LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday,
May 10, 1994
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY
STANDING
AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Committee
of Supply
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees):
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions,
directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
the report of the committee be received.
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 Joseph Wolinsky school thirty‑four Grade 11 students
under the direction of Mrs. Linda Connor.
This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for
St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh).
Also,
from Sisler High School, we have 16 English language students under the
direction of Mrs. Carol Grier. This
school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr.
Lamoureux).
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Health
Care System
Funding
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
On
April 8, we asked the government a number of questions about reduction in staff
at the St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre and what the impact would be on
patient care. The government started off
by saying we were exaggerating and then, when they were confronted with the
fact that it was one of their own management documents, they indicated it may
not take place for a couple of years.
Mr.
Speaker, the government recently received a brief dealing with the impact of
government decisions on health care facilities in Manitoba. In that brief they say to the government,
over 400 health care workers have been laid off in the last 12 months. It goes on to say further that hundreds more
remain uncertain in view of the approximate $100‑million reduction for
the urban hospitals by April 1, 1996‑‑as about 80 percent of the
staff is from wage costs.
I
would like to ask the government and Premier:
What is the real hidden Conservative health care agenda? How many more people are going to be laid off
and what will be the impact on patient care in the province of Manitoba?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr.
Speaker, the agenda has been laid out as a result of consulting over 13,000
Manitobans about health care. The agenda
was laid out in the spring of 1992 to which there was universal and unanimous
agreement about the plan and the policy laid out in the document, Quality Health
for Manitobans: The Action Plan.
From
time to time in the implementation of that plan and policy, there will be
honourable members opposite and perhaps others who will raise concerns along
the way. The policy is the subject of
unanimous agreement. If the honourable
members opposite do not agree, then let them say so. The capacity of our hospital system is
underutilized because of the supports we have built into the community.
This
year marks the sixth year of budgeting by this government, and we have seen an
increase in the Home Care budget of some 93 percent over those six years. We have seen the construction and the
replacement of beds in the long‑term sector equalling or surpassing the
number of beds closed in hospitals.
So
honourable members opposite raise as many issues as they can along the way for
their own purposes, but, Mr. Speaker, the object is quality care for
Manitobans. That is what is promised in
the policy and that is what is being delivered.
* (1335)
Mr. Doer: The minister never answered the question, of
course, about the additional $100‑million reduction to the urban
hospitals and the impact on staffing and patient care.
Mr.
Speaker, we are opposed to a doubling or tripling on the reduction of support
in our hospitals, and the layoffs and line‑ups that are going to flow
from that. Our hospitals are already
under too much pressure.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask the Premier: Why
is management in the health care facilities of this province saying that this
government does not know the impact of their own decisions when they say that
the arbitrary government decisions that are being placed on management are
without any apparent understanding of the service implications and that
consequently affects operations negatively?
Why is the government operating in a way that is totally inconsistent
with patient care and service provision in the health care facilities in this
province?
Mr. McCrae: I think perhaps what the Leader of the
Opposition is doing is responding to some people's comments about the proposed
implementation of Bill 22 in certain sectors of the health sector in Manitoba.
The
honourable member fails to recognize that I, a couple of weeks ago, sat down
with representatives of the Manitoba Health Organization and their members
which represent the acute care sector, the long‑term care sector and the
community health centre sector of Manitoba and made it very clear to them that
I understood fully that the application of Bill 22 could work differently in
different settings, that there is more capacity to adhere to the principles of
Bill 22 in an institution where the capacity is not fully used up, where that
ability diminishes in a personal care home, for example, where usually they are
filled right up. So that understanding
on my part was imparted to the people there.
We look forward to their proposals.
Health
Sciences Centre and Grace Hospital were able to use Bill 22 last year. I understand St. Boniface Hospital is saying
that they think they may be able to use Bill 22 this year. Regardless, I want to see the proposals
before I will lend my support to them.
The
honourable member and the colleague behind him, as usual, stand in the way of
every move towards building a better health care system for Manitobans.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister is confirming now
that their move is to cut another hundred million dollars out of the health
care system of Manitoba in terms of the urban hospitals, as management themselves
quoted to the minister in terms of the brief that they have presented.
I
would like to know, and I think the people of Manitoba would like to know, what
is the impact of a hundred‑million‑dollar reduction by the year
1996 on the urban hospitals? What will
be the impact of that on patient care in the province of Manitoba? Can the Minister of Health please inform
Manitobans on that issue?
* (1340)
Mr. McCrae: I made it very clear at the meeting to which
I referred, Mr. Speaker, that whatever proposals come forward, I will not
tolerate proposals that would have a negative impact on patient care in our
acute care centres. After all, hospitals
of today and the future are going to be places where very acutely ill people
are going to be cared for.
I
say to the honourable member‑‑and anybody who was at the MHO
meeting will bear me out that I used the words:
I will not tolerate proposals, I will not accept proposals that have
anything to do with a negative impact on patient care.
With
honourable members opposite, everything about the plan is just right except
when you try to implement one piece of it, and that is, they do not enjoy the
support of the people in the health care sector in Manitoba when they want to
stand in the way of that shift. Honourable
members opposite would prefer to see our hospitals filled to the rafters with
people who do not need to be there. That
is what they have made clear over and over again in Estimates debate and here
in Question Period and outside this House, that they would have hospitals
filled to the rafters with people who do not need to be there.
Health
Care System
Funding
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health.
The
minister ought not to accuse us of destroying the hospital system. It is they who are proposing a hundred‑million‑dollar
additional cut to the hospital system.
Mr.
Speaker, after three years of slashing and cutting and Connie Curran, this
government continues to cut first and ask questions later. How can this government explain, how can the
minister explain how they can be even remotely in touch with reality in the
health care system when they propose to slash a further hundred million dollars
out of the urban hospitals? That is
their proposal, not ours.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): I think the
honourable member is a little bit confused about this, because if he is
interested in seeing slashing and cutting, he need only visit his neighbouring
provinces to the east and west. I do not
have to remind him what kind of administrations are in those provinces.
If
you look at the labour implication in Ontario of the removal of 5,000 acute
beds in that province, when you look at the closure of 52 hospitals‑‑not
beds, hospitals‑‑in the province of Saskatchewan, I can show to the
honourable member‑‑if he would care to sit down with me, which he
refuses to do after repeated invitations‑‑that the approach in
Manitoba is not the slash‑and‑burn approach being used in other
provinces, but a phased approach to quality care for Manitobans.
Mr. Chomiak: My supplementary to the same minister: Can this minister explain how government can
be so out of touch with reality that they ask nursing homes to impose cuts that
are quoted in their own management document that are required currently to
operate below Manitoba health staffing guidelines because of funding
restrictions?
How
can they ask for further cuts to facilities that are below Manitoba's own
standards, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. McCrae: I would ask the honourable member not to
clutter the record with inaccuracies. I
have made it very clear everywhere I have been, 45 communities in Manitoba and
many, many institutions of various kinds, that I will not tolerate staffing
levels that put patients in Manitoba in any danger and also anything that would
impact negatively on the care of patients.
The
honourable member ought to bear that in mind.
All he has to do is check with all of those people with whom I have engaged
in discussion over the past eight months.
That is the bottom line that will not be breached.
When
it comes to slashing and burning without regard for care in the community,
where was the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), where was
the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) in 1987 when, with no planning
for the future, no alternate care, they closed permanently for the first time
42 beds at Brandon General Hospital.
I
remember it well, Mr. Speaker. I live in
Brandon. That was the approach, the
beginning of their health care reform.
Shortly after our taking office in 1988, we resolved that was not going
to be our approach to health care reform.
We would use the phased approach.
In doing so we have consulted, either in devising the plan or in
implementing it, somewhat over 13,000 Manitobans in the process.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, they cut first and ask questions
later.
My
final supplementary to the minister is: How
can Manitobans feel secure about this government in charge of nursing homes
that tells nursing homes that are already below staff levels they have to
further reduce staff levels when in fact the minister's own department in 1991‑92
bragged in the annual report that they had set in place staff guidelines that
were supposed to be adhered to?
How
can they now say those staff guidelines that are below levels have to be
reduced further, according to their own documents?
* (1345)
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is
incorrect. We are not asking people to
reduce levels of staff that provide care to patients. We are not asking for that, and we would not
accept that kind of a response if it fell below safe staffing guidelines for
hospital or personal care operations.
The
honourable member is absolutely wrong when he talks about our insisting on the
reduction of staff levels. The
honourable member also used the expression "cut first and ask questions
later." If he reviews the documents
and reviews the minutes of my meeting with the MHO, he will find that I have
not cut first and asked questions later.
I have asked care facilities in Manitoba to look for ways to reduce
their spending so that we can make these places efficient.
We
know from the experience at Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface that there
are layers of inefficiency. We know
that. Honourable members opposite want
to defend that continued inefficiency and waste of taxpayers' dollars. Meanwhile, we have pressures in other areas
that do need attention.
SHI
Limited
Government
Loan
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, by Order‑in‑Council of April 20, a couple of weeks ago,
the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism signed off on a loan to a company
called SHI Limited for $2.5 million. SHI
Limited is not listed in 411 in Winnipeg or 12 other centres in Manitoba. It is not registered with the Canadian or the
Manitoba Corporations Branch. It is not
a member of the Winnipeg or Manitoba Chamber of Commerce. We are led to believe that it is registered
in Saskatchewan but does not have any activities or assets in Saskatchewan.
Who
is SHI, and why are they getting $2.5 million of taxpayers' money?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, just to start off with, it is
obvious the Leader of the Liberal Party does not give a darn about jobs in
Manitoba and the creation of jobs. In
fact, he is antijob creation.
SHI
has not received a $2.5‑million loan from the Province of Manitoba. There has been a proposal put forward. If they meet 16 conditions, Mr. Speaker, then
in fact we would enter into a proposal that SHI have before the company, but in
fact it would create almost 600 jobs for the people of Manitoba, particularly
in the Selkirk area, which is supported by the people of Selkirk.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the question remains unanswered,
who are SHI, and I want to ask the minister, in lieu of this loan, and albeit
the conditions he mentions are not made public, where that fits with the
recommendation of three months ago from the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business, which have repeated their statement to government, and I quote: Grants and grant‑like subsidies to
businesses and associations should be eliminated. The use of grants is of dubious economic
benefit. These forms of subsidies make
unfair and unproductive use of scarce taxpayers' dollars.
Why
is the government of Manitoba, why are the taxpayers of this province guaranteeing
a $2.5‑million loan to a company, Mr. Speaker? Why are we guaranteeing that money to this
company? Who is this company? Why can they not borrow their money on their
own?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party
may not be interested in creating jobs in this province. This government is.
The
company which the member refers to constructs or manufactures or makes heavy
manufacturing or heavy mining‑type equipment‑‑is the type of
work they carry out. We were lobbied by
the Selkirk Chamber of Commerce, by the City of Selkirk, all the residents in
the area‑‑[interjection] And by the New Democratic Party? No, I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.
We
were lobbied by those organizations interested in that major manufacturing
plant going to Selkirk. One of the main
conditions that has to be met by SHI is to raise some $24 million in capital
before we would proceed with the $2.5‑million loan. That is one of the main conditions that is in
the agreement.
* (1350)
SHI
Limited
Government
Loan
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, in the last three weeks through grants, loans and forgivable loans,
this government has committed $4.7 million.
That is in the last three weeks through I, T and T funds, including this
grant.
Why,
Mr. Speaker, is this government attempting to buy its way into the next
election?‑‑$4.7 million in three weeks which directly contradicts
all of the advice from the business community which says, stop giving direct
grants to business. Why is the
government continuing to do that?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr.
Speaker, I hate to try and help the member for St. James out of his confused
state, but this is the individual who has been saying over the last number of
weeks, the invisible hand of government, that government has not been wanting
to get involved in creating jobs. Now,
when government gets involved in a program that creates over 230 new jobs at
Palliser Furniture, that may well create, if these people can raise the
capital, 600 jobs at SHI in Selkirk, he says, why should government get
involved in this?
He
cannot have it both ways. He has to
remember that people out there will be able to read what he said just two weeks
ago and how he is completely contradicting himself today. It is the most foolish thing I have ever seen
in this House.
Point of
Order
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the
First Minister thinks that a company that had $192 million in revenues last
year needs a loan, I do not.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
Community
Health Clinics
Funding
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr.
Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Health.
Manitoba
health organizations have clearly stated that if the government proceeds with
its arbitrary directive to apply Bill 22 to community health clinics, there
will be a corresponding reduction in services to the community, and in some
areas and some clinics this is going to mean closures of up to at least five
days.
These
clinics deal with patients in crisis.
Somebody in the medical system is going to have to deal with these
patients, and it will be at the high end of the emergency services rather than
at the cost‑effective end of the community clinics.
I
want to ask the minister today, is he prepared to guarantee that community
clinic services, including home‑based care and outreach, will remain
fully accessible to Manitobans?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat what I said earlier. I
made it very clear to the community clinics that I would not accept any
proposal which resulted in what the honourable member has suggested.
Ms. Friesen: Would the minister explain how the government
in its reform plan can talk of expanding delivery at community health centres
and yet in this, its first signal of its new reform policy to the clinics, it
is a cut of 2 percent? Will he tell us
where the consistency is in government health policy?
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member should spend some time
in Estimates with her colleague from Kildonan and the honourable member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), because we have been discussing community clinics and
potential expansion of services in those areas.
Ms. Friesen: Will the minister then end the uncertainty
today in Question Period that he is creating about the future of community
clinics and tell us specifically how he plans to maintain and expand the cost‑effective
and specialized services that they offer under this 2 percent cut?
Mr. McCrae: I am going to continue, Mr. Speaker, to work
with community clinics and those involved in the delivery of health care to
Manitobans to make sure that it is done well, that we improve services along
the way and that we improve efficiency.
* (1355)
Municipal
Board
Review of
Gimli Project
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, a number of days
ago we raised with the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) the question
of his particular interference in a million dollar development in the community
of Gimli. Since that time the debate in
the community of Gimli has escalated and the concern and the anger over the
political interference of the Minister of Rural Development continues.
My
question is to the Premier.
Given
the fact that these two interveners are both Conservative supporters and given
the fact that this Minister responsible for Rural Development is now asking
that this particular appeal be sent to the Municipal Board and the fact that
Mr. Duguid sits on the Municipal Board, will the First Minister now override
his Minister of Rural Development, cancel the hearing scheduled by the
Municipal Board and allow this project to proceed so that it can create
employment, create investment in the community of Gimli?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr.
Speaker, I find all of this somewhat humorous given that Mr. Chudd, who is the
proponent of the development, is not only a supporter of ours but drives me in
the Gimli parade every year. If we had
done something contrary to the normal procedures in order to favour Mr. Chudd,
this very member would have been standing up in the House criticizing us and
complaining because we were favouring a supporter of ours, and he would
probably have gone to all great lengths to make the linkage between Mr. Chudd's
support for the party and driving me in the parade and all these kinds of
things. It is absolutely nonsense.
The
minister has the responsibility to carry out all of the procedures that are
required of him under The Municipal Act.
One of them is that when interveners appeal, those appeals should be
heard by an objective third party such as the Municipal Board.
On
the other issue that he speaks of, not only will Mr. Duguid not have anything
to do with this appeal in terms of the board itself, but he has offered to
resign from the board in order to keep complete impartiality of the situation.
The
fact is, this is being handled by the book by the minister, and the member
opposite ought not to try and make some cute political tricks out of it. The fact is that there are procedures, and
the procedures are being followed to the letter.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On a point
of order, Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier likes to use this particular phrase,
but "cheap political way" is very clearly unparliamentary in
Beauchesne. I would ask that perhaps the
Premier withdraw that comment and stick to answering the very serious question
that was raised by the member for Flin Flon.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, the honourable
member is correct. This word has been
used, bantered about here in the last little while and nobody has actually made
objection to it, but in 1988‑89, in Beauchesne's 848, I did ask then an
honourable member to withdraw the words "cheap political shots."
The
honourable First Minister, please, if you would, sir, withdraw the words that
are unparliamentary.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I unconditionally withdraw that
comment, and I am sorry if I offended the member for Flin Flon.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable First
Minister.
* (1400)
* * *
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Premier for those
remarks and I remain unoffended. One
becomes accustomed to those kinds of remarks from the Premier from time to
time.
The
fact of the matter is that what this issue underlies for the people of Gimli is
the fact that the First Minister and none of his ministers seem to have any
standards. This is a conflict. The intervener is a member of the Municipal
Board.
My
simple question to the First Minister is:
Will he override the Minister of Rural Development's (Mr. Derkach)
decisions, cancel the hearing so this investment and these jobs can continue in
Gimli?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, because the question is
repetitive I hesitate to be repetitive with the answer, but I will have to
proceed because the member opposite obviously did not understand or did not
listen when I said that not only as a member of the Municipal Board will he not
sit on the issue or have anything to do with the issue, but Mr. Duguid has
offered to resign.
Secondarily,
the point with this issue is exactly the same point as with other issues like
appeals to ministers over environmental matters. There is a process, there is a procedure that
the minister must follow. When an
intervener appeals, as he has the right to do, then that appeal must go through
proper procedure. The matter has been
referred to the Municipal Board so that member and others could not claim there
was political interference. The matter
will be heard by the Municipal Board, and provided that there is nothing that
has been done that is out of context with the requirements of the law, then the
investment will continue to proceed, Mr. Speaker.
I
do not think the member opposite is really understanding the issue when he
suggests that we cut off the appeals, that we do not allow due process to take place
and that we just simply bulldoze it through in favour of somebody who has made
the proposal. I just cannot believe that
the member is suggesting that.
Mr. Storie: The objection was political to begin with.
Mr.
Speaker, everyone in the community, from the R.M. to the mayor of Gimli to the
planning board, has approved this project.
The only two objecters are two supporters of this particular government‑‑
Mr. Speaker: And the question is?
Mr. Storie: My question is: Given the fact that the minister has the
discretionary power to dismiss this appeal as frivolous and vexatious, will he
now do the right thing and dismiss this appeal and allow the jobs to begin in
Gimli?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely foolish on the
part of the member opposite to say that we should waive due process, that we
should cut off avenues of appeal and that we should make a political decision
on the matter. It is absolutely foolish.
We
are going to allow the Municipal Board, because how is it up to the minister to
decide whether this is a political appeal?
How is it up to the minister to decide that? That is why you have a Municipal Board in
place to make those judgments, and we will trust the judgment of the Municipal
Board.
Air
Contaminants
Emission
Guidelines
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr.
Speaker, one of the fundamental flaws with the Conservatives' agenda on health
reform is it does not make the connection between environment and health, and
this connection will prevent illness by stopping pollution at source. I have with me a list of the 16 ambient air
contaminants for which there are guidelines and objectives in Manitoba, and I
am going to table a copy of this. These
are not standards that are regulated and enforced with penalties. They are merely objectives.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Environment:
Are there new air emission objectives?
What are these new air emission objectives for Manitoba? When were they set and‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the member is probably leading towards the question of how
do we make decisions in situations where assessments have to be made, and they
are always made on the basis of a health risk assessment.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the
minister, when was the last contaminant guideline established for Manitoba for
ambient air emissions? Has the Clean
Environment ever set a guideline, and when was that done?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the Clean Environment
Commission, whenever they are faced with these types of situations, look to
risk analysis to make a recommendation on what is appropriate in specific
situations.
Palliser
Furniture
Emission
Guidelines
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr.
Speaker, my final supplementary for the minister is: The members opposite have mentioned Palliser
Furniture in Transcona. This is an
industry that emits formaldehyde dust.
I
would like to ask the minister, can he explain how the air emission guideline
was set for this industry and what that guideline is and how it is enforced?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr.
Speaker, the last time, last summer, when we had questions from the opposition
about this particular operation I think that they were operating under the
impression that there may have been some emissions from this plant in forms of
sawdust that were found on the property of some of the neighbours.
As
it turned out, upon investigation we found out that sawdust came from a house
that was being built in the area, not from the plant.
This
plant had a number of situations in the early portions of its operations that
needed to be corrected and dealt with.
To the best of my knowledge, they are operating well within their
guidelines right now.
Education
System Reform
Students'
Forum
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education following the
Estimates of yesterday when the minister confirmed that in fact they will be
bringing down a blueprint on educational reform in the month of June.
Part
of putting together that blueprint was to include the parents, to include MAST,
the partners, as the minister often refers to them, being school trustees,
teachers and so forth. One of the most
important stakeholders that this government is missing is in fact the students
themselves.
I
asked the Minister of Education yesterday why he does not include them, and he
talked in terms of, well, we need some sort of a process in order to take into
account their opinions.
My
question to the minister is: Why will
this minister not have a forum for students to be able to have input into the
blueprint?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training):
The member is partially right in reliving last night's
conversation. As I indicated to the
member, I am, on several occasions and every opportunity possible, dialoguing
with students, trying to gain greater insight as to how we should reform the
education system. Those views are being
taken into account to the extent that they are unified and they basically point
in the same direction. It is happening.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, one could challenge the comments
that the minister is just putting on the record. How can this government provide a blueprint
on education reform while not making a commitment to allow all students in the
province, much like they have provided for school trustees, superintendents and
teachers and the parents? How can this
government go ahead with a blueprint and present one without consulting the
students of the province of Manitoba?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I clearly said that we are
consulting, and I am consulting. What is
at dispute here is the member wants to have a forum indeed where theoretically
upwards of 20,000 students are asked to be in attendance. I say to him that the process that we are
engaged upon will certainly allow for those students in the community who are
interested in commenting. They will have
an opportunity to provide greater reaction to a document ultimately made
public.
Mr. Lamoureux: There are 40,000 parents and 20,000 students
in terms of invitations that went out.
It is something that is very feasible.
I want to go to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) because the Premier is
ultimately responsible for the education system in this province.
How
can he allow his Minister of Education to bring forward a blueprint without
providing the opportunity of students throughout the province to be able to
have direct input on the blueprint knowing full well that the Minister of
Education is being very selective with the students he is currently meeting?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am growing tired of the member
for Inkster and this kind of questioning.
The member should realize that I am a member of a cabinet. This is government policy. So for him to try and pretend for a moment
that this is not government policy, I would say to him, is showing his lack of
understanding of how Executive Council works.
I
can assure the member, again, as I did last night, that I am dialoguing with
students. I can assure him further that
once we table the blueprint, students will be asked to contribute with respect
to‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, you see, the members are suggesting
it will be, as such, government policy.
Well, we are dialoguing upon that, so I am indicating to the members
that we take seriously his suggestion.
Indeed, it was our action, long before that, that we continue to
dialogue with students and all of the stakeholders, and we will continue to do
that through this process.
* (1410)
Louisiana‑Pacific
Co.
Treaty
Land Entitlements
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Mr. Speaker, in the last few
weeks, I have raised many times with this government, both in the Chamber and
in discussion with government members, the concern that bands in my
constituency have that they have not been contacted to discuss their land
claims or their traditional land‑use territories that are going to be
impacted by the Louisiana‑Pacific deal, but today‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, since these people have
indicated very clearly that they are not opposed to economic development, they only
want a fair share of the pie, will the Minister of Native Affairs agree today
to meet with these bands to discuss their concerns and their traditional land‑use
areas and their treaty land entitlements to see how they fit in with the
Louisiana‑Pacific proposal?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the only people, or the only
individual, who is raising these issues at this stage is the member for Swan
River. Quite frankly, none of the bands
she refers to has requested a meeting. I
say to her, if they request a meeting with myself or the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Driedger), I am sure we would be more than willing prepared to
meet, but I have to tell the honourable member that contact has not been made.
There
is a protocol in place for dealing with treaty land entitlement issues, and
that process is underway to make sure that there is a flow of information. It is only the member for Swan River who is
not aware of that process.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from one band in
my constituency, and I have written to the minister on behalf of the bands
asking them to come up.
I
want to ask the minister, why, when there is a dispute in southern Manitoba
that affects jobs, he asks the two sides to stop acting so childish. When is he going to stop acting so childish
and deal with this issue?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the members
opposite is, whatever my strategy it worked and those people are back to work,
and that is what counts at the end of the day.
We got an agreement on sugar, and that is probably more than members
opposite would have gotten in those circumstances.
I
just want to say to the member, if the communities involved want to meet with
myself or any representatives of the government, we would be more than pleased
to meet. The only person who is making
the request is the member for Swan River, and, quite frankly, those communities
have not made a contact for a meeting.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated very clearly
that I have written on behalf of the bands and the bands have said that they
want him to come.
Why
is the minister not prepared to move on this issue so that we do not lose jobs
in the Swan River area? Why will he not
address the concerns of these bands which are very serious concerns?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, first of all, Louisiana‑Pacific
has been made aware by our treaty land entitlement negotiator of those
obligations. Secondly, I understand that
Louisiana‑Pacific has been meeting with some of those bands to address
those concerns.
Thirdly,
I would say to the member for Swan River, who would like to treat the First
Nations of our province in a very paternalistic or maternalistic way, if you
truly stand for self‑government and people taking control of their own
lives, I think the least we could expect is if those communities wish to meet
with ministers of the government they would surely make that request. I personally believe the member for Swan
River is trying to create an excuse for her own problems in her constituency.
Health
Care System
Funding
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr.
Speaker, we are extremely concerned about the documents that have come into our
hands that show the government intends, with its secret agenda, to cut another
hundred million dollars or more out of health facilities in this province. We are extremely concerned about the impact
on hospitals in rural Manitoba considering that these hospitals and nursing
homes have had major cuts over the last few years. In Dauphin, $1 million alone over the last
few years has been taken from the operating budget.
I
want to ask this minister how many more millions he wants out of the hospitals
in rural Manitoba.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): It would be
very refreshing for me if honourable members opposite‑‑refreshing
for all Manitobans if they had concern for impact on fellow Manitobans, on
patients, on people who need health care services. That would be refreshing to see.
Honourable
members opposite have demonstrated only their concern for their friends who are
the union leaders of this province. That
is whom they speak for when they come here.
I speak for the people of Manitoba, and my concern, my daily motivation
is to ensure that we move from the health care system that the honourable
member pretends to want to preserve to the system that will be sustainable for
many, many years to come.
You
do not do it by going to a place like Brandon in 1987 and shutting down 42 beds
permanently without any plans for the future.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I realize that the minister is in the middle of Health Estimates and
maybe getting somewhat tired of the lengthy process, but questions should be
answered, according to Beauchesne, very clearly, very briefly and dealing with
the matter raised.
We
are not talking about the 1980s. We are
not talking about other provinces. We
are talking about the province of Manitoba.
Rural hospitals are being cut, and we would appreciate an answer.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point
of order. I believe the honourable
Minister of Health was answering the question.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
House
Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government
House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, we will today continue with the consideration of Estimates, Health in the
Chamber, and Education in the committee room.
I
move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), 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 Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of
Health.
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 section of
the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the
Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.
When
the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1.(e)(1) on page 36 of the
Estimates book.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): I wonder if
the minister could give us just a brief outline of the major interprovincial
initiatives, other than the national testing development that has taken place,
that this office would co‑ordinate.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training):
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know whether there is some reference to
interprovincial, but to the best of our knowledge, this section deals surely
intergovernmentally and interdepartmentally within government and some
intergovernmental activity within the province.
I am thinking specifically as between the department and school boards.
Mr. Plohman: My reference is actually to the Planning and
Policy Co‑ordination, but we have completed that already, so I will leave
this. We are prepared to pass this
section.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Financial and Administrative Services
1.(e)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $877,600‑‑pass.
1.(e)(2)
Other Expenditures $158,300.
Mr. Plohman: Is this the right place or the next line that
would provide us with information on the amount of and the extent of lapsed
funds from the previous year's budget in this department?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, certainly if we had
them available, it would be the group of people around this table here that
would know those figures. I mean, we
will not report on that, of course, as a government until the unaudited fourth
quarters. The Minister of Finance (Mr.
Stefanson) will usually report on that usually in July.
Mr. Plohman: I think that the minister would be in a
position at this point, knowing how these reports are put together, to be able
to indicate for the '93‑94 fiscal year how much was spent in the
department out of the funds that were allocated. I am not talking about the public schools and
the independent agencies that are at arm's length from the government, but
within the department, where the greatest amount of lapse occurred in general
terms first and the rounded figures of lapsed funds within the branches of this
department.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not trying to be
coy here, but I want to indicate to the member that those numbers are just
starting to be worked on, because indeed some of the accounts have just closed
momentarily in terms of days. So we have
not started to begin to add up the lapse factor at this point in time.
The
way the process works, I can assure the member, having been the minister in
charge of lapse throughout the whole government, that we begin to call for these
numbers now. We get a first cut sometime
in late June and final numbers in the beginning of July, through all
departments.
I
do not have that information available and the department does not have
it. As a matter of fact, we cannot even
indicate to the member where we think there might be some lapsing occurred in
significance.
Mr. Plohman: I am surprised at that if that is the case,
because Treasury Board would want to keep a tighter handle on what is happening
in the departments I think than that. So
there should have been quarterly figures that were prepared and also, maybe,
lapsing targets. Is the minister saying
there was no lapse target for this department or for any departments, no
instructions from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) on lapsing
whatsoever?
Mr. Manness: This year there were no directives like there
were the year before when I was Minister of Finance. As you can remember, in November we issued
directives to departments to review all accounts and to begin to provide options
around lapsing. That did not occur this
year but, beyond that, the Treasury Board always calls, I believe, in late
January at times for all departments to review their accounts and to indicate
what requirements there might be for supplementary funding.
* (1430)
That
exercise was done. So we are within our
budget. At that time‑‑was it
a half a million? Did we request
supplementary funding? Yes, for the
Francophone governance area as a special studies, which is 100 percent passed through
anyway to the federal government.
The
point I am trying to make is, we were within budget; secondly, the areas of
lapsing, and I even forget how many dollars lapsed last year in terms of '92‑93‑‑around
$11 million. I would assume that would
be much reduced, because last year it was forced upon them by the Minister of
Finance at the time. This year it will
be much reduced, but there is no way at this point in time I can even begin to
indicate what that number might be.
Mr. Plohman: So I am hearing clearly from the minister
that there were no guidelines for lapsing or directives from the Department of
Finance, Minister of Finance. Did the
minister make any requests of Treasury Board for reallocation of funds from
within for reprioritized spending?
Mr. Manness: Yes, we did some normal requests for
subappropriation transfers I think to satisfy some additional costs associated
with the Boundaries Review Commission.
Mr. Plohman: Could the minister have a sheet with those
prepared, so we know exactly what the budget was in effect last year as opposed
to what was printed, for a subsequent sitting of this committee?
Mr. Manness: No, I cannot provide that at this point in
time. That has to be released by the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) as part of a total government statement of
the financial standing of the province.
Mr. Plohman: To be clear, the minister prefers not to
release that at this time. It is not
that he cannot by law.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, it is not my call. These are financial issues that are not the
purview and indeed not the monopoly of the Minister of Education. These are part of government numbers passed
by the Legislature. This is not my call;
this is the call of the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister
should not be loose with his words there.
The reallocations are not passed by the Legislature. This is a change from what is passed by the
Legislature, and they are done as a result of initiatives by the minister in
the department, not by anyone else.
Therefore, the minister is not taking responsibility. By refusing to reveal where he has made these
requests and where in fact they have been granted, he is not taking
responsibility for his own actions; he is saying someone else has to. That is, I do not think, appropriate.
Mr. Manness: No, I am totally responsible, but the member
uses a correct term when he said the initiative comes from the department, but
ultimately the blessing and indeed the responsibility for allowing
subappropriation transfers lies within the Treasury Board, ultimately passed by
the cabinet, with the Premier the presiding officer.
In
fairness, although it might be Education initiative, the reporting of that and
indeed the decision around that occurring is very much an Executive Council
matter. The reporting around that is
very much a matter that rests with the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Plohman: I think the minister is being unduly close to
the vest on this when he does not need to be, but we will find out perhaps
sometime why he is not feeling comfortable in just releasing where he has made
requests for reallocation of funds, what kinds of priorities dictated that, and
the amount of money for each of those.
He mentioned something about boundaries, but that was about the only
reference.
I
also wanted to know about the vacancy rate for staffing. Is there a specific vacancy rate that has
been required by Treasury Board as a directive?
If not, what has been the vacancy rate for the department?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is a guideline
and it is still at 5 percent. In our
department it was very close to that, slightly under at 4.8 percent.
Mr. Plohman: And the 4.8 percent, is that the current
vacancy rate or is that just the average vacancy rate?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if Mr. Gillespie was
still here when we dealt with human resources he would have had all that
information, but I would have to think that the vacancy rate as of March 31
year‑end was actually 7.2 percent, but the average throughout the year
was a lesser number. It varies anywhere
from 3 percent to 8 percent within a year.
Mr. Plohman: Just one further question on the vacancy
rate. Is that the same rate or in the
ballpark of the same rate that has been in place for several years running?
Mr. Manness: The guideline has been 5 percent a couple of
times. A couple of times, about three of
those years, they were more than guidelines, they were hard numbers, and no
department could go under that unless they had special permission. We are back, I believe, to a guideline policy
now.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister, this
section has office space, and I wonder if we could have specific information
about the‑‑it was referenced yesterday‑‑decentralization,
any of the moves of operations in this department out of the city as to the
amount of office space, the costs, and whether there were new facilities built
to accommodate. Something tabled on
those moves as opposed to.
Mr. Manness: The member, I guess, is the end point that he
wants to reach an attempt to find out what new space or what space we have
taken because of decentralization? If
that is the case‑‑[interjection] Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we
would have to provide an analysis then.
We do not have it totally under one heading in that fashion. I mean, the questions he asked we have answers
to, but they are kind of spread around.
Mr. Plohman: Those are all the questions I have at this
time on this section, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, again I would look to the minister. I want to ask some questions with respect to
general revenues and the full financing of education. What would be the most appropriate line to
ask?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Next section.
Mr. Manness: No, further than that. School programs, Section 5. Support to
Schools. It is the big item, $620‑some
million.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(e)(2) Other Expenditures $158,300‑‑pass.
1.(f)
Management Information Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $581,100‑‑pass.
1.(f)(2)
Other Expenditures $234,000.
Mr. Plohman: The co‑ordination of departmental technology
planning and policy development, does that involve distance education and that
kind of use of technology only for departmental purposes?
Mr. Manness: No, this is not a distance ed component. This is purely for internal management of all
of the financials and all of the statistical bases.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.
We
will move on to 2. School Programs (a) Division Administration (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $239,900‑‑pass.
2.(a)(2)
Other Expenditures $49,300.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is the area and,
in reading through it, in terms of the co‑ordination of policy programs
and budget issues within division and facilitate interdivisional linkage in
these areas, here we are talking about school divisions. I was wanting to ask the minister if he can
give us some sort of indication of what it is that the government is actually
doing here.
* (1440)
Mr. Manness: This is Division Administration, School
Programs?
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, 16.2.(a).
Mr. Manness: Page 37.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, at this time I would like to introduce to the
table Carolyn Loeppky. Carolyn is the
acting assistant deputy minister in charge of this major area of school
programming, and 2.(a) basically refers to the office of Carolyn.
Mr. Lamoureux: What I am looking for is to get some sort of
indication from the department. There
are a number of issues that different school divisions have, in particular,
with respect to transportation between different school divisions.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is way
back. Those issues, again, are in big
Section 6 under the programming, the formula in place, to deliver those types
of programs.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, then I would ask the minister
in terms of what is it then that this particular line is an objective, it says,
to co‑ordinate policy, program and budget issues within the division and
facilitate interdivisional linkages in these areas.
Mr. Manness: This is the area where we should deal with
curriculum, services to students within school, program development, program
implementation, again, student services, Manitoba Textbook Bureau, deaf and
hard of hearing, that area of Outreach, distance delivery unit, Manitoba School
for the Deaf, instructional resources.
These are the areas where education and the need of education are
housed. This is not the function or the
process of taking students from point A to point B. That is developed in other areas. This is programming.
Mr. Lamoureux: Is this area not responsible for co‑ordination
between the different school divisions at all?
Mr. Manness: Co‑ordination in what context?
Mr. Lamoureux: Co‑ordination in terms of providing
communication between the different school divisions and the Department of
Education.
Mr. Manness: Well, yes, with respect to Distance
Education, with respect to shared services, we can try and help divisions work
together. Yes, we have a co‑ordinating
effect to the extent that we develop curriculum, and we take it out to all
divisions. The answer is yes, but I
cannot be more definitive than that at this point in time.
Mr. Lamoureux: Just for clarification then, the only
communication out of this area to the school divisions is with respect to
strictly Distance Education.
Mr. Manness: It is with respect to curriculum,
implementing curriculum, changes in policies around the program side.
Mr. Lamoureux: Okay, so then there is communication in those
areas with the school divisions within this particular line. So an appropriate thing to ask would be in
what fashion or what methodology is there, if the minister can further explain,
in terms of how are they communicating the government's thoughts on ensuring
that all the school divisions are in fact being somewhat consistent with some
of the actions that government would like to see taking place?
Mr. Manness: Yes, this is not governance. This is not money. This is purely program. This is the guts of education, and to the
extent that there is dialogue between the department and school divisions on
changes within basic curriculum, implementation associated therewith. Yes, this is where it is all housed.
Mr. Lamoureux: Then I am wondering if it would be fair then
to ask the question, what is the department doing to ensure that there is
dialogue occurring between school divisions with respect to, for example,
interdivisional problems such as students living outside of a school division,
bussing, those sorts of things?
Mr. Manness: Well, again, this division is not involved in
the governance or all of the questions around the student either being part of
a school division coming from elsewhere.
Where this division is dealing is once the student is in place at school,
then this division is responsible for taking the lead in developing and
imparting and making sure teachers have the know‑how to impart to that
student the best way possible the Manitoba curriculum.
This
department is not responsible for the governance or the administration around
how it is a student comes to be at the school location. That is another division that we will deal
with in the larger area. We could have
dealt with it I suppose back here, but once the students are in their places in
the classroom, then this department is not responsible.
Mr. Lamoureux: Then if we go to some of the areas that the
minister then had talked about in terms of curriculum, could the minister then
indicate if it would be appropriate, if he has the staff individuals here, to
comment in terms of the Curriculum Branch and the number of individuals that
are working on the curriculum?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I certainly will ask
staff to provide that specific number.
We will be moving into it, I dare say, as soon as we‑‑probably
there are sections coming up that are specifically dealing with program
development, and I think of 2.(e), for instance, 16.2.(e).
To
answer the question specifically, there are 31 staff years in the area of
Program Development, i.e., curriculum development, but the committees that we
draw into place, of course, are guided by these people and many people from
outside the field.
There
are 40 such curriculum committees that are in place dealing, again, with all of
the subject area that we try and cover, and to indicate to him that we have the
process in place then where we have regional meetings to discuss issues and
curriculum and schooling with numbers of individual school divisions, usually
larger groupings of school divisions, and then there are person‑to‑person
contacts, group meeting workshops, monitoring and documents that are put out.
This
is how then, after the curriculum is developed, the implementation process is
put into place so that the word is moved out within the field so that everybody
then is basically provided with the same information.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate in terms of on the
education reform package and the impact that that is going to have on the
Curriculum Branch in particular how the minister foresees the dollars that have
been allocated out for education reform to facilitate the necessary changes
that the minister has been talking about?
Mr. Manness: Well, after the governance issue, there is no
doubt, this is the division within education that will be impacted the
greatest. I mean, ed reform will have,
obviously, a great impact on school programming. If the member was in attendance last night
when all of us were talking, the very essence of what it is we are trying to do
is to build curriculum frameworks, and we are trying to, within that, develop
curriculum that has applicability to the technology encompassing distance
education.
I
could talk about library linkages. I
could talk about sharing and developing curriculum with other jurisdictions.
I
could go on and on and on, but the focus of once we have decided what it is we
want to teach in the classroom and what focus we want to give the classroom and
to what degree that we want to include the parents and the community in once
again having a greater influence on the school, once we have dealt with those
matters, the very essence of everything is the curriculum.
It
is the imparting of that knowledge, it is the testing for how it is a student
is understanding and coping and coming to grips not only with the essence but
is now taking the essence of the curriculum, but taking that and now being able
to develop a thinking process.
So
the basis of it all, once we have put into place the foundations, is certainly
curriculum and its development and, ultimately, it is implementation and
acceptance by those practitioners in the field.
I mean, we have 12,000 practitioners, i.e., teachers, and obviously
everybody‑‑we have to bring in a system that is acceptable to that
group of people.
* (1450)
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, curriculum
development is in fact something that is an ongoing process, and I am wondering
if the minister can just give some sort of indication on how the government
currently addresses changes to the curriculum.
Mr. Manness: Well, I do not know. This could be a long discourse but, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, the traditional way, I understand, and the staff will
correct me if I am wrong, is that we basically for many years now have
developed our own Manitoba curriculum.
Generally speaking, around that once‑‑and this is always
evolving. I imagine for the last 30
years there has always been an area that has been focused, and the decision to
actively engage in either rewrite or redraft or review started two or some
years previous. As everything comes
through the queue, a subject then is dealt with for various grade levels.
Of
course, once it is decided whether it is a two‑year process or a year and
a half to deal specifically with one course over some number of years, then I imagine
the process is the same. We take the
lead, but we call out to practitioners in the field. We reach out also to university for expert
advice. So we take the lead, but we
certainly reach far and wide for those who are considered to be experts in the
field. They are brought in over a period
of‑‑we also of course study what is happening in other
jurisdictions.
We
set up the committee approach. We then
ultimately do a draft or a write, and everybody has input into it. We put out a pilot document. Business and labour have also of course been
involved in this whole process too, so we reach out more than within the field
of education. Then we come up with a
pilot document. We take that into the
field and do some selective testing, more as to how the document itself, the
curriculum itself, stands up or whether there are any weaknesses within
it. Then revisions are made, and
ultimately you reach a final document and it then becomes the final curriculum
for that subject area.
Mr. Lamoureux: The minister indicates that the process
really starts with the government taking the lead.
Mr. Manness: No, the process does not start with the
government taking the lead. The
government takes the lead with respect to reforming or reviewing or redrafting
the curriculum. We take the lead. That is our responsibility. It is enshrined in legislation, but that may
not be initiated with our call. You may
have practitioners in the field, you may have others making representation say,
hey, you were planning to review social studies, we notice, eight years hence;
we think it is more urgent that you deal with it today. That is brought to our attention and we react
accordingly.
Mr. Lamoureux: The reason why I ask, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
is that I am trying to get a better understanding in terms of why it is that,
at least on the surface, we hear a lot now about the changes that are needed
for the curriculum and what allowed it to get to this point where we get the
strong statements being made and concern about a number of the different
curriculum courses that are out there. I
would ask the minister what has failed from within the bureaucracy to allow us
to get to this point that we are currently at?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not think
anything has necessarily failed within the so‑called bureaucracy. What we have to do is study society as a
whole to answer that question. We have
put into place more or less a decentralized, good‑faith model. As you know, we have moved away from rigidity
around individual textbooks, and that is the way society wanted it. This is not a Manitoba phenomenon. It is the way the education community
generally sensed that it was the way to go.
So
we moved away then from commonality of reference books. We went to guidelines in place. We gave greater flexibility to educators to
use their own sources of material, but the guidelines said that whatever it is
or however it is you taught, you generally had to cover these areas.
With
no standards in place to determine whether or not schools were all following
the curriculum, and of course the ways and means of enforcing whether or not
schools were all following the curriculum, and if they were not, what were we
doing about it? I mean, that is a weak
area.
The
good‑faith model in some respects has broken down, and it has some time
ago because there are no standards in place.
Without the ability to deal with it, schools have not used test results
consistently. There has not been
uniformity. When we did our curriculum
assessments, which we have been doing for a number of years, it has not always
been or very often been reaction to the shortcomings as found within
assessment, and so consequently there is no standard of achievement. It became very convenient of course to make the
curriculum the whipping boy, to use a term, for that.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
I
am not going to stand here and say that our curriculum is totally in keeping
with what it should be. I know one
thing, that the curriculum, if it were all taught, regardless of what methods
were in place and if there were standards in place, the curriculum today, even
though it may be short in some areas, still there is a wealth of knowledge
there that would provide the foundation for all of our students. There is no question in my mind. But saying that, we have other pressures
today to modernize it, to make it accessible or usable in a computer sense, and
thirdly, beyond that, I think to work‑‑and this is the pressure
coming from outside‑‑to work more closely with other jurisdictions,
other provinces, so that there is some uniformity across the land.
We
are not going to be able to say, well, Manitoba believes the curriculum should
be this and the heck with the Alberta.
No, no, this is a kind of a compromise.
It is give and go. That is what
we are working harder on, and that will be the new process that will be in
place.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am wondering
if the minister could walk me through this.
If he never embarked on the whole reform package of education and we
received the mass exam results, for example, when we did, what would then have
been the process to try to rectify that particular problem? Does he see that problem coming from the
curriculum, the teaching methods?
* (1500)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, not
withstanding the fact that there was a national indicators test done with
respect to math‑‑I mean, our department was started long before I
was here and began to review and revitalize math curriculum several years ago.
[interjection] I thought it was longer than that. The process started years before that, but
the revisions came into place in '93, K‑4 and the interim guide. The change process around that time would
have started years before that and the realization that we had to update the
curriculum.
We
started more or less on our own, and then part way through that process, I am
led to believe, we struck a working relationship with other provinces,
particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan, to make what it is we now are presenting
to the classroom in terms of the K‑4.
It is consistent with what is in place in the other provinces, and we
are continuing to do that for the higher grade levels, I am led to
believe. So the renewal process is in
place in that subject area, and the protocols are in place now to begin to do
that in the other areas of curricula.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister
did mention he has full faith in the current curriculum, that if in fact‑‑I
do not want to be misquoted. He
indicated that the curriculum was in fact good in many areas. I am wondering if he would comment in terms
of time. Is there enough time in the day
for students to be taught the current curriculum, or is it a question of, yes,
we have a wonderful curriculum but not enough time to be able to teach that
curriculum?
Mr. Manness: That is right because the wording around the
comments have to be very careful. I
think that it is always good to continue to revitalize your curricula, so that
is an ongoing area and that has been happening for years. My greater concern though is how that
curricula has been treated in the classroom, and today you have an awful lot of
variation. I know there are those out
there who, of course, really find shortcomings in certain of our curriculum,
and I guess I could too.
My
greater and higher concern right now is that what we have in place in a lot of
cases is not being taught.
We
talked about hours in instruction last night.
I mean, we think to do justice, for instance, to some of our basic core
areas there should be generally 110‑120 hours in high school devoted
towards those core subjects. We have
nothing that can force that. There is
not a policy or legislation in place, and there are jurisdictions today who are
not directing that much time to those core areas, and we are going to have to
address that. To me that is as much of
an issue as the curriculum, if not more than the curriculum itself.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate in terms of‑‑he
points out an area in which the minister does have potentially some authority
to be able to ensure that those core subjects, if you like, are being taught
the number of curriculum hours that are in fact being suggested. Last night when I talked about it I had
indicated, and I was quite surprised that the minister refuted what I had
indicated, but a number of math teachers had implied to me that, look, 110
hours, that it is not feasible. There is
just no way that they have 110 hours to teach math.
Is
the government looking at doing something to ensure that math and other core,
linguistic and language arts are in fact given the proper amount of time in the
classrooms?
Mr. Manness: Yes, we will be looking at that. That will be, obviously, one of the
cornerstones of any ed reform package.
Mr. Lamoureux: Could the minister indicate in terms of, what
format is there right now? I understand
it is under‑‑is it regulation that says that you have to do 110 hours? There is actually no onus of responsibility
from the school divisions or the principals?
Where is it falling apart right now?
Mr. Manness: Well, when you say we are falling apart you
are making a general statement. I mean,
I do not think we are falling apart. I
do think that we in some situations, too many, the guidelines are not being
followed. So that indicates that it is
not provided in legislation, and certainly if it were even in regulation that
would not be the power in itself. We are
going to have to find, and we are studying how it is we best ensure that the
desire of the government is indeed followed in this whole area, and if it has
to be by way of legislation, then it will be.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, if I were a
math teacher, which I am not, and I am only teaching my math students, let us
say, 90 hours as opposed to the 110‑120 which is being recommended, what
recourse do I have? Do I go to the
principal, the school division? How do I
ensure that I am being given the appropriate amount of time to teach what it is
I am supposed to be teaching?
Mr. Manness: Well, obviously the principal does the
timetabling in the school. So that is
one person you can approach. Ultimately
if you do not think that you have had a fair hearing you can go to the board
and to the extent that individuals‑‑and when I say the board, you
know, that is the superintendent, but let us say the board‑‑and
ultimately I guess if a larger number of you believe that nobody is listening
to you you petition the Minister of Education.
Mr. Lamoureux: Has the minister or the office ever been
petitioned about this particular problem?
Mr. Manness: Not formally, but certainly we have had representation
made to us as to the amount of material that has to be covered, of all
description, during the school day. Yes,
reference to that has been made on several occasions. Again, not on a formal‑‑I mean, I
hear the same thing that the member is bringing forward by way of his
questions.
Mr. Lamoureux: When the minister refers to all the material
that is being required, would the minister be of the opinion that maybe we do have
too much, we are asking too much of our schools to be able to administer the
required hours on those basics?
Mr. Manness: Well, I said as much last night. That is why I honestly believe, where the
emphasis of change is, the school community itself should be a greater
determining factor as to what areas in totality should be covered. I am concerned about the core subject areas,
and beyond that the school community should decide what it wants to add to it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Just to continue on, you have, and I made
reference to it yesterday, other reports that have come down and to ask the
minister if, in fact, the department has been acting on those reports. One was the Pedlar report with respect to
domestic violence being incorporated into the curriculum. Can the minister comment on that?
Mr. Manness: There is no doubt that we are moving into a
period of pause. I mean, up until a
while ago, society said, and it spoke very forcefully through the judiciary and
spoke very forcefully through other vested interest groups, that it wanted the
public school system to include as compulsory programming some subject
material. I have put that on pause.
I
have said, listen, it is time to sit back here and see what is of greater
import, and that, I guess, may ask the silent question. Once we bring forward the blueprint of
society, how do they want to handle this, because there are only so many hours
in the day, and right today I cannot envisage taking the school day and making
it two hours longer, and to make the school year longer I really think itself
is a simple solution that leads nowhere in itself, so ultimately something is
going to have to give. It is time for
society to once again resurrect the discussion around that issue.
Mr. Lamoureux: Are there other issues‑‑we made
reference to domestic violence‑‑other suggestions that have come
forward that the minister has also put on pause, and I am wondering if he could
indicate which ones those would be?
* (1510)
Mr. Manness: Well, we had a call last year that be fed
into the curriculum and I gather on a compulsory basis, something in Grades 5
to 8, violence against women, that that should become a compulsory dimension of
curriculum. We have not developed
anything new so we move in this area of violence protection and codes of
conduct.
I
know we have a large cross section of people who want us to, for instance‑‑this
has not been formally presented‑‑certainly give renewed focus to
entrepreneurship. I am not troubled by
that, but I would have a hard time setting a course up, as much as I believe in
the creation of wealth, and I want to see our students have an understanding of
what entrepreneurship is and what wealth creation leads to. It leads to great equity, much greater equity
in our society. I think our students
should have an introduction to that, and it should sort of be woven into the
curriculum but to have a subject on it in Grades 5 to 8, as some might suggest‑‑I
would have difficulty with that. These
are the continuing pressures that come to bear.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, does the
minister, in fact, have a list? I know
it would be beneficial for myself to hear, because no doubt different people
approach the minister that might have some different concerns with respect to
the curriculum, and I would be interested in knowing what other pressures of
inclusion are coming in terms of the curriculum.
I
know, as I said last night, the Manitoba Intercultural Council's report made
the suggestion that combatting racism be incorporated into the curriculum. I am wondering if the minister could comment
on that particular report or that particular recommendation, and secondly,
comment on whether or not he could provide for me some sort of a listing of
areas, like he has mentioned, codes of conduct, violence against women,
entrepreneurship. Are there other areas
which the minister could enlighten me on?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is
well aware we have been at this now for 10 years, a society‑‑this
is not a Manitoba issue. When you talk
about the issues of education and AIDS awareness and area of family life and
drug‑alcohol, racism, multicultural, entrepreneurship, society has been
trying to come to grips on how it is we impart greater knowledge around these
areas over the last 10 years.
In
some jurisdictions, more or less, these areas now become compulsory units or
add‑ons in either health courses or so on and so forth, but all of it to
the extent that it is add‑on and it is compulsory. I think of skills of independent learning, I
guess, has been the last mandated compulsory course that we have put in at
Senior 2. It all again has to, by
definition, begin to take away from the core subject area. So I think it is time to stand back and to
begin to charge our own thinking as to what is the most important.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate whether the
blueprint for education will give any consideration at all to the expanding
curriculum or some sort of indication on some of those areas in which he just
mentioned?
Mr. Manness: At this point, no, I cannot see that. I say that again the government, indeed,
everybody is going to have to decide whether or not the issues that I have just
mentioned are of great central control.
You must remember, most of the issues we have talked about were pushed
by members opposite to include them in the framework of study. I can remember the member's leader, Mrs.
Carstairs, of course, pushed very hard that compulsory instruction on AIDS and
family life be a mandatory part of the curriculum.
All
I am saying is that before this government is going to continue to follow that
process where society believes that, hey, let us fix it in the schools, it is
more important or is important‑‑I mean, when they say it is as
important, a lot of people are saying it is more important because right now to
find time for it, you have to take away time in some of the core subject
areas. It is time to revisit that whole
discussion.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, over the
weekend I had an interesting visit from an individual who at least took the
time to go through a textbook. I
believe, at least the minister is somewhat familiar with this. At least he had indicated to me that he had
let former ministers know about this particular book. It was the Science Dimension Grade 7. I understand it is part of the curriculum in
Grade 7.
He
went through it from the front to the back and again‑‑I am not a
scientist myself‑‑so it was interesting as he went through the
number of mistakes. He pointed out quite
a few of them, 735 and some were very, very minor mistakes or not necessarily
mistakes, sometimes in poor judgment. He
gives a number of examples. I guess,
what I would like to know from the minister is what sort of a process do we
have in place that sees that there is in fact review of materials that the
curriculum is actually teaching?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am well
aware, at least I think I know who the individual was. I have dialogued frequently over many years
with the individual to whom the member I think is referring.
I
would indicate that there are some major errors in the text which is two years
old. That is somewhat unfortunate. I would point out the process though by which
this text comes into existence. We are a
very small province. Publishers, of
course, are very reluctant to‑‑and it is one of the dilemmas of
trying to develop your own curriculum, because of course that textbook would
not have a large run. So you have
publishers of course for their own efficiencies who are involved somewhat or
are not involved in catching errors.
Many of the major errors that are identified are actually not department
errors at all, but were ones that came into place through the publisher. But we are held accountable for that, I
understand that.
There
are some other areas of interpretation where some individuals would quarrel
with the emphasis put into place and indeed maybe some of the conclusions
reached. We have tried to go out and
bring in third parties to reflect upon who is right or wrong, and there is
disagreement obviously.
But
I want to say with respect to the errors we certainly take no pride, even
though I am led to believe that an erratum sheet was produced by the publisher
who obviously had great responsibility, we still are embarrassed by the book.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
We
will do everything we can to improve the text development. I say that as soon as we become involved in
having a text now that will apply to many more students across, not only
Manitoba but western Canada, many of these problems will be eliminated.
We
now use outside subject experts. We meet
repeatedly with the publishers, and we try to send out, before final
publishing, these draft texts to outside experts for final review so that this
problem does not happen again.
It
is unfortunate, we feel badly about it.
We have to obviously be held accountable for it. But the flip side to that, if our students
learned all of the right material that is in that textbook, they would have a
grounding for science that would make them untouchable in any comparison. We cannot forget that fact. If our students came away from school with
the grounding in that book that we would all hope them to have, they would lead
the nation very quickly in their understanding of this.
So
we are trying to review texts and curricula from the United Kingdom. I know the member in particular talks about
the European model. I too believe that
we have something to learn. We are
looking at texts and curricula from Bavaria, Czechoslovakia, Australia,
anywhere in the world.
* (1520)
Part
of our problem is we are not the nation of Canada, we are the province of
Manitoba, and it has been the practice in this country for a long period of
time that everybody has their own curriculum.
That is part of our problem, and we are going to have to regionalize the
development of our curriculum.
We
have been talking about it and trying slowly.
I might share with members I had a meeting today, a conference call,
with Ministers of Education across western Canada, from 12 to one o'clock. We spent a good 15 minutes on this area. I asked everybody again if they were
committed to common curriculum. As we
proceed through the rest of these decades and of these years in this last
decade into the next century, was everybody committed from a western and
territorial point of view towards a common curriculum? The resounding answer came across the
telephone line, yes, yes, yes. We are
moving in the right direction.
Mr. Lamoureux: I am not too sure given this one particular
text and just the number of errors that I would share the same opinion that the
minister has in terms of if the students knew this book that they would in fact
be the best in Canada.
In
looking at some of the mistakes, there are some very significant mistakes in
here. Long graphs that are being used,
for example, to display what Sir Isaac Newton's theory on light as through two
prisms. It makes reference to the
shadow, one being longer in the summer, shorter in the winter, and states some‑‑well,
that is just not accurate, many of the statements that are being made.
Then
it has some of the simple mistakes, for example, where it shows pictures, and
instead of having the pictures being from, let us say, the same angle so that a
student would get a better appreciation in terms of the differences that are
trying to be demonstrated.
The
question I would ask the minister is that given that he is familiar with this
particular text, and I did make a commitment or I would allow the minister to
have it. I believe he knows the
individual. Maybe the individual would lend
it to the minister so maybe his staff can actually go through the many different
mistakes, or after I am done speaking on it, I will hand it over and you can
maybe page through it, if you so choose.
I am wondering what the government is doing in particular when it finds
something of this nature.
Is
it good enough to continue to let the students learn the amount of what is not
necessarily accurate information in such a very important area of study?
Mr. Manness: Well, the member is not imparting any new
knowledge here. I mean he may want to be
able to wave the record around that he has brought it up as an issue, but if
the member thinks that he is going to try and tell the education community that
he now is becoming the shining knight and he has found, in secret with somebody
else, weaknesses in this particular‑‑I mean, this was brought to
the attention of the ministry a year and a half if not two years ago. A full analysis has been done and all of the
shortcomings presented.
The
department has tried to react in the fashion it has to correct some of the
areas of significance, but there are other areas of less significance. Some have used the term "quibbling"
because you come around to interpretation.
I must say, I mean, this is not the curriculum. This is a text, and‑‑[interjection]
No, it is not the material that is being used in all places. Now that may engender discussion in a number
of areas. It is one source. Because teachers today have license to use various
sources, as long as they cover the subject material, they do not have to use
that.
Now
I can enter a dialogue and say that I am kind of troubled with that too, but
that is a different issue. When the
member says the curriculum, I mean this is a text that is out and the teachers
tell us it is the best source they have ever had in science. That is what the teachers tell us, I mean, as
a compendium of the scientific issues that are to be dealt with and imparted by
way as knowledge.
So
I have to say here that I am not proud of the fact that there are some errors
here, but the teachers have passed judgment on that particular document, that
reference, and I am led to believe that‑‑and it is used, but there
are other sources. I mean there is the
Addison‑Wesley science text that is used, the 1980 edition, and then, of
course, the '84 edition of the same area.
There is the Let's Find Out text published by D.C. Heath, Science 5/13,
Heath Science Dimension, Science At Work series, Nuffield series. These are all other references and texts that
are used in the middle years.
Again,
that maybe is cause for concern because there is not a common document of
reference. The principles of science
have not changed a lot, but there are always new developments in that area. So we have supplemented the Grade 7 program
with the major infusion of resources in the Rocks and Minerals Kit. I mean this is‑‑as you can
remember, the new minister of minerals, one of his first announcements was that
whole area of minerals and rocks‑‑catered towards Manitoba. That is how we try and supplement documents. Of course, one of the authors of that,
believe it or not, was I believe Mr. Macek.
I mean, he did a review of that particular piece of material. We are trying to do the right thing. We are trying to take into account the
sensitivities and some of the weaknesses.
Beyond
all, again I restate, if our students using that text or the others I have
mentioned came away knowing 70 percent of the scientific theory in place, I
mean, as the Minister of Education I would be overjoyed.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, so would I,
especially if I knew that it was accurate information that they were in fact
taking. I know it is a considerable
amount of money. I believe it was
somewhere around a half million dollars to purchase this particular textbook,
to circulate it to all of the different schools so that it would become a part
of the resources to teach this particular curriculum. The minister indicates that, well, we have
known it, that I have not uncovered anything new, that the minister knows about
the book, that it was brought to his attention a year or a year and a half ago.
I
guess my question is, if you knew a year, a year and a half ago, two years,
what has been done about rectifying the problem with this book? Has the minister, for example, had contact
with the publisher of the book? The
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) suggested a refund.
An Honourable Member: No, a recall.
Mr. Lamoureux: A recall, I am sorry. Is there some sort of a factual where the
errors are significant, some sort of a factual sheet going out to supplement
the book so that all the Grade 7 teachers would be aware of some of the
mistakes that are not necessarily acceptable or at least pointing out? For the average student, and I would even
suggest, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, for the adults, that when they look at
printed material such as a textbook, they have confidence that what is in here
is in fact accurate.
* (1530)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it must be my
problem. It must be a weakness that I
have in communicating. I should go back
to school.
The
member for Inkster has difficulty either in understanding what I say or tunes
out instantly when I begin to talk or thirdly is thinking of the next comment.
An Honourable Member: I think he is thinking of Question Period.
Mr. Manness: That is right. This is a precursor to Question Period
tomorrow.
I
said this: This was old news. This has been discussed. This has been discussed broadly and widely
within education circles.
I
said, and I repeat, that the publisher put out errata sheets that have gone to
all the schools where that book exists.
I said that, No. 1. I said there
was a whole listing of other texts.
There are many Grade 7 students who do not use that text, because that
is not a prescribed provincial textbook.
Some would argue there should be a prescribed text, but it is not. I dare say that is not used in many of our
schools. Thirdly, there are other
resources that are used by departments and I read the whole listing of them.
There
are workshops and in those workshops we have identified some of the
weaknesses. We asked teachers whether or
not they are using that text. If they
say yes, we indicate where some of the problems are. We have met the publisher. I said this, that we have met the publisher
and we have asked him how it is that this could have happened‑‑his
responsibility‑‑but more importantly, we said, what is going to
happen next time. What process is in
place so that it does not happen again?
So we have set up a new process of text preparation.
That
is the second time I have answered that question. I do not want to have to answer it a third.
Mr. Lamoureux: Maybe I can ask the minister in terms of the
process that is in place to ensure that it does not happen again.
Mr. Manness: Sorry?
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister then indicate in terms of
what process is in place to ensure that things of this nature are prevented in
the future?
Mr. Manness: We are going to firstly, in the sense it is a
pure Manitoba curriculum, in the sense that continues to happen and that will
be happening less and less as we now work collaboratively as provinces, so you
are going to have now many, many more people reviewing it within a regional
context, but certainly we will be sending it outside the province. If it is to the other provinces, or we will
work on it together and then they will come back and forth, so you have many,
many more people beginning to review these drafts.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to
pick up on something that the minister had earlier indicated about working with
the provinces on this issue. I ask the
minister, what is currently in place to facilitate discussions on sharing text
book productions into the future?
Mr. Manness: Well, two issues, and I referred to them last
night. We have a protocol with the
western provinces and territories. That
covers eight subject areas I believe, math and science being only two of them,
distance education and a whole host of others I do not have them right before
me. That protocol of course puts into
place a mechanism to set up working committees so that there is work done on a
continuing basis, and it assigns responsibilities to who will take leads and
what years for a certain curriculum.
Then
of course, within the broader context, within the Ministry of Education
ministers across Canada, CMEC for short, we have the national test. We are looking, too, about now making more
comparable curriculum across the land.
Whether that is a result of regional blocks, Atlantic Canada, Quebec,
Ontario and the West, basically four regions, making more compatible their
curriculum, or whether it is done individually.
I mean we are just beginning in the national context, but we all want to
go to the same place but within regional blocks. In Atlantic Canada and western Canada today
we have the mechanism in place to work together towards more of a common
curriculum.
An Honourable Member: The Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Manness: Oh, jeez, you are swift today, John.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, sticking with
the region, can the minister indicate I guess the make‑up to a certain
extent or how that works? Does the
minister make appointments? Is it just
different departmental staff that sit down to review‑‑the
curriculum consultants? If I can just
get the minister to comment in terms of how it is happening within the prairie
region.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, certainly the
co‑ordination comes from the assistant deputy ministers across the
western provinces and territories. For
instance, to use math as an example, the working parties then would be
responsible for developing the curriculum for making sure materials are published
and an assessment of those materials before they are ultimately‑‑developing
the materials and then assessing before ultimate publishing.
The
K to 12 are broken into three basic groupings:
middle years, early years, senior years.
Manitoba staff, to this point, in the math area has been a staffer from
our department, and in most cases I would think would be a staff member from
the department. It does not necessarily
have to be that way. We may reach out to
the field for somebody we know and ask them to give a year or two of their
time, paid of course to represent Manitoba in the dialogue with the other
western provinces and the territories.
Mr. Lamoureux: The working parties that the minister refers
to, have there been any meetings since then of these working parties?
Mr. Manness: Oh, several, several, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson. As a matter of fact I am
signing travel documents all the time, and certainly we are the furthest along
in the process in the area of math, but we are also, and I am going to ask
Carolyn to give me what other areas that we are actively working together‑‑so
the ADMs met three weeks ago. The math
group has met once this year, aboriginal group had met in February, and this is
all attempting to come together and set into place a reference mark and
ultimately curriculum in these subjects.
Mr. Lamoureux: So are there then working parties that would
be in place to cover the different subjects?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is what
the protocol in place does, and that is why the ministers now are quickly
trying to come together and set into place, motion these same types of
activities in more subject areas. For
instance, the distance education, especially computer‑assistant learning
projects have regular contact, and we are trying to move as quickly as possible
into other subject areas, including science and all of the other areas that are
important to all of us.
Mr. Lamoureux: Does the minister have some sort of a time
frame when he would see some sort of results coming out of this whole
process? Is that part of the protocol?
* (1540)
Mr. Manness: Well, results are starting to come out now in
mathematics, K‑4. The '93 effort
was a direct result of this process. I
would hope by 1995, we will be beginning to have a steady flow of regionally
developed curricular materials.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would ask
the minister, does he see this then eventually working out that, for example,
with a textbook, that it would at the very least be a prairie‑oriented
text material and possibly be all joint purchases or bulk purchases? I know the minister had made reference to
that a bit earlier, and I wonder if maybe he could just comment in terms of
what he sees as some of the benefits of having the Prairies working together on
this.
Mr. Manness: Most definitely. I can think of 11, exactly 11, 10 and a half
years ago when I ran for the leadership of our party. That was a basic plank of my leadership run
at that particular point in time, so there is nothing particularly new here,
but I want to indicate that never has the atmosphere been better in the
willingness by certainly ministers, again, expressed as recently as today, to
get on with this. Everybody is very
happy with where we have gone so far, but to speed up the process, to deliver
those materials even more quickly than has been the norm.
Mr. Lamoureux: I am wondering if the minister could indicate
whether or not there is something that is going to be more of a permanent
structure. I refer to some of the discussions
I have had on the concept of prairie integration, for example, where there
would be offices located in one province that would deal with the three
provinces on a particular issue. Is
there that sort of a discussion that is taking place where there is a
centralization of some of the resources from all three interested provinces?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the
member should really pose that question to the First Minister (Mr.
Filmon). I can tell the member, offices
are tenth in line of things that have to happen before you meaningfully move
on. There has to be basically the will
there. I sense there is today in larger
measure.
For
instance, when the University of Alberta closes its school of dentistry and
today is trying to buy spaces in other areas, that may be a hard action in one
province. I can tell you, provinces had
better come up to speed and decide‑‑per the discussion we had last
night with the member for Wolseley‑‑what their expertise is because
within the prairie context not all of us can do it all.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I was wanting
to pick up on where I started off, with respect to the curriculum office
itself. The minister had indicated, I
believe, that there were 31 staff people.
I wonder if you could indicate the actual breakdown, or I guess that
might be better off if we wait till we get to that department. I will put a pass on that.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I was going to
leave the extensive discussions on some of the government priorities to the
second line, which was Reform. I think
actually under Reform we could probably discuss the whole works, at least this
whole branch, and therefore I was going to leave it to there. I just had one question on this line dealing
with administration, and that is dealing with the consultation and
communication with education stakeholders, shareholders and the general public
what the major priorities and primary functions here are at the present
time. What kinds of particular tasks are
ongoing in this area right at the present time and what are the priorities for
the minister and for his department in this area?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
Mr. Manness: We are meeting quite regularly with the
stakeholders and laying before them our interpretation firstly of some of the
things that they have said in the past publicly and reinforced privately,
trying to meld it with our general view and desire to see a greater focus on
some certain areas. Of course, there is
fallout from that with respect to governance issues. So we are taking the lead as the province but
looking for reaction from the stakeholders in a half dozen, if not more, major
areas. We have covered about half of
those areas in fair detail and will continue to follow that process, hopefully
yet for several weeks.
Mr. Plohman: Is the minister talking about his own
consultations with MAST, MASS and MTS, or are there other parallel things
happening besides those direct consultations that the minister is having with
the senior people from those organizations?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am talking about
the former, my own consultation, as far as the division after the
reorganization, and certainly the assistant deputy minister and her staff are
attempting, in the field, to explain the organization of the new schools
program division and of course how the regional teams will interact with the
field. We are out in two, I would say,
related but unrelated areas. I am out
doing reform and the assistant deputy minister, of course, in regional
meetings, scheduled to explain the reorganizations, has completed one to this
point in time. Another is tomorrow and
the rest scheduled through May and early June, to explain the renewed emphasis
with respect to programming.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will get into that
book and the reorganization in some detail in the next lines of the department,
but I wanted to find out what is happening here. The minister is saying that he is meeting
with the senior people of these organizations and, of course, there was the
forum, I guess, would have come under this particular area, the responsibility
of this area in terms of planning, is that correct, as part of the consultations?
Yes,
just a couple of questions on that forum, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. The minister was rather surprised that I
would find anything to criticize in that forum.
It was just such a super day.
Everything was so great. There is
not anything that you could possibly say that could be negative. I mean, that is the way he reacted in the
House anyway. I was wondering‑‑
An Honourable Member: Oh, you are paraphrasing. You had me worried for a minute.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, well I can see why you might be
worried. The minister did say that he
felt there was not really much that could be criticized.
An Honourable Member: Right.
Mr. Plohman: Well, we expect that from Jack.
On
that, there were a few things, and I just want to ask the minister, I mean, I
did address the concerns I had about the freedom. There are two different consultations‑‑I
guess I should back up a bit‑‑one where there is a specific agenda
and the minister wants reaction to that agenda.
Another would be more wide open where there would be a kind of
brainstorming on issues and prioritization of those issues so that the parents
would decide what the important issues would be. I did not feel there was much time for that
as the program was structured. The
minister said, well, on question seven there was room for that, except that it
referenced the issues raised in the other questions as opposed to making it
wide open. So I do not know whether it
was as wide open as the minister would have led us to believe.
I
thought one of the things that was not covered there in terms of the minister's
actions was this issue of how education should be funded. I guess maybe the minister thought that was a
little complicated or maybe he just did not want to deal with it because it
would draw attention to the fact that there had been some cuts the last couple
of years and he would rather not talk about that. As he said, it is not an issue wherever he
goes.
* (1550)
I
thought that might have come forward if the minister had made it more wide
open. That would have definitely been an
issue that the parents would have felt was an important issue.
The
other criticism I might have of that day of the program was the invitations to
it‑‑I guess not the program, but the invitations to it. I did get a letter sent to me from a school
division, which had been sent by the minister to the principals of
schools. That letter the minister sent
out on April 8, and the criticism they had about it, and it may not be as valid
as some would think. It may be valid, and
the minister may want to comment as to whether it was a deliberate choice of
words or perhaps just an oversight.
He
specifically asked the principal to hand out the application forms to those who
requested them as opposed to perhaps encouraging the principal to select
parents that he knew would have opinions on education, who have been involved
in the parents' councils and so on and maybe would have been good
representatives of the schools.
I
think that would have been the way to do it in a democratic way to ensure kind
of a broad cross section. This leaves it
open to perhaps parents being approached by the minister's staff or others to
say pick up an application and go to this and represent your school at this
forum as opposed to coming from the bottom up.
If the minister feels that is not a valid criticism, I would appreciate
his comments on that. I thought it was
worth raising with him because it was brought to my attention, and I believe
the minister could have been more open in terms of his suggestions to
principals as to how these people could be selected.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I beg to differ
with the member. Firstly, I must
indicate that 90 percent of the people who applied to come, if not 95 percent,
were unknown to me or my political staff.
An Honourable Member: Are known or are not?
Mr. Manness: Are not‑‑are unknown. So I do not know whether the member said that
we went out to try and fudge‑‑he did not say that, and I am putting
words in his mouth. I dare say, around
this question of not encouraging principals to go out and select parents, I
mean to me that would have been‑‑if that is what he means by bottom
up, that the principals should do that, I say nonsense.
I
tried to get this publicized, but I guess I can be criticized for doing one
thing. I can be criticized, as I told
somebody in the Liberal Party, I think, for not spending $30,000 or $40,000 in
buying ads for greater publicity. I
think that is what it would have cost us.
I refuse to do that.
An Honourable Member: I was not criticizing you.
Mr. Manness: No, but some would, and that is because of my
nature.
I
just could not see scarce dollars to buy ads which then would have been‑‑I
pleaded with the media to make this as a public service announcement so that
parents everywhere would have fair access to the knowledge that there was a
forum going to be held, and all they had to do was go to the local school and
pick up a form, not with the cajoling, not with the prompting of a principal,
not with the prompting of a trustee, but to just purely go down if they were
interested at all. Believe it or not,
most did, and I do not know what can be a purer system. I would have to think that if principals were
going to do the prompting that that would be less pure than the system that we
followed. I think the system we followed
was the best under the circumstances.
Mr. Plohman: I would just differ with the minister in
that. I think there could have been some
balance between the two. Certainly
parents, principals and teachers would know from their experience in working
with it, particularly in areas where there are active parent councils, where
they have been in involved, would know who the people are that take an interest
in this kind of thing, are involved and want to be involved, have good opinions
or are willing to express their opinions, that kind of thing in terms of input.
[interjection] Well, I am just saying that if he is going to the principals,
that might have been suggested to them to try to solicit some.
I
just wanted to ask the minister how he has responded to the criticism that was
levelled from, at least the Dauphin Ochre School Board. I do not know if it came from others. It is not something that they approached me
with. It is something that I saw in the
paper that was discussed, and that is the fact that those people who would have
to come from a great distance would, because of the early start, have to come
in the night before, and there was no provision made for their expenses. Of course the criticism was on that basis
then, was the government really sincere about having people come from greater
distances?
Well,
something we all face in committees of any kind in any organization that is provincially
based is, how do you balance your representation geographically? It is always expensive to do that, but it is
a criticism that has been brought forward, and I just want to ask the minister
whether that was addressed in any way or whether he considers in retrospect
that that should have been dealt with considering that the minister did not
have forums all over the province? There
was just one in the city of Winnipeg.
Mr. Manness: Well, I am sensitive to that criticism but,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to indicate to you that out of the 450, I do not
know what the final tally was and maybe my assistant can list them. Of the between 400 and 500 people who were
there, I am led to believe that a strong 40‑45 percent were rural based
and they were scattered pretty symmetrically across rural school divisions.
Now,
not every school division was represented.
There were a couple of school divisions that did not have their prorated
accurate number, but most rural school divisions did. The wonder of it, and Mr. Thompson tells me
now that of the 50 or 60 people who are eligible for the $40 subsidy, only 20
so far, and indeed I would have to think that very few additional would be
coming, applied for subsidy. I just
found this out. That says an awful lot
about the commitment from the people who came in, because they came in their
distance and I did not cover all the costs, I recognized, of somebody putting
in gas and maybe spending the night over, but we had some individuals who
stayed with friends and all that, and let me say with respect to item No. 7,
and this is where the member started on the forum, yes, the way the question
was phrased, it sort of gave an indication that you should comment on the
numbers before. Two‑thirds of the
people there filled out those sheets, and I can tell you, their comments were
all over the map. They did not feel
restricted to talk specifically about the comments that were there. They were everywhere.
Mr. Plohman: Since the minister raises that, that was one
of the criticisms that I heard, was that the final summation did not provide
any reference to so many of those comments, and that is difficult to do in
summarizing. I hope that in subsequent
summaries, the liberty that delegates took to in fact provide advice on areas
that were unsolicited will be considered and that they will be listed, and
indications will be made as to what action the government is taking on those,
because I am sure there were some common themes.
I
just want to say one other thing to the minister. He might want to check with his Conservative
candidate who sits on the school board in Dauphin, to ask him about where this
came from and this concern. Is this an
isolated concern from the Dauphin, well‑‑[interjection] The new
one, yes, yes, Gord Ryz. Yes, he is on
the school board, and it is kind of ironic that it is that school board that is
raising this concern about a‑‑as a matter of fact, they indicate
they are sending off a letter to the minister to express their dismay. I do not know if the Minister has that letter
yet, but this is apparently coming.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I am prepared to pass this line and get on to the Education
Reform line.
Mr. Manness: I will not react to the members because I
want to pass this line too, but I just think I want the record to show that out
of the 400 people who registered for the forum, 45 percent were from rural and
northern Manitoba.
* (1600)
Mr. Plohman: Again, it depends on the geographic
representation. The distances being
great, maybe there would have obviously been less from further distances. I just wanted to ask the minister, though,
one question on the questionnaire, and we referenced this yesterday, why he
felt the issue of involvement should be linked with choice in Question 3, because
it seems to be a leading question, as if to say: Well, if you want to be involved, you should
have a choice of schools, and then how would you get choice? And it leads the discussion in that line.
It
says: Do you agree or disagree with
parents having more involvement and choice in the school to which they send the
children? I have no problem with the
issue of involvement, but why is choice linked as if it is synonymous or has a
major role in involvement?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we recognized the
weakness around that question or the lack of clarity around that just before
the conference. As I recall, because I
was part of the discussion, Dr. Anderson asked the facilitators that when they
came to that question, they take choice to mean much more than just choice of
location but choice of programming also, and that the emphasis of that question
should be directed to choice of programming.
I am hoping that occurred in most of the breakout sessions. I acknowledge that comment, and we tried to
correct that shortcoming right that day.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(a)(2) Other Expenditures $49,300‑‑pass.
2.(b)
Education Reform (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $505,400.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the $2,250,000 that
we are talking about here is referenced in the budget. I wanted to ask the minister for a breakdown
of that, a further indication of where and how the money would be spent. Could the minister do that? Is it the same as was put into the press
release dealing with $300,000 for apprenticeship training, $650,000 for
curriculum development, $750,000 for a pilot project in distance education and
so on, and is there a further breakdown from that if that is part of it?
Mr. Manness: No, there is no further breakdown, but we
certainly have greater definition around those points, as I referenced in that
press release. For instance, what we are
talking about is basically nine positions.
Six of those will be in the curriculum framework area. We are also talking about one in the library
linkages area, and then trying to integrate in the curriculum this whole focus
on identification, acquisition, development of new media courseware. By that, we mean integrating computer
software print, video and other emerging technologies, in other words, trying
to prepare ourselves for curriculum in the new distance education technology
area, two staff positions there.
Those
are where the human resources are going to be, but still there will be some pilot
projects put into distance education. We
are hoping to do a provincial special education review again in the area,
naturally, of special ed and some other study in the middle years. So that is where we contemplate using the
$2.25 million.
Mr. Plohman: The minister talks about nine staff. Are all the previously vacant positions in
the branches that are now encompassed within this section under reorganization
to be filled and then nine additional staff added?
Mr. Manness: No, these are not shifts. These are new positions, and those who were
on the redeployment list as a result of decisions taken on previous budgets
have an opportunity to apply for these positions.
Mr. Plohman: What about the existing positions? I understand with this reorganization that
has taken place, from looking at the spreadsheets and at the Estimates book and
so on, that the Child Care and Development Branch, the Curriculum Branch, the
Distance Education branch, have all disappeared and replaced with the branches
that are listed here. Are there other
branches that have disappeared? What is
the comparison of the staff allocated for each under the new organization
versus the old? Where will the reform
staff be housed?
Mr. Manness: This is a stand‑alone unit, although
obviously the subject material that I have referenced would dictate that this
unit is going to have to work closely with other human resources within the
department.
The
member asked about what are the nets.
You built here but you probably made reductions elsewhere within this
major division, and the net through all the changes is a reduction of one and a
half staff years.
Mr. Plohman: So we have an additional $2.25 million in
this area, but we have a net reduction of one and a half staff. Well, the increase overall of the whole area
is about $500,000.
Mr. Manness: In the whole division.
Mr. Plohman: In the whole division and one and a half
fewer staff, but $2.25 million allocated to education reform with nine staff
attached to it.
Mr. Manness: The member is correct.
Mr. Plohman: Well then, just because Education Reform is
so broad, and I think that for the purpose of discussion there are many areas
that we can discuss, I wanted to discuss some of the staffing changes as a
result of the reorganization.
Can
the minister indicate what has become of the positions that were vacated and
how they are being filled at the present time?
Is there still an industrial arts consultant? Is there still a guidance consultant? Is there still a phys ed consultant, English
as a second language and a co‑ordinator for heritage language
programs? The director, Gail Bagnell's
spot, who is doing that right now?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chair, if the member wants to bear
with me, I will try and give him an indication of basically what has
happened. The division administration
started with four, but there has been a reduction of one, and that one has gone
to Program Development. So within the
administration of the division we are down now to three.
I
will start again, Mr. Deputy Chair. The
administration once was four in total, now it is five. We sent one to Program Development, but we
brought in one from Distance Ed and Technology and one from Student
Services. So four, building to five,
that is the administration side.
Curriculum
Services‑‑in that area we started with 47, but we reduced it by
four to 43. Of those 43, now 12 are in
Assessment and Evaluation; 13 and a fraction are in Program Development; two
are in program implementation administration; 10 are provincial specialists;
two are in the South East region and four are in the Winnipeg region. You add up all of those and you come to again
a total of 43 within Curriculum Services.
* (1610)
Native
Education has remained unchanged, although there is a split‑out, if the
member wants, of 13 before, and now they have split into Native Education
directorate, three; three have gone into the Program Development area; two have
gone to the South Central region; four have gone in‑‑and this will
make the member happy‑‑the Parklands‑Westman region and one
into the North region. So that is where
the 13 have now gone.
Child
Care and Development‑‑there originally were 62.5 positions, but
there has been a reduction of one and one‑half, so now there are 61
positions. These 61, under the new
reorg, 41.5 of them have gone to Student Services, two to Program Development,
eight to provincial specialists area, two to the South Central, two and a half
to the South East, three to the Parklands‑Westman region and two to the
North. Adding up all those numbers comes
to 61, again, the total complement under the reorganized Child Care and
Development area.
Instructional
Resources‑‑originally there were 31 but one has been allocated to
provincial specialists, leaving within the Planning Implementation, the new
category, 30. It used to be called
Instructional Resources, now it is called IRB, Instructional Resources Branch
Planning Implementation, so that is the complement now of 30.
Distance
Education‑‑under the old system 38 positions, two and a half have
been reduced, leaving a net basically of 35.5.
Those now are allocated this way.
One went to the division administration and we talked about that
earlier, nine have gone into Program Development, four in provincial
specialists, one has gone to the South Central, two to the South East, one to
Winnipeg, one to the Parklands‑Westman region, one to Instructional
Resources Implementation and 15.5 in the distance delivery implementation
branches which would be Winkler. That is
15. That is where the core mass of that
Distance Ed thrust is centralized. So
again, that is the 35.5 positions.
There
is one other area and that is the Student Support. Originally there were nine in that branch. There has been a reduction of one, leaving a
total of eight. One of them is in the
division administration, two are in the Program Development, four are in
Winnipeg and one in the Parklands‑Westman region for a total of
eight. That now makes up the total
complement of staff within the division, a total of 274.
I
would just like, if the member does not mind, to give a brief introduction to
the reorganization. The seven branches I
have just talked about, each with a particular focus and with responsibilities
for development, implementation and assessment functions for the specific focus
area, are what we used to have. Now we
have reconfigured existing staff into three main branches as well as several
units as identified below. The branches
are Program Development, Program Implementation and Student Services.
The
Program Development area will bring together staff and functions involved in
all aspects of curricula and material development. We have spent most of today talking about the
Program Development area.
Program
Implementation will bring together all the staff and functions involved in the
implementation of programs at the school and school division levels.
The
third area is Student Services, comprises most of what formerly was known as the
Child Care and Development Branch with the exception of most of the provincial
special education consultants and the regional co‑ordinators. Also, the financial officer from the Manitoba
School for the Deaf becomes part of the financial administration team. What we have tried to do, quite frankly and
most simply, is to just try and remove some of the labels and some of the
confusion and to put it into basically areas that are digestible by anybody who
peers in or is interested.
Furthermore,
an Assessment and Evaluation unit and a Native Education directorate will be
attached to the assistant deputy minister's office. That, of course, involves the relocation of a
significant number of staff from 1181 Portage Avenue to 1970 Ness. That is happening right now. As a matter of fact, I was at Ness last week
and I could still see some of the manifestation of the moving with all of the
boxes. Basically in Education we are
trying to take three buildings and ultimately take them down to two. Of course, we have talked about how it is we
plan to book the savings on the lease cost for the whole department.
The
reorganization also involves the establishment of regional teams to serve all
areas of the province. It integrates the
program development functions with respect to curriculum, technology,
aboriginal content, resource‑based learning, multicultural and antiracist
education, diverse learning needs of students, and again, there was focus in
these issue areas here earlier on.
Again,
I guess I double underline the word "integration," because it is bad
enough when departments of government begin to set up their own barriers and
there is not a lot of cross fertilization that occurs between them. It is unspeakable when divisions and
departments and, beyond that, branches within divisions begin to set up their
own areas. So what we have attempted to
do here through this change, in part, is to break down some of those barriers. Again, I insist that staff recognize that if
we work together in an integrated fashion, obviously, we will provide a better
product.
Program
Development will produce a curriculum framework. It incorporates learner outcomes and
standards. Again, this is one of the
building areas of ed reform. We have talked
a lot about it, and I am sure we will want to talk more about it. Program Development will produce a curriculum
framework that incorporates learner outcomes and standards.
A
major thrust will be a response to the Distance Education Task Force Report
with regard to the development of curriculum‑based technology. Again, as we have talked about the $2.25
million, the member indicated where two staff at this point, but more to come‑‑because
I have told Treasury Board that we will need more resources in this to make
ready our curriculum to make it applicable and usable on the network, on the
information highway, if you will, to use a name.
* (1620)
The
Native Education directorate will be a unit within the assistant deputy
minister's office to ensure the needed attention to aboriginal issues. This is a mandate that has come more
directly, if not indirectly, from the Premier's Office, again wanting those
units within all our departments with a responsibility towards providing
services to natives within our province to have a greater direct opportunity to
be heard at these higher levels.
Also
a greater emphasis and expectation will be placed on staff to work with schools
and parents. Again, this is a thrust of
the whole ed reform package that we will be making public. We are going to be expecting that school
communities, if we are going to give them not necessarily powers, but a greater
focus, that there is going to have to be in place a fostering mechanism from
the department, not to tell them what to do, but tell them how it is to
organize if they so choose to want to do that.
A
new focus area will include, of course, a program evaluation framework. The discussion last night was around the word
"effectiveness." Well, surely,
programs, basic education‑‑I use that word‑‑core area
education, however you want to talk about it, surely it too should be measured
in some measure of effectiveness, how well it is delivering. We are going to have to begin to build a
framework to evaluate what it is we are contemplating in the new thrust.
An
expectation, of course, will also be to work with school divisions and regions
to set priorities for service delivery.
We are going to be called into obviously taking the lead with school
divisions and implementing the conclusions of ed reform. Lastly, but not necessarily the final
statement, establish processes and procedures to ensure that we engage in
continuous improvement. That is internal
scrutiny of our own activity.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I hope that with the detail provided firstly and secondly
in overview we have tried to lay before the committee the intent and indeed the
expectations of the reorganization within the division.
Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that detail.
Would
he say that all of that information is in here in this booklet in one form or
another, the booklet I imagine that the assistant deputy minister is out
consulting and informing the public about or the partners?
Mr. Manness: The macronumbers are there obviously, but it
has not been itemized in that fashion.
That is why I deliberately took the time and the effort to make it part
of the record.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, it is part of the record, but it is not
as concise as the sheet that the minister was working from. Is there any problem with just distributing
that particular sheet on the staffing changes?
I know I took notes, but I do not trust them as being as accurate as I
would like them to be.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no, it is part of the
record. We will provide that, but we
want to provide a better copy than that.
We have just torn it out.
Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that undertaking.
Just
to go back to my first question though, insofar as consultants for subject
areas, are we going to see that concept continued under this new configuration
and to the same extent? Is there going
to be more?
I
understand, for example, a couple of years ago there were two math consultants
and now there is only one; there were two science consultants and now it is
down to one; language arts had four and it is down to one. Is some of the work that these people were
doing going to be included in the regional teams as opposed to consultants that
are centrally located as subject consultants so the integrated approach absorbs
some of those people? Can the minister
explain that a bit?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my attitude is, first
of all, that we probably have to shift the emphasis a little bit from
development to implementation. I am only
talking with respect to numbers within the department. I am very mindful of the development work
that needs to be done.
As
I dialogued previously with the questions, we expect that to become a greater
shared responsibility as between provincial jurisdictions. Therefore, we do not have the need
necessarily, certainly within some of the core areas, to try and resurrect what
we had in the past if indeed we are not going to be working to a purely
Manitoba curriculum. So I am holding in
abeyance the filling, and I have deliberately, of the developmental side, but
there is no question on the implementation side.
We
have to now take the regional concept that we have built into the
reorganization, and we have to give higher priority to the staffing of those positions,
because we have to do a better job in the field in carrying forward the
message. That is why there is a slight
shift of focus. We still have to do
both. I mean the development will only
occur within the province. It will be a
team‑shared responsibility because of the protocols we have in
place. We will also have to give greater
focus to computer‑assisted learning development and that area so we have
applications ready for distance delivery.
I
guess to answer a question specifically put by the member here about 10 or 15
minutes ago about are you going to replace the specific consultants within the
area of physical education, and I forget all the areas, I have to say in their
order of priorities, that those areas I still will hold unfilled for a period
of time because the higher priority still is in the side of implementation and
development within the course subjects.
Mr. Plohman: Would the minister, being quite
straightforward, say that he has not, in conjunction with his staff, determined
which consultants specifically will be replaced and which ones will not? Would that be fair to say that has not been
determined? The minister said he wants
to keep them open in terms of priorities.
I do not understand whether that means additional people dedicated to
these teams will in fact take those positions.
I
know the minister is consulting with his staff.
He knows very well, for example, and I am not saying that this is the
highest priority for replacement, but the minister has received a lot of
letters with regard to the phys ed consultant.
I
was talking with the heritage language Nepal representative groups at the forum
that they had last Friday night. They
indicated to me that one person had talked with the minister and said that he
did not get near as many letters about the vacancy in heritage language as they
did in phys ed.
It
is interesting though whether this is the kind of gauge that the minister is
going to use as to whether it should be replaced or not. I mean they were concerned that the minister
was perhaps inadvertently or deliberately measuring the importance of the two
by the number of letters he got.
He
knows very well that there can be organized responses to certain decisions and
that in other areas people may have just as great a concern, but they may not
have chosen to manifest it in the same way.
I
would be concerned as well if the minister is starting to pick and choose now
between the two and gauging it by how many letters he received. I think all of those are important, and I
just wondered if the minister has replaced some of those now and whether those
positions are in fact going to be filled.
It is just a matter of knowing whether they are going to be filled or
not, so the public knows.
* (1630)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is important that
the member remind himself or remember something that was said earlier on. We still have a guideline of 5 percent
vacancy. I mean, that is a general
guideline. Right today, if he wants to
know what priority we have in place to fill, right today it is to fill the
regional implementation teams. That
today is No. 1.
If
letters were going to drive me to make decisions, I would have to have three or
four consultants in physical education because I have never ever seen so many
letters on an issue. Yet I have to
follow my own plan, and that is the regional teams are where the focus has to
be.
Beyond
that, the vacancies, yes, there is a vacancy in the consultant in the special
ed area; there is a vacancy in the English language arts area. But when the member talks about heritage
languages, in the languages area we have Tony Tavares who is supposed to be
covering that. That is a combination of
languages in the antiracist thrust that we are trying to deal with.
[interjection]
But
again, through these amalgamations, I mean things change, and as I have said
for the record, those are the thrusts.
Heritage language, yes, as a consultant, as you said. Physical education, now we have asked Joyce
MacMartin to sort of try and do double duty, and she has now become the contact
in that area; and the gifted area, Dennis Lucas.
Mr. Plohman: What we find though is that they are doubling
up now or tripling up on these things rather than having separate consultants
for each area. If that is a conscious
decision, then that is a decision that is going to be left in place, or it is
just temporary, while the vacancies are sitting there. That is what I am trying to find out from the
minister, whether this is something that he sees as being maintained in the
foreseeable future, or is it just a matter of getting by until the vacancies
can be filled?
Mr. Manness: No, I see this, in all honesty, continuing
for some period of time. I have listed
the priorities. Of course, a new
priority is the nine staff positions that have gone into the Ed Reform
side. That is where the priorities are
today.
Mr. Plohman: Well, just a quick question on that. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not think that
the nine new positions would fall under the vacancy rate. This would be an addition. These would be separate from the existing 5
percent.
Mr. Manness: No, it is hard to factor 5 percent of nine,
but this is a complement within the total department, and so it is the number
of nine factored into the base.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister said
that the priority will be the regional implementation teams, that is, to
fill. Can he give us an idea what they
will be made up of? What kind of
specialists, what kind of people will form a team?
Mr. Manness: Well, let us say, I guess the team, for
instance, in the Parkland Region would be made of‑‑again, it is
just a detail provided. There would be
four individuals who would be focusing on Native Education, who are curriculum
consultants; there would be one regional co‑ordinator; there would be one
technology technician, who is a material consultant; three administrative
secretarial support positions; and then always, of course, an opportunity for
some casual support. So the Parklands‑Westman
regional team would theoretically involve nine people.
An Honourable Member: Plus casuals.
Mr. Manness: Yes.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, how many of those
would be located in Brandon?
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I can
understand why the member asked the question.
Certainly, our intent is to keep those that are in Brandon in Brandon
and those that are presently in Dauphin in Dauphin.
Mr. Plohman: Then maybe I can get some clarification
now. How many of these are new
positions, not just renamed positions? I
take it the majority of those are existing positions; they are just being
amalgamated and renamed as a team.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have to
point out to the member that we are not adding people; we are doing a
reorganization. The only people that
were added would be on the Ed Reform side.
So, again, I asked that the global numbers were down within the division
ones. We are not adding new people; we
have done a reorganization, with no impact to Dauphin and/or Brandon, using the
example we have been using.
Mr. Plohman: What I was asking, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, was whether there was any decentralization, because you could see
that, if you are going to have regional teams, maybe some of the centrally
located consultants would be moved out to be part of these teams. I thought maybe that was a component of
decentralization involved in this.
Mr. Manness: There is nothing to stop us from looking at
that in the future. That was not the
purpose here. As a matter of fact, we
try to do this with the least disruption as possible to individuals. I think we are successful in keeping everybody
in their existing location.
Mr. Plohman: Insofar as the enhanced Curriculum
Development of $650,000 of the $2.25 million, if the minister has given us this
already, I apologize; if he has not, how is he going to spend the $650,000? There is existing staff, so is this going to
be used to hire consultants from outside government to help develop this
curriculum?
Mr. Manness: It almost splits down half and half, salaries
of the six people plus other expenditures, and the other expenditures, of course,
will be under the old system to call people in from the field and pick up their
salaries, and/or, of course, the growing emphasis on working and the costs
associated working with other provinces and jurisdictions.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, out of the nine staff, then, six
additional staff are going to be in the curriculum area, and their salaries
will be paid from the $650,000; in addition to that, additional dollars into
working committees and for interprovincial work and development.
I
have to ask the minister, then, why he needs perhaps $100,000 or $200,000, I
guess I am just guessing, as of the half of the $650,000 that it will go
towards those committees. How much of it
will go to those working committees, and why did he need a major increase here
if this has been an ongoing effort by the department? Have there been major cutbacks in these
working committees over the last couple of years that now have to be replaced
with new money?
* (1640)
Mr. Manness: I guess, by definition, there have been reductions. We have always said that we were going to
begin to dismantle this section and rebuild it.
We have done that by design, but still the greatest amount of the money
the member references would be towards the much additional costs associated
with working at a distance now in development.
Of course, there is also the advent of the technology, the Distance Ed
side, too, which has additional costs.
We have had to put a factor in here not with complete certainty, but
when we are moving into this new realm of technology, we put this money aside
to deal with the contingencies as they come forward.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, perhaps I
misunderstood then in reading the press release; it refers to $650,000 for curriculum
and then has another $750,000 for Distance Ed.
Now the minister has included reference to Distance Ed in answering the
question regarding the $650,000. So is
there some part of that $650,000 going towards Distance Ed as well?
Mr. Manness: The answer is to the affirmative. Yes, the $750,000 referenced in the press
release was more directed to specific pilots as they are developed.
Mr. Plohman: Okay, could I ask the minister some questions
about the consultation? Am I to
understand from the information in the discussion paper, in the book's School
Programs division section, which have been used to explain the new organization
to those concerned, whatever the case may be‑‑am I to understand
that there was a consultation process with the stakeholders, as we call
them? Maybe the minister could tell me
how long a period of time, and was it formal surveys, was it meetings, was it a
combination of those? What else did it
involve over the last‑‑how long a period of time?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it lasted
basically two months, those being May and June '93, a year ago. I can read into the record a series of
dialogues and consultations that were held with the key stakeholders so that
they could receive information about strengths of the current service delivery
and to articulate areas for improvement.
The
management team of the division studied the results of the consultations and
the recommendations of the business education think tank sponsored by the
Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and the Distance Education Task Force Report. Relevant literature as well as information on
a variety of government issues was also reviewed and considered.
So
the reorganization design was developed based on the findings of the above
consultations and reviews. The
management team of the division was involved throughout the design
process. Now once approval to proceed
with implementation of the organization was granted‑‑in other
words, once government approval was given‑‑all members of the
management team were advised and informed of the acting appointments to the two
new director positions. This took place
on April 11, 1994.
On
April 12, a meeting was held with all the members of the divisional leadership
team for the new structure of this team, which, of course, comprises the
directors and all the co‑ordinators within the new structure. On April 14 and 15, all staff within the
division were advised of the reorganization and of their individual placement
within the division. On April 19, senior
staff and directors in other divisions of the department attended an
information session.
On
April 21, a ministerial letter with attachments providing an overview of the
reorganization was sent to the education organizations. Staff relocations from 1181 Portage to 1970
Ness took place from April 18th to the 20th, and informational meetings will
also be scheduled with stakeholder organizations in May and June. It has been basically a one‑year
exercise.
Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that information. Insofar as the initial consultation, he
mentioned a business forum of some kind and a Distance Education Task
Force. Did I miss that there were also
formal consultations with MTS, MAST, MASS and so on and with teachers in the
field?‑‑because they work with the Curriculum Services Branch so
closely and then for services. Were they
consulted as well?
Mr. Manness: What can you do other than going to the
representative of all teachers, that being the Manitoba Teachers' Society? Of course, they have an incredible
organization to get that information done.
That is what we did.
Mr. Plohman: It was done through the formal structures as
opposed to surveys of teachers and things like that directly?
Mr. Manness: Yes, it was.
Mr. Plohman: I find that some of the results of the
consultations bear out some of the concerns that I have held for some time and
also would seem to need some answering, at least some addressing by the
minister. For example, it was stated
that communication between and among all division staff, schools, educational
organizations as well as other interested groups and the public needs to be
improved; that is one of the problems.
So
I guess we look at that and say there have been some inadequacies there. I do not know whom we point to as to why that
exists. But the one that does give me
some trouble is the seventh one that says:
There is a need to rebuild an atmosphere, rebuild an atmosphere that
allows for freer discussion and trust amongst all the players in the education
system as well as with the public.
Now,
I just wondered whether this is a reference to some deterioration of that
insofar as government actions, or is this something the minister would
attribute to a failing between organizations separate from the government? Does he take some blame in the fact that this
has to be rebuilt? When was it torn
down?
The
ministers prior to him, I believe the minister that was in place last year and
the previous minister, under this government, have said they have been
consulting. Is it a fact that this
dialogue showed that in fact it was not realistic consultation on important
areas, that there was a gap, that the government was lacking in real
consultation with the shareholders, with the stakeholders in education?
Mr. Manness: Well, we are moving into very sensitive areas
here now. I mean, I honestly believe
that the ministry and the department‑‑I sense at least that there
has been a cooler relationship between the department and the field. There are many reasons for that, not the
least of which is the state of education today in the province and everywhere
for that matter. We are caught up in a
lot of reform. Our government, yes, has
done a lot of consulting out there. We
have brought forward a lot of studies and analyses. There has been meaningful input,
unquestionably, to all of those efforts.
Through
that time, though, there has been a wanting of decision making which has not
occurred, because we have always been feeding into the larger model. That is not the fault of the department. If there is going to be blame of portion, I
guess, you can portion some of that to the government, because this takes time. These are significant policy matters. You just do not come in one day and know how it
is you are going to reinvent education or reform it. I mean, this takes significant input. During this time, I sensed there has been
through this period of uncertainty, and leading up to that, when there may have
been more of a heavy‑handed central approach, there has been a straining
of relationships.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
I
acknowledge that, and that is what, of course, the reorganization is attempting
to do. It is attempting to put a fresh
face to government outreach. Beyond that,
it is also trying to do that in sync with the ed reform. That is why it is timely. So, yes, it is important that there be a
trust re‑established.
Do
I say that there may be a lack of one now and it is all our fault? Absolutely not, I will not accept that. This is built over decades, but it is
something that we might as well face and we might as well try and deal
with. Part of the reorganization, the
effort of the organization was maybe directed towards that goal.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am sure the
department will be trying very hard to rebuild this atmosphere. I think, of course, as the minister knows, he
has to take leadership in it. Perhaps
with a blueprint, as the minister says, the intentions of the government will
be more clear, and therefore there can begin to perhaps be an atmosphere of
trust built again.
I
think that whether the minister wants to admit it or not, perhaps there has
been some lack of trust in the government's motives and maybe a lack of
understanding of the direction that the government was going to take. There has been some, as we would like to call
it in opposition, drifting and lack of direction. The minister does not have to feel that he
has to take that personally. He was not
in the portfolio at that particular time.
If he was drifting for the first few months, well, then perhaps he wants
to take it personally.
* (1650)
The
other things that I would perhaps attribute to it, and the minister may want to
make a comment about it, are the funding cutbacks that may have destroyed a
large part of the good will because of the impact that they had. I have said, and I believe it to be true, the
way that they have been impacting divisions, from division to division, I think
there is a lot of disarray, confusion out there. Some divisions have been hit much harder than
others with the impact. The teachers and
the school divisions have felt the impacts differently. Perhaps what we are dealing with here is more
than just the communication between the department and the program development
area that we are talking about, but really the government in general. That is what I am asking about here. Is this really something that the minister
and policies of the government in education can accept some blame for, or
whether it is just a matter of the uncertainty about change in education?
I
think it is more than that. I think it
is some lack of direction by the government, the funding cutbacks that led to
this. I propose that to the minister. He may not want to agree with that, but I
would hope that he would at least be accepting of some of that‑‑and
we could call his predecessors or himself‑‑blame and be realistic
enough to understand that funding cutbacks tend to have that kind of impact if
in fact they are not done fairly and explained well and consultations take
place prior.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I categorically
reject the member's inference and indeed his conclusions. All organizations today, public and private,
of course, if they were at all responsive to their clients' needs, I would tell
you, are looking internally at their operations and are changing.
I
cannot think of any today in the real world that are not. I cannot think of many households today that are
not reacting to the reality of the times.
The member can say, well, maybe it is a funding issue, and that is what
is eating away or eroding the spirit and therefore the willingness to work more
closely together. I do not expect
anybody to be particularly happy, but today, if you are a professional today,
if you are a professional, I do not care if you are a hockey player, I do not
care who you are, you have to fight at the moment to get the best you can. After you do not succeed or if you do not
succeed to the level you would like as a professional, you get on with the
task.
That
is the definition of a professional, and I cast no aspersions on teachers or
superintendents, politicians. I guess, I
say, we all fall under that same umbrella.
When it comes to a funding issue, yes, sometimes these decisions are
hard to swallow, but if you are a professional, you swallow it and you move on,
and that is what a professional is.
Mr. Plohman: It is interesting, the minister's definition
of a professional. I think that would
still have a component, impact on the general atmosphere of consultation, but
if the minister really wants to talk about professionals, and I will just
digress for a moment, he wants to deduct one two‑hundredths of a
teacher's salary under Bill 22 for each date out of the classroom, yet by
definition, a professional puts in a lot of additional time and has greater
responsibilities than just the time that is spent in the classroom. Yet when they are told to stay home for one
day, they are deducted one two‑hundredths of their salary as if they are
not paid for anything else that goes beyond what they do in the classroom.
As
a professional, their wage cannot be reduced to a one two‑hundredths
deduction. [interjection] I know that traditionally that has been used and, I
guess, has been argued. I would say
maybe one‑fortieth, one three‑hundredths, one four‑hundredths;
there could be a way of doing it. It
does not seem to be fair to say, if you are professional as a teacher and you
have responsibilities to children, perhaps as much as 24 hours per day, that
you should be deducted one two‑hundredths for missing five and half hours
of school. In fact, that is the nature
of Bill 22.
I
think, if the minister could recognize the contradiction within his own
definition of what a professional is in his continual demands that teachers be
professionals and act like professionals because they want to be treated like
professionals, that when he has in fact put in this legislation, he is not
treating them like professionals. So he
has to understand why there might be some concern and drop in morale,
difficulty with the minister's decision making and direction when he does not
consider professional from that broader sense, in that broader definition for
teachers who are as others who have a responsibility far beyond what actually
happens when they are actually in the classroom teaching, in terms of
preparation, in terms of interaction with other professionals, involvement
after school, in other activities, all these other things. Yet in a simplistic way we are just zapping
them from 1 to 100 based on missing the five and a half hours of in‑classroom
activity.
Surely
the minister would recognize that he is contradicting himself in how he is
treating the teachers as professionals and what he perceives to be a
professional by definition.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, Bill 22 and
indirectly policies flowing therefrom, of course, took that into account. The member uses the argument around one two‑hundredth. That is why he and I, as public paid
servants, took 10 days; we had a reduction equivalent to 10 days. The policy guidelines and indeed the
recommendation was that no school division should go beyond eight. That is taking that into account. We tried to do that.
The
greater question he brings about, extra work beyond the classroom hours, I dare
say that is one of the main reasons that interviews are done at the time of
hiring. That is the basis on which
selections are made to hire one person or another, and it happens that way in
the corporate world and in many other dimensions of life.
People
are selected on the basis of the commitment they make beyond the classroom, and
people are selected in the corporate world often on the commitment they will
make to the well‑being of the community, on the basis of the
interview. So there is nothing new here;
it is all within the sphere of professionalism.
Within the five and a half hours, as the member talks, that is the
commitment that we make to a better place to live.
I
am sorry, but to me I still think my argument stands. I think we try to take it into account as a
government, but indeed my comments made earlier were not directed to
teachers. My comments were directed to
professionals within the area of education.
Yes, teachers happen to be the largest group, but it is equally meant
for anybody who draws remuneration from the field of education.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I hope the minister will
at least be cognizant of that if he had not thought about why some might react
to the way he has classified professionals.
I
wanted to say one other thing‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Manness: I just wanted to table this, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. There were questions
yesterday with respect to affirmative action put forward by the member for
Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). We have some
copies of material we would like to table in response to that question.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the minister for that.
The
hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise.
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
HEALTH
Madam Chairperson (Louise
Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Health. We are on item 2. Healthy Public Policy
Programs (a) Administration, page 82 of the Estimates manual. Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber?
2.(a)
Administration.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Madam
Chairperson, I was wondering if we could begin this afternoon with a general
question. I do not have the quote in
front of me because I am not sure we have that Hansard yet, but the minister
referred, yesterday afternoon or yesterday evening, that there was a move
toward community‑based services which is why, with the closing of a
number of hospital beds, the studies through the Centre for Health Policy and
Evaluation had shown that there were not any changes in terms of death or
readmissions, et cetera.
I
am wondering if the minister could begin by outlining in general what
specifically are the community‑based services that we have seen that have
been put in place so that in fact hospital beds can be closed, or people can be
discharged earlier from hospital.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Madam
Chairperson, in addition to changing technology which affects the average length
of stay of people in our acute care facilities which is a very significant
matter which is ignored by those who are critical of our reform initiatives‑‑in
addition to that, which I again underline is a very significant part of all of
this, I will come back to it. In
addition, we have become involved in delivering services in the communities,
i.e., away from acute care facilities.
The
honourable members in the New Democratic Party continue to insist that we treat
our hospitals as if they were hotels, and that is not on. That is not something that we can afford to
do, or want to do, as people do not enjoy staying in hospitals. There are some people who seem to think that is
where all our people should be. Anybody
that has the slightest illness ought to be in a hospital.
* (1440)
In
1993‑94, the government of Manitoba supported adult day clubs in
Manitoba, sometimes it is called adult daycare, to the tune of $l,915,000. In 1983‑84‑‑this is
something that deals with prevention, but it is important‑‑the
breast screening for cancer, $1,787,500.
This is the line that the member and I talked about yesterday, prenatal
community public health services, including nutrition, $440,000, last year, and
$45,000 was spent on prostate care.
With
regard to Support Services to Seniors projects in Manitoba, in 1993‑94,
we spent $1,056,500, and then with respect to acute care mental health
alternatives in Winnipeg $2,956,000 in the Winnipeg area.
In
addition, it will be of interest to the honourable member to know that perhaps
while these people previously were looked after in the hospital, 550 people are
at home on oxygen, 32 adults are at home on ventilators, and 350 on continuous
positive airway pressure.
If
honourable members in the New Democratic Party had their way, these people
would all be in hospitals. That is not
where they belong. [interjection] The honourable member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak) suggests that I am really hurting on this point. Well, I guess we will never get him to
understand, and maybe it is my fervent wish to get New Democrats to understand,
what is really happening. That does
frustrate me, their wish that hospitals should be hotels in Manitoba. That is not what hospitals are supposed to
be.
With
respect to Home Care, that is another community alternative. Spending in Home Care has increased very
significantly over the years, certainly in the last six years‑‑I do
not have those numbers in front of me, but they are in my other House book, I
know that‑‑to deal with the growth of expenditure in the Home Care
program from the mid‑'70s when it was zero to the something around 70
million that it is today.
With
the postpartum referral guidelines now being used in five Winnipeg hospitals,
and if this year's births match last year's, 11,831 families will have the
transition from hospital to the community according to the guidelines. In 1992‑93, there were 11,831 births.
The
postpartum referral guidelines provide a framework for postpartum discharge and
community follow‑up that is based on assessed need for health care
services and is the result of collaboration among the woman, her family and
health care providers. Early discharge
of obstetrical patients that has reduced the length of stay in hospital is
possible within this framework.
The
guidelines were used in the development of a co‑ordinated discharge
program proposal by Brandon General Hospital and Westman region.
This
is the kind of thing honourable members in the New Democratic Party are
against, Madam Chairperson.
A
co‑ordinated postpartum discharge program in Brandon has been in effect
since October 1 of '93, with a total of 132 families involved as of December
31, 1993. In 1992‑93, there were
1,086 births in Brandon, so an additional thousand families will make the transition
from hospital to the community based on assessed need using the
guidelines. It is important, I think, to
understand that the things we do are based on need as opposed to perceived
wants.
The
provincial guidelines for postpartum discharge and community follow‑up
were introduced by the Women's Health Branch to hospital and community
representatives in Thompson last September.
That was 1993. The 13‑member
postpartum discharge planning committee of Thompson examined methods of
improving the postpartum referral process.
Ongoing planning will utilize the guidelines in developing a program of
postpartum follow‑up for women and families in Thompson.
The
Diabetes Education resource program is offered in 12 community settings throughout
the province, Youville, Selkirk, Morden, Carman, Brandon, Thompson, The Pas,
Dauphin, Beausejour, Steinbach, Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg. Last year there were 1,179 new clients. One hundred and eight of those, or 9 percent,
are aboriginal Manitobans.
The
antenatal home care program provides an alternative to hospital care for women
with pregnancy complications. It was
piloted at the St. Boniface Hospital to care for women with pregnancy‑induced
hypertension and expanded to include other high‑risk conditions in
November 1991. The program then expanded
to include the Health Sciences Centre Women's hospital on April 1, 1993.
The
Health Sciences Centre Women's hospital antenatal home care program steering
committee was established to explore the feasibility of implementing the
program at the Health Sciences Centre with representatives from the hospitals,
Winnipeg Public Health, Manitoba Health, and federal Medical Services. In 1992‑93, a total of 113 women with
high‑risk pregnancies participated in the program, for a total of 1,627
days, averaging 14.3 days for each woman.
From January 1 to December 31, 1993, 204 women have participated,
averaging 15.2 days per woman, saving 3,101 patient days or 8.5 beds at 100
percent occupancy.
The
number of women in the program who are aboriginal women is not separately
identified, Madam Chairperson. Projected
to the end of this fiscal year, there is potential for 246 women to
participate. The projected increase is
likely due to the addition of the Health Sciences Centre as a location for the
program.
The
movement of Street LINKS from the City of Winnipeg to Mount Carmel Clinic has
been completed and is now known as Street Station. The change was made in November of 1992 as an
effort to consolidate the service with similar services that were being offered
by the Mount Carmel Clinic. The clinic
now provides the service as Street Station.
I
would like to compare July '92 average activity of Street LINKS to July '93
Street Station confirmed activity. There
does not appear to be a decrease in activity due to consolidation. The differences among the activities may be
due to the Street Station being open at night and on Saturdays. Street LINKS was closed on Saturday. With its expanded hours of service, Street
Station appears to offer service to at least the same volume of clients at a
time of peak demand.
I
guess, by July of 1992, there were 1,300 contacts by Street LINKS; by July of
1993, there were 2,900. By July '92 at
Street LINKS, there were 5,700 condoms distributed, and by July of 1993, there
were 10,639 condoms distributed.
With
respect to the needle exchange program, by July of 1992, there were 2,956
needles issued, compared with July of 1993, with Street Station, 12,304. In 1992, 2,857 needles were returned, and by
July '93, there were 12,079 needles returned.
That exchange rate compares in 1992, 96.7 percent, to 1993, 98.2
percent. You have to understand the
importance of those percentages. Every
single little bit of a percentage point can be extremely important. That percentage is improving.
* (1450)
With
respect to the Cardiovascular Health Program, a first draft of the policy paper
on cardiovascular health is expected in January 1994, with a final paper likely
by February 1994. Disposition of the
paper is dependent on the internal review of the paper conducted by the Healthy
Public Policy Programs division. Some of
the supporting strategies include the consolidation of tertiary services, the
heart health project in rural Manitoba, the submitted Carman cardiovascular
project, the submitted Brandon cardiovascular project, an environmental scan of
services related to chronic diseases and legislation and education on smoking
initiatives.
That
is a number of things that have been happening, Madam Chairperson, but I think
the emphasis on the shift that has been and is taking place ought to remain and
not be given some emphasis because that is what is going to save our health
care system.
I
have been worried in the past about how our health care system is going to
survive what with the declining federal participation and more and more
pressure, some of it unnecessary but pressure nonetheless, being placed on our
system.
When
I could see the direction that we were going, I felt that there was a
likelihood of success that we would save our health system. Then I look at what is happening elsewhere,
not only in Canada but in the world, and I say I am really glad that we have
consulted so many Manitobans here in Manitoba because we are not only going to
save a health care system, but we are going to improve it while we are at
it. That is really gratifying.
Anybody
who thinks about it long enough will recognize the contribution of so many thousands
of Manitobans who are part of this process and playing an important role in
advising government and working with government. It does leave one feeling somewhat gratified
for the future.
Ms. Gray: I would like to go through some of the items
that the minister has referred to, beginning with the adult day clubs. Could he
tell us how many spaces there were in the last fiscal year, and what is the
number of new spaces that he is proposing in this budget?
Mr. McCrae: Day clubs improve the quality of life for our
fellow Manitobans who have taken part in these clubs. I had the opportunity to visit one and to
talk to the people there and listen to their comments about how they feel about
it. They are delighted with it. It gives them a chance to get some exercise;
it gives them a chance to get some companionship.
Everyone
was in such a good mood the day I was there.
I remember it well because there was a lot of humour flying around. You get to know each other, and it becomes
quite a place of fellowship. I think it
is very nice that we can make these things available. Many, if not all, of the people who are
involved in the adult day clubs are seniors who really appreciate the
opportunity to get together with other seniors.
It
helps keep people interested in their lives and in the lives of other
people. It helps people maintain a
healthy diet and some exercise, the kinds of things that can delay things like
hospital admissions and delay things like admission to personal care homes,
because people, I think their lives are enhanced by their ability to remain in
their homes and to be as close as they can with loved ones.
There
are 52 adult day clubs in the province of Manitoba. There are 15 programs in Winnipeg, 37 of them
rural, 1,262 spaces province‑wide.
While we do not have a number yet for 1994‑95, we are reviewing
the potential to increase that number.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, can the minister explain,
if there are 1,262 spaces in adult day clubs, what is the expansion in
community‑based services if he does not yet know the numbers?
Mr. McCrae: I am doing a little arithmetic here, Madam
Chairperson, because as I pointed out, we are looking to expand this program
and we have $1,144,000 with which to do it.
So we are trying to do a little arithmetic and go by averages to give
the honourable member a ballpark kind of figure in terms of the number of
spaces we can expand to from the present number.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, can the minister then tell
me what exactly is the budget line for adult day clubs for this fiscal year of
these Estimates?
Mr. McCrae: This appropriation is not identified, Madam
Chair, as a specific line, but when we get to Long Term Care and we have the
appropriate documentation in front of us, if the honourable member will
remember to come back to this, we will answer these questions.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the minister did refer to
some $1.1 million. Is he assuming that
is an approximate amount of dollars that are spent on adult day clubs?
* (1500)
Mr. McCrae: I assure the honourable member the number I
gave, I am reassured, is an accurate one, $1.144 million for day clubs,
expanded. My officials arrive at that
number because of their experience in seeking and obtaining, with my
assistance, the approval for that number.
When
we get, Madam Chair, to the Personal Care Home program we will be able to split
out for the honourable member this amount and identify it directly to the day
club expansion.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell me though, this some $1
million, is that a total budget for adult day clubs or is that just the
expansion piece? If that is the case,
what is the original budget before the expansion?
Mr. McCrae: I am going to seek direction from my
colleague on this. Should we pass all
the Estimates up to Personal Care Home so that we can then‑‑it is
either do that or send staff that we have here out to get the information for
the honourable member. I am assured that
there is an increase here for adult day clubs in the amount of $1.144 million,
which is very significant. I recognize
that. The honourable member wants to
know the base amount. Frankly, so do
I. Let us either get that when we get to
the‑‑I see someone is assisting us now and is going to shoot that
number into us, and when I have it, I will share it with the honourable member.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I would be interested in
the numbers only because, as I listened to the minister go through what he
considered community‑based services and new initiatives are an expansion,
I know some relate to Mental Health which I can leave, but some of them do
relate to Home Care.
While
the minister is getting that number, he may want to make a note that one of the
sheets that he was reading from the other night, unless Hansard recorded it
incorrectly, was that there was $1,915,000 redirected from hospitals to adult
day clubs, and that is a different number again, so he may want to‑‑[interjection]
Madam
Chairperson, $l,915,000 has been redirected from hospitals to adult day clubs,
so what I am trying to ascertain is what is the base budget, how much is the
expansion and how many spaces does that mean?
Can the minister tell me does he know, or does he have the staff here,
if there are waiting lists for adult day clubs?
Mr. McCrae: There has been significant interest, and we
do have a waiting list. That is why we
have money in the budget to increase our commitment to the proliferation of day
care spaces. It is in response to
that. If there is a list and we can tell
you how many people are on that waiting list, I will share it with the
honourable member, if such a thing exists.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I think I will move down
to postpartum services because I know the staff are here who can answer the
questions, if the minister does not happen to know.
In
regard to the postpartum referral guidelines, the minister spoke about that
program that was in place and gave some figures of individuals who were
discharged early.
Can
the minister tell us: Is that an
increase in the number of individuals who have been discharged early, and if
that is the case, has there had to be extra resources put in place to
accommodate the increased number of women who are discharged early from
hospitals?
Mr. McCrae: Yes, there has been an increase in the number
of people benefitting from postpartum discharge and community follow‑up,
and the services are provided by our public health representatives and has been
done without increasing the number of public health nurses we have out there,
but prioritizing their workloads.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, does the minister feel
that there could be discharge of more women postpartum if in fact there were
other kinds of support services that were in the community, or are we at a
maximum in this province in terms of women who are safe to be discharged early?
Mr. McCrae: Unless further indicators have become
available to show that we can safely step up this program, we do not presently
have that intention. For example, the
honourable member might be interested in knowing the adjusted mean LOS, length
of stay, across Winnipeg hospitals for vaginal deliveries without complicating
diagnosis is as follows: for '92‑93
from Victoria Hospital, discharge after 2.6 days; Health Sciences Centre, 2.9
days; St. Boniface General Hospital, three days; Grace General Hospital, 3.1
days; Misericordia General Hospital, 3.5 days.
We
are not pushing this issue further than this at the present time. If we were to do that we would have, of
course, to make available appropriate staff in the community, depending on how
busy the people who are presently in the community are. I mean, if there is ability to do that, that
is one thing, but if there is not and we want to shorten the length of stay,
and there is good medical evidence to show us that we should or can, then that
would all happen.
I
remind you that Dr. Frank Manning, a noted expert in the area of obstetrics, through
his report tells us that Winnipeg is the safest place in the world to have
babies. That is something I am kind of
proud of, considering three of our children were born at the women's pavilion. That is very encouraging. However, we would like to keep it that way,
too. So we do not want to push things
further than safe practice would say we should.
* (1510)
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, what about the antenatal
home care program? What type of numbers
are we looking at, and are there more potential women who could be not in
hospital if in fact there were resources available for them, or are we
servicing all of the women who would fit in a criteria for the antenatal home
care program?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, physicians practising in
these matters tell us, make the referrals to our program of high risk prenatal
patients, and we still have capacity to take more in our present program. How many more, I am not clear, but we have
not reached a point where we cannot take more.
We could take more, depending on how many were referred to us.
Ms. Gray: Has there been an expansion to this program
for this budget year, the antenatal program?
Mr. McCrae: This program, Madam Chairperson, was expanded
last year to include both teaching hospitals, and it is not being expanded, as
I understand it, this budget year. We
had last year built in enough capacity in the program that we can still take
more subscribers to the program.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the minister referred to
the cardiac health program that was running in Brandon and Carman, and he may
have mentioned a couple of other communities.
Is there a dollar figure that is attached to this program in terms of
what the department is spending on that, and could he perhaps give me some more
information on who delivers that program, what exactly it is? I am not that familiar with it.
Mr. McCrae: When we get to the Health Services
Development Fund, we can talk about the funding for these programs in Brandon
and in Carman. I do not know if the
honourable member saw the W5 program. I
am going to make it available, I made tapes of it. The W5 program ran several weeks ago, a
couple of months ago, on CTV. It dealt
with a number of health issues. I would
like to share a copy I made of that with the honourable member. It dealt with cardiac issues, and it drew a
very interesting comparison between, right here in our own province, two
communities, Brandon and Winnipeg, and how‑‑I cannot remember the
precise percentage, it would be on the tape that I will make available to the
member‑‑in Brandon the practice pattern is different with respect
to the heart patients from Winnipeg.
You
are far more likely, if you lived in Winnipeg, to have an operation than you
would be if you lived in Brandon. That was
only one thing of very great interest in that film, which I will make available
to the honourable member and the honourable member for Kildonan, if he wants
it.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I did hear about the
program, but I just did not have the opportunity to see it or tape it, so I
would be interested in that tape of the W5 program.
The
minister has also referred to some programs in the area of Diabetes Education
resource. Again, my question would be,
and he talks about those programs being available in 12 settings, is that an
increase in this year's budget in terms of the Diabetes Education resource
programs?
Mr. McCrae: In the past, we increased the number of sites
to include, I will run through them again:
Youville, Selkirk, Morden, Carman, Brandon, Thompson, The Pas, Dauphin,
Beausejour, Steinbach, Portage and Winnipeg.
Last year, there were 1,179 new clients.
That was last year, and in '91‑92, there were 7,289 clients. In '92‑93, there were 8,468, and that
is an increase of 1,179 clients. We do
not have the numbers in for '93‑94 at this point. I do not think this budget calls for further
community settings. If I am wrong, my
staff will correct me, and I will bring that information forward to the honourable
member.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, if we for the moment do
not talk about Mental Health Services or services to the elderly that relate to
home care, such as the adult day club, Support Services to Seniors and the Home
Care program, when you look at disease prevention and health promotion
community‑based services within this section and you look at any kind of
expansion, there has certainly been some expansion in the last couple of years,
and the minister refers to the Diabetes Education resource program, there
really is not very much expansion at all in terms of any type of community‑based
health promotion kinds of services.
I
have not asked the question yet about cardiovascular health because I
understand there is a program. That
program is in a draft state, but when we look at these programs, there has been
an increase, in some cases, of the clients that are being serviced by these
programs, but there really has been no major shift to really look at health
promotion activities in the community, where we are actually educating the
population and actually teaching them about health promotion, disease
prevention. Now I would love for the
minister to be able to tell me that I am wrong; if he can clarify that or tell
me that, no, I am not cracked, I would hope that he would do that.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I cannot help but observe
that it is not very fair to say, leave out all the improvements to Mental
Health, leave out all the improvements to Home Care, all the improvements to Support
Services to Seniors and day clubs, leave out any discussion of Diabetes
Education resources, leave out all of the things we already talked about, and
then to conclude at the end of all that that there is not very much growth at
all here. That is all that we have seen
in the last three years is growth in all these areas, so I do not know how you
can leave all those things out.
* (1520)
Basically,
what the member is doing is going through the list of all the things we have
discussed and said, well, now do not mention those again, but you really have
not done anything. I do not think that
is a fair comment. Besides that, I think
the honourable member, with regard to health promotion, will agree that the
programs you do put out there ought to be evaluated to find out, to determine
whether they are working, whether they are getting results, whether there are
outcomes that you want to get.
Attached
to our Community and Mental Health Services division of the department, we
expect in the future to have an epidemiology unit which will do that, which
will help us with regard to studying the potential for outcome of all the
efforts that we are engaged in. It is
not good enough just to start new programs and throw money at them just to be
able to say that you have done that, even though we have started a lot of new
programs and injected huge amounts of new monies into these various areas,
because we know in those areas that these things work.
In
terms of other health promotion efforts, for example, the honourable member
asked me yesterday about tobacco ads targeted at certain groups or the
effectiveness of certain kinds of tobacco ads, and the jury is out on whether
some of these things are effective. That
is something everybody seems to agree on, that we are not clear on the value of
some things we do. So we do need to have
an epidemiology unit. That is coming,
and with that we will be able to measure the value of the programs we get into.
In
the meantime we have certainly laid down enough programs and got enough people
working on them, and we are helping enough people with them to know that vast
improvements have been made in the community from what we had six years
ago. So I do not mean to complain too
much about the honourable member's question, except to say that you cannot go
through a whole list of things that we have done and then say, leaving all that
aside, you have done nothing. Yes, that
is true, leaving everything we have done aside, throwing away the Estimates
book, we will do nothing. That is right.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, now, the minister knows
full well he is twisting what I said, because‑‑and we will get to
the Mental Health line and we will get to the Home Care line, and I know there
has not been expansion in the Home Care program‑‑but this section,
Healthy Public Policy Programs, deals with Health and Wellness, some $9.3
million; Women's Health, some $1.2 million; Healthy Child Development, some
$1.2 million. That is a fairly
substantial section of the entire Department of Health, and I find it very
disappointing that in fact we have not seen any major expansions. I would ask the Minister of Health: What are the three main causes of death here
in Manitoba?
Mr. McCrae: I do not know if this is a quiz or not, but I
think it is well known that cancer is a major cause of death, as well as heart
malfunction and heart disease. Of
course, accidents cause many, many problems and deaths in our province. We know that the department has been
involved, along with its many partners, in prioritizing these particular
conditions for work to be done. I mean,
we are into all kinds of heart health issues.
We are into cancer programs. We
are into working with various organizations in the province in dealing with
these things, and all of these things will be the subject of epidemiological
evaluation in the future too, so that we will be spending our dollars wisely.
In
the past decade, my department tells me that because of efforts made in the
area of diet, in the area of lifestyle and so on, death from heart disease has
decreased by 14 percent. These things do
not just increase and then all of a sudden decrease because there is nothing
happening. Success of governments, I
suggest, have been involved in trying to do things about these things, and this
government is no exception.
Ms. Gray: So what specific programs is this government
initiating that actually deal with changing lifestyles of individuals who are
susceptible to heart disease, as an example?
What specifically is this department doing?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, it has come to a point, I
think, in the Estimates where it is important to talk about some things that
maybe are not always very popular to talk about but a reality. We have learned through data collection‑‑
An Honourable Member: You are not going to bring them into
reality. They are not ready for this.
Mr. McCrae: Some of them, I assure my honourable
colleague from Pembina (Mr. Orchard). Some
of our colleagues opposite are indeed ready to listen to what is really going
on out there. Some steadfastly refuse
and will continue to refuse right down to the wire, and then it will be too
late for them.
In
addition to the heart health project that is being co‑funded by the
federal and provincial government in the central region, which will deal with
issues like lifestyle, issues like healthy habit survey, a nutrition survey is
being completed, and educational issues, in addition to that and the many,
many, many other programs that we have in place, some working better than
others, we have the services of the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and
Evaluation, which continually brings forward information that debunks a number
of myths that exist in Manitoba, myths that are, for whatever reasons, still
being put forward by some mysterious people in this province, Madam
Chairperson. I dare not say "the
New Democrats" because the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak)
will get all wild eyed and upset and carried away‑‑[interjection]
wilder eyed, I should say.
* (1530)
The
Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, as one of its projects,
recently brought forward facts dealing with health determinants, dealing with
population health issues, made it very clear that people who are living in
lower socio‑economic conditions than other people tend, statistically, to
stay in hospital longer when they get sick.
They tend to take longer to convalesce after surgical procedures. They tend to get ill more often and to stay
ill longer than people in higher socio‑economic circumstances.
Now
that being said, it is not a pleasant prospect, but you see, we have to look at
health in a holistic way as we are often told to do, but to look at our society
in a holistic way. I always wonder when
I know that aboriginal people in Manitoba are among the poorest and live in
conditions that are the poorest. They
have the shortest life expectancy as an identified group of all other
Manitobans. They have the highest
incidence of alcohol and drug abuse.
They have the highest incidence of infant mortality. All of those indicators are common and more
frequent amongst people in the lower socio‑economic spectrum in our
society.
So
what are we doing about that? Well, we
have not done enough. In this area, I am
very happy to accept any criticism the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms.
Gray) wants to make because, in this area, we as a society have failed
miserably for years and years and years, over 125 of them. Paternalizing and treating aboriginal people
as if they were somehow less than equal to the rest of us as is promoted by
some people in this Chamber is not the way to proceed. Treating our aboriginal population as equals
with everybody else is more likely to achieve socio‑economic success.
[interjection] You will make a speech?
An Honourable Member: No, you are making a speech.
Mr. McCrae: I am giving an answer to the honourable
member for Crescentwood who asked about these things, and I felt that we should
put some context around this whole issue.
When
you consider that Manitoba's aboriginal population is, I think, the highest in
the country, that is a real issue here.
We hear lip service being given to aboriginal people in debates in this
House, and we hear lip service everywhere.
I was engaged in lots of it as part of the constitutional debate in this
country. We worked very closely with the
aboriginal leadership of this country and ultimately failed, in my view
unfortunately, but failed in establishing an understanding. Now we have a new federal Minister of Indian
Affairs with all the right intentions‑‑I commend him and wish him
well‑‑who wants to strike some kind of an understanding with
aboriginal people in Manitoba to use Manitoba as a testing ground for self‑government.
If
self‑government means continuing only doing differently the paternalistic
thing that we have done to aboriginal people for generations and even centuries
in this country, if that is all it means, then I am sorry, it is going to come
to naught. I give the federal Minister
of Indian Affairs credit though for having the courage to try to move and say
change needs to be made.
It
is like health reform, I guess. I
remember saying one day, we should throw the Indian act in the ditch and forget
about it. An Indian chief said to me,
well, great, you will sure have my support.
I said, what about the other Indian chiefs? He said, well if they agree with me, you will
have their support, too.
We
already know they do not, necessarily.
My plans are only my plans, and they are not going to be good enough for
everybody. It is the same with Ovide
Mercredi's plans. They are not going to
be good enough for everybody, as we found out in the constitutional
debate. The plans of the member for The
Pas (Mr. Lathlin) are not going to be good enough for everybody else, too.
So
when is somebody going to actually do something that is going to make people
mad in this area, but actually do something?
Maybe Ron Irwin is the one, I hope he is. If he is he will have my full support. Even if he makes a few mistakes along the
way, he will have my support because making mistakes along the way is better
than what we are doing now. I see people
living in this abject poverty that I have spoken about, and I see their
political leaders who are their next‑door neighbours not living in the
same sort of abject poverty. I do not
find that to be very appropriate or right in contemporary society.
However,
that aside, if through negotiating self‑government, whether it is called
self‑government or whatever it is going to be called, as long as people
who live in circumstances in which they live today, as long as that continues,
we are going to continue to have health problems, we are going to have high
levels of disease that in some cases is preventable.
The
other thing the honourable members need to understand, some of them who refuse
to listen, but I would appreciate it if they would listen anyway, once in a
while. We also know that even although
poor people are sicker than those in higher socioeconomic circumstances, they
are able to access our system in Manitoba more often than the rest of the
population. There are those who would
have you believe that when you are poor you do not get health care. That is not true. In fact, people at the lower end of the
spectrum, low wage earners or whatever you want to call them access the system
more often than those others, and that is appropriate because they need the
system more often. They need to access
other things too. This is where the
honourable member for Crescentwood, I believe, excels in her presentations in
this House because she is absolutely right to put the emphasis on the
prevention side of it.
We
also know that more health care does not and has not improved people's
health. This should be a matter of
frustration nationally, and it is, except for some people who choose to try to
get in the way of meaningful change as opposed to promoting meaningful
change. I agree with the honourable
member for Crescentwood that preventive and healthy public policy measures are
important and necessary and will be more important and necessary as we try to
preserve the best parts of our health care system and change the rest to make
them better.
The
honourable member will be the first, I think, to agree that research‑ and
data‑based change is the kind of change we need to see, the kind that we
know we are spending our efforts, our resources, dollars and human resources,
on a product that is going to achieve results.
The
New Democrats do not care about that.
All they want to do is spend money and smile and snicker from their
seats, as the member for Kildonan and the fellow behind him like to do. We would like them to take this whole debate
seriously; we wish they would. We would
like them to play their games, if they like, but do that in the playground
where the kids are. This is a place to
do the business of the people of this province, not the place to engage in
little, petty, political gamesmanship that tends to get indulged in from time
to time. I can understand that happens,
but I do not know if we need to make a career out of it. Some honourable members opposite know they
are going to be there on that side of the House for many, many generations or
outside this House altogether, so they want to play as many games as they
possibly can while they are still here.
The
honourable member for Wellington wants to make a speech, Madam Chairperson, so
I will sit down.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I would like to know, I
was not quite sure what exactly the point was that the minister was
making. He did refer to in the
beginning, he talked about the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation did a
study that looked at health determinants, and I know that is true, and I know
in talking with Dr. Noralou Roos and Dr. Les Roos‑‑we all know that
poverty has a direct bearing on people's health status.
I
guess I am not sure what the minister is suggesting. What is he suggesting, that the programs,
albeit the few that we have in place, that we should not be continuing to
provide those kinds of services? Because
poverty is the root of, in a lot of cases, health status or at least it is a
direct factor, and we know that.
* (1540)
My
other question to the minister is: He
has an opportunity as a member of cabinet and as a Minister of Health to really
change the direction and look at poverty and what is going on in our inner
cities, in some of the regions in Manitoba, where the health status of
individuals is poorer than in other areas.
I guess my first question is: Is
he suggesting that none of these programs that we provide have any effect? Because until you deal with employment and
poverty you have not dealt with the issue.
What is he suggesting?
Mr. McCrae: I thank the member for seeking that
clarification, because I do have to admit that I sat down, and I do not think I
fully answered the honourable member's question.
What
I am trying to get at is that at no time in the history of this province have
we spent more dollars on Family Services than now. At no time in the history have we spent more
on education than now. At no time have
we spent more on health than now.
Why
is that? I know the honourable member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid) has an easy and quick answer. Why is that?
Because we do all this, we spend all this money, and everybody is
unhappy with the quality of our education system. We spend all this money, and there is a fair
amount of unhappiness with our welfare system.
We spend all this money on health care, and we have not been achieving
the kinds of results we need.
The
honourable member for Transcona wants to get in the act again today. Looks like it is going to be a rousing hour
and 20 minutes. The honourable member
for Transcona thinks it is last night and that he can be his arrogant self like
he was last night. He wants to liven
things up; he is a little bored. Well,
maybe I have that tendency to bore people a little bit, but the point I am
trying to make is that things are dismal because we are spending and spending
and spending. Who put us in that
position? The Liberal and New Democratic
governments started the tradition of tax and spend in this country. It has taken governments like ours to try to
bring some reason to all of this and try to get some results out of all of
this.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health has the
floor. The honourable Minister of Health,
to complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: To make matters worse, when this government
does everything in its power to create employment so that we can generate funds
to finance things like education, social services and health programs, we get
members, like the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), who wants to kill jobs
in Manitoba, joined by her colleagues in the New Democratic Party, want to kill
the jobs. They do not want people
working for Ayerst Organics in Brandon.
They do not care about GWE and locating jobs in Brandon. They want to kick McKenzie Seeds out of
Manitoba forever, and they want to put a stop to Louisiana‑Pacific.
The
honourable member for Swan River gets up in this House almost daily to speak
out against Louisiana‑Pacific, and we find that very disturbing because
that means jobs which can help drive the economy and drive our social
services. We need a reasonable level of
spending in these areas. We also need to
get results.
The
honourable members opposite have always found the easy way out, and that is,
say yes to our friends in the teachers union, yes to our friends in the civil
service union, yes to our friend in this other union over here and yes to this
special interest group and yes to those special interest groups who have vested
interest.
The
honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) nods his head, accepting the fact
that all he does here is speak for people with vested interests. I say that is a conflict. That is a heck of a poor way to represent
people in the province of Manitoba, but that is the honourable member's
business. If he wants to be that kind of
a member and speak out for vested interests, well, so be it, vested interests
to the extent that they are people who are my neighbours and your neighbours;
those are people who care and who need proper representation. The people in Swan River who want jobs and
are being stopped from having jobs by people like the member for Swan River
(Ms. Wowchuk) here in this House, they do not appreciate that approach and neither
do I. Because whether it is jobs in
Brandon or Winnipeg or Swan River or Steinbach or wherever it happens to be,
New Democrats‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam
Chairperson, I believe yesterday and previously you admonished the minister and
suggested that he keep to the line item in the Estimates rather than going off
on his tirades attacking all members in the House. I think it would be more conducive to the
function of this committee if the minister would deal with the question asked
and not go off on one of his political tirades in an attempt to answer the
questions he could not answer in Question Period.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Kildonan does not
really have a point of order, except I would remind all honourable members that
answers to questions are supposed to be relevant to the issue at hand. If there was co‑operation of all
members of the House with perhaps less needling, the points would be addressed
more expeditiously.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: I have to admit, Madam Chairperson, that I
was going along pretty well, and the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms.
Gray) and I were engaged in meaningful dialogue in questions and answers, and
then the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) wanted to get carried away
from his seat. He distracts me, and then
I go off on some tangent, and it is awful to have to listen to, and it is worse
to have to watch. I realize that. The honourable member for Swan River (Ms.
Wowchuk) did it too, and here I was trying to engage in a meaningful discussion
of health care in Manitoba, and those members they distract me so badly that I
just could not carry on but had to veer off in some other direction.
When
you have people who work against progress all the time in this House, somebody
has got to tell the people of Manitoba that every effort they extend is toward
destroying the economy and the health care system that we have in this province
and this country. I for one am not going
to sit idly by and let New Democrats have their way and destroy our health
system. I am not going to do that. I have a stake myself, I have a vested
interest in this province.
An Honourable Member: What about your neighbours?
Mr. McCrae: My neighbours, too. Which neighbours do you mean? My neighbours too and my children. There are future generations in this province
that deserve better than they are getting out of the New Democrats. What they are getting out of the New
Democrats is a dead economy, a dead health care system, a decaying infrastructure
and basically no country left to govern.
But they want to govern, oh, they want to govern. That is all.
They do not care how they get there.
They do not care how many stories they have to tell to get themselves
into government, but I have to tell them that my reading and the reading of
most other people is they have not got a ghost of a chance. Their behaviour in the House today is proof
that they are desperate.
Mr. Chomiak: He is still trying to answer the question
from Question Period. Give it up, Jim.
Mr. McCrae: It is the first time I raised it this
afternoon.
Their
behaviour and deportment and demeanour in the House today demonstrated to me
very clearly that they are totally, totally desperate, and they have not a
ghost of a chance.
A
little while ago, the honourable member, just to change the subject for a
moment, the honourable member for Crescentwood, I told her I would give her
better information about adult day clubs in Manitoba. I told her there were 52. Last year's expenditure on adult day clubs
was $1,992,300. For '94‑95, we are
budgeting a $1,144,000 increase to $3,136,300.
That is a significant increase in the spending for‑‑I do not
know what percentage that is, but it is quite significant. How many spaces it will result in, I can only
speculate at this time, but if we want to do an average in mathematics, we know
that there were‑‑yes, I think I said there were just over 1,200
spaces for $1,992,300, so I think it is a question of getting our calculators
out, and we will get a round figure as to how many there would be after we are
finished spending $3,136,300.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, those dollar amounts are
not quite a doubling, but certainly someone would think you are looking at
increasing your spaces by 800 to 900. Is
that correct?
Mr. McCrae: It is a major expansion. There is no denying that, but in the 52 day
clubs. We are not planning to build new
day clubs. We are planning to serve more
people in those day clubs, and that is significant. We will call them spaces.
* (1550)
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, just getting back to the
minister's earlier comments about health costs, he would, I imagine, have this
figure accessible. What is the cost of
health care per capita to Manitobans currently?
My
question to the minister was, can he tell us what is the per‑capita cost
of health care for every woman, man and child in Manitoba? What is the cost per capita for health care?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, again, I take the total
spending in Health and divide it by the population, which the population is
about a million, and we spend $1.85 billion.
That is about $1,850 a year per man, woman and child in Manitoba.
I
understand that per taxpayer that is something well over $4,000 a year. I was listening to one gentleman one day talk
about how terrible it was in the United States that a family of four there had
to put out $750 a month for health insurance, and of course, that is
terrible. I would not want to do it.
However,
look at that as somebody is paying that kind of money here in Canada, only
more. That is what the cost is here in
Manitoba, $1,850 per man, woman and child for health care. Well, our commitment as a government is a
greater commitment than that put forward by the previous government, and that
is a factual matter and not something about which there can be any debate. Five years ago it was $1,300 per man, woman
and child in Manitoba and now it is $1,850.
It was about $1,300 per man, woman and child in 1988 when we were
spending $1.3 billion. It has now moved
up to $1,850 a year per man, woman and child in Manitoba. So somehow we are spending all that money for
health care services.
Are
we getting value for our money? There
are a couple of things that can be said about that. In the United States they spend more money as
percentage of GDP on health care than we do.
They spend about 13.6 of their GDP on health care, and yet in the United
States millions of people are not covered by health insurance. That is not for us here. We want to have a better coverage system than
that.
In
the United States also, even though they spend more money as a percentage of
GDP than we do, they do not have the life expectancy that we do. They do not live as long as we do. They have more problems with infant mortality
in the United States than we do‑‑at about 10 percent in Canada,
where we spend about 10 percent. But
honourable members should be aware that in places like Japan and France and
Sweden they spend as little as 6 percent of their GDP on health care
services. Yet in each of those three
countries they live longer than we do here in Canada, and they have still a
lower infant mortality rate than we do.
So
what do those things tell us? They tell
us that we are not doing everything right even though we think we are doing a
lot of things right. We think we have
the greatest system in the world. We
might very well have the greatest system in the world if we tuned it in and
used it properly. We do not, and those
who think we do are not telling the truth.
So we have to address health care issues from an outcomes standpoint, in
my view, and I think that must be what is happening in some of those countries
where they are getting greater results and not putting out as much money to get
those results.
We
can learn from those jurisdictions; we can learn from our own experience; we
can learn from the American experience too.
We can learn from the experience elsewhere and apply it to our own
situation. It is not helpful to refer to
Canadian companies being involved in the health care system as the
Americanization of health care. It is
not helpful to anything.
In
Hong Kong, I am told, they have 66 doctors per 100,000 population. Remember people from Hong Kong live longer
than we do, and that is a recognized health determinant.
An Honourable Member: Why do they live longer?
Mr. McCrae: We are talking about while they are still
living in Hong Kong.
An Honourable Member: But why do they live longer?
Mr. McCrae: I am coming to that, but you did not let me
finish what I was going to say. There
are 66 medical doctors per 100,000 population in Hong Kong. In Canada we have 222 medical doctors for
100,000 people, and the people in Hong Kong outlive us. It has got to have more to do with than just
broccoli. Sure, I think that there is
something to be said for an appropriate intake of broccoli, but I am not going
to get carried away about it like George Bush and say it is just not for
me. I am not terribly fond of broccoli
myself, but I will take broccoli with a moderate amount of cheese sauce on the
top, and I do not think that is a bad thing.
In
areas where you have a more equitable distribution of the wealth of a nation or
of a population, where you have education standards that are more equitably
distributed, where people are meaningfully and gainfully employed, where they
are happy‑‑maybe I am guessing about that one, but I have always
assumed that happy people tend to be healthier people, too.
But
you know, if you are poor and your husband just beats you up every week and
beats your children up every week, your likelihood of being happy is not
enhanced by those circumstances, and your likelihood of having a healthy life
style yourself and passing such a thing on to your children is not enhanced by
that kind of an existence.
Those
are issues that we have to deal with right here in our own country of Canada
and in our own province of Manitoba. I
wish the federal Minister of Indian Affairs well as he works towards resolution
of some of those problems. I have tried
in the past without the kind of success I would like to be able to claim, and I
think our aboriginal leaders have tried too without the success they would like
to claim.
Those
economic issues that deal with determinants of health are important, and we
have to deal with those along with all of the other issues. But certainly to get back to the honourable
member's question about cost, sometimes when I talk about these costs, some
people raise the issue of user fees, and why not use user fees to deter people
from using the health system and raise money to help fund these programs we do
not want you to cut.
Well,
the NDP, of course, they do not want you to cut anything unless they are in
office, so you do not have to cut. They
would not look at user fees either. We
know what they would do. They would look
at taxes, more and more taxes. They have
done that. They can be judged by their
performance on that.
So
it is a question of making the system work to generate the result that we
want. We want to get outcomes from all
of this spending that we do. Those
numbers are important because they demonstrate that we as a country, we as
people in the country and governments have made the appropriate commitment, and
we have to find better ways to spend that money.
* (1600)
But
on the issue of user fees, I am often asked about that, because a lot of
Manitobans think we should have user fees.
I would say, well, the only trouble with user fees is that you are going
to think that that solves all our problems if they were imposed. All they do is help solve a revenue
problem. Everybody says, but make it a
very small user fee, so therefore it is basically useless if it is small. If it is big, you are going to cut people off
who cannot afford health services. For
those reasons, I have not accepted the idea of user fees, because they do not
get at the problem that we want them to get at, and they create problems in the
meantime.
The
worst thing they do, after cutting people off health care, is raise the
expectation that we have solved all of our problems by raising some money, when
really raising money has not up until recently been the problem. We certainly have been able to‑‑we
have known how to tax people. In
Manitoba, up until 1988, we taxed them more than anywhere else in the
country. Of course, since '88, there has
been quite a slide in that, and we are now into the third lowest taxed people
in the country, but that is a whole other debate the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Stefanson) may well want to raise and promote and remind people about.
But
even while we have frozen taxes in Manitoba for seven straight budgets,
spending for health care has increased as a percentage of total spending,
demonstrating very, very clearly that our government's commitment to the health
care of our fellow Manitobans is greater than that commitment shown by New
Democrats of the past and certainly the New Democrats of the present. All they want to do is destroy our health
system, so we are not likely to follow their advice.
I
say to you, in terms of spending, that is not our problem. We certainly know how to spend, and now, let
us learn to spend smarter.
Ms. Gray: Just a final comment, before I let the member
for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) ask some questions.
When he refers to the per capita cost, the difference between 1988 and
this year, one thing that is different in these budgets is this government is
now including the public debt as a cost, which I do not think was done five or
six years ago in the Estimates, and I am wondering if that skews at all the
cost per capita, if we are looking at different figures.
I
do not know if the minister has that information now, but I would be interested
in knowing how much of that‑‑because our total amount of spending
for this year is including the public debt, and there is nothing wrong with
including that as part of the budget figure, but I would make that comment.
Mr. McCrae: I appreciate the comment and it makes me want
to check that out, but either way, the significance of the spending by either
our government or the previous one should not be lost on anybody. The spending is happening. We are not getting the results that we should
be getting from all that spending, and that is why some of the changes we are
talking about need to be made.
I
am advised, Madam Chairperson, that debt charges, interest charges, are being
treated equally, either previously or now.
So what I have said stands. Our
commitment to health care is unequalled by any government in the past in
Manitoba.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I do not think there is
any need for me to deal with most of the minister's offhand comments. I think they are just simply offhand
comments, and they can stand for what they are worth, which is simply what
people read into them.
I
think the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) was getting on to a point that I
think was missed by the minister, and I think her point generally was, you have
talked about Health and Wellness and promotion of health, and it does not seem
to be reflected for the most part in the programming of the department.
The
minister might be familiar with this blue book put out in May, 1992, the health
reform plan. I often in my presentations
to the public point out to the public, I say, I am going to read the blue book
for you and, generally, I would say page 9, and I would say, look at what the
government said is the major health determinants in our system, and they talk
about environmental factors like pure drinking water, socioeconomic factors
like income, housing quality, status in the community, the productivity and the
wealth in society as a whole, et cetera.
This is from the government's document, some of the things the minister
touched on, and I say, do you think this government has dealt with those
issues?
Of
course, Madam Chairperson, it is a resounding no on any of the fronts. I think that was what the member for
Crescentwood was alluding to, and I think generally, it is quite clear from the
government's record, although I admit there has been some expansion of some
programs and we welcome that, and in fact, in the community‑based
programs‑‑the government is starting to put in place community‑based
programs.
I
was at a public forum last year when the assistant deputy minister commented
that the government was only now beginning to think about putting in place
community‑based programs. I made that
part of the record in the House, and that was no criticism. That was just a fact, that the government
only got around to putting in community‑based programs last year when
they started feeling the heat.
But
they are starting. They started to put some
of the money back in that they have cut out.
They started to put some money back in that they have cut out of the
institutions, and that is a good step, but generally, in terms of‑‑and
it is a difficult job‑‑generally in terms of health promotion, the
record and I agree, concur, with the comments of the member for Crescentwood
(Ms. Gray) that the record is not very favourable.
That
is why we have real difficulty with supporting government initiatives, and we
will continue to criticize where we see failings in the system despite any
efforts of the minister to downsize or to somehow question the integrity of
anyone who raises issues. That may be
his want. I will accept that. I mean, I cannot change his viewpoint, and
frankly, if he suggests that every criticism‑‑if he takes it
personally or suggests that somehow it is ill‑founded or that members on
this side of the House are not as interested in the health care system as he
is, I cannot change his viewpoint, Madam Chairperson. I have to accept it for what it is.
My
question to the minister is with respect to the epidemiology‑‑the
minister indicated that they are going to put in place an epidemiology‑‑[interjection]
What do the six people in epidemiology in the Health and Wellness branch do,
and how is that different from the tracking that is being put in place that the
minister is talking about?
Mr. McCrae: Within the next couple of months, Madam
Chairperson, our epidemiology unit will be ready to roll, and it will be the
first in the country, and it will not be the first time Manitoba has been first
in the health field or in a number of other fields, for that matter. Manitoba is a leader in this country. It certainly is a leader in home care
services, setting up of Ten Ten, establishment of Pharmacare, expansion of
personal care homes, under various governments in this province.
* (1610)
Let
us give the NDP some credit once in a while.
Besides hacking and slashing and closing beds, the NDP did do some
things that helped keep our health system operating and running. They certainly spent a lot of money. They did a lot of good things, but not as
many as they would have you believe and probably not as few as I would have you
believe. The fact is they did not build
into their system anything that measured the value of what they were doing, and
the time for that to happen is now. It
is coming. It will come through an
epidemiology unit which will be part of our government and will be used to help
us focus the programs we have.
You
see, sometimes it is right and proper to end programs. Sometimes it is right and proper to change
programs. I used to listen with interest
as some politicians argued that every new program should have a sunset clause
to it, so that you are forced to evaluate whether you are getting value for
your money. It is not good enough just
to throw money at a problem, unload the Brink's truck, as the member for
Concordia (Mr. Doer) would say, unload a bunch of money and then say, there, are
we not special? The fact is we are not
very special if that is the way we spend our money.
So
I am happy to know that part of our reform plans, part of the blue book I think
the honourable member brandished and held up has to do with outcomes. We have to focus programs so that we can get an
outcome, we can achieve something, rather than just a short‑term
political object of telling people, there, we have been able to spend some more
of your money, an are‑you‑not‑lucky sort of approach.
That
is not the approach of this government.
We feel we will be fortunate indeed if we can achieve some results
through epidemiological study to help us in making decisions about whether our
programs are going to take us to the destination we want to arrive at.
It
is no longer any good, I suggest to you, Madam Chairperson, that in the health
care field, we play the old‑style politics practised in the past in
Canada, not only in Manitoba but elsewhere, where we could just spend and spend
and spend and keep our vested interest supporters happy. That is not good enough anymore. We have a whole public to look after through
our health care system, and so, when that project is up and running, we will
have a far better way, year in and year out, to evaluate the kinds of projects
we ought to be getting into.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, what the minister is
talking about, from his description, sounds more to me like a program audit or
something like that, rather than epidemiology.
Perhaps the minister could outline for me what the terms of reference
are, if he has perhaps tabled what the terms of reference are of this new unit
that is going to be established within this branch of the department to carry
out the activities the minister indicated need to be carried out.
Mr. McCrae: This is not going to be a program audit. This is a resource for our department to
gather and to analyze population health data that we can use to design programs
that get a job done, that achieve a result, that promote health, that establish
conditions that allow us to build programs that do just the things I am talking
about.
So
it is not a program audit. It is a
population health unit of the department that uses the information gathered
from‑‑here we do have a superlative for Manitoba‑‑a
very, very fine database in Manitoba that we can use to design programs with.
Mr. Chomiak: That helps clarify my understanding of that
branch. So these six people‑‑there
are six people in the branch now who will be carrying out these audits, because
I am looking in the government directory and it lists six individuals under
Epidemiology, and that is under the Health and Wellness branch. Are those the six individuals assigned with
this task?
Mr. McCrae: I would not want the honourable member to
look at the phone book and be misled.
Our department has been undergoing change. The government directory that he is looking
at is probably not current, because we have been making changes over the past
few months, and there is still to some extent‑‑we are taking people
from other areas with the appropriate skills and redeploying them into this
epidemiology unit.
Mr. Chomiak: Then can the minister indicate where this
unit is located? Is it under the Healthy
Public Policy Administration that has 18 positions or under Health and Wellness
that has 23.2 positions or some other branch of the department?
Mr. McCrae: I am not sure what the member's question was,
but I have an answer all lined up here that I would like to give. I think he is referring to page 39 of the
Estimates Supplementary Information book, Healthy Public Policy
Administration. SY is 22 reduced to
18. It is in that area that he is asking
me about?
Mr. Chomiak: I am asking if the epidemiologists are
located in these 18 people. There are 10
Professional/Technical; there are six Administrative. Are they located in this particular
appropriation or somewhere else?
Mr. McCrae: The senior epidemiologist is part of this
18. The reason it is reduced from 22 to
18 is that two vacancies have been removed in our reorganization. One person has been laid off and one person
has been moved to another area of the department, but the senior‑‑the
honourable member has it in his mind that this unit will have six people. We do not know if it will. We do not know how many it will have, but
maybe closer to four or five, but the epidemiologist is one of the 18 of the
people he is referring to here.
* (1620)
Mr. Chomiak: So there will be a unit in this branch of the
department. There is a senior person involved
in this area presently, and there will be several, probably, hired in the
future or moved from some other area of activity in order to fulfill the
function. Can the minister table any
terms of reference of this function or does he have anything in writing with
respect to that area?
Mr. McCrae: I think we have talked somewhat about that
already, Madam Chairperson. There are no
formal terms of reference, but we have talked about the function of that
program. I think, basically, we have on
record the kinds of work that that program should be engaged in.
It
is to help us make sure that policy directions we take are appropriate
directions and results‑oriented and that those directions are based on
solid, factual information, not some perceived need but a real need that can be
addressed with appropriately designed programs.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(a) Administration (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $1,188,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $279,600‑‑pass.
2.(b)
Health and Wellness.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, we have covered a lot of
the questions that one would specifically ask in this area in the other
appropriation. I have a few questions,
though, that I do wish to ask with regard to this particular area.
Can
the minister outline what the status is of changes to the life saving disease
program?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, what we have is an
increase in our commitment and funding to the Life Saving Drug Program of
$300,000. That will allow for 600 more
people to be served under the program.
This program has grown significantly in recent years. I have not got a history in front of me of
the last 5 years, but I think it shows a continual, upward growth.
[interjection] I do indeed have that and I am going to share it with the
honourable member.
The
Life Saving Drug Program‑‑my goodness, even I did not know these
numbers were so big. It is absolutely
astounding, Madam Chairperson, based on the fact that people have become aware
of this program and used it more, and they have a need, as well. That is what it is based on, and I am glad
that the government I represent is able to be part of that process to help
alleviate the suffering and the need of people who are not always that easily
able to manage for themselves.
The
actual expenditure for this program in 1988‑89 was $1.336 million. That amount increased by 9.67 percent in 1989‑90
to $1.465 million. Then along came 1990‑91
and our government increased its actual spending in this program by 14.95
percent to a total of $1,684,600. Along
came 1991‑92 and our government's spending for the Life Saving Drug
Program increased by 23.5 percent to $2,080,000. In 1992‑93, spending for this program
increased to $2,352,900 or 13.1 percent.
In 1993‑94, spending on the Life Saving Drug Program increased to
$3,150,300 or 33.89 percent more than the previous year.
Now,
I can tell the honourable member the number of people, what I have already
said. We are going to spend another
$300,000 this fiscal year and serve an additional 600 people.
Speaking
of people, in 1991‑92, the number of people enrolled for the Life Saving
Drug Program was 1,911. That number grew
in 1992‑93 to 2,142; in '93‑94, to 2,304. Do you know what we are projecting for '94‑95? All the way from 2,304 people to 3,000
people, and further on, if you want to project into another year after this
one, 3,600 people. That indicates that,
yes, indeed, the need is growing because of aging populations, but you have a
government which is prepared to be there for those people and to assist them
through the Life Saving Drug Program.
The
honourable members also should know that it is our intention to include the
Life Saving Drug Program into our Pharmacard technology, our new Pharmacare‑‑DPIN,
as I call it‑‑program.
Some
individuals, many individuals, have been added to the enrollment of the program
over the years. Of course, some
individuals are removed from the program for various reasons. Either they recover from whatever it was that
was wrong with them, or else their financial circumstances improve to the point
they do not need to be on this program anymore.
The program deals with people on two bases, one of them being their
illness and the other being their station in life in terms of financial ability
to pay for their drugs.
* (1630)
These
figures show a genuine commitment on the part of the government of Manitoba to
those people who can benefit under the Life Saving Drug Program and a
commitment not only to the numbers of people but also to the levels of support.
I
met this morning with the Manitoba Medicare Alert Coalition. I think that is the name of it. The co‑chairs, Jimmy Silden and Ellen
Kruger, I met with them this morning. I
was telling them about our budget, and how spending is increasing for
Pharmacare and increasing for Home Care and increasing for Mental Health
Services, decreasing for the doctors.
This was something they wanted to steer away from, the issue of the
amount of money taken out of the budget for the physicians of Manitoba, but
they were genuinely interested, I think, in some of the relief that is found in
the budget, certainly in Home Care.
I
think there is a general acceptance going on out there that indeed we have been
serious when we have talked about that, our increased commitment year after
year for that program, and the fact is it is quite apparent now, whereas during
the growing stages, the growing pains, the stages of transition from emphasis
on one form of care to other forms of care, there are times when one could be
led to believe that not all is well, and we are not always headed in the right
direction, but it seems to be fairly clear that we are indeed headed in the
right direction, and we are doing it at about the right pace.
So
many people, when it is brought to their attention‑‑well, we are
talking about Pharmacare; let us talk about it.
There is no Pharmacare in the provinces to the east of us for people
under the age of 65. Manitobans
sometimes forget about that or do not know that, never were told that.
There
are some people you just cannot rely on to tell Manitobans that this is the way
it is, or that the deductible in places like Saskatchewan has climbed so high
as to make it so that there is no Pharmacare program for many, many thousands
and thousands of people in Saskatchewan.
So these are things that are important, too.
The
Life Saving Drug Program is an extremely important program if you are in the
kind of situation where you are not particularly well off, but you have a life‑threatening
disease that only some of the pharmaceuticals that are available now can save
your life and help with the quality of your life. Well, what would you do if you did not have
the government? You would have to go and
borrow the money, or you would have to go and beg somewhere or something like
that, and that is not the way we deal with our fellow Manitobans in this
province. We try to look after each
other and that is one of the very special things about our province.
Mr. Chomiak: I sort of thank the minister for that
response, because the minister has, as is his tendency, kind of wavered off of
the track. I know how proud he is that
he found a program that he could go back and track the record of increases. I know he wanted to spend a lot of time on
it, and I bear with that, but he did tend to slip off that slope again to
getting into other provinces where he may wish he would have been minister too.
In
any event, I note that in this area of Health and Wellness, the Activity
Identification has developed epidemiological databases to support policy
development. Is this the one and the
same, the reference to epidemiology? Is
this also the same as was in the previous expropriation, or is this something
different?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, epidemiology has always
been part of the function of the Department of Health, but it has never enjoyed
the prominence or the focus that we propose it to enjoy in the future, because
its role is going to be enhanced, I think.
Its reason for being is going to be more and more important as we
continue ever to design more and more, and put into place more and more and
more programs to serve Manitobans more effectively and better in health care.
So
I do not think it is‑‑and I am not assuming, and I would not want
anybody else to assume that we have just never relied on any epidemiological
findings to design programs, but we are going to put far more emphasis on that
kind of planning in the future as opposed to the kind of planning we have done
in the past, which has been singularly, in hindsight, totally unimpressive and
also in hindsight, a shame, because, in a sense, we have spent so many dollars
and not achieved the results. Now we
have an opportunity to make our health system into a positive, dynamic and
extremely exciting force in the future in Manitoba and Canada, making our
country the best, as has been described as such by the United Nations‑‑the
best. That is what we want to have.
While
I am on my feet, I want to share with my honourable friends some things I said
I would share with them. I told them I
would provide them with an historical review or overview with respect to
nursing studies and nursing reports that have been undertaken in Manitoba,
which takes us back over the last many years, certainly all the way back to
1966. It deals with roles and
relationships between and among the various categories of nursing
personnel. It deals with appropriate
models of education. It deals with the
need for improved co‑ordination and direction of change in the nursing
education system.
It
goes back to 1966 when there was the report of the Minister of Health's
committee on the supply of nurses. It
touches on the Manitoba Health Services Commission's nursing manpower committee
in 1973, a report on nursing manpower in 1975, a Manitoba Association of
Registered Nurses position paper called Challenge and Change back in 1976, the
joint ministerial task force on nursing education in 1977, the standing
committee on nursing manpower in 1981 and on and on and on.
I
discussed this briefly with honourable members, and if I could, I would ask the
page to pass this over to both the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms.
Gray) and the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). You can just put it on his desk.
In
addition, Madam Chairperson, the honourable member for‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I wonder if I could just ask the minister for
clarification. Are you tabling those
documents?
Mr. McCrae: No, I am just passing them over to my
colleagues.
Madam Chairperson: Okay, otherwise the Chair would need a copy.
Mr. McCrae: If you want to read it, Madam Chairperson,
just come and ask, and I will make it available to you, too.
The
honourable member for Crescentwood asked about some grant details out of the
department. I do not propose to read
this whole document into the record but I do want to draw‑‑well, I
will not read it all, but I am going to make a couple of comments about it. It is a significant list.
* (1640)
Over
the years, Manitoba Health has entered into partnerships with large, large
numbers of organizations in Manitoba. If
you look at this list and you look at the list for '93‑94 and compare the
one for '94‑95, you will see a number of new grantees. I guess we are the grantors, they are the
grantees.
The
honourable member was asking about smoking and health, there is a small grant‑‑well,
I should not say small about any amount of money, but there is a grant to the
Canadian Council on Smoking and Health on the first page here, and there are
other child health prevention grants here.
You will see, as you go through this, a number of new organizations, new
in terms of funding from government.
I
refer to organizations like the Anxiety Disorder Association of Manitoba‑Westman
Self Help Centres; the Anxiety Disorder Association of Manitoba‑Norman
Self Help Centres. These are new
grants. The Anxiety Disorder Association
of Manitoba‑Interlake/Eastman; Canadian Mental Health Association. That is not new, but the program is first‑time
funding for the Canadian Mental Health Association‑Interlake/Eastman.
I
am only talking about new ones here, because I do not propose to take the
member's time and the House's time dealing with all of them. There are so, so many. Canadian Mental Health Association‑Norman
Self Help Centres; Thompson Region, Canadian Mental Health Association,
$258,600; $50,000 for the Manitoba Network for Mental Health Inc.; the Manitoba
Schizophrenia Society, again, for the Westman Self Help Centres; Manitoba
Schizophrenia Society Inc. That has
increased in '93‑94 from $25,000 to $55,000 in '94‑95.
The
Manitoba Schizophrenia Society‑Interlake/Eastman Self Help Centres;
Schizophrenia Society, again, Norman Self Help Centres; Salvation Army for the
telephone crisis service, $50,000; Salvation Army‑Interlake/Eastman,
$850,000, first‑time grants; Sara Riel Inc.‑In‑Home Support
program, $60,000; Society for Depression and Manic Depression, again, the
Westman Self Help Centres. That is
$28,300 for each of those three organizations.
The Society for Depression and Manic Depression Inc. for the
Interlake/Eastman Self Help Centres, $16,665; Society for Depression and Manic Depression for the
Norman Self Help Centres, $25,000, and on and on and on. These are all new ones.
The
honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) would be interested in knowing
about some of these developments in the St. Boniface and Winnipeg area.
The
reason I want to talk just a little bit about this grants listing‑‑and
I can give the member, I will shoot the copy over while I am talking if the
honourable member likes.
I
am a little bit excited about this grants list because of the new things that I
have spoken about, but as Schedule A to this grants listing, the honourable
members will see Support Services to Seniors.
Now,
I know that some people in Winnipeg might not appreciate this as much as
elsewhere, although we are trying to facilitate the proliferation of this sort
of activity in Winnipeg, too. There are
some people who really do not appreciate the work done by Support Services to
Seniors organizations.
I
told one person that these Support Services to Seniors groups do things like
shovelling the walks for people and washing windows and things like that.
[interjection] Right away. You see, the
member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) is tuned in. A job is a job. I do not know if a union card goes with it,
though. Now, you see, that is
problematic for some people but not for the honourable member for St. Boniface,
because he knows a job is a job.
Sometimes
it is a volunteer effort. Sometimes you
do not get paid a nickel. You do it
because that is your friend, a member of your community, and you want to help. The member for St. Boniface is that kind of
person. Many, many, many years from now,
when he is older and in need, and I am telling you that is a long time from
now, knowing the honourable member is as young at heart as he is, he will very
much appreciate someday someone representing a volunteer organization coming
over and helping out.
That
is what this is all about, Madam Chairperson.
I do not know how many we have all together; 180 groups like this in
Manitoba. The honourable Minister
responsible for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme) is here to hear all this. In 1994‑95‑‑oh, the member
for Broadway (Mr. Santos) is listening too‑‑we have 29‑‑this
is '93‑94? What about '94‑95? Oh, my goodness, I cannot even keep up with
the expansion and the growth in the Support Services to Seniors organizations.
In
1993, well, here we are‑‑and I will put this on the record, because
the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), who knows that he who is without sin
ought to cast the first stone, he knows‑‑[interjection] What did he
say? You pat on my back and I will pat
on your back. Anyway, he will know.
An Honourable Member: Something about the kettle calling the pot
black or something like that.
Mr. McCrae: I am not sure I appreciate that reference to
black pots and stuff like that. The
honourable member ought to be very careful how he talks in this House.
[interjection] I heard very well what I heard, Madam Chair. I am not sure I appreciate it after what has
been said in this place previously in this discussion.
I
will just pass over that comment and get on to what I was about to say, because
what I was about to say was very positive.
The honourable members opposite have a way of distracting me whenever I
want to talk about something positive.
They do not want to hear about that stuff. [interjection]
My
mother always used to say, and still does from time to time: If you cannot say anything nice about a
person, do not say anything at all. That
is why I say so little about the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak),
because I remember what my mother told me. [interjection] I made my point, the
honourable member said.
* (1650)
I
have a point to make and they keep on interrupting me so I will not make
it. Let me tell the honourable members
what has been happening with the expansion of Support Services to Seniors
projects throughout Manitoba. In 1993‑94
we increased the number of Support Services to Seniors organizations in
Manitoba by 29 and an increased expenditure of $286,000. In 1994‑95 we expect to increase that number
by a further 17 projects at a full‑year cost of an additional
$221,000. Then in 1995‑96 we
expect another 12 projects at a full‑year increased cost of $156,000‑‑over
three years, 58 new projects, $663,000.
What
has been happening, in addition to Schedule A that you see on this grants
listing page after page of support for Support Services to Seniors in our
province, in '93‑94 we added the Cartier Senior Citizens Support
Committee. That is an expansion. For another expansion, Gladstone Area Seniors
Support Program. We are expanding the
Carberry Plains Services to Seniors program.
We are expanding the Louise Community Services program. The Seniors Helping Hand of Alstone Inc. was
expanded. The Seniors Organized Services
of Souris Valley Inc. was expanded.
Senior's Services For Rivers, Rapid City & Districts expanded. Minnedosa & District Services to Seniors
expanded in 1993‑94. The Deaf
Centre Manitoba expanded in '93‑94.
Maple Manor, Plum Coulee meals service expanded in '93‑94, and,
Madam Chairperson, a new one in 1993‑94, Glenvilla Seniors Support Group.
Another
new one the honourable Whip for our party might be interested in, Teulon Hunter
Memorial Health District, a new one there, and in Deloraine a new one, an area‑enriched
housing. The Oakbank‑Springfield
Kinsmen Senior Citizen Complex, another new one. Another new one at Powerview Silver Haven
Club, and a new one for Erickson/Onanole Services to Seniors, Erickson Health
District.
Point
of Order
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I believe the minister
tabled these documents, or‑‑
Madam Chairperson: No, the honourable member for Kildonan does
not have a point of order. The
honourable minister shared the documents, did not table the documents, and I
believe that is why he was reading it into the record.
*
* *
Mr. McCrae: What I am holding up in my hand is what I
have shared with my colleagues. What I
am holding in my other hand is recitation of those new or expanded programs in
1993‑94.
I
am asked why I do not table it. I want
it very clearly on the record, Madam Chairperson, that this is what we are
doing in partnership with all these communities. If this bothers the honourable member, well,
I am sorry, but that is what the provision of health care in Manitoba is all about,
is sharing information and sharing the facts about our partnerships with
Manitobans.
Another
one we have expanded, Madam Chair, is the Rhineland CARE. That is an acronym which stands for Community
Assistance for the Elderly.
Oh,
the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) wants to make this into a Tory
area issue. Well, is there something
about seniors who live in ridings that are held by Progressive Conservatives
that makes them somehow less than seniors who live in ridings held by New
Democrats or Liberals? [interjection]
I
think I have to start this list over again because I think I lost the place.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. McCrae: We have expanded the seniors program at Gimli
Seniors Resource Council Inc. We have
started a new one in the Rural Municipality of St. Laurent.
A
program called MILES in the Treherne‑Rathwell‑Holland area,
maintaining independent living with extended services for seniors‑‑I
do not know that every one of those seniors who benefit from this program are
Tories. There may be a New Democrat in
Treherne. It may happen. There may be.
We do not look for their Tory card when they ask for service. That is not the way it is done, although
there was evidence of that happening when the New Democrats were in power.
I
remember very clearly a $400‑a‑plate ticket that, if you were a
supplier to the McKenzie Seeds Co., you had to buy a ticket for a $450‑a‑plate
dinner, spend a little time with Howard Pawley so that you could protect your
contracts with McKenzie Seeds. That is
the kind of thing we got with the previous bunch and I am telling you, that
sort of hypocrisy that we hear about and see and witness daily in this House is
upsetting to some of those seniors. Some
of them might even be New Democrats who go to these seniors service
organizations for help. You know, when
you are looking for help, I do not care whether you are a Tory or a Liberal or
a New Democrat or a Reformer or whatever you happen to be, if you need help,
you need help.
I
am sorry my honourable friends have to bring that kind of partisan approach
into a discussion of support services for seniors. Imagine.
Sometimes I wonder how proud I really am to be an MLA when I have got to
put up with that kind of stuff.
An Honourable Member: Rhetoric.
Mr. McCrae: Rhetoric.
That is a nice way of putting what it really is.
Yes,
MILES‑‑Maintaining Independent Living with Extended Services for
Seniors. That has been upgraded, has
been expanded on. Here is a new one at the
rural municipality of St. Laurent, an expanded one, Niverville Senior
Services. The honourable member for St.
Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) can identify with some of this, Niverville being his home
town. Well, there is probably a Liberal
or two in Niverville, and they may need the services provided by Niverville
Seniors to seniors.
Eriksdale
New Horizons, a new one. I remember
talking with some people from Eriksdale about that. The Rosenort Housing Corporation has a new
seniors for seniors project, an expanded Seniors Access to Independent
Living. I am not sure where that one is.
[interjection] Another Tory riding, my goodness.
It
is interesting that the last one here, the Health Action Centre, Health
Sciences Centre‑‑I do not know that that is a Tory riding, but I do
not really think it matters all that much. [interjection] Well, the honourable
members opposite are the ones who raised it.
I am just trying to be responsive to their deeply held concerns that
somehow you have to be a Tory to get anything in this province. What a shameful, shameful attitude on the
part of the honourable member.
Now
here is one‑‑St. Michael's Villa.
This one is a new one. Now the
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) no doubt knows where St. Michael's Villa
is. It is in Transcona. So does that mean that if I live in Transcona
and I am a Tory, I do not get to go to that one because it is in an NDP
riding? People over here have gone
berserk.
Now
where is that Accueil Columbien. Here is
one that might be of interest to some honourable members: Accueil Columbien. Well, there you go. That one is in St. Boniface, which last time
I checked we did not win that one. In
fact, how close did we come? The
honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) has to be very careful because
you never know.
North
Winnipeg Cooperative Community Council‑‑which seats do we have in
north Winnipeg?
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour, committee rise.
Call
in the Speaker.
* (1700)
IN
SESSION
Committee
Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees):
The Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me
to report progress, and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that the report
of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 5‑‑Youth
Violence
Mrs. Shirley Render (St.
Vital): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by
the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister), that:
WHEREAS
the increase in youth violence and crime in our communities is causing a great
deal of concern throughout the province; and
WHEREAS
youth crime causes so much pain and suffering for individuals in every
community throughout Manitoba; and
WHEREAS
as a community, each and every one of us must take action and we must do it
together; and
WHEREAS
the Minister of Justice, the mayor of the City of Winnipeg, the Manitoba
Association of School Trustees, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the
Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities sponsored a one‑day forum on
youth violence; and
WHEREAS
this day‑long summit was an opportunity to form a partnership that
allowed participants to identify ways of fighting this growing community
problem; and
WHEREAS
the youth summit held in Manitoba was the first of its kind in Canada.
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly support the efforts of the
government of Manitoba and the Minister of Justice for initiating the youth
summit and taking an important step toward forming an action plan on youth
crime.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Render: Mr. Speaker, youth crime and violence is a
concern to all of us, not just here in this Legislature but to all Manitobans,
and I think all of us would agree that crimes of violence, property crimes, car
thefts have been increasing. In fact,
almost every day any of us pick up a newspaper, there is usually some reference
to youth crime in the newspaper. I give
you an example of that: May 2, Winnipeg
Free Press headline on the editorial page, Deterring car theft, talks about the
car theft epidemic and the tragic results that have been happening. Besides property losses and the resulting car
insurance costs, two Winnipeggers in this incident were killed.
The
Globe and Mail, Monday, May 9, there is another example of another newspaper in
another part of this country. In this
instance, it is talking about the three Edmonton youths, two of them age 16,
one age 15, who have been charged with second‑degree murder. This was in the case where a mother who had
heard a sound in the middle of the night got up to investigate, and these three
youths killed her, did not even know the family. There was no premeditation to murder. It was just that they were looking for
something to steal. She happened upon
the scene, and it was just a random act of violence.
Winnipeg
Sun, May 8, again, another headline: The
crime crisis. The Sun states Manitoba
had the fourth highest crime rate in Canada with over 11,000 reported incidents
per 100,000 people in 1992. Another
small headline in this particular article states: In crimes of violence, Manitoba finished
second only to B.C.
Mr.
Speaker, these are not things that we want headlines on, but the problem is
this is a problem, and people are scared, people are concerned and people are
frustrated. When I have gone walking
door to door in my riding, people, whether they are seniors, whether they are
young families, whether they are school officials, have all mentioned to me
that they are very concerned with this.
I
raised this concern at caucus and, indeed, most of my caucus members have also
spoken that this is a problem in their communities, and this government did
something about it.
I
am sure you will all remember that in October, the Minister of Justice (Mrs.
Vodrey) announced that she would be holding a summit on youth crime, and this
was held in December. This was a one‑day
forum to develop strategies to respond to the problem of youth crime. Over 800 Manitobans were interested in being
a part of this summit. Regretfully, the
number had to be limited. There were
over 560 people registered. Sixty
facilitators had been trained ahead of time to make sure that it was time well
spent.
Mr.
Speaker, the summit was a success. For
one of the very first times in the history of this country, the justice system
was opened up to allow not just the so‑called experts, not just the
criminologists, the psychologists, not just the police department, but young
people themselves, whether they had been involved in crime or whether they knew
somebody or just even whether or not they had any thoughts on the whole problem
of youth crime. So young people were
involved in this summit. Parents,
community officials and elected representatives, all these people came together
to try to identify more effective ways to help prevent and to intervene in
cases of youth violence.
Now,
from this one‑day forum, over 700 recommendations were developed to
address this complex problem. Also as a
result of this summit, a report that was called Community Voices, Community
Action resulted. I think the title of
this report says something just about the essence of this forum: community voices, community actions. In other words, again, it is not just a
matter of somebody from on high dictating and saying this is what the problem
is, this is how we are going to resolve it.
Once
again, this government has shown that we are prepared to reach out to the
community, we are prepared to say, we do not have all the answers, we need help
from you, we need input, and this report shows that‑‑community
voices and community actions.
Now
one of the reasons this was called community, the word "community"
was used is because we recognize, as I said earlier, that we do not have all of
the answers, but more importantly, everybody has to take responsibility for
this problem. It is a community problem,
and the community cannot just say, you solve the problem. It has to be done together.
Now,
having said that, we did not wait for the community to come up with all of the
answers. The Minister of Justice (Mrs.
Vodrey) took action and in February released a nine‑point action plan,
which builds on the recommendations of the one‑day summit.
I
would just like to go over these nine points.
One of the nine points was, first:
Establishing a youth advisory council, which will be consulted on all
matters which concern youth within the Department of Justice.
Secondly: To establish a gang and youth contact
line. Now, this contact line will
provide not only young people, but parents and victims and other concerned
people with a confidential method of providing and receiving information on
youth crime and gangs from the Winnipeg police department.
Thirdly: We will be creating a provincial council on
youth crime. This council will be made
up of experts from a wide field of both the prevention and the intervention end
of things, to provide assistance and advice to communities who wish to try to
combat this problem of youth violence.
Fifth: We will be developing a youth crime
intervention team consisting of police, prosecutors and officials working in
the fields of corrections, education and child welfare. I think this is absolutely vital, because,
too often, left and right hands do not know what each other is doing. It is absolutely vital that a co‑ordinated
and an integrated approach be made in this area.
* (1710)
One
of the very interesting things that came out of this one‑day summit was
so many people saying that there had to be sterner sentencing measures, harsher
sentencing measures, something more fitting to the crime. It seems to me there was a Gilbert and
Sullivan operetta where the mikado said, let the punishment fit the crime. Well, this is what people are saying.
One
of the alternatives which has come out of this is known as either the
wilderness camp or the boot camp.
Another point that came out was to expand the mandate of the community
justice committees, to implement the summit report, Community Voices, Community
Action; also, the employment of a violence prevention consultant in the
Department of Education to assist schools to prevent and respond to school‑based
violence.
Eighth: A school‑based antiviolence workshop,
and this was held just a few weeks ago on April 7. It involved over 150 people representing
schools, plus the justice and social service agencies.
Now,
the ninth point‑‑I think this one was most interesting‑‑was
providing amendments to the Young Offenders Act. The Young Offenders Act took effect 10 years
ago. April 2, 1984, was the day it was
proclaimed. Essentially it was meant to
be sort of a modern answer to the problem of delinquent young people. The law that it replaced was called the
juvenile delinquents act, which had been passed way back in 1908. The juvenile delinquents act had originally
been passed by people who‑‑well, some people called them child
savers. They had seen flaws in what was
in place before, and these people felt that young delinquents needed to be
rescued from bad families and harmful social conditions.
It
was necessary, Mr. Speaker, that this act be proclaimed because, up until that
time, teenagers, even children could be jailed with adults. However, problems resulted from the juvenile
delinquents act. For instance, sentences
from judges were often indeterminate, and training school directors had the
option of deciding when their charges could be released. Sometimes, if a youth was sentenced to a
reform school, as they were known in those days, say at ages 14 or 15, the
director of that school might say, well, that young person is not ready to be
released into society until he is 21 years of age, and that may not have been
fair, Mr. Speaker.
So
the Young Offenders Act was a necessary change.
As I say, it was proclaimed in 1984, and it gives young people the same
rights accorded to adults; in other words, the right to a fixed sentence, the
right to bail, to due process, and the right to be informed of those rights.
However,
the Young Offenders Act contained a declaration of principle that set out the
law's philosophical framework. This declaration
of principle, I think, shows the ambivalence of Canadians to what you do with a
young person who has committed a crime.
This ambivalence‑‑like, do we treat this young person
harshly or do we say, this young person comes from a home where it is obvious
that he has not been brought up with proper ethical or moral standards. Therefore, we must be a little generous. We must not punish him first off. As I say, there was this ambivalent attitude
of how we are going to deal with young people involved in crime.
Let
me just give you an example. The very
first principle states: While young
people should not, in all instances, be held accountable in the same manner or
suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults, young persons who
commit offences should nonetheless bear responsibility for their
contraventions.
So
you can see that there is sort of a seesawing.
On the one hand, they recognize that young people must be punished. On the other hand, they are saying, well, let
us back off a little bit.
Right
from the start, the Young Offenders Act has really been shadowed by
controversy. I think some of the most
controversial elements of the Young Offenders Act are that it only applies to
those aged 12 to 17. Its maximum
sentence is only five years less a day for serious crimes, such as murder. Another thing that people find really
frustrating about the Young Offenders Act is that it calls for custody only as
a last resort.
Something
else‑‑young offenders may not be identified publicly. How much time do I have? Two and a half
minutes? Okay.
Young
offenders must consent to treatment programs.
In other words, a judge may not simply order treatment. If that young person does not think he needs
treatment, the judge cannot do anything about it. So, Mr. Speaker, amendments to the Young
Offenders Act are very necessary.
Our
Minister of Justice went to Ottawa a few months ago and proposed various
amendments such as automatic transfers of youth, virtually automatic transfers
of youth to adult court, who are charged with serious offences; creating a
category of dangerous young offenders; reviewing methods to ensure parental
accountability. That is probably one of
the most important aspects‑‑bringing the parent back into the
picture, making sure that the parent is accountable for their young children
and also targeting repeat offenders under the age of 12 for intervention.
Mr.
Speaker, this nine‑point action plan responds to the key themes which
came out of this summit. It responds to the
need for youth involvement, for better co‑ordination among agencies, for
tougher consequences, for young people who break the law and for community
involvement in the prevention and intervention of youth violence.
This
resolution urges the Legislative Assembly to support the government's actions
to fight against youth crime and violence.
I support this resolution, and I urge all members to follow the lead of
Manitobans from across our province who have participated in the development of
our action plan and to support our efforts to create safer communities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): The resolution of the member for
St. Vital (Mrs. Render) is an attempt, of course, by the government to commend
itself, and I guess this government has to look to wherever it can to do that,
but I would say that the role of opposition certainly is not always to just
criticize and come on to the negative attributes of a government. I would have to say that this side certainly
supported the move of the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), in particular, and
this government in putting together the summit and having that in December.
Having
said that, I do want to note some concerns that we have had about the structure
of that summit and who participated and how the decisions were made there. First of all, I want to comment that it was
very unfortunate that the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) and, I
believe, the Minister responsible for Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik) were not in
attendance at that summit. I think that
is very unfortunate, and I think it speaks words about this government's
shallow view of the dynamics of youth violence and crime.
I
attended that summit, and I took full part in the summit. I can say that I was also very disappointed
about the underrepresentation of aboriginal peoples there. In 1990, when the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
report was produced, 78 percent of the youth at the Agassiz Youth Centre were
aboriginal. Indeed, aboriginal youth are
overrepresented as well at the Manitoba Youth Centre. As well, there was an unfortunate lack or
underrepresentation of youth and, particularly, youth at risk.
If
we are going to deal effectively with youth crime and find out what causes it
and what the effective solutions are, we have to involve youth in that
process. There were some youth there,
but there were not hardly enough.
* (1720)
Finally,
unfortunately, there was not good representation from families at risk. I could tell that from the group that I was
participating in and from generally speaking with people there. We have to understand the challenges and the
difficult environment that families are facing in Manitoba. So, having said that, we nonetheless commend
the government. It made an attempt. It was a great first step but no more than a
first step.
I
would like to commend the cosponsors of the summit as well, the hosts and the
donors, the panelists who gave freely of their time, the facilitators and the
many volunteers. I thought the
facilitators, particularly in my group, were very successful at drawing out
many of our experiences and views on youth crime.
Mr.
Speaker, I want first of all to say that although we are very concerned, and
rightly so, about rising youth crime, I do not want the youth of this province
to feel that they are under attack. I
sense from talking to youth over the last several months about rising youth
crime and concerns raised in the media and concerns in neighbourhoods‑‑I
want those youth to know that we also acknowledge that by far most youth in
Manitoba are valuable law‑abiding contributors to our community. In fact, according to a recent newspaper
article, about 41 percent of Winnipeg's youth between 15 and 19 years of age
are donating their time to help others, and that is the best record in Canada,
twice the national average for their age group.
Indeed,
three‑quarters of the crimes being committed in Manitoba are being
committed by adults and not youth. One
of the officers from the youth division at the City of Winnipeg Police
Department has estimated that only about 5 percent of Winnipeg's youth are
involved in crime in any one year. That
does not now detract from what are, what I call, the hot spots in the crime statistics,
particularly in Manitoba.
We
are facing in Manitoba an extraordinary rise in the number of youths involved
in thefts over $1,000. Essentially that
regards car theft. As well, we have a
very unfortunate rise of approximately 25 percent in the number of youths
involved in violent offences in Winnipeg.
In fact, in Canada as a whole there has been a 34 percent increase just
in four years in youth being charged with violent offences. So we have these hot spots, and that is why
we have to have initiatives that can begin from something like the youth
summit.
Now
what did the government do with the promise of a youth summit? I think that story is told when the
facilitator at the conference at the end of the day, a day of hard work by
about 500 people, got up to the front and said that the main theme, in fact
almost a consensus, 26 of the 27 working groups, was that prevention was the
focus. Prevention was the critical
issue.
The
facilitator went on to talk about how good parenting is required, how we need
parenting skills education, the importance of family values, supports to
parents. Then at the end of the
conference the Minister of Justice got up and she said, I will take your
concerns about the Young Offenders Act to Ottawa. And I thought, wait a minute, was she
here? Was she part of the
discussions? People in the chairs around
me were saying, oh, I think she did not even hear what the facilitator said.
This
government cannot continue to blame the federal Liberal government for the
problems of youth crime in Manitoba.
There is no doubt that the Young Offenders Act needs change, and I have
long questioned why the Young Offenders Act puts so much emphasis on age when
deciding on consequences and the treatment of individuals when it should, Mr.
Speaker, be looking more at the backgrounds, the records and the types of
offences that are committed by the particular offender.
So
we have to move away from such reliance on age, where if you are born on March
31 you are treated one way, and you are born on April 1 you are treated
another. There has to be a move. There has to be more exceptions to the
general rules in the Young Offenders Act while maintaining a commitment to a
youth court and to expertise in dealing with young offenders.
Having
said that I want to say‑‑there is nothing more important that I can
say in my speech today than this, Mr. Speaker.
We regret so much that the government turned its back on all the time
and all the ideas given by 500 volunteers that day, all of those expectations
raised. Those people came to that summit
and they talked about prevention, prevention, prevention as the main theme, as
the focus that has to be taken by this government. There has to be a new era of youth and family
supports in this province. Government
initiatives have to be measured against their impact on families and
youth. They said that again and again
and again.
I
quote from the report, page 9: The
widely held view of Manitobans at the summit was that higher priority ought to
be placed upon programs, policies and initiatives affecting children and the
family; governments to place priority in families and children and to analyze
every decision on how it impacts on families; re‑examine and evaluate the
impact and role of daycare, including universal daycare; invest in children
between the ages of two and five years; safety net for children at risk between
infancy and five years; public education on the importance of family; supports
to be available for parents to help them be better parents; parenting classes;
premarital parenting courses; help line to deal with problems at home;
homemakers, buddy system for families at risk; life skills for families at
risk; child‑parent centres.
I
can go on and on and on, Mr. Speaker, but what did the government do? It took nine proposals, now the infamous nine‑point
plan, from about 700 recommendations, and I suppose there should be no surprise
in that. We have 700 recommendations
dealing with systemic change so that we can have a safe community put on the
cabinet table. You have a right‑wing
cabinet look at 700 recommendations and we are lucky we got nine. We are lucky we got nine from 700, but that
is the insight that the government has into the dynamics of youth crime. It has rejected the dominant messages from
that summit. This government turned its
back on the hard work and ideas of all those people.
Now,
the government did come up with a nine‑point plan, and there are some
good ideas in there, but the problem is that this is a plan, and it has gone no
further, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of
any one of the ideas set out in this nine‑point plan having been
implemented.
Rising
youth crime in Manitoba continues, and still to this day some five months since
the summit and three months since the announcement of the nine‑point
plan, there is no plan in place, and I know the minister in Question Period
said, well, there was a province‑wide workshop on April 7 talking about
school violence and how to deal with that.
The
minister knows full well that that program, that workshop, was planned months
in advance of either the nine‑point plan or the summit. That was a plan put in place by Winnipeg
School Division No. 1 and the Women's Directorate. That is not something that came from the
summit, and going to Ottawa about the Young Offenders Act is not putting in
place in this province a plan, a program, an effective program to deal with
rising youth crime. Meanwhile, what we have
is rising youth crime.
Point of
Order
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The issue of training for front‑line
workers such as educators and community workers most certainly did come from
the summit.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point
of order. That is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, it is my advice that that was
planned in advance of the summit.
* (1730)
I
was talking about the Young Offenders Act, that it is not enough to go to
Ottawa. What we need in Manitoba‑‑if
the government was serious about dealing with youth crime and crime in general,
it would have proclaimed a long time ago, but it still has lots of time to do
this, well, I mean there is lots of time to do it. I will retract that, Mr. Speaker. Time is running very short.
In
1987, The Crime Prevention Foundation Act was enacted by this Legislature. This government failed to proclaim the most
obvious way of dealing with a community empowerment so there can be crime
prevention initiatives out there.
On
February 9 our caucus announced some plans to help this government deal with
rising youth crime, and part of that was to greatly expand in number the youth
justice committees in the province and, as well, to expand the mandate of those
youth justice committees. We have still
to see anything happen there, Mr. Speaker.
We also called for a provincial role for community‑based
policing. We have seen nothing
there. I think it is unfortunate that
the government continues to talk, talk, talk and does not take action.
I
therefore move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that the
resolution of the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) be amended by adding at
the end of the resolution the following:
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly nonetheless regrets that the government
has so far failed to implement any new programs to deal with rising youth crime
as recommended by the youth summit.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member's amendment is in
order.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I take a
great deal of pleasure in rising in this House to address this subject. This is a subject that I think is a concern
to each and every one of us in this House and is certainly a concern to most
communities or all communities in this province and most people in this
province.
It
is not a problem that has occurred over the last few weeks or few months. It is a problem that has taken a long time in
developing. It has been many years in
coming to being, and you can point fingers, Mr. Speaker, at all kinds of issues
and all kinds of people and/or actions or inactions taken by governments,
previous governments, law enforcement authorities, courts. You could point at all those kinds of things,
and it will not resolve the problem that we face today.
What
we need to do is dialogue with each other in this House and put forward some
firm solutions and concrete ideas and offer ourselves to work with people in
communities across this province to come to some resolve. That is the real point. That is what the Minister of Justice did in
this province in initiating the forum on youth violence.
I
think it is a first in this province. I
know it is a first in this province, and I would rather suspect it is a first
in this country, that a Minister of Justice has taken the initiative to call
together all participants, all the various interest groups in the province and
offer to hold an open forum and dialogue not just the problem or the concerns,
but to listen to advice from the general public on how to deal with this
problem.
That
is simply what the resolution speaks to.
I am somewhat concerned that the members opposite or parties opposite
are even contemplating amending this resolution, because it is simply a
resolution that speaks of actions needed and in support of actions taken by our
minister.
Vandalism,
in many areas of the province, has become a grave concern. Thefts by young people have become a major
concern. The death of one young person
we knew, that society knew, who was an offender at the hands of a vehicle is I
think an image, a front‑page picture, that most of us will never forget.
We
can blame only ourselves for creating an atmosphere that is conducive to
allowing people like him back on the street to do again what he loved to do, a
confession made by himself. He loved to
take on cars that drove fast. He liked
to operate fast cars.
Simply,
we have many young people like that. They
go out, and they commit these crimes.
They cause concerns in communities simply, many of them, to get a charge
out of life. Speaking to many of these
young people, they will admit that.
It
demonstrates something that I think we heard time and time again at the forum,
that many of our young people need to be challenged. Society needs to find ways and means of
challenging these young people to do bigger and better things other than
causing distractions in their community.
* (1740)
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
I
represent an area in the province where car thefts, specifically, and vandalism
have been rather rampant over the last three or four months. It is, I understand, a competition between two
young gangs of young people to see which gang can cause the most damage in a
given night.
Again,
I think that demonstrates that there is no real challenge for these young
people, no real initiatives for these young people to grasp on to and for them to
do things that would be productive.
Therefore, they revert to these kinds of actions.
It
causes not only fear in our communities; it causes a lot of damage and costs to
be incurred by communities and society in general, Autopac, either fixing the
cars or replacing these cars that have been stolen. I understand that there have been some 60 or
70 vehicles stolen in my area alone over the last three months, two houses
severely damaged over the last couple of weeks, and so it goes on. One could go on.
One
of the key things that happened at a meeting that I called in our community to
deal with this, at which we had a number of representatives from the RCMP, from
the protection department of our government, one of the things that we heard
time and time again as recommendations were to strengthen the Young Offenders
Act. They were very much in support of
the action that our minister had taken in going to Ottawa and presenting
changes, making recommendations to change the Young Offenders Act.
Some
of the things that I have heard much support for are the establishment of the
youth advisory council, which was, of course, one of the recommendations that
came out of the forum.
Maybe
what I should say, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that I was somewhat surprised that
the former speaker indicated his concern about not enough members of our
government being at the forum. Well, the
forum was not called for politicians to grandstand. It was not called for 54 members of this
Legislature to sit and dialogue with members of society about what should or
should not be done. It was called to
allow people from the general public to come together to dialogue and debate
and make recommendations on what should be done about the action.
I
understand that Mr. Gill Tyrrell did not even have a place because we were
filled up, the place was filled up, and our minister suggested that she would
stay away and he should go, because he is one of the people that is the head of
security at Unicity Mall, I understand, and is one of the people that has had
some interaction with many of these young people and has made some
recommendations and was willing to come to the forum to speak to the issue of
youth violence.
Those
are the kind of people that we wanted, so many of us stood aside and said we
will let other people that have an interest, other members of society come that
have an interest and maybe have a contribution to make and suggestions that we
should be listening to, and we can, of course, pick up what was said, either
through the report or by other means, at the conference. So whether it is the establishment of a youth
advisory council, whether it is establishing a gang and youth contact line
which parents and victims and concerned citizens could in a confidential way
utilize, or whether it is creating a provincial youth council, or whether it is
amendments to the Young Offenders Act, which were all part of the
recommendations that came out of the forum, are something that we should be
listening to as society.
We
specifically, as legislators, have a responsibility to ensure that the security
of our people is first and foremost dealt with.
If we listen to many of the proposals for changes to the Young Offenders
Act that our minister made to the federal government, I believe, if we adopted
those changes, it would go a long way in putting some teeth in the law, No. 1,
allowing the disciplinary actions to be taken by society to those who cannot
live within our rules and our laws, to ensure that there be proper direction
and education given to these young people, hence, lastly, that community
justice committees be implemented. That
is really what I wanted to bring to this House today.
That
was one of the key recommendations that came out of a meeting that I held in my
community less than a week ago. These
people had not been to the conference, but they recommended that a broad‑based
community committee be formed to dialogue with the justice system, to dialogue
with the enforcement system, and to dialogue within the community, and make recommendations
and put in place actions that would allow the community participation over a
long period of time to try and change the system.
It
is largely our responsibility as parents and our responsibility as legislators
and our responsibility as citizens to put into place action that will change
the way many of our young people have been raised in society. I simply do not believe that putting them in
daycare centres and/or institutions or those kinds of things are the real
answer over the long term.
The
long term is education. The long‑term
solution is teaching mothers and fathers how to be better mothers and fathers,
and I believe that needs to start when these mothers‑ and fathers‑to‑be
are very small, in other words, when they are children.
I
think society must re‑evaluate what families are and how we treat
children in society and how we raise children in society. Each and every one of us must re‑evaluate
how we treat our young people in our community and how we deal with them when
they step out of line. Young people must
learn what it means to feel the arm of authority when jurisdictions have been
crossed, and I believe that each and every one of us has that responsibility to
re‑evaluate what should happen.
I
commend our minister, I commend our government for having taken the first steps
to cause these kinds of actions to be taken.
I commend our minister for going, taking the time to go to Ottawa to
make recommendations on how to change the Young Offenders Act to put more teeth
into an act to allow the authorities to deal with young people when they step
out of line. I commend our minister for
ensuring that not only will the dialogue continue in this manner, but that she
has the ability and the will to proceed to cause the prevention of these kinds
of crimes in the future.
So
I want to thank the members of the Legislature for allowing me this time to
speak to this most important issue at this time, and I hope that we can take action
in this province to allow communities like my community to cause preventative
action to be taken and enforcement measures to be caused that will prevent the
vandalism and the thefts and the crime that we have seen over the last three or
four months, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am very pleased to have some time‑‑
* (1750)
Point of
Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader):
I know that the government had caught the eye of the Acting
Speaker. I just want to make clear to the
Attorney General that by her wanting to use up till six o'clock she will not be
allowing the Liberal Party to be able to get their concerns about a very
important issue, and we would find that that would be most unfortunate, not
allowing us to participate in this debate.
As under every other resolution that I am familiar with, the Liberal
Party has always had the opportunity to express their concerns about a private
member's resolution. We would like to
think that tradition would have been maintained.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Rose): Order, please. The member did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: I am very pleased as the Minister of Justice
and Attorney General to take a few moments to speak on the resolution which is
before the House today.
The
resolution recognizes first of all that there is a concern by the people of
Manitoba about the issues of youth crime and violence and that these issues and
the issues of public safety are of a major concern to Manitobans.
With
the recognition of public safety as a very specific concern and particularly
the involvement of youth in crime and in behaviour which the public is
expressing concern about, this government took action.
We
took action quickly and we put together the summit on youth crime and
violence. The summit on youth crime and
violence, as members before me have spoken about, brought together over 500
Manitobans from all parts of Manitoba.
It was a very representative opportunity for people from geographically
different areas and also a number of specific interests to participate and to
look at three very important issues.
Also,
there was representation from young people.
There were approximately‑‑well, there were over 100 young
people who attended on that day to take part in the summit. I certainly would say that, yes, it is very
important to have young people to be available to speak, and we certainly
wanted to include those young people as well.
We were happy that they were there to give their opinions.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, following the summit the community on that day put forward over
700 recommendations, approximately 700 recommendations, and we put those
recommendations together in a booklet called Community Voices, Community
Action. What it was was the opinions of
Manitobans. So as you look at the
booklet you will find that some opinions speak to one particular point of view
and the other opinions speak to another point of view. We did no censoring. We simply put forward the opinions of
Manitobans so that they could be used in the booklet, Community Voices,
Community Action, as communities wanted to.
The
recommendations put forward in that booklet addressed recommendations to family
units, to community units, to members of the government at all levels, to the
education system. So it is very
important to recognize how wide reaching those recommendations were.
The
government Department of Justice looked at the recommendations and put some
meaning to what we could do. That is how
we came forward with the nine‑point plan.
The nine‑point plan addresses a number of the concerns that
Manitobans had. We did not just reach
in, as the NDP party said, and simply pick out nine little points. We looked at the concerns of Manitobans, and
we gave meaning to them through nine points of action. The nine points of action address the issues
of prevention.
The
issue of prevention was one of the major themes at the summit. It also deals with intervention, and it also
deals with the framework, the law, the Young Offenders Act. It also deals with what responsibility I have
as Minister of Justice, and that is in the area of Corrections.
So
I was very pleased to put forward that nine‑point plan of action. As the NDP member has rightly referenced,
yes, some of that action has already occurred.
There has already been a training program for front‑line workers,
community workers and educational workers.
We already have working the intervention team, which is a group of Crown
attorneys, Winnipeg police, educators, child welfare workers. We are working very carefully with all of
those representative groups so that we do have a very comprehensive
intervention.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
Mr.
Speaker, because I recognize that my colleague from the Liberal Party would also
like to make some comments, I am pleased to provide a little bit of time for
him to make his comments as well, but I certainly offer support to the
resolution. Thank you.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The
Maples): This resolution, this issue, is
probably what got me interested in being a member of this Legislature. I do not have the legal background of the
member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) from a law office, neither do I have a
clinical background as the honourable Justice minister, but I have a lot of background,
a lot of knowledge, that I would like to share with this Assembly.
I
have tried to work co‑operatively with the Minister of Justice while she
at Question Period has pointed her finger at me and said, what is your opinion
on changing the Young Offenders Act? Yet
when I have an opportunity to speak in this House, she takes up my time, the
one forum that I have. I am very
disappointed if this is what working with the Justice minister achieves.
Points of
Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government
House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice was recognized by the Acting Speaker at the
time. The time is not anyone's in this
House. The time belongs to all of
us. We have an opportunity to be
recognized by the Speaker or whoever occupies the Chair. I think the comments of the member for The
Maples are inappropriate, and he ought to apologize to the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I think that one should be
somewhat sympathetic in terms of where the member for The Maples might be coming
from, understanding that he came in believing that he would be able to express
his concerns about an issue that is very important to him, feeling that the
Liberal opposition would in fact have been given the full 15 minutes to speak. That is all I am saying; just give that some
consideration.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the
honourable government House leader, he does not have a point of order. I listened very carefully to‑‑[interjection]
I will deal with this one first. You can
get up on another one. I listened very
carefully to the remarks of the honourable member for The Maples, and he was
not making a reflection on the Chair.
On
the point of order raised, it is, quote, whoever catches the Speaker's
eye. That is the member that will get
recognized. The honourable government
House leader is quite correct. It is not
a particular member's time. We just try
and share it in the House.
There
was no point of order.
* * *
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, on a new point of order, what I
wanted to say was that the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) had, under the
rules of the House, 15 minutes of speaking time. She curtailed that time to five minutes at
the request of the government to allow the honourable member for The Maples to
speak. I think that shows reasonableness
on our part. To have him make comments
about the Minister of Justice as he did I think was totally inappropriate and I
think he ought to apologize.
Mr. Speaker: On that point, the honourable government
House leader does not have a point of order.
*
* *
Mr. Kowalski: If my comments were viewed as being
inappropriate I do apologize, but it is because this issue is so important to
me and I did want an opportunity to speak.
I regret not having had that opportunity.
All
I want to say is that this resolution starts off with "WHEREAS the
increase in youth violence and crime in our communities is causing a great deal
of concern throughout the province."
So is an increase in the youth suicide rate; so is an increase in the
child poverty rate; so is an increase in the unemployment rate.
At
the same time, our teens in Manitoba, as the honourable member for St. Johns
(Mr. Mackintosh) said, are leading Canada with the amount of volunteering they
do in this province. So youth crime is
not the problem. It is a symptom of the
problem with our youth. Our youth are in
trouble, and right now their feelings are that they are being picked upon, that
they are being used for other purposes.
They want assistance and help in dealing with a lot of their problems,
one of them being youth crime, because they in fact in many of the instances
are the victims of that crime.
In
20 years on the police force I have dealt with both victims and
perpetrators. The idea that to get tough
on youth is going to be the answer‑‑I could tell you I come from an
area, I have worked in an area where this youth crime is happening. I believe every member in this House is
concerned about this problem and would like to solve it. Of course we have different philosophical
bents, but we are all interested. I
would like to add my view in the future as to how we can solve it.
Mr. Speaker: When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for The Maples will have 13 minutes remaining.
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House now adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.
tomorrow (Wednesday).