LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
June 22, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to
report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the
Supplementary Estimates for Manitoba Housing and
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister
of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table three
reports; the first one, the Milk Prices Review Commission 1991‑92 Annual
Report; secondly, Manitoba Pork's Twenty‑Eighth Annual Report 1992; and
the Faculty of Agriculture,
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the
'93‑94 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for Industry, Trade and
Tourism.
]
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 42‑The
Liquor Control Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 42, The Liquor Control Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la reglementation des
alcools et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, 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 table the message.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
* (1335)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Workforce
Reduction
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy
Premier.
Mr. Speaker, there are reports today we
have heard for some time. Decisions are
being made at Manitoba Hydro and by the government of
I would like to ask the minister
today: What will be the actual reduction
in the workforce announced by Hydro today, and how many of that workforce will
be reduced through layoffs?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for The
As it relates to the detail, Mr. Speaker,
I can inform the House that the board of directors and management are meeting
with the head of the workforce, the representatives of the workforce, at
Manitoba Hydro today and will be making a public release later on today as it
relates to the management of
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, last week or the week before, the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) released a document to the public of
I would like to ask the minister: Did he approve the plan that Manitoba Hydro
will announce today, and is it consistent with the economic framework announced
by the Premier to have jobs, high‑quality jobs, as the No. 1 priority for
the
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, jobs are extremely important to
the
As part of the overall strategy, Hydro
will play a major role, unlike the decision made by the New Democratic Party
when they were in government, who, when faced with having to make some
efficiency decisions as it related to the Manitoba Telephone System, put an
employment program in
Mr. Doer: This is a very serious issue. The minister did not answer the
question. I asked the question to the
minister, did cabinet and the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro approve
the plan that Manitoba Hydro will be announcing today, and is it consistent with
the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) policy, the so‑called policy, that jobs would
be the No. 1 priority, that high‑paying, high‑skilled jobs in
I would ask the minister again: Did he as minister responsible approve the plan
which will be announced at Manitoba Hydro today?
* (1340)
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, Manitoba Hydro
is operated by a board of directors and by management. I have been informed in a general way as to
what is, in fact, taking place. It did not require legislative or Order‑in‑Council
approval. It is a decision made by an
appointed board and by management.
Our economic development plan, Mr.
Speaker, is unlike the windshield‑wiper approach of the Leader of the
Opposition, when he referred in July of 1988 to how he was going to do
everything to try to make sure the decision was made to continue on with
Conawapa.
Then following that, in May of 1989, here
is what he said, and I will quote directly:
All of our supporters, meaning the NDP, believe in the priority of the
environment over‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I
am wondering if the minister perhaps did not hear the question. He certainly is
not answering it, and our rules do indicate that while it is the prerogative of
the minister not to answer a question, the comments should deal at least with
the matter raised.
I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you
would ask the minister to come to order and address the very serious question
asked by the Leader of the Opposition about the jobs at Manitoba Hydro that are
going to be lost today.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised, I remind the
honourable minister that answers to questions should be as brief as possible
and should not provoke debate.
Bill 47
Consultations
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, in 1985, the Pawley government
appointed a landlord and tenant review committee of which I was a tenant
representative.
Security deposits held in trust were a
major issue. Fortunately, that was addressed in The Residential Tenancies Act
which received all‑party support in this Legislature in 1990. Now, under
Bill 47, the security deposit in trust provisions have been totally withdrawn.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Which
tenant groups and which tenants did she consult before drafting this
legislation?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to debating
this with the member when we go to committee on this bill, because I think
there is a great deal of detail we could go into, even if we were to take time
to do it here now today.
I should also point out to the member
something he knows very well because he was a member of that committee. One of the things tenants and landlords
jointly requested was a compensation fund, which we have now set in place,
which gives far greater protection to tenants than any trust account ever could,
that virtually guarantees the return of a security deposit to tenants.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister
if she will admit that this is caving in to pressure from landlords because
they want this money for their cash flow.
They do not want to protect it for tenants.
This minister listened to landlords and
not to tenants. Will she admit that?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I find the member insulting and
I do intend to discuss this. I will be
giving second reading tomorrow. I will
be outlining the rationale for these changes that are being brought forward.
We can debate them in committee. He is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Justification
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, in the past, this minister
listened to the Real Estate Board and the professional property managers and
withdrew Bill 42, and now, there has been no consultation, and the minister
will not admit she has not consulted with tenants.
Can the minister tell us why she is doing
this if she has not consulted with tenants and if this is not going to protect
tenants' security deposits? Why is this
legislation necessary when it is not being asked for and when it previously
provided protection for tenants?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I will be
outlining in detail my remarks tomorrow to show how greater protection for
tenants than has ever been in place in the history of this province before on
this particular issue will be put in place.
Labour
Adjustment Strategy
Government
Initiatives
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Premier.
The announcements of layoffs today, both
at Manitoba Hydro and impending ones at Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, are
most unfortunate for those, of course, employed with those companies, but
unfortunate for all Manitobans. We have
heard of these layoffs far too often in the last few years.
My question for the minister: Given that some of these layoffs are simply
unavoidable, that times change‑‑and this is recognized in economic
documents, one that this government put out 10 days ago. I want to cite back a statement from the
Framework for Economic Growth: To
minimize unemployment, the education and training system must ensure a good
match between the workforce's job skills and job opportunities. This will entail shifting labour resources
from declining industries to growth industries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the labour
adjustment plan of this government with respect to these two impending very
large layoff announcements we have received today? How will the government be dealing with those
large numbers of people to keep them in this province?
* (1345)
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, there are basically two
questions, one referring to Manitoba Hydro.
The member is referring to a comment made in the press which Manitoba
Hydro board and management will be further expressing, after they meet with the
representatives of the workers, with a further public explanation as to the
details of that later on.
I want to assure members that Manitoba
Hydro is working to manage this so there is the least impact as possible on the
employees.
As far as the Flin Flon layoffs, again,
Mr. Speaker‑‑which are unfortunate, which we see taking place with
HBM&S‑‑when an orebody runs out, what has to happen is to make
sure there are activities in place that will provide some future economic
activity for those individuals.
It is unfortunate that the mining policies
and the taxation of the previous administration in this province was not
conducive for new discovery of orebodies, Mr. Speaker. I regret‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am tired, and I am sure the
laid‑off workers in this province are tired, of the type of rhetoric and,
quite frankly, bafflegab from this government about training and about labour
adjustment.
They talk and talk and talk. What does it mean for the person who is laid
off or going to be laid off in the ensuing weeks? Whether it is HBM&S or Manitoba Hydro,
they are laid‑off workers. The
unemployment rates in this province are kept low because those people are
leaving this province, and this government does nothing to keep them, Mr.
Speaker.
How does this Deputy Premier, how does
this government intend to retrain these people to get them back to work in this
province, and how can they talk and talk and talk about this and cut the Labour
Adjustment branch by $25,000 this year?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the second
opposition party was paying attention to what was going on‑‑let me
tell the member what this government is doing as far as the mining industry is
concerned. (interjection) That is correct.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
indicates they voted against all these initiatives‑‑a financial
assistance program to prospectors to assist in their exploring for new mine
bodies, a Mineral Exploration Incentive Program where there is a 25 percent
grant provided for new companies looking to come to
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question
for the Deputy Premier. I think it is
all he can answer.
My question for the Deputy Premier: What is going to be available for retraining,
to get people who are going to be laid off because of these layoffs and
throughout this province, to get them back to work with dignity and with the
least amount of economic stress as a result of these layoffs and these
difficult times? What retraining is
going to be available for those people?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, again, as it relates to Manitoba
Hydro and the decisions the board and management will be making, I think one
has to see the total package as it relates to those who are taking early
retirement, those who are being re‑employed within other operations of
the corporation. The package will be
released by the appropriate authority, the board and management, later on.
Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the mining
sector, I believe the opportunities will lie in new developments of new
orebodies within the private sector.
I am not sure what the member opposite is
advocating. Is he advocating that
taxpayers again move in and buy out depleted mines to create employment? I believe the responsible thing to do is to
encourage the development of new mine opportunities to keep taxes low so
investment will flow to this province and create the jobs that are essential
for these people who are in need.
Northern
Economic Development
Government
Initiatives
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, last November, when some 497
people received pending layoff notices, and again on Thursday, when some 133
people were called in to the offices at HBM&S and told they would be losing
their jobs or be reassigned, the question in Flin Flon was, where is the
government of
In 1988, this government announced it was
going to create a Northern Economic Development Commission to develop alternatives
and to help northern
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister
of Northern Affairs is: After five years
and spending more than a million dollars on the Northern Economic Development
Commission, can this minister indicate one single initiative that has come
forward from that commission that is going to help the more than 600 people who
are losing their jobs in Flin Flon‑‑one single initiative?
* (1350)
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, as fair as I can muster for the member for Flin Flon, let me point out
that under this administration, under Premier Filmon and this cabinet, this
government committed some $55 million to the upgrade of a smelter in Flin Flon
which he could not get through his own cabinet or caucus.
There has been over $200 million
spent. I believe the maximum employment
these past few months has been over a thousand construction workers onsite in
Flin Flon, something the member never acknowledges, an environmental order
which was on his government which it took us to deliver. I would think he would want to be fair.
As far as the shutdowns of the mines are
concerned, Mr. Speaker‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this
minister refuses to tell the truth.
There never was any proposal for HBM&S on the government‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Flin Flon did not
have a point of order, but in stating his point of order, the honourable member
did use some unparliamentary language. I
would ask the honourable member for Flin Flon to withdraw, the honourable
minister not telling the truth.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for your office and
your ruling, I will withdraw the words.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable member
for Flin Flon.
Flin Flon/
Education
and Training Initiatives
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, the minister of course did not
answer the question of what the government has done to help diversify the
economy after spending a million dollars on a Northern Economic Development
Commission.
My question to the minister is: Given the government's rhetoric with respect
to labour adjustment and education and training needs, can the minister
indicate why, after eight months, after the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik)
attended a meeting in
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfortunate, as I said at the outset, that the former
administration did everything to discourage‑‑
Some Honourable Members: You are the former administration.
Mr. Downey: Well, if they want to get that way, Mr. Speaker,
then it was the government in which Howard Pawley was the Premier and in which
they were so proud to sit as members.
The fact is there was nothing done to encourage mining activity coming
into this province, so as a result, the orebodies are playing out.
Mr. Speaker, what we have done in the Snow
Lake‑Flin Flon area is invested with the Government of Canada and
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the
question again.
Mr. Speaker, more than 600 people are
going to be laid off or are in the process of being laid off in Flin Flon and
The question to the minister is: What is the minister going to do? What commitment is he going to make to the
Community Improvement and Development Committee in Flin Flon, the Community
Adjustment Committee in
What commitments is he going to make to
ensure there are training and education opportunities for those who are laid
off and there is an opportunity for economic diversification?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, as well as the extensive
programming that has been put in place to find new orebodies and new
activities, something else we have done is we have not raised the sales
tax. We have not raised taxes on those
people.
To assist in trying to create economic
activity, we have maintained‑‑in fact, not only maintained, we have
lowered the personal income tax in this province so it, in fact, encourages
people to come to this province and invest, unlike what is happening‑‑and
I will refer to a recent article about what the NDP government‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister will sit down while
the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is on a point of order.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker,
Beauchesne 417 is very clear:
"Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the
matter raised and should not provoke debate."
I think the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey)
has violated that on all three counts, and I hate to say it, Mr. Speaker, but
with the Deputy Premier continuing like this, I almost miss not having the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) here.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised, again I would
remind the honourable minister, answers to questions should be as brief as
possible.
* (1355)
Co-Management
Agreements
Government
Action
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the Minister of Natural
Resources why he is refusing to take action on co‑management agreements
with bands in the
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I apologize to the honourable member.
I was assuming she was asking my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) about the sale of barley.
If she would be kind enough to repeat the
question, I will answer.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Natural
Resources‑‑now that he is listening‑‑why he is refusing
to take action on co‑management agreements when he has had requests from
bands in
Why is he not taking any action on this
matter?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I can report to the honourable
member that meetings have been held pursuant to those initial meetings last
fall. The Western Region Elk Management
Board is active and meeting on a regular basis.
I can also indicate to her that, our good
fortune, the elk populations are up in that area, but there are continuing
difficulties with respect to bringing about the kind of agreements necessary for
full co‑management to exist, particularly with several of the aboriginal
bands involved.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the
minister that I am talking about management of other resources besides
elk. I am talking about management of
fish, and he knows this very well.
He has had letters just recently. The minister is saying negotiations have
taken place, but I have talked to the bands at Pine Creek and
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in sharing the
very serious problem that we have, particularly in the area she alludes to
there.
I will be more specific.
My officers, to this date, have managed to
negotiate an agreement, and I understand no actual netting has taken place in
that particular lake. We are attempting
to provide other lakes in the area where we would be prepared, as the
Department of Natural Resources, to in fact encourage the particular aboriginal
bands involved to adopt, if you like, as their lakes, to get involved in
enhancement programs, but not to create the kind of confrontation that is
currently going on.
But, Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult
question. That is a difficult question
for management to resolve as to how we mutually share our resources and
properly husband them.
Ms. Wowchuk: I recognize it is a difficult problem, and
that is why I am asking the minister when he is going to deal with it. I recognize, since the fish enhancement group
has put so much work into it, has put so much money into it, has established
lakes with non‑native species, that they want to protect those lakes.
When is the minister going to sit down
with both sides and see which lakes are going to be protected and which lakes
are going to be allowed to be netted out?
When is he going to deal with the matter?
* (1400)
Mr. Enns: Not to be unfair at all but it would
certainly help if her colleague the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) were to
help this government and help Manitobans get to resolve these issues. This is
when self‑government with respect to aboriginal issues comes face to face
with what we are dealing with.
I am asking Manitobans to pay $2.50, an
extra tax on all angling licences. We
are stocking lakes with that. I am being
served summonses, if you like, by some groups telling me they will not respect
any of the regulations with respect to the natural resources.
Under those circumstances, it is very
difficult to come to co‑management.
I want to assure the honourable member I am not giving up, that we have
had some very successful arrangements where co‑management does work,
where we have successfully, together with the whole community, Metis people,
Status Indian people, white communities and anglers and sportsmen alike, co‑managed
a resource, but it is a painstakingly slow process, Mr. Speaker.
No‑Fault
Auto Insurance
Tillinghast
Report Release
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting
Minister for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
As part of the process of examining
alternatives to the current system, the government, in addition to looking at
pure no‑fault, asked the Tillinghast consulting group to look at
modifications to the tort system to address some of the problems with small
claims and to see if they could not retain the access of individuals to
personal consideration of their circumstances in more serious cases.
I would like to ask the acting minister
why the corporation is refusing to release this report.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice on behalf of the Minister responsible for MPIC (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, before the government moves so
quickly to deprive Manitobans of the benefits they currently receive under the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, we think it would be incumbent upon the
government to bring forward that report so the public debate can be an informed
one.
I would ask the minister today: Will he commit to the release of that report?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I will raise that question with
the minister responsible, and if there is some reason why it cannot be done, we
will clarify that. If there is no
reason, I am sure the minister is prepared to table that document.
Cabinet
Discussions
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), this is the second Tillinghast report. I will send him a copy.
Might I ask the Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey): Was the information contained
in this report discussed at cabinet when the decision was taken to move to a no‑benefit
system?
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I am not going
to give him a specific answer other than to just indicate there was an awful
lot of discussion taking place on this side of government, in cabinet and with
caucus, in terms of the decision that ultimately was made to proceed with the
bill.
That discussion is still going to be
available for the rest of Manitobans when the bill finally clears the House and
gets into committee, where people can come forward and make their views known
as well.
Independent
Schools
Funding
Formula
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, On March 12, I asked the
Minister of Education to justify the massive increases to the private school system
over the past five years.
She answered, and I quote, Mr.
Speaker: "The independent schools
of this province in the funding announcement that was made this year received
the same 2 percent reduction as all other schools." That is a quote from March 12, 1993, in this
House.
Yesterday, the Minister of Education
tabled a document in Estimates that shows a 12.3 percent increase, which is a
blatant contradiction from the minister's statement of March 12.
Will the minister explain herself?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, allow me to instruct the member, inform the member. He did not understand what was tabled
yesterday.
If he will look again at what was tabled,
it was a comparison of funding for government fiscal year. The funding announcement deals with a school
year. In comparing those figures, we are
comparing the figures 1992‑93 which include, if the member really
understands, a portion of the funding for the school year as fiscal‑year
funding of even the year before.
So we were looking at proportionate
funding over a series of a number of years.
It is clear the member did not read what was given or perhaps, more
importantly, just did not understand.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, there is a 12.3 percent increase
any way you want to cut it. She has made
an allowance for enrollment of 555 additional students.
I want to ask the Minister of
Education: In light of the fact that
public school enrollments have declined by nearly 5,000 students since this
government came into office in 1988, I want to ask her whether she will now
admit that her policies of massive increases to private schools are causing an
enrollment shift from the public school system to the private school system, as
is evident in her facts.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, I know we are discussing
this point in the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training, and I
will be happy to explain again to the member exactly how the funding school
year versus fiscal year is listed on this sheet.
Let me speak to him now about
enrollment. The enrollment in
independent schools represents approximately 4.8 percent of the student
population, and I would like to point out to him, with 4.8 percent of the student
population, they receive only 2.5 percent of the funding available.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, the minister has provided us with
information that shows $22 million up from $19 million the year before, a 12.3
percent increase and a shift in the population base.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the
minister: In light of the fact that this
opposition in 1990 moved a motion asking for an independent commission to be
set up to study the impact of this minister's and this government's massive
increases to private schools, and it was voted down by the Liberals and the
Conservatives in this House, I want to ask the minister whether she will now
agree to set up an independent commission to monitor and review the impact of
these changes in student enrollment.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I know the party on the other
side is not in full agreement. They are
on the record as not being in full agreement.
I do not know if the critic for Education is in fact reflecting his own
position or the position of his party.
We on this side of the House have entered
into a letter of comfort with the independent schools. Those independent schools are still only
funded at a portion of the amount of money that is funded to the public
schools. The independent schools in this
province receive, per pupil, the same, minus 2 percent reduction.
Water
Supply
Irrigation
Monitoring
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the Assiniboine diversion which
is planning to take 20 cubic feet per second from the
Yet there are hundreds of cubic feet per
second of water being diverted for irrigation from the river where there is no
environmental assessment, where there is no monitoring, and this is not a
sustainable use for our water supply, and it does not make sense.
I would ask the Minister of Natural
Resources: Does the Minister of Natural
Resources find it logical to monitor water for potable water use and not
monitor water for the highest demand on the river which is the lowest priority
for the water use in the province?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the honourable member answered the question herself in the
very last words of her question. Irrigation,
under the policy currently being practised by this government, is placed in
precisely that order, in the lowest of priority uses.
Should any of the other higher priority
uses, such as domestic, residential or industrial, livestock or recreational
use, be endangered, then those irrigation water supplies would be, in fact, cut
off.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, the way this province is managing
water resources does not reflect the priority use. Irrigation is the most unsustainable drain on
water supplies.
Will the government move to begin to gauge
irrigation water from rivers in
* (1410)
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I just think particularly,
although it is understandable now in 1993 that this kind of generalized
contempt for those very capable people‑‑I just refute categorically
that general contempt for the capable water managers of this province who have
saved this city harmless from the devastating flood since time immemorial, who
have provided water that would not be water in that
To simply say that is poor water
management‑‑to have brought into abundant agricultural production
five and a half million acres of what was flood‑prone
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, given that the Assiniboine South
enhancement study recommends looking at gauging irrigation water, which is the
largest drain on the
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, let us put it officially on the
record. The official opposition does not want to see job creation, wealth
creation in rural
It is only the Conservative Party that has
ever done any development in this province, whether it was the creation of
universities, whether it was the creation of hospitals and medicare and whether
it was the creation of our secondary school system.
An Honourable Member: Medicare too.
Mr. Enns: You bet.
Walter Weir brought medicare into
Mr. Speaker, let us have that understood
while we have this controversy going on as to how best to allocate the
water. Let the people of
Video
Lottery Terminals
Social
Costs
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): It is unfortunate the
minister cannot seem to get the former member for
In any event, my question is for the
Minister responsible for The
Mayor Susan Thompson indicated publicly
yesterday she does not want the 1,800 planned VLT terminals in the city of
Winnipeg until she knows what the social consequences are, what the downside of
those are going to be, something this government cannot tell her.
My question for the minister: Why is this government proceeding blindly on
its course towards an addiction to gambling itself when those around them are
saying, let us stop and think before we go down this road?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister charged with the administration of The
Capital projects through Lotteries account
for over 400 additional positions on a one‑time basis as we have built
the two new entertainment facilities in the city of
Mr. Speaker, the economic impacts of the
dollars that those Manitobans win through Lotteries initiatives are spent back,
enhancing
So there are some positive benefits as a
result of Lotteries activities in
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, gambling is a tax on the poor,
and it is through those revenues that this government is basing its economic
plans for the province.
My question for the minister: Why is this government, through the Manitoba
Lotteries Foundation, spending millions of dollars selling gambling to
Manitobans, not to people from
Mr. Speaker: Order please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Order, please. Time is extremely scarce here now.
Mrs. Mitchelson: We do know that Manitobans take $300 million,
their gaming dollars, across the border out of
I do know from hearing reports from the
new entertainment facility on Regent, Mr. Speaker, that, indeed, there are
people from
So I believe they are going to be a
positive tourist attraction for
Mr. Edwards: These are not tourist dollars. These are Manitobans' dollars being spent,
and they are a tax on the poor.
Now my question for the minister is, since
this government has come into power, we have seen the slide‑‑the
Can the minister tell us what is
next? Where are these machines going to
show up next?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Order, please. Does everybody have an answer? Order, please. I have recognized the honourable Madam
Minister responsible for Manitoba Lotteries
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure Manitobans that we
are not going to follow the Liberal Party policy to establish four casinos on
Mr. Speaker, we have undertaken‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. What is going on back there?
The honourable member for St. James has
asked a question. The honourable Madam Minister is attempting to answer it.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to follow the
New Brunswick Liberal policy, where they have video lottery terminals on every
street corner, so those under 18 years of age can play.
Mr. Speaker, I understand from
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections be amended as follows:
Motion agreed to.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
Motions agreed to.
Nonpolitical Statement
Mr. Gerry McAlpine
(Sturgeon Creek): May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. McAlpine: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate
Tanya Dubnicoff for setting a world record on June 13, 1993, in the women's 500
metre time trial at the World Cup indoor cycling competition in
I would also like to take this opportunity
to recognize the support of her parents, Jack and Carol Dubnicoff. Moral support is integral to the development
of world‑class athletes, and Tanya has come a long way in representing
her country and
This has not been an easy road for Tanya,
but she has overcome unbelievable odds from stressful training and
conditioning, to the mental stress brought on by financial pressures that face
our top athletes. Now, Tanya is on top
of the world in her competition, but she still needs our support to stay there.
I would ask all members to join with me in
congratulating Tanya, and wishing her well on future events.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before
I move the motion to go into committee, I would like to announce that Bill 15,
The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act, I would like to add it to the list of
bills being considered by the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for
Thursday, June 24 at 7 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of the
House whether there is a willingness to waive private members' hour.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour? Is there leave?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Leave is denied.
* (1420)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and
the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be
granted to Her Majesty.
Motion 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
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 5.(d)(1) on page 41 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Chairperson, when we were last together, I had agreed to table at the earliest
possible time some information for the member.
First of all I have the support
categorical base and supplementary including phase‑in by division. Then I have information regarding the
operating the base categorical total operating funding and phase‑in on a
school‑year basis for the public schools.
Then I have information on the 1993‑94
special requirement by division.
Then the member asked for any legislative
initiatives from the Department of Education and Training that affect our
legislation, and also he asked for the membership on all the boards and
commissions from the Department of Education and Training.
This includes also, in the information
that I am providing, information from advisory boards where there is membership
from the universities as well, board of reference, board of teacher education
and certification and so on.
I would like to table those now as
well. I believe that completes
everything that was asked yesterday.
* (1430)
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Just to clarify the sheet on a school‑year
basis as of June 2, 1993, this is for public schools only. It is the only one you gave us on a school‑year
basis, is it not?
Mrs. Vodrey: This is for public schools.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, and does this follow the same basic
outline and categories as the FRAME Report does?
Mrs. Vodrey: The sheet that I have tabled is the support to
schools, the FRAME Report list, the expenditures.
Mr. Plohman: Did the minister not have this for the
private schools as well? I had asked for
both.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, I do have another set
of sheets I am prepared to table, and this is on the private schools,
instructional services, special needs, curricular materials.
Mr. Plohman: Can the minister explain the sheet
categorical base supplementary support including phase‑in at minus 1.5
percent? How does that relate to the minus 2 percent announced?
Mrs. Vodrey: The minus 1.5 percent is the program. The minus 2 includes capital and other, which
would include support to Frontier School Division, support to institutional
programs.
Mr. Plohman: The minister was also asked to provide an
outline of those allowed to exceed the cap.
Are we just to assume that if we were to look at the 1993‑94
special requirement, on the percent change, those over 2 percent would give
that to us?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on the sheet that
says special requirement '93‑94, it shows in the first column, which says
maximum, the amount to which school divisions could have increased, and beside
it in the second column marked budget, you can see whether or not school
divisions chose then to go to the maximum, or in the case of the second example
on that sheet, you can see that they did not go to the maximum that they were
able to go to with the 2 percent cap.
There are a number of divisions, which the
member can see as he looks down the list, which did not use that full amount
that they were able to through the 2 percent.
Mr. Plohman: Which divisions were allowed, due to unusual
circumstances, whatever, to exceed the 2 percent cap? That is what I asked the minister for a list
of.
Mrs. Vodrey: There were only two school divisions who had
asked for an exception based on mistake.
Those two school divisions were St. Vital and St. Boniface.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if I look at it, they
both ended up with zero percent. That is
the variation from the maximum. That is
all that tells us. It does not mean that
they did not increase their special levy by more than 2 percent‑‑(interjection)
I know it is a special requirement, but the special levy is the one that they
can change in terms of the impact.
* (1440)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for St. Vital in
terms of the special levy there was a decrease in the special levy then of 0.1
percent.
Mr. Plohman: That is fine, but where do we see the
manifestation of the exception because of mistake to the cap on the special
requirement of 2 percent that was placed by the legislation, Bill 16?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the adjustment to the
special requirement is now reflected then in that number that says maximum for
the special requirement. Before the
adjustment, before the petition based on mistake, St. Vital School Division's
maximum would have been less than this amount.
This amount now reflects the adjusted.
Mr. Plohman: On the special levy, I asked for the percentage
local levy increase for each division.
Where will I find that in these papers?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am prepared to
table that. I will need to have copies
made, however.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have received some
information from the minister on private schools. Special needs programming or funding
increased by 139 percent.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
What is the comparable figure for the
public school system, and why is there such a large increase in the private
school there versus the public school?
Mrs. Vodrey: At the time that the Letter of Comfort was
signed with the independent schools, those schools did receive funding for low‑incidence
students of special needs; however, there never had been included within their
funding any ability to fund for the high‑incidence‑needs students.
The public schools, as the member knows,
do receive funding for high‑incidence‑needs students, and
independent schools certainly have high‑incidence‑needs students as
well. So this was to correct that
inequity and to allow for the funding by formula. There is a formula in the public school
system, and there is also a formula in the independent school system to fund by
formula for high‑incidence‑needs young people.
Mr. Plohman: Could the minister just explain again why
that was overlooked before?
Mrs. Vodrey: At the time that the Letter of Comfort was
signed, there was a change in the funding.
In the public school system we moved away from funding what we had
called high‑incidence young people to Level I young people, but the
independent schools over the course of time that the Letter of Comfort has been
in effect have certainly been able to demonstrate that there are high incidence
or Level I, as they are now called, young people within their schools.
Based on that demonstrated need, it was
then determined that those young people would receive some funding. But again, I would stress that they received
funding on a formula basis, as do the public schools.
Mr. Plohman: Well, so the minister is saying that 976,380
for the '93‑94 school year corresponds to the Level I Special Needs
allocation of 45 million for the public school system. We are talking about the same kinds of
students there.
Mrs. Vodrey: That total amount that the member has spoken
about also includes Level II and Level III needs, young people as well.
Mr. Plohman: Can the minister break out the number of
Level II and Level III students that we are talking about in private
schools? Does she have it by school or
just in total?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have and am
prepared to table, but I will need to have copies made, the high‑ and low‑incidence
support for the '92‑93 school year and the estimated number of pupils for
'93‑94 based on what the schools have told us, and then the member will
see a final column which speaks about support for the fiscal year which, as I
explained earlier, includes 30 percent of the funding for '92‑93, 70
percent of the funding for '93‑94.
I am prepared to table that.
Mr. Plohman: Is that then adjusted on the basis of actual
as opposed to what the schools have projected?
The minister said, based on the information the schools have provided. Is there someone who does an evaluation later
on to ensure that it is only paid for students who meet the requirements?
* (1450)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the
independent schools must use exactly the same rules of accountability as do the
public schools. We set out the same
FRAME accounting. We set out the same
classifications for those schools, but as in all schools right now, they send
us what their projected is and then we know when we actually are able to look
and see the students who are enrolled we know in September. What we are operating on is an estimation, as
we are operating on for all schools in
Mr. Plohman: Now this particular sheet gives the school‑year
basis, which the minister was, much to some of our amusement, attempting to
tell some stories in the House that would leave a different impression.
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: On a point of order, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, I would ask you to consider the member's words that the minister
was telling stories. I would appreciate you
looking at that as a point of order because, as I said, in clarifying in the
House, the member himself was confused between fiscal year numbers and school
years numbers. He was attempting to look
at them one to another without understanding the difference.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): I would just point
out that the minister did not have a point of order, it is a dispute of the
facts, but I would caution all members in their choice of words and questioning
of all honourable members.
* * *
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): The member for
Dauphin, to continue with his questions.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think if
anyone was confused it was the minister, and she still is.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): The member for
Dauphin, to continue on his questioning.
Mr. Plohman: The minister has again put some information
here that shows a 10.4 percent increase on a school‑year basis. Now, is it the difference between the 12.3
percent and the 10.4 percent that the minister was trying to make her point
about in the House? Does she think that
that accurately would reflect the facts to the public?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I think the member
has been instructed to the point that now he has understood. I hope he understands now. I am prepared to certainly provide that
instruction again.
The 10.4 percent, however, reflects the
school year, and the 12.4 percent reflects the fiscal year.
Mr. Plohman: So you mean to say that the minister was making
a point in front of the people of
Now, if it is a 10.4 percent increase to
the private schools while public schools are getting a 0.2 percent decrease on
a calendar year or something larger than that on a school‑year basis,
then let us compare apples with apples here and not try to leave the impression
on the record, as she did on March 12, that the private schools were getting
the same decrease that the public schools were getting.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the member is so
confused, that is all I can say. The
students in the independent schools received the same minus 2 percent as did
students in the public schools. I hope
that he has understood that now. Per
pupil, independent school students received the same two percent decrease as
did the public schools.
The amount of increase, I know as he goes
down the list he will see that school divisions have varying changes in their
support.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
The announced minus 2 percent was for the
global amount of money available for the school year. The amount of that money that school
divisions access is very much dependent upon their enrollment and other issues. Last night we spoke about Kelsey School
Division receiving $90,000 additional through a northern allowance.
So as school divisions put forward through
the funding formula, then the amount of money that is available to them then
flows, and it will vary by school division depending upon enrollment, depending
upon the other issues.
So I would like to put on the record for
the member again that the independent schools per pupil grant at the same minus
2 percent decrease as the public schools did.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister is still
confused. She is not presenting all of
the facts here to this committee. Now
she has given us one sheet that says that on a year‑over‑year
basis, private schools received 12.3 percent more over 1992‑93. They received 12.3 percent more on a year‑over‑year
basis. She has given us another sheet
that says that on a school‑year‑over‑school‑year basis,
they received 10.4 percent more.
Now we see an increase that is either 10.4
percent or 12.3, depending on whether you use school year or whether you use
fiscal year or calendar year. So the
fact is that there is that huge increase.
I am asking the minister how she can rationalize that kind of statement
with her statement in the House on March 12 that said that independent schools
of this province, in the funding announcement that was made this year, received
the same 2 percent reduction. On a per
pupil basis, they may have, but we are talking about total dollars to those
schools. Does the minister get it yet?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the member for Dauphin is
all worked up in his confusion, so let me try and explain to him again.
* (1500)
The 12.4 percent is fiscal year, and as I
explained to the member, in terms of the fiscal year‑‑and perhaps
you need to have a picture‑‑in the fiscal year previously, the
support was 59 percent and 63.5 percent for that year. Therefore, and in this year, it is 63.5
percent, 63.5 percent. So obviously, the
amount would then reflect the variation in the proportionate amount of money
that is available to students in the independent school and the funding
available to the independent school. So
that is the first area of clarification.
The second area of clarification is when
we look at school year, year over year.
Within the school year, we are then looking at independent schools
receiving 63.5 percent last year, 63.5 percent this year. Fiscally, it is different, school year by
school year, that 63.5 percent portion.
However, with that 63.5 percent, the independent schools did receive the
same minus 2 percent as did the public schools.
So reflecting that minus 2 percent per
pupil in 1992, the per pupil grant for independent schools was $2,184; and in
'93, the per pupil grant is $2,141. That
reflects the minus 2 percent. The increase overall is a reflection of increased
enrollment and is also a correction for the enrollment last year and also
includes the area that we have been just discussing. That is funding for special needs of high incidence
young people who, in the past, did not receive any support.
I know the member thinks that the funding
for special needs young people is important.
This is now a correction.
Mr. Plohman: I am pleased that the minister has finally
got down to the nuts and bolts of this in terms of the dollars. The bottom line is this government has
increased, on a school‑year‑over‑school‑year basis, the
funding to private schools by 10.4 percent.
A comparative figure for the public school system during that same
period of time is a negative number.
an
the minister give us the precise comparative number for the public school
system on a school‑year‑over‑school‑year basis?
Mrs. Vodrey: The amount of money involved is slightly over
$2 million, and as the member knows‑‑I know he has looked at the
sheets that I have tabled today‑‑he already has the information
that he has just been asking for.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister gave us
a sheet yesterday that provided a year‑by‑year basis decrease of
0.2 percent. Is that the figure that the
minister is using?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member will find the information when he
looks at the sheet that says, categorical base and supplementary including
phase‑in.
Mr. Plohman: Okay, so now the minister has a $2‑million
increase for private schools. I explored
with her in Question Period the issue about a policy of this government
impacting on enrollment shifts, and I asked her whether she would consider an
independent committee to look at the impact of funding increases to the private
school system as was moved during the course of amendments to the act in 1990.
My colleague the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie), who was the Education critic, moved that a committee be set up to
discuss or to study a number of aspects.
One included enrollment in the public schools; one would consider local
property taxes; the government funding of public schools; programming in public
schools; and special needs and disadvantaged pupils.
He proposed that such a committee be made
up of a representative from the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, the
Manitoba Teachers' Society and the Union of Manitoba Municipalities.
This was voted down, as I indicated in the
House, by the combined numbers of the Conservatives and the Liberals, who did
not want to see this kind of committee set up to review the impact of public
funding for private schools.
Unfortunately, we have seen this continue
this year, even though the minister stood up in the House and left the
impression that it was a reduction to the private schools, the same reduction
as the public schools. She is
technically correct on the basis of a per pupil basis, but she is not correct
in terms of the global dollars. It is it
not even close. The increase is a
massive increase once again to the private schools. I think that is something that the minister
has to be prepared to say because the enrollment is shifting. That is my point.
We have other ministers sitting here still
confused about this. The fact is there
is a shift.
An Honourable Member: Why is it shifting?
Mr. Plohman: Yes, and the reason it is shifting is because
of this government's undermining of the credibility of the public school system
through massive underfunding as has occurred this year. This is what we have seen, an undermining of
the public school system, a lack of commitment, instilling a feeling in the
public that the public school system is not doing its job, a lack of confidence
to shake the ground, the roots, of the public school system.
As long as this government is in place,
that is what they are trying to do, and I would have to say it is working. People are leaving the public school system,
and they are going to the private schools.
It stands to reason, when you shake the confidence of the public in the
public school system that is there for everyone, and when you make it easier
for students to attend the private school system by upping the government
support, of course, it is that much easier for people to send their kids to the
private schools.
The members talk about choice, but they do
not consider the impact that this is having on the public school system. I have shown and referred the minister to the
FRAME Report, the document that she gave us yesterday that shows that over the
last five years the enrollment in the public school system has dropped by
nearly 5,000 students since 1987, when it was levelled off, was actually
increasing between '86 and '87, and '85 and '86. Then starting in '88, it started dropping,
and over the last five years it has dropped almost 5,000 students over that
period of time.
Where are those students going? The minister projects for this year in her
documents an increase of 552 students are projected, and there is an additional
figure included in there for that. What
we are seeing, of course, is a self‑fulfilling prophecy. The government wants to undermine the public
school system. They are improving the
funding to the private school system and that of course is causing a lack of
confidence in the public school system.
That is what we have been saying all along.
You only look at the evidence; you look at
the funding evidence; we see it this year again. We look at the crisis that this is causing in
the public school system in this province, and the minister should be ashamed
of herself for leading this kind of policy.
It is a disgrace, because she is there to protect and enhance the public
school system as the one that is available universally for all students in this
province.
Some of the elite schools do not even
accept all students. They do not want you if you cannot pass their entrance
exams. The public school system takes everyone.
They have to and that is what is important. I talked about the elite exclusionary schools
that do exclude students based on the entrance exams.
So I am saying to the minister that their
policies of underfunding the public school system, and overfunding and
increasing the funding to the private school system, which they have done again
this year, contrary to what the minister said in the House, are leading to a
massive undermining of the public school system. That concerns us. I say this sincerely. Come on, John, come on this, forget it.
We are fed up with this government's lack
of commitment to the public school system while the private school system is getting
this kind of massive increase. Those
remarks will stay on the record. I will
not back from those in any way, shape or form.
They are something this minister could listen to, take heed of and
inform her colleagues that they have to stop this nonsense and these massive
increases to the private school system at the expense of the public school
system.
* (1510)
What do we have? Twenty‑two million dollars that could
be going to the public school system this year, $22 million that could be going
so that they could have gotten an inflationary increase this year. They did not get that. The reason they did not get it is because it
is going to the elite schools of this province.
I am and we are fed up with that.
We want to ask the minister whether she is now prepared to put in place
this commission to study the impact.
Let us take a look at what this is doing
to the enrollment. Is this a factor in the fact that there have been 5,000
fewer students over the last five years in the public school system? Is it a
factor? What is the impact of government
policies on the enrollment in the private school system that it is increasing?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I would think that the
member would be embarrassed to have put some of that information on the record. I think he would have been embarrassed with
some of the faulty conclusions that he has drawn, but I do understand, when
people get emotionally worked up and work themselves up into emotional kinds of
frenzies, that certainly words come out perhaps not in the way that they
intended them. So let me try and sort
through some of the information that the member has put on the record and
provide some clarification for that information.
First of all, the shift in the population
in the public schools and the change in enrollment in the public schools is
approximately minus 0.1 percent. It is a
very small change, a minus 0.1 percent.
So that flies certainly in the face of the massive changes that the
member is attempting to characterize. He is wrong. I would like to try and clarify for him the
actual, and perhaps that will reduce his level of excitement.
I would also like to say that the trend
and increasing enrollment in the independent schools began in approximately
1981‑82. Now, as I think about who
was in government in and around that time with the continued increase, it seems
to me that the movement in the increase in the independent schools certainly
was a factor when my honourable friend's party was in power. There certainly
was a shift towards independent schools at that time. So I thought it would be very important to
note that he is trying to make a case for a shift in the past few years, to in
fact give him more historical information and to help him correct his faulty
perceptions.
I then would like to say he has somehow
suggested that all of the school divisions in the public school system have
received a decrease and that is not true.
There are nine school divisions who in fact have received an increase. There are certainly ways for school divisions
to receive an increase. It may be
through the enrollment, it may be through the modifications which were made to
the school funding formula to assist school divisions who are northern and
remote or who have other special kinds of needs. So I think that is the third point to be
corrected.
Let me also make sure it is on the record
that the funding to independent schools was frozen this year, that there was a
clause in the Letter of Comfort. For the
member's information, the independent schools are funded at 63.5 percent of
what the per pupil grant is or the funding for the public school system, and
that they received no capital support at all.
So the amount of money for the education for those students in independent
schools then does not come from the government of
Then the fifth point that the member
raised was one of public schools accepting all students and some independent
schools not accepting all students. Let
me remind the member that within the public school system there certainly are
programs which require a competition for entry.
I point him to the program, the course of study such as the
International Baccalaureate which, again, offered in the public school system,
not available to all students who are within the public school system by any
means. Students compete for those places.
So there certainly is programming, courses of studies, that are
available supported by taxpayer dollars.
This seems to be the member's point, where it is supported by taxpayer
dollars, is it open for everyone? The
member knows very well that is not the case.
Then let me also remind the member that when
his government had this particular debate around independent schools that it
certainly was a member of the cabinet at that time who said that the NDP's
government refusal to provide fair funding to independent schools was
"unconscionable and hypocritical," and that within his own caucus
there is obviously not agreement upon how the funding to independent schools
should be dealt with.
In fact I think that when we were out
speaking together one evening he also referenced some information relating to
that. So what I would like to put on the
record in response to his information is again information regarding the shift,
minus 0.1 percent, that the shift in population to independent schools
certainly was evident as a long‑term trend from the time that my honourable
friend was in government and also sat at the cabinet table, I believe. I understand, as we look back on the funding
that was provided to private schools during the NDP administration, that the
funding to private schools during the NDP administration tripled.
I wonder if the honourable member has
actually heard that. So, very interesting behaviour, and then what the member
is saying‑‑somehow there seems to be an inconsistency.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister did not cap the number of
students that she would fund in elite schools for this year. So naturally, as more and more students
attend the elite schools and other private schools, there are going to be
additional dollars going to those schools.
* (1520)
The minister was very evasive in the House
about dealing straight on with the issue in terms of the amount of money and
the increase that she was providing to the private and elite schools. I simply wanted her to provide a direct
answer on exactly what her government is doing with public money for private
schools. She has not been as forthcoming
on this as she could have been. That is
why we are pursuing it here.
Now, as far as what previous governments'
positions are on private schools, it has always been an issue that has a lot of
debate. The minister talked about her
position, about previous governments' positions. If we look at the
In this case, we have an official position
of this government which is to greatly enhance the funding to private schools
to 80 percent of the public school system over a couple of years, supported by
the Liberals. That is having an
impact. I am asking the minister whether
she will not acknowledge that as you increase the funding to the private
schools that there is bound to be an impact on the enrollment and a shift.
While she is dealing with that, she might
want to put alongside of the increase that took place to private schools during
the previous NDP government, that she said was a factor of three, what the
increase has been over the last five years by this government.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I think that it is very
important to draw some further comparisons.
When the member's party was in government there was a great deal of
disagreement around funding for independent schools.
As a matter of fact, a minister in the
government at that time said we are supposed to have freedom in this
country. There are some people who
cannot attend any other schools. There
was certainly a strong support.
Then I would say to the member that during
the time that the NDP government was in power, in seven years they tripled the
funding to independent schools, tripled it‑‑
An Honourable Member: You said that before, and what did you say
about yours?
Mrs. Vodrey: ‑‑and in five years, yes, our
government has, according to an agreement.
The difference is that we came forward with a Letter of Comfort, which
provided a process in which to provide that funding, and that funding has
doubled in the past five years, which is different than the tripling of the
NDP. So I find it hard to understand
when the member is putting forward some complaints, considering some of the
record of his government.
May I also say, Mr. Deputy Chair‑‑and
this is another very important point‑‑with the funding to
independent schools that this government has provided, we have also introduced
legislation to hold the independent schools accountable for the money that they
spend. They now must meet the
criterion. I think that also is a very
important point, because when money is being used, and taxpayer money is being
spent, there must be some way to see that the criteria is met. That is exactly what has happened.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister should put all the facts
on the table. She knows there were
previous agreements that the government has had with private schools, but we
certainly were not going to 80 percent of the funding of the public school
system that this government is moving toward very quickly, which has dwarfed
the increases to the public school system.
She cannot get away from that.
As irrelevant as these other comments are,
they are interesting that she puts on this historical information, but the fact
is we are dealing with the here and now and the impact on funding. She has to also remember that during those
years, funding to the public school system was certainly not ever reduced,
which this government is doing now.
Historically, we have never had a flat reduction in the funding to the
public schools. So the minister is using
a two‑edged sword here to accomplish her ends.
If she wants to compare increases to the
private schools over that period of time, she also has to consider what was
happening with the public school system.
There was a generous and solid support for the public school system
during that time, which is a far cry from what this government is doing during
this particular time.
The minister's policies, when combined,
are devastating for the public school system.
That is the point that has to be made here. That is what the minister is going to be held
accountable for in the next election.
That is what the people of
I hope that the minister will give
straight answers to questions about the amount of money that has gone to the
private schools, because when I asked in the House today, anyone listening to
the minister's answer would assume that there was a 2 percent decrease to the
private schools this year, when in fact we have established that on a school‑year‑over‑school‑year
basis, a 10.4 percent increase, as compared to a 1.5 percent decrease to the
public schools‑‑period, paragraph.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: (d)(1) Operating Grants $573,684,700‑‑pass;
(2) Phase‑In Support Grants $5,911,600‑‑pass; (3) General
Support Grants $18,500,000‑‑pass.
(e) Other Grants $1,756,000‑‑pass.
(f) Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund
$44,458,900.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just a question about
the impact of the government's shortened workweek on the pensions of
teachers. Could the minister indicate
how this is going to impact on the final averaging for teachers under the
Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund?
Mrs. Vodrey: Using an annual salary rate of $48,647.96, if
a person were to retire in this year, the effect would be $4.81 monthly. If a person were to retire in the year 2000,
2001, the effect would be $2.91 monthly.
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying there is $4.81
monthly on an average pension. Is that
what she said in terms of, what, are we talking about 20 or 30 years experience
at Class 4 or what are we dealing with here?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, that would be an
average teacher with full years of experience and at an average salary.
Mr. Plohman: I take it from the minister's use of those
figures that she feels it is rather a small figure, and therefore not something
that she feels any need to make any special provisions for in Bill 22.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, all sectors would have a
similar effect or the same kind of effect.
This is not specifically focused on teachers.
Mr. Plohman: Well, nor did I say it was specifically
focused on teachers, but I am asking about teachers in this particular
case. If I were to dare to ask about the
civil service here, now, can you imagine the minister's response? This is not the right department or the right
minister. So I am asking about teachers
here, that is a given, and the impact is almost $5 a month for 12 months a
year. That is 60 dollars a year, and
over 10 years that is $600. Yes, it does
not seem like a huge amount relative to the overall pension, but it is a
significant cost. It is a cost over a long period of time of a one‑time
event that the government is engaged in this year and next year for a two‑year
period. It is affecting the long term.
* (1530)
I asked the minister whether in fact there
has been any consideration by her department with regard to teachers to put
forward a suggestion that there be no negative impact on the pensions as a
result of the shortened workweek that is being proposed under Bill 22.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the average monthly pension
for a teacher is $1,706, and with the work week reduction we are looking at a
reduction of approximately $4 a month from that. Again, I understand the effect
is on individuals at the moment. It will not have an effect certainly after
seven years, and I mention that as the member was looking at ten‑year
periods. I would remind him of the range
of time where there may be an effect and the effect on the total pension.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the reason I was raising this was on
the principle that pensions should be protected, that if there were future
decisions such as this, they would also impact and would be cumulative. So if there was a policy established by this
government that pensions would not be impacted, then of course that might
prevail as long as this government is in office.
Hopefully, there will not be another
opportunity to introduce a similar bill to Bill 22 in the future by this
government, but in any event it is important to establish that principle, and
it is the principle I am asking the minister about, whether she is as
comfortable and supportive of a decision that would not only cut wages this
time but would impact on pensions over the longer term. The minister can comment on that if she
wishes.
I wanted to also ask her whether the
retirement fund is in a sound financial position at the present time. Is there any unfunded liability for the
pension fund? Is there a surplus, and is
there any plan to redirect some of the surplus if there is that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I would like to inform the
member that, yes, the fund is sound, and there is some unfunded liability. The government has undertaken to meet the
requirements to match the teacher's contribution. Also in the area of surplus, the member asked
about a surplus. Yes, there is some
surplus. No, we have no plans whatsoever
to redirect that surplus.
Mr. Plohman: Just to clarify then, the minister first said
there is an unfunded liability, then she said there is a surplus, and I do not
know how there can be both. I mean,
either there is a liability that the contributions are not meeting the payouts
for that 50 percent of teachers' salaries contributions make, or they are
meeting it over the long term. Is it
actuarially sound I guess is what I am asking.
Mrs. Vodrey: The Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund is
actuarially sound. The Teachers'
Retirement Fund portion, the teachers' contribution, does have a surplus. In terms of the government side by
accounting, some governments do state a liability for the government's share in
that they pay as they go.
Pension payments are charged to the
provinces as incurred. No provision is made by the province to set aside money,
for example, the fund for future pension costs of current working teachers. While teachers earn their pension entitlement
throughout their working lives, the province does not provide matching
contributions but instead elects to deal with these costs when the teachers
actually retire and start to draw their pension.
As a result of this policy, it is
estimated that there is then the unfunded liability for the provincial share of
the teachers' pensions.
Mr. Plohman: So this is not a fully funded pension, but as
the minister says, the government's share is paid out as it is required to pay
the pensions of the retired teachers.
This figure represented in this
appropriation, is that the figure that is in the fund or is that the figure
that the government is paying out for its obligations? We could assume that the fund itself also has
about $44,458,000 plus a little bit on the surplus here. So we are talking a total expenditure for
pensions at the present time of about $89 million a year. The minister can tell me if that is
correct. Also, how much of a surplus
from the teachers' contributions is in the fund as well, over and above that?
* (1540)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the amount listed in the
appropriation is the government's share in terms of the payout for the
pension. Government pays approximately
51 percent of the pension. Therefore,
the member's numbers were fairly accurate, but they may have been more 50‑50,
and he just needs to recognize government pays 51 percent.
Apart from that, in terms of the surplus
amount, the surplus amount from the teachers side is an actuarial amount. We do not have the exact figure. The estimated amount is approximately $20
million.
Mr. Plohman: Well, that is why I asked the question
earlier. I did not know the exact
figure, but it seemed to me that there was a surplus. Has there been any request by the teachers to
negotiate increased benefits as a result of what is an actuarial surplus?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that there is a new actuarial
review of the pension fund that will be reporting in some months from now, and
in addition, there has been some discussion with government regarding the best‑‑be
able to maximize the return, but I am not able at this time to tell the member
any more details about that discussion, and there have been no decisions made.
Mr. Plohman: Just to finish this questioning, I guess I
just wanted to know from the minister whether she has any aversion or any
policy aversion to actually negotiating changes in benefits as a result of
actuarial surpluses, or is the policy that there will be no additional benefits
regardless of whether teachers are actually contributing more than is required
to meet their obligations?
Mrs. Vodrey: From government's position, we would want to
be careful not to negotiate something which required an increase in the
government contribution side.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): If I understood the minister's response to an
earlier question of the member for Dauphin about the losses that teachers would
incur as a result of the impact of the wage restraint bill, the minister said
it would be about four dollars and some cents per month and that this would end
that teachers more than seven years in the plan would experience no impact at
all, is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: Not teachers seven years in the plan but
teachers who retire after this seven years, because it is based on the best
seven years earning.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, I probably spoke that poorly, so that a
teacher who is, say, 10 years from retirement is going to feel no impact as a
result of this change.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, as the member knows, a
great deal will depend upon the salary range of the individuals within that
time and if there were any changes to the salary, because the pension is on the
best seven years.
The information that I have is that
someone retiring in about the year 2001, the effect may be, all things
remaining the same, approximately $2.91 per month.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and subsequent to
that then.
Mrs. Vodrey: I do not have figures for that, but it would continue
to drop and would eventually work its way to then a zero point.
Mr. Alcock: So that the greatest impact of this change is
going to fall on those teachers who are retiring this year or next year and
within the first, say, five years.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the impact will be felt on
those people retiring within the next approximately five years, and as I said,
with the average monthly pension being about $1,709, the effect is slightly
more than $4 monthly.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, given that the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has made much of this Bill 22 being an
attempt to be fair to all people, was there any work done to try to eliminate
this difference in the pensions, to try to offset the changes introduced by
Bill 22?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we certainly did look at
any effect that any reductions of any kind would have and we looked across all
sectors that would be affected. In the
sector that affects teachers, again we looked at it and we saw that the amount
according to the monthly pension would be considered somewhat minimal, so we
tried to make sure that the effects would be not extremely large on any
individual.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chair, so the fact that there was
a difference between older teachers and younger teachers was noted, you did
some analysis as to what it might take to correct that, and yet then decided as
a matter of policy that it was not a significant amount of money, therefore you
would not attempt to correct this imbalance.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we did, as I said to the
member, look into this. We looked into
it carefully. We did look into the
effects. We saw that the effects were
very small, considerably on the teachers, and we were also really making every
effort that we could to also look at a way to maintain employment while
reaching a reduction.
Mr. Alcock: Sorry, perhaps the minister could explain
that last remark about how correcting the imbalance between older and younger
workers would affect employment.
Mrs. Vodrey: Employers were looking at a way in terms of
looking at some way to deal with their employees, and government had said that
we were not looking at a rollback. So
employers would have had to have made some decisions then regarding laying off
of employees. This provided a way to
maintain employment for employees and, though there is a slight reduction in
the pension area, it does allow for, we believe, more continued employment.
* (1550)
Mr. Alcock: Yes, I did not think that we were redebating
Bill 22. I thought we were talking about
teachers' pensions. In this particular
case, in addition to the reduction in income that each teacher is going to
suffer, older teachers are going to feel the impact more because of this
peculiar impact within the pension system.
I had understood, or I guess I had
thought, given the statement from the Minister of Finance, that they were going
to attempt to be fair in the application of Bill 22, and it clearly is not fair
that older teachers would bear more of the cost than younger teachers. But I understand from the minister that has
been studied, that has been examined, that has been thought about, and they
have decided to take no action.
Were there any discussions with the
teachers, who share in half of the costs of maintaining this, about using some
of that surplus to buy up the benefits of the older teachers or to supplement
the benefits of the older teachers so that they felt none of this impact?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said to the member, we did look at this
carefully. We made as many
considerations as we believed possible.
We have had no representation from the teachers to look at the use of
surplus. Therefore, the use of surplus
has not been considered.
Mr. Alcock: Have there been discussions‑‑you
note that a portion of this plan, 51 percent, is unfunded because of the policy
decision of the government to be self‑insuring, if you like, on
that. The Minister of Finance has been
under some criticism about the extent of the unfunded pension liabilities that
exist in the province. There have been
suggestions at times that there might be an attempt to deal with this. Has there been any action taken or any
examination of what it would take to move this toward a fully funded plan?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, again, just to review, the
51 percent is the government contribution, but I know that the member has
looked at pensions across
Mr. Alcock: Yes, it certainly is not inconsistent with
practice in other governments. However,
as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) will tell you, he has been criticized
several times over the years‑‑and not just this Minister of Finance,
the previous Minister of Finance‑‑about the existence of unfunded
pension liabilities.
In fact, the current Finance minister when
he was Finance critic used to roundly criticize the former government for the
existence of unfunded pension plans.
With some of the changes in the public service accounting rules, there
has been a suggestion that they move to correct this. All I asked was, has there been any
examination of what it would take to move this to a funded plan, to step back
from this policy?
Mrs. Vodrey: Some of the details the member is asking
would be best addressed to my colleague the Minister of Finance. I know that he would like to do that when
those Estimates come up.
Mr. Alcock: I have no objection to doing that when we get
to the Department of Finance. It seems
odd to me that the minister would be responsible for this. It does appear in this Estimates and I had
not thought I was getting into contentious areas when I began to raise
this. I simply wanted to know whether or
not this had been discussed within the department and whether or not there was
a plan, however long term, in place to deal with this. I am, frankly, a little surprised that it is
news to you.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 5.(f) Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund
$44,458,900‑‑pass.
Resolution 16.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $647,834,300 for Education and Training for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
6. Support to Community Colleges (a)
Colleges Secretariat (1) Salaries $187,800.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, during some earlier
discussions on policy we touched on the area of the community colleges. The member asked for some information on
enrollment trends and the effect of annual program‑‑any program reductions
on enrollment. I am pleased to provide the information, and in addition to
information on enrollments, I have information on new or expanded program
initiatives also included.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I see that the minister does not have the
presidents of the community colleges here.
I wonder if she would like to explain what her position is on that. In earlier years the presidents have been
here. The minister is obviously choosing
not to have them here this time. Could
she explain what she considers to be the relationship between her department
and the presidents?
Mrs. Vodrey: As the member knows, the community colleges
have now moved to governance. They
operate with their boards of governors and therefore would not be expected to
attend the Estimates of the Department of Education. The presidents of the universities do not
attend the Estimates of the Department of Education, and this year the
presidents of the colleges would not be attending.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, but the director of the
Universities Grants Commission does attend.
There is an intermediate body which does distribute the funds of the
universities, so the situation is not quite comparable in terms of the
distribution and responsibility lines of the government. So again, would the
minister like to perhaps give some additional indication of how she regards the
relationship between the government and the community colleges as being
different from that as between the university and the government?
* (1600)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, let me take a moment to
introduce Mr. Rick Dedi who is the acting director of the Colleges
Secretariat. He is the person who is
here today as the representatives of the Universities Grants Commission would
also be here to assist in information relating to the universities. Mr. Dedi is
here today to assist with information that the member may ask about the
colleges.
Ms. Friesen: Does Mr. Dedi have an appointed board which
he consults on the distribution of monies as the Universities Grants Commission
does?
Mrs. Vodrey: I will just provide a little background. As the member knows, we have incorporated the
three individual community colleges, and we chose not to incorporate them as a
single entity under a single board of governors. We felt that it was important to ensure that
the needs of
The colleges are funded in a new way,
beginning this fiscal year, also.
Colleges are funded by an annual grant from the Department of Education
and Training. This grant represents
approximately 60 percent of college revenues.
Unlike previous years, colleges are now able to collect their own
revenues. The colleges' boards of
governors will report to the minister on an annual basis.
Ms. Friesen: But the issue I am pursuing at the moment is
the relationship between the government and the community colleges as
symbolized or perhaps represented here in Estimates today. This is a departure from the past. The situation is not exactly parallel to the
universities. The question I asked was
whether Mr. Dedi had a similar body to that of the executive director of the
Universities Grants Commission.
All of the monies, as I understand it, are
given directly‑‑those which are not revenue‑‑all of the
grant money from the government is given directly to the community colleges,
and the distribution over the three community colleges is decided by the
minister rather than by the Grants Commission, an intermediate body. So there is a difference. Again, I put the question to the
minister: Why has she chosen not to have
the presidents of the community colleges here, because they do receive a direct
appropriation from the minister, directly determined by the minister vis‑a‑vis
appropriations to other colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me start by saying that the presidents of
the colleges are now not the employees of government. That is one of the main reasons that they are
not present today.
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
In terms of the Colleges Secretariat, the
Secretariat is charged with the responsibility "to support the development
and the effectiveness of the Manitoba community college system"; "to
support the community colleges in their delivery of a quality, comprehensive
and community‑responsive program of education and skills training to meet
the needs of adult Manitobans and also the Manitoba labour market"; and
also "to assist the community colleges to operate as a coordinated element
of the provincial, social and economic development policy."
In terms of the funding that the member
has spoken about specifically, in '93‑94 fiscal year, the department,
through the Colleges Secretariat, will ensure that there is development and
implementation of a college grants funding formula for implementation in the
'94‑95 budget cycle and "the development and implementation of a
results‑based accountability framework which includes legislative
requirements and guidelines for: i)
program evaluation and review; ii) annual reports and audited financial
statements; iii) published annual academic reports; iv) the planning cycle
(annual budget submissions and review, program approval, multi‑year
operating and capital planning); and v) periodic/five‑year organizational
and institutional review."
Ms. Friesen: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, what I am trying
to do is to establish the new relationship between government and the
colleges. The minister said that the
presidents are not employees of the government; hence, they should not be
here. I am wondering how she would
compare them to the chairs or directors of Crown corporations, of Hydro or
Telephone, for example, that also have boards.
I am asking this. I do not know
whether they appear at Estimates or not, and I am wondering what the parallel
relationship is here. I am trying to fit
this into a structure of accountability in government.
Mrs. Vodrey: Maybe I could go through, then, for the
member what boards are required to do and what the accountability for boards
is, and also what the minister retains power to do, and that may assist in
looking at what the relationship is in terms of the colleges.
The boards are required to evaluate
programs regularly. They are required to
make an annual academic report. They are
required to develop and submit multiyear plans.
They are required to conduct organizational and operational reviews at
least every five years, and they are required to submit an annual budget for
ministerial review and approval. That is
different from the universities that operate through the Universities Grants
Commission. They are also required to
submit an annual report and audited financial statements and to appoint an
independent auditor.
In the area of accountability, the
minister appoints a person or a committee to review and evaluate a college
program or service. The minister
appoints a person or a committee to review and evaluate the college mandate and
appoints a person or committee to examine and inspect the financial condition
or management and operation of a college and assess college records and
documents.
In the area of policy co‑ordination,
the minister retains the power to designate the region in which programs are
delivered and designate provincial‑wide program mandates, to designate
campus locations and range of campus programs, and to establish post‑secondary
education and training guidelines, including program evaluation guidelines, but
boards may recommend the establishment, transfer or the cancellation of any
college service or programs. The
minister is required to establish in the policy co‑ordination area the
Colleges Advisory Board and to advise on college‑relating matters.
* (1610)
The college president serves as a
nonvoting, ex‑officio member of the board. The boards of governors hire college
presidents on renewal term contracts, and the term of the contract may be no
more than five years. The college
president is the chief executive officer of the college.
I have already provided information to the
member on exactly what the role of Colleges Secretariat is in the previous
answer, and Colleges Advisory Board, as I have said, is to advise the minister
on college‑related polices and concerns.
This Colleges Advisory Board is comprised of the chairpersons of the
boards of each college, college presidents, the deputy minister and the
assistant deputy minister responsible for colleges.
The Colleges Act ensures that community
colleges remain accountable to government and to the public. The task, now that the colleges have moved to
governance, is to build upon the framework that has been provided by the act to
ensure that the community colleges remain an integral part of the province's
response to the needs of students and employers and also the economic and
social development goals of Manitobans.
I did read into the record as well in an
answer previously exactly what the next step will be then, now to build upon
The Colleges Act, what the department through the Colleges Secretariat will do
in the coming year.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Ms. Friesen: I am looking for the place of the Colleges
Secretariat and the role of the minister within the structure of government and
the Legislature. It seems to me that, as
she has outlined it, the role of the boards and of the presidents are very
similar. The closest thing I can find
are the Crown corporations. Those Crown
corporations do come before the Legislature in the form of a legislative
committee with their presidents and chairs.
I wonder if the minister has given any
consideration to an education committee that would have the opportunity to
examine the chairs and presidents of the colleges.
Mrs. Vodrey: The Colleges Act requires that the annual
report be tabled in the Legislature and then I am sure the members may wish to
ask questions based on the annual report.
Ms. Friesen: Has the minister given consideration to an
annual public meeting, such as is held by Hydro, for example, of each college?
Mrs. Vodrey: The colleges themselves and their boards of
governors may wish to begin to hold such meetings, certainly within their
community and within their area.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister have any concerns about public
availability and public accessibility to such institutions which are receiving
such a large proportion of their money directly from government funds?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said, the community colleges are set up
with boards that are of a regional nature, but the board meetings of the
community colleges are public meetings.
I am advised that the boards may go into in‑camera session for
personnel matters, but their board meetings are public, and they also have
representation from the public on the boards.
That is a different way of operating than the universities and also the
Crown corporations.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is there a
requirement or is there a practice or precedent now established whereby the
dates and times and places of those board meetings are given in notice to the
public?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the act requires that
the colleges hold a public meeting one time monthly. They are required to post the dates of those
meetings in advance.
I am informed that some of the colleges
are, in fact, meeting outside of the college place, in communities, in an
effort to make the business of the college more accessible.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the whole thrust of
the government's policy in post‑secondary education‑‑I am
looking at this from a secretariat perspective and the development of policy,
which I assume remains, overall, in the hands of the minister‑‑the
overall thrust has been towards market‑driven training, and it is my
impression that what we have lost, in that sense, are two things: we have not made any progress in Manitoba in
the attraction of the community colleges for sequential students, and, hence,
for a broader post‑secondary type of education at the community colleges;
and second of all, what we have lost is at the other end, and that is the Adult
Basic Education people, for whom the market really has very little demand
until, in fact, they are literate and numerate.
Obviously, the whole idea of market‑driven
training, I think, is one that comes very much from the ideology of this
particular government, but I want to look at the impact it has had and is
having upon the community colleges, and so I wonder if the minister could tell
us whether, in fact, I am right. Is it
true that the market‑driven training thrust has led to a reduction of
Adult Basic Education spaces, which seems to be indicated by a number of the
statistics that she gave us today‑‑or the enrollment figures?
* (1620)
Mrs. Vodrey: The member began her question with policy co‑ordination,
and I would just like to say that we recognize too, and it is important to
note, that the colleges will continue to be an integrated part of
Again, the Colleges Advisory Board is
established under the act, and it brings together senior ministerial staff,
college board chairpersons, college presidents, to discuss the issues of
interest to the colleges and also the provincial education and training
system. The first meeting of this co‑ordinating
and also consultative body will be held this fall.
The member then asked about the Adult
Basic Education, and I would remind her that the federal government has reduced
the funding for Adult Basic Education.
So, with that reduction, we spoke earlier about the fact that the
colleges may now, through their ability to negotiate with the federal
government, be able to look at reinstating some of that funding for Adult Basic
Education, but we as a government are certainly committed to improvements and
supports and the delivery of Adult Basic Education over the long term. We recognize that high school completion is
an important element for the person's further skills training. As I spoke earlier at another time, our
department is working at a more co‑ordinated policy for adult basic
education and high school completion.
Then the member spoke about sequential
student enrollment, and we are looking to pay increased attention to sequential
student enrollment. We expect that there
will be evidence of that effort over the next two or three years. The colleges themselves and their boards of
governors certainly see the possibilities of the high school‑college
articulation with local school divisions.
There is a potential of partnership among colleges and high schools and
business and labour, and that certainly has needed a greater attention for some
time. In another way as well, we are
looking through the high school system to enlarge the profile and enhance the
profile of the community colleges to make sure that they become a relevant
choice for young people to consider, those young people who would become
sequential students.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, the minister again has
spoken about the federal role in the reduction of Adult Basic Education, but
these people are Manitobans without education.
This government has moved to a policy of market‑driven
education. The market has no need for
people who are not literate and are not numerate.
That is the basic argument that I am
making. Where is the responsibility of a
Minister of Education for people who are without education and for whom the
market has no need? It seems to me that
the minister is essentially, by absolute policy means and policy direction,
abandoning those people for whom the market has no need.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we have had a portion of
this discussion during the Estimates process in the past few weeks. At that
time we spoke about the efforts of this government to look at a more co‑ordinated
policy for the delivery of Adult Basic Education. We cannot simply look at Adult Basic
Education in kind of a piecemeal fashion.
In addition to that, I would say to the
member, we cannot ignore the role of the federal government and their reduction
in the support. The
I just would like to pick up on the
sequential students in that I would like to say that approximately 37.24
percent of students enrolled in the day programs at the community colleges are,
in fact, sequential students.
So I would not want to leave on the record
any sense that sequential students have been completely overlooked in favour of
market driven, because that, in fact, is not the case. The numbers certainly do not bear that out.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, does the minister have any
sense of what the provincial need is for adult basic education? Has she done a needs study? Has she done anything in the labour force
analysis section of her department which might give us an indication of what
the needs are in the community of
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, as I have said, we are doing
an Adult Basic Education policy review.
It is a question that we take very seriously, so, as I was saying, the
department's Adult Education Policy Development Committee is exploring all
forms of the ABE programming for the nonsequential students 18 years of age and
older.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, due to the low‑level
noise in the committee room, I did not quite hear all the minister's response,
but what I did hear I did not think answered the question of need. It looked at programming rather than an
establishment of need. I may not have
heard everything, but did the minister look through her labour force policy at
the needs of Manitobans?
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, in talking about the
department's Adult Education Policy Development Committee, yes, they are
looking at programming, but as they look at that programming, they will also be
looking at areas of need.
I remind the member of the people who
presently sit on that committee representing Adult Education and Skills
Training. We have people from the
Literacy area. I can provide the member
with the names; I did at an earlier time.
We also have people representing the Program Development and Support
Services Division. That is our K‑12
side. We have two representatives from
that side; people representing Administration and Finance; people representing
the Bureau, Planning and Policy Development and also Internal Audit.
* (1630)
As I have said, the members have had two
meetings to date. Actually, they would have had three meetings as of
today. They are consulting with key
players in Adult Basic Education and Literacy to determine the extent of
existing provision and to ascertain their views on the type of articulated
adult education that the province might move towards developing.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, can we go back to
the sequential student issue? What I am
trying to establish is that, in fact, the province's thrust in market‑driven
training may not be to the best advantage of, particularly, substantial
sections of Manitobans.
The sequential students, the minister
says, are 37.24 percent of the day students of the community colleges. Could she give me a breakdown of that in
terms of each college‑‑that is, what proportion of students in each
college are sequential students?
What I am also interested in, if the staff
wanted to take it at the same time, is how that has changed. The Morrow (phonetic) report, the STAC
report, at the beginning of this government's term, recommended very strongly
the increase in the number of sequential students. The minister, in both of the last Estimates
processes, has argued, yes, this is important, and they are working on it. So I think what we are looking for here is
not so much the absolute numbers, but we are looking for the change. We are looking for evidence of change and
expansion of those sequential students.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, we are working on
the percentages of sequential students at each of the colleges now, but just to
go back to the whole issue of sequential students, we have spoken in the
Estimates last year and Estimates this year about the importance of sequential
students. I have spoken about an action
which has already taken place.
There is action in the K‑12 system
whereby we are, first of all, wanting to make the role of the community
colleges much more visible and to make sure that students are fully aware of
what is offered through the community colleges so that, as students are making
their choices, the community colleges are certainly a choice that they would
consider.
The community colleges are at all of the
career symposiums that are offered. They
certainly bring demonstrations of the kinds of programming that they
offer. Those career symposiums are
targeted primarily at young people in the high school years and their parents
so that these considerations are available to them.
We have also recognized the need for
articulation between some of the high school programming and some of the
community colleges programming. In an
earlier answer today, I spoke about how we are looking to try and address that
articulation and try and form a much stronger partnership between the K‑12
side, particularly the high school years, and the community colleges so that
there is an acceptance of some of the training which is done in K‑12 and
that can be applied in the community colleges.
The community colleges themselves are
doing other kinds of work within their own community to make sure that they
have acquainted their communities and the sequential students, potential
sequential students, within their communities with the kinds of programming
available, but it may take two to three years.
I said that in an earlier answer, for us to really look at the
noticeable kinds of changes and numbers in terms of the sequential students.
At Assiniboine Community College, the
percentage of sequential students, and we are looking at the age range
approximately 15 through 24 years being a fairly broad age range, of 23
percent; at Keewatin Community College, we have approximately 35 percent of
students sequential; and at Red River Community College, the percentage is
35.02 percent of students who are sequential.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the staff, I assume,
are still looking for the change, and I recognize that these things do take
time, but I am also going from the minister's own report of the STAC committee
which did draw this to the attention of the government as one of the most
significant areas for changes in the community colleges. It seems to me that what we have seen since
that STAC report has been a continued reduction of significant areas of the
community colleges, and so it would be welcome news if indeed there had been
some increase in the sequential students.
But I do want to comment that the
definition of sequential students here is, as the minister said, very broad; 15‑24
age group is the Statistics Canada reporting range. I think it is far too broad an age range, in
fact, for the kinds of questions that we need to ask about the transition from
secondary to post‑secondary education, or, indeed, about labour and work
statistics as well. The sequential
student, then, in the department's terms, does not‑‑and I am asking
the question: Has never meant those who
proceed from Grade 12?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, first of all, to
those students who would go into community colleges directly from Grade 12,
there is no information on high school leavers and specifically where those
high school students attend. That is
true for all across the country, that that information has not been available.
The age range is the only way that we can,
in fact, look at whether students may be sequential and attribute that age
range to people who have finished high school or most recently finished high
school, depending upon the age in many provinces across Canada, too, where
there is a different age range.
I just would like to correct for the
record
As a comparison, I have information from
'91‑92, '92‑93, and I recognize that is not a very long historical
comparison; however, it will provide us with some data. I can look at the diploma program
specifically, the two‑year diploma program, which seems to appeal to
sequential students, and the level of participation has remained fairly
constant. I would say constant as
opposed to the reduction that the member had wondered if that had occurred.
* (1640)
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Assiniboine Community College‑‑I
beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Chair, the information I have is actually based on
the average age of students, which does show that most of those students, in
fact, go into the diploma program. We do
not have any statistics with us today that would provide the information of
actual enrollment comparisons.
Ms. Friesen: Is it possible to have that provided at a
later time, perhaps, with as much historical trends as the department has
available?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we could try to have that
information available for Thursday's sitting.
Ms. Friesen: In the steps that the department is taking to
encourage sequential students, are they assuming an overall‑‑presumably,
if some of the students respond to this and if it is as successful as the minister,
I am sure, hopes‑‑are we looking at an overall expansion of the
capacity of the colleges, or does the minister in the long term look at
maintaining the same college capacity?
Perhaps, in answering the question, we might have an understanding of whether,
in fact, the minister believes the colleges are operating at capacity in terms
of students at the moment.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the issue, again, of
sequential students has been an issue for some time. It has certainly been an issue over a number
of years and a long number of years.
We are in the process of seeking to make
some changes and developing some inroads into the area of sequential
students. As I have said, the increased
attention to this enrollment will be evident in the next two to three years as
the colleges' boards of governors expand the possibilities of high
school/college articulation with the local school divisions.
That is something now that the boards of
governors are able to do directly and to provide direction to make sure that it
occurs. There is a potential of
partnerships among colleges, high schools, businesses and labour over the next
few years.
The increased capacity is another area of
importance. It will partly depend upon
resources and funding. However, we do
believe that we can make some significant progress. We can make that progress by seeking to use
the resources better and also to provide some greater attention to some
specific educational and training needs of young Manitobans.
So we will be looking at this whole issue
in an integrated way. We will be seeking
information and have provided information in the Estimates process on the
labour market. We will be looking to see
the information as well that the college boards of governors are able to provide
as they look at the decision around courses and their recommendations.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, as the minister moves to
encourage the expansion of sequential students attending community colleges, I ask
again, is this a recognition that the college system must expand to meet that
capacity or is the minister's policy, in fact, to rearrange the proportions and
to maintain the capacity that the colleges have now?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I cannot say at this moment
that there is an intention to expand in the colleges. As the member knows, to commit to a specific
expansion would certainly require additional resources, but what I can say is
what I have been saying from the beginning, and that is that we have to look at
the potential of partnerships among the colleges, with high schools, business,
industry and labour. We have to look at
those partnerships through the governance model.
We will have to see, as the governance
model enters into its first full year, how the partnerships have progressed and
exactly what the demands are, and what resources then are available.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I have a series of other
questions on programs and on financing, but I think this line deals with policy,
governance, and so I would be prepared to pass this line I think.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was interested in
some of the minister's remarks about the new relationships here with the
colleges. Is it expected then that,
given the absence of a representative from the colleges at this process, the
Colleges Secretariat will be answering all of the questions?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, because under the new relationship the
presidents would not be expected to be here, so with the acting director of the
Colleges Secretariat and the staff here from the Advanced Education and Skills
Training branch, then we will be looking to answer the questions that are put
forward.
Mr. Alcock: Then is it anticipated, and I may have
misunderstood the response to one of the questions from the member for Wolseley
(Ms. Friesen), that there would be no point‑‑like, this is not a
like a Crown corporation in the sense that the college presidents will not come
forward to any committee of the Legislature to answer questions on their annual
report, something that the presidents of the universities do not do at the
present time. I am assuming that is a
similar policy with the colleges.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the college presidents
would not be coming forward, certainly, at this time to committee, but what is
different for the colleges is, as I said to the member for Wolseley, colleges
do hold open board meetings. That is
what is required by the act on behalf of the colleges. That is somewhat different from the way the universities
operate. For these open board meetings
the date is required to be posted in advance.
So there would be a way for the public to be very well informed in terms
of the business of the community colleges.
In addition, the colleges will also table an annual report in the
Legislature which will provide some formal documentation of what they have been
doing in the past year.
* (1650)
Mr. Alcock: The universities also table an annual report
in the Legislature. Is it the intention
to see the relationship with the colleges evolve towards a similar kind of
relationship that the universities now enjoy where the Colleges Secretariat
begins to function more and more as that‑‑what would we say?‑‑stopping
point or that resting point between the two, the government and the colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, no, they really are two
different models.
Mr. Alcock: So then the funding that is granted to the
various colleges is as a result of budget proposals that have been put forward
by them, and each one has been considered separately by the government as
opposed to the government considering only the lump sum of money that it is
prepared to fund?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, for the colleges, the
colleges will submit their budgets to government, and the powers of the
minister under the act are that the minister then will approve and has the
power also to amend annual college budgets.
The minister also has the ability to make grants to colleges and to, as
I said, other areas determine the geographic program mandates and so on, but in
the area of budget that is submitted to the minister.
Mr. Alcock: I recall, though, the discussion last year
about the Universities Grants Commission in which the minister had indicated
that the government, the minister, never reviewed the individual budget
submissions, that those were held, as it were, in some other location and the
government was not privy to that, that the government made a policy decision
about the size of the grant it was going to make to universities and then the
Universities Grants Commission then made the decision how it was going to be
apportioned among the universities in response to the submissions and their
analysis of needs, et cetera.
But with the colleges, if I understand the
minister right, it is different. It will
not function that way. The individual
requests will come directly to the minister; they will be policy decisions of
the government as opposed to an arm's‑length body such as the
Universities Grants Commission.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, in relation to the universities, the
universities submit their budget to the Universities Grants Commission. Government decides on behalf of universities
the amount of money available.
Universities Grants Commission then determines, based on the budgets put
forward by the universities, how that money is allocated.
In
terms of the colleges, the colleges will submit their budgets to government,
specifically to the minister, and with that submission, then government will
look at approving the budget or will have the power to amend the budget of the
colleges.
Mr. Alcock: So then, the Secretariat really is no
different than any other branch of government.
It simply is like within a department you have branches that are
responsible for all sorts of things.
Mrs. Vodrey: The Colleges Secretariat is, in fact, a
branch of government, but its responsibility is to liaise with the colleges.
Mr. Alcock: I guess what I am looking for, there is no
intervening role. It is like the daycare
secretariat deals with the daycare system.
The Colleges Secretariat deals with colleges, child welfare with child
welfare. I mean, it has no special
authority over and above that of any other branch.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, that is correct.
Mr. Alcock: In the past, before the colleges had their
boards of directors and their ability to hire their chief operating officer and
all that sort of thing, Government Services provided the support services to
colleges, and I am assuming that is still the case. My question is: Who does Government Services report to?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, at the time of transfer,
all employees were employees of the Department of Education and Training.
In November 1992, 75 employees of the
Department of Government Services were transferred to the Department of
Education and Training. These employees
were those who were responsible for building cleaning, grounds keeping,
security, parking services at the community colleges' facilities. When the colleges went into governance, those
employees were then transferred from the civil service to the employing
authority of the boards of governors of the colleges at their incorporation.
Mr. Alcock: Would this encompass all Government Services
employees who were formerly responsible for the maintenance at the colleges,
the buildings and grounds?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, no, it is the employees who
were responsible for the work that I described in terms of building cleaning,
grounds keeping and so on, with one exception.
At ACC, parking and security is still done by the Department of
Government Services under contract, but those people who worked for the
Department of Government Services and look after the plant and facilities are
still employees of the Department of Government Services.
Mr. Alcock: Well, we can come back to that parking and
security at ACC that is delivered under contract by the Department of
Government Services to the board and governance and employing authority of
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, the people who
remained with the Department of Government Services would be employees who
looked after the plant facilities, such as powerhouse people.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., and time for private
members' hour, committee rise.
HEALTH
* (1430)
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Health. We are on item 4. Provincial Mental Health
Services, page 80 of the Estimates manual.
Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Chairperson, can the minister give me a
status report on the extended care forensic psychiatric facility that had been
scheduled for Selkirk?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): We are still in the
process of planning around the forensic possibilities in the Selkirk Mental
Health Centre.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate
whether or not that facility is in the five‑year capital projects plan
for Manitoba Health?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, that is what I just
indicated, that we are in the planning stages of the forensic capacity, Selkirk
being part of that planning process.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, we had touched upon child
and adolescent services and preventative services last night. I want to touch upon one specific area and
one specific subgroup. That is youth
suicide and, more specifically, aboriginal youth suicide.
I am wondering if the minister might
outline what initiatives have been taken to deal with the mental health, particularly
the high rate of aboriginal youth suicide?
Mr. Orchard: Specific to aboriginal and the confounding
problem of suicide, we, upon invitation, have staff attend at the various
native communities‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I wonder if the individuals carrying on
private conversations might do so in the loge or just outside the Chamber. The honourable member for Kildonan is
experiencing difficulty in hearing the minister's response.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
Mr. Orchard: As I was indicating to my honourable friend,
where the council or administration of one of the bands will ask my Mental
Health Division staff for assistance in terms of a suicide problem on reserve,
my staff will assist them in areas of program discussion, and advice on
training and recognition of the problem in a number of initiatives and issues.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister give us an update on the
status of the registered psychiatric nurse and the agreement entered into
between the province and the psychiatric nurses in terms of the expanded
program and the process that they are in?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the project now is, I
guess, two years old now, is it not?
Yes, I am informed that the proposal for the baccalaureate training program
is now under consideration by the Board of Governors at the
I would anticipate that, following that,
there will be other decisions at the Board of Governors level at Brandon
University, the Universities Grants Commission, and those are yet to be
proposed and considered. In general
terms, we are on target in terms of the advancement of the baccalaureate
program: we have identified what; now we
are identifying how.
Mr. Chomiak: Does the minister have any projections in
terms of the requirements in the province for registered psychiatric nurses
over the next few years in terms of where and how they will be employed?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, we do not have
absolute numbers, but we do have indication of opportunity, or increased
opportunity. That is currently occurring
both in
I think my honorable friend would
understand that in these circumstances there is a significant amount of
redeployment of registered psychiatric nurses from institutional employment to
community‑based employment, where they choose that career path.
In the northern region and Thompson region,
as we advance their reform initiatives in mental health, we would expect that
there will be some additional staffing resource as part of that in those
communities.
* (1440)
It would be fair to say that a significant
portion of those new opportunities in
So we think the opportunities are there
and today, as the system is shifting, we think that they will be sustained as
opportunities. Hence the desire some two
and a half years ago to embark on consolidation of the psychiatric nursing
training program in
Mr. Chomiak: There has been some criticism with respect to
consumer involvement, consumer empowerment with respect to the mental health
reforms. I am aware of numerous
committees and numerous inputs by consumers and others in the mental health
field.
I wonder if the minister could outline or
try to isolate for us some of the initiatives that deal with direct consumer
involvement in terms of the provision of mental health services in the
province?
Mr. Orchard: I think my honourable friend would clearly
recognize the part of the discussion last evening. For instance, on the safe house, centred
around its sponsorship by self‑help organizations who have probably as
much consumer and family of consumer presence as any other organization that we
deal with, and that is a pretty significant new initiative.
The initiative itself of increased support
of funding for the self‑help groups is an indication of consumers being
given a larger opportunity to assist other Manitobans who are suffering from
the same illness.
But, first and foremost, let me go right
back to square one, because I think one of the reasons that we are able to move
and significantly shift the mental health system in Manitoba has been the
opportunity for consumer groups and families of consumers to be part of the planning
process of reform and change from the very first initiative.
I might possibly be slightly off in my
year, but I think it was in June of 1989 or May of 1989 that I had the
opportunity to fly with staff‑‑the session was on‑‑to
Dauphin. The occasion in Dauphin was, I
think it is fair to say, a very happy occasion, because that occasion that I
was up to announce was the establishment of the first Regional Mental Health
Council in the province.
The composure of that Mental Health
Council was departmental staff, yes, professional caregivers, yes, but for the
first time in the history of
That, followed by the creation of similar
regional mental health councils in every other region of the
Subsequent to that of course was the
provincial mental health advisory council.
It was made up of regional council representation, and again
professional representation, professional caregiver organization
representation. That is not
accurate. It was not professional
caregivers organization representation, but we tried to provide a balance of
membership on the provincial advisory council reflective of the many
disciplines that provide Mental Health Services, but they were not mandated to
represent their respective professional organizations at the council and a
significant component of family members and consumers.
Now, that has since been, I think at the
provincial level, expanded by five or six, I believe, to further advance
consumer input into decision making. (interjection) Yes. I, from time to time, have been aware of
criticism, not only by consumers but by others in terms of the process in
mental health reform. I accept those
criticisms as part of a healthy questioning process of change.
But the criticisms would be more directed
and more‑‑I do not know what word to use here but‑‑focused
and pointed if in fact we had ignored the consumer's voice which we have not
done, or if we had attempted to create one plan centrally out of Winnipeg
without necessarily considering the sensitivities of needs in the various
regions of the province.
Criticism is also‑‑my
honourable friend will be well aware because his confreres in the official
opposition have been sometimes on both sides of it. Sometimes they say we are not moving fast
enough; all we are doing is studying.
Then, if we make decisions they say, well, we are moving too fast.
But on balance I am very proud of the
individuals who have given incredible amounts of their personal time with no
monetary reward, only the personal satisfaction of being part of the process of
change.
I am very proud of the professional
leadership of my Assistant Deputy Minister, Reg Toews, and his staff over at
the Mental Health Division. I am very
proud of the people who have focused their good will and their intelligence on
making Mental Health Service deliveries more balanced and in the long run more
accessible and sustainable in Manitoba and better for the individuals who
require that care. Key and important to
that whole process has been the input from consumers and family members of
consumers.
Mr. Chomiak: Yesterday, we talked about the matrix that
had been forwarded to the minister's office from the Canadian Mental Health
Association dated June 11 that was directed to the minister and both opposition
parties with respect to attempting to build on the base‑line that had
been developed in this area previously in order to inform the public as to
where developments are.
I am wondering how the minister suggests
we go about ensuring that this matrix, this information, is provided so that we
can have an accurate understanding of the changes in Mental Health and the
related effects they are having on both caregivers' expenditures and consumers.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I want to confess to my
honourable friend that I have not had the opportunity to go through the
proposal for establishment of baseline data, et cetera. So I cannot give my honourable friend
specifics as to this proposal. We will,
hopefully, do that over the course of the next number of weeks with the
Canadian Mental Health Association.
Let me indicate to my honourable friend
where we are attempting to take the system in terms of analysis on what has
actually happened and transpired as we shift the system. We have been working with the Centre for
Health Policy and Evaluation that has probably the best ability to establish
the baseline data, I think, which is what, if I understand the process here,
the Canadian Mental Health Association is wishing to establish. That discussion
is well in process with the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation.
* (1450)
The expectation is, Mr. Acting Chair, that
as the time clock ticks in terms of the reform, we will be able to use their
analysis on the baseline and forward into the reform process to demonstrate how
the shifts in service from institution to community have affected service
delivery, how they have enhanced it, where there appears to be weaknesses in
the process that need remedy. I think we
are probably embarked on already a process that will‑‑it may not be
identical to the process that is suggested in this letter from the Canadian
Mental Health Association, but I think it is fair to say that their goals of
development of information are not inconsistent with our goals. I think that in
the near future what we will have is an opportunity for staff from the Mental
Health Division to sit down with staff of the Canadian Mental Health
Association to, if you will, attempt to marry the strengths of each process so
that we both end up with a satisfactory ability to monitor the process of
mental health reform, the shift from institution to community, and whether the
expectations on service delivery are, indeed, being met, exceeded, or not met
and requiring some refocusing of efforts.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I will accept that
from the minister. I think that does
make some sense.
One of the reasons that I do not intend to
get into a lot of specifics in terms of the future of mental health reform is
in anticipation that this matrix will be filled up and will provide that data
in any event. I also recognize that it
will entail a fair amount of staff time in order to do so.
What I am hearing from the minister is
that basically there is a commitment for the department to sit down with the
Canadian Mental Health Association in order to determine this data, and that,
of course, we in the opposition would have access either through the department
or through the minister's office of the results of this data. Is that a fair summation of the minister's
comments?
Mr. Orchard: I do not think that is too far off the mark.
We collaborate with the Centre for Health
Policy and Evaluation in terms of their publication of any of the documents of
areas of study that they have undertaken.
It was both on the acute care side and in terms of the mental health
side our intention to have a reasonable or a quite sophisticated ability to
monitor the service delivery and the change impact on the health care system.
I do not have any difficulty, at this time
next year, should all of us be here, in walking through some of the year‑over‑year
changes in service delivery and some of the new service delivery statistics
that we think we will have in abundant quantity this time next year after
approximately 10‑12 months experience with the shift from institution to
community.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, my final‑‑I
think it is my final or next‑to‑final question in this general
round‑‑is just a general question in terms of the total
appropriation. That is, the announcement
on March 17 talked about $4 million in funding announced for new and expanded
programs. Of course, these expenditures
are not reflected in the year‑to‑year differences in the
appropriations between last year and this year.
One would assume that there are savings in
the institutions as a result of the bed closures. I wonder if the minister might elaborate as
to where that $4 million, that increased expenditure, exists in these
particular appropriations.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the concept in terms
of the process is bridge funding to establish the community‑based
services, and then a reallocation of the institutional budgets to further the
community‑based services as the institution is wound down.
So what you are seeing in terms of the
reallocation is an internal reallocation of budget from institution to
community‑based services. That
represents $4 million in the
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chair, in terms of the total
expenditure, $44 million, where is that internal shift in terms of this total
appropriation insofar as the Adult Mental Health Services, for example, is down
by about $300,000 this year. The
appropriation to both Brandon and Selkirk are down. I understand what the minister is saying, but
I do not see it in terms of the numbers.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, this is part of the
Treasury Board's requirement in printing Estimates. Some of the budgetary shifts in terms of
acute care hospital budgets are in Appropriation 21.7, the Hospital line. As we struck the budget this year we were
still funding, for instance, Misericordia, the 21 beds, St. Boniface, the 24
beds.
When we print next year's Estimates it
will reflect the year end shift out. But
that is the source of revenue. So that
the money is coming from Appropriation 21.7 over to the Mental Health Division,
but it is still accounted for at the time we developed the Estimates, because
it was still part of the institutional budget lines, the hospital budget lines
in particular.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Acting Chairperson, is there any
projection from the department for next year, when some of these bed closures
have taken effect, as to what the percentage would be of community‑based
mental health services, percentage of the budget versus institutional? Is there a sense of whether there will be
much of a change?
* (1500)
Mr. Orchard: That is one of the areas that after the
experience of year one that we will be able to share the shift in terms of
percentage. It is not as clear‑cut
as one might expect, because I know we have used a 90 percent figure, that 90
percent of our mental health services are provided on the institutional line.
I would suspect that in arriving at that
figure we have taken the global budget, Hospitals, even though that may have
included the outpatient services, for instance, at
In the shifts we are making, those shifts
are moving 80 percent towards community‑based services and the remaining
20 percent will facilitate reconfigured institutional services, be it, for
instance, acute care psychiatric capacity at
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, just a couple more
issues. In the discussion last evening
in committee, the minister spoke about prevention, and really, this particular
branch of Mental Health Services does not deal with primary prevention at all.
My question would be, however, is there
any relationship between this branch and the Health and Wellness branch? Is there any type of primary prevention, in
other words, health promotion of mental health, any of that done somewhere
throughout the department?
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Chairperson, in the
Chair)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am only hoping that
my honourable friend the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) catches that car on
his way home.
The question posed is an appropriate one
and I indicated earlier, I think it was last evening when we were discussing
the topic about prevention education‑‑now I do not want to get hung
up on primary education versus‑‑but let me explain where I think we
have some pretty significant partners in the education program.
As I explained last evening, the self‑help
groups are very active working with school divisions, upon invitation, working
in public meeting venues, working with various groups to bring a greater level
of understanding of the illness entity that they deal with, whether it be
schizophrenia or depression, manic depression.
Well, okay, I am doing it now. We will be providing the three self‑help
groups, Schizophrenia Society of Manitoba, the Depression‑Manic
Depression association and the Anxiety Disorders Association of Manitoba with
$30,000 funding support each, a total of $90,000, to undertake a public
education program on behalf of their respective organizations.
I simply cannot think of a more direct
primary education or first‑hand education prevention initiative. Again, I reiterate that I have been very,
very impressed with really the tireless service these self‑help groups
put in. They all run on very tight
budgets, and they just work incredibly effectively and incredibly well and
incredibly long hours, and we are trying to assist their continuation in that
regard with modest funds as we are able to make them available. We think they are one of our best
"investments" in terms of mental health reform, and we think that
this investment of an additional $90,000, with the three self‑help
groups, in terms of a support for a public education program, will be a good
investment in future understanding and prevention.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, do any of the staff
in this division specifically deal with women's mental health issues or mental
health as it affects women?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the division has been
working with Healthy Public Policy in developing program initiatives and policy
guidelines, and has been working, I guess, with Health and Welfare
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, does this branch fund
the women's post‑treatment centre‑‑provide funding? The minister indicated that it was the AFM
that provided funding there.
Just one other area. Does this branch have any statistics on
ritual abuse in
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, that is one area that
I think we have taken some fairly significant leadership role within the
division. We are just trying to come
close to determining the date, but it was about 15 months ago that Leanne Boyd
from the Mental Health Division, supported by a couple of other individuals
within the division, sponsored a day‑and‑a‑half, two‑day
workshop on ritual abuse. They had
individuals from, I believe,
* (1510)
Present at the workshop were a substantial
number of individuals from the education community, from the law enforcement
community, Family Services and the funded agencies of Family Services. By all reports that I recall from that
workshop, it was very well received and subsequent to that the division has had
a number of individual profession workshops, if you will. The Winnipeg City Police is one, apparently
several others and there seems to be some recollection that included physicians
in terms of recognition of early signs, et cetera.
I think that we have been able to be very
proactive in this regard, and I think that has been helpful to professionals
from a number of backgrounds, education and law enforcement, et cetera.
Ms. Gray: Do we have any statistics though of incidents
of ritual abuse? Do you have anything
like that?
Mr. Orchard: No, not statistics that we can put a degree
of integrity around. I think my honourable
friend appreciates that that is a very, very difficult area to assess and to
come to grips with and that makes it a very complex area. That is why the division decided to bring in
some of the experts who had knowledge and the ability to help us, if you will,
using an old agricultural phrase, to separate the wheat from the chaff, because
it is a serious issue and you cannot take it lightly. You have to recognize
what you are dealing with there or else you may end up making inappropriate
interventions and that was the attempt of Workshop No. 1 and subsequent follow‑up.
Ms. Gray: I thank the minister for that
information. There was a program at
Mount Carmel Clinic, or there may still be, that dealt with immigrants from
other countries or refugees in particular, and it was a type of mental health
counselling service. I do not recall the
name of it. It was moved over to
Mr. Orchard: Yes, it is.
Ms. Gray: Was there not an evaluation being done on
that particular project in terms of the viability and if it should continue on;
and, if so, what did that evaluation find?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, there was an evaluation component which
was completed, and we are into ongoing discussions around that evaluation of
some of the observations, recommendations that have been made which shall be
built into any continuation of the program.
Ms. Gray: Just to clarify though, that program will
continue for the remainder of the fiscal year?
The minister is nodding in the affirmative. Thank you.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Penner): 21.4 Provincial Mental Health Services, 4.(a)
Administration (1) Salaries $399,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$168,200‑‑pass.
4.(b) Chief Provincial Psychiatrist (1)
Salaries $177,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $37,700‑‑pass.
4.(c) Adult Mental Health Services (1)
Salaries $1,070,800‑‑pass.
Ms. Gray: Just a question here, under Adult Mental
Health Services, the administrative support, again the ratio between that and
the professional, technical and managerial is about seven to 16 which is a
fairly good ratio of administrative staff to professional staff. I am really asking these questions throughout
the directorate levels because the ratios seem to be quite high compared to
other areas of the department. I am
wondering if the minister might be able to explain that.
Mr. Orchard: I will have my senior staff explain that.
I am trying to go through some of the
information that was asked for the other day.
I have the Mental Health Services division flow chart. I think it was asked for yesterday.
In terms of the Mobile Crisis unit, this
announcement, I will distribute it to my honourable friends. Effective May 22, 1993, the Salvation Army's
Mobile Crisis unit may be accessed by calling two numbers, 946‑9109 or
946‑9113, and the hours of operation are 4 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. Monday to
Friday; and Saturday, Sunday and holidays, 24‑hour service. Full coverage will be available whenever
government offices are closed. It talks
about the kind of services provided. I
will provide a copy of that for both my honourable friends.
I have statistics for the time period,
now, I do not know how we end up with May 18, 1993, to May 31, 1993, when it
says effective May 22, but here are the statistics. There were 96 responses in that period of
time, and the days of the week which produced the most referrals were May 23, a
Sunday; May 26, a Wednesday; May 21, a Friday; May 24, a Monday; and May 28, a
Friday. Ninety‑six calls in
total. That is for the Mobile Crisis
Team. Now that would be the expanded
unit.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
I also have the June statistics because
appreciate the start‑up was some 12 days in May. There were a total of 474 calls and referrals
that were dealt with by the Mobile Crisis Team in June. That is June 1 to June 21, so that is a three‑week
period of time.
One of the questions that came up is
whether emergency departments are involved.
Of the 474, 10 of those were emergency department visits‑‑(interjection)
I am sorry? (interjection) That may well be, but at any rate, a fairly
significant level of activity on the Mobile Crisis Team.
There was a question on housing
units. There is a commitment for
Winnipeg Housing Authority for access to 20 subsidized rental units ranging
from bachelor to three bedrooms. We
think this resource will allow the program to provide appropriate accommodation
to approximately 65 individuals at no additional cost to the department. The cost of these units if rented in the open
market would be substantial. So that is
a fairly good collaboration between the two to help in the provision of
additional services.
The Crisis Stabilization Unit, for May 1
to May 31, for the month of May, average daily census was 12.5, average length
of stay 5.6 days. The breakdown on
admissions: there were 71 admissions‑‑37
female, 33 male. There were 120
referrals: 63 female, 57 male. There were a total of 283 drop‑in
clients and 204 crisis calls, the crisis calls being handled by the Mobile
Crisis Team. The average length of stay,
5.6 days.
I think if I can give this copy of that to
each of my honourable friends and I think I have given‑‑yes, that
is the Mobile Crisis Team. If it would
suit my honourable friends, rather than me read this document out, this is the
Intensive Case Management Client Selection Criteria and Target Population,
Entrance Criteria, Exclusion Criteria, Referral Procedure, Intake Procedure,
Client Acceptance, Refusals, Transfers, the basic operation of the Intensive
Case Management, when he returns, I will have a copy of this developed and made
available to my honourable friends.
* (1520)
If that concludes the Estimates of Mental
Health, I want to just thank both my honourable friends. There are all too many areas where we tend to
disagree on process and initiative. In
Mental Health, we seems to have reached a consensus that we have got a process
underway in
I thank my honourable friends for their
support, their participation and debate and their suggestions that they have
made over the course of a fairly substantial time of planning around Mental
Health Reform. I think it has been good
for those citizens of
Madam Chairperson: 4.(c) Adult Mental Health Services (1)
Salaries $1,070,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,489,300‑‑pass;
(3) External Agencies $2,453,200‑‑pass; (4) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
($477,600)‑‑pass.
4.(d) Child and Adolescent Mental Health
Services (1) Salaries $1,014,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$155,100‑‑pass.
4.(e) Brandon Mental Health Centre (1)
Salaries $19,444,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,877,700‑‑pass;
(3) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations ($2,644,100)‑‑pass.
4.(f) Selkirk Mental Health Centre (1)
Salaries $15,378,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,546,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 21.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $44,090,800 for Health, Provincial Mental Health Services
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
Item 5. Health Services.
Mr. Orchard: I am wondering if my honourable friend, while
waiting on staff to come in‑‑yesterday I indicated that there was a
question on respite care and I have information that I would like to share with
my honourable friends. In the respite
care and personal care homes, the statistics I have start in 1989‑90. The
total number of admissions were 897 in 1989‑90, increasing to 925 '90‑91,
to 934 in '91‑92, to 1,038 in '92‑93, and we are projecting 1,122
for this fiscal year.
I would like to break that down in terms
of days of care, rural and
We expect this year that we will have
5,693 days of care in rural
The number of homes providing respite care
have increased from 34 in 1989‑90 to 48 homes this year. The growth is 34 in '89‑90, 42 in '90‑91,
43 in both '91‑92 and '92‑93 and then the increase this year to 48
homes. The total number of individuals
served in 1989‑90 was 534, increasing to 565 in '90‑91.
I will give you the average age. The average age in '89‑90 was
77.9. The 565 individuals served in '90‑91,
the average age was 79. It dipped
slightly in '91‑92 to 552 individuals served; 79.5 was the average
age. There were 632 individuals served
in '92‑93, average age 79; and we project that this year there will be
680 individuals served, average age 79 plus.
The total number of beds dedicated to
respite care‑‑would my honourable friend want the breakdown of
rural versus urban or total? (interjection) Okay. Total beds in '89‑90 was 50 growing to
55 beds in '90‑91; 60 beds '91‑92; 61 beds '92‑93 growing to
66 beds in '93‑94 is our projection of service use.
Madam Chairperson: Item 5.(a) Administration.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, my first just overall
question, I am assuming that we will get to the figures on hospital expenditures
when we get to appropriation 7 under Health Insurance Fund rather than dealing
with it under this appropriation. Is
that the normal procedure for Health Estimates?
* (1530)
Mr. Orchard: Yes, 21.7 is where we can talk hospital
budgets, personal care home budgets and the other insured service
provision. Here we can discuss the
various responsibilities under the guidance of my associate deputy minister,
Mr. Frank DeCock. I do not know whether
you have had the opportunity to meet him.
You have now, if you have not before.
We can deal with the various areas in terms of program policy and
administrative staff support and then move to the areas where, I think probably
if I can speculate, we may well end up with most of the discussion in terms of
the insured benefits area and the Health Services Insurance Fund area.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister for
the direction in that regard.
My initial question deals with community
health centres. Can the minister
indicate how many community health centres are presently in operation in
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, there are 14 community
health centres in total, seven in rural Manitoba and seven in Winnipeg, 14 in
total.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister please provide us a list of
those 14 centres?
Mr. Orchard: I will read them out to my honourable friend
because there is no separate list. They
are part of our hospital funding conciliation.
I will give the rural ones first. Churchill Health Centre, Fisher
Medical Centre, Hamiota Health Centre, the Lac du Bonnet Health Centre, Leaf
Rapids Health Centre, Lynn Lake Medical Clinic, the Seven Regions Health Centre
are the rural health centres.
The Health Action Centre, the Hope Centre,
Klinic, Nor'west Co‑operative, the Occupational Health Centre, Village
Clinic, and Women's Health centre are the seven
Mr. Chomiak: Will the minister provide us with the overall
funding to each of those centres, both last year and this year?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, we have not in the course
of Estimates given individual facility budgets out. Given that I am a constant adherent to
tradition in the House, I certainly would not want to set a precedent in that
regard.
Mr. Chomiak: As part of the minister's reform we have
heard that there will be some major expansions at some community health
centres. Can the minister outline for us
what those expansion plans are? I am specifically
now thinking of the urban centres. What expansions will take place at each of
them? For a start, can the minister
outline what plans are in mind for each of the expansions at each of those
seven urban centres?
Mr. Orchard: Just in thinking the answer that I would
provide to my honourable friend, it occurred to me that we missed one of our
urban centres, Mount Carmel Clinic. The
staff is at fault here. They did not have it highlighted for me. It is not my fault. Is that not what you are supposed to do?
An Honourable Member: Except it adds up to 15 now, does it not?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, but that is what happens when you add
one to 14. That is the reason why it
came to mind very quickly that we had not included Mount Carmel Clinic in terms
of the urban health centres.
We have gone through some controversy, as
one of our media reporters would say, over the one initiative in terms of
Street LINKS which was jointly provided on a two‑year trial basis through
the City of
There were many reasons for that decision,
not the least of which was an ability of Mount Carmel Clinic to provide a more
economic delivery vehicle than other sponsors considered. I have to tell my honourable friend that was
before we tabled the Health Action Plan.
Previous to that, Mount Carmel had become the facilitator of the
reinstated power service delivery, and there was a reasonable opportunity here
to further advance the community‑based initiatives and to build upon the
good working relationship that
* (1540)
Similarly, we are working with them and on
this initiative I would beg my honourable friend the time to wait till we get
to the Hospital line in the section, but, in essence, we are moving some of the
emergency service from the Health Sciences Centre to the Health Action Centre,
to use the Health Action Centre to deliver primary care for the catchment area.
We expect that to be on line July 1,
1993. I could provide my honourable
friend with some broader details on that and maybe if he had questions on that initiative,
if I could not answer them with staff that are here today, certainly when we
get to that line I would have his questions and would be able to provide
answers.
The basic premise that we are trying to
follow here, and I want to caution my honourable friend on this, community
health centres by definition can mean almost anything to anyone. By name they bring up program imagery or
program understanding that can vary and vary fairly significantly depending on
who you are talking to. Certainly, the
community health centre concept, as envisioned by some of the urban providers,
is significantly different than the community health centres outside of
Our approach and our philosophy is where
we believe there is an appropriate opportunity for an enhanced service delivery
scope at a community health centre, we will work diligently with that
organization to see whether we can make arrangements for that additional or new
service delivery. It does not in any way
or shape or fashion confer on the community health centres an automatic in for
funding, if you will. They have to prove
and go through the rigours of budget analysis, service delivery analysis,
outcome analysis just like any other organization does.
I make no apologies for that kind of
rigorous investigation because anything less would diminish the valuable role
that community health centres can play in many aspects, and I think it is fair
to say a growing number of aspects of care which would be community based.
Mr. Chomiak: I wonder if the minister could outline for me
the plans for the Health Action Centre in terms of the anticipated volumes, the
anticipated staffing in terms of the various shifts that are taking place, as
well as the proposed catchment area, the base area for the Health Action
Centre.
Mr. Orchard: I do not have that detail with me today but,
having accepted the question, will provide that at the next time we meet.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank the minister for that. Could the minister outline whether there are
any departmental plans with respect to the Hope clinic and its delivery of
service?
Mr. Orchard: There are no changes anticipated there in
this year's budget.
Mr. Chomiak: How about Nor'West? Can the minister give me a specific response
with respect to Nor'West?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, to avoid going through each one
of them, the balance of the
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate
whether or not there are any departmental reviews going on at present with
respect to proposals from any one of these particular centres for major
expansions or major changes in initiative that the minister can reveal?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I am informed that none of them
have a major program expansion proposal before the ministry.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate whether or not some
of the proposals emanating from
Mr. Orchard: Yes, Madam Chairperson, I indicate to my
honourable friend that, yes, Misericordia Hospital has done a lot of internal
thinking and planning and has adopted a vision of the future that includes a
pretty significant and increased presence in the community with community‑based
services being a focus of expansion.
That proposal is being reviewed internally. No decisions have been made that would be
part of announcements this year, but clearly as a hospital organization,
Misericordia is certainly taking a look at a potential area that they believe
is an opportunity.
In general terms, let me indicate to my
honourable friend that I welcome that kind of initiative, because I think it
will be valuable to work through with Misericordia and the ministry. I think in
broad terms, and I say this endorsing the concept without giving any indication
as to what its status of approval in part or a whole might be, but conceptually
it is certainly putting the focus in terms of reaching into the community with
an array of community‑based services.
Let me tell my honourable friend why I am
quite intrigued with this. It was just a
year ago‑‑and I will apologize if I am stating the case other than
what it was presented. I am assuming my
honourable friend believes that is a fairly reasonable initiative that
Misericordia has got forward, and we agree on that point. It was last year when we started the reform
process. Before the document came down,
there were some of the rumours floating around about hospitals planning
outpatient services and community‑based services out of hospitals.
My honourable friend might recall some of
the concerns about having community mental health workers stationed, as we
discussed earlier on, in mental health at the psych health building. At the time there was a concern that you
could not have community‑based services if they were attached to an
institution. I think that my honourable
friend's advancement and questioning of the Misericordia proposal has crossed
that bridge. I am not unfairly stating
his predecessor's position on it, but I detected some distinct concern that you
could not have true community‑based services if they were attached in any
way, shape or form to an institution.
* (1550)
We have always been very open on this
issue, but we only put one criterion on the institution. We have got guidelines for service provision
in community‑based care. Anyone
who brings a new community‑based proposal to government and it is
approved has to follow the program delivery and the funding guidelines as set
down by government.
That same general rule of thumb applies to
the institutions if they wish to move towards the provision of community‑based
care. As bluntly put as I can make it,
we are not in the business of transferring an institutional‑cost
structure to community‑based services.
That would defeat the whole purpose.
Yet we are not saying that institutions
cannot undertake an enlightened role of community‑based service
provision. That is why, within the
ministry, we are working through the Misericordia proposal, because I think
Misericordia is probably the first of our major hospitals to really put their
minds around really a new thinking process in terms of the future direction of
their care organization.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister table for
us those guidelines for community‑based services and program guidelines
that he made reference to?
Mr. Orchard: No, I cannot, but they follow, for instance
in Continuing Care, the basic guidelines that my honourable friend was reading
from the other day. That is the kind of
program format in terms of community‑based services that we attempt to
guide the process of new program development around.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I appreciate that we will
be dealing in detail with the provision of services by the Health Action Centre
at some future date, but I am just curious in terms of the conceptual genesis
of it. Was the initiative from the
Health Action Centre or was it from the Health Sciences Centre or was it from
the ministry in terms of the development of that particular community‑based
service?
Mr. Orchard: In this case, from the ministry.
Mr. Chomiak: I note that we have moved to seven rural
health centres. With respect to what is
now developing in rural Manitoba in terms of the minister's health reform, can
the minister indicate whether or not the seven health centres are serving as a
prototype for communities or are one of a type of service that will be offered
or how they fit in with the general conceptual planning in rural Manitoba?
Mr. Orchard: In part, Madam Chair, and that is very much
dependent on the service model and the effectiveness with which they approach
the service delivery, so that I think there has been a reasonable experience in
rural Manitoba, but I want to remind my honourable friend that in general the
health centres in rural Manitoba‑‑this is not an accurate
generalization but I think‑‑have been serving a single community,
by and large, and the opportunity that we are attempting to facilitate in
advance throughout rural Manitoba is a collaboration between communities around
the concept of service provision, and a consolidation where possible of
services, administration, finance, purchasing, other areas that at first blush make
common sense, and to conceptualize health care delivery in a new format. That new format, there is an opportunity to
tailor that, if you will, with some sensitivity to the needs of the region
served.
Mr. Chomiak: I certainly would have the impression that
the ministry would be attempting to encourage the development of community
health centres, community clinic concepts, and I am wondering what initiatives
are being undertaken by the ministry to foster those developments in the larger
context of the minister's health reform?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, it is exactly along that line
that communities have the ability to move if they believe that is an
appropriate alternate form of service delivery organization. Let me deal with an issue that often is affiliated
or associated, not exclusively but often, with community health centres and
that is of salaried physicians. I mean,
we have not exclusively proffered the salaried physician initiative only to
community health centres. It is to the
option of any of our hospital districts or hospital boards in the
province. It is most often, I think,
utilized in the community health centres, although not exclusively.
There are instances of fee for service at
community health centres. I believe, if
my memory serves me correct, I think
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, in this particular section
of the department with the health reform that is occurring, I understand that
the process is established so that there are a lot of committees that are
dealing with various issues related to changes.
Does the minister have an organizational chart of those committees that
would give us a bit of an idea of what some of those committees are?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, if we have it here, we will
provide that to my honourable friend. If
we do not, we will make sure it is available when next we meet.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, is part of this change or
transition from institutional to community and looking at refining what
hospitals do, is there any group that is specifically looking at preventative
programming?
* (1600)
Mr. Orchard: If I go back to the Healthy Public Policy
area, that is where we have the greatest focus in terms of wellness and
prevention initiatives.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, is the responsibility of
this area to work with the various hospitals and ensure that where there are
changes in staffing or where there are layoffs that in fact some type of worker
adjustment programs kick in? Is that
part of the responsibility of this part of the department?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, no, in terms of our presence in
the Workforce Adjustment, it is on the committee that we have talked about 10
days back or two weeks ago. With health
reform under the directorship of Bernard Blais, we have seconded an individual
from the Civil Service Commission, who is our representative on the Workforce
Adjustment Committee on behalf of Manitoba Health.
Ms. Gray: Does the minister have any further
information today about where that committee is at in terms of looking at a
number of changes? One would be the
layoffs of LPNs at St. Boniface; another would be any staff changes necessary
at Misericordia with the closing of the psychiatric beds. There are a number of changes that are going
on. Does the minister have any further
information as to what types of retraining programs or possible job
opportunities might be available for these staff?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I know that I wanted to get
confirmation because this question was posed the other night in terms of the
LPN issue at St. Boniface. We will
attempt to have the information for Thursday next, but I was just discussing
with my associate deputy minister the discussions I had with St. Boniface. I cannot indicate this with complete
accuracy, but I do not know why else I would recall it if it was not part of
the discussions around the announcement earlier‑‑I think it was
last week. I am quite sure that within
the St. Boniface organization, in collaboration with the Workforce Adjustment
Committee, St. Boniface was‑‑and the phraseology sticks in my mind‑‑a
refresher course for LPNs so that they could be redeployed within. I will check that phraseology for my
honourable friend. As well, there were a
number, to the maximum class size, of acceptance into the diploma RN course.
In addition to that, the Workforce
Adjustment Committee seeks and facilitates several other things: redeployment into new job opportunities, some
of which, of course, have been filled with the commissioning of the additional
beds at Concordia and some additional hirings at Municipal and Deer Lodge.
But I would suspect that the committee
would be involved in terms of assisting individuals to apply for positions that
we expect will be coming up later on this year when the 240 new personal care
home beds are commissioned and staffed this fall, the two new personal care
homes in the northeast quadrant of the city.
In addition to that, as I explained some
time ago when we discussed this issue, part of the committee membership is a
representative from the Department of Labour and a representative from the
federal government. The obvious
relationship there is to assure ourselves that, where we can, we access federal
retraining programs and support.
All of those are initiatives that are
focused on all individuals who unfortunately may be subject to layoff, not only
in the process of downsizing our teaching hospitals but in other initiatives
that are occurring across the system.
With the combination of management plus
union leadership there, we think we have got most of the players at the table
to exercise opportunities of redeployment as well as retraining and new job
opportunities elsewhere in the system.
Ms. Gray: The staff whose jobs will change, or they
might be laid off as a result of changes, let us say the closing of the
psychiatric beds at Misericordia, is the management of the hospital aware who
those staff are, No. 1? Secondly, if
they are, is there any type of co‑ordination in place so that should jobs
come up in community health that those people might be put on re‑employment
lists for those jobs?
Mr. Orchard: The answer to all aspects of that question is
yes. The management at Misericordia certainly are aware of the individuals. Now, I think my honourable friend will
appreciate that there is a bumping process within each of the institutions as
enabled by the union contract.
So after that process, then the
individuals subject to layoff are identified and known to management, and within
the hospitals I think it is fair to say that they undertake redeployment
efforts. In terms of a relationship with
ourselves, yes. In terms of our filling
of vacancies within our community service system, we maintain access to the
individuals that have been laid off, potentially in Misericordia and elsewhere
in the acute care system.
Two criteria: First of all, we have our own redeployment
list internally that is guiding us according to our master agreement with the
MGEU which is our first search, if you will, for a fit of a laid‑off
employee to an opening or a vacancy. Then, of course, if that fails, we have
explored the redeployment list from our hospitals, and we have had some success
in placing a few individuals within the department.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, changing streams a little
bit, this section also deals with Ambulance Services. Is this the section that deals with standards
for ambulance services, whether it is equipment, staff, et cetera? Yes, the answer is yes.
I understand obviously within the city of
* (1610)
Mr. Orchard: If I can recall the issue, I think that goes
back about three and a half years ago with the old miniambulance debate I think
is where it was at. Now I will have to
seek confirmation, but I do not think the miniambulance configuration is in
service with the City of
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, there are some ambulances
that are in service now. I do not know
if they are referred to as miniambulances or not, but they are a smaller version. In fact, I know the ambulance drivers and
even some of the nursing staff have a lot of difficulties with them, and
depending on the nature of the transfer, particularly if it is a transfer from
institution to institution or the type of request for the ambulance, the staff
will even say do not bother sending this type of ambulance because it is not
that useful. This is some information I
had received from some people in the constituency, who had expressed concern. So I was wondering if the minister had any
further information about these vehicles, and if in fact they actually met
provincial standards.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I am going to have to seek that
advice from our director of ambulance division and provide that information
next time we meet.
Ms. Gray: Has the department done any costing or
analysis with some of the changes or potential changes in emergency departments
and changing of some services from hospital to hospital, what some of the
incurred costs have been for the ambulances, particularly for transfers? For example, a CAT scan, you may be in a
particular hospital but the CAT scan that you would be required to use as a
patient would be in another hospital, and therefore if you needed to be transferred,
depending on your condition, you would be transferred by ambulance. Has there been any costing done or analysis
of sort of what some of those costs are?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, the policy remains that
interfacility transfers of patients are paid for out of the in‑globe
budget of the originating facility. That
is not only applicable to urban hospitals, that is applicable across the system
and has been the circumstance, I guess, I am not sure, for a number of years at
least.
Ms. Gray: I just wondered if there were any increase, or
if your ministry would know this, in costs for those interfacility transfers,
particularly for instance for CAT scans, because some hospitals do not have
access to the CAT scans that are there.
Mr. Orchard: Yes.
That is a cost experienced by the facilities in terms of if there is the
requirement of an inpatient individual needing a CAT scan in a hospital that
does not have an approved installation of CAT scan, they pay for the ambulance,
the hospital transfer costs. They would
also, I think, pay for the transfer of costs, for instance, to access the MRI
imaging at St. Boniface.
Ms. Gray: In the area under Salaries where it talks
about two managerial SYs and six professional, just for my information, could
the minister tell me who the people are currently occupying those six SYs?
Mr. Orchard: The two managerial positions are occupied by
Mr. DeCock and monsieur vacant, whatever.
The second position is not filled.
Ms. Gray: What about the six
professional/technical? What positions
are those, and what do they do?
Mr. Orchard: In terms of Admin Support, Melody Ebbitt;
Frank DeCock is indicated in terms of one of the managerial positions. There is
a vacancy in Professional/Technical. In
terms of Administrative Support, Jeannie Raymond, Roger Jamieson, Francis
Blackmon, and the vacancy in the managerial position that I referred to
earlier.
In terms of Professional/Technical staff,
Donald Krack, Maureen Latocki, and I think that is it. Yes, that completes the list.
Ms. Gray: Under Other Expenditures there is a grant for
$6,800. Can the minister tell us what that is?
Mr. Orchard: Can we come back to that and provide that
information at a later date?
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister provide us with an up‑to‑date
list of members of the Manitoba Health Board?
Mr. Orchard: My Deputy Minister Frank Maynard is on the
board. It is chaired by Gail Roth. Other
members of the board include Bob Filuk, Terry Babock, Bob Vanderwater, and
George Bass.
* (1620)
Mr. Chomiak: Is this the body that will be the appeal board
for those patients who are disputing the particular rate increases of the
nursing homes?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, Madam Chair. We intend to use the Manitoba Health Board
with the membership as named to handle appeals in terms of the means‑tested
personal care home per diem program that hopefully we will have ready for
discussion before we complete Estimates.
Mr. Chomiak: I have some questions on the Gretchen
case. I assume I can pose them at
this. The first question is, has the
minister had a chance to review the situation with respect to the Gretchens?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, I have had an opportunity to review the
status.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate whether or not he
anticipates exercising some kind of discretion or decision‑making power
in order to allow the child in without the requirement of a bond?
Mr. Orchard: The decision stands as indicated to the
family. I am informed that the current
status is, the family, as my honourable friend is aware, is disputing, if you
will, the $300,000 figure as assessed by our medical experts basis the medical
report on the individual they received.
The family is indicating some concerns over that, and they are being
asked to share with us the additional information and differing
information. When we receive that, the
decision of the size of the letter of credit will be reviewed. If there are changed circumstances in terms
of increased or decreased expectation of medical need, there could be either an
increase or decrease in terms of the letter of credit that is provided.
At this time I am advised that no new
information has been received which would cause the professionals making that
advice to the ministry change their current suggestion in terms of $300,000 by
letter of credit. It would be a process
of reviewing any additional information before any change either up or down
would be contemplated.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister outline
for me what the policy is with respect to the posting of bonds, as a start?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, as I understand the
policy, where an individual is deemed by Immigration Canada to be medically
inadmissible, almost all circumstances no waiver is granted, so that the
process of immigration simply does not proceed.
In circumstances where for compassionate
grounds generally involved around, I think, primarily family reunification,
waivers of that medical inadmissibility can be agreed to by the federal
immigration authorities.
In those cases prior to 1975, a physician
did the assessment based on known medical condition and medical assessment and
would recommend to the then Manitoba Health Services Commission the size of an
irrevocable letter of credit which would be required to facilitate the
completion of immigration of that medically inadmissible individual.
Since 1975, that process has been part of
the Manitoba Health Services Commission's responsibility and has been
undertaken by our medical assessors based on consultation of the medical
diagnosis as provided by Immigration Canada.
Where they do not have internal expertise sufficient to make a judgment
call on what size the letter of credit should be, what dollar value the letter
of credit should be, they seek outside advice from specialists as required.
It is a professional recommendation which
is provided to the ministry and in some 75 cases since 1975 has been the
circumstances under which the waiver by the Immigration department of
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate
whether there were any cases when the bond provision was not required of those
75?
Mr. Orchard: My understanding is that there were 75
waivers of exemptions on medical admissibility granted on the condition that
the sponsoring family provide the irrevocable letter of credit to the
ministry. There were no exceptions to
that case, to my knowledge.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate when he was aware
that the family was informed that they would have to provide the irrevocable
letter of credit?
Mr. Orchard: Staff in my office were advised that this was
the assessment made, and that in all likelihood it would become a public issue,
last week.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister definitively tell me when the
family was informed by Health Services that they would be required to post an
irrevocable letter of credit?
Mr. Orchard: We will provide that information. We think it was June 16, but we will confirm
that date.
Madam Chairperson: 5.(a) Administration (1) Salaries $680,700‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $121,000‑‑pass.
5.(b) Hospitals and Community Health
Services (1) Salaries $31,517,800. Shall
the item pass?
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, one of the questions that
I have in this area is, could the minister tell us, within the regional
services throughout the province, have there been any staff layoffs in the past
year?
* (1630)
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I am advised no.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, were there not some mental
health staff that were laid off in
Mr. Orchard: No, my honourable friend is correct. I think around December there were two
individuals who were laid off who were involved with orders of supervision.
Ms. Gray: Have either one of those individuals been
hired back? I know they were put on redeployment lists.
Mr. Orchard: We do not have that detail here, so if my
honourable friend would permit us to check that and we will provide that
information Thursday.
Ms. Gray: Is there any other intended layoffs because of
changes in program structure that may be occurring this year in the regions?
Mr. Orchard: Again, no, there are no planned layoffs. There are a couple of areas under discussion
that we do not know how will end up being resolved in terms of program delivery. At this stage we do not anticipate
layoffs. I should not even have said
that because my honourable friend is going to ask where and what and why and
how. But you know that we keep these
things as closely hidden secrets as we can.
What we are doing is we are doing some
investigation around some of the program areas, and we are in discussion with
some of the community health centres in terms of a service provision working
relationship. It is in preliminary discussion
stages and we do not know how it will end up, but announcements will be made in
due course, but we are in the middle of discussions right now.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, specifically looking at
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I have constantly promised my
honourable friend the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) an answer on this,
and I am embarrassed every time it comes up because we have not resolved the
issue. My understanding of where some of
the discussion is around this is a little bit of a‑‑how do I put
this nicely so that it does not sound as if we are having an internal battle?
But Family Services is involved, Health is
involved and, of course, Government Services, and we are into a discussion over
how much office space is needed, like square‑footage size, physical
size. My understanding is that we are
into that discussion because it is considered, or one of the considerations is
whether we need individual offices for people who work in the community or
whether there can be a sharing of common office space, because most of the work
is done outside, and to my chagrin I cannot give my honourable friend a
resolution and a pathway of resolution.
However, I renewed just today. Although I was not anticipating the question
this afternoon during Question Period, today I looked at my honourable friend,
behind my honourable friend and realized that it was some two or three weeks
ago that I had indicated I would get him information on the status that he had
requested, and went in the office just prior to Estimates. I again sought out the information, and was
basically given the kind of information I just shared with my honourable
friend. Hopefully we will be able to resolve this issue in the near future.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, my understanding was that
the problem with looking at any type of new space or relocation of staff in
Winnipeg region, particularly going back to St. Boniface, was related to the
fact that the entire redefined space project for Winnipeg region staff was
bogged down in the Department of Health because Government Services has decreed
that they would not consider selling 189 Evanson as a building because it was
not profitable for them to do so, and that there would have to be a total
renovation of 189 Evanson, which meant that there would have to be staff being
willing to relocate to 189. Some of the suggestions for staff moving in there
were places such as Eaton Place, potentially 831‑‑not 831 Portage,
what was the old MHSC building‑‑that there was some talk about
changing the staff that would be possibly at 189 Evanson and that there were
some staff in the department who said that they would not consider moving into
189 so that the project was at a halt.
Now is that impasse no longer there?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I must admit I am listening very
attentively, because that is a dynamic on the issue that had not been shared
with myself. However, I value my
honourable friend's observations on this, and I will attempt to determine as
soon as a little bit of free time comes up post Estimates to move on the
resolution of that issue.
* (1640)
Ms. Gray: Rather than spending more time in Estimates
on that issue, I would be quite prepared to talk to the minister about the
issue of space in Winnipeg Region at any time outside of Estimates.
I have a question in relation to SYs in
Winnipeg Region in particular. It was
related to delivery of Public Health programs, specifically the home economics
portion of the program. I am wondering
if the minister could tell me currently how many SYs are there in Winnipeg
Region that are occupied by home economists, and are there any vacancies?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, there are seven SYs and a
current vacancy of one.
Ms. Gray: How long has that position been vacant?
Mr. Orchard: We do not have that detail here, so we will
provide that Thursday next.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I think if I am correct
that position has been vacant for quite a while, although I am not sure. Are there plans to fill that vacancy with a
home economist, or are there plans to do other things with that SY?
Mr. Orchard: Can I provide my honourable friend with that
kind of detail Thursday along with the length of time that it had been vacant,
et cetera, and any status in terms of recruitment to fill?
Ms. Gray: Has the Department of Health, Ministry of
Health, entered into any agreements with the federal government in relation to
the cost‑sharing agreement that was available in relation to expansion of
French language services?‑‑it was the Canada‑Manitoba
agreement. Has the Ministry of Health‑‑do
they have any projects on the go in relation to that agreement?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, Madam Chair, we have recently‑‑recently
meaning, I guess, in the last six months‑‑established the French
Language Services Secretariat out of St. Boniface Hospital to serve the French
language health facilities in
If we can find it this afternoon, I will
provide my honourable friend with the budgetary commitment, but it is part of
the federal‑provincial Secretary of State cost‑shared proposal, and
it is being shared 50‑50 with the federal government.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, in regard to French
language services, has the ministry, outside of institutions‑‑has
regional services anywhere in the province entered into any agreements?
Mr. Orchard: No, not in terms of regional services. The initiative has been on the institutional
side with‑‑and I am stuck for the individual's name who undertook
the report that led to the creation of the French Language Services
Secretariat; it was the Gauthier report.
The total annualized commitment is $298,000. On an annualized basis it is a $298,000 program
which is cost shared with the federal government. As I indicated, the central office or the
head office, if that is the way to put it, the main operating location is St.
Boniface General Hospital, with the rural co‑ordination taking place with
staff at Notre Dame de Lourdes.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, has the minister's
department or ministry thought‑‑and I know that they are looking at
this in the Department of Labour and I recognize that the ministry is
undergoing a major health reform right now‑‑but is there any
thought to changing some of the rules and regulations in regard to the budgets
and the budgets that each of the regions receive, even the directorates, for
that matter, and allowing regions more global budgets so they have more
flexibility in terms of how they spend that money. For instance, I think you might find that
some regions, if they could spend some capital dollars on equipment, such as
computers, PCs, et cetera, some technological advances, that some of those
dollars might be very well used, but in fact regions do not have any of that
authority to make those decisions. Any
thoughts to looking at changing those kinds of rules and regulations?
Mr. Orchard: Well, in part, we are considering that. Not to date in terms of the flexibility my
honourable friend is proposing around the global budget, but we are looking at
the initiative around investment in communications technology, computer
technology. In particular, to be
specific, we are looking at the opportunity that some of the laptops might have
in terms of making an office mobile, i.e., take it with you in terms of rather
than return to the office.
* (1650)
Now, if I remember correctly, we have that
initiative that we want to have some sense around it within the next three or
four months. Within this fiscal year, we
hope to be able to, not completely resolve it, at least take some progress
towards the computer side of what my honourable friend is saying. On the larger issue of a more global
budgeting responsibility, no, we are not in this fiscal year undertaking that
sort of flexibility.
I say that with full qualification of this
year, because we are very much open to looking at greater empowerment around
budget across the system. I mean, that
is the major compelling motivation behind Total Quality Management or
continuous quality improvement, if you want to be very blunt about it, and that
is part of investigation. But I confess
to my honourable friend, probably should not, we have a significant number of
change initiatives before staff of the ministry, and we are not venturing into
some of the areas just yet such as my honourable friend just referred to.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, in regard to the public
health services that are delivered in the regions, are there any target
populations, i.e., is there more emphasis placed on servicing people from lower
socioeconomic status, or what exactly is the target groups for public health
programs?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, yes, in terms of public health
nursing, we attempt to focus efforts on higher‑risk populations. That has
been a direction that is not new of recent.
I guess I can only say to my honourable friend that as we gain more
experience with health reform, I think you will see probably an increased effort
at targeting of programs, No. 1; and No. 2, we got into a discussion maybe last
week on low‑birthweight babies with a recent report from the Centre for
Health Policy and Evaluation.
Clearly, in terms of the presentation, I
was immediately intrigued as to whether we could target and focus our resources
on the lower socioeconomic group which appeared to be ones that maybe we would
have a more productive outcome in terms of a focused program delivery. Now that requires sophistication of database
marrying so that you can actually determine who might be an appropriate
candidate for targeted or focused resource dedication.
So I can indicate to my honourable friend
that certainly within the ministry there is interest in pursuing that, although
it will be‑‑I think my honourable friend could well appreciate‑‑maybe
not as expeditious a process as one might wish to have happen. I am assuming my honourable friend thinks
that is an appropriate direction to go to.
I just made that automatic assumption.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, not necessarily. I think it is important that we do target
some programs for that group, but I also believe that there is a lot of health
promotion that needs to be done with the general population.
When the minister was mentioning earlier
on about a couple of programs that the department was looking at, at possibly
having other agencies or groups deliver those services, I certainly do not have
a problem with that. I do not think we
need to increase our government if a community group can do it better.
I would ask the minister‑‑and
the reason I say, not necessarily targeting low income, it is quite
interesting. Again this is anecdotal,
but when you listen to people who have children in school and who live in areas
such as Charleswood and Tuxedo and North Kildonan, areas which one might think
would be supposedly middle income to upper income, and chances are they are,
but when you hear some of the stories about the poor nutrition that a lot of
these children have in these schools that have families of higher income, one
really questions whether in fact we should be doing a better job. We need to be doing a better job with just
education in general, regardless of the income.
That is where I think that some of your
organizations, your professional organizations, whether they are nurses or home
economists or doctors, if there can be more work done on behalf of the ministry
basically just to do some co‑ordination, get some projects going, I would
think that you could get some of those organizations who would be prepared to
probably‑‑they might be able to get some federal funding. Maybe even with a little bit of funding, they
probably would be able to have some of their professional people in the
association do some volunteer, if we can say, work and do some pilot projects
in the communities in the area of nutrition and health promotion, because I
would suggest that although the higher economic levels maybe the education is
there, I do not think the education is necessarily there in the area of
nutrition and health promotion, because I would suggest that, although in the
higher economic levels maybe the education is there, I do not think the
education is necessarily there in the area of nutrition. Although we are teaching the kids in schools,
it is the parents who are still feeding the children. We may want to target lower socioeconomic
classes, which I think is fine for our government programs, but there also
needs to be another way of reaching the other part of the population.
To me, I do not necessarily think
government should be delivering the service, but I would hope that government
could be initiating some of the co‑ordination and maybe getting some
other groups and organizations to look at what could be done in the
communities.
I just wondered if the regions, or
Community Health Services, even in their committee looking at prevention, have
got to a point yet where they are starting to look at not just what needs to be
delivered in terms of education, but who are the deliverers going to be and how
is it going to be done?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I am intrigued with this
discussion, because it really presents a confounding perception around where
government ought to probably focus resource.
I mean it is not an area that normally one would consider as being a
real target and I am intrigued, and I would like to further explore, because I
guess I do not see that in the same regard as my honourable friend does.
I am not engaging in debate or
anything. That is not what has been
brought to me as an opportunity or a potential for focusing nutrition or other
health promotion education programs. Particularly on the nutrition side, we
often are reminded or given that the lower income groups are the ones that
would benefit the most from target input, and I think generally that is
probably accurate.
My honourable friend is saying that there
may well be other groups that ought not to be left out. Now that brings quite an intriguing and
challenging identification process and who ought to be the facilitator in that
case. I am not sure whether we have got
sophistication in terms of our regional services to identify that on our
own. Does that then become a reasonable
exercise in collaboration with the school system and teachers? I mean, I think we are almost closed, but I
am intrigued with my honourable friend's observations and would want to pursue
this next time we meet, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? (agreed)
The hour being 6 p.m., the House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).