chomiak:
Can the minister advise us perhaps of what is happening in terms of
reviewing the potential for conflict of interest under that particular policy
option?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, that process is under review as well. We think there is an
opportunity to take action on that. The
difficulty we have, as my honourable friend may well understand, is, in
undertaking the review we did not meet our self‑imposed deadline of the
Legislature in terms of bringing that legislation in.
However, if I sense from my honourable
friend some concern about that, and if my honourable friend had the ability to
offer late introduction of legislation, I would certainly accept that offer and
report rather rapidly, maybe as soon as Monday, Tuesday, next week as to
whether we could accommodate those potential amendments yet this session.
I am not saying that I can do that
because, of course, that depends very much on the workload at legislative
drafting, wherein translation, et cetera, also has to be part of the process,
but I have not put pressure on the department because we missed our self‑imposed
deadline we have put upon ourselves in this Chamber.
However I am interested, if my honourable
friend would think that this might be something that he could indicate on
behalf of the official opposition, a willingness to sort of break our own self‑imposed
rules. I would take that suggestion from
him and see if we cannot potentially advance that for this session.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I take it that the minister is stating that he is in
a position where he could potentially bring in conflict‑of‑interest
legislation if there were to be agreement on this side of the House, and if
legislative drafting were available to accommodate it and other exigencies of
this House, the minister would be prepared to bring in that kind of
legislation.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I am indicating that for this session, no, because we have
passed our self‑imposed deadlines, but if I receive the encouragement of
co‑operation from my honourable friend, I would attempt to provide
direction as to whether we could achieve that as quickly as Monday of next week
or Tuesday at the latest, because the process is not just make a decision and
have it happen and have the bill here the next day.
There is process outside of my department
in legislative drafting, and I have no sense of their capacity to deliver on
short order if I were to get that co‑operation, but I would make that
investigation if my honourable friend thought it appropriate.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I am turning to page 58 of the minister's Health
Action Plan, and I want to make reference to some of the statistics that have
been cited on that particular page, and most notably, the All Public General
nurses, which appear to be below the Canadian average.
I am wondering if the minister can define
for me what, in terms of this statistical information, comprises the category
of All Public General nurses.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, before I move into an attempt at explanation for my
honourable friend here, can my honourable friend give me an answer as to
whether I should investigate bringing in conflict‑of‑interest
amendments, basis, point No. 2, page 55, Health Action Plan, because I am not
going to waste my time if my honourable friend‑‑and if my
honourable friend is unable to give that commitment because he has to caucus
it, I understand, but I would appreciate, because tomorrow we are not sitting,
and if such were‑‑if he could give me the indication, I would be
able to have a fairly clear indication as to what I could do by Monday or
Tuesday.
Mr. Chomiak:
It is not my place to answer questions in the House. It is generally the minister who is supposed
to attempt to answer questions from members on this side of the House.
Now if the minister is saying to me, would
we in the New Democratic Party‑‑if the minister could give me some
general outline as to what he is talking about in terms of conflict of
interest, I would be prepared to take that to my caucus next Monday when we
next meet.
The minister said there is something
perhaps being drafted in the area of conflict of interest. I do not know what the parameters are. I do not know what the minister is referring
to. Is the minister referring to
conflict of interest concerning private labs, directorships and the like, or is
the minister referring to‑‑what is the reference to potential
conflict of interest in terms of the review?
* (1520)
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I think statement No. 2 that my honourable friend started
some very enthusiastic questioning about is pretty self‑evident. If there is beneficial ownership of a lab, a
private lab, by a physician, should we investigate whether we need conflict‑of‑interest
guidelines around that? That issue is very, very clear.
Now, my honourable friend approached it
with a great deal of enthusiasm. My
honourable friend normally tells me I do not ask for advice. My honourable friend normally tells me I do
not give him information, and here, all I asked him was whether his interest in
this seemed‑‑and I interpreted it, and maybe wrongly.
Maybe my honourable friend in the New
Democrats does not want to pursue this issue.
But if my honourable friend is interested in pursuing the issue of
conflict of interest as I have just outlined to him, I need a nod of the
head. I need to have some go‑ahead
so I can investigate whether we can bring it in this session and pass it.
There is no trickery here. I am trying to open up as my honourable
friend says I never do. The moment I
offer him an opportunity to be constructive, he crawls into a shell and thinks
I am up to some trick. Goodness
gracious, what a distrustful man.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chair, perhaps the minister has learned something through the
process, and perhaps the minister is turning over a new leaf. Perhaps the minister has been converted as the
great Biblical statement about, on the road to
If the minister is indicating that he is
looking for direction from our party with respect to that kind of legislation,
I would say, yes, pursue it, and we would be prepared to look at it.
Mr. Orchard:
I thank my honourable friend. I
will do that and I will try to report as soon as Monday afternoon.
Mr. Chomiak:
I am sorry, I did not catch that.
Mr. Orchard:
I thank my honourable friend for that, and I will try to provide direction
as soon as Monday afternoon to give you a sense of what is doable from
legislative drafting, et cetera.
Mr. Chomiak:
We can return now to page 58 and the Paid Hours, Nursing Department, per
Patient‑Day in Reporting Hospitals statistics.
Under the category All Public General, I
note that
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I am going to have to provide that answer to my
honourable friend, and as I provide that answer, I am going to make an
assumption that my honourable friend would also want the answers in the areas
of Public General: Non‑teaching
with no long‑term units, where we are above the national average, in terms
of Non‑teaching with long‑term units, where we are above the
national average, in terms of Non‑teaching total, where we are above the
national average, in terms of Teaching (excluding pediatric), where we are
above the national average, in terms of Public ‑ Total, where we are
above the national average, then in terms of Public General: Non‑teaching,
where we are 4 percent above the national average, Non‑teaching with long‑term
units almost 19 percent above the national average, where in Non‑teaching
total, we are on average 14 percent above the national average, and where in
Teaching (excluding pediatric), we are 26 percent above the average of nursing
paid hours per patient‑day.
In All Public General, we are over 20
percent above the national average, and in All Public Specialty, we are below
the national average‑‑so that I can come up with as good an
explanation as possible for my honourable friend. Would that be suitable?
Mr. Chomiak:
That would be fine, Madam Chairperson.
The plan on page 59 indicates that
Manitoba Health has asked institutions to provide information on their five‑year
projection requirements for the nursing mix, et cetera. Can the minister give us any information as
to the status of that particular project?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, we circulated the survey questionnaires calling for the
current staff mix and projections to all hospitals and personal care homes in
January of 1992, and we had a follow‑up communication with those same
facilities in March of '92.
Just over 50 percent of the facilities in
the survey responded. Those responding
included the majority of the large facilities with the exception of The Pas
Health Complex and
Of those responding, over 62 percent of
the institutions provided the requested information for 1992‑97, the five‑year
projection, 17 percent provided partial projections and some 20 percent did not
provide any projections.
Many of the large, urban centres were
among those not providing the projections.
The survey did not have the expected result of giving us a‑‑What
we were really seeking was the best guess of the managers or the best estimate
of the managers of the system as to what a five‑year projection might
be. But it did give us quite reasonable
baseline data for 1992.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, so I take it‑‑and I did not quite catch
the last part of the last sentence‑‑the minister, did he say he
felt they did not have reasonable data or they did have reasonable data?
Mr. Orchard:
A reasonable base‑line data for 1992.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, is the minister prepared to share with members on
this side of the House those projections for the years '92‑97 that they
have obtained?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I do not think that we have that information here, so
we will have to try and provide that next time we meet.
* (1530)
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell me if the Provincial Nursing Advisor
has been appointed?
Mr. Orchard:
That position has been bulletined.
We are expecting to do the interviews of appropriate applicants, and
probably eight weeks from now, the process would be completed.
Mr. Chomiak:
Could the minister briefly outline what the role of the provincial
nursing advisor will be, just what the basic job description entails?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, I can do that, but we do not have it here.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate how this position and this
basic strategy will dovetail with the work restructuring that is going on with
Connie Curran and APM consultants?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, the nursing advisory position is not an absolute
necessity of the APM contract, nor is it an isolated incident of the APM
contract. It will be of any additional
assistance in terms of issues emerging at both hospitals' continuing care in
terms of nursing, but it is not part of or attached to a necessity of the APM
contract.
It is an initiative that we have been desirous
of having as part of the ministry's staffing complement for well over a year
now and will be of assistance to us in a number of areas, not limited to the
educational issues and the staffing‑mix issues and a number of different
professional issues that nursing will be part of as the system shifts and
changes from institutional to more community.
So a nursing advisor position was deemed
to be an appropriate addition to the staff complement to facilitate a more
direct liaison with nursing professionals.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I would like to get at the process of who will be
determining this staff‑mix process.
The minister can correct me if I am wrong
in my understanding of the system, but we have Ms. Curran who is determining
staff mixes, as I understand it, at the teaching hospitals to a certain
extent. We have the yet‑to‑be‑appointed
nursing advisor. We have various
committees. We have interaction between
the minister and the professional group, and, of course, we have the reform
process itself and the minister's office.
I am wondering who and how the
determination is being made in terms of the staffing mix?
Mr. Orchard:
There are two process I would like to share with my honourable friend, one
of them a process that all hospitals, other then St. Boniface and the Health
Sciences Centre, are engaged in, and that is decisions made by the management
of the respective hospital or personal care home in terms of staffing mix which
will enable them to comply with ministry guidelines and budget both. That is a process that is very institutional
sensitive and, even within an institution, very program sensitive. So there is a fair degree of variability as
you go from long‑term care to acute hospitals to the different sizes of
those respective facilities.
In terms of process internal to Health
Sciences Centre and St. Boniface and the facilitation by the APM consulting
contract, task force teams will undertake that staffing mix question as part of
the work restructuring within programs and wards. Those task forces will have staff themselves
analyzing and coming to conclusions as to needs and mix. APM's role, of course, is to facilitate that
decision‑making process by the individuals involved in the care.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, where will the health reform steering committee fit
into this process?
Mr. Orchard:
I think fairly as a not impartial observer, but let my honourable not
mix too many roles up at once. I mean,
the APM investigation of the two teaching hospitals is in terms of work
restructuring.
The reform team is involved in digesting
recommendations from our various consultation groups that my honourable friend
has in front of us. Those have an
application not only in teaching hospitals but in our other hospitals and other
systems of delivery within the ministry, and, in some instances, do not even
have an attachment to the teaching hospital if the program or the initiative
does not have involvement at the teaching hospitals.
Mr. Chomiak:
Can the minister indicate what the interaction is between his department
and the professional association of nurses with respect to this staffing mix?
Mr. Orchard:
Which professional association of nurses, MARN?
MARN's responsibility is in terms of
maintenance of professional standards, educational certification and assurance
that their professionals are operating within the scope of diploma and
Baccalaureate prepared nurses.
Mr. Chomiak:
How about the Association of Licensed Practical Nurses?
Mr. Orchard:
They have the same responsibility for licensed practical nurses.
Mr. Chomiak:
So the minister is saying neither of these associations are involved in
this determination of staffing mix and the like.
Mr. Orchard:
No, the associations are not involved in that, but individual nurses are
involved in that. Individual nurses in
the workplace are involved in that, but the professional associations are not
attached to the process.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the minister can give us an update with
respect to the status of the chronic care beds at Winnipeg Municipal Hospital,
the personal care beds, the retirement of King George, Deer Lodge Centre
status, the construction of the chronic care beds at Concordia and the 230 new
personal care home beds; in other words, a lot of the initiatives that the
minister has undertaken with respect to his relocation.
* (1540)
Mr. Orchard:
I regret that my honourable friend did not attend the ribbon cutting at
the opening of the 60‑bed wing at
In 1969, there was a pretty significant
plan to have
Then in the period of '77 to '81, the
government that I was first part of initiated a fairly ambitious redevelopment
plan and an additional capacity plan at
Fortunately, this time there was no
election that took us off track, and we were able to cut the ribbon on those 60
beds at
In terms of Deer Lodge, they have, I
believe, commissioned all of their capacity, and the beds are in service
including the interim location of the head injury specialty unit at Deer Lodge.
The
In terms of the other 230 beds that my
honourable friend made reference to, I am pleased to tell him that the number
is only slightly wrong. It is actually
240 beds. We have two personal care
homes under construction in the northeast quadrant of the city, each of them
with 120 beds of capacity. They are both
currently under construction as we speak and at last report, although I will
admit this is probably as long ago as eight or 10 weeks, but at that time the
expectation was that they would be possibly available for service in the latter
part of this calendar year, not fiscal year.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, the 240 new personal home care beds, would that be
within one facility?
Mr. Orchard:
Two facilities, two locations, 120 beds each.
Mr. Chomiak:
Will the minister be able to provide us with the statistics on the
number of paneled beds in acute care hospitals in
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Chomiak:
The Health Advisory Network recommended that the ratio of long‑term
institutional beds to population be determined after home care service
inadequacies have been corrected. I am
wondering if that has been completed.
Mr. Orchard:
The specific reference there was intended to be an analysis that would
probably take upward of five to 10 years of experience in terms of shifts in
the system, impact of construction and new personal care home beds, the new
beds at
Mr. Chomiak:
I wonder if the minister will provide us with a list of those projects
that are going to be carried out.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, those will be part of the Capital Estimates.
Mr. Chomiak:
The minister's Health Reform Plan talked about community health, and I
am wondering what the plan is for the community health centres and operation in
Mr. Orchard:
The community health centres will have, naturally, varying roles in
terms of their evolvement in health care reform.
Let me give my honourable friend one
example that I think we all can be fairly proud of, Mount
My honourable friend might recall, and
these are very difficult issues to manage, but what we have had, what we
inherited back in 1988‑‑and I say "inherited" not
offensively; I mean it was the way things were done‑‑there were
these demonstration projects of different natures. They had a one‑, two‑, or three‑year
lifetime, and they were often funded fairly significantly from federal‑source
revenues.
The province was at the table, and
possibly even the city was at the table in some of them‑‑and I will
not say, almost without exception; I will say, without exception, the ones that
I am familiar with within my department‑‑when the demonstration
period of time was over, the federal government withdrew from funding
participation. The pressure immediately
came upon the provincial government to continue the program, even though it was
a demonstration project, and was to undergo an evaluation as to effectiveness,
et cetera.
We had‑‑I think it is about
two years ago now‑‑one of those demonstration projects called POWER
that fell into that category where the joint‑funding time frame passed,
the federal government did not renew funding, and we did not renew funding for
a period of time. In discussions with
Mount Carmel Clinic, we were able to arrange through the Ministry of Health,
and in collaboration with
* (1550)
I think it is fair to say that the
collaborative action and the understanding of the goals of health reform in
community‑based services that the department has are quite well
understood, and indeed‑‑and I may be taking liberties here‑‑I
think they are shared quite broadly by Mount Carmel, its senior staff, and
particularly the leadership that Mount Carmel has at the executive director
level. We were able to recommence POWER,
and it is operating, and has been operating, I think, for about two years now.
A most recent example of that co‑operation
between Mount Carmel and the
But, again, we were fortunate that the
vision and the leadership at
So I use that as an example, because over
the past two and a half to three years we have undertaken several new
initiatives with
So there are a number of initiatives that
we have undertaken, and where they meet a need and where there is delivery
capability, the department is quite open to working with the community health
centres to deliver, sort of, the new‑think approach to policy and program
development.
I have to say, and I guess I might just as
well come right out and indicate that that I think Lorraine Thomson as
executive director at Mount Carmel is probably one of the most effective
leaders in terms of community health centres, certainly in Manitoba and maybe
in the nation. It has been most
beneficial for all, the kind of visionary and collaborative work we have been
able to do within the ministry and
That is an example of how we can
progressively move to shift the system and to make very effective use of
declining resources. Those are examples
of, I think, exceptional success. We have other examples, and I hope we can
build on more with our community health centres as centre by centre, project by
project, we have the opportunity to work towards a good program delivery and
resolution as we have with
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, we certainly agree with the value that could be
provided by the community health centres, and I am wondering if the minister
might outline for us‑‑now perhaps we are at the wrong
appropriation. I am dealing with Health
Reform; we might want to go to the right line item, and perhaps I will not ask
specifics at this point other than, does the minister have in the context of
his health reform a plan for the development of additional clinics or the
promotion of any other pilot projects?
Mr. Orchard:
Affirmative.
Mr. Chomiak:
I wonder if the minister can briefly outline for us what those are.
Mr. Orchard:
Yes.
Mr. Chomiak:
I wonder if the minister might describe today for us in the Chamber what
those initiatives are.
Mr. Orchard:
I will give you a little flavour in terms of primary care that we will
be instituting at the Health Action Centre, for instance.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I missed the minister's response.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, it is the intent to implement an expanded primary care
capability at Health Action Centre.
Mr. Chomiak:
Can the minister briefly outline the extent of that particular
expansion, or should we wait? We will
wait for another point in appropriation.
I will withdraw that question.
Can the minister just briefly outline any
other plans for any other centres or any initiatives or priority projects other
than that particular one, in general?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, we are pursuing initiatives of nurse‑managed care, and we are
looking at urban as well as rural opportunities for nurse‑managed care.
Mr. Chomiak:
I stand to be corrected, but we discussed briefly nurse‑managed care
several occasions ago, and I did not get the impression at that time that there
were any specific projects that were ongoing.
I guess the minister's response, therefore, requires that I ask if he
could outline for me what he is looking at and where he is looking at as
regards nurse‑managed care projects.
Mr. Orchard:
I do not know when we discussed this, but if my honourable friend had
asked about nurse‑managed care and some of the opportunities we were
exploring to make that a part of the shift in the Action Plan, either I did not
understand his question, or he did not understand my answer, because I would
have given him the answer that I gave today because it has been part of ongoing
planning and discussion now for about eight or 10 months‑‑longer than
that, but serious discussion and initiative in the last number of months. When we get to our Healthy Public Policy area
of the Estimates, I would have the appropriate staff here to give my honourable
friend more complete details.
* (1600)
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, yes, I look forward to that discussion. Are there any major rural projects that have
been proposed for community health centres?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, we expect that some initiatives in that direction will
emerge from the rural reform process and some of the investigation that a
number of the rural communities are currently exploring as an appropriate new
direction in health care service delivery.
If my honourable friend is wanting to know
whether we would support those initiatives from a policy standpoint, the answer
is yes, we would, wherever requested, providing as much information, and
seeking information, as we can to any rural organizations that are
contemplating such an initiative.
Mr. Chomiak:
Summer bed closures are an annual occurrence, as the word implies, and I
am wondering if the minister can outline for us any statistics he has on summer
bed closures that have been determined for this year.
Mr. Orchard:
I am hopeful that we have that information when we get to the hospital
line, and I can provide it then. We do
not have it right now. We are just in
the process of collecting that information from our urban hospitals.
Mr. Chomiak:
I would also like information on the rated bed capacity for all the
institutions throughout the province. I
assume I should wait until‑‑I am asking the minister in advance for
when we get to that line for tabling‑‑the minister is nodding in
the affirmative, so I will continue.
There was at one time a consideration of
the consolidation of community health services in
Mr. Orchard:
I cannot, given the nature of the question. If my honourable friend could give me a
little more detail and specifics, I might be able to help him.
Mr. Chomiak:
The consideration of the consolidation of the public health departments,
the provincial departments and the city departments in the city of
Mr. Orchard:
We are getting better at reading between the lines, because staff
thought that might be what my honourable friend was asking about.
As I stand today, I cannot give a current
status. I do not think we are very
seriously involved with the city at this juncture in terms of that
amalgamation. What we are trying to do
with them‑‑my honourable friend is asking, are we going to
amalgamate and deliver services‑‑either they deliver them all or we
deliver them all.
That is not currently in the cards. I am not saying it may not be part of the
eventual evolution of service delivery in the city, but what we are doing is
undertaking pretty extensive collaboration and co‑operation with city
Health, so basically they understand our goals and objectives and where we are
heading and where they can be part of the process or parallel the process or
undertake a similar process. We are
hoping for every opportunity for that to occur.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister advise whether the AIDS Advisory
Committee is still in operation and what the status of the advisory committee
is?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, they met as recently as Tuesday of this week.
Mr. Chomiak:
I wonder if the minister might update us as to the deliberations, if
that is the correct term, of the committee and the most recent or the
suggested, perhaps, initiatives of the committee.
Mr. Orchard:
Yes.
Mr. Chomiak:
I wonder if the minister could apprise us of what those are.
Mr. Orchard:
When we have Healthy Public Policy here, I think I can provide my
honourable friend more detail, but the current issues of discussion are the
issues of HIV and Corrections and HIV and the aboriginal communities.
Mr. Chomiak:
I am through the easy ones now, Madam Chairperson, on my much flaunted
card system.
Can the minister indicate whether there is
now a position at MHSC, since it is now amalgamated, to carry out inspections
of the laboratories?
Mr. Orchard:
I missed the question.
Mr. Chomiak:
Can the minister indicate whether or not there is an audit position at
the
Mr. Orchard:
My memory was not giving me complete recall, but it is miraculous what a
briefing note will do. I think maybe
this is before‑‑no, this would not have been before my honourable
friend was elected.
We proclaimed amendments to The Health
Services Insurance Act September 30, 1991.
Basically, the authority was given to carry out inspection of
practitioners' offices, including medical laboratories, for the purposes of
claims verification. That was the
essence of the amendments.
We are still working through the
regulations for this legislation, for these amendments, and appreciate that the
process is not as speedy as maybe all of us would like to see, because it is
not simply government developing these internally. Government is obliged,
through the agreement with the MMA, to have the regulations, as developed,
approved by the MMA. That process is
underway, as I understand.
The one thing I cannot tell my honourable
friend is, if he asks in his next question, when? If that is an appropriate question, I will try
to provide an answer.
* (1610)
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I have some general questions with respect to this
area. I am just inquiring of the minister
whether we deal with them at this point or under Healthy Public Policy,
Appropriation 2. That is, specifically,
aboriginal health and matters relating to that.
I am getting the communication that that is more appropriate under
Appropriation 2, so I will do so accordingly.
Another area that I wish to inquire about
is the whole question of LPNs and the role of LPN nurses. Is it appropriate at this point in the
appropriation or at some other, because I was not certain when I was going through
my Supplementary Estimates whether or not I should at this juncture or at some
other point. I am just asking for the
direction of the minister perhaps on this.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, it would probably be more appropriate in terms of the
Healthy Public Policy section.
I just want to give my honourable friend a
bit of an update. Well, we will probably be able to talk about it in Estimates,
because I think it is the end of June that the Manitoba Association of Licensed
Practical Nurses will, I am informed, have available their consultant's report
in terms of the criteria they wanted investigated in the LPN profession. They are naturally going to provide my office
and the ministry with a copy of that as soon as it is available. As I say, if my memory serves me correctly, I
think June 28 is when the report will be coming down, so I am quite sure we
will have the opportunity in Health Estimates to discuss that.
Mr. Chomiak:
Notwithstanding that, Madam Chairperson, I assume then my questions will
be directed under Appropriation 2 in the booklet. Again, I am also getting the affirmative
response to that.
During the last session when we met, the
minister dealt with some questions from the member from The Maples (Mr. Cheema)
concerning the recent strike of the doctors at the emergency wards. One of the concerns expressed to me was the
number of doctors who would tender or have already tendered their resignations
by the end of this year. I am wondering
if the minister might comment on that particular issue.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I have heard the same information that my honourable friend
has just related, that there have been some resignations tendered for effect
this calendar year. I do not have before
me‑‑and I am not even certain whether I saw the development of
those numbers.
What we will try to do is search out‑‑in
the bowels of the department, we might be able to find that information on
emergency doctors.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, with regard to the issue of the Centres of Excellence
and/or consolidations. There was a
discussion between the minister and the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema)
concerning the consolidations and the Centres for Excellence. The minister outlined, I think, that he did
not want to prejudge the process, and, in fact, we had a discussion
previously. The minister and I had a
discussion along the same lines.
I wonder if the minister might outline,
without being bound, just roughly, what categories we are talking about with
respect to the Centres of Excellence and consolidation. I recognize we are talking about
ophthalmology, obstetrics and various other areas. I wonder if the minister might outline the
broad categories that he sees arising, even if it is only a tentative or even
if it is only a general game plan or proposals, and also how that relates to
the whole issue of community hospitals.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, the process causes some confusion and maybe even my
honourable friend is getting confused.
Always when you talk about program consolidation the envisioned result
looms up that it is one program, one hospital, so the one hospital does all of
the orthopedics or one hospital does all of the cardiac surgery, open‑heart
surgery. I am not saying that some of
the direction may not narrow the number of hospitals that deliver a
program. In other words, you may have a
hospital, for instance, give up an orthopedics program to be consolidated at
another hospital and the hospital giving up the orthopedics might do urology or
another program of that nature.
The thrust of where we are going to in
terms of the centres of excellence program consolidation is to try to bring a
number of programs under provincial leadership, if that is the fair way to put
it. As it stands now, for instance‑‑and
let me deal with cardiac care as an example because that is narrowed primarily
to two hospitals that do open‑heart surgery. Both of them have heads of program and the
system has tended to grow up competitively rather than co‑operatively. Very much we are working with the two teaching
hospitals‑‑in this case, St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre‑‑to
do a program consolidation in cardiac care, which would see the program under
one head, but in all likelihood because of the physical capacity issue,
delivered at two sites but as one program.
There may be shifts in the service
cardiology versus cardiac surgery that may be shifted between the hospitals,
but both would maintain a capacity. The
key and important issue is you would have one program head responsible for the
resource provincially, so you would not have the anomaly‑‑and this
happened. I mean, three years ago there
were allegations of a significant waiting list increase. The waiting lists were maintained at each
hospital independently and with each physician independently or at least
somewhat independently even with physicians at the same hospital. There was, quite frankly, duplication on the
waiting list so the waiting list was giving a wrong impression in terms of
length.
* (1620)
One program head with a responsibility for
a resource would take that confusing aspect away, and I think if my honourable
friend thinks about it, you would not have the competition of who accessed the
resource, who accessed the surgical theatre time. Under one program head, the
access of surgery would be prioritized from the common waiting list to meet
service delivery with the greatest need.
That is where our Dr. Brown, with the collaboration of Dr. Naylor from
Ontario, is trying to get at the appropriateness of the waiting lists and how
we manage waiting lists. Waiting lists,
yes, they are an indicator, but they tend to be the sole focus which has driven
governments to respond in the fashion I indicated earlier, that if the waiting
list grows then government immediately has to respond by putting more resource
to it, but waiting lists do not necessarily have integrity for medical
planning.
I mean, if you think about it, it is an
almost impossible task. We do not have
waiting lists, we cannot give you waiting lists for some programs. They do not exist. When we come to investigate, we find we
cannot put our hands on anything to analyze to see whether it is real, unreal,
what is driving it.
The classic example is, as I presented
this afternoon, with the study on CT‑scanning. The waiting list was alleged to be 6,000
Manitobans waiting, and I will be very blunt in terms of CT‑scanning,
those numbers were deliberate. They were
deliberate to force this government to approve a number of additional CAT‑scan
sites.
When the provincial radiologist examined
the waiting list, it all of a sudden went from 6,000 to 2,500. Of the 2,500, two‑thirds of it was by
appointment of the individual or the doctor.
The other third was, if you want to be very blunt about it, the waiting
list. So it went from 6,000 down to
roughly 800. Of the 800, the analysis
case by case showed, as I indicated earlier on, nobody's medical condition was
compromised.
This is not the real issue. The real issue is that when you have a
waiting list developed, let us say, by 15 different specialists for a given
service, how does the system know, how does the head of surgery know, how does
the CEO of a hospital know, in dedicating operating time to that particular
specialist's surgical requirements, that Manitobans with the greatest need are
accessing that, when the waiting list may be developed in 15 different
physician‑specialist offices without necessarily consistent criteria as
to a rating of urgency.
We have to get around that in a major
way. That means giving up a lot of
authority and turf to have that kind of co‑operation and
collaboration. That is where we are
heading in terms of the appropriateness of service accessibility, with Dr.
Naylor from
It is accompanied by a bed registry in the
city of
I will tell my honourable friend very
frankly that sometimes some our hospitals‑‑and I am not pointing
fingers, it is the nature of the beast, that is the way they have operated‑‑have
when called, said no, we do not have any spare beds, because they are
protecting them for their physicians as an institutional endeavour rather than
a system‑wide endeavour. I think
my honourable friend would agree that is not an effective use of resource.
There has to be a central bed registry,
programs which are under one head, so the experts can prioritize access of need
in the quickest and most appropriate fashion so that we are serving those in
the greatest need first. It gives us a
handle in terms of common criteria for accessing that particular procedure, and
I do not think I have to explain to my honourable friend why we need that
because, you know, Manitoba used to be at one time one of the higher rates in
Canada for tonsillectomies in the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation
before it was the centre. The Rooses did
an analysis and made that finding public and, miracle of miracles, our
tonsillectomy rate went down in
Those kinds of approaches to health care
are no longer appropriate in the 1990s.
I mean, we have got finite and scarce resources, and we have to make
sure that we are focusing those resources to deliver to the greatest need to
the most opportunity for health status improvement, and so that when we are
trying to develop the centres for excellence concept, the first and foremost
concept is program leadership in a number of key program areas, and a common
pooling of the resources which may lead to a single centre in some cases
delivering that program if that is possible to achieve physically and
organizationally.
In most cases, I would suspect, it will
mean a downsizing of the number of centres providing that program so that fewer
centres maybe do more of the procedure and develop more expertise in managing
that particular procedure, and from that you would have hospitals which develop
centres of expertise in certain program areas.
It does not follow, as one would conclude, that one hospital, one
program, seven hospitals wide, so that one is only orthopedics, one is only‑‑but
I think my honourable friend understands where I am coming from, that there no
doubt will be, I think, in the final analysis some consolidation and some shift
in program not necessarily to one, but possibly one facility‑‑possibly
that. Certainly I think it is fair to
conclude fewer facilities delivering the same program.
To accomplish that, we have our various
heads of the surgical committees now taking a look at that urban surgical situation
to try and give us guidance over the next number of months as to what the
doables are in that reconfiguration of service delivery. From that we hope to be able to further
announce and expedite the "Centres of Excellence" concept in our
urban hospitals.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
As previously agreed, the hour being 4:30, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam Deputy Speaker (Louise
Dacquay): As previously agreed, the hour being 4:30 p.m.,
this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 Monday next.