LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
June 21, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 47‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), that Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2); Loi
no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation, be introduced and
that the same be now received and read a first time.
His
Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been advised of the contents of
this bill, recommends it to the House. I
would like to table the message.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 48‑The
Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Bill 48, The
Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses
dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite), be introduced and that the
same be now received and read a first time.
His
Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been advised of the contents of
the bill, recommends it to the House. I
would like to table the message.
I
would like to make a few remarks, Mr. Speaker, on first reading.
Motion presented.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to
introduce The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993, which contains amendments
from the 1993 budget and technical amendments.
Also contained in this bill is a provision
under The Tobacco Tax Act for the imposition of a tax on raw‑leaf tobacco
at the reduced rate of four cents per gram, effective midnight tonight.
This bill also contains an exemption from
aviation fuel tax for aircraft configured solely for hauling freight which are
arriving from or departing to points outside of
Motion agreed to.
Bill 49‑The
Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I move, seconded by the
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that Bill 49, The
Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant
la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires et apportant des modifications correlatives
a une autre loi), be introduced and that the same be now received and read a
first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 50‑The
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,
on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), seconded by the Minister of
Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 50, The Statute Law Amendment
Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives), be
introduced and the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 51‑The
Municipal Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), I move, seconded by
the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 51, The Municipal
Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites), be
introduced and the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
* (1335)
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable
members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION
PERIOD
Cortelco
Canada Inc.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey).
Today we learned, unfortunately, that 40 jobs
have been lost in the Cortelco plant in the city of
I
would like to know from the Deputy Premier:
Why did they choose to close the plant here in
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the short answer is because
of lack of orders and work right here in the
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the
question of why they are closing one of three plants in the
I
would like to ask the minister: What
action did they take to try to prevent this closure of this plant, to try to
prevent the loss of another 40 good jobs in the
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I outlined for the Leader of the
Opposition the reasons given as to why this particular plant was closing. He refers to 40 employees. The provision was to recall 20 employees, and
it is the 20 employees who are receiving the notice.
Having said that, we are always concerned
about any job losses in
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the operation is now going to
service the Manitoba Telephone System and other telephone systems from their
I
would like to know from the minister, Mr. Speaker: Why did the company choose to close the
It
is very important. We have lost a
thousand telecommunication jobs in March of this year over March of last
year. Why is this happening here in the
Mr. Stefanson: Again, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is
because of the level of work and the loss of some work here in the
We
are always concerned about consolidations taking place, and that is why I
remind the honourable member. I am sure
he is interested in seeing that when other amalgamations and changes have
occurred, they benefit
There is a series of initiatives that go in
our direction, and I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that we are
certainly winning more than we are losing when it comes to companies making the
decision where best to locate because of the cost of doing business, the
quality of labour, and
* (1340)
Gretchen
Family
Romanian
Adoption
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, no
Manitobans can help but be moved by the situation respecting the Gretchen family,
and one can only conclude that the province has made a mistake in trying to
force the family to post a $300,000 line of credit in order to have their
adopted daughter reunite with her sister here in
Can
the minister advise this House today that he has looked into the matter and he
will resolve it so that this young child can be reunited with her family
immediately or as soon as possible?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat familiar with the
individual circumstance, and the policy that has been used in this case with
the adoptive family sponsoring this youngster from
It
is with that intention in mind that we have made those financial arrangements
with the sponsoring family because of the medical circumstances around this
individual's condition in
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I phrased my question very
carefully, because I am convinced the mistake was made by the province. This
little girl was adopted prior to the province even sending the letter to the
Gretchen family saying they would have to pay this $300,000.
Will the minister advise this House‑‑I
spoke with the mother this morning. Will
he meet with the family immediately and try to resolve this problem? They should not have to put up money for this
little girl. We are not even certain if
she is HIV positive.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to discuss
the medical condition of this young child, and I think it may well be rather
inappropriate that my honourable friend would do so. The information I have is that the youngster
was examined by a Viennese doctor when the medical circumstances were
identified and were communicated to Immigration Canada, who deemed the
youngster to be medically inadmissible.
In circumstances such as that, there is no exception made to the immigration
of such an individual to
I
think my honourable friend can understand some of the circumstances that led to
those conclusions by Immigration
It
is under that circumstance, and with that full knowledge, that we have
indicated that a letter of credit to the extent as indicated to the Gretchen family
would be required, based on the knowledge that we have of the medical condition
of this youngster and, Sir, that process has been communicated, as you well
see, to the sponsoring family.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister: We have a universal health care system. This girl is an adopted member of a Canadian
family, regardless of the medical condition of this child. Will the minister not admit that an error has
been made, and, even if an error has not been made, that the policy will be
changed to admit this girl immediately to
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my honourable
friend's approach to this issue, but let me reiterate to my honourable friend
so that he understands the nature of his request.
For
approximately 20 years, it has been the policy of governments of
Mr.
Speaker, that policy was put in place in 1975, formally, and administered
through the Manitoba Health Services Commission. Prior to that, it was a policy that was
administered by another physician giving advice to the
This, Sir, is yet another one, and the process
is very clear with Immigration
* (1345)
Repap
Manitoba Inc. The Pas Project
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, when I asked the
Minister of Finance about the upcoming annual meeting of Repap, he indicated
that not only had he been invited, but that he would be trying to push more
quickly the project at The Pas.
Well, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, he should have
attended, because at that meeting on Friday, Mr. Petty indicated a number of
very good things about the company, that they were moving into a cash positive
position, that they are going to be paying a, quote, record share profit in the
coming year, but that the project at The Pas had been shelved, and they would
not be proceeding with it.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Finance what action he is going to take,
finally, to hold this company accountable to the deal he made with them.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, there is
no new news in the remarks that the member provides, by way of question.
In
essence, almost a year ago, the government indicated that the project had been
shelved. I mean, that was the essence of
the statement made in the House in 1992 by myself.
Of
course, what we are trying to do is, over the next year and a half to two
years, upward to the end of 1994, is either do a reconfiguration and/or go and
find a joint partner, either with Repap's blessing or ultimately without
Repap's blessing, to make a commitment to the major northern project. There is no news in the revelation of the
member as he brings it forward today in Question Period.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, as recently as Thursday, the
minister said they would be proceeding with the project, that he was going to
be pushing hard to see that this project goes ahead. On Friday, we find out that the company is both
cash positive and posting record profits.
Mr.
Speaker, the question is really simple.
When are we going to see some action at The Pas, or is the minister
simply going to sit here and tell us this is not an issue?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what interpretation
the member took out of my remarks last week.
Again, I say to him that we are in negotiation with Repap toward a
reconfigured project.
I
would apologize to the House if indeed they felt that the $1‑billion project
that had been announced in 1989 was proceeding, because it clearly is not. When I made mention of a project, I am
talking about a reconfigured project that we continue to work on. Certainly, there are various options. Repap
has presented them to me over the course of the last 10 months, and we continue
to dialogue around them.
Now, when the member talks about record
profits, certainly Repap may be experiencing some positive cash flow, but after
they have lost upward of $400 million in the last two fiscal years, I can tell
you nothing is record as compared to those types of losses.
Mr. Alcock: Of course, Mr. Speaker, in order to post a
record profit, one has to pay off the carried‑forward losses from the
previous years.
Mr.
Speaker, perhaps then the minister can just explain to us his comment in the
House on Thursday that says: We will be
trying to push more quickly the larger developed project at The Pas in keeping
with the commitment made by Repap contractually to the province.
Those are the minister's words on
Thursday. Does he have the partner? Is the project going ahead? What is the status of that project,
particularly in light of the statements from Mr. Petty that they are doing
quite well, thank you very much?
* (1350)
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
Mr. Manness: Again, the member refers to Mr. Petty's
remarks that they are doing quite well.
They are doing quite well, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the sense of the
first quarter in the last 10 that they have turned a profit, so I would have to
think that in relative terms, they are doing quite well.
Are
they anywhere able to secure financing and put toward
The
answer quite clearly is yes, but all of that is dependent upon the ability of
Repap, either directly through financial circles and/or in partnership with a
joint partner to be able to secure the financing that is needed.
Cadham
Provincial Laboratory
Essential
Service Designation
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Cadham lab does
testing for water contamination, sexually transmitted diseases, food poisoning
and blood work for a variety of other serious illnesses and diseases. Bill 22 will mean that these services are
only provided four days of the week.
I
would ask the Minister of Health, given that some of these samples will expire
in that additional day over a weekend, why has the government not deemed these
lab services as essential services and exempted them from the layoffs of Bill
22?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would accept my
honourable friend's premise only in part, because from time to time, we have
three‑day weekends as a course of long weekends in the normal course of
operation of the lab.
We
often have circumstances at Easter or Christmas where there were four days in a
row in which those circumstances are applicable. The operations of Cadham lab will comply with
the financial requirements of Bill 22, and in that regard, we expect to be able
to maintain the level of testing that is required to maintain the health of the
public at large.
Ms. Cerilli: I have a supplementary question, Madam Deputy
Speaker. With summer being the busiest
time of year for water samples, why is this government effectively obstructing
Manitobans from this essential service, and will the government not reconsider
its decision and declare that these services are essential services and exempt
them from Bill 22?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, I guess we could have
considered that had Peter Olfert at all agreed to a voluntary agreement, but
they chose to force us either to layoffs or the 10‑day leave without
pay. We chose the 10‑day leave
without pay.
In
terms of water sampling, I suspect we will be able to maintain the workload in
this busy season, as my honourable friend alleges, and will be able to provide
the services that Manitobans are so interested in receiving.
Ms. Cerilli: How can this government justify classifying
gambling outlets and liquor sales as essential services, but not classifying
diagnostic lab services for health and environmental care as essential
services?
Mr. Orchard: It is because we have been able to integrate
into each of those respective areas of service delivery the flexibility
required to achieve the financial savings and provide the service.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that kind of
management is not understandable by members opposite because in one contract
they settled with the MGEA, they gave everybody an extra week of holidays. Where was the service concern then?
Repap Manitoba
Inc.
The Pas
Project
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Can
the minister responsible tell us whether this was a unilateral decision by
Repap, whether it is part of the decision, and whether he agrees with the
decision to not proceed with the pulp mill in The Pas?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Well, I am intrigued
with this newfound interest by the opposition parties. It is almost as if they really did want
Repap, Madam Deputy Speaker, and particularly the member for
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the project‑‑(interjection)
Well, all I know is, when the members call it a bad deal, we have not lost a
dollar, as the taxpayers of this province, in the last five years, and the NDP
lost $200 million plus when they were running it as a government
organization. I dare say we have done a
remarkable job, but Repap has done the better job.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to the
supplementary question from the member for
* (1355)
Cutting
Area Negotiations
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Order, please. Question.
Ms. Wowchuk: Since there is no expansion and the pulp mill
has been shelved, can the minister tell us where they are on the renegotiations
of the cut area?
Is
there any plan to renegotiate the cut area?
Is any of the hardwood going to be freed up? Is there going to be any opportunity for jobs
in the
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy
Speaker, there are 50 to 70 jobs today in
The
member opposite, of course, harkens back to a time when there was a desire to
use the hardwoods. This government would
love to see the hardwoods used, but not when the government has to put in
basically all of the financing for risky ventures. It will not do that. It is not our business acumen to be involved
in that type of approach.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware there are
other interests in the hardwoods. We
certainly take them seriously. We will
continue to dialogue with Repap, and we will free up those resources certainly
if we need to, indeed, if there is a viable alternative that can be used,
particularly if Mr. Petty and Repap are not going to move within the foreseeable
future with respect to the larger facility.
Employment
Creation Strategy
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I
want to ask this government: What are
they going to do? Are they going to insist that Repap proceed with the
jobs? Are they going to insist that they
hold up their end of the bargain?
We
want to know whether there are going to be jobs in The Pas, and we want to know
where this government is on the 250 jobs they promised to
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind the member, who
is now sort of a convert, she now wants the Repap large expansion to proceed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the promise was made by
Repap on the basis of $800‑a‑tonne pulp. It is now $450‑ to $475‑a‑tonne
pulp. Furthermore, I point out that that
industry has undergone $2 billion worth of losses in the last two years. I further point out the consolidation that
has taken place within the pulp industry particularly and the closing of a
significant number of those types of plants throughout
The
member must be aware of this. There has
not been one new one built over the course of the last three years. So let us try and see this industry become
healthy, and during that time, I put my faith in Repap. The member may not. She may want them to be run out of the
province, but this government puts their faith in Repap, and once the proper
time comes about, I know there will be economic activity in the
* (1400)
Substance
Abuse
Northern
Treatment Centre
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
Can
the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) or the Minister of Health tell
the House today what recent negotiations have been going on with their federal
counterparts in order to establish a northern abuse centre for solvent abuse in
the
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker,
that issue is very much one that the federal government, as I understand it,
has under study nationally.
My
honourable friend inadvertently mentioned northern
It
is my understanding that committee is expected to report within the next
several months, if my memory serves me correctly, and should provide to the
federal government some guidance as to how they would approach the issue of
substance abuse and sniff in some of our northern aboriginal communities.
I
think it would be appropriate guidance for the federal government, because as
issues are approached one by one, not always is there a co‑ordinated
focus. Witness the recent decision in
the northern
I
would hope that the federal government, in collaboration with the native communities
of northern and remote
Substance
Abuse
Legislation
Amendments
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
Will the Minister of Health commit today to an
amendment to his own antisniff bill, which will put the onus clearly not on the
abuser, but on the seller of the type of product which creates the abuse
problem that we have here in the
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I will listen with a great deal of attention to my honourable friend's
persuasion around such an amendment that she might propose. That can appropriately be done at committee,
should and if and when opposition parties pass that bill to committee, as we on
this side of the government are very anxious to see done.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to indicate to my
honourable friend that it would seem as if the Liberal Party's position in
second opposition is now that the province should assume yet another federal
responsibility for service provision, because that seems to be where my
honourable friend has come from.
That is why a federal committee is studying
the issue of substance abuse in northern and aboriginal communities, so that
they can work through details where Health and Welfare
Fatality
Inquiries Act
Inquest‑Substance
Abuse Death
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
Will the minister replacing the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) today, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), tell the House if this
government will order, under The Fatality Inquiries Act, an inquest into this
young person's tragic loss of life in the hope that finally both the federal
and provincial governments can understand the level of solvent abuse in this
province and across this nation?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will take that
proposal as notice on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) for the
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me indicate to my
honourable friend the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, that may not be enough
for my honourable friend, but to leave the impression that only she cares about
children is totally inaccurate and very naive at the best.
Workforce
2000
Elmwood
Motors
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Education and Training.
Last week, the Minister of Education talked
about how she monitors each and every firm that was given a grant under the
Workforce 2000 program. She said, quote,
the program is monitored and that there are also checks of the program as it
goes along.
Now
given this, I wonder if the Minister of Education could tell the House why
Elmwood Motors was given a training grant last year and what the grant was for.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Deputy Speaker, in the area of Workforce 2000, as I explained last week, there
is criterion for acceptance into the program. There is a process to monitor.
If
the member has a specific question, he might like to raise it when we reach
that line in the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.
Mr. Maloway: Madam Deputy Speaker, given that the firm was
given a grant on June 4, 1992, some four months after being charged with
tampering with odometers‑‑I believe eight charges‑‑what
series of criteria and what process of monitoring did she use for this grant?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, the details
of any of the Workforce 2000 programs I will be happy to discuss when the
details are in front of me during the Estimates portion of the Department of
Education and Training.
Mr. Maloway: My final supplementary to the same minister,
Madam Deputy Speaker: Since Elmwood
Motors was convicted and fined for odometer tampering one week after the grant
expired and since Elmwood Motors is no longer operating, could the minister
please release the terms of the contract with the firm so that Manitobans can
see what this grant accomplished?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, if the
member would like to attend the Estimates of the Department of Education and
Training, then we will certainly have a look at that particular contract.
Apotex
Inc.
Plant
Status
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, not too long ago, one
of the local news media in a paper had a headline called False hopes: Tories' job deals do not materialize.
Today, we talked about Repap. As well in this House, we have raised
questions about the government's involvement with Apotex and the government's
much ballyhooed announcement of a $50‑million investment in hundreds of
jobs coming to
My
question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism is: Given the difficulties that Apotex is now
having with an ongoing investigation with respect to the sale of generic drugs
in the United States, can the minister indicate what the status of the Apotex
proposed plant in Manitoba currently is and whether we will actually see any
investment during the short life of this government?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Deputy Speaker, without accepting,
obviously, very much of the preamble of the member for Flin Flon, very little
has changed in terms of the dealings with Apotex. He knows full well the concerns expressed by
Apotex about the changes in the patent legislation by the federal
government. The project has not been
cancelled. It is on hold pending a final
decision and review of that legislation and their overall development plans.
I
hope he is not suggesting for a moment that the allegations and improprieties
that are being referred to through the media are reason for us to be taking any
action at this particular point in time.
The company itself has corresponded with individuals within the industry,
and it has stated over and over, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it has not
committed any unlawful act, and let us wait and see what the outcome of that
review is.
* (1410)
Rh
Institute
Employment
Statistics
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, my concern is not
so much with the ongoing investigation by the FBI; my concern was with this
government's ability to construct a deal that actually works to create jobs in
I
would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism to tell this
House, after facilitating the sale of the Rh Institute to ABI and the transfer
after ABI was sent into receivership to Apotex, how many jobs in a very
important industry, in the health care industry, have been lost to Manitoba as
a result of this government's bungling of this set of negotiations, in the Rh
Institute and ABI as well as Apotex?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Deputy Speaker, there have been no
jobs lost. The jobs that were in place
at the Rh Institute were in fact retained in place through the transfer that
occurred.
The
Apotex full production facility was to create incremental jobs in our
province. As I have already indicated to
this House, it remains to be seen what the final conclusion of that is.
The
company has not come to Western Diversification or us in terms of wanting any
changes to the agreement. They have not
said that the production facility is cancelled.
It is on hold, and we will continue to work with the company.
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism is wrong.
Jobs have been lost at the Rh Institute, and I can provide him with
names.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to know how many
jobs have been jeopardized as the government tries to offload its
responsibility for the Rh Institute and for the negotiations at Apotex. How many jobs have been lost, compared to
what were in place prior to 1989, prior to this government's involvement with
Apotex?
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I indicated to the
member for Flin Flon, the majority if not all of the jobs were in fact
retained. I look forward to dealing with
this issue in some detail when we finally get to Estimates with Industry, Trade
and Tourism.
This particular project that he questioned
today was to create incremental jobs.
That possibility still exists, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are many issues to be dealt with, and
time will tell what happens with Apotex.
It
is interesting, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Again, he comes at a project where he thinks he finds an opportunity for
some criticism in terms of not creating as many jobs as one might like or
expect, rarely to be good questions about the positive announcements,
Northwest's announcement a few weeks ago of 165 jobs, Unitel, Canadian Pacific,
Monsanto.
I
could go on and on for the benefit of the member for Flin Flon, because I think
that is information he should take the time to pay some attention to, the many
positive things that are happening in the province of Manitoba and will
continue to happen under this government, unlike the kinds of situations we saw
with the short‑term, make‑work projects from the previous
government and leading to nothing but higher taxes and higher deficits in our
province.
Civil
Service
Negotiations
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
Madam Deputy Speaker, this past Saturday
hundreds of concerned citizens, men, women and children, gathered in Beausejour
to protest this government's devastating economic policies and cuts to services
and children. Speaker after speaker
denounced the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) for supporting government
policies that attack public workers, eliminate the Children's Dental Program,
undermine the public school system and eliminate bursaries to students going to
university.
I
ask this Minister of Labour: Will he
tell this House whether he has gained an appreciation for the issues as a
result of the rally that took place?
Will he now campaign with his colleagues and advocate that they reverse
their insane policies that are destroying the economy of this province?
Point of
Order
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, certainly the question is very much out of order. The purpose of Question Period is to seek specific
answers on specific questions, seek information. Asking for an opinion as to whether or not
one of the ministers of the Treasury bench has formed an opinion on one issue
or another is certainly out of order.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable member for Dauphin please
rephrase his question. It indeed was
asking for an opinion.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought that jobs
would be within the purview of this minister.
Many people who lost their jobs and had their jobs cut, their pay cut,
were there at the gathering.
I
want to ask the minister, in light of the fact that attacking workers in the
public sector does nothing to solve the economic problems facing Manitoba‑‑and
I would think this is within the purview of this minister‑‑now, if
he will reverse his policy of non‑negotiation and start to negotiate in
the public service so that these jobs and these salaries can be protected in
the province of Manitoba.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I find it very interesting, the question from the member for Dauphin. What were hundreds of people in his mind was
probably about 125 people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the group that we both
had the opportunity to address consisted of a variety of people, some of whom
had some very legitimate interests. What
the member for Dauphin missed, of course, was a group of people from one
particular school who have a question about quality in the classroom, who have
been meeting with me. There were some
members of the MGEU who were there obviously, and had concerns, and one does
not want to belittle those. Those are
certainly legitimate concerns.
There was also a fair sprinkling of people
from the New Democratic Party, activists in the organization there, who were to
cheer on the member for Dauphin. There
were also a fair number of people who are quite interested in the issue, that I
had a chance to speak with later about the variety of the issues that were
concerned, and the reality was somewhat different from the way the member for
Dauphin puts it across.
But, beside the point, I would say to the
member for Dauphin, that we have in fact negotiated agreements with many in the
public sector, who will not be calling upon the use of Bill 22 to bring about
these wage reductions. I would remind
the honourable member, the question that I put to the rally: If there was not a need for restraint in the
public sector, then why would Bob Rae be forced to do what he is in fact doing
in
Economic
Policies
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, this minister could not
run a Kool‑Aid stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in light of the fact all
the Minister of Labour could offer the people who were expressing their
concerns in a legitimate way to this government, through this minister, was
doughnuts and Kool‑Aid, I want to ask this minister, will he now reverse
his policies and start making job creation the primary objective of this
government?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker,
the member for Dauphin missed something very critical at that particular
rally. Yes, we did provide some
refreshment, particularly for the young children who were there who took
advantage, and many, many people ate the doughnuts and drank the lemonade
provided by myself.
What the member for Dauphin missed was that
some of the people serving those public servants were farmers and people with
their own businesses who pay all of our salaries, and their incomes have
declined significantly over the last number of years.
I
found it very interesting that the member for Dauphin, who draws his salary
from the public purse, as we all do here, that the public servants who were
there picketing, that the teachers who were there picketing, forgot that the
people who pay all of our salaries have had a very difficult time and, quite
frankly, have had the reductions in their income, and are now asking for them
to share part of the burden.
It
is very regrettable that the member for Dauphin missed that little but very
important fact.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The time for Question Period has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for La Verendrye
have leave for a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Ben Sveinson (La
Verendrye): Madam Deputy Speaker, last Saturday night,
June 19, the Ste. Anne Curling Rink caught fire. It was an enormous fire with
flames shooting in excess of 50 feet in the air.
Ken
Dayment, the Ste. Anne fire chief, alerted Southeast Mutual Aid co‑ordinators
in Steinbach, and along with his firefighters from Ste. Anne, was able to
successfully co‑ordinate the fighting of the fire. The mutual aid co‑ordinators in
Steinbach, upon being contacted, had fire trucks and volunteers from Steinbach,
La Broquerie, Lorette, St. Malo,
The
firefighters were successful in stopping the fire from spreading to the
attached Ste. Anne arena and to the cultural centre. Madam Deputy Speaker, this was all done while
ensuring the safety of people living in the mutual aid district. It is reassuring to know that the co‑operation
that exists in the operation of the Southeast Mutual Aid district indeed
reassures rural communities in
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to call
upon all members of the Manitoba Legislature to join with me in congratulating
the Southeast Mutual Aid district, co‑ordinators, Ken Dayment the fire
chief in Ste. Anne and all firefighters from the mutual aid area on a job well
done.
* (1420)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the official
opposition have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
would like to join with the member in congratulating the volunteers and the
professional staff in dealing with this situation over the weekend. I think
I
had the opportunity when I was younger to play some hockey in some of those
arenas and some of those facilities in the community that is mentioned, and I
know that the dedication‑‑(interjection) I do not want to make any
comment about that. I know that the
hardworking volunteers of the communities mentioned by the member are to be
congratulated, and we want to join today with the member in congratulating them
for handling a very, very difficult situation over the weekend.
Thank you very much.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I wonder whether or not there is a willingness of the House to waive private
members' hour.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to waive private members'
hour? No.
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Madam Deputy Speaker do now
leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of
the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for
* (1430)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee
of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of
Education and Training.
When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 4.(g)(1) on page 39 of the Estimates book.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, when we were together last week, there was a question about
statistics regarding audited awards for the years 1990‑91, '91‑92,
'92‑93. I would like to table that
information today.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass?
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my colleague the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) will be asking some questions on New
Careers. As the Chairperson knows, that
also comes under this particular line.
Last time we sat, we did have a vote on the
Human Resources Opportunity Centre. We
gave the government an option for restoring it, and they chose not to support
that motion. We regret that was the
case. The minister had that opportunity
where she could have changed an ill‑conceived and wrong decision that was
made by the government. Unfortunately,
they chose not to do that.
We
hope in the other areas as we proceed through the Estimates here this afternoon
that the minister is more flexible and readily available to consider
alternatives to what has been done in the interests of children and students in
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to ask some
questions about the New Careers Program.
As
the minister knows, we have asked in Estimates about the reductions in this
area, which I believe are over a million dollars. At that time, she was not able to give us any
of her plans for the future on how this reduction was to be implemented in
program terms. I wonder if she would
perhaps begin today by telling us how that $1 million is going to be absorbed
by this program.
Mrs. Vodrey: I would like to start, because I know the
member for Wolseley would not want to put incorrect information on the record
and I believe she has, so let me clarify that reductions in New Careers were in
the amount of $831,000, not $1,000,000, and that the additional funding
reduction was from the Manitoba Technical Training Centre which has now become
a private vocational school.
In
terms of how the program, New Careers, will continue to conduct its training
with some reduction in resources, the program, first of all, has increasingly
sought and identified levered funds from the federal government. These funds have been utilized to augment
provincial funding and support to project activities. This trend is expected to continue in '93‑94,
which will enable the program to serve a number of clients.
In
addition, the program has negotiated secondment arrangements whereby staff in
the employ of another agency or program are seconded to New Careers for the
duration of the training project. These
individuals deliver training alongside of the program staff. The program is currently negotiating
secondments for projects under development now, and these secondment
arrangements increase the program's complement of staff and increase the
program's ability then to conduct activity.
Thirdly, the program has begun to negotiate
training projects which have a very little or a minimal cost attached. For example, the program is currently
negotiating a training project in Thompson directed towards upgrading the
skills of women employed as managers for a variety of private and public sector
enterprises. Due to their geographic location,
these women have been barriered from alternate forms of education and could
become unemployed without further training.
So the costs for this project will be minimal as employers would
continue to pay the participants' salaries while they are training. As well, there would be no travel costs
associated with the projects, and the costs would then only be in staff salary
and training aids.
Other projects of this nature are also
developing in the North. These projects
enable the program to continue to provide service according to its mandate but
in a very cost‑effective manner.
Then, the newly amalgamated Employability
Enhancement branch will provide a broader range of services than did any of the
programs prior to the reorganization.
The strategic linking of the programs will reduce the duplication of
services and will, we believe, ensure a better utilization of resources,
enabling the programs to provide a high level of services to clients.
* (1440)
Ms. Friesen: Will the number of clients, as the minister
calls them, or students be reduced, compared to last year or compared to the
last two or three years?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, there will be a slight
reduction in clients. There will be
approximately 26 fewer clients projected or estimated for the coming year.
Ms. Friesen: In the past, clients or students of this
program have been paid a wage for up to two years. Could the minister indicate how that wage has
changed? What was it last year? What will it be this coming year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in the past, that was in
'92‑93, clients received a wage of 70 percent of entry‑level salary
paid by the government of
Ms. Friesen: I just want to try and understand how this
works when the employer pays the wage.
Has that happened in the past because this is an up to a two‑year
program? As I understand it, the length
of the program differs slightly, depending upon the kind of work experiences
and training that people have.
Has
the employer paid the wage before, and what proportion of employers are going
to be paying the wage this time? Are we
looking at 10 percent or 20 percent or 50 percent of employers?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that this is not a great change
because in the past several years on select projects employers have, in fact,
paid the wage. I am not able to provide
the exact number of employers who will be paying the wage because that is still
in the negotiation process. It is being
done on a case‑by‑case basis.
I would also remind the member that EIC also provides wages for some
sponsored programs and also bands provide some funding as well.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, in the past, when employers
have paid wages, have they paid the entry‑level wage?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, they paid the entry‑level wage.
Ms. Friesen: The program that the minister mentioned in
Thompson is, as I understand it‑‑and let me run through what I think
I heard her say‑‑that women who are already employed, but who may
be in danger of losing their job without further training are being trained and
paid by the employer‑‑or trained by the provincial government, paid
by the employer. Is that what is happening
in Thompson now?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, in Thompson, the women
who are involved in this program would and could benefit from additional
skills, particularly in the managerial area.
So the Department of Education and Training will be providing the
training, and the employers will be providing the salary.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, but these are women
who are already employed by that employer.
Is that the case?
Mrs. Vodrey: For these women in the North, the additional
training that they require is not available in the North, so they approached
New Careers to provide the training.
That is the agreement that has been worked out.
Ms. Friesen: But these women were not on social assistance
at the time they approached the government.
Mrs. Vodrey: No, these women were not on social
assistance.
* (1450)
Ms. Friesen: How does that then fit with the guidelines of
this program as indicated in the Estimates book, that is: "To assist social assistance recipients
in securing training and stable employment opportunities . . ."? I can see that the issue of location and
barrier to training is there; but, as I understood it, we are clustering these
under Community‑Based Employability Projects to social assistance
recipients.
Mrs. Vodrey: Under the Employability Enhancement Programs,
where New Careers is noted, the objective speaks about "community‑based
education and training to unskilled, unemployed or underemployed adults"
leading them into meaningful employment.
The women who are participating in the Thompson project are considered
to have been educationally barriered, and through this program we are looking
to provide the training for them.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am still not sure why it
fits in this area since this is for social assistance recipients, and these
women were not on social assistance.
Mrs. Vodrey: In the area under Employability Enhancement
Programs that says New Careers, I do not see the words in that particular line
that the member is referring to. She may
be looking down at Section II, Special Employment Programs. In the New Careers Program, I can tell her
that last year approximately 39 percent of the participants were employed,
approximately 25 percent were on UIC, approximately 13 percent had no income, approximately
20 percent were on social assistance, and there was approximately 3 percent of
other Manitobans involved in the programs.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, how is it determined that
the employer was not able to provide the training which New Careers provided?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I understand the employer
made an approach to New Careers because they did not believe they had the
skills to provide that training.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, who is the employer?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we usually do not release,
specifically, the names of employers, but I can tell the member that it is a
variety of both public sector and private sector employers.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I asked the minister before
how she determined that the employers could not provide the training, and,
essentially, as I understood her answer, she said she took their word for
it. Was there no other check on
this? How did the minister evaluate that
response?
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: There is a process which does carry on. We do have a person associated with New
Careers in the Thompson area. That
person is in close contact, certainly, with the employment situations in that
area. That individual meets with
employers.
There is a needs assessment done. Then there is an opportunity to look and see
if that training is available elsewhere.
Then a decision is made regarding the offering of that training by New
Careers.
Ms. Friesen: Again, I am asking the minister for the names
of the employers. I am wondering why
private and public institutions which have received public money she is not
prepared to list here.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, no money has flowed
to this point. I understand some of the
negotiations are still being finalized in this area.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, so what we have been
speaking of in the Thompson case, of people who are employed in public and
private sector, women looking for additional training, is something which has
not yet been negotiated.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the start date in
the proposal would be August. Therefore,
there is a process of the negotiation to go through the proposal and also to
finalize any details.
Ms. Friesen: What consideration is given to providing the
training through the community colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, certainly the staff
of New Careers meet regularly with Keewatin Community College, for instance, to
look at capacities and to look at capabilities and expertise; but, with the
reorganization of the department, the New Careers Program has recently signed
an affiliation agreement with Assiniboine Community College and is in the midst
of developing a parallel agreement with Keewatin Community College.
This affiliation will lead to the issuing of
joint community college and New Careers diplomas to program graduates. That will have the effect of increasing the
program's profile and also the participants' mobility and the ability to access
some lifelong learning opportunities.
In
addition, the program has begun to identify areas for joint programming with
* (1500)
Ms. Friesen: Does the department or the minister have a
policy of giving priority to those agreements with community colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, with the colleges
having moved to governance, we are looking at moving in a direction where we do
work much more closely with the community colleges.
As
things stand at the moment, as a project proposal is developed, we want to be
very careful that there is not a duplication, and we look to be able to work in
a co‑operative and a complementary sense with our community colleges in
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I asked specifically,
was there a priority given to delivering training through community colleges?
The
reason I ask this is that the thrust of the government seems to be the other
way, that is, towards private training; and I am concerned about the future of
the public institutions in this province.
So I am asking, does government, when it looks at the training of people
in these particular programs, give priority to using the facilities and the
staff and the expertise of the public institutions of
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, as I said in my last
answer, we have a number of resources.
We certainly are looking to co‑operate and to be very
complementary with the community colleges.
We believe that the colleges, having moved to governance, will allow
this complementarity to be more effective.
But, within the department, and particularly
within the AEST branch as we have been speaking about, there is a spectrum of
programming provided. We have our own
staff as well who provide training. So
we look for the most appropriate partner in all cases.
Ms. Friesen: The minister mentioned the New Careers' own
staff. Could she tell us how many staff are left in New Careers as compared to
last year, and how many of those are actually training staff as opposed to
management?
Mrs. Vodrey: There are two managerial staff, 24
professional/technical staff, 9.26 clerical staff. Of those employed, seven of those are people
of aboriginal background.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us how that differs from
last year?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the change from last year
has been a reduction in four clerical individuals, four people who worked as
trainers, and one person who actually worked for the Manitoba Technical
Training Centre.
Ms. Friesen: So this program is now down by eight or nine
people and is serving 26 fewer clients.
There seems to me to be a large cut of staff for a smaller reduction,
proportionately, in the number of people served. My concern is the implications of this for
staff and for the working situation.
Mrs. Vodrey: Just to correct the member again, it is eight
individuals in the area of New Careers.
I believe I made it clear that one of the other individuals worked with
the Manitoba Technical Training Centre.
In
terms of how we will accomplish the work, I have been speaking this afternoon
about efficiencies, and now all new projects will have, as a condition, a
secondment. In addition, in the clerical
area, we have redistributed the clerical work. We have clerical staff now who
are computer literate, and, therefore, we have been able to look at
efficiencies in that area.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us how this change in
staffing has been distributed through the regional offices? There are offices,
I understand, in
Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of the reduction in positions, there
was one reduction in the central office.
There were two reductions in the
Ms. Friesen: The minister spoke of all new projects being
done by secondment. Could she explain a
little further what this means? This
means secondment from within other government agencies, I assume.
Could she give us an indication of where
people are being seconded from, and what kind of financial arrangements are
being made with those departments?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just to clarify for
the member, in terms of the new projects, we are looking at most of those new
projects to have the secondment.
Primarily, we will be looking at the secondment. However, there may be some in which there is
not a secondment.
The
secondments will come from participating employers. That may be government. It also may be the private sector. It also may be publicly funded agencies or
funded through Employment and Immigration Canada.
* (1510)
In
looking at that secondment, we are looking for a training background or an area
or expertise within the area of being trained, and then the individual who has
acted in that seconded position may, in fact, go back as a resource to their
own agency.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister explain how those
secondment people are financed? Who is
paying their wages while they are training on behalf of New Careers?
Mrs. Vodrey: The wages of that individual would be paid
then by Employment and Immigration Canada or by another government department or
by the private industry or by the publicly funded agency themselves.
Ms. Friesen: So in that case, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what
is happening is the individuals are being selected by New Careers‑‑that
is, the trainees‑‑their wages are going to be paid at a much
reduced level in many cases, and their training will be done by someone from
another agency and paid by another agency.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let me clarify again
some information because we would not want incorrect information put on the
record by the member. First of all, the
wages as I spoke about previously were 70 percent of an entry level. So the wages are not necessarily reduced, and
I think we should clear that up.
Secondly, in the area of the selection
process, the participants are jointly selected by New Careers and also by the
employer or by the other participating agency.
In terms of skills, the person who is seconded would be partnered with a
trainer from the area of New Careers.
There is the work of designing the curriculum as well.
This is not an entirely new way of doing
business. In fact, we have done this in
the past. It does work very well and I
would point the member to the program delivered for mental health workers and
also family daycare workers. The benefit
of being able to do this is that it does build skills within the community as
well. This is a community‑based
kind of programming, and this continues to build skills within the community.
Ms. Friesen: I am sure we would not want information that is
misleading put on record by anybody. All
I am trying to do is to repeat back to the minister what she says to me to make
sure I have it correct.
The
minister said that secondments come from other agencies, a variety of other
agencies, and that the minister looks for people with a training
background. Then they work with somebody
within New Careers to design curriculum.
Is
it possible that the nature of programs that are going to be developed under
New Careers in this way are going to be limited by the numbers of individuals
in those public and private agencies who have training backgrounds? I mean, it seems to me that chances are that
there are going to be some areas that you will want to pursue where there are
not people with training backgrounds.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I think the member missed
what I said as an answer several questions ago.
I spoke about a training background or a background in that particular
area of expertise which is to be delivered.
Also, the employer who would be doing the secondment, I understand, also
may advertise for the position to be seconded so that they are not limited,
themselves, in any way by whom they may second.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, the minister, when she began
this, talked about the federal funds which were levered for this program. Could she tell us how much federal funds were
levered last year, and how much will be levered this year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Last year, we levered $923,000. For the year '93‑94, we have confirmed
$661,500. We have an estimated or
projected amount for the year '93‑94 of $1,250,700.
Ms. Friesen: The last sum that the minister mentioned is a
projected federal levering, or is it the projected total of both federal and
provincial funds to be applied to New Careers in 1993‑94?
Mrs. Vodrey: It is a projected federal cost‑sharing.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, why is there a difference
between the projected and the confirmed?
Mrs. Vodrey: The $661,500 is confirmed, already
negotiated, but we are not finished the year '93‑94. Mr. Deputy Chair, $661,500 would be within
the total projected of $1,250,700. But,
as the member knows, we are not yet at March 1994.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, is this a matching grants
program? Is there supposed to be an
equal partnership of federal funds?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, no, it is not a matching
grant.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister indicate the nature of the
partnership agreement between the federal government and the provincial
government for this program?
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister indicate the nature of the
partnership agreement between the federal government and the provincial
government for this program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, there is not a specific
protocol that is followed in each one of the projects. Instead, the projects are negotiated with the
federal government project by project.
We negotiate under a variety of categories with the EIC, work‑based
category or skills development category.
Ms. Friesen: What has been the impact on the federal
funding of the reduction in the
* (1520)
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that any reduction in
provincial funding will not have an impact on the federal dollars levered.
Ms. Friesen: On the total federal dollars levered or on
the proportionate federal dollars levered?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am again informed that
there is no impact. The actual dollar
amount has increased, as I would point out to the member, and proportionate
share would have increased.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, as I understand it, the
confirmed amount has not increased. Last
year it was $923,000; this year the minister said so far she has confirmed
$661,000. I understand that "not
yet" would perhaps be a better way of describing the federal input.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, the proposals have to be reviewed, but
the federal government has certainly indicated its willingness and desire to
move ahead in the areas that are projected.
I am saying to the member, in wanting in all fairness for information
put on the record, to just categorize by confirmed and projected, but certainly
with the projected dollars I understand that there is significant interest by
the federal government, which would be an increase in the actual dollars and
also an increase in the proportionate dollars.
Ms. Friesen: Last year the minister said that 20 percent
of people in New Careers were on social assistance, and I understand that there
are many rules in the federal government's transferral to educational programs
for people on social assistance.
Could the minister explain to us if there are
any rules like that around the federal money in
Mrs. Vodrey: In the New Careers Program there is no impact
on social assistance recipients.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, that was not the question I
asked. I asked the minister if she could
outline for us what the rules were in the federal government's distribution of
monies, application of monies, to social assistance recipients in education
programs under a Minister of Education.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the federal rules are
actually dealt with on a contract‑by‑contract basis. Some contracts are funded under the Canada
Employment rules. Others might be funded
under the severely employment disadvantaged. Others might be funded under the
rules of job entry and re‑entry.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister indicate how each of those
has been applied to this area? I am
looking, for example, why this is different than Student Social Allowances.
* (1530)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the
social assistance recipients, a subcommittee has been struck to address a
number of the issues relating to training programs for social assistance
recipients.
I
can tell the member that New Careers has in fact always been a program of the
Department of Education and Training. There is really not an effect on the New
Careers Program.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when the minister
says a subcommittee has been struck, is this a subcommittee of the provincial
government, of her department, or is it a joint one with the federal
government?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a subcommittee
of the joint management committee, which we spoke about as overseeing the
operations of the Canada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement.
Ms. Friesen: So at the moment, this is entirely composed
of officials of the federal government and the provincial government.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, that is correct.
Ms. Friesen: What is the task of this subcommittee?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, this subcommittee is
expected to improve the co‑ordination of programs with the Regional
Office of Employment and Immigration Canada and to work towards implementing
the most effective means of meeting our common objectives.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, we were discussing this
subcommittee in the context of the policy on social assistance recipients and
education, something which the minister knows goes beyond this program, but I
am interested that a subcommittee has been struck.
I
understood from the context that social assistance recipients was on its
agenda. I wonder if the minister could
perhaps tell us more specifically what the committee is intending to do in
looking at social assistance issues.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, this is a recent
subcommittee, and, as I said to the member, it is looking to improve the co‑ordination
of programs. We are looking at common
objectives. We are looking to avoid duplication. We are looking at co‑operation. We are also looking at integration.
The
purpose is also to ensure that the social assistance recipients programs are
relevant to the needs of
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, how long is that
subcommittee expected to work, and when is its report going to be due?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is an ongoing
committee. It has been struck to work
with the agreement. We expect that it
will continue its work through to 1996.
There will be no specific report because the work of the committee is
ongoing. We will examine the information
that has been brought forward from the committee as it is brought forward.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in this program, we
are looking at a reduction of eight people and $831,000 for clerical and for
trainers, making an estimate of an average of $30,000 a year. It seems to me that leaves a gap of $660,000
in the amount which formerly would have been paid to trainees.
I
am wondering if my arithmetic is similar in proportion to the minister's, or
are there other factors which should be taken into account there?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the
amount of money for salary, I can tell the member it is $752,000 for
salary. However, that is nine
staff. That number includes the one
individual who worked for the Manitoba Technical Training Centre.
Approximately $267,000 is accounted for in
participant salary. As I was saying to
the member, in the next year we are looking for employers or EIC to participate
in supplementing and supplying that salary line to a great extent.
Ms. Friesen: The decision then to reduce this program is
going to change its nature somewhat in that only people eligible for CEIC or who
are already employed will in fact be added to the program.
What proportion of people does the minister
expect will come from the ranks of social assistance and those who are not
eligible for CEIC monies?
* (1540)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we do not expect the
balance or the proportions to change. As
I said, where there is money or wage supplement not provided by the employer or
provided by CEIC or provided by bands or other sources, then we will be paying
at minimum wage level. As I said to the
member as well when I gave her the proportionate participation for this year,
we do not really expect that will change in the following year.
Ms. Friesen: I look forward to asking that question next
year, and I accept the minister's undertaking that you do not expect those
proportions to change.
I
wanted to ask about the difference between the minimum wage level and the 70
percent of entrance level and the way in which this will have an impact upon
families.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, if the money provided by
minimum wage is less than what individuals received on social assistance, then
those individuals would be eligible for subsidies.
Ms. Friesen: On what basis would those subsidies be
available?
Mrs. Vodrey: The subsidies are based on need. Need would include characteristics such as
the size of the family.
Ms. Friesen: Would it also include matters like daycare,
transport, those kinds of things?
Mrs. Vodrey: I can tell the member that while the training
portion through New Careers is ongoing, then we pay the transportation and the
daycare costs; but, when individuals go on to the working portion, then that
would be an issue to be discussed specifically with the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
Ms. Friesen: As I understand it, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
there are portions of this program where it is not simply training and then
work experience, but that they go back and forth. Does that mean, then, that in that back‑and‑forth
session they are transferred to the responsibility of the Minister for Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) for those kinds of expenses? Does each person have to negotiate that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, again, when individuals come
in for the classroom training portion, we do pay for the travel. We also pay for the overnight child care
expenses, because people are away from home, but when they are in their home
communities, then they are expected to look at working out and managing through
Family Services or through the allowances that they receive in that place.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, has that provided a barrier
to some families?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am informed that has not
been the experience of the people working in New Careers.
Ms. Friesen: How are these changes in the New Careers
Program, particularly to the funding of the recipients, being communicated to
Manitobans?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, it is important for the
member to know that anyone currently within a program is in under the previous
rules. As we negotiate new training
projects, we certainly inform the employers, or the partners, that we will be
undertaking these changes, and we try and make sure they are aware of what
these changes are so that we can maximize the participation.
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Ms. Friesen: There is nowhere that people can turn to find
a brochure, a leaflet, an explanation of New Careers programs under these new
kinds of conditions.
Many people in fact, it seems to me, do not
get to the stage of asking. If they do
not think they are eligible, they do not go and look for another door to be
closed in their face. So it is a sense
of openness, of knowing what to expect, knowing whether you are going to be
even within the bounds of eligibility that would be important to people.
Since the rules have changed, there is, I
think, a fair amount of confusion out there about who will be eligible, for how
long they will be eligible and under what conditions they can apply.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, first of
all, individuals do not approach New Careers directly. It is the employers who approach with
proposals and, as I have said, the employers are informed about the
changes. Where there is an area where we
do a recruitment, then we will certainly make sure that through the process of
that recruitment, the eligibility is well known to those individuals.
We
have in the past put out a brochure on New Careers. The one I have with me is an old
brochure. We will be putting out a new
brochure when we have finalized the changes and the reorganization in the
Advanced Education and Skills Training area.
* (1550)
Ms. Friesen: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am a little
puzzled by the minister's last statement, that it is the employers who
approach. Again, I go back to the
mandate in the public Estimates here which is:
"To provide community‑based
education and training to unskilled, unemployed or underemployed adults leading
directly to meaningful employment.
"To increase the job skills and
employability of adults . . . .
"To increase the number of trained
individuals from a particular geographic area . . . . "
It
seems to me that the issue, the focus of this program is on the training and
education of people who are in the greatest need. Of course, that is obviously one of the
reasons that we have been so very concerned about what seems to us a very large
cut to this program. So again, I am
concerned by the minister's interpretation of this program, that the employers
approach.
Could she perhaps add to that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, let me
clarify the member's misunderstanding in this area. First of all, the employers provide the vehicle
for the training, and it is the employers, where there is an agreement and a
discussion around what the employer's role will be and what the employers will
be assisting with in a financial way.
When employers come forward then, there is
sometimes a recruitment for individuals who would then be trained in this
area. So the target group of individuals
does include a wide range of individuals, and there could be then a process of
recruitment if in fact there was not a group of individuals who had already or
previously been identified as people potentially to take this particular kind
of training. That is why I said it was
important that the employers understood the responsibility in this partnership.
As
I said also, where there is a recruitment when employers have approached
regarding having identified a training need and then we look for a recruitment
of individuals to be selected for the process, a joint selection, then those
individuals through the process of recruitment would certainly be given full
information about what they would be provided with and also what was available
to them.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, well,
certainly for me, this turns this program on its head. What I understand the minister to be saying
is that she is driven by the requirements of the employer, that she is not
driven from the beginning, as every statement in this book says, by the need to
assist social assistance recipients to be educated and trained. That seems to
me a complete reversal of the focus of the programming. Yes, the means to that may be the employer;
the means to it may be privately and publicly identified partnerships; but
surely the focus of it is the need of the people who have no training and no
education. Every statement in the book
leads to that‑‑not even leads to that conclusion, but, in fact,
begins with that statement.
So
the minister has certainly clarified her views on this, but I am extremely
surprised by them.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, the member seems
to be surprised that people would be trained to actually do some work, and the
role of the employer is to say that there is an area in which they require
people to have training, and then we look to recruit those individuals.
The
member knows‑‑I thought that she knew; perhaps she does not know‑‑that
this program does provide training for a number of different types of
individuals, not only social assistance recipients. I did read to her what the percentage of
participants was within this particular program. Now the member probably would like to simply
provide training for individuals and then simply turn them out, and there would
be no one to hire those individuals.
So
our proposal and the way that we work in this program is a much closer
partnership with potential employers, so that when individuals are recruited
and are chosen to be part of this program, and also employers recognize where
they have a need, then people have a much better hopefulness that this will
actually lead to employment. The member
seems to have not considered that part, or even to think that is important.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, that is really one
of the minister's sillier statements. I
do not know why she insists on putting words into my mouth. I did say that employers were the means to
it. It was, I believe, our party which
developed this. The issue of providing
work, of course, is important and for the minister to say‑‑oh, I
really, I actually refuse to get into it because it is just too silly for
words.
What my concern was, Madam Acting Deputy
Chair, was that the minister is waiting for employers to come forward. That was what I understood her to say and
asked her to clarify, that it is employer driven, that the requirement is for
the employer to come forward. That was
not what I understood from the written part of the book, and it was not the way
in which I understood the drive and the thrust of both the federal and the
provincial governments was on this particular program.
Mrs. Vodrey: There has been no change in the way this
program operates since the member's party was in government.
Ms. Friesen: The change is that we are now paying people
at minimum wage, and that we have 26 fewer clients at a time when, in the parts
of the community where this program has been identified, unemployment rates are
rising.
I
want to ask the minister one last question in this area, and that is the
duration of training. Is that to be
changed? There have been a variety of, I understand, programs in this area. Some of them have been as long as two
years. Some of them have been somewhat
less, but for the most part it has been a two‑year program because it is
felt that the starting point and the finishing point of these people and these
families require those two years of training.
So I want to ask the minister: What does she foresee in this coming year
under the new arrangements of what will be the average or the potential length
of training for the people in this program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, the decision to
deliver projects of one year in length was taken as an interim measure while
this branch reviews the manner in which all the programs will work in an
integrated fashion. When we have completed
the review of these programs, then we will look at the length of training
programs and we will determine if there are to be adjustments in the length of
the training program.
Ms. Friesen: As a matter of policy and planning, why would
the minister reduce it to one year in advance of doing the review or in advance
of having received the reviews? I
understand‑‑I have not read them, but I have spoken to one of the
people who did do one of the reviews of this program and who presented publicly
some of his findings to a federal parliamentary committee‑‑I
understand that his report, in any case, was quite glowing. Given that, and I
have no reason to assume that any of the other reports and evaluations of this
program are any different, why would the minister change in advance of having
done that review and having assembled all those reports and considered them?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, as the member
knows, not all of the programs were two years in length. There were certainly programs that were
shorter than two years: Family Day Care
was a 10‑month program; the Transport Drivers program was an 11‑week
program.
As
I have said, we are now looking at the integration. New Careers is now a part and is very
strategically placed in the newly amalgamated Employability Enhancement branch.
So we would like to have the opportunity
not to necessarily commit individuals to a two‑year program, because, in
fact, they may find that there is another program or another area where a
program more suitable to those individuals may be delivered.
* (1600)
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister consider the impact on the
economic viability and the employability and the‑‑I will leave it
at that‑‑of the people who are now going to be turned away from New
Careers who are only going to have one year of training, who are essentially in
limbo? What is the impact on the regions
and the populations from which they come?
We
have had a very high percentage of people in this program who have sought
employment‑‑sorry, who have been successful in finding
employment. It has been one of the
hallmarks of this program. I wonder how
that is going to have an impact as a result of the reduction of training by 12
months. Does that mean, for example, that
we will see a 30 or 40 percent reduction in the number of people who will be
employed? Will we see a reduction in
their earning potential? One of the
things that was, again, a hallmark of the New Careers Program was that people
were employed at essentially professional rates and that they were bringing
with them into those jobs and into that income level and into that education
level an entire family.
Frequently, in parts of the community, both
regionally and in terms of aboriginal people especially, people who would not
normally have had that opportunity were, I think, for a relatively small‑scale
program, able to make quite an impact. The reduction by 26 people, the
reduction in the number of staff, the reduction in the wages which are to be
paid and the reduction in the length of time that people are to be trained‑‑all
of them seem to me to be for those communities to confirm the lack of hope, the
lack of confidence in this government for their future.
Again, I ask the minister, what has been the
impact of the reduction, or what will be the impact of the reduction by 12 months
of the training period? Has she
considered that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, I am certainly
informed that employers are still keeping their commitments to graduates. Also,
I mentioned affiliation with the colleges, and we believe that affiliation with
the colleges will promote, perhaps, an even stronger accreditation. I would remind the member that, yes, there
has been a reduction of 26 individuals, but that the New Careers Program still
maintains clients or people within those programs at 250. There is still a large number. The change is from 276 to 250 individuals.
I
will remind her again also that not all programs were two‑year programs
and that this is a temporary adjustment.
I have spoken about it as a temporary change while we are looking at the
integration of New Careers in this new part of the department. We are also then going to be reviewing and
looking to adjust the length if necessary.
Ms. Friesen: What will be the difference in entrance
earnings of those people who have been trained for one year as opposed to those
who had been trained for the longer period of time under the old program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, the employer
determines the starting level. The
employer always has, and we have not been informed of any changes in terms of
the entry level.
Ms. Friesen: Has the minister made any inquiries about
what the salary level, the earning power for a family‑‑and I am
looking for the impact of that upon the communities as well‑‑of
people who have received only one year's training as opposed to those who have
received longer periods of training in the past.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am
informed that we have had no indication from the employers whom we work with
that they will be reducing the starting salary.
I have been told that some employers are pleased with a shorter term of
training program so that they are able to bring the people into work with their
business, or their industry, or their agency within a shorter time period.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister accept a general principle
that the longer the training, the higher the entry level of salary; for
example, the difference between Grade 12 and those who have had first year
university or college?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know the
member would perhaps like to look at a university model more specifically or
contrast a community college versus university, but I am informed that within
the New Careers Program, this is not a big impact because the employers have
been involved from the very beginning of the training, and that is different
than other types of education models which the member might like to refer to.
Ms. Friesen: That was not the question at all. I asked the minister, did she accept that
there was a general principle whereby the longer the education and training,
the higher the salaries. She did not
know specifically, and she did not appear to have inquired of these employers.
I
asked her, was there a general principle, and the example I gave was, for
example, the difference between those people who have a Grade 12 and those who
might have a university or college first year.
There was in no way any attempt, and I am sure the minister understood
this, to look at different models of education.
I
am looking for a general principle of the longer you train somebody, the longer
lifetime earnings you have, the higher entrance requirements and higher
salaries that you have at the beginning.
Again, I am looking at this from the community
perspective of essentially creating a trained body of people who have incomes
and work that are satisfying and will benefit that entire community. That is what I feel is being lost in this
change in New Careers.
I
am asking the minister, has she considered this? What kinds of investigations has she made as
to the impact upon those communities of the reduction of the one year in
training?
Mrs. Vodrey: I know the member would not want to put words
in my mouth, so I will overlook some of the words she has intended to put in my
mouth.
She
asked about a principle, and I have explained to her that the principle, the
very general principle which she speaks about‑‑and I believe she
would like to apply it broadly to perhaps community college graduation versus a
university graduation, a bachelor's level versus a master's level and so on.
What I have explained to her in addressing
that principle in my last answer is to say that it does not appear to have any
application in the area of New Careers, and I even gave her the reason for
that. I explained to her that the
employers are involved from the very beginning from day one; that is unlike the
kind of education or training models which the member has used.
In
her specific example, she speaks of Grade 12 education versus the first‑year
university education, and in that there is not a specific employer
involved. I have distinguished the New
Careers program by saying that there is an employer involved.
* (1610)
The
member also tried to suggest that there was not contact with employers. As I have said, there is certainly contact
through the proposal, through the selection where there is a recruitment. The information that we have had is that
there is not expected to be an impact.
We have not had employers tell us that it will have an impact.
Ms. Friesen: What the minister is saying, then, is that as
far as she knows from the perspective of the employers there is no difference
to them between an employee who has been trained for one year and one who has
been trained for two years and that they would simply pay the same salary.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, as I have said to the member, the
employer identifies the type of skills that they would like the individual to
have at the end of the training. With
those skills identified, the employer again is a part of the process from the
very beginning. As the member also
knows, all of the New Careers programs were not two‑year programs. We remind her again that some of the New
Careers programs were 11 weeks in the case of the transport driver or 10 months
in the case of the family daycare provider.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) really interested me when he was
talking about the Gateway Program. He
had talked about the importance of that program and how successful that program
was of getting individuals off social assistance and into the workforce. In fact, he has at least implied‑‑now
I have not read Hansard since he made that statement‑‑but he
definitely implied that it was in all likelihood one of the most successful
programs that government has had.
The
question that I would have is: Can the
minister give me the actual number of individuals that have benefited from the
program for the fiscal years '91‑92 and '92‑93?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in 1991‑92, the
number of participants was 113, and this is for the Gateway Program. The estimated '92‑93 participants is
130, and the estimated in '93‑94 participants is 140.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate‑‑I know
for '93‑94 it is obviously 1.6 and the previous year was 1.9‑‑what
it was in '91‑92?
Mrs. Vodrey: I just wonder if the member for
Mr. Lamoureux: I guess I was reading off Single Parent
Access. Can the minister indicate to us what it was for '91‑92?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Estimates in '91‑92
were displayed in the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. They were displayed differently. The number, as we have checked back, did not
include salaries. The numbers were also
rolled together with Single Parent Job Access.
The
most accurate information that I can provide the member with is for the year
previous to '93‑94. That is the
'92‑93 number that I gave him.
Mr. Lamoureux: I understand in terms of it coming from
Family Services. Can the minister not
give us any sort of indication at all in terms of the approximate cost? Is it safe to assume, then, that it would
have been in excess of $1.6 million?
* (1620)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can give the actual
expenditures for '91‑92. I would
like the record to show that they will be compared with a printed vote,
adjusted vote, that in fact they are not entirely comparable.
The
actual 1991‑92 is $1,625,500 or $1.6 million.
Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the minister, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
would be with respect to the number of individuals that have benefited from
this particular program and the budgeted amounts of money that are given to the
program. If we are seeing a gradual
decrease in resources going towards the program, yet we are seeing more
individuals going through the program, I am wondering if the minister can
explain why that is. What has been
changing in the program itself?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am informed that this is
industry‑based training. It is
somewhat shorter than in the past. It is
not quite in the same level of depth, and it is training which is done on
site. With that in mind, the shorter
duration, we are then looking at some additional individuals participating.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate to the committee if
in fact the department, and in particular this program, is meeting the demands
that are being requested of it from individuals on social assistance?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the number of applications
and number of referrals has varied between 500 and 700. It appears that in the cycle of '91‑92,
it was the highest number of referrals, slightly over 700, but in '92‑93,
the number of referrals was slightly over 500.
I
am informed that the variation appears to be the availability of other kinds of
programs also available for those people who would be participants.
Mr. Lamoureux: For '93‑94, then it would be safe to
assume that we have approximately 600 referrals going to it. I am wondering if the minister can comment in
terms of the difference of the program itself, because it is industry based, we
find that most of it is in subsidy of wages.
Is that where most of the money goes out, or a breakdown in terms of how
many of those dollars are actually going towards subsidy of wages?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the industry
based, the largest amount of money does go to the wage assistance and
support. That is as compared to the
skills training area in which funding also goes for instruction costs as well
as for training wage assistance.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I am going to
attempt to try to establish anyway is to find out how it is that if we cut back
on the financial resources to a program of this nature, how, not only in the
long term, but in the short term, do government tax dollars, how are they saved
when in fact we could be getting additional individuals into the workforce?
If
you have the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) saying that this is
in fact a very successful program in getting people into the workforce, and if
you are saying that the 140 individuals are entering into the workforce, let us
say this year, and there are 500 or 600 referrals going, and if you had the
original resources from a few years back, I would hazard it should be safe to
assume that the 140 could quite easily increase. In fact, not only as I say in the long term,
but in the short term we would in fact be saving dollars. Is that not correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the explanation
comes, as I said to the member, between the skills training programs and the
industry‑based training. In the
past, there has been a great deal of skills training and not as much industry‑based
training. As we have moved into the years '92‑93 and what we estimate in
'93‑94, we have an increased component of the industry‑based
training. The industry‑based
training, there is then a sharing and a partnership with the industry that is
involved.
So
we have maintained, over the past two years using estimated figures for this
coming year, that the number of the skills training participants will remain
roughly the same. However, there is an increase in the number of participants
in the industry‑based training.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister explain to me what industry‑based
training is?
* (1630)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the skills training
will be up to 40 weeks of specific skills training followed by a 12‑week
work placement. The industry‑based
training accommodates those individuals who do not require lengthy skills
training or retraining or where formalized training is not available.
Mr. Lamoureux: Is the minister then saying that the skills
training demand has dropped significantly and this is the reason why we are
moving more towards industry‑based training?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the numbers that I
have from '92‑93 and our estimated numbers for '93‑94, I have the
participants in skills training as remaining the same, but an increase in the
participants in the industry‑based training, which accounts for the
increased numbers in the Gateway Program totally.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am interested in
knowing, in terms of the breakdown of the skills training and the industry‑based
training, and again, I would ask the minister, is there no longer a demand?
For
example, there are approximately 600 applicants. Are we getting fewer individuals who are
being referred over for skills training, or is this government just having less
priority for skills training and is favouring industry‑based training?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I said, the
numbers of participants in the skills training we expect to be the same, or we
project to be the same for '93‑94 as was in '92‑93. Where we project the increase is in the area
of the industry‑based training.
But I would ask the member to understand that the industry‑based
training still does provide skills training, and that it has been a partnership
which we have entered into, which does suit the employers for the kind of work
that the individuals could expect to be doing at the end of a training
program. The difference is that the
industry‑based training is on the job, and the skills training is more in
the classroom, but both do provide skills training.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I just want to say that the industry‑based training
is a new approach which seems to have been met with some success.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, and I guess this is why I have some
concern when the minister says that it is a new approach. I recall the former‑‑well, when
the New Democrats were in government, and they came up with a program such as
the Jobs Fund and, in particular, the Deputy Premier and the comments that he
had to say about what in fact the Jobs Fund really was all about.
When I look at it, and I see skills training,
when you are given classroom training, it tells me that it is more than just
being on‑the‑job training. I
would be interested in knowing from the minister the types of jobs that come
out of skills training versus industry‑based training.
Yes, you might be able to create more work in
the short term for individuals, but in terms of enhancing the skills so that
work that is acquired from someone on social assistance is more career oriented
or long term, I think might be in our best interest, and would she not agree?
Mrs. Vodrey: I just would like to say that in the industry‑based
training, the industry‑based training does share the cost between the
public and the private source to allow for training, and that certainly has
been one of the issues that has been discussed by labour market ministers and
by the federal government, that the governments alone cannot provide all the
money required for training. Where there
is an opportunity to do the sharing, then that can be extremely helpful and
beneficial. As I have said, it does lead
to skills training in both routes.
The
area of classroom training, or skills training specifically, is a position such
as automated office, autobody repair, building operations, power engineering,
commercial foods, diesel mechanics, industrial control and automation and
robotics, industrial electricity, industrial electronics, industrial mechanics,
clerical accounting, media production, and retail sales.
The
training in the industry‑based training is in the area of service writer,
sales representative, bindery worker, auto mechanic, machine operator,
receptionist, sales‑service technician, shipper‑receiver, legal
secretary, receptionist‑secretary, assistant foreman, and areas of office
assistants, sign maker, print operator.
So there is a variety of training offered in both skills training and
industry‑based training.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in listening through
the list, if it is industry‑based training one could become a mechanic
and maybe change oil and so forth, and the training program would be very
important for doing that. If you have
classroom or you are being subsidized to go to
Equally as important, of course, is the on‑job
training also. That is one of the
aspects in terms of the skills training that it did have that the industry‑based
training did not have.
I
guess maybe I would ask the minister, can she actually give a breakdown for how
much money for '93‑94 went towards industry‑based training, and '92‑93,
compared to the skills training? Which
area has in fact been cut?
* (1640)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member, from his
questions, certainly seems to favour the skills training area over the industry‑based
training area. I would say to him that
in looking even across
In
terms of the industry‑based training, the participants do receive all of
their training on the job. There is a
difference. The training ranges from 12
to 30 weeks and is very much determined by the participants' skill level in
relation to the position and the training to be provided. For a number of the industry‑based
training, the member spoke about how people may progress into various kinds of
skilled work. The industry‑based
training, a number of the people who participate in that particular area have a
number of skills and their skills need an enhancement as opposed to people who
are beginning at the very beginning who might benefit from the skills
training. A number of the people in the
industry base already have some of those skills and need an enhancement.
In
terms of the industry‑based training as well, we sometimes have employers
coming to us to say, this is what we need and could you recruit for
participants? We also have in the
industry‑based training individuals who say this is what they would like
to do, and they ask us to look at how they can be accommodated within an
industry to enhance the skills that they already have.
The
numbers that we have, we have them for '92‑93, and I would say to the
member that these are estimated numbers, that we have been attempting to work
them out since the member asked the question.
The numbers that I have for '92‑93, the industry‑based
funding is approximately $130,000, and the skills training funding is
approximately $900,000.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the industry‑based
training, I believe, is something that is very important to have, a very
important component. But if we take a
look at the overall decrease that the Gateway Program has suffered, and if the
minister is saying that the industry‑based training in those new
positions from the 130 to the 140 are primarily coming from industry‑based
training, that then indicates that there has got to be a more significant cut
in the skills training area. If in fact
there is a cut in the skills training area, and the minister is saying no that
there is not, maybe the minister can tell me then in further breakdown of the
money where is that money, where is the difference, from 1.67 to 1.59 and some
$80,000 coming from, the decrease?
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, while they are looking at the numbers, maybe what I can
suggest then is to indicate to me how many individuals from the skills training
area are there for those years versus the industry‑based training. Obviously the industry‑based training
has gone up. Has the same thing happened
with the skills‑based training?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the reduction in the
Gateway Program is approximately $79,000, and within that, the salary cost
adjustment actually increased in that area.
However, then, with the workweek reduction, there was a 4 percent
reduction. There was also a systems cost reduction, and then there was a
reduction of approximately $73,000 accounting for the largest part of it, which
is an operating reduction. It was an
operating reduction relating to the internal operations of the Gateway
Program. It was an expenditure
management reduction. It was not a
reduction that would affect the individuals or the number of individuals within
the program.
Mr. Lamoureux: Then, quite simply, to the Minister of
Education, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, has there been a decrease in the number of
individuals going through the skills training area?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said to the member, we are expecting it
to be the same. In '92‑93, the
number of participants was 90 in the skills training area, and we are
anticipating that in '93‑94 the number of participants in the skills
training area will be 90. The increase is coming in the industry‑based
area, where in '92‑93 the participants were 40, and in '93‑94, we
are estimating the participation to increase to 50.
Mr. Lamoureux: In looking at the Estimates, I do not
necessarily get that same picture, but it will be interesting to actually go
over I guess it next year.
I
wanted to move on then. Again, just
before we had the vote, last Thursday, I believe it was, we were talking a bit
about literacy and the Single Parent Job Access, and I was going to ask the
minister, under that particular program where we have seen a decrease in the
number of individuals going into the program, if the minister could indicate
why that is.
* (1650)
Mr. Lamoureux: I am not looking for the actual numbers,
because I was given them. It was 754 in
'91‑92; then it went to 730 in '92‑93; and now 701 in '93‑94. Again, the question quite simply is: Why have we seen a decrease in that
particular program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the federal contributions
towards the Single Parent Job Access programming in Westman and Brandon region
have decreased significantly over the past three years from $310,000 in '90‑91
to $180,000 in the fiscal year '92‑93. So in order to ensure a continued
capability to provide programming to single parent social assistance recipients
in all regions of the province, it has been necessary to bring the provincial
contribution levels for the Westman region into line with its federal funding
partner.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will go over that
at another opportunity, but I wanted to get on in terms of literacy, because I
am not going to be here this evening.
Was
the minister looking at bringing in any form of a literacy program in this
area? I know when we were talking about
the motion, the member for La Verendrye or whoever it was was asking about an
idea, and one of the ideas that we have been promoting is to in fact talk about
literacy and see if the government is doing anything in this sector.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the Literacy line where we
were discussing all the literacy projects was the line 4.(f). It is a line that we have already passed in
the Estimates and it has been difficult to go back to areas that have already
been passed in terms of trying to provide all of the answers to the member.
In
the literacy area, if the member is asking, are we looking at a variety of
community‑based programs or programs that would assist Manitobans, we
are. We are looking to keep those
programs going. In fact, on that
particular line, in the actual literacy programming, because the line in fact
is Literacy and another area, there actually was an increase in the funding of
$63,000, so we have maintained the commitment to literacy.
We
have also increased the commitment to literacy, because we have recognized that
those literacy skills are some of the most basic skills that individuals need
to take part in any part of the training program.
That is why, as I have spoken about the
Advanced Education and Skills Training Division, I have spoken about it as a
spectrum or a range of skills, recognizing that at one point, at a beginning
point, the literacy program is important and is necessary.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the reason why I
bring it up at this particular line is I have had opportunities, I am sure the
minister has, in terms of visiting with a number of individuals that are in
fact looking to upgrade their skills. In
many cases you are talking about the single parent.
I
would have anticipated, under the Single Parent Job Access Program, that in
fact there would be a need for some form of literacy training and how literacy
is provided or programming is provided to individuals of this nature that want
to get back into the workforce through a program of this nature‑‑how
is that co‑ordinated between or within the department?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can tell the member
that we have viewed literacy as an important component, and that literacy may
become a component of our COPE program or Career Opportunities in Preparation
for Employment. Staff, as needed, will
be trained in that area in the upcoming year.
I
think that addresses the issue of literacy in terms of the career preparation
that the member has been specifically focusing on.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 4.(g) Employability Enhancement Programs (1)
Salaries $3,936,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $3,719,700‑‑pass;
(3) Human Resources
4.(h) Workforce 2000 and Youth Programs (1)
Workforce 2000 (a) Salaries $980,700.
Shall the item pass?
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we only have a few
minutes, but I am prepared to begin if the minister's appropriate staff are
here. I leave it to the will of the
committee.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Carry on.
Ms. Friesen: I want to begin by looking at one section of
the Workforce 2000 program. That is the
$3‑million allocation to the private training incentives. This is not the sectoral one and not the one
that looks at the payroll deduction tax but the one that looks at training of
small‑scale employers. I wonder if
the minister could give us a breakdown of the types of industries, the types of
employers, the types of companies which have received this money.
I
should put on the record, first of all, that I did receive from the minister a
list of groups which had received this money.
I believe that list went up to November of '92. So perhaps, first of all, I should ask the
minister if there is an updated list to May of '93.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the
numbers of contracts with small and medium businesses, to March 31, 1993, there
have been 1,704 contracts with small and medium businesses. Some of those have included the introduction
of new technologies with computer training, trades training, technology
training, health and scientific training.
Is
the member asking in terms of the specific range or types of industries?
Ms. Friesen: There were actually two questions. The first one dealt with the composite
list. I believe the list the minister
sent me around Christmastime went up to November '92. Is that the case? Is there an additional list, or is there a
new composite list that is available?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The time is now 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour. I am interrupting the
proceedings of the committee. The
Committee of Supply will resume consideration at 8 p.m.
HEALTH
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Health. We are on item 3. Continuing Care Programs
(a) Administration, page 79 of the Estimates manual.
Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
3.(a) Administration (1) Salaries $344,800.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Before I ask a few questions about the
philosophy of the program, I was just noting that under the Salaries section,
when one looks at the Administrative Support in relation to the number of
Professional and Managerial staff that it seems to be a very high ratio, three
staff to four professionals. When you
look through other sections of the department, the ratio does not seem to be
quite that high. Can the minister
perhaps explain why the high ratio?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Chairperson, I am informed that one of
the Administrative Support positions, one of the three, is there as a result of
reorganization and will, at next year's print of the Estimates, be found in
3.(b) for the Administrative Support under the Home Care Program line.
* (1440)
Ms. Gray: Moving on to the philosophy of the program
and when we were last in Estimates, I think if I understood the minister, he
had suggested that there really had not been any change in the delivery of the
Home Care Program with the health care reform, that there did not seem to be a
necessity for a change in the delivery of the Home Care Program. I would just perhaps like the minister to
clarify or confirm if in fact that is what he said.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, that is what I indicated,
that over the number of years the guiding principles, if you will, have not
changed. My honourable friend might
recall the vocal and vehement debates when the "dirty dozen" of the
second opposition party, when my honourable friend was official opposition,
used to accuse government of having changed the policy of the Continuing Care
Programs, and it was to that sense that I indicated the policy had been
consistent over the period of time since the inception of the Continuing Care
Programs.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, so with the advent of the health
care reform, particularly with the beginnings of the reform when hospitals were
aware that major changes were going to occur and that there would be a shift
from hospital‑ to community‑based service, is the minister
suggesting or saying that there was not any change in the Home Care piece of
the program in the community in terms of what the community had to deal with in
regard to home care, i.e., any increases in cases, or any differences in the
complexity of cases, or any differences in the number of days that clients were
discharged from hospital and then were put onto the Home Care Program?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, my honourable friend has
asked a whole series of questions around the Continuing Care Programs. It would
almost stimulate me to give my honourable friend a prolonged answer, but I will
not.
The
assessment criteria for need remain consistent.
The accusation by the NDP from time to time is that we have changed the
criteria to access the program. That is
not accurate. Having consistent criteria under which assessments are made to
access the program, that underpinning principle still remains.
How
are the Continuing Care Programs being utilized today? My honourable friend, if
she analyzes the statistics over the last number of years, probably seven, or
eight, or nine, she will find a fairly consistent caseload. It has not varied a whole lot, but our budget
has been constantly going up, because in answer to one of her questions, yes,
the complexity of care undertaken in many circumstances in the Continuing Care
Programs has been going up, requiring the dedication of more resources. That
has been within the umbrella of assessing needs to consistent criteria.
The
policy has not changed, but the program of delivery, yes, it has changed and
will continue to change and evolve as we move through reform and other dynamics
that impact upon the type of service that the Continuing Care Programs
currently deliver and may well be able to add to and enhance the delivery
capability.
I
do not think my honourable friend would find it any secret that since its
inception, for instance, in some circumstances Continuing Care Program
personnel deliver the home IV program. That is a new initiative over the last
number of years, because it has been found to be manageable in the community
and a cost‑effective program addition to the Continuing Care Programs.
I
want my honourable friend to be very careful in trying to understand the
separation I am making. The assessment
criteria, the consistency of the programs availability across the length and
breadth of
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the minister mentions
consistency of the program and the fact that it has not changed. He also mentioned in the last time we were
sitting here in the spending Estimates that the community‑based home help
services that are now available in various parts of the province, that the Home
Care Program in terms of assessment that should someone need only maintenance or
homemaking services or cleaning services in their home, that in fact those
people are no longer eligible for home care and they are referred to an outside
community‑based service, some type of home help service. Is that correct?
Mr. Orchard: I do not believe it was in this section, but
it was certainly earlier in the Estimates where I indicated that indeed that
was the fact. I went back and explained
that in 1985, the government of the day, through professional advice they had
received, instituted the support services for seniors program which allowed the
establishment and the modest funding of support services for senior groups in
the community, for community resource councils to be formed supported by modest
sustaining grant funding which in essence paid the salary of the volunteer co‑ordinator
in each of those communities.
Now
the mandate of the support services for seniors was a broader mandate than the
Continuing Care Program as one can expect.
There is a variety of program undertaking community by community, but
there is some consistency in a lot of the support services for seniors programs
and the community resource council programs.
Some of that consistency revolves around meal preparation. Some of that consistency revolves around
light housekeeping duties and accompanying with that household maintenance,
window washing, yard maintenance, et cetera.
Now
the objective in 1985 of the support services for seniors was to establish
those community‑based resources by volunteers and, where appropriate, to
offer a range of services not provided by government in most cases, and in some
cases, namely light housekeeping and meal preparation, provided by the
Continuing Care Program to establish those on a cost‑recovered basis
through the efforts of volunteer co‑ordinators in the community.
* (1450)
It
was that program which in 1985, I think, was quite progressive, that led to
very quickly in central western
That program we supported in opposition, and
we continued our support in government.
It has grown and it is much more widely available across the
province. Where available, as per the
rules of introduction in 1985, that where the services of house cleaning or
meal preparation were available by a not‑for‑profit support
services for seniors community‑based organization, Continuing Care would
not provide that service in that the client would purchase that service from
these organizations.
That led to an inconsistency. That inconsistency has been subject to many
questions in this House, where you have heard the accusation that an individual
has had their home care cut back. The cutback is the referral of that client to
a service available through support services for seniors, as was envisioned in
the program.
Now, what we have in terms of this budget is
the inequity, if you will, across the province, where areas that have support
services for seniors, those seniors needing light housekeeping and meals
preparation in those catchment areas served by support services for seniors, do
not receive it through the Continuing Care Programs, access it at a cost‑recovery
basis, consumer‑contribution basis from the programs in the community.
The
decision was made to make that a policy right across the entire Home Care
Program, regardless of whether there were support services for seniors
organizations available, because there has been a growing maturity of
economical light housekeeping and meals preparation services available. We are, in the next number of months, going
to be referring all of our housekeeping and meals preparation Continuing Care
clients to cost‑recovered supplied services. That means the program will be consistent, so
there are not some paying for the service in
Ms. Gray: So at this point in time, there are still
people who are receiving homemaking services through the Home Care Program
because those switches have not been made yet‑‑and the minister is
nodding in the affirmative.
I
am familiar with the nonprofit service for seniors in the north part of the
city, but I am not familiar with what kind of services are available in the
Fort Rouge‑Crescentwood area or in the south part of the city. Can the minister tell this committee what
services will be available for individuals there?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I would attempt to provide
the south Winnipeg, in particular that region of south Winnipeg, support
services for seniors or community resource council presence there, if any, and
provide that information.
Ms. Gray: I am sorry, I did not quite understand the
minister's answer. Is he saying that
there is a support services for seniors council established there, or what
services are in place?
Mr. Orchard: I believe my honourable friend's first
question was: What services are
available? I said I would attempt to
provide my honourable friend with that listing in south Winnipeg, and
particularly the area she referred to, through support services for seniors or
community resource councils, if and where they exist.
Ms. Gray: Then is the minister saying that the staff
who are here are not familiar with what services are available in the south
part of
I
am asking the question because, being the MLA for Crescentwood and the Crescentwood‑Fort
Rouge area, as I say, I am familiar with what is available in the northern part
of the city, but not with what is available in that part of the city.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I am informed that there are
meals programs, but there are no resource councils providing the other related
services in south
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, will the Home Care
Program still be providing homemaking and house cleaning services in that part
of the city, or will the minister be attempting to ensure that perhaps
nonprofit community groups might be prepared to provide those kinds of
services?
Mr. Orchard: The latter is the preferred route and we are
attempting to encourage that, as has been the case for a number of budget
cycles, but to answer the first part of the question: No, the Continuing Care
Programs will not be providing the homemaking and the meals preparation as a
result of this budget cycle.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chair, can the minister suggest to
myself or other members of this House, then, what resources can we be offering
individuals who will no longer be able to receive those homemaking services
through Home Care? What suggestions do
we have for those individuals?
Mr. Orchard: I am advised that the lists of service
providers are being put together now and will be made available in the near
future so that those individuals who have been accessing the Continuing Care
Programs for those services will have some alternatives to consider.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister guarantee me that, in fact,
there will be services available to these individuals who will at some point no
longer be eligible or will not be receiving homemaking services through Home
Care?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I am not sure whether I
understand my honourable friend. To
guarantee the service is up to the individual to retain one from a number of
hopeful service providers that will be available to serve the individual's
needs in south
In
terms of guaranteeing that an individual will access one of those services, I
find it difficult for me to be able to do that.
That is going to be an individual's choice of provider, but the one
thing that we have decided in this budget cycle is to bring consistency so that
there is not the disparity of some receiving services and some not because of
the existence of community resource councils and support services for seniors
group.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chair, I was asking the minister to
guarantee service availability, not necessarily whether an individual would
choose to access a particular service.
The
minister has indicated he is not aware of any lack of services that would be
available to individuals. Can the
minister then tell us, so basically we can indicate to people who live in our
constituency, what services, which groups, which organizations‑‑or
are these private companies?‑‑should we be referring individuals
to, should they no longer be eligible for homemaking services through Home
Care?
* (1500)
Mr. Orchard: As I indicated approximately three or four
answers ago, that is exactly the information that is being developed to be
provided to individuals currently receiving the service.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, what does the minister
mean by being developed? Is he saying
that there is a list of services, he just does not happen to have that here
today? I mean, I am questioning. There seems to be a bit of hesitancy. Is the department, is the minister aware, is
the minister convinced and feels reassured that, in fact, there are those
services out there that individuals will be able to access throughout the city
of Winnipeg and in other areas of Manitoba?
Mr. Orchard: Yes.
Ms. Gray: I am glad the minister is assured. I look forward to seeing that list of
services when he does have that available.
Can
the minister tell us‑‑I know we are not on this section, but it is
related‑‑in regard to the support services to seniors, has there
been an expansion of the types of assistance that the support services to
seniors have been able to give community groups throughout the city to start
developing more of these types of services?
Mr. Orchard: I want to make sure I understand my
honourable friend's question. My honourable
friend asked, have there been increases to individual existing support services
to seniors programs and new ones? Are
those my honourable friend's questions?
Yes and yes.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us what some of those
expansions in programs have been?
Mr. Orchard: If my honourable friend had some specific
group that she was interested in pursuing I would provide the range of services
as best I can that they provide. But, as
my honourable friend knows having some experience with the program, it varies
from community to community, from north end of
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, will the minister, or can
the minister table at some point in this Estimates a list of activities that
the support services to seniors staff within the department have been involved
in, in this particular year what some of their goals are as far as looking at
support services to seniors? Is he able
to table a list of those activities?
Mr. Orchard: I will attempt to provide my honourable
friend with a list of activities undertaken by support services for seniors
programs and community resource programs in general. Is my honourable friend asking me to provide
the specifics for each funded group and what they do, because we can attempt to
do that as well.
My
honourable friend the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) wishes for that
detailed information, and we will certainly be pleased to try to provide that
to both my honourable friends.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the minister talked about
consistency of caseloads within home care‑‑over the last number of
years that he saw consistency and patterns.
Can the minister tell us, within the city of
Mr. Orchard: I will provide that figure rather than an
estimate.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, when the Health
Reform initiative began, did the Home Care Program within the communities not
see an increase in, not necessarily the number of individuals being discharged
from hospital, but the type of case of individual that was discharged from
hospital, i.e., that individuals were being discharged earlier with less of a
length of stay and that in fact their care needs were more complex?
Mr. Orchard: That circumstance was experienced. It has not been in isolation to the reform
initiative launched in the last 14 months, because I think if my honourable
friend tracks the Continuing Care Programs, there has been an increase in the
complexity of care provided for some time.
Ms. Gray: With the minister and the department seeing
those differences, were there any changes that were necessary to make within
the Home Care Program in terms of its delivery or methods of doing operation
because of these differences or these seen changes with the type of people that
were being discharged from hospital? Was
there any necessity to make any changes in the home care delivery?
Mr. Orchard: Lest my honourable friend read into my
answer, and I am reading into her preamble of a significant change in the
approach, et cetera, et cetera, of the Continuing Care Programs, I do not want
my honourable friend to fall into that.
The
program has been evolving and meeting differing, and in some cases, more
complex needs in the community for a number of years. The Health Reform initiative will call upon
the Continuing Care Programs to undertake service provision in, perchance, an
ever increasing fashion. That is
certainly speculated upon and has been the case, although the number of cases
has been relatively consistent over the past number of years.
More importantly, I think, as we move through
a number of initiatives in the acute care sector, and let us focus on that for
a minute, I think there is clearly an opportunity to provide more effective co‑ordination
of services. Certainly that is part of
an ongoing investigation that the ministry has been engaged in for a number of
years that will hopefully lead to more effective use of our current resources. There is a role internal to the hospitals in
terms of a more effective co‑ordination of identifying in advance
services required for early discharge. That is not always a perfect process
because there are a number of players internal to the hospital that must be at
the table providing advice as to what needs they anticipate and when.
There is a series of work or investigation or
meetings or discussions going on to constantly find better ways to manage the
system. Let me indicate to my honourable
friend that the change to not‑for‑admission surgery and shorter
lengths of stay does not always equate to the need for community and increased
Continuing Care services. In some cases
they may, and where that is the case, we are working with the hospitals to
assure that we can undertake those.
There are other management processes within
the hospitals wherein they‑‑for instance, at St. Boniface most
recently had in essence same‑day admissions so that they were able to
significantly reduce, for surgeries requiring admission, the length of stay by
the admission process irrespective of the management of the individual post‑surgery
and any co‑ordination with Continuing Care, and Continuing Care supported
services post‑discharge.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, so I am assuming that the
minister is saying that there was not a necessity for a lot of changes within
the delivery of Home Care as a result of these earlier discharges.
Can
the minister tell us, with the VON services that the department contracts with,
has there been any significant changes in the type of contract that we have negotiated
with VON? Are they still providing
similar types of services to what they have been over the last number of years?
* (1510)
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, the same basic premises
are involved in the contract with VON as have been in the past. The substantive change, I guess, would be in
the cost per service. That went up.
Ms. Gray: Have there been any substantial changes in
the nature of the services with the home orderly service that we provide?
Mr. Orchard: I am sorry, I missed my honourable friend's
question.
Ms. Gray: I was wondering if there had been any major
changes in the nature of the home orderly service, any major changes in terms
of philosophy or criteria for delivering service.
Mr. Orchard: I am advised not, Madam Chairperson, but lest
I give away some negotiating positions, my last answer regarding VON was on the
basis of the last contract with VON where there was an increase in the cost of
service. We are currently negotiating
contract arrangements with VON for this current fiscal year, April 1,
1993. Those negotiations have not been
completed.
Ms. Gray: In regard to the home orderly service, I know
that years ago when this service was a private service and there was a decision
made by the former government about whether to take over this service, that the
internal report suggested government should not take it over, but the
government of the day did at that time.
I
am wondering, just out of interest, has that particular service been looked at
recently? I mean, is it cost‑efficient
for us to continue to deliver that service within government?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, it has been a long while
since I revisited the history around the home orderly service. That is almost stretching my memory and my
longevity here, because I believe that was circa 1978 or so when that‑‑no,
it was prior to 1978, because we were government then and we would not have
ignored a recommendation of a committee as those other rascals apparently
did. I trust my honourable friend is
correct in her statement there. A little
jest there, a little levity.
Since that time, the Home Care Attendant
category of caregiver has been undertaking the home orderly service or what was
known as home orderly service and has been providing those services on an
assessed need to clients for approximately a decade now I guess.
Ms. Gray: I am sorry, I missed part of the last part of
that response, if the minister would not remind repeating it?
Mr. Orchard: I am advised that the home orderly service or
the staff description of an orderly is now encompassed in the duties of a Home
Care Attendant, the HCA category, and that those functions are provided as part
of that caregiver's service provision.
Ms. Gray: In regard to the entire Continuing Care
Programs, decisions were made regarding this budget year for changes within
pieces of the program, and I am referring now specifically to the home care
equipment pool. Can the minister tell
us, there is a depot or there was a depot somewhere out in Transcona or
Mr. Orchard: No to the last question, yes to the first
question.
Ms. Gray: If the minister could clarify, if the depot is
to be shut down, what type of service provision will continue?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, the last question was will
the depot be shut down, to which I responded in the negative. At any rate, my honourable friend and I got
our questions and answers crossed.
The
depot will operate but at a reduced size because of reduced volume of goods to
be provided. It will be from the depot
that we intend to, for instance, maintain the ostomy service provision.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, for individuals then who
will no longer be eligible to receive some supplies through the Home Care
equipment program, will they then be required to purchase supplies basically
from any type of private companies or will those supplies be offered through
the department?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, there is a range of answer
to that. In some cases the individual
may well access those supplies through a pharmacy which they traditionally deal
with or one of the medical specialty supply firms that have a presence in
Winnipeg, and in some cases, depending on the type of equipment, may well
access that equipment at the hospital through the hospital auxiliaries is my
understanding of how a portion of the equipment supplies will be then handled,
with the hospital auxiliaries making available some pieces of equipment under
$50. However, the depot itself will maintain the supply and distribution of any
equipment over $50, for instance, wheelchairs and other sophisticated
independent living aids.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, does the home care
equipment depot buy its supplies from medical supply firms? Is that where the government purchases its
supplies?
Mr. Orchard: Supplies that are provided through the Home
Care equipment division in Transcona, purchase their supplies by tender. It is the lowest tender that is accepted that
meets the specifications of the ministry, and in most cases I think it is fair
to say we have multiple suppliers bidding on the supply of those goods. It is rare in that area of sourcing that we
are down to single source suppliers.
* (1520)
Ms. Gray: Would not then the cost to a consumer having
to now purchase his or her equipment be more than what it obviously would have
cost the government because government probably purchases in bulk and purchases
by tender as opposed to the individual consumer going out and buying supplies?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, in some cases there is no
question that is probably the case. In,
for instance, the purchase of medical equipment under $50, these are often one‑time
purchases of a variety of independent living aids and yes, under the program as
it existed, there was absolutely no cost to the individual but, of course, cost
to the taxpayer. There will be
additional cost to the consumer in two ways, i.e., they now purchase and they
will purchase at a higher price than we purchased at because they are
individual rather than bulk purchasers.
However, factored into the operation of the depot, of course, were
staffing costs which we did not charge back through but was part of the process
of supply.
That is why, in terms of the ostomy program,
we maintained the presence of central purchasing in Transcona because we
considered a number of options based on what other provinces have their
programs. If my honourable friend wishes,
I can share that with her now, or if you want to get into the ostomy program at
a later date in this line that would be fine as well. But we maintained the central purchase
function of ostomy supplies, to do exactly as my honourable friend indicates,
to keep the consumer price down basis the leveraged, or the volume or the large
buying power of the province. For
smaller items under $50, it was not as if it was in most cases an ongoing
supply requirement; it was often a one‑time purchase. We made the decision to have those one‑time
purchases sourced in the manner that I indicated.
In
some cases if they are purchased in tandem with discharge from hospital,
hospital auxiliaries have the opportunity, or pharmacies, or medical supply
firms in the
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the minister used the
example of some of the one‑time purchases, such as the independent living
aids. Can the minister tell us what
would be the approximate percentage markup that consumers would be paying for
some of these supplies?
Mr. Orchard: I cannot give my honourable friend a sense
there. I think it can vary. One might
make the case that now, with an increased volume of purchase, that, indeed, the
cost may come down. So I do not have a
sense for that, but it will be, I would expect, more cost than, for instance,
our acquisition price, although we never factored into our acquisition price
the business costs of supplying them such as inventory, warehousing, staffing,
personnel, et cetera.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, perhaps the minister could
tell us when the decision was made to make changes in the policies surrounding
home care equipment and who was eligible for it, et cetera. What factors went into the analysis of this
decision?
Mr. Orchard: First of all, Madam Chair, let me indicate to
my honourable friend that we were facing very difficult financial circumstances
this year in preparing the budget.
As
my honourable friend knows, last year the federal government estimate of
transfer payments reduced, in year, $120 million. That carried over into the base‑line
funding provided by the federal government for this year, $120 million down,
and the population adjustment on transfer, I think, removed another $50 million
or $70 million. I forget the number. We came into this year very severely
constrained, in terms of projected support of funding from the federal
government. Our revenues that we were
projecting,
The
difficulty that we have in planning a budget is the fact that‑‑and
I do not say this politically, this is a reality‑‑the
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the
Chair)
As
you can gain in that reconciliation a year or two after financial year end, so
you can lose if certain economies and provincial economies in
So,
No. 1, we had to make some difficult decisions.
In making those difficult decisions and in trying to come to some
consistency of approach across the provinces, we took at look at what other
provinces had done. Several other
provinces have implemented a user contribution, a consumer contribution for
equipment in terms of their home care and independent living programs. Generally, those provinces that had
introduced charges did so at approximately the $50 threshold.
We
emulated those policies and brought in the policy to Manitoba where we would
ask for the individual to purchase those independent living aids on their own,
rather than have them automatically supplied free of charge as they had been
for a number of years, not only in Manitoba, but I think in other
provinces. It was a financial drive that
initiated this investigation and, secondly, a comparison of other provinces to
get us with a program that has some consistency with the approach taken in
other provinces.
I
think that we might be criticized for introducing a charge for these supplies
to individuals needing them or using the services that were formerly provided
free of charge, but on the other hand, we did not remove those dollars from the
budget. The cost savings we left in the
program only with an ability to invest them into more care activities. So on the one hand we can be critical of
making the decision, but on the other hand it was in an effort to expand the
resource pool that was available in very difficult financial times to provide
continuing care services to Manitobans who may well need those services.
* (1530)
I
recognize that there are those individuals who do not agree with the policy decision,
but we were deliberate in making it at $50 or less because the tendency is, in
general, that those items which cost $50 or less are items that are quite
readily available. In other words, they
are fairly common items.
They are, as the definition of the change
indicates, lower‑cost items, and from that standpoint, if one wanted to
take an assessment of retail pricing margins, I think with a greater number of
suppliers of those products, you tend to see the marketplace make the ability
to generate large margins not there so that we have some assurance that on the
lower‑cost items the marketplace competition keeps margins fairly close.
It
was for that reason, as well, in terms of cost to the individual, but also
availability of supply, that we maintained in house the supply of equipment
items that are over $50. We think that
in difficult times, we have probably made a series of decisions that are
probably the best that can be made in terms of facing difficult financial
challenges, but yet maintaining the integrity of the Continuing Care Programs
to serve more needs in the community.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, in asking the
minister about how were decisions made in regards to the budget of the
department, he has basically indicated the government faced very many tough
choices, No. 1; and secondly, that in this particular example, the Home Care
Equipment, they looked at what some of the other provinces were doing and
decided to emulate that.
Can
the minister tell us, did his department, did they do an analysis on any of
these budget lines in terms of what the impacts would be of any changes to the
programs? Was there any analysis done?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, there was analysis done in terms of what
the best estimate of budgetary cost would be and that sort of initiative. There was some analysis done as to how other
provinces dealt with the issue. If my
honourable friend has further questions, she will pose them.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us how many dollars
have been saved as a result of this change to the Home Care Equipment program,
and where in the budget has that amount of dollars, where have they been put
into, another section, as the minister indicated?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, we are anticipating
some million dollars of reduced expenditures by changing the program in this
fashion. As I indicated earlier, in
terms of the global budget within the Continuing Care Programs as my honourable
friend can see from appropriation 3, in terms of the Home Care Assistance
budget, you will find that last year's expenditure of $62 million had a million
dollars of equipment at $50‑and‑less costs incorporated in it. That has been removed, and we have in
essence, if you wanted to be technical, a $61‑million base line going in
and we have added some $2 million.
In
other words, what I am saying to my honourable friend is that we have not taken
that million dollars and reduced it from the budget of Continuing Care. We have left it in there to enable us to
provide more purchase of assistance, if you will, rather than purchase of
medical equipment, et cetera.
Ms. Gray: The amount the minister referred to under
Home Care Assistance, $62.081 million, was that the budgeted amount for Home
Care Assistance for '92‑93? (interjection)
Do
you want me to speak louder? Can we turn
off the air conditioning for a while? I
am having trouble hearing. (interjection) Thank you, Mr. Acting Chairperson.
I
had asked the minister, he referred to the '92‑93 expenditure amount of
$62.081 million under the Home Care Assistance and indicated that in this
year's budget, that is where the million dollars had gone. Can the minister clarify for me, that $62.081
million, is that the amount that was budgeted last year for Home Care
Assistance or is it the number of dollars that was actually spent?
Mr. Orchard: I am advised that we budgeted $62 million
last year.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us what we actually
spent under Home Care Assistance?
Mr. Orchard: $62.081 million.
Ms. Gray: So other than the‑‑well, less
than a $100,000, the Home Care Assistance budget was not overspent last year?
Mr. Orchard: That is my understanding, Mr. Acting
Chairperson.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, one other question
before I turn it over to the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), in regard to
the Home Care Equipment and the changes, have individuals or clients been
notified about this change in policy, or will they be?
Mr. Orchard: As of July 1, both the ostomy, and I
understand there has been communication around the ostomy program, and as of
July 1, appreciate the policy will change on the equipment under $50 and as
assessed needs for individuals needing equipment come in they will be informed
of the new policy.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): An Order‑in‑Council has recently
been passed appointing an interim director of the Home Care Branch, Marilyn
Robinson. Can the minister indicate who
Marilyn Robinson is replacing and why?
Mr. Orchard: That is an interim placement for, I believe,
six weeks as stated in the Order‑in‑Council. That individual is filling the current
director's position, when the current director is working with the APM group in
terms of the Home Care portion of the APM consulting contract.
Mr. Chomiak: Could the minister indicate whether that
project's agreement, specifically the Home Care one, has been signed yet
between the Home Care and the government and/or Connie Curran?
Mr. Orchard: No.
* (1540)
Mr. Chomiak: The minister has indicated that they have
taken the million dollars in savings from the Home Care Equipment program and
that money has been channelled back into Home Care or Continuing Care. We also have, presumably, savings as a result
of the elimination of the homemakers service and, presumably, that has been
channelled back into Continuing Care and Home Care. The minister has indicated $1 million will be
"saved" from the Home Care Equipment program. How much is "saved" from the result
of the elimination of the homemakers program?
Mr.
Acting Chairperson, at this point I simply want to see where the realized
savings from the removal of these two programs are going in terms of delivery
of Home Care and/or Continuing Care services.
Mr. Orchard: Page 55 in the Supplementary,
subappropriation 21.3(b) Home Care Assistance, where it goes to $63,187,500,
you have to appreciate last year's figures included $62,081,000. We have made the adjustments in terms of
ostomy and in terms of the housekeeping and meals preparation were the sole
service and in terms of the Home Care Equipment under $50.
Those
are reduced from the last year's budget which, if we were to just maintain even‑steven
program year over year, the $62 million would be less by those three
areas. Instead we have an expected
increase in Home Care Assistance to $63,187,500, and all of the program
reductions, because we are asking for the individual to make at least partial
contribution to the program or, in some instances, entire contribution, then in
those dollars which we spent last year that are now going to be picked up by
the individual accessing the program have not been removed from the Home Care
budget. They have been left in and they
will be used to purchase additional units of service, often, as has been the
trend in the last several years of the program, at a greater level of intensity
in some cases as we move through earlier discharge and other initiatives.
As
I indicated earlier on in a response to my honourable friend the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), just two or three or so years ago we did not undertake,
for instance, home I.V. through Continuing Care. We do now, and that is a more costly program
undertaking than, for instance, Home Care Assistance service provision.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the minister
initially indicated, or in a response to a question from the member for
Crescentwood, that there was approximately $1 million saving in terms of the
Home Care Equipment program. Do I have
that correct? It was a million
dollars. So that being the case, on a
straight arithmetic calculation, if last year's expenditure was $62,081,000,
then the elimination of a million‑dollar program would have taken last
year's expenditures down to $61,081,000.
What I am trying to find out is what the
number is for the savings for the other two programs, that is the $50 user fee
that is now being charged and the elimination of the homemaker services that
are now being picked up by support services to seniors at the cost of the
person who receives the service.
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend, I do not know whether I
am making this complex or whether it really is complex. I do not think it is. We made some budgetary decisions. The combined effect of those budgetary
decisions is going to have just about a $4‑million, or thereabouts,
impact on the program between housekeeping and meal preparation and the
equipment side.
The
equipment side is not a consistent, all we do is best estimates. But we have some sense that the household
maintenance aspect and the meal preparation, where it is a sole service, is a
$3.5‑million projected cost to the program in a comparable figure to last
year, so that between $3 million to $3.5 million, between the two, we
anticipate that between those two decisions there is roughly a $4‑million
reduction. If we took and did not have
those in last year's, our expenditures would have approached $58 million.
So
if we are comparing last year with this year in terms of even‑steven,
now, there is going to be some slip because appreciate that those figures I
gave my honourable friend are on an annualized basis and we are into the year,
what, three months, so we are going to achieve three‑quarters of
that. If we could just forget about the
fact that it is partway into the year that some of these are coming in, the
difference year over year is approximately $4 million.
Instead of removing those $4 million from the
program because the consumer is paying for them, we maintained the budgetary
commitment and increased it.
So
my honourable friend, this is where, when we got into the earlier discussions
around the budget, I indicated that we reinvested those dollars back into the
program. We are going to purchase now,
on behalf of Manitobans assessed for needs, when you add the increase of $1.1
million and some of the budgetary adjustments of $4 million, approximately $5
million more services this year, year over year, in services.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, well, let us look at
that then. The minister said that they
are going to purchase about $5 million more in services this year. That implies an expanded or an increased or a
more comprehensive kind of programming.
Can the minister outline for me, and I am just going to add a little
preamble to that, where that $5 million is?
* (1550)
I
want the minister to know that I appreciate the process. They went into
budgetary. They went into the budget and
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) approached the minister and said, look,
the federal government, et cetera‑‑I have heard it many, many times
from the minister‑‑we need these cuts. Treasury Board submissions went in and said
we are going to cut and eliminate this program and save X amount of dollars and
the money is going to go to blank.
I
am trying to fill in where that money is going to, where those blanks that saved
dollars are going to, where is the increase?
Is it increased resource co‑ordinators? Is it increased Home Care co‑ordinators? Is it an increase in the IV program, is the
volume of people under the IV program going to be increased? Are we taking in a wider range assessment of
Home Care recipients now that there has been a shift from institutional‑based
to Home Care services?
Where is that extra $4 million to $5 million
units of service? Where is that service
going to be, or is there an expanding demographic population upon which it is
based? Where are those four to five
extra millions of dollars that are going into the system going to show up?
Mr. Orchard: In terms of services provided to clients with
assessed needs.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the minister has said
that, but I would like the minister to outline for us statistically or on some
kind of databases where that extra service is going to appear. The minister appears quite certain, and if the
minister wants to come back later tonight with that data, I am prepared to
accept that. Is the minister prepared to
do that, to come back and say yes to me and the member for Crescentwood (Ms.
Gray), this is where that extra service is going to appear?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I almost hate to say,
in response to my honourable friend's question, but probably a combination of
all of the above in his preamble to his second last question. I mean, that is where the system is going.
It
will be some additional services quite possibly purchased because of earlier
discharge from hospital. It could quite
possibly be additional services purchased to maintain someone living
independently for a longer period of time in their home. That is what has been
happening in the program and will continue to happen.
If
we have an opportunity to advance new concepts in terms of service provision
through the increased hours of co‑ordination at the hospitals that will
be part of the equation of increased purchase of services.
As
simply as I can put it to my honourable friend, we made some difficult
budgetary decisions. No one is arguing
that, I think right across the length and breadth of
I
know my honourable friend sort of says he has heard it a hundred times from me
and from the Finance minister (Mr. Manness), et cetera. Well, he would hear it in
Under ordinary circumstances, and when we get
to the hospital line my honourable friend will see that we are reducing the
commitment of budget to hospitals. That
hospital budget line is down. It is a
straight reduction in the budgets of hospitals.
In
this line we have made a series of decisions which we have explained. They have the reduction effect annualized
equivalent, $4 million, okay? This year,
if we achieve three‑quarters of that basis nine months experience then
that means the actual reduction will be $3 million cash flow this year. That would mean that the budget ought to read
$59 million this year, but it does not because we left those dollars in the
program.
In
other words, the cost recovery goes over to the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness). The Minister of Finance then
puts the money back into the Continuing Care Programs, so that we have an
increase in the budget this year which is in part an absolute increase over
last year and a reinvestment of divested program costs that the individual
consumer of the program or client of the program is now picking up and either
writing a cheque to the Minister of Finance, as the case may be, or purchasing
the service direct, so there is no revenue to government but rather just no
cost to government, and we are replacing that cost with budgetary commitment to
increase the purchase of Continuing Care services.
I
cannot make it any more generally simplified than that, but surely my
honourable friend would have to admit that if we were to take the three‑quarter
annualization of the budgetary reductions, the budget ought to print $59
million. It has not. It has printed $63
million. That is why I am saying to my
honourable friend we have a significant commitment and increase to this program
this year.
Mr. Chomiak: We have $4 million that are now being paid by
the citizens of
If
I look through this appropriation, Mr. Acting Chairperson, we all know in the
health care field the vast majority of expenses, for example, are
personnel. Let us just quickly canvass
the staff years. In Administration the staff
years are from seven to seven. In Home
Care the staff years are down, from 35 to 33.
In Home Care Assistance, it is interesting, direct service workers are
down from 46,661.4 to 46,598.5. In Long
Term Care the service workers are the same, and Gerontology the staff years are
the same. So the years are down, so
where are those savings now?
As
I peruse the budget and I look through Home Care Assistance details, I note
that Expenditures on Supplies and Services, for example, are up close to
$900,000. There is a $900,000 increase
in expenses on supplies and services.
There, I found an increase. Is
that one example, and can the minister give me others? Can he explain to me what that increase is,
and is that part of the increase he is talking about, because I have just found
it in the Estimates?
Mr. Orchard: I think my honourable friend is partially
catching on, and I want to tell my honourable friend that the numbers that I
think he is talking about are individuals but not hours of service. It is units of service that are going up, and
that is what I am telling my honourable friend is the nature of the
reinvestment of resource into more service.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister give me the breakdown from
last budgetary year for the hours of service versus the breakdown of hours of service
this year, where he is anticipating the hours in service to increase this year
to demonstrate where those increases are, and could he also answer my question
about the increase in supplies and services under Home Care Assistance detail
of about $900,000?
* (1600)
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend hops along like a frog
on a hot tin roof.
I
am just wanting to make sure that I see where he is getting some of these
quoted figures from. I do not want to
give my honourable friend any information, but you know, we got into this
debate last year when my honourable friend said there were only going to be
20,000 Manitobans receiving home care services when he was right except he was
wrong except that he forgot to read the line two above whereas 24,000 Manitobans
will receive home care services. The
20,000 was home care equipment. We
corrected that.
What I will try to do for my honourable friend
is give my honourable friend a concept of the number of hours that we expect to
purchase year over year. Number of hours
is units of service. I will caution my
honourable friend‑‑and here is where I do not have maybe all the
answers my honourable friend wants to receive.
I
just want my honourable friend to think about the Home Care Program. There are a number of staffing people who are
of varying training classifications, I guess would be the way to put it. They are hired on a casual part‑time
and some full‑time basis.
If
you take the hours of service that one individual‑‑and let us say
it is a home care assistant who worked for eight hours last year per week. That is one person delivering service. If that person then is a good worker, et
cetera, and her supervisors have placed more service delivery with that
individual and her hours go up to 24 hours per week, that is one person
delivering 24 hours, and maybe she is now taking some of the hours provided by
individuals who have left the program, so there could be one person delivering
the services of three people last year.
That is why my honourable friend cannot go on his people numbers. Units
of service is reflected by hours.
I
will try to give that to my honourable friend so he has some greater sense.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the minister, as
usual, did not answer the questions.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Oh, yes,
he did. I heard him.
Mr. Chomiak: Well, the member for
On
page 57 of the Estimates, under Schedule 8, it says Direct Service Workers,
Estimates of Expenditure 1993‑94 $46,598,500 down from the year previous
of $46,661,400, that is down, Direct Service Workers. That is not staff years. That is dollars paid, presumably, regardless
of hours worked, which would then connote that direct service workers are being
paid less this year under the Home Care budget than last year. So we now know that part of that $4 million
in increased expenditures to the Home Care, Continuing Care section are not
going to direct service workers.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, my honourable friend
cannot leap to that conclusion, as much as he would like to, because some of
the changes in the program, as it has been in other years, is where a lesser‑hourly‑wage‑paid
individual can undertake the work, that is the individual that is put in.
Sometimes you see a substitution of, for instance, R.N. nursing with LPN
nursing at a lower cost, or LPN nursing replaced with health care aides or home
care attendants. Where that is the case,
the service is still being provided as required by the individual but at a
lower salaried cost, but the individual is still receiving the needed care.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the minister is
saying that it is possible, though not necessarily the case, that there will be
more service provided to individuals under that appropriation item because it
might be provided by lesser‑paid individuals. I will accept that for the purpose of the
minister's argument.
Let
us accept that for the purpose of the minister's argument, and let us say there
are more and more lesser‑paid individuals in the Home Care system who are
providing the service and therefore service is expanding. Let us accept that for the sake of the argument. The minister cannot say that part of that $4‑million
saving therefore is going toward direct service workers since it is down from
last year, not up. It is down in actual
numbers.
I
go back to my original question. Where
is the $4 million in increased service?
Mr. Orchard: I missed my honourable friend's latter part
of his statements and questions.
Mr. Chomiak: If one accepts the minister's argument, for
the sake of an argument, that in fact lesser‑paid individuals are
providing the same amount or an increased volume of home care service for less
money, which is clearly the case in overall expenditure, where is the $4
million being spent in increased service that the minister has indicated is
happening?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, that is exactly what
will happen throughout the year with the program, and as we move and reinvest
in the system, we expect to provide services of units that are growing in terms
of number.
Mr. Chomiak: It is clear the minister is not going to
answer the question, but I will even help the minister out. I will give the minister a hand here. Under Supplies and Services there appears to
be an increased expenditure of over $900,000.
Is this one of the examples of the increased service‑‑this
is helping the minister to make his argument‑‑and what is it?
Mr. Orchard: We will provide that information to my
honourable friend as quickly as we can dig it out for him, so he knows where
the Supplies and Services line will be going.
Let
me give my honourable friend a couple of statistics, and one of them is going
to be a preliminary estimate for the year‑end March 31, 1993, so my
honourable friend gets a sense of the units of service tracking and
expenditures. In 1985‑86 we
provided 2,858,400 units of service, and I have to expect that is a rounded
figure. In each of these years there was
an accompanying increase in the program cost and Home Care expenditures. I will just give my honourable friend the
units. It was 3,574,200 in '86‑87.
In '87‑88 it was 3,678,400. In '88‑89 it went down to 3,398,800; and
then back up. I indicate to my
honourable friend, we have debated these Estimates in previous years, that was
a time when there was a significant wave of new support services for seniors
come in, so there were a lot of individuals throughout the province whose
housecleaning, house maintenance and meals services were removed as units of
services provided directly by the Continuing Care Programs and moved over to
support services for seniors.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
In
'89‑90, the number of service units went up again to 3,501,200; in 1990‑91,
it increased to 3,833,600; in '91‑92, it is 3,989,200; and the estimate
that we have for this year, we were at 3,681,600 to January 31, 1993, and we
are estimating some 600,000 to 650,000 units of service in the last two months
of fiscal '92‑93.
So
somewhere around 4.3 or, say, 4,250,000 units of service were delivered last
year. If my honourable friend wants to
get an estimate in terms what units of services we expect to provide next year,
I will provide that information.
Mr. Chomiak: You will provide that information at some
future date, or does the minister have that information?
Mr. Orchard: We are putting that together, because you have
to appreciate that part of the units of service from last year include
housekeeping and meals preparation as units of service.
* (1610)
I
would suspect that we are going to purchase fewer units of service because of
the budgetary decision to have all housekeeping and meals preparation at the
client's expense rather than partially provided. You will see a drop similar to the drop that
I explained between '87‑88 and '88‑89, in terms of service
provision in terms of units. But, at the
same time, the program costs are expected to increase as I have indicated to my
honourable friend, so we will provide that.
The
Supplies and Services line that my honourable friend questioned earlier, the
increase is largely the Victorian Order of Nurse and hospital co‑ordination,
in terms of supplies.
Mr. Chomiak: This process, together with the air
conditioning, is sometimes confusing.
Did the minister indicate it was 4.250 million units of service
estimated for '92‑93?
The
minister is nodding in the affirmative, and the minister has stated that he
anticipates there will be a decrease commensurate with other decreases as a
result of the shift from the home support services.
The
minister indicated about a $900,000 increase in expenditure for VON and supply
services. Can the minister give me a
breakdown as to where he anticipates those increases and why?
Mr. Orchard: Yes.
Mr. Chomiak: Will the minister provide those figures to
us?
Mr. Orchard: I believe I already said yes.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, with respect to the home
equipment supply program the minister indicated a cutoff of $50. What happens
to an individual who requires say a $35 item and a $25 item, do they have to
purchase each of those items individually, or does the total of $50 exempt them
from having to pay anything beyond the initial $50? In other words, what happens when it is two
items at below $50? The minister I think
knows the flow of the question.
Mr. Orchard: No to the last part of the question, and yes
to the first part of the question. It is
individual item less than $50.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, so I can conclude from the
minister's response that if an individual came home from the hospital and
required four items all under $50, the individual would have to pay for all of
those four items under $50.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I am at a loss to be able to
answer that for my honourable friend unless he could specify four items that
this hypothetical person might be requiring upon discharge from hospital. I am at a loss to provide my honourable
friend with a clear and definitive answer to his hypothetical question.
Mr. Chomiak: It is not a hypothetical question. What is the government policy with respect to
the $50 user fee that you are now charging on home care equipment and supplies
with respect to a number of items that might exceed the level of $50?
Mr. Orchard: We are not charging anything for items under
$50. We are no longer supplying them.
For items over $50, we are supplying them free of charge, and that
policy is for items under $50.
Mr. Chomiak: So it is clear from the minister's response
that if an individual required three or four items all valued under $50, that
individual would be required to pay for all of those items. Is that correct?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, if those items were valued at
less than $50 that would be the circumstance, but before my honourable friend
starts creating hypothetical circumstances, my honourable friend ought to
investigate what those circumstances might be. One could go so far as to say if
a person needed 100 items all valued at less than $50 to live independently,
would they have to pay for each of those 100 items? The answer would be yes, but the point is
that the supply of equipment less than $50 is no longer going to be undertaken
as part of the Continuing Care Programs.
Items above $50, your high‑cost, single‑ticket items, will
continue to be provided within this current budget.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister table a list of inventory
items that are presently offered by the Home Care Equipment and Supplies
program together with their values so that we can determine which items are now
going to be supplied as in the past, what items individuals will now have to
pay this fee on?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, Madam Chair.
Mr. Chomiak: The minister indicated that Home Care and
Continuing Care are evolving to meet the more complex cases that are developing
within the community. Can the minister
statistically provide us with information and details to show how the program
has evolved and where he anticipates the program evolving?
Now
let me give you an example. Does the
minister have statistics and data, for example, that indicates we will be
having to accommodate X amount of individuals in the community who have certain
complex kinds of medical needs that were not required in the past because they
were maintained within a hospital, or data along those lines? Are X amount of individuals that require IV
services that were not required in the past, because we are now discharging
patients earlier and they can have the home IV service, that kind of data?
Clearly, the minister must have it because of
his statements and because of his indications where the program is going. I must assume that he has this data and can
provide us with this information so we could ascertain as to where Home Care
Program has evolved from and where it is evolving to.
* (1620)
Mr. Orchard: If my honourable friend is wanting to have
exact numbers as to what we expect in each category, I remind my honourable
friend that what we are debating right now is Estimates. I think the term "Estimates" ought
to be considered by definition. These
are the best expectations of expenditure to meet needs that we currently have.
Some of it may well be an increase where the
individual is deemed to be an appropriate candidate for home IV. That may well be part of the increased
service demand. It may be an increased
service demand for home oxygen therapy because that program has been one of
expanding scope in the last number of years.
But, as with all other areas of the ministry,
we do not have a good sense as to how predictable these increases may well be,
but as a general statement of where the Continuing Care Programs has been
going, clearly, it would be one that says we have been dealing with
increasingly complex needs in the Continuing Care Programs since its inception
in '74.
We
expect that with changes in technology like the miniaturization of home oxygen
concentrators and more consumer friendly, if that is the appropriate
phraseology‑‑Madam Chair, it is not a precise science to give my
honourable friend specifics that will give him comfort and ease, but I do not
think my honourable friend in any way can say that the Continuing Care Programs
is not and has not been and will not continue to provide services in the
community of greater complexity as the process of evolution in health care
continues.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister give me
then a region‑by‑region breakdown of the recipients of home care by
region last year and this year projected?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I think that is what we
discussed earlier, and I agreed we would try to provide.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister give me the total of staff
years allocated to case co‑ordinators in home care for this fiscal year?
Mr. Orchard: Does my honourable friend want
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, if possible, I would like
it broken down by region if it is at all possible; if not by region then by
Winnipeg and outside of Winnipeg; and if that is not possible, certainly the
province.
Mr. Orchard: Okay.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister also
provide the breakdown of resource co‑ordinators as well as providing the
breakdown of the Home Care Attendants?
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Kildonan, would you
please repeat your question?
Mr. Chomiak: In fact, I will not only repeat my question,
I will expand it. Can the minister
provide the same data for resource co‑ordinators, for Home Care
Attendants, for LPNs and for VONs?
Mr. Orchard: I think I can do that.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate
how long the response time is in Continuing Care to place service from the
hospital to the program?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, that can vary depending on
circumstances, particularly individual circumstances within the respective
hospitals. Generally, I think service
placement is accomplished in quite short order, but if there is not within the
hospital a mechanism for advanced planning with the physician and others who,
as one can understand, need to have some input into the care plan for the
individual upon discharge, if there is not that input well enough in advance‑‑we
can get, for instance, a request for service at ten o'clock to be in place by
noon, and we are unable to do that‑‑but where we have some
reasonable advance time, our ability to provide those services is reasonable.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister give me a
range as to what those time frames are and perhaps a breakdown by region as to
what the differences are in terms of the range across the province and the
range in terms of the usual to where the extreme might be with respect to
placement?
Mr. Orchard: We will try to give my honourable friend that
indication.
My
honourable friend asked, now, I do not have the breakdown by region but I will
give my honourable friend the global breakdown in terms of Continuing Care,
seven regional co‑ordinators, 11 program supervisors and 128.15 case co‑ordinators. That is for the ministry.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson‑‑(interjection)
That is the entire province. I
understand that from the minister.
My
assumption is that figure in fact corresponds to similar figures in the past
five or six years, so there has not been any expansion in terms of any of those
positions. The minister is indicating
that is the correct assumption.
The
minister, therefore, will also be providing us with figures on the VONs, the LPNs,
as well as the response time for Continuing Care, so I will then, on that
assumption, go on to another question.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, my honourable friend
wanted to have the‑‑now this is not exactly what he wants, but this
tells him what he wants. If it is not
what he wants, well‑‑
An Honourable Member: You are making an assumption . . . .
Mr. Orchard: You are right. I should not make that kind of an assumption.
The
first statistic is the homemaking, and it is the average monthly number of
persons receiving services. For '92‑93,
the last fiscal year, the projection was 5,576.
We do not have any reason to believe that would vary, but for '93‑94,
we are expecting that to go down to 3,635 as a result of the decision to remove
homemaking as sole service.
Now, let us do the next one with homemaking so
that we have homemaking all at once. The
next figure I am going to give my honourable friend is the hours provided by month
on average for homemaking, projected '92‑93 to be 93,683, projected for
'93‑94 with the budgetary decision to be 61,066. That is homemaking.
Let
us go to the Home Care Attendants, the HCAs next. The projected number of persons receiving
those services last year was 6,508. It
is projected to go up to be providing services to 7,236 individuals on average
per month this year. In terms of hours
of service provision, that goes from a projection for last year of 202,975 to
increase in hours of services on average per month to 225,756. So the number of people receiving Home Care
Attendants will increase as well as the number of hours of home service
provision.
* (1630)
We
have another category which is overnight or daily, in other words the prolonged
presence in the individual's home or apartment.
In terms of numbers of individuals receiving that care on average per
month, that was 211 last year. We are
projecting it to be 189 this year. In
terms of hours of service, last year's projection on average per month was
23,748. We are projecting it to be
21,326 this year.
Now
let me move to the next category in terms of registered nursing. Registered nursing is projected to serve an
average number of persons monthly in the past fiscal year of 849. We expect this year that the projection will
be 930 individuals on average per month receiving registered nursing
services. That will lead to a projected
increase from average monthly units, which is generally an hour of
service. Last year it projected at 7,812
increasing this year to 8,561.
The
next category is LPN, where last year's projection in terms of numbers of
persons on average per month receiving the service was 702. This year we are projecting 689. In terms of hours of service, a slight decrease
from an estimate of 4,492 last year to 4,410 this year.
The
next group of care providers I want to give my honourable friend is the
therapies, where last year the projected number of clients on average per month
receiving services was 530. We are projecting
a modest increase to 538 individuals per month with an accompanying modest
increase in hours of the therapies per month increasing from 1,272 last year to
1,290 projected for this year.
The
last category which my honourable friend has asked about is the Victorian Order
of Nurses. In that area we are expecting
a modest increase from last year where we projected the utilization to be 3,222
people being served on average per month to increase to 3,339. We expect the hours of service in this area
of care provision to increase on average per month from 21,586 last year to
22,371 this year. (interjection)
I
will give Home Care Attendant both in terms of number of people served,
okay. I will repeat the Home Care
Attendant ones. Home Care Attendants,
the projection for last year‑‑because bear in mind we have got the
projection around 4,250,000 to 4,300,000 service units all up‑‑we
are projecting that on average per month, 6,506, I think it is, number of
persons will be served per month. That
will increase, and that is the largest area of increase. We are projecting an increase to 7,236
individuals receiving Home Care Attendant services. That will increase the
projected number of hours for Home Care Attendants from a projected utilization
in terms of units of service on average per month this year of 225,756. That is an increase of approximately 23,000
hours per month of increased utilization.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank the minister for these statistics
because they, therefore, provide us with a tangible basis to see where the
department is projecting the potential need for increased service in the Home
Care field. Quite clearly, there are two
areas that jump out at me. I know that
the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), as well, will want to spend some time
on these statistics.
The
first is the fact that the minister is projecting on a monthly basis that the
amount of people receiving attendant services will be increasing by at least
700‑‑person on average per month, which is relatively significant. I will get to the other issue in a second, but
I am wondering on what basis roughly the minister is making those projections.
Mr. Orchard: It is in terms of what we expect to be the
assessed needs. We are not changing the
methodology of assessment. We expect
that will be the assessed needs that we expect to have to provide in this
current fiscal year.
Mr. Chomiak: The other interesting statistic is the
overnights which appear to be going down.
I am wondering, just by definition, I would think as a layperson, that
those perhaps might have a requirement to go up, not down. I am wondering if the minister might just
sort of outline for me the details of that.
Mr. Orchard: First of all, let me give my honourable
friend a bit of history so he does not, maybe, conclude that this thing is
trending. The '91‑92 actual
figures on overnight were 160 for instance, and then our projection was it
would increase to 211 and soften back down to 189 is what we are estimating
this year.
We
are projecting, in that area, some increases for the next year, like '94‑95. We have initiatives in terms of respite,
where there will be additional opportunity for respite care, which we think
will take pressure off this area and some additional capacity in general in the
Long Term Care area of service provision.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, where does the minister
see the increase for respite care? Where
will we see that increase?
Mr. Orchard: In some of the personal care home programs,
there is an opportunity for increased respite, and we can provide that
information to my honourable friend when we get to that area of the program if
he wishes.
Mr. Chomiak: Just changing track slightly, can the
minister indicate whether or not the regulations with respect to the increase
in personal care home fees have been released and, if not, when the minister is
anticipating their release?
Mr. Orchard: I do not know how all of a sudden we slipped
from Home Care to personal care homes, but‑‑oh, the honourable
member indicates he has to go. Well,
that is okay.
* (1640)
They will be coming out shortly. They have not been finalized. We expect to have them finalized in the near
future, and from thence we will communicate with the personal care home
administrators for their co‑operation in implementing the new program.
I
cannot say how much information has been given by individual personal care home
administrations, but there has been some indication, at least in a number of
the long‑term care facilities, that a new series of charges, means‑tested,
will be implemented this summer as sort of an advance warning of program and
policy change that is coming to residents.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, yes, as I indicated to the
minister, I have another meeting. With
20 minutes left in the Estimates' hour I am turning over questioning to the
member for Crescentwood to allow her to have some questions. We have been dividing it up on that basis
because of a meeting that I am forced to attend in about two minutes.
Perhaps the minister can advise me as to what
methodology and what approach will be utilized by those nursing home
administrators to determine how people will be means‑tested in order to
determine the fee increase.
Mr. Orchard: Yes, I will.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the minister gave us an
example of the overnight and daily and why the number of persons receiving that
service might decrease from last year to this year. Certainly, the explanation
of increased respite beds made sense.
I
am wondering if the minister could tell us‑‑I suppose we could
assume some answers‑‑but with the R.N.s, the projected number of
hours in R.N. service appears to be projected that it will see an increase as
well. Can the minister indicate to us
the reason for that projection increase?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I am simply advised that
it is the best estimate the division can put together, reflective of
anticipation of greater levels of care requirement for those who are receiving
care under the program. It is their best
guess, and I think a similar answer would follow from the projected and
anticipated increase in VON as well.
Ms. Gray: Could the minister tell us why there is a
projected decrease in hours and in number of persons who will be served by
LPNs?
Mr. Orchard: It is the best estimate we have in terms of
care needs in the program that are normally managed by the LPN. I indicate to my honourable friend that that
is a very slight decrease for this year, I think a total of 250 hours per
month, if I have my numbers correct.
Just to give my honourable friend some sense of our projections beyond
this current fiscal year, we are expecting to have a fairly significant
increase from 8,500 to 9,500 in the next fiscal year. So it is our best estimate in terms of what
hours of what type of care that we anticipate within the given year. They are projections to the best of our
ability or as we created the Estimates.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, does the minister happen
to know how many‑‑or is this the information we are receiving this
evening because I am not sure‑‑staff years are utilized by
individuals who are licensed practical nurses?
Mr. Orchard: In terms of within the Continuing Care
staffing complement, not the delivery component‑‑(interjection) Oh,
direct service, oh, okay, you read ahead then.
In
the Continuing Care staffing breakdown there are 13.5 SYs, LPN. That is consistent year over year. That is in the staffing complement total of
778 that‑‑I better not lose that.
In terms of the LPN, the average monthly number of persons anticipated
to be receiving services projected last year, 702; projected for this current
fiscal year, 689; hours of service projected last year, 4,492; projected this
year, 4,410; a decrease of 82 hours on average per month.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, of that 13.5 SYs utilized
for LPNs, does the minister happen to have the figure as to how many
individuals are employed, and I know they are not necessarily employed full
time, but the 13.5 SYs, how many individuals would that be?
Mr. Orchard: We will have to provide that
information. I am advised that we are
pretty well staffed to full complement there.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us if those number of
SYs, if that is an increase or decrease from last year, or is that constant?
Mr. Orchard: I indicated in my answer previous that it was
consistent with last year, same SY complement.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us if there are, with
some potential changes possibly to Home Care which we are not aware of, or if
there are any, if there will be other opportunities, other than within this
type of service, for LPNs to find employment?
Other than any type of vacancies that might come up within the 13.5 SYs
allocated, would there be other opportunities for LPNs in the community?
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend, we have been discussing
in the last little while, like our best projection in terms of accessing‑‑let
us deal with hours of service by LPNs.
We are projecting a modest decrease for this year, based on the best
projection we can make in terms of acuity of service delivery and the
appropriate match of staff with that client need. That is an 82‑hour projected reduction
per month on an average basis, with that to increase fairly significantly in
anticipation of next year's care needs.
This
year it would appear, if our projections are accurate, that there is a
relatively stable requirement for LPNs in terms of Continuing Care direct‑service
delivery. There is no anticipated change
internal to the department in terms of the 13.5 SYs.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, perhaps the minister could
clarify for me then, where there will be opportunities for LPNs to seek
employment, particularly those who may have been laid off, or might be laid
off, from places such as St. Boniface Hospital.
Mr. Orchard: Well, bear in mind that within the Continuing
Care Programs, we are anticipating a level requirement, but let us go beyond
the Continuing Care Programs. Let us
talk institutional services and let us talk in particular the long‑term
care division.
Now, the ministry does not mandate the
retention of any particular trained personnel to deliver care. We require staffing to standards of care
delivery based on hours and need, et cetera.
If I can project my honourable friend's speculation‑‑now I
forget what the name of the personal care home was, but just about, what, six,
eight weeks ago, there was a great concern that was raised by members, not my
honourable friend but members of her party and others in opposition, about the
loss of employment by a number of registered nurses at a given personal care
home.
* (1650)
If
I recall the circumstances there, the personal care home management were
restructuring their staffing patterns and were replacing, if my memory serves
me correct, some registered nursing staffing with licensed practical nursing
staff. So that represented an
opportunity.
Again, that is variable. I mean, we do not say that you must employ
any given type of trained professional, so the management of each facility
makes those kinds of trained staffing or staff training or whether it is an
LPN, an R.N. or a B.N. or a nurse's aide, et cetera. They make those decisions internally but must
meet our requirements for standards of care.
I
want to indicate to my honourable friend that later this year, possibly as soon
as November, December, we will have staffed up some of the personal care home
beds in the northeast quadrant of the city.
There are 240 under construction right now, and although I cannot give
my honourable friend numbers, I would speculate that there will be job
opportunities in those personal care homes for a number of staff who are either
graduating or laid off or seeking change of career. I would speculate‑‑and please do
not ask me to quantify, because I simply cannot‑‑that those
facilities will probably be retaining as part of their staff and complement
LPNs, so I think there are opportunities there.
The
organization has gone through some very difficult times in the last number of
months, particularly on the acute hospital side where there appears to be an
emerging trend of staff restructuring which would bring in R.N.s and nurses'
aides as the staffing mix. That
certainly, I think, was most recently evidenced in the St. Boniface restructuring
announcement that was made about a week ago today.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the reason I asked that
question‑‑and I do not have the Hansard in front of me‑‑but
I had thought that the minister had indicated the other day in Question Period
that there would be opportunities for LPNs in the Continuing Care
Programs. Perhaps I was mistaken in
terms of his response in the House.
Mr. Orchard: Yes, there may well be, because we are
maintaining our level of service commitment in the LPN within a few hours, down
very, very slightly. That is not
necessarily a fixed identified individual or group of individuals providing
that care. Those service opportunities
are there, and with staff turnover they represent potential opportunities.
In
addition to that, clearly I think there is opportunity for the LPN in the long‑term
care division with the expansions that are under construction right now in
terms of the northeast quadrant of the city of
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, just on that line of LPNs,
I know the minister had talked about a committee that was looking at retraining
opportunities. Is it possible for the
minister to be specific about what that committee has accomplished and what
type of retraining or other job opportunities might be available? I am particularly interested in the
retraining opportunities.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I am going to have to go back,
although this is not the appropriate staff to revisit that issue, but I will
attempt, for instance, to provide my honourable friend with some of the access
by LPNs subject to layoff of retraining, refresher and entry into the R.N.
course at, for instance, St. Boniface to give my honourable friend some sense.
Ms. Gray: Just to clarify, in some of the discussions
that we have had earlier today, the minister had indicated that under Home Care
Assistance, the base line, the department has managed to keep that base line,
and with the changes to programs such as home care equipment, decreases in the
homemaking services that we are providing to some clients, that there has been
a $4 million saving in the department in those areas which are going to be used
in the Home Care Assistance. Now, am I
correct in that statement?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, that is where I was trying to
indicate to my honourable friend the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) that had
we simply taken and removed from the budget those approximate $4 million of
cost reductions, because we are charging for medical supplies under $50 and we
are not providing single service housekeeping, homemaking or meal preparation,
then the program would have reflected a lower level of activity, period. That is not the case, and that is where I
think my honourable friend can see that there are some significant increases in
terms of this anticipated service provision that we are anticipating being part
of next year's program.
All
of them are refocused on a more costly and more intensive level of service to
reflect a shift away to meeting needs of increasing acuity in the Continuing
Care Programs. That was the nature of the
presentation around average number of persons receiving services monthly and
the anticipated hours of service on average provided monthly this year compared
to last year.
Ms. Gray: The minister has kindly provided the average
number of hours of service per month as well as number of persons receiving
that service, particularly for the projected figures for '93‑94. Can the
minister, for the eight o'clock sitting, provide the accompanying dollars that
would be spent that would accompany those average hours per month for each
category, R.N., LPN, et cetera, not, of course, for last year, but for '93‑94?
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour.
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
* (1700)
IN SESSION
Committee
Changes
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas with
his committee changes.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Economic Development be amended as follows:
the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) for the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli); the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for the member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen); the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman).
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Prior to private members' hour, I believe the
honourable government House leader has some information for the House.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): House Business, Mr.
Speaker, I move, with leave of the House, that both Bills 11 and 13‑‑Bill
11 being The Regional Waste Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; and Bill 13 being The Manitoba Employee Ownership
Fund Corporation Amendment Act be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on
Economic Development and transferred to the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave to transfer Bills 11, 13 as he has indicated? (agreed)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to move that
Bill 18 come out of the Standing Committee on Economic Development, and it,
too, be referred to the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave to withdraw Bill 13 and Bill 18 from the Standing Committee on
Economic Development and transfer them to the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments? Also, leave would be
required to transfer Bill 11 from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs
to the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, just before
we grant leave, could you tell the House what Bill 18 is? It is not on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: Bill 18 is The Corporations Amendment
Act. Is there leave? (agreed). It has been granted.
Mr. Manness: Then I would like to call Law Amendments
committee to deal with these three bills, and it will sit on Thursday at 7 p.m.
in Room 255.
Also, possibly tomorrow I may give an
announcement to the House that Bill 14, the Minister of Justice's (Mr. McCrae)
bill dealing with securities, may also join that committee on Thursday night,
but at this point it is not.
Mr.
Speaker, I would also like to announce that the Standing Committee on Economic
Development will consider Bill 22 tomorrow morning between the hours of 9 a.m.
and 12:30 p.m. in Room 255. Similarly, that same committee will sit Thursday
evening from 7 p.m. till 12 a.m. to consider Bill 22.
Similarly, that committee will sit on Friday
afternoon between the hours of 1 p.m. and 5 p.m., also to consider Bill
22. All of that is to occur in Room 255.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
Mr. Manness: The final change is, then, that Law Amendments
on Thursday evening will then have to come into Room 254.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Speaker: Now the honourable member for Gimli with your
committee changes.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee
on Privileges and Elections be amended as follows: the member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme) for the
member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for
the member for
I
move, seconded by the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the composition of
the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the
member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst); the member for
Motions agreed to.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution
35‑Gloria Ulip and Leonora Panis
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
WHEREAS approximately 5,000 immigrants each
year participate in the federal Department of Employment and Immigration
program known as the Live‑in Care Program, formerly known as the Foreign
Domestic Program; and
WHEREAS the Live‑in Care Program
requires the domestic worker to reside in the employer's residence; and
WHEREAS by two separate letters dated May 30,
1992, the Department of Employment and Immigration instructed Gloria Ulip and
Leonora Panis to leave Canada because they were in violation of the "live‑in"
clause with their respective employers; and
WHEREAS Ms. Panis's employer consented to her
living outside of her residence while she was receiving cancer treatment; and
WHEREAS Ms. Ulip entered into an agreement
with her employer upon arriving in Canada that it would be desirable for her to
live outside the employer's residence due to space restrictions within that
residence; and
WHEREAS at one time the Live‑in Care
Program did allow domestic workers to reside outside the employer's residence
if there was mutual consent between the employer and employee; and
WHEREAS Ms. Ulip and Ms. Panis will be subject
to deportation by December 15, 1992, unless the Minister of Employment and
Immigration intervenes on their behalf.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba strongly urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration
to reconsider his decision not to intervene on these two cases or alternatively
allow Ms. Ulip and Ms. Panis to remain in Canada until the Federal Court of
Canada has made a decision on the two cases; and
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Minister of
Employment and Immigration and the Prime Minister of Canada; and
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Minister of Culture, Heritage
and Citizenship to report back to this House with a progress report.
Motion presented.
* (1710)
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it would probably be most
appropriate to comment in terms of the timing of this particular
resolution. Given the rules that we have
to follow as legislators, when we have an issue and because it works on a draw
system, unfortunately we were unable to debate this resolution when, in fact,
if it had passed, we might have been able to do something in particular for Ms.
Ulip, but it is still not too late in terms of Ms. Panis.
I
wanted to go over the two cases, and I feel that the Chamber does have some
responsibility in the sense that if you take a look at immigration and the ways
in which governments have been negotiating to try to get more controls or more
influence in immigration matters and so forth, whether it was through the
Charlottetown agreement or bilateral agreements between province and the
Government of Canada.
Mr.
Speaker, these two particular individuals, I believe, have attempted the best
way they could to try to be able to rectify a problem that they had gotten
themselves into by talking to immigration officers. I wanted to review their cases.
First I want to talk about Ms. Ulip who had
come to
She
had come to
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is also important to
point out, in fact, that this particular domestic worker was given a warning
and it was suggested that she should move back into the employer's home. Again, this is something in which the
employer and the employee had discussed in terms of, well, we have been given a
warning, or she had been given a warning, and what does he think, and yes, he
was willing and quite prepared to make some room but felt that it would be most
uncomfortable for all those involved. Ms. Ulip decided that for the sake of the
family and herself, there would be nothing wrong with her to continue working
for the employer, but residing outside of the home.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the rules are
somewhat clear here. In my review of the
case, the only thing that I could really find was that the old regulation used
to say that if there was an agreement between the employer and the employee,
that in fact the worker would be allowed to live outside the residence. This is
something in which I understand Ms. Ulip's lawyer had brought up with the
Immigration Department, but felt that there was nothing really that could be
done.
Now
the reason why I believe it is important that this issue be dealt with inside
the Chamber is because it does not just affect one or two individuals. There are a number of foreign domestic
workers that do in fact live in the
When I look at it, Mr. Speaker, I find that it
is somewhat unfortunate that you have, at one point in time, the opportunity,
because I do a lot of constituency work with immigrants, and I can understand
and I can appreciate the burdens. In
many cases they are very easily intimidated.
If in fact they feel that it is in the family's best interest not to
live there, they will in fact, if persuaded or suggested, live outside of the
home. Where there is an employer and an
employee agreement, there is a case to be made with respect to allowing the
domestic to live outside of the home.
In
Ms. Ulip's case, she never missed work in over two and a half years with this
one same employer, was there from morning till night and so forth. You know Immigration was fully within their
regulations to in fact deport her, but I want to talk about the broader issue
on this particular case. The broader
issue, of course, is why is it we feel that a domestic worker has to be forced
to live in the home when in fact the employer and the employee both feel that
there would be mutual benefit for the domestic worker to live outside of the
home?
The
other case is a case in which I believe the individual has been done an
injustice, Mr. Speaker, and that is, of course, Ms. Panis. Ms. Panis is an entirely different case. She is a live‑in domestic worker, had
received breast cancer. Once she was
receiving treatment for the breast cancer, she was feeling very sick and going
through chemotherapy, the employer and her decided that it would be in the best
interest for her to live outside of the home until, at the very least, the
chemotherapy treatment is over and other potential treatments that might be
required. It was estimated that she
would have to live outside the home for six months.
Well, when Immigration found out that she was
living outside of the home, the department took a very hard line and had
written her a letter saying that she was being ordered to leave
Even if in fact, Mr. Speaker, a domestic
worker and any other domestic worker that is currently here was in the same
circumstances, the Immigration department does allow for compassionate reasons
for a domestic worker to live outside of the employer's residence. Of course, one would have to ask if this is
not, in the case of Ms. Panis, a legitimate compassionate reason as to why she
should not be allowed to live out of the employer's home, I do not know what
would be.
Now, Immigration and I have had a number of
different conversations. I know in fact
the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) is aware of
these two individuals. We have had the
opportunity to be able to speak.
* (1720)
Again, Mr. Speaker, one could say this is a
federal issue and maybe the Member of Parliament, or the concern should be
brought up in
You
will find that this is an area, in terms of the domestic workers, where I feel
that there is very much so a number of individuals who are in that particular
program who do need to have strong representation and would encourage the
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship to look at this particular
program and to evaluate what has been going on in this particular industry,
because it is an area in which there still is demand in the province for
domestic workers.
I
believe that there is a responsibility of this minister to be able to represent
and to defend those individuals who are being impacted by decisions that are
being made or at least make representation on their behalf in
With respect to Ms. Panis, I believe that the
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, if the will was there to act on
Ms. Panis's behalf, that in fact this is an individual who would not go back to
the Philippines where she happens to come from.
If we take a look at both of these individuals, Ms. Ulip and Ms. Panis,
both of these individuals have contributed to Manitoba's society for a number
of years and really have not done anything wrong and have been very productive,
like many other immigrants who come to Canada, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, do
deserve at least the attention of the minister, if for no other reason the fact
that the problem is still there. We are
talking about the impact on hundreds of Manitobans who are in
I
have had many different opportunities to speak to different organizations and
they talk in terms of barriers, and I know the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer)
has too. There are barriers that are put
down or put in place, and these are areas which I believe that the Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship should look at. It is a significant barrier that is there for
domestic workers and it is a significant number of people.
I
believe that, if the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs.
Mitchelson) did take a firm stand on it, Mr. Speaker, we would in fact see some
sort of results. I know back in
December, when I was trying to get this resolution bumped so that we would
actually get it discussed in time before Ms. Ulip in particular was being asked
to leave, there was will inside the Chamber in the discussions that I had with
the member for Rossmere and the Minister of Culture, Heritage, and Citizenship,
we were, at least it looked like, two hours away from getting the leave that
was necessary, at least from the three of us, to allow this resolution to come
to the top of the Order Paper, to allow it to be debated before they both, Ms.
Ulip and Ms. Panis, had to leave.
Now, the Minister of Culture, Heritage, and
Citizenship had indicated to me that she had in fact been able to get something
done for Ms. Panis. That allowed Ms.
Panis to stay at least until the end of January at which time she would review
it. I do appreciate the work that the
Minister of Culture, Heritage, and Citizenship did there.
Because I know that the resolution is
outdated, what I would rather like to see is a commitment from all parties
inside the Chamber to look at this particular program, and to do what we can‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
I
want to begin by commending the member for
It
is not, in my view, something that can be dismissed solely in terms of being
federal jurisdiction and not dealt with seriously by this Chamber, because it
is an area that affects very much this province. It affects the livelihood of many
individuals. It has serious
ramifications for what our society will look like in the future and what degree
of tolerance, understanding and respect will be present in the years to come.
I
find it interesting that we have had to deal with‑‑and the member
for Inkster particularly has had to deal with specifically‑‑the
case of two individuals who, in my estimation, have been caught in a trap of
regulations and red tape and bureaucracy for little purpose, except perhaps to
make it that much more difficult for people from other countries to come to
this country and contribute to the economy and make a living and consider
Canada as a future homeland.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
Interesting that we deal with that kind of
situation, and that kind of bureaucracy around individuals who are committed to
working here, who are doing their jobs, who are not doing a disservice to this
country, who have arrived at reasonable agreements with their employers in
terms of their working arrangements.
Interesting that they find that kind of problem, that we see these kinds
of obstacles in this situation when, in fact, this government, our federal
government and with clear support from the provincial Conservatives, is
prepared to embark upon a very questionable area, a very questionable route of
handing out entry into this country on the basis of dollars. I speak specifically of the Immigrant
Investor Fund. Interesting, and consider
the scandal that has rocked this city and this province over the last number of
months around the Immigrant Investor Fund.
Is
it not interesting that we have governments prepared to endorse a program that
says if you have $250,000 to invest in this country, you are guaranteed landed
immigrant status, no matter whether or not that money actually produced jobs,
went into real investment projects, was up‑front and of total integrity
and honesty every step of the way.
Interesting, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the priorities of the government
here and the government in Ottawa that is prepared to allow people to buy their
way into this country, but put up all kinds of needless barriers to people who
want to genuinely contribute to this country, use their talents and help people
here in this country.
Let
us look at the specific examples and juxtapose them once more. In the case of the two individuals brought to
our attention by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), two people from the
Philippines, they came here under the Live‑in Care Program, a program
that recognized the need for sponsoring individuals involved in domestic care,
recognized the demand on the part of some Canadians for that kind of service
and recognized the interest on the part of individuals from other countries
wanting to provide that service and make that contribution, and for all intents
and purposes did exactly what the intent of the program was set up to do,
provide the service, provide full‑time ongoing care for children of
families where parents are working and need that kind of support.
Yet, over two technicalities these individuals
ran into enormous barriers and were threatened with deportation and, throughout
it all, it never made any sense. It
never made any sense. In the case of
Leonora Panis, as the member for Inkster has already pointed out, here is an
individual who ended up being diagnosed with cancer and in order for her own
health and well‑being and with the consent of her employers, felt it was
best to live outside of that home while she was receiving cancer
treatments. In the case of Gloria Ulip,
it was through mutual agreement with herself and the employers that it was felt
that it would make more sense if she lived outside of the employer's residence.
*
(1730)
Yet, those were the grounds, those were the
reasons for the consideration of their deportation. It is quite unbelievable when you consider
that underneath it all, there was no wrongdoing, there was no dishonesty, there
was simply the intent to provide the service and to be good participating
members of Canadian society. Yet, on the
other hand, we have the Immigrant Investor Fund with the likes of Bob Kozminski
using taxpayers' money to track business deals that end up being no more than
the paper they were written on, allowed to sell entry into this country for
$250,000. Where is the decency and the
fairness in our immigration policy that this kind of discrepancy occurs and
these kinds of clearly misplaced priorities result?
Mr.
Acting Speaker, let us look broadly at the Conservative government's approach,
whether it is provincial or federal, to immigration and settlement in this
country. We once prided ourselves on
being a country that received and welcomed people from all over this world,
regardless of their background, regardless of the circumstances they found
themselves in in their homelands. We
welcomed those individuals in. We had an
open‑door policy, and we knew that kind of immigration to this country
was good for
Recently, we have seen the philosophy of
Conservatives of this country deal quite a horrible blow to immigration policy
that has resulted in a change in our very open‑door policy. What is it about this government and
Conservatives today that are so intent on keeping out ordinary folks who want
to really work and contribute in this country but are open to dubious investors
and people buying their way into this country?
Where are their priorities?
Why
do we have a federal government right now making changes to immigration policy
that will make it harder for families to bring their parents and grandparents into
this country? Why is family
reunification at the bottom of the list of priorities for this government when
it comes to immigration? Why has this
government turned its heart and soul and mind away from refugees from many
countries who need our help and need openness and responsiveness to their
situations? Why do we have a government
following along the lines of these, what would seem to be, fairly rigorous,
often silly, regulations around the Live‑in Care Program? Why do we have a government that is requiring
two years more education for domestic workers?
Why is the federal government‑‑and apparently with the
support of these provincial Conservatives‑‑considering requiring
domestic workers to have 12 years of education before they can come into this country
and work as domestics?
Let
us just look at that kind of requirement in the context of individuals and
domestic workers from the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, the examples we could give are numerous. We could go on and on
with the unfairness, the injustice, the lack of rational approach to the whole
area of immigration policy. It does not
make sense.
What is most serious of all is that
We
have, in the past, been nonjudgmental and willing to make
So,
Mr. Acting Speaker, at the bottom of this resolution involving two individuals,
Gloria Ulip and Leonora Panis, who are from the Philippines, is a much bigger
question, a broad policy issue that requires our serious consideration.
I
would hope that as this resolution states that this government would take a new
approach and a more enlightened position with respect to immigration and
settlement and do some active work with their new leader, Kim Campbell, who has
suggested that she is representing a new change in the party and in the
government. She talks about
inclusiveness.
Well, if this new leader, if the Conservative
Party of Canada and if the Conservative government of Manitoba believes in
inclusiveness, then they will start with the immigration and settlement policy
here today, because that is truly the mark of seriousness and an indication of
how serious Conservatives are with respect to inclusiveness.
So
we urge the Conservatives today to take that message of inclusiveness when it
comes to immigration and settlement and speak to their leader, Kim Campbell,
and to restore
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and put
a few words on record regarding the resolution brought forth by the member for
I
would like to just point out, before I speak about the resolution, a bit in the
reference made by both the member for
* (1740)
I
have had the great opportunity over the last while to become exposed, to become
part and to become friendly with a fair amount of individuals within the
Filipino community, because here in Winnipeg, particularly in Manitoba, we are
blessed with one of the largest percentages of Filipino communities within
Canada outside of Toronto. I believe
that
They bring forth a very strong work ethic, a
very strong involvement in contributing to
Here in
In
fact, a lot of times we use the word mosaic.
We use the word Manitoba tartan, in a sense, but I like to think of it
in a sense of something like a salad bar where you have various degrees of
ingredients, if you want to call it, in a salad bar, each with their own individual
flavour, their own individual characteristic and their own individual
contribution to the end product. It
seems that in
In
regards to the resolution brought forth by the member for Inkster (Mr.
Lamoureux), I would just like to put forth regarding the two individuals who
were at the time involved in Canada's Foreign Domestic Workers' Program. The Foreign Domestic Workers' Program was
replaced in April of 1992 by the live‑in caregiver program which is a
labour market program addressing this specific type of shortage, namely the
live‑in caregivers. This
immigration admission program was very unusual for it exists for only one
reason, to meet a shortage of live‑in caregivers in
Mr.
Speaker, members should be aware, there is not a shortage of general domestics
in
The
program's primary focus is to assist employers who need live‑in positions
such as housekeepers, companions, domestic servants, babysitters, children
nurses and parents' helpers. There are three main requirements to qualify as a
participant. The first is successful completion of the equivalent of a Canadian
Grade 12 education. This is to ensure
that those who apply for permanent residency after two years will qualify for
jobs in the general labour market.
The
second originally proposed that six months full‑time training in the
field or occupation related to live‑in caregiving be required. This has been amended after consultation with
the provinces and the concerned groups to include equivalent work experience
now. The third criteria is the ability
to speak, read and understand either French or English.
Since 1987, this program and its predecessors
allowed approximately 1,470 foreign domestics to enter
An
interested employer submits a request to hire a live‑in caregiver at a
Canada Employment Centre in
Applicants are then interviewed in their own
country to determine if they are eligible for the program. The applicant must meet the requirements as
previously stated as well as a medical and a background check. If these are satisfactory and the
requirements are met, the visa is issued and the employment authorization is
provided. This is valid for one year and
then renewed for a further year.
The
employment authorization is valid for only one employer. If the live‑in
caregiver wishes to change employers, they must inform Employment and
Immigration officials and can only do it with the permission of the
department. Again, this is a requirement
where normally employers and employees know the requirements and the conditions
of the program.
The
caregiver is obliged to live in the household for the duration of the
employment authorization, is able to take courses to upgrade and prepare
herself or himself for the general labour market and to change employers if
necessary once Employment and Immigration Canada is informed and concurs and
has 24 out of 36 months of sustained continuous full‑time employment.
Mr.
Speaker, I do not want to focus on the two individuals identified in the motion
as I believe they are an exception to the rule.
The vast majority of the live‑in caregivers follow the terms and
the conditions of the Live‑in Caregiver Program to the full extent. Having met with representatives of such
groups, I know that they seek to ensure that everyone complies with the same
conditions. Live‑in caregivers are
eventually able to be landed and, if they choose, seek other forms of
employment.
Mr.
Speaker, it is possible to construe this issue as a debate over the
exploitation and devaluation of women and their work. However, such a position has the effect of
diverting our attention from the real issues at stake. Under present immigration legislation there
are procedures and regulations available to protect the rights of
individuals. This process has been made
available to two individuals in question.
They were provided with the right to appeal their removal before the
federal court. One would assume that
they have the right to remain in
This is a federal program and provincial
governments are not in the position to be given all of the facts necessary to
review each immigration case. However,
this government is interested in the general policies and the regulations which
impact on our role in immigration and settlement matters and their impact on
residents in this province.
I
am advised that the individuals involved have followed due process and have
benefited from legal counsel advocated on their behalf. I am further of the understanding that one of
these individuals has chosen to leave
* (1750)
Mr.
Speaker, I believe, as
With that in mind, I must move an amendment to
the motion brought forth by the member for Inkster, and, at this time I move,
seconded by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) that Resolution 35 be amended
by deleting all the words following the first "WHEREAS" and replacing
them by the following:
WHEREAS since 1987 the Foreign Domestic
Program and the Live‑ in Care Givers have allowed approximately 1,477
foreign domestic workers to enter
WHEREAS the Live‑in Care Giver Program
requires the domestic worker to reside in the employer's residence; and
WHEREAS by two separate letters dated May 30,
1992, the federal Department of Employment and Immigration instructed Gloria
Ulip and Leonora Panis to leave Canada because they were in violation of the
"live‑in" clause with their respective employers; and
WHEREAS it appears that the program guidelines
were not understood by both the employers and the employees; and
WHEREAS Ms. Ulip and Ms. Panis were subject to
deportation by December 15, 1992, unless the federal Minister of Employment and
Immigration intervenes on their behalf; and
WHEREAS the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship has written to the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration
on their behalf; and
WHEREAS Ms. Ulip has already returned to the
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba recognize the work of the Minister and staff of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship in resolving this case; and
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship urge
the federal government to implement a process whereby live‑in caregivers
and their employers understand the terms and conditions of this program, and
ensure the integrity of the Live‑in Care Givers Program is maintained.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member's amendment is in
order.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise briefly to
say that I followed the debate with interest and I am aware of the
circumstances surrounding this case. I
think that the circumstances surrounding Gloria Ulip and Leonora Panis's case
is very typical of what can develop in regard to a number of immigration
matters.
I
had a case recently, which I am pursuing now, of an individual that had applied
for immigration status, gone through all the necessary steps, and, in the
meantime, because of the delay, had become married and was very concerned about
the impact that could have on his immigration status.
There are a lot of people that, through technicalities
and interpretations, live in fear because of our immigration laws. I do believe it is important to have
sensitivity to the particular circumstances, as I indeed are pursuing now on
behalf of this one individual because I feel it is immaterial that he became
married in the meantime. It had no
impact on his application and certainly should not be a question for now, but
there are many people who are afraid, Mr. Speaker, out there because of the
interpretation that is provided. I do
wish that when we debate this particular resolution, we recognize that fact.
I
have known a number of people who have been live‑in caregivers, to call
it the official title, and I know the difficulties that have arisen related to
the circumstances. I do think it is a program
that could do with some review in terms of the degree to which certain
regulations are followed, and, in this particular case, it is a clear evidence
of that.
I
do believe that, in the 1990s, it is a program that applies across the
world. There are similar programs in
many other countries.
I
think the strictness of interpretation can be a major problem for some of the
individuals under this program and can lead to exploitation. I have, as I said, known people individually
who have gone through it. I have known,
in one case, of one individual, as I mentioned, able to obtain landed immigrant
status, and now is a permanent resident of the country, outside of this
particular program. I know the concerns
she went through.
So
I would say, it is an interesting resolution.
I do not think it is necessary, in this particular case, to do the usual
Conservative thing and pat people on the back.
That was not the point of the original motion.
Whatever work the Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship has done will certainly stand on its own right, Mr.
Speaker, so I am not sure if we really need this particular amendment, but it
is certainly something that we could consider.
I
know that the original mover of the original resolution has a number of
comments, so I will defer to him, Mr. Speaker, in terms of what he might wish
to add on the amendment.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, very quickly, I just wanted to
make note the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) talked about the Grade 12
equivalence, the six months full time, and the requirement now for them to
speak English or French.
The
English or French is not a problem, but the Grade 12 and the six months
are. That will prevent individuals‑‑he
made reference to 1,400 people that came to
In
terms of Ms. Ulip, she was asked to leave.
If she did not leave, she would have been deported. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is the
amendment for Resolution 35, as moved by the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer). Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Order, please. The question
before the House is: Shall Resolution 35
be amended? I can dispense with that?
(agreed)
All
those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, I just want the House to indicate that it was on division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Is
it the will of the House to call it six o'clock?
An Honourable Member: No, the motion as amended.
Mr. Speaker: The motion as amended. That is passed. There is not the will to call it six o'clock.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, my
understanding is we were voting on the amendments, so there should have been a
following vote on the motion as amended.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, let us do it that way, again, now.
Now, the question before the House is on the
main motion, as moved by the honourable member for
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt that motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
All those in favour of adopting the resolution as amended, please say
yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, not wanting to say that the Yeas
apparently do have it, but let it be known that it was on dvision.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
The
hour being 6 p.m., I am leaving the Chair with the understanding that the House
will reconvene at 8 p.m. in Committee of Supply.