LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, May 16, 1994
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
(continued)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Good evening.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The committee will be resuming consideration
of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item
4.(a)(1) on page 41 of the Estimates book.
Shall the item pass? Pass.
4.(a)(2) Other Expenditures $312,200.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do notice there is
a decrease in Communications again. I
wonder if the minister could just explain to us what has been reduced there.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): This is
the trimming process that has been in place in government for several years
now. A lower expectation of distance
telephone and also on some other operating expenditures, $8,000 worth of‑‑last
year in this area we spent $8,000 less than we had planned for, so we just
reflected that this year across the whole miscellaneous, Other Expenditures
line. So, in other words, we were
reflecting more accurately last year's experience.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.
4.(a)(3) Advanced Education and Training Assistance
$1,716,300‑‑pass.
4.(b) ACCESS Programs $7,903,200.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to begin
the discussion here by moving a motion.
I move that this committee censure the Minister of
Education and Training (Mr. Manness) for failing to protect the interests of
disadvantaged students by cutting ACCESS Program funding while continuing to
provide Workforce 2000 grants to businesses for questionable projects, despite
obvious program abuses in a program where hundreds and thousands of taxpayer
dollars are paid in private training grants to businesses which are not being
held publicly accountable.
I move that, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton).
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I will get back to the committee in just a
few minutes on this. I am just going to
take it under advisement.
An Honourable Member: Are you taking representation, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, as to the admissibility of this motion?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I will rule on the motion, and we can make
the decisions then.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think this motion
is‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: You cannot speak to the motion. It is not before the committee.
* (2005)
Mr. Manness: I am not speaking to the motion. I am speaking to the admissibility of the
motion.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to advise the honourable
minister that the motion at this time is not before the committee. I have taken it under advisement. When I come back with my ruling, I will be
more than willing to listen to the members' opinions on the motion.
We will now move on to the next item which would be (c)‑‑[interjection]
item 4.(b) ACCESS Programs $7,903,200.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I want to make some comments in terms of the ACCESS Program, while
you are taking the motion under advisement, that are related to this particular
line item. As soon as you are ready to
make your ruling, I will defer to other members of the committee who may wish
to comment on the motion.
I was at a very special event on Friday, the graduation of
the social work grads in Thompson, faculty of social work,
There was also a great deal of concern expressed by many
people at that graduation, including many of the graduates and including many
of the former graduates, about the cuts that have taken place to this
particular program and the particular philosophy that this Minister of
Education seems to be now applying to the ACCESS Programs.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have raised questions in the
House on this particular issue because it goes to the fundamental basis of the
ACCESS Programs, which is to provide accessibility for those, and in the case
of northern
I have known many of the ACCESS graduates. I knew many of the ACCESS graduates from this
past Friday. I can tell you, if you only
knew the personal stories of the individuals, it is just unbelievable that many
of the graduates have been able to go through a program, many of them coming
from remote communities, coming from communities which did not even have a high
school, people who did not have the opportunity even to go to high school, who
were able to work through the program, support each other and graduate as fully
fledged social workers in this case, and in the case of BUNTEP, as teachers and
the other ACCESS Programs.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, you just cannot believe the
stories. The first thing that I asked
when I was at the graduation and people expressed concern about the cuts is,
what was likely to happen to the people in the program because they are
affected by the cuts? People who are
currently in the program were not grandparented by this minister. They will be subjected to this new student‑loan
type of system.
The bottom line is there is a real concern that many will
drop out of the program; many will drop out.
That is of tremendous concern to me because if people are placed in the
kinds of circumstances this minister and this government will be placing ACCESS
students under, it will lead eventually to having an ACCESS Program in name
only. The bottom line is that the
program was set up to account for particular hardships, including financial.
We are dealing here‑‑and I will just talk in a
general sense of many of the stories that the individuals have gone through in
this program. I have known, Mr. Acting
Deputy Chairperson, people who with a Grade 7, Grade 8 education have upgraded
their educational skills, they have had two, three children, have gone from
being on income security, single parent with several children, Grade 7, Grade 8
education, and have completed the program.
I have had the unique experience of seeing it from both
sides because, also, I have had the privilege to be an instructor for IUN, and
having had students in the course from the social work program, I can tell you
they are second to none and would match up with any students at the
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this is what is at
stake. And you know what I find makes
people particularly bitter in the North, people who support the ACCESS
Programs? They look at other items in
the budget and they see private schools getting 8 percent more, where they see
Workforce 2000 and corporations like IBM getting $50,000 a year for corporate
training and many of the other corporations.
* (2010)
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
This is the bottom line here. There are choices that have to be made, and
this government, by insisting on moving to the full student‑loan system
of eliminating student allowances is going to be destroying the ACCESS
Program. Because I ask you to put
yourself in the position of someone who is a single parent on welfare in York
Landing, one of my communities in my constituency, looking at having to face
upwards of $8,500 a year in loans.
I will tell you, York Landing, there are no banks. I doubt there is anybody in my community of
York Landing that even has a loan, whether it be a consumer loan, let alone a
student loan. Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
you will effectively be stopping people like that from continuing the
program. Not only that, I have talked to
people in the programs and one of the items that is going to be affected by the
cuts is the ability to bring in students from remote communities. So that in itself would inhibit people from
remote communities.
It goes even beyond that.
Because of the changes‑‑whereas before, the program
administered the student allowance programs, the bottom line was they were able
to have flexibility, and when students hit a financial crisis, when they hit a
personal crisis, there was some flexibility.
Students were able to be loaned the money from their student allowance
and would pay it back at a later point in time, and it was critical in getting
people through the program.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what do you say to somebody‑‑and
I will give you one example, without mentioning names, of the kind of situation
people are faced with. A student in the
program currently whose former husband was incarcerated, then came out of jail
and started to appear back on the scene and put a tremendous amount of personal
pressure on that individual. How can you
equate that with a minister who then turns around and says, I do not want to
hear the stories, there are so many stories out there, who then equates the ACCESS
Programs with the standard programs at the universities?
You know, I went to school in Thompson, I graduated from
high school. When I went to the
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: It has been moved by the honourable member
for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) that this committee censure the Minister of
Education and Training for failing to protect the interests of disadvantaged
students by cutting ACCESS Program funding whilst continuing to provide
Workforce 2000 grants to businesses for questionable projects despite obvious
program abuses in a program where hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars
are paid in private training grants to businesses which are not being held
publicly accountable.
The motion is in order.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I feel badly that the
member for Wolseley had to bring forward this motion, and it is not in keeping
with the fact. It is beyond the answers
I have given on several occasions within the Chamber in response to questions
put forward by members opposite. As I
indicated before, all government programs, not excluding ACCESS, are not in any
way trying to diminish the remarks made by the member, particularly, for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who talked about some of the glowing success stories
under this program, which I have no difficulty believing or accepting.
* (2015)
Notwithstanding any of the commentary to this point, the
fact is that this program, no different from any other educational program,
deserved to have and has had close scrutiny and a review done, and there are
some telling aspects that have come to light.
I wish at this time I could table that analysis, but it is not complete. It will be, and the promise has been made to
make it public, but there are some telling aspects of that in‑depth
analysis.
For instance, the examples cited by the members opposite
when they talk about individuals obviously in need, individuals who in many
cases are single parents and who are trying to improve their lot through
education, I honestly sense that happens in the program. But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what we are
beginning to find is that there is no rhyme or reason to how the individuals
are selected to be a part of this program.
We are finding that in many cases the institutions themselves, the
hosting institutions, are going out and making decisions as to who gains entry
into this wonderful program.
We are beginning to find that there are even individuals
that come from, believe it or not, homes and families with significant
financial resources, certainly not the majority and maybe not even a large
minority, but certainly more than a few.
The member turns up his nose; he cannot believe it. But the fact is, we have looked at that. This is what happens when you do an analysis,
you find things out. You find out that
75 percent of the costs, or not quite, I think two‑thirds as I used in
the House the other day, do not go directly to the client but go to the
institutions. The member makes the point
that there are some tremendous results in the area of social work, and I do not
deny that, but you also find out that there are incredible job opportunities.
So why, today, regardless of what your calling is, from
where you come‑‑the members have to give me a rational argument‑‑is
it that if you are guaranteed virtually employment at the end, and indeed the
government puts up to, in some cases, $138,000 into the training of one person,
particularly those who attend university and/or $60,000 for anybody going
through post‑secondary education, somebody has to tell me in the name of
equity why those individuals should not be expected to be subject to the same
criteria as put into place for every other citizen in the province of Manitoba,
and that is you present your case to the Student Financial Assistance Appeal
Board and you be judged in that same way.
Indeed, if you are found in need, then, not through three
levels but through one level, at least you are expected to take out a Canada
Student Loan because, after all, when the state puts $138,000 into your
training, the expectation should be there that if there is a job at the end,
then you should be expected to pay some of that back. I will argue that at any time, any place with
anybody.
An Honourable Member: And you will lose.
Mr. Manness: I say to the member for Dauphin, I will not
lose. I will win, and that is what is
behind it.
So what we have said is two things; I have said two
things. I have said that firstly, if
there are administrative cost savings, and the report will point that out, and
they can be equivalent to several hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe over
$1 million, administratively, then let us take them. If the members are saying opposite, then they
are saying that they have no problem with bureaucracy, overlap, duplication,
and high administrative costs, and I have said that. Now the members may say, well, we will not
take your word for it. Fine. But again I am restating for the record, the
biggest portion of the write‑down is where we think we can find
administrative savings.
Secondly, we are saying that in cases where, if you come
from a family of means like more and more of the ACCESS students are because
there is no criteria in place for the selection, can the member today tell me
how it is one needy person is selected to be in this program over another? No, he‑‑
An Honourable Member: They have a whole series of criteria.
Mr. Manness: The institutions have criteria. That is right. Are they in keeping with what social justice
would indicate? No, the evaluation
proved that that is not the case.
An Honourable Member: Well, table it.
Mr. Manness: Well, I will.
I will when it is ready. I have
said that.
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, these are all important
dimensions, but the biggest question is, is there going to be a reduction in
the number of people who are eligible to come under this program? Absolutely not, and to the extent that
somebody who wants to come under this program fits the criteria and, thirdly,
is prepared to go through the same criteria eligibility as any other citizen of
this province, he will make it in.
* (2020)
Of course, what the citizens of this province are saying
is, my goodness, if you have good chances of employment at the end of the day,
you should be expected to have some level of indebtedness, I mean, given that
there are no end of Manitobans who today upon graduating from university have
personal debts in the area of, what, $40,000 and more.
And what is the argument?
Are there two classes of people in this country? Definitely not. When you call upon the state to support your
education, you are treated the same as all.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are talking about access to post‑secondary
education. That is what we are talking
about, and I am saying to the member and I will say to anybody who cares to
listen, the reduction, as printed, for the most part reflects administrative
savings and the fact that now part of the responsibility, the funding
liability, now will shift to the individual by a loan.
I say, that is the fairer system and I will stand up
anywhere and say so.
There may be other comments, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with
respect to this motion.
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I would like to make a few comments with respect to this
particular topic.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Could I ask you to bring your mike up so that
Hansard will pick you up.
Mr. Derkach: I would like to make a few comments with respect
to this particular motion and also with respect to the particular topic.
I guess I go back a long way in dealing with this kind of
subject and so therefore I would like to share with members of this committee
some of the things which we found when we took over government in 1988 with
respect to programs that were being offered by not only the Department of
Education at that time but by other departments as well.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one of the issues that seems to be
creeping up is a criticism of Workforce 2000 and perhaps the opposition not
wanting people who are working in industry to be retrained and trained
properly. From time to time we have seen
the argument come back and a criticism that we are spending money for big
companies, which is not true. Actually,
Workforce 2000 is meant to train the worker or retrain the worker so that he or
she can equip him or herself with a better set of skills to perform the tasks
at which he or she is employed.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I go back to 1988 when we took
government. At that time we had a
program operating called the Limestone Training Agency, and when I hear the New
Democrats criticizing Workforce 2000, all one has to do is look back at
Limestone Training. If you want to see a
horrible abuse all you have to look at is that program.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will never forget when I was
introduced to Limestone Training, I said, what kind of money did we spend on
Limestone Training over the period of time that the program was running, and I think
when the figures were all tallied up, it was something in the neighbourhood of
$42 million, and I think the budget that was set for it was somewhere around
$20 million.
Now, when you start looking at some of the projects that
had taken place and some of the training that had happened, I said, well, for
$42 million we should have had a tremendous amount of training that had taken
place. We should have had graduates and
people with certificates and curriculums all over the place because I know the
NDP have asked about curriculum for various programs in Workforce 2000.
* (2025)
Well, I can tell you that in Limestone Training I could not
find specific curriculums. I could not
find graduates in the program. I think
there were 15 or 17 graduates in total out of the program.
Now there were people who had taken programs.
[interjection] Now, the member for Thompson‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members to carry
on their conversation a little quietly, and we will have a little bit more
decorum. The honourable minister to
continue.
Mr. Derkach: ‑‑says that there were over 2,000
people trained. Now he makes the point
about the value of Workforce 2000 because you do not need to have a specific
curriculum. Indeed, if you are training
people for a skilled task, then you simply train them for it, and then you let
them get on with life.
So, therefore, I found only 17 or 18 people who had
actually graduated from programs that had certificates in them at that time.
[interjection] The member for Thompson now raises the issue of equipment. Let me tell you about equipment.
When we sold Manfor to Repap, I was invited by Repap to
come and look at a building in The Pas because he said it belonged to the
Department of Education. So I took the
time and effort to go and look at this particular building, and when I did, I
found equipment lying strewn all over the property of Manfor‑‑equipment,
heavy construction equipment that was identified as that belonging to the Limestone
Training Agency.
We started gathering up this equipment because we had lists
and lists of serial numbers of equipment that we knew was around the province
somewhere that had been bought by taxpayer dollars, and we were supposed to be
putting this to effective use.
Well, we found it all over the place, all over the
North. As a matter of fact, we had to
bring it back eventually, put it together and assemble some kind of a sale.
I have to tell you that in the back of
We found that all over the North, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. So when the NDP talk to us and want to
chastise us about using dollars for training effectively, let them not
criticize Workforce 2000 because, indeed, if we want to take a look at an abuse
of a program, all we have to do is look at Limestone Training. I have never seen such a massive abuse of
taxpayer dollars as had happened in Limestone Training.
Today we have a motion before us that wants to censure the
Minister of Education and Training. I
have to say that we have a minister here who has really identified what some of
the abuses are in taxpayer dollars with education. Indeed, he has to bring some order into this.
The member for Dauphin keeps talking about used car
salesperson training. Let me tell you,
even that training would be leagues above what was happening with Limestone
Training. Of course, the member for
Dauphin would not be interested, and he was not aware of what was going on up
north, I am sure, or else he would have spoken out against it in his own
cabinet, in his own caucus. I am sure
that no one can be so irresponsible as to stand by and watch that kind of thing
happen in northern
* (2030)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have to tell you another instance
where we had someone who was in charge of Limestone Training, who should have
been living in Thompson, was living in
What we have here today is a minister who understands the
importance of equality in training, so that people from all across this
province can get a meaningful opportunity at education and training. Yes, they have to invest some dollars. We all need to invest some dollars in
ourselves. There is nothing wrong with a
student who has a guarantee of employment after he or she has graduated to
invest some of his or her own money that they may earn in the future into that
training. It is not denying them
training at all. It is simply saying
that you are investing in yourself.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): We are living in a different world.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for
Dauphin says we are living in a different world. You bet, we are living in a different
world. Maybe the member for Dauphin had
better come to grips with reality because up until now he has not.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I believe in Manitobans getting
access to opportunities of education and training. I also understand that when someone invests
in his or her own training, they are going to be much better for it. As the Minister of Education and Training
says, a lot of the adjustments are not being made at the individual student's
level. Many of those adjustments are
made in the administrative aspects of the programs.
I have been involved in that area, and I have seen some of
the changes that have needed to be made.
Yes, we are making them, and we are making them for the benefit of
students who are going to be entering these programs in the future. If we continue to waste the money, if we
continue to simply keep throwing good money after bad, students in the future
are not going to have the opportunity that they deserve to get meaningful
training, to get meaningful education so they can contribute meaningfully to
this society.
I say that the member for Thompson has made an error. I believe the motion was made by the member
for Thompson, was it not?
An Honourable Member: Wolseley.
Mr. Derkach: Oh, I am sorry. The member for Wolseley (Mr. Friesen) makes
an error, because I believe that indeed if she had thought about it, if she had
taken a look at the history of what has gone on in education and training, she
would understand that what the minister is doing here is actually giving those
Manitobans right across this province equal access, equal opportunity, allowing
them to invest in themselves. Yes,
allowing them to take on a little bit of debt, but indeed it does put students
on a level playing field.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think that I would like to
conclude by, if I could, asking the Minister of Education whether he feels that
the rates that students who enter our institutions are on a level playing field
and indeed whether it does provide for them an equal opportunity to ACCESS
Programs regardless of the types of programs that they want to enter into.
Mr. Manness: I have enjoyed listening to the commentary
provided by my colleague because he brings forward very, very important history
with respect to what we found in the field of training and how taxpayer dollars
had been so severely abused by the government before us.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want members to know that, of
course, one can define fairness and equality in how many different ways, I
guess, it depends how many people are prepared to try and give a definition to the
word. What do we say to the public, to
those people who want to maintain the status quo and keep the numbers, given
the budget restraints, given the fact that federal government has been pulling,
pulling, pulling out of this, given the fact that under the old regime the
total numbers being able to access ACCESS would continue to fall maintaining
the status quo.
Yet what we are proposing here in terms of the change will
allow for increased entry. What do we
say? How do the members opposite‑‑when
I come out with the numbers, in 1993‑94, 744 people were part of the
ACCESS Program, and in 1994‑95, with the change in regime that we are
proposing that now 832, 11.8 percent, additional people will be able to be part
of the ACCESS Program, what do the members say publicly? How do they defend their actions? Well, they cannot. They cannot possibly defend their actions.
What are we asking?
Based upon need, because not everybody that is in this program requires
financial support. But based upon need‑‑and
the criteria eligibility put into place by the Canada Student Loan program,
regular students now, all other Manitoba students, first of all, have to borrow
$165 a week from Canada and $110 a week after that from Manitoba alone, even
though the province has to pick up 40 percent from dollar one. Then after that, for those that have need,
there is a study assistance, a bursary, nonrepayable of $40. Yet ACCESS students, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
we are asking them at Level 1, the $165 per week, to provide for their own
requirements by way of loan, of which we guarantee to pay 40 percent, guarantee
40 percent, and members somehow are saying that that is unfair.
Again, the cost of setting up these programs‑‑anywhere
from $60,000 per student for attending college, $130,000‑plus for
attending university. And we are asking
somebody‑‑guaranteed employment, to use the words of my friends in
the opposition‑‑asking them basically to have at the time of
graduation a loan, an indebtedness, in the area of $16,000 to $20,000. And that is based on a 34‑week program.
An Honourable Member: It is not a 34‑week program.
Mr. Manness: Per year.
An Honourable Member: It is not a 34‑week program.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, some are 34‑week
programs. So the member says‑‑what
is the member saying? It is a 50‑week
program? Some are longer than 34. I understand.
BUNTEP and others are longer.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the point still stands. That is why, taking into account the longer
year and obviously some of the other areas, we did not request that ACCESS
students have to flow or make requirement for the second and third levels.
So I say to the member opposite it is certainly fairness
that is in place. But, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, what else are we doing with this savings? Well, just recently the new centre‑‑the
member would know this, that BUNTEP opened the new centre in Thompson. The member knows that. It opened at the end of April, just this
summer. Oh no, we did not hear anything
about the‑‑
An Honourable Member: Well, you did nothing. You had nothing to do with that. It was KCC that provided the service.
Mr. Manness: Ah, we did nothing. We did nothing‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would ask the honourable members to please
refrain from ruining the decorum within my committee. I am really having a hard time hearing the
minister and I am sitting next to him.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what a foolish
statement the member for Thompson says:
It was not you, it was KCC. Who
funds KCC? The taxpayers of the
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member one more
time to just refrain a little bit while the minister‑‑everyone will
have an opportunity. Order, please. Everyone will have an opportunity to put
their words on the record, but this time it is the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) on a point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
we did not say anything when the minister was initially recognized, although we
are debating the motion. The minister
who spoke previously, the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) had,
when we were debating a motion, asked a question to the minister. You then recognized the minister.
* (2040)
I would ask, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if perhaps we cannot
have some alternation in debate. We are
quite willing to hear the Minister of Education's debate on this particular
matter, but I believe that the normal procedure is when we are dealing with a
motion, we are debating the motion. We
are not in the normal process of asking questions to the minister and dealing
with a line item.
So if I am a little bit anxious about the minister speaking
for the second time on what was a question from the member for Roblin‑Russell
(Mr. Derkach), I would perhaps ask that we have some alternation between
members, because I know some of our members in particular have a lot of points
they want to put on the debate on this motion, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of
order, but I would like to inform the committee that I will not be keeping a
formal list, but I have had hands coming up all over the place. I will get to each and every one of you as
soon as I possibly can. At this time the
honourable minister has the floor.
* * *
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was reacting to the
statement when I thought I heard the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) say that
it was not in essence taxpayers. He did
not use the word, but in the sense he said KCC funded this, I say well from
where did KCC get‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, all I know is that federal
government has been backing out of ACCESS since we took office. The former Minister of Northern and Native
Affairs, he made several trips down to
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member does not have to give me
a history lesson on ACCESS funding. Our
government has fought and fought and fought and picked up more and more of the
cost every year, and yet when we try to make a change in program which is going
to be fairer to everybody, every post‑secondary student in the province,
which is also going to allow for greater opportunity of entry by the client
group that the member is supposedly speaking on behalf of today, and when we
try to allow some of the saving to flow over‑‑and who knows where,
there could be another post‑secondary institution hosted location or
event or program in the North‑‑the members opposite say no, keep
the status quo.
Keep the existing program but put more money at it, because
what they are saying is that the program that we have in place now has been in
place for 10 years and it has worked perfectly.
No changes. And I am saying to
the member, nonsense, there is not a program in government that should not be
studied, No. 1, and No. 2, reflected upon, and certainly if the evaluations
point out that there should be changes, let the changes flow.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the members, after they see the
report, will stand and applaud the action of this government.
An Honourable Member: Table it.
Mr. Manness: The member says table it. I have full intention of tabling it when it
is in a form ready to be tabled. I have
had it for a long time, but the consultants still are not done. I have had a draft copy for a long time.
I again point this out for the record. The members can make all of the commentaries
they want, but the fact is most of the saving, the printed saving, will be in
the areas of administration and also in asking some of the students to take on
some indebtedness.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot believe that members
opposite would not want a program that was fairer and allowing greater entry
into it. It makes no sense to me. I cannot believe that they would not want us,
be encouraging us to make the changes that would allow for greater access to
the program, but the members do not see that.
They see it purely as a cost‑cutting move because it
prints from 99 down to 79, and they figure they can make an awful lot of
political hay on this, that they can go and beat the bushes and try and have
people convinced we are throwing them out of the program, and, of course,
nothing is further from the truth.
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will not even move into the
Workforce 2000 program aspect of the motion because I know we are coming up to
that line and the member for Wolseley particularly will want to spend a lot of
time on that issue. So it is probably
not in keeping with the desire of many of the other people at this table to
want to speak to move into Workforce 2000 at this time.
But let me reiterate for the final time, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, this program change was made purely on the basis of fairness to
all of those people who want to access post‑secondary education
institutions within our province.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
What I would like to be able to do is to first ask just a
couple of very brief questions with reference to the ACCESS. The minister indicated that in the '93‑94
year there were 744 students that went through ACCESS, for '94‑95, 832
students. I just want to confirm those
numbers, and if, in fact, the minister can indicate would there be any change
or level of funding to those individuals year over year.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. At this time I would like to remind the
honourable members that we are debating a motion that was brought forward by
the member for Wolseley. We will have an
opportunity to ask the minister a number of questions once we get into the
direct line, which is ACCESS Programs, but at this time I would like to remind
the honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Just to speak on that, we have the NDP critic
indicating that there has been a significant cut in funding to the
program. I think it is important that we
understand as a committee in terms of the real impact of that particular cut,
and that is the reason why I had asked the question in terms of, in real terms,
how many individuals or the number of students will this actually have an
impact on. So I would ask the minister
if he could just clarify those numbers for me.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would like to bring to the attention of the
committee that I believe if there are any questions within your debate that you
are putting forward on this motion, I am sure the minister will have plenty of
opportunity when he comes back again to answer those questions. At this time, I do believe the proper way to
handle this is for the members to move into the debate, unless it is the will
of the committee that the minister be allowed to answer questions during this
debate. What is the will of the
committee?
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: On a point of order, I think that it is most
appropriate to be able to ask a question of the minister to find out, in fact,
the real impact this motion is going to have.
So it is strictly relative to the motion at hand, and we would not want
to have individuals voting, not having the necessary information for us.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Wolseley on the
issue of‑‑[interjection] The honourable member for Thompson, on
another‑‑
* * *
Mr. Ashton: On a matter of procedure really. It is not essentially on a matter of order.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: This is on a matter of procedure because at
this time I am just getting to see if the committee is willing to allow the
minister to answer some questions during the debate.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I realize that the
Liberals may have some difficulty making up their minds on the resolution. I just want some assurance that if it is
going to require questions, there will be a limit to the number of questions,
that we are not going to be here for God knows how many days while the member
for
* (2050)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Then, with leave, we will allow the
honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not entirely
convinced that one should not be able to ask questions prior to being able to
vote on the motion. But the question has
already been put. I would ask the
minister whether or not he can respond to the actual number of individuals that
this will have an impact on in terms of future students and the type of
resources in particular in terms of forgiveness of the individuals applying for
this particular program.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I said before,
right today, enrolled in all the programs, in terms of this school year, '93‑94,
there are presently, or at least to start off with, 744 individuals. The expectation, the information that we have
been receiving, is that in terms of '94‑95, the number will grow by 11.8
percent to 832 in all of the ACCESS Programs.
Now, obviously, some number of the 832 then are going to
have some level of indebtedness associated with their studies.
Mr. Lamoureux: But the figure that we see is in fact to
facilitate the 832.
Mr. Manness: Yes.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess this would be
a question for the mover of the motion, in trying again to get a better‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member cannot put forward
questions to the mover, but if the mover so chooses, when she takes the floor‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I
have been inside committee before where motions have been moved and questions
have been put. I would ask maybe that
the Deputy Chairperson take it under advisement before we start ruling out any
questioning of a motion. I think it is
ridiculous not to be able to ask some questions for clarification. In fact, I am not going to hide behind rules.
If in fact they do not want to provide
information, fine, we can have the question.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not think the
motion could be clearer. We are opposed
to the cuts in ACCESS funding; the government feels it is the appropriate
course of action, and we have pinpointed the fact that we would rather see the
money in ACCESS than Workforce 2000. I
do not think we have to spend much more time.
It is a question of which side of the issue you are
on. We know which side we are on. I know which side the government is on. I am not sure which side the Liberals are
on. If they need time to decide that, I
would suggest they discuss it within their caucus rather than waste the time of
the committee back and forth in terms of questions. I mean, we cannot make up their mind for them.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Could I just have one minute while I do a
little bit of research here?
Order, please. The
honourable member did not have a point of order. If the honourable member wants to put his
question on the record, I am sure when the honourable member for Wolseley has
her opportunity to speak to the motion she will answer the question directly.
* * *
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just wanted to make
a couple of points here. First of all, I
found it interesting when I heard the former Minister of Education speaking
about Limestone Training and the total negative impacts it has had on northern
people. I find that very surprising
coming from a former minister. [interjection] Well, you said it was a total
waste of money.
The other statement was what happened to the trainees,
where are they now, and that there was only a few number that graduated. I think you used the word 16 graduates or 17
graduates. That really surprises me, but
in a way it does not because it shows how so out of touch the former Minister
of Education is pertaining to northern
When you deal with individuals that are going for
certification in carpentry, in plumbing, in electrical [interjection] No, I was
not in carpentry. [interjection] I used to be.
To say now that only 17 graduated with their certificates, I think that
is a great accomplishment. When we
looked in
To say now after a program that was in place from 1986 to
even today, it was started in '85 and it was finished in 1989, that is four
years. If you know anything about
apprenticeship, anything about northern
So the Minister of Education does not even understand
that. So how can you complete four years
when you are only employed three months out of the year? That is the construction phase in northern
So when you look at that‑‑and if you want a
true gauge, look at some of the people, do an assessment of how many northern
Manitobans received their carpenter papers from 1985 to 1994, where some of
them have had the opportunity to accumulate their required number of hours to
write for their papers.
Most individuals cannot even write their first‑year
papers until after at least three or four years of job opportunity. So how can you say that they only graduated
17 when if you want a true assessment, if you want to look at a true
assessment, look at how many people graduated from Level I, how many graduated
from Level II, how many graduated from Level III, and then how many graduated
from Level IV. How many are still
working to try and accumulate their hours to get their papers? If you go to any northern community in any
northern reserve, who is building the houses today? It is not the southern contractors.
An Honourable Member: They are not Limestone students either.
Mr. Hickes: You go up there and have a look.
Before the people that built those houses used‑‑most
of those houses were built by southern contractors, the employment
opportunities were from southern people that took the jobs from those
communities, where it was 85, 90, 95 percent of the people unemployed, and
today you go there it is the local people that are doing the work, and most of
them are still on apprenticeship programs.
If you look at who is running the heavy equipment in those
communities, who is maintaining the roads, who is driving the trucks, if you
look at who is driving the trucks, who is working for the bands, it is the
people that got their training through Limestone Training. Most of them got their training through
there.
The other thing was what the minister had said, and I am
really surprised that his staff never educated him on this. He said he went to the Manfor site and there
was a whole field of used and old equipment just sitting there.
An Honourable Member: It is
Mr. Hickes: Yes,
* (2100)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I am really having a hard time hearing the
honourable member for Point Douglas. The
honourable member for Point Douglas to continue, please.
Mr. Hickes: That is the other point I wanted to make,
because a lot of that equipment that was sold off for nothing was very valuable
equipment. There was a brand new CAT. It was brand new, it was running, and it was
the same CAT and the loader that they used at Limestone Training that we used
for training, and the northern‑‑[interjection] There was nothing
wrong with it.
The northern communities could have used that equipment,
and what did they do? They auctioned it
off and they got nothing for it. Very,
very little. Instead of looking at it
and helping the northern communities‑‑[interjection] It shows how
little the former minister understands.
The other thing that Limestone Training did was it
engineered, it helped to get aboriginal people into the engineering
program. They did upgrading in the
chemistry and the maths area for aboriginals to get into the engineering
program, and those people that went into the engineering program, there were
five that graduated this year. If they
had not got that opportunity to upgrade, there would not be five aboriginal
engineers that graduated from that program.
When you get into the ACCESS Programs, ACCESS was started
10 years ago. If you looked 10 years
ago, how many aboriginal people did you see in Manitoba that were engineers,
dentists, doctors, social workers, teachers?
How many? There was very very
few. That is why the ACCESS Program was
brought into place, to try and help the aboriginal community to get the proper
education to start delivering‑‑
An Honourable Member: It was more than aboriginals.
Mr. Hickes: Well, minorities came on, but most of your
students are aboriginal.
An Honourable Member: But there was more than that.
Mr. Hickes: Yes, I fully understand, but most of your
students from the ACCESS Program were aboriginal, and the reason that ACCESS
Program was brought in was to try and get more aboriginal people into the
employment opportunities that we did not have access to. That was the whole purpose of it.
An Honourable Member: It was not just for aboriginal people.
Mr. Hickes: No, I am not saying that, but I said most of
your students were aboriginal people.
That is what I said. I made that
very clear. Most of them were. Most of the students that are ACCESS students
are single parents. So when you talk
about individuals that have to now take out loans or work part time, where do
the single parents get the time? Where?
They are trying to raise a family. They are trying to study. They are trying to take upgrading in order to
try and succeed in their chosen careers, and a lot of them are in 11‑month
programs.
If you look at the Winnipeg Education Centre, they are
there for 11 months, and the same as most of your programs. If you look back and you say, well, we want
to be fair to everybody, and we want to make sure because they are going to get
employment opportunities, look at how much money the government is saving. Most of the students that are in ACCESS
Programs, they come from welfare. Did
you know that? From welfare.
Do you want to continue paying welfare for‑‑what?‑‑20,
30 more years? It costs you more to keep
a person on welfare for 20, 30 years than to pay for education for‑‑what?‑‑four
years, five years in some cases. It is a
heck of a lot cheaper. That is where
most of the students come from, from the welfare rolls. So why are you cutting it now? By cutting it, by changing the criteria, you
cut 20 percent from the funding.
But anyway, when you reduce the funding or make it harder
for individuals to succeed, like I said, most of them are single parents that
are now trying to upgrade themselves, trying to get an education, trying to
raise their children, and now you are saying, now you have to work part time to
try and make ends meet.
Did you know most of these students that are ACCESS
students already have to take out additional loans and additional dollars in
order to succeed? The minister says it
is because we want everyone to be the same, we want to be fair to
everyone. Well, if the minister would
look back 10 years ago, there were very few aboriginal people going to
university, and ask yourself why. The
other thing was, who had access to university, who those people were, and you
will see most of them came right out of high school or most of them were single
people that had the opportunity to live with their parents or had parents that
were well enough off, that could subsidize and help them to get through
university. That is who the university
students were.
Now we see aboriginal people that are now getting the
opportunity to get educated and the opportunity to make a better life for their
families. Now we see the government
trying to cut that back.
So that way, what you see is this government bringing undue
hardship directly, because the majority of your students are aboriginal, upon
aboriginal people when we have the same government, an all‑party
agreement of supporting the inherent right to self‑government.
What? It is a simple
question. What is the key to aboriginal
self‑government? It has to be
education; it has to be education.
Without the aboriginal people having education opportunities, self‑government
is doomed. Government, they must
understand that. So how can you support
the program? How many students will be
able to attend ACCESS with‑‑[interjection] You believe it is really
more? It is not more. [interjection] You
would not have more. You know that, and
I know that. I hope the aboriginal
community will challenge the government in some form on this because it is so
crucial for the wish of self‑government to come about to have proper
education.
Just go back 10 years. [interjection] Well, go back 10
years. I asked you a question. How many aboriginal people had university
degrees 10 years ago, and then today, and now you know how many more have it
because of the ACCESS Programs. You
cannot put more barriers. You are just
putting more barriers back onto people.
When we talk about training programs, the community of
Wabowden is asking for truck driver training programs. If Limestone was such a big failure, why are
they asking for truck driver training programs now? Do you know?
I really believe that the government has to reassess this, and I hope
they will in their wisdom choose not to penalize aboriginal people any further
and to ensure that the aboriginal people‑‑no more hoops, no more
barriers to leap through, because most of those have been eliminated, and to
continue to help promote the wishes of aboriginal people for self‑government.
I was really amazed when I saw all of the ACCESS students
in the gallery. There was about 70 of
them that were going to be directly hit by this, and most of them were single
parents trying to raise families, and they said, you know, we do take out loans
and everything else. Then I saw the
Liberal critic out in the hallway, the great saviours of ACCESS, and I think
the Liberals forget that in 1988 they campaigned to cut or eliminate the ACCESS
Program, to eliminate it and campaigned on it.
Then in the next breath, when there are 70 students out
there, they are in the hallway, the saviours of ACCESS‑‑[interjection]
No, it was not Kevin, it was their Education critic. I spoke to some of those students, and they
said do not worry, the Liberals‑‑and I kindly reminded them what
their campaign promises were.
This is such an important vote that we have, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I move that the question be now put.
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just on a point of
order, we would like to be able to continue to discuss this particular
resolution, and I think it is important to note that the member from Point
Douglas (Mr. Hickes) is in fact limiting the debate, and we find that most
inappropriate for the official opposition party.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
Voice Vote
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those in favour that the question now be
put, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): I request a formal
vote.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested.
Order, please. I
would like to inform the honourable member for Thompson that two members have
to request the vote. We are going to
adjourn for a few minutes.
* (2110)
Members, rise to go to the House for a formal vote, please.
The committee recessed
at 9:10 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at
9:34 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. At this time we will still be debating the
motion of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, indeed once again I
am somewhat relieved that democracy has prevailed. I know that this is not necessarily the first
time in which we have unfortunately had to entertain a motion of closure from
the official opposition. In fact‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: A point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the
Liberal House leader should know somewhat better, know that we are now debating
the motion. I assume by the decision
that was just taken in the House that that is what his intention would be. It is definitely not in order to revisit a
decision of the House, and I would suggest you ask him to bring his comments to
order, in particular to the motion that is before us.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member, I am sure, is getting
close to dealing with the issue before us at this time, and the honourable
member did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can understand why
the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) would be very sensitive. After all, back at the beginning of June 1994
was the last time when he, in fact, had moved a motion of closure, and‑‑
An Honourable Member: We have not hit June '94.
Mr. Lamoureux: June of '91.
Somewhat scary‑‑whenever I look at the member for Thompson,
I guess it kind of brings it out on me.
I recall the headline where it read the member for Thompson was in
wonderland as NDP urges closure, and one could go on for quite awhile.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I remind the honourable member that we
are dealing with the motion put forward by the honourable member for Wolseley
(Ms. Friesen), and there are many members who would like to put their words of
wisdom on the record.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the motion the New
Democratic Party has brought in is something that we will in fact be
supporting, but there are some concerns we do have with respect to this
particular motion.
The New Democratic Party has been very hesitant in terms of
any form of support for Workforce 2000.
We share a number of the concerns that they have in terms of monitoring
and accountability and how it is being implemented, but we recognize and
acknowledge that there is a need for a program like Workforce 2000 and that
both programs should, in fact, be working and complementing each other.
With reference to remarks that the member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes) had put onto the record in terms of the Liberal Party's previous
position on this particular issue, I would take exception to those remarks and
would ask the member for Point Douglas to actually bring forward what it is
that he is referring to when he says that the Liberal Party did not support the
ACCESS Program. I will wait for those
particular remarks.
I would have liked to have seen a better explanation from
the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) when she brought in the motion, because I
think that there are some concerns, some questions that could have been
answered, understanding that we could not ask specific questions. I guess had we had the opportunity to ask
some questions, one could have sought clarification from the member for
Wolseley with respect to what is the position of the New Democratic Party with
respect to the Workforce 2000 program as a whole.
Hopefully, in somewhat of a preamble to the motion, the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) would have had the opportunity, because if
the New Democratic Party's position is that they do not support the Workforce
2000 program in its entirety, we would disagree with that. If it is just the grants that they are
calling into question, it would be nice to receive a full list of the grants
that they are calling into question.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know in the past that they have
been very critical of some‑‑and no doubt for good reason, but I
would challenge them to indicate in terms of what it is that they find about
some of the occupations that they criticize. [interjection]
No, we are speaking about the motion. The motion refers to Workforce 2000, for the
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). He
should have read the motion himself.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do believe that it is appropriate
to have given some form of a detailed explanation in terms of the content of
the motion, much like I thought it was appropriate to get some sort of an idea
from the Minister of Education in terms of the number of students this is going
to be having an impact on.
With those few words, I will indicate that we will be
supporting the motion, but we do have some reservations with respect to why it
is the New Democratic Party does not accept, at the very least, the
concept. We share their concerns with
respect to the monitoring of the Workforce 2000 program, but we do not share
the thought that the program should be put to a complete halt.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
* (2140)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The question before the committee is the
motion of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
Voice Vote
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): I would request a
formal vote, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: And the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) is here as well.
Two members have requested a formal vote. We will now proceed to the Chamber for a
formal vote.
The committee recessed
at 9:40 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at
10:33 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. When this committee last sat, we were dealing
with 4.(b) ACCESS Programs $7,903,200.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think the motion
that was carried in the Chamber speaks volumes in terms of what the general
feeling is with respect to the government's treatment of the ACCESS Program
which has been concerns which have been expressed through Question Periods and
so forth. Hopefully, the Minister of
Education (Mr. Manness) will give it reconsideration in terms of what it is he
is doing with this particular program.
I would ask the Minister of Education what he is prepared
to do with respect to the ACCESS Program, given the most recent vote inside the
Chamber.
Mr. Manness: Well, I am just absolutely delighted the
member has put that question. I have
learned long ago that it is better to put your fate in the House of all the
elected people rather than committees.
If the member is saying the fate of ACCESS is directly proportional to
the way a committee of the House has reflected upon the issue, I would say no,
let us go right to the House as the final authority.
The skirmishes that we have gone through tonight will not
cause me to change my mind with respect to what has been done in allowing
greater entry for more people into a program that the government, obviously,
has supported over the years and found millions of dollars more when the
federal government was backing out of this program and have been very supportive
of the program.
So I want the record, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to show very
clearly a number of things, and some of them will be repetitive. First of all, the government supports the
program. The government has made a
commitment of millions of dollars of additional funding to the program over the
course of seven budgets. The change
reflected in this budget is one where, first of all, we were trying to reduce
the administrative costs in the institutions which are providing this service
and in our sense, in some respects, have additional costs built in which we
really should not be paying for. Thirdly
and most importantly, in fairness to all of the post‑secondary students
in this province, many who have sizable loan portfolios upon leaving the post‑secondary
school education system, that they be treated no differently than any other
citizen in the province.
So we stand by the decision, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and I
will again put the House's faith into a decision as to whether or not I be
censured. What I find kind of different
is that, of course, the Liberal Party‑‑I agree with the NDP in one
sense‑‑did not know where they were coming from on this one or
where they are going. They still do not
even know what ACCESS does, let alone where they want to stand on the issue.
The Liberals are going to have a lot of explaining to do
over the course of the next number of months, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. One thing I have learned about Manitoba
Liberals, they are an awful lot different than Atlantic Canada Liberals. Atlantic Canada Liberals, they have some
basis. They have some principle, and
they have some focus. They know what
direction they are going.
I have watched this party over the last six years under two
Leaders, and I have never seen a party vacillate more, stand on one foot then
to the other, shift. There is an old
saying, if you stand for nothing, you will fall for everything, and the
Liberals, of course, have shown that to me over and over and over again over
the course of the last six or eight years.
I will tell you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not troubled
by this, because when we take this motion to the House like we will, the
Liberals may very well stand and support the government because it is 24 hours
hence and, you never know, there could be a mind shift again. So I am not going to lose a lot of sleep
about it, and yet I have to point out that the Liberals feel, of course, that
they were duped by the NDP.
They did not know this motion was coming so they are kind
of angry at the NDP. But when it came
down to the 11th hour, in this case the 12th hour, of course they showed their
true colours, and that is, try to take the political advantage while you can
because tomorrow you may have changed your mind and missed the moment.
I mean‑‑no, I will not say that into the
record, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I was
going to relate it to real life experiences when there are only two people
involved. But let me‑‑from
different genders, too, I might add. Do
you want me to stop? So I hope I have answered
the member's question in totality.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can understand why
it is that the Minister of Education would now be somewhat embarrassed, or at
least he should be.
Mr. Manness: I may be a lot of things right now, but I am
not embarrassed.
Mr. Lamoureux: He says he is not embarrassed. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was there when the
Minister of Education was then the Minister of Finance, and we were in a
committee room when he decided, well, as minister responsible for Repap I am
done answering questions and took the liberty to walk outside of the committee
room and grind things to a halt. I
remember the research that was done on that particular case, in which‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members to please
refer a little bit to (b) ACCESS Programs $7,903,200? I believe the motion that we had in the House
has already been taken care of, and at this time we are dealing with ACCESS.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was just drawing
the similarities to that particular incident and the incident that we just
finished having inside the Chamber, where once again this particular minister
is breaking new grounds. I have only
been here, albeit, somewhat six years. I
would turn to the dean of the Chamber, and I do not know if he might, in fact,
be able to advise me on whether or not he is ever aware of a minister that has
been actually censured before. So I do
not think this is something that should be taken all that lightly. I know if I was in the minister's situation
it would be somewhat embarrassing.
* (2240)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again I would ask the Minister of
Education‑‑he has made reference to a number of individuals who
have expressed an interest in '94‑95, where he is anticipating, I believe
it was 832. I am wondering if he can
comment in terms of the general demand of the program. Is this something that is coming more so from‑‑the
increased demand, is it more so from rural Manitoba predominately or the city
of Winnipeg?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, certainly still the
largest demand is from northern Manitoba.
I mean, that is a given, given the history of the course. But there is also a growing demand by those
who of course see an incredible deal, I mean an incredible opportunity, people
who may in some cases have sufficient means of their own, but they see this as
an underwriting of a total government program.
Again, in some cases over $100,000, and of course, they are growingly
interested also.
So the question is then, what criteria are used and who
should make these decisions? Who makes
the decisions today with respect to who is eligible to be part of the ACCESS
Program? Well, that is a question worth
asking, and it is one worth answering. I
dare say, once the report comes down, it will probably draw some attention to
that question.
So I say that geographically most of the greater demand
comes from northern Manitoba. We
understand that. That is why we continue
to support the program, and that is why, even though there will be a new regime
of support, it will be there to provide greater opportunities or an opportunity
for greater numbers, and that again speaks to our overall support of the
program.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am wondering if the
minister can indicate whether or not there has been any background work to
substantiate that the ability or the means of individuals able to participate
in this program have been enhanced through other programs that no longer
require them to have the subsidization that is currently there?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will try and attempt to make it a
bit more clear. Can the minister
indicate whether or not the financial capabilities of individuals that are
applying for this particular program have in fact been that much greater? Are there individuals that have more money‑‑as
the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) says‑‑able to
participate in this particular program?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you cannot make
categorical statements. What the review
has indicated is that there are some people presently in the course who come
from economic backgrounds‑‑certainly not the majority, as I have
said before, maybe not even a large minority‑‑but there are some
cases where we sense there are means in place that would dictate that
individuals present that information by way of student loan application and let
the same criteria that are in place for every other Manitoban be in place for
them. Nothing more.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to ask about
the report that has been done on the ACCESS Programs that the minister is
refusing to release, either by freedom of information, which I requested many
months ago and which the minister has said no to, and again in this
session. The minister has refused to
table that report, so that the very basis of the minister's observations, the
leaps of faith that the minister is making in estimating the number of students
who will be involved in ACCESS Programs under his new criteria, are simply not
available to anyone else other than the minister. I want to know how the minister defends that
in front of the Legislature.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I feel compelled to
put some information on the record. I
was hoping to see it released as part of the whole overall assessment in the
evaluation document on the ACCESS Program.
It should be noted that the ACCESS students were surveyed,
and 26 percent of a very healthy, large base number that were surveyed. These results came forward in '93‑94. ACCESS students who applied for Canada
Student Loan in their first year of study had access to more or comparable
resources than other regular applicants in six of eight Canada Student Loan
group types.
Secondly, in three married, single, parent group types
analyzed for '93‑94, ACCESS students applying for a Canada Student Loan
in their first year of study had, on average, more resources than regular
students applying for Canada Student Loans in their first year of study.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not make these decisions
lightly. We do not rush into a program
which we have supported with millions of dollars, put ministers on the road
several times to convince Ottawa that it was not worthy for them to reduce
their level of funding. We believe in
this program. We always have.
As I said to the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), and
as I have said to other members, because a program has been around for 10 years
does not allow it to be stamped as a sacred program. This government has committed to itself, and
indeed to the people of this province, that programs, when they are around for
awhile, will be reviewed and analyzed, and if they are found wanting they will
be changed. That is the hallmark of this
government, and no program escapes, including ACCESS.
So we brought outside people in to review it in a
dispassionate and objective fashion. The
surveys were done. The scientific
techniques to analyze this program were put into place, and it was found
wanting in some respects when put into comparison with what is available for
the vast number of individuals in our society who have to borrow money for post‑secondary
education purposes, and we have made the change.
But there are people across the way who say you cannot
change it, do not dare change it unless you put more money in to maintain the
status quo. That is not acceptable, and
they can make all the political commentary they want. The Liberals can fall off any log they have
ever stood on with respect to objectivity.
It is a pretty narrow fence. It
will hold a Liberal up on objectivity, I can tell you‑‑or a pretty
wide fence. But the reality is tonight
they have shown me that they took the cheap political side, and that they do
again, that they would use political expediency over common sense all the time.
Now, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with that information, which
will be part of the larger report when it is released, I hope the members
understand why it is that we have made some of the changes that are emerging,
and that they realize that it is government's responsibility in support of the
taxpayers to review all programs, and when they are found wanting in some
respect, that changes have to be made.
Changes always cannot call upon additional resources. Those days are gone.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister is
asking us to take a great deal on faith.
The minister has specifically refused, through freedom of information,
to allow us to have access to the same numbers that he has. The minister now quotes us one selected
statistic from that report. He may or
may not be right, but because he has specifically refused to allow us access to
the same information that he has, we have no way of evaluating the selective
numbers that he is giving us.
* (2250)
In '93‑94, if those were the people who were surveyed
under the Hikel report. There had
already been substantial changes to ACCESS Programs at that point as a result
of the withdrawal of funds by the federal government. The nature of selection had already changed
by '93‑94, so the very students whom you are surveying in '93‑94,
those in the first year, are quite different than the ACCESS Program had been
over the years.
An Honourable Member: So?
Ms. Friesen: Well, the minister says so. It is very difficult to get across to him
that what he has done is changed the basis of selection in the ACCESS
Program. Selection was one of the bases
of success, of retention in the program.
Those are the hallmarks of success of this program, is the nature of the
high rate of retention. I assume that
the Hikel report also looks at that. I
would like to have access to the same numbers that the minister does. Why is he consistently refusing, in writing
and again in front of this committee, to give the public access to a report for
which they paid and for which the minister is now making substantial changes to
a program?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if these Estimates
were held in June, they may very well have that report ready for tabling at
that time. I do not now. Now the member says, why do you not make it
available right now? Because it is not ready.
[interjection] Yes, we made the decision, and we are held accountable for those
decisions. We are governing. This party is governing, and we have made the
decisions. You are right, we made it,
but the member is right. She refers to
Mr. Hikel. Well, what did we do? Did we reach the wrong person?
Ms. Friesen: I have no idea.
Mr. Manness: Well, but the point being, I mean, we reached
to a former assistant deputy minister of Income Security under the NDP. That is who we asked to do this survey,
somebody who is knowledgeable in the whole program and the whole social program
area, and who formerly taught in the ACCESS Program. Now, the members may call into question the
methodology, and they are speculating on that too unless they know for sure,
but the reality is now, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that when the report is complete
and it is in a form that can be shared, it will be shared.
The member talks about eligibility. I mean, can she tell me from the university
perspective how students are chosen? Can
she tell me how one disadvantaged, needy student is chosen over another? She does not have a clue, because there are
no criteria in place today, no consistent, objective criteria in place for
selecting one student over another.
So how do you work a program that way? Who gets the benefit of the scarce number of
positions? Who receives that? Who makes that decision? The institution? The band?
Well, of course, nobody really knows, because you have a system today
which confers upon some individuals an incredible benefit, and yet there is no
consistency of selection criteria.
Vis‑à‑vis other students in our province, many
who upon graduation have a student loan which they have to deal with for some
number of years‑‑so why do the members not at least have the
courage to come out and say that post‑secondary education should be a
free good to everybody? Why do they not
have the courage and the gall at least to do that, but they do not. They do not, because that is the ultimate in
fairness to make it a free good to everybody.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, well, the minister
has responded first of all by bringing into question the capabilities and the
impartiality of the person who did the survey.
I will remind the minister that he is the one who raised that. I am asking specifically for public
information. I have done it in writing,
asking for freedom of information on this report so that we might be able to
judge the kinds of decisions which the minister has made and the kind of policy
which the government has put into place.
That has been denied. The issue
is not at all the‑‑[interjection]
Well, the minister is saying‑‑but in fact I
have asked for freedom of information on this report, and it has been
denied. Does the minister have an
alternative explanation?
Mr. Manness: The member has been advised that this
information, this document will be provided within the 90 days that is eligible
under the freedom of information legislation.
The member has been advised. She
knows fully well this document, this evaluation, this internal assessment done
by Hikel of Peat Marwick will be made available to her.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I applied for this
information well in advance of Estimates so that I would be in a position to
discuss in a rational manner, using the same information that the minister had
available to him, the kind of policy decisions which he has been making. That information was denied. The issue is not the person who has conducted
this. The issue is the methodology; the
issue is the generation of students which has been surveyed and the kind of
results which have been accumulated and which have been denied in preparation
for these Estimates.
The minister has also said on other occasions that portions
of that report may be made available, so I am interested now, is he now
committing himself to table formally the entire report?
Mr. Manness: No, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as the member
knows fully well, we indicated that the full report would be provided.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I must say to the
minister, he should appreciate our frustration here. The minister has made a significant decision
in terms of the ACCESS Program, and the minister should realize, in going
through the Estimates, that this is a significant decision, certainly in terms of
the percentage of funding that is affected, regardless of where that money
comes from in terms of administration and other items or directly in terms of
student allowances. That is one of our
major frustrations here.
The minister has a study which the minister is quoting from
partially, which, he says, has not been finished, and yet the government has
gone ahead and made the decision anyway.
I would ask what some member of the public would think of this. Why have this study in the first place if it is
not available at this point in time, when we have had a situation where the
government has made a decision, and this committee now is reviewing the
decision, and by its own motion of a few minutes ago has indicated its strong
opposition to the cuts that have taken place to ACCESS? That is, indeed, one of the first concerns
that I think should be placed clearly on the record.
The second point, I find it is quite interesting because
the minister talked about administrative savings as being part of the area in
which this money would come from. We do
have one document that has been released.
It has been a public document‑‑the Roblin report. What did the Roblin report say in terms of
post‑secondary education in northern Manitoba? It said what we on this side of the House,
the New Democratic Party, had been saying for a considerable period of time,
and that is, there is a need for a co‑ordinating body in northern
Manitoba to ensure that the best use of resources is made.
In fact, we have repeatedly moved resolutions in the House
calling for a northern university, a northern polytechnic, whatever framework
you want to talk about, because we have said from Day One that a lot can be
done in terms of bringing resources together.
I just want to add something to the record: It is obvious that the minister and some of
his colleagues are not aware of what is happening in terms of ACCESS Programs,
because there was some reference made to the BUNTEP centre in Thompson. I want to place this on the record, because I
think it is indicative of the fact that this government has not moved
whatsoever in terms of providing that co‑ordination.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what happened essentially is
that the BUNTEP program in Thompson was unable to afford to pay for the rented
spaces it had. The BUNTEP program
approached KCC for space‑‑KCC indicated that space would be
available, and this is KCC now under the current governance, et cetera‑‑it
did not go directly to the government.
But I did not let it rest at that point, I was contacted by people who
were concerned about the future of the program, because if BUNTEP did not have
a home in Thompson, there would be no BUNTEP in Thompson. It was very clearly stated.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, you know what I had to
do? I
have raised it in the Legislature, I have raised it in correspondence, I
have raised it repeatedly with the previous Minister of Education. I realize the minister has been subsequently
appointed and may not realize what the minister responded: The Minister of Education indicated that she
had no control over this, that this would not be something that she would make
any recommendation on, and that I should contact BUNTEP. Of course, we went around this circular
argument, BUNTEP said they did not have the money, and we ended back at square
one.
* (2300)
Point of Order
Mr. Brian Pallister
(Portage la Prairie): I realize that this information, Mr. Acting
Deputy Chairperson, will look very nice in the campaign literature in Thompson,
but I fail to see what relevance it has to what we are discussing here.
An Honourable Member: Maybe you have not been following the
Estimates.
Mr. Pallister: No, I have been following them, and I fail to
see what relevance it has to the topic at hand.
I think it would be very nice to get back to the point of the discussion
in the interests of all committee members, except the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton).
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): The honourable
member did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Ashton: I would just like to point out to the member
for Portage that BUNTEP is an ACCESS Program.
It was raised originally in discussion in the debate earlier tonight,
and that is what I am responding to.
But I want to point out what happened with the BUNTEP
program, what it had to go through to be able to remain operational in
Thompson. Do you know what they had to
do to get the capital renovations funding to be able to move into that
building? They got nothing from the
provincial government. The former
Minister of Northern Affairs was talking earlier as if, oh, somehow they were
responsible for it.
What happened was, I ran into the director of BUNTEP
downtown in Thompson, my wife and I, and we recommended that they look at using
the UI system. They got individuals
under the UI system‑‑this is under the UI system where you pay a
small top‑up on the wages‑‑who then did the capital work in
that facility. So it was under a federal
government UIC top‑up program that it was done‑‑no co‑ordination,
no funding, no direction, no commitment, nothing at the provincial level. The previous Minister of Education was quite
happy to sit back and say, it is none of my business.
My point to the minister‑‑and this is very
relevant when you are talking about ACCESS‑‑before you hack the
money out of ACCESS, I would suggest to this minister that he look at the
recommendations of the Roblin report and bring in that kind of co‑ordination,
which would not only provide those cost savings, because there are cost savings
to be had by bringing together social work programs, BUNTEP and the other
programs under a co‑ordinating framework, that money could be saved.
But then it could be put into place in expanding and
improving northern education, aboriginal education, education here in the core
area of the city of Winnipeg. That is
what the minister should be doing, because what this government has done, it
has gone and cut back funding to the ACCESS Programs, funding that could have
been put into improving northern education in many other ways.
But I want to ask the minister a number of questions
because I am sure from the discussion tonight that he does not understand the
ACCESS Programs. He said earlier
tonight, quoted figures indicating that there were 35 weeks‑‑he was
talking about student aid in terms of 35‑week programs. The minister probably went through a program
of that sort. I believe he graduated
from the University of Manitoba in agricultural economics. I went through a similar program, and you
know what? You know how I was able to
get through university? Like a lot of
other people, I worked during the summer.
I worked at Inco, as a matter of fact.
I was able to do that because I was eight months at school; I was four
months off during the summer.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister does not seem
to be aware that many ACCESS students are not in that position. Most are not in that position. They simply cannot turn around now with the
cut in the student allowances and work in the summer, and that is going to be
one of the questions I want to ask the minister, if he will recognize on the
record that that is indeed the case.
What he is doing is he is putting those students in a situation where if
they do not have band funding, then they will be under the student loan system
entirely with no opportunity whatsoever for any employment in the summer.
The second point I want to raise as well because if one
talks to people, the students, et cetera, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, one of
the major concerns with the cuts in ACCESS is in terms of the ability of the
programs to recruit in remote locations.
The minister is wrong when he says the institutions do not have criteria
for the selection of students. They do
have criteria, a series of criteria. Now, if the minister is willing to admit, as
the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) indicated earlier, that there have been
changes to the program‑‑because now one of the factors is the
ability of students to find outside funding, in this case most normally band
funding.
What is happening is it is something like a self‑fulfilling
prophecy. The minister runs around with
figures saying, ah ha, there are all these students getting in the program who
do not meet the financial need. But it
is this government that changed the criteria for the program, changed the
funding for the program last year, which meant that those students who are able
to access the program and those who are in the greatest financial need are less
able to do it. It is an unbelievable lack
of logic on the minister's part.
But I am wondering if the minister is aware that one of the
things that is going to happen is that the ability to bring in students from a
remote location is going to be hampered.
The program is already saying, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is
difficult to bring in students from communities such as York Landing, Thicket
Portage, Pikwitonei, Ilford, Brochet, Lac Brochet, South Indian Lake. They are all communities that do not have
roads, that have to rely on winter roads.
They do not even get a chance to be brought in. Many of them cannot afford to come in. They are on welfare. They cannot afford to come in because the
programs cannot afford to bring them in.
So I would really appreciate the minister recognizing that fact.
The third point, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, is in terms
of the impact within the students. First
of all, I want to say that I find it absolutely despicable that this government
would make these changes that also impact students who are in the system. Right now, there are students in the ACCESS
Programs who are having to scramble to get funding. They are having to scramble to get band
funding, if they can, if they are treaty students. And you know what is happening? Some of them are not going to be able to get
it because many bands have already allocated their funding. They have already allocated the funding, and
those students will be unable to access that funding.
I want to talk about the Metis and non‑Status
students as well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. They have nowhere to go. They cannot go to a band. They are not Status. They are not able to get that type of
funding.
The member across the way sitting from the prospective of
Winnipeg says, can they not get student loans?
This is not Tuxedo, River Heights.
It is not the west end of Winnipeg.
I am talking about remote aboriginal communities. I am talking about students who in many cases
are single parents with three children, four children, and I can tell you the
personal stories, the tremendous sacrifice they have had to make to go into
this program.
You know what is most ironic, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, is that the minister talks about this, but what he does not do is,
he does not point to what is really happening when someone goes into the ACCESS
Program. He talks about the amount of
money that is expended per student.
Well, the minister should know that if you take any of our post‑secondary
institutions, the amount that is expended is fairly significant whether it is
at the Fort Garry campus or University of Winnipeg or Brandon University or in
the ACCESS Program.
You know I have seen people, largely women, who have gone
from welfare, being single parents. The
minister may wish to calculate what would be paid out in terms of welfare over
one, over two, over three or a four‑year period, and you know what
happens when they enter the ACCESS Program?
The minister talked about the students as if they were in
some privileged position. Do they get
more than they would get on welfare? Do
they double or triple? Do they even hit
the poverty line, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson? No, they do not. Those students end up getting less than they
were getting on welfare. That is right. They get less than going on welfare. It is not a great privilege that the students
undertake. It is a lot of work, just
like anybody else who enters a post‑secondary program, and in this case,
a lot of them face a lot more challenges.
Well, if the minister wants to talk about this, perhaps you
should come to communities in northern Manitoba. Perhaps the minister should have come to the
graduation on Friday and talked to the students and found out the situation
they are in because I, quite frankly, have had enough of people sitting within
the comforts of the city of Winnipeg who have not talked to the students, who
make major cuts of 20 percent and now decide that they know all the answers
affecting those students.
There are a lot of students in our society who face a lot
of hardship to go through post‑secondary institutions‑‑
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Order, please.
Point of Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Urban Affairs): Well,
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am considering a point of privilege, but I am
debating which to put forward. I seek
your advice.
The member opposite has just made some personal
implications, innuendos and insinuations that are wrong and‑‑[interjection]
I have never made comments to the member opposite about the fact that he comes
from the North and therefore does not understand the city. I do not appreciate comments being made that
from the quote, comforts of Winnipeg, where I have lived since I was 19, that I
know nothing about other areas that may be vastly different from the, quote,
comforts of Winnipeg.
* (2310)
Mr. Plohman: Why are you making all those remarks under
your breath?
Mrs. McIntosh: The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) is also making
comments under his breath across the table, which I do not appreciate.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Order, please. Does the member have a matter of privilege
that she wishes to raise? There is no
point of order, and I rule that there is no matter of privilege.
* * *
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will say again that
I was there on Friday at the graduation in the social work faculty and I would
invite any of the government members who think they know about that program‑‑[interjection]
How about talking to people? How about
getting up north? How about talking to
northern Manitobans before you cut them?
Mrs. McIntosh: You do not know that I have not. You make assumptions.
Mr. Ashton: You were not there. You cut the program, your government.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Mrs. McIntosh: You are an ignorant person. You are rude.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Ashton: I am rude, Mr. Deputy Chairperson? And you are not. Great.
Mrs. McIntosh: I am reacting to your rudeness.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We will continue when the committee gets a
hold of itself here.
At this time we are here to bring forward information and
ask information of the minister.
We are dealing with 4.(b) ACCESS Programs $7,903,200.
Mr. Ashton: I make no apology for raising the concerns on
behalf of the people I represent in this Legislature, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. This government has cut the
ACCESS Programs.
Mrs. McIntosh: Then stick to doing that and stop being rude.
Mr. Ashton: I find it rather ironic that someone‑‑Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, when I heckle I might consider that I might be accused of
being somewhat rude, but I have the floor and somebody is accusing me of being
rude. I think that is somewhat ironic.
So I want to say to that member that I make no apologies
for speaking out on behalf of my constituents in northern Manitoba, speaking
out on behalf of the ACCESS students that I do not believe are being treated
fairly. Let us not forget that the
ACCESS Program has been targeted for a 20 percent cut in this budget‑‑a
20 percent cut. That is greater in
proportion than virtually any other line item.
The minister has said this and the minister has said that,
and I have said to the minister one thing.
He has made decisions based on a report that has not even been tabled
yet. But you know, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I am sure of one thing. He
has not made these decisions, nor has this government made this decision, based
on talking to people in the program, in the communities of northern Manitoba,
because as recently as Friday I talked to people and it is really sad to see
the impact this government is having.
You know, it was not a matter of anger. It was a matter of sadness. I have found one thing, representing the
North as I have these last few years, that one thing about the North is the
amount of respect that is made towards governments, et cetera, even when
northerners suffer the greatest in terms of some of the decisions that are
made. I talked to many people and they
were saddened. You know, the first thing
they did was they said it is unfortunate that some of the government people who
made this decision could not come and talk to us, not so much at a graduation,
but talk to us in our communities, talk to us in the North to determine exactly
what is happening.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the minister thinks that you can
apply one idea, one philosophy, one great sweeping statement across the
province, that what is good in Tuxedo is good in Thompson, that what is good in
any area of the province is good in another‑‑we are talking about
northern aboriginal communities by and large, serviced by these programs, where
unemployment is 80 percent to 90 percent, where people are desperate to get an
education, desperate to get off welfare.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister talks about the
student loan program. In many of these
communities there is no net worth. There
is not a banking system. There is not
even any involvement in terms of loans.
It is that great a level of poverty.
You know, I have seen people bring themselves out of that when given a
chance.
That is why I am so passionately a supporter of the ACCESS
Programs. They work, and what more of a
tradeoff can this minister ask. He talks
about program analysis. Has the minister
looked at how much money has been saved by the many graduates from the ACCESS
Program? The 57 who graduated from
social work, the vast majority of whom are working in northern Manitoba, are
productive, taxpaying members of society.
The many who come out of the BUNTEP program, many of whom are now
teaching in their own communities, many of whom started off unemployed on
welfare, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the many other ACCESS Programs.
I have seen people say‑‑and it is sort of an
unusual thing, and we are not used to that in this House where people will talk
about their own experiences to that extent, but I have seen what has
happened. That is why I am so passionate
about defending this program. That is
why I will fight on this all the way.
That is why I was very proud to vote for that motion earlier tonight,
because that is the issue. The issue is
this government cut ACCESS programming by 20 percent. It does not know what it is doing. It has not met with the ACCESS students. It has not met with the people in the ACCESS
Programs, nor has it met with the universities that run the programs.
The minister sits there and, based on an unfinished,
unreleased report, cuts the program by 20 percent. I really wonder, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and
the minister may care to answer this question or not, but what kind of hope for
the future can people have in the ACCESS Programs if the minister is going to
cut 20 percent based on an unfinished, unreleased report? What is going to happen in the next budget if
this government brings in another budget or any other budget that this
government might, by course of history, be able to introduce some time in the
future? What kind of commitment is there
to the program when this program‑‑in fact, I would like to ask the
minister even if he wants to put that on the record. How many other programs were cut by 20
percent in this budget? How many
others? Even some of the other favorite
targets of this government were not cut by that. So the bottom line is here.
I indeed am very frustrated. I make no apologies for saying, the people
who are making the decisions, and yes, sitting here in the city of Winnipeg,
because this is a program that affects northern Manitoba, and the majority of
the people making the decision are not in northern Manitoba‑‑we
have got four out of 57 seats in the Manitoba Legislature‑‑
An Honourable Member: Does that mean you do not understand
Winnipeg?
Mr. Ashton: Well, the minister says, does that mean I do
not understand Winnipeg? I am sure if I
were to make a statement as an MLA representing a northern constituency that
someone from the city of Winnipeg objected to, they would be the first one to
point to that. When the Liberal Leader
(Mr. Edwards) made the statements about Selkirk and SHI, I do not think there
was any shortage of people, including, I think, probably the minister, many of
whom are from city ridings, who did not create some level of concern about the
fact they thought the Liberal Leader did not understand concerns in
Selkirk. Well, I am telling you, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, and I agreed with them on that occasion, but you know that
is not the point.
The point is, when a decision is made, in this particular
case, by people that I believe do not understand the programs, do not
understand northern Manitoba, I am elected to come here and to fight for those
interests, to fight for my constituents.
That is why I voted earlier the way I did. I want some reassurance from the minister
that he will not go ahead and do this in the future, that he will meet with
ACCESS students, that he will meet with the people in the ACCESS Program. If the minister can answer one question, I
would be very happy with that, in addition to the other issues I have raised,
which, I am sure, he will respond to, and that is whether he will come to northern
Manitoba to meet with the ACCESS students.
I will make him the same offer I did with the Minister of
Health, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because when the Minister of Health was
appointed, newly appointed, in October of this year‑‑September,
pardon me‑‑the provincial government had brought in rural hospital
guidelines which would have cut back hospital care in rural facilities across
northern Manitoba, including northern facilities, including the Thompson
General Hospital, which would have cut very significantly services. What I did,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is that I said to the minister: Please put those cuts on hold. Please come to northern Manitoba and listen
to the people who are affected.
* (2320)
The Minister of Health, much to his credit‑‑and
I publicly credited him for this‑‑came to northern Manitoba. He
listened to people. He put the cuts on hold.
Those cuts, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, are still on hold. They are still on hold.
I want to ask the Minister of Education: Will he do the same thing as the Minister of
Health? Especially following the defeat
that this government faced earlier in committee on the motion on this
particular item, an historic defeat, will the minister do what the Minister of Health
did: put the cuts on hold and consult
with northerners, with aboriginal people, with people in Winnipeg‑‑the
Winnipeg Education Centre is affected‑‑and will he consult with
them to hear the many concerns they have about the impact the cuts will have?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know where
to begin. Certainly, I recognize the
passion of the member for Norway, and I take it as sincere passion‑‑Thompson,
sorry. I should tell the member, in
another time‑‑not in a different life, but in another time‑‑I
was an Education critic, and one of the first introductions I had to ACCESS
Programs was in Norway House. I believe
it was in 1984 or 1985; I cannot quite remember when. I can remember going into that small
classroom, and I can remember the joy of the students there as they were
attempting to do‑‑I think at that time they were doing basically
remedial work, but realizing that the real core of education was to come and
that ultimately if they were successful it would give them an opportunity to
provide a very meaningful contribution to society in keeping with what their
hopes and aspirations were.
So the member does not have to leave on the record the
impression that I do not know what ACCESS Program is or that I have not been
close to it or that I somehow am a stranger to it. Although I do not live in the North, and
although I maybe do not understand all of the northern psychology, I can tell
him I understand what ACCESS Programs are about. I have seen the good they do, and I continue
to be a supporter in government of ACCESS Programs.
When I was the Minister of Finance, I always tried to find
a couple of million dollars in support of the federal offloading. The impact of that was felt in other
departments, not the least of which are the Departments of Natural Resources,
Agriculture, Highways, and I could go on and on‑‑Urban Affairs,
Municipal Affairs, all those departments that were negatively impacted upon
government decisions to try to maintain and, wherever possible, accept totally
the offload of the federal government. I
have been there. I understand the
program, and I understand the benefit of it.
But, surely to goodness, if we are reforming Health and we
are reforming education, and the next line is Student Financial Assistance, and
the members will see a significant reduction there and they will want to know
why, what changes have been made?
There are ways of doing things. There have to be during this period of time
when you do not have the revenue of government.
You have to make changes at times to try and reach out to a larger
number of people, and sometimes that means those who have the free good now, in
this case, totally paid‑for programming, you might ask them to make a
contribution by way of borrowing so that they will have not only the right but
indeed the satisfaction of knowing they have made some direct contribution to
their education. Yes, indirect is being
made. Everybody makes indirect. Everybody maybe has to call on another source
of funding. Everybody else has to
work. Sometimes you have to organize
your affairs and sometimes you have to live in conditions you would rather
not. That is a contribution that most of
us have made in some dimension as we have gone through the process of formal
post‑secondary education.
The members across are trying to paint it as black and
white. They are saying if you are part
of the Tory party, you somehow live in either Tuxedo or Winnipeg south. They try and make believe that 30 of our
members come from Winnipeg South‑‑[interjection] Well, however many
we have. Naturally we are at the low
point now. There will be many more to
come in the near future. But the reality
is, they try and make it appear like everybody who we know and identify with
has the means to support their post‑secondary education. Nothing is further from the truth. We have all made contributions, and we all
have hundreds of constituents who have made those same sacrifices. I would say to the members, and if indeed
there are means there, well, the criteria are in place. You do not get support, any support. You are on your own.
So nobody has to tell me what the government feels with
respect to ACCESS. Yet I say to the
member, in all his passion, that he cannot for one moment make any other
statement that he wants‑‑[interjection] Yes, action in terms of
more money. What he wants is more
money. He does not want more
positions. He does not want more access
to numbers. He wants more money.
An Honourable Member: Do not cut.
Mr. Manness: Well, that is what he means. When he is talking about cutting he is
talking about‑‑what he is talking about in cutting is either
cutting the number of potential that can be there or indeed what he wants is
the same level of support for everybody that is in the program now even though
there are some.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it should be pointed out that 43
percent, as the member said, of the program are Status Indians, and many of
them have access to band financing that is never taken into account in this
program. The member made a comment about
the non‑Status Indians, and he is right.
He is right. There is not a
potential to turn to alternative sources for the 5 percent who now make up the
program. He is right.
So what he is saying is, you are going to have a hard time
devising a program that takes into account these various subgroupings under
ACCESS. So he says, do not have a
general blanket policy. Just let it be
free and just let the government, indeed, the taxpayers, continue to pay for
it. I am saying to him, well, I will
debate the issue. I will debate the
issue.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wish society were ordered
differently. I wish that members, when
they were in government, had not spent so much money, so that we did not have
$400 million we have to spend on interest costs. I wish we did not have that‑‑but
we do‑‑because we could do an awful lot more if we had that money.
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again I put the statement on
the record. Again I say, the $2 million
reduction reflects basically administrative savings and a call upon students
now to assume some indebtedness. The net
result of it all will be additional opportunity for more students, and I say
that is a better approach to follow.
Mr. Ashton: I can continue this debate for a considerable
period of time, but I would appreciate an answer from the minister on the very
specific question at the end of my comments, and I will repeat it, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, because I realize I put many comments on the record. But the Minister of Health, under virtually
identical circumstances‑‑a newly appointed minister was faced with
major cuts to rural and northern facilities that were announced in August,
although I realize he did not announce them; it was under the previous
minister's auspices‑‑he came in, and I contacted the minister. I requested, on behalf of a nonpartisan,
grassroots committee in Thompson that had people from all political
persuasions, that the minister come to Thompson, meet with people who were concerned. He met with people at the Thompson General
Hospital. It included patients; it
included seniors; it included nurses; it included people from aboriginal
organizations; it included a cross‑section of the community.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have said on the record; I will
say it again: I commend the minister for
doing that. It was the appropriate thing
to do, and the minister put the cuts on hold pending a review of those cuts.
An Honourable Member: Different issue.
Mr. Ashton: Well, the member says, different issue. What I am saying is, if the Minister of
Health can do it on one issue, where there clearly was not appropriate time for
review, why will this Minister of Education not do it on this?
The report, by the minister's own recognition earlier, on
the ACCESS Programs, has not even been released yet; it is not even completed,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson. And perhaps the
minister should understand here; I would have thought she would have been the
first one to say, yes, that makes sense.
If the report has not even been finished, why go ahead with the
cuts? Why do you not postpone the cuts?
* (2330)
So what I am asking is two things: for the minister to put those cuts on hold‑‑but,
more importantly than that, even if he is not willing to do that, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, even if he will not put the cuts on hold, will he at least agree
to do what the Minister of Health did?
Believe you me, it was not an easy decision for the Minister of Health,
I am sure, to go before a meeting not knowing what to expect. I can assure anyone that was not there that
it was a very good meeting. The minister
himself has indicated it was very well run.
People expressed their concerns, but it was done with respect. There was a lot of discussion back and forth,
and I really believe it was a very positive exercise.
I know, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that there may have been
some people even within Thompson who maybe would have expected me to take a
different approach and just strictly attack the government on the cuts and not
try and bring some resolution of what was happening. I decided to go the opposite route. I phoned the Minister of Health, he phoned me
back and agreed to come to Thompson, and the cuts were put on hold.
Will the minister, if he will not put the cuts on hold, at
least agree to come to northern Manitoba to meet with the students, staff,
representatives of the community, the general public, whoever is concerned
about the ACCESS Program, to see indeed for himself‑‑as the member
for Broadway (Mr. Santos) says here‑‑what the concerns are?
I am convinced that when the minister learns more about the
impact of the cuts and what has been happening with the ACCESS Program, if he
goes in with any objective view to any meeting such as that, he will have the
same response that the Minister of Health did on the question of health care,
which is that the cuts will be put on hold.
So I will be up‑front with my motive, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do
believe it would lead to a change in direction from the government. But would the minister at least agree to
that, to come and meet with the people affected?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member makes a
strong plea for me to come to Thompson.
Of course, only a very small percentage of the ACCESS Programs and the
ACCESS total number of 700‑and‑some students take their training in
Thompson. So what he is saying is, well,
then visit‑‑he is not saying this, but I assume that he would
suggest, well, then meet with everybody.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is not a new issue to me. I have been close to ACCESS since the day I
took government. It was almost one of
the first issues that confronted our government and a new Treasury Board in
1988. This is not a new issue to me.
I would say to the member, I understand this program. Although I may not know all the locations and
all the programs, I understand the basic thrust of this program and what it is
trying to do and the basic support I bring to it, more so than a lot of other
government programming.
He requests that I come and meet, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. It was because we have been
struggling with the financing around the ACCESS Program, and ultimately the
criteria for selection and ultimately where the program was going, under the
realization it had an incredible cost and provided tremendous benefits for
those who were lucky enough to be in the program that we called for the outside
review. That is why we called for it.
The member refers to Roblin. Roblin, of course, makes reference to it
too. What he is saying basically is that
this program, which obviously from starting where it did has delivered
relatively well, but that in time it has to be made part of a system. It has to be integrated; it cannot stand out
there as a stand‑alone. That is
why the university and the UGC, in the sense it funds it, calls it an Access
Fund.
The question is then, if we all agree that this program,
which has been in place now for 10 years or so through its early fostering period,
has done a fairly good job, it certainly has caused a tremendous amount of
awareness and the graduation numbers are beginning to grow. Surely to goodness, it is time to evaluate it
and reflect upon it and to make decisions accordingly. That is all fair and good.
When we table this report, and the member says, well, if it
is not finished, then how can you act?
Well, the reality is the basic part that we received in the form of a
draft has not changed. There is some
touching up to do, which has to be done before it is released because it is
going to become a public document, but the very essence of it was known to us
and, indeed, to the decision makers in government for a couple of months now,
particularly those at Treasury Board.
I say to the member, if he is calling for a pause‑‑to
use a terminology that has been used by our Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae)‑‑I
say to him, no, we have the information now that we need. We never would have made this decision if we
did not have some of the back‑up evaluations done, never would have made
the decision. We found out an incredible
amount, and we will share that with the public in due course.
I say to the member I do not think we are really
disagreeing. The members opposite base
their whole decision on seeing 9.9 last year and 7.9 this year. They talk about the impact of some
individuals involved in the program at this point in time who now are going to
have to secure additional funding by way of loan.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will not reiterate for the 20th
time why we made the decision. It is
based on fact. It is based on common
sense. It is based on equity. The member can try and make the compassionate
plea, but I can tell him the evaluations have been done, and I will share them
with the public.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just cannot believe
that the minister will not meet with the students to discuss this matter. I am offering‑‑if the minister
does not trust my motives, I mean a meeting can be arranged directly with the
program itself. All he has to do is talk
to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) about a process we had in terms of
Thompson.
The reason I mention Thompson is I am the MLA for
Thompson. I can speak of offering to
help put together something in terms of Thompson. I am sure the same can be done for the many
other ACCESS locations, many BUNTEP locations.
In fact, if the minister has any difficulty, perhaps while we are in
session we could go down to the Winnipeg Education Centre.
Mr. Manness: I have been there. I imagine the Winnipeg Education Centre was
here last week.
Mr. Ashton: Indeed, but the minister did not quite have
the time or the location or the atmosphere to talk to them.
Mr. Manness: I was trying to be calm, but a lot of people
were hollering.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I say this to the
minister who says he was trying to be calm and they were hollering. I think if he put himself in their shoes, and
if I was in their shoes and the government had just cut back 20 percent based
on a document that I had not even seen, that is not even finished yet‑‑oh,
but the minister says it is only now being touched up‑‑I would be
frustrated as well, especially if the only option I had to raise those concerns
directly with the minister was to come down here to the Manitoba Legislature as
the students did.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I am suggesting to the
minister is let us set up a forum at the Winnipeg Education Centre, let them‑‑[interjection]
As the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) says, he can bring the report, give
them the report, perhaps give them the report for a number of weeks so the
people have a chance to see what is being brought up as evidence for the
rationale behind this particular cut.
The Winnipeg Education Centre should not be all that
difficult to access. I believe we could
probably set up a meeting within the next week or two. Will the minister agree to meet with the
students in the program, the staff in the program in a forum? I can say, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it would
be a forum that would be designed, as it was in the case of the meeting I
arranged with the community group in Thompson with the Minister of Health‑‑we
went out of our way to make sure that the minister had the opportunity to
present his concerns, the opportunity to listen, and it was a very respectful
meeting. People who came away from that
meeting felt it was a very positive meeting.
* (2340)
I am asking if the minister is willing to do the same in
this particular case, as his own colleague the Minister of Health, dealing with
an issue that has anywhere‑‑well, it is not identical. I think the minister misses the point. If a minister can sit down on an issue as
sensitive as health care‑‑I think the meeting took place within a
few weeks of the five by‑elections in which health care was clearly one
of the main issues and which there was clearly a lot of concern about what was
happening in terms of government policy.
He came to Thompson and it was a very positive meeting. It was an opportunity for people to express
their concerns.
I am willing to set up the same meetings as the MLA for
Thompson. I know others are in the case
of Winnipeg and other areas that are affected.
Will the minister at least do that?
Perhaps, if the minister is concerned about the report not being
finalized yet, perhaps I will maybe make another suggestion and ask him if he
is willing to do it when the report has been finalized and released, give
copies to people who know the programs best, the students, perhaps some of the
graduates as well and the people within the programs and the support groups to
those programs and give them the opportunity to see the report and then discuss
with the minister both the report, which as yet has not been released, and also
the 20 percent cut that has taken place.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am glad the
hour is late because, if it were not, I may be induced to get into a kind of a
hair pull here, but I will not.
The member for Thompson really does not have to tell me how
to do my job and I do not say that in an arrogant fashion. I never have, nor will I duck a meeting that
I think I should be at. As a matter of
fact, having brought down six budgets I can tell you many of my colleagues,
many of the ministers, ultimately under pressure for some of the reductions,
have brought me into countless hundreds if not thousands of meetings with their
constituents, many of them in education, many of them in health. So I have been there and I have taken a lot
of the responsibility for the decisions that have impacted. So I am not afraid to meet anybody and to
express the case.
So the member says, well, will you meet with ACCESS
students? How do you meet with all of
the ACCESS students, 700 of them? So I
guess the offer I make, given the fact that my No. 1 priority today, and the member
can quote me if he wants, is reform of the K‑to‑12 system‑‑I
am spending if not a third, close to a half of my time there. I will continue to do that. Nothing is going to push me off my
priorities.
Now, the member says, well, are you accessible to
individual students. The answer is yes,
but I make that decision based on the availability of time, the request that
comes in.
I can tell the member I turned down very few people to come
to meet with me, but if the member thinks he is going to set up a semi‑kangaroo
court and is going to want to draw me into that, I am saying, well, I am
prepared to go to that, too, if I judge that to be fair. [interjection] Well,
the member wants to go to one. That is
fine. I have no problem with that. My staff‑‑[interjection] Oh, no,
not at all. If the member wants to go to
one, fine, I have no problem with that.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I hear what the member is asking,
and I am saying to him that in fairness to the decision, yes, let us see the
document go out. No doubt there will be
groups of students, or maybe individual students, who will want to correspond
and communicate with me, or communicate in person, and I will try and make the
time available to do that.
There is no way that over the Estimates process the member
is going to try and force me, because it is part of the public record, to agree
to having meetings that would somehow try to reach out all 700 ACCESS
students. I mean I am very proud of
certain accomplishments, but I am not going to set for myself an impossible
task. So that is the way it will have to
be left at this time until we bring forward the report.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot believe that
the minister would make reference to such, forming a kangaroo court. You know, this is the minister that has cut a
program when the report on the program has not even come out. I mean I could have used that phrase earlier
to describe the minister's decision. I
mean the minister has pronounced the sentence on the program, and the public‑‑
An Honourable Member: Sentence?
Mr. Ashton: Well, the minister has cut 20 percent of the
funding of the program, and the minister has not even released the study on
which he claims it was based, and based on the minister's own comments tonight,
I do not believe the minister does understand the programs. He talked earlier about 35‑week
programs. They are not 35‑week
programs in the vast majority of cases.
Some are on the main campus; many are not.
The minister has made repeated statements on the record
that are just not in touch with reality.
He starts quoting figures, of course, which we do not have access to,
and the students do not have access to, but which the member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen) has pointed out are most likely are as a result of some of the changes
that have already taken place, changes that are going to be compounded by the
changes being made this year.
What I want to say to the minister is, I do not understand
why he cannot meet with the ACCESS students.
You know, it was not a problem for the minister to come up with some way
of meeting with parents generally, K‑12, the recent forum that took
place, and there was much effort put into that.
It would be a lot easier to meet with the ACCESS students in this
particular case, a lot easier. One trip
to the Winnipeg Education Centre, and the minister could go to a number of
northern communities, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, quite easily. The minister could set out whatever forum he
wants. The intention is not to set up a
kangaroo court.
When the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) came to Thompson‑‑and
the Minister of Education should talk to the Minister of Health about what
happened. There was no kangaroo
court. The minister was not set up. It was a public meeting. It was a very positive meeting. People heard each other out. It was a very respectful meeting.
Mr. Manness: I have met thousands of people.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Minister of
Education says that he has met thousands of people. He has made cuts to the ACCESS Programs of 20
percent. The minister would do the
common courtesy, I believe, if the minister would make some effort to meet with
the ACCESS students. That would, I
think, only be fair and reasonable, to at least‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask all honourable members to tone the
debate down just a little bit.
I have heard the minister and the honourable member for
Thompson use the word "kangaroo court." It has been ruled unparliamentary on a number
of occasions. I would ask both members
to retract it when it is their turns.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think the minister
was going to retract it. I will retract
it, and I do not believe it was an appropriate use of words in either case.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would not want to
be in violation of the rules.
Beauchesne's states it, and I withdraw.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Thank you.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just want to say to
the minister, if he would care to meet with students in even one of the
locations or I would suggest‑‑I think the best example of this
would be what happened last year when this government cut the funding to
friendship centres. This government had
people from all over the province‑‑
An Honourable Member: The kangaroos are still on his mind.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am sure your ruling
is correct. It is probably a ruling from
Australia where I am sure that would be considered most unparliamentary to make
nasty references to kangaroos.
The bottom line is, quite seriously, I do believe we could
make arrangements as happened with the case with the friendship centres. People came from all over the province. They came on overnight buses. They carpooled. We have even had young aboriginal people
cycle to this particular building, indicating their own overall commitment to
their own ideals. That happened last
year. I am sure the same thing would
happen in terms of the ACCESS Programs.
In fact, last year ACCESS students came from all over the province to
come to the Legislature for the protest that took place, because I met many of
my constituents who came in.
All I am asking is that the minister meet with people in
the ACCESS Programs. I know the minister
has met with a lot of people, but that is part of what goes with public
life. Another thing I think that also
goes with public life is meeting with people who are affected by decisions and
listening to them. [interjection]
The minister says that he understands. You know, when it gets to the point where you
can say to the ACCESS students, well, I have another party I cannot meet with
them, when you have made a cut of this significance, that is when I believe the
true level of accountability of any government starts to slip dramatically,
when you have to retreat behind that kind of a rationale, that kind of
reasoning.
* (2350)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a 20 percent cut to a program in
which the program analysis has not even been released yet to those people in
the program, that is going to have a dramatic impact on people's lives. I say to the minister, there will be people
that will have to drop out of the program.
If the minister could come to Thompson, I could introduce
him to those people. If he came to the
Winnipeg Education Centre, I know there are other people who could introduce
him to those people. That is what they
are saying, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. They
have been devastated by the cut. It has
had a devastating impact on the morale of the programs.
As I said, I was at a very joyous occasion or what should
have been a very joyous occasion, the social work grad. There was that air of sadness, of concern
about what is happening with ACCESS Programs.
All people are asking for, all they ask for when I talk to them, beyond
asking me the question whether the government understood what it was doing, the
impact it was going to have, was, why do they not come to talk to us? Why do they not find out what has happened?
So I just appeal, and I will continue this appeal at other
times again, but I just appeal to the minister in whatever format the minister
is comfortable with in the way of consultation, with meeting here in Winnipeg
or if he has the opportunity to travel.
In fact, I could even say we would probably be willing to pair the
minister to travel to northern Manitoba if that is the concern when we are in
session. It is that important, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, and not a setup‑‑I will use that word in
substitution for the other phrase that was used‑‑not something that
would aim at political points, but aim at an understanding of the concerns and
the need for a commitment to the future of the program.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister who says he
understands the ACCESS Programs should understand that the kind of respect that
only the First Nations, despite all the many trials and tribulations they faced
as a people, have shown the kind of respect that I am sure they would show him
as a minister, despite the cuts and the anguish and the sadness and the concern. We will make that commitment to expedite it.
Will the minister‑‑and I just say this one more
time‑‑commit to anything that he feels comfortable with that will
at least allow for some open dialogue with the people who are affected with a
report in front of them, so that we can get some real discussion about these
cuts, rather than what we have done here for the last four hours which is out
of frustration here in the opposition?
We have had to move a motion censuring a minister. I believe it is the first time, certainly in
recent memory, if not Manitoba history, in which a Legislature in committee in
Estimates has censured a minister, the first time such a motion has happened.
The sad part is that it affected the aboriginal people, the
disadvantaged, the people who throughout history have faced the greatest
difficulties. Maybe it is ironic in that
way that we were able to win on that vote tonight, but it is a hollow victory
unless the minister listens to the message.
The message here, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is there will be those who may
analyze it in terms of the status of this government and its shaky mandate, et
cetera, and that debate will take place another time. But one thing occurred tonight that I think
has more focus than that, and that is that a clear message was sent on
ACCESS. We want the minister out there
to talk to the people affected. We want
the cuts put on hold.
I urge, I plead with the minister, if he cannot even put
the cuts on hold, please meet with the people involved. If he does not trust us to arrange the
meeting, he can arrange it directly with the institutions, with the students
themselves, so long as he meets with those students, because I believe even
this minister who tends to have a very ideological approach on educational
issues‑‑and I do not think the minister would take that as any
negative comment, because I know having sat in the Legislature since 1981 that
he is a person of ideological commitment.
He is a small "c" Conservative, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
probably one of the most conservative people in this Legislature, one of the
most right‑wing people in this Legislature.
And I know he does not take that as an insult. He is one person to which there is no doubt
whether the oxymoron, "Progressive Conservative," applies. I know it does not. I do not believe the minister has the word
"progressive" in his vocabulary when it comes to politics. But do you know, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, he
may say the same about me. He probably
has. Maybe he will when he responds,
about my philosophy, my outlook.
But, you know, when it comes to making decisions that
affect the kind of program we are dealing with here, ideology is part of it,
philosophy is part of it. The impact on
people, though, is the main concern we should all have and that is why I am
hoping the minister will reconsider and at least meet with the people involved.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my remarks are part
of the record. As I have said before, I
will try to meet with as many Manitobans in the field of education as I
possibly can and most definitely those that feel aggrieved and are impacted
with decisions. It has always been my
approach in government, and this is no different, but I will choose the method
and the place and the time. I am sorry,
I have no alternative.
So I thank the member very much for the manner in which he
has tried to assist in calling for a public meeting on the issue. I take his words, and I receive them as
sincerely as he speaks them, but I must tell him again, I do not tend to duck
issues. I am not ducking this
issue. Let us put out the report, and
then let me use the method of dialoguing with anybody who wants to dialogue on
this issue, of my choosing, because I will be ultimately held accountable for
not only the actions but indeed how it is I meet.
And so the member does not need to prod me or plead with me
or any thing of that nature. I have been
a public servant just as long as he has, and I know what it means to have to
communicate and to deal with the public.
I am very mindful of my responsibility in that respect, and he does not
have to cast my personage or indeed my method of dealing with people in any
light that is complimentary to my strengths or in support of my weaknesses,
because, indeed, I am a human being, and I have both. So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the
member for his advice.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being twelve o'clock, what is the
will of the committee?
Mr. Manness: Keep going.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Oh, it is not twelve o'clock yet, anyway.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to look
at what the impact of the changes to last year's ACCESS Programs were. Now I understand that the programs last year
were cut by 15 percent. Is that right?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there was a reduction
last year in funding of around 11.2 percent in funding, and that did have an
impact on intake last year of some 15 percent reduction.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am having difficulty. There is another conversation going on
here. Did we agree that the cut last
year was 15 percent?
Mr. Manness: The dollar reduction was 11, but that had
impact of 15 percent on intake.
Ms. Friesen: So that last year there was 15 percent fewer
students who had access to the program?
Mr. Manness: Correct.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being 12 o'clock, what is the will
of the committee?
Mr. Manness: Do you want us to continue?
Some Honourable Members: No, committee rise.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Committee rise.
HEALTH
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the
Estimates for the Department of Health.
We are on item 3.(a)(1), page 83 of the Estimates manual. Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Madam Chairperson, when we left at five
o'clock, we were talking about home care and criteria, and I had said to the
minister that I would get back to We Care and the pilot project that was going
on at Seven Oaks Hospital. One of the
things that the minister has said during these Estimates is that we can
probably learn something if other organizations or groups can provide a better
service, which, as he indicated, was why Seven Oaks Hospital had contracted
with We Care to facilitate earlier discharge of patients into the community.
I am wondering if the minister could tell us, if in fact
the people are being discharged into the community earlier, my question is, why
is Home Care not able to facilitate that early discharge?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Madam Chairperson, as I said earlier to the
honourable member, I believe there are areas where indeed we can learn from
others who are able to provide the flexibility that is necessary to
appropriately run a home care program.
So by saying that, I am indeed saying and acknowledging that there are
areas where we need to catch up with the rest of the world, and not only in
health care in general, but in home care in particular. We are not saying that we cannot do it. We are saying that we have not to this point
done so, and that is why some of the things that we discussed earlier about
bringing on automation, about bringing on better co‑ordination, may
indeed leave us in a better position for the experience.
On the other hand, and in the meantime, I will not for
philosophical reasons deny the patients in this province a better quality of
care because I am tied to sort of a hidebound idea about how these services
ought to be delivered, only by the public sector.
These services are paid for by the taxpayers and not
directly by the consumers of the services.
So, as I have said, as long as they are getting proper care and the
care, if it is nursing care, if is properly regulated and proper standards are
set and maintained, the client or patient, I suggest, would be the beneficiary
if we move forward now, and while we are moving forward, we look at our own act
and try to get it all together.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the individuals who are
being discharged from Seven Oaks Hospital in this pilot project, is there a
length of time within which they would be recipients of We Care service before
the Home Care service kicks in?
Mr. McCrae: Reports I have received indicate that the
average time spent upon discharge by We Care Health Services is 72 or so hours,
just enough time to have the patient stabilized at home so that the government‑run
Home Care program can take over.
I heard also of one case, perhaps it is more than one, but
that the ability to swing into action, as it were, once the decision of ability
to be discharged is made, has been as few as five hours when in the past it has
been much, much more than that, which is a definite benefit and bonus to the
whole health care system. It makes a
hospital bed available for someone who might need it, or if not, then it makes for
a more efficiently run hospital where you do not have patients in it that are
not needed to be there.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, does the minister have a
copy of the evaluation or what they are evaluating in this pilot project? Does he have a copy of it that he can share
with us or tell us what the criteria are that they are evaluating?
Mr. McCrae: No, I expect the evaluation will be reviewed
firstly by Seven Oaks. It is Seven Oaks'
contract, and I am sure they will share with us their findings and the criteria
used for the evaluation and the outcomes as well. That would be my expectation.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the reason I asked that
question is I am concerned as to what this evaluation is going to tell the
Minister of Health and/or Seven Oaks.
Again, if individuals are able to go home from hospital with services
from We Care Health Services in as little as five hours, my question is, why is
the Home Care program not able to do that?
Is one of the reasons volume, in which case this pilot project will tell
us nothing because they are not dealing with the volume that the Home Care
program is?
Mr. McCrae: Well, I appreciate the honourable member's
concern is not a philosophical one. It
is a practical concern that says, well, if you are doing this or if Seven Oaks is
doing this, how come the Home Care program could not‑‑a perfectly
legitimate question, and one that we ought to be able to answer. If we were able to answer that, we could
solve the problem for ourselves.
It is not simply a question of volume. It is a question of scheduling. Volume, as I spoke earlier, has a tendency to
come in peaks and valleys, but it also remains at a fairly constant level
throughout the course of a year, so that we have to be there and ready, I would
think initially, to move people out of hospitals who perhaps have been there
longer than they should have been there in the first place. Initially, that will call for a fair amount
of co‑ordination. That sounds
reasonable to me.
I do not have any foregone conclusions or I have not
prejudged this pilot. There is a cost
issue, too, I would suggest, to look at, whether the private sector can provide
equally high level of service or higher for the same or less money. That should be something that should be of
interest to anybody who wants to get the maximum for the health care dollar.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, one of the issues related
to discharge planning in the Home Care program came out in the Price Waterhouse
report which was commissioned by the former government, '86 or '87. It came out I guess in '87, and it indicated
that inadequate hospital discharge planning practices led to inappropriate
discharges to home care, lack of proper discharge preparation and potentially
unsafe client situations. These
practices also contribute to negative perception of the program's home care
services.
* (2010)
I can appreciate the minister has not been minister since
1987‑88, but can he tell us when these recommendations were brought forth
by Price Waterhouse? I do not know the
cost of the study, but I am sure it was enough.
What was done to address the issue of discharge planning which was
identified back in '87‑88?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the Price Waterhouse
report came out in 1987, and no doubt referred to circumstances prevailing in
the program previous to the time of that report. I was not here, it is clear; neither was the
previous minister here. The one before
that was. Maybe the question should be
directed to the honourable members opposite.
I do know that over the years various initiatives have been
taken in the home care area. We have
continued to see unparalleled growth in the program over the last few years,
certainly in the area of expenditure. I
have already acknowledged that there is room for more improvement yet, and we
are well on the way to making those improvements.
Now whether all the improvements will respond directly to a
report that would now be seven years old and covering a period when the NDP
administration was in charge of the Home Care program to the extent that the
report would commend the previous government, then I join Price Waterhouse in
doing that to the extent that that report would attack or condemn the previous
government. I would look at on what
grounds and try to ensure that if we have not already responded to some of
those concerns, we review the concerns and make further improvements as per
Price Waterhouse, but also as per all the things we have been able to learn
since as well.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I just wanted to indicate
to the minister what my concern is about the pilot project at Seven Oaks. Number one, I think it is disturbing that a
hospital feels necessary, and I am sure they feel that they need to do this,
that they feel that it is still more cost‑efficient for them to pay for
services upon discharge of a client into the community and that saves them
money versus having someone in a hospital bed.
They obviously feel that, which is why they have gone ahead with this
pilot project.
What concerns me about that is we then are not doing an
adequate job in the community in terms of facilitating appropriate discharge
planning and providing those services in the community. I am not saying this as a criticism to staff
in the region, staff in senior management or even this minister. I think this is a problem that has gone on
for a number of years and is a result of many factors including a huge
bureaucracy perhaps.
What concerns me about this pilot project is that it can be‑‑I
am worried it will be a self‑fulfilling prophecy in that people are
discharged from the hospital, they receive We Care services, then referral is
made to the Home Care program knowing that the Home Care program caseloads are
large, that crisis situations are many.
When case co‑ordinators and resource co‑ordinators
know that someone is at home in the community and is safe, which means they are
getting the service, sometimes then to put in their own home care service that
is not done as quickly because there are so many other crisis situations out
there that they can attend to.
I am worried that those people on We Care will stay on We
Care longer, and not that they will not be getting good service, but that when
the evaluation comes back it will say Home Care was very slow in
responding. It is like a self‑fulfilling
prophecy and that Home Care is seen as not responding quickly enough, and they
will not because when they see these people in the community and they are safe,
those cases will be left.
That is my concern, and that is why I would ask the
minister what the criteria was for evaluating this pilot project. I would like to see, I suppose, as a result
of this pilot, some time spent on looking at the home care system, the
scheduling, the resource allocation, et cetera, to see what we can do to be
more efficient as a community‑based program.
Mr. McCrae: I appreciate the concerns raised by the
honourable member, but I think that the Home Care program supervisors and
officials are also listening to what the honourable member is saying, and we do
not want to see our Home Care program, our government‑run Home Care
program do anything but improve in various areas of performance.
I think that the best assurance that we can have of what I
have said is that we expect the Home Care advisory committee's recommendations
and advice to be looked at extremely carefully by senior staff of the
department whose responsibility it is to deliver a high‑quality home care
service. I do not want the honourable
member to get bitten by the bug that afflicts the other party. That is all I am saying, because that
affliction can be dangerous to people's health.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, just another question
about the program. Again, this came from
the Price Waterhouse report but had been an issue for a number of years with
the Home Care program. Dual assessments,
initial assessments that are conducted by both social workers and nurses‑‑have
we done away with that in this Home Care program or do we still have initial
dual assessments?
Mr. McCrae: I am at this point unable to say whether we
have completed the process of phasing out the dual assessment approach, but
that is the track that we are on, and my personal view and instruction to the
department is to utilize the skills and the abilities of all the members of the
home care team to take in their advice or to take in their observations. There is a sense amongst some people working
in the Home Care program that their views do not count, and I have tried to
assure them that their views do count and that they are part of the team and
should be treated as part of the team.
* (2020)
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, a number of years ago, the
Home Care program moved to scheduling using computers, and that system had its
bugs to work out. I think about two
years ago they were trying to revamp the scheduling program. Has that been revamped, and is it a better,
more efficient program for resource co‑ordinators than it was four years
ago?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I can report that in that
area we are doing better than previously.
However, resource allocation is one component of a larger automated
information system. So, while that area
is showing progress, there is a great deal more progress to be shown in the
system as a whole. That is, I think, one
of the things we learned last year as we looked at various aspects of the Home
Care program.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I wanted to ask a couple
of questions on the figures that are indicated in the Estimates book under Home
Care Assistance. I am assuming that
because we are in May, for the actual expenditures of '93‑94‑‑well,
we have an estimate of expenditures indicated in the book: some $67 million. How close is that figure to being accurate
for the actual expenditures of '93‑94?
Mr. McCrae: I do not have exact numbers, but the numbers
I do have, or the estimates I have indicate a number that came in at less than
the budgeted amount. So, in the Home
Care system, taking into account the changes in the cleaning and laundry
services and taking into account the subscribership of the program, we have
come in under budget.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, for clarification then,
the minister is saying that we will probably come in under the $67 million, and
the minister is nodding in the affirmative.
Can the minister tell us though in the Home Care Assistance line did we
not overspend last year in relation to what the estimate of expenditures was,
because according to last year's Estimates book it was some $63 million.
Mr. McCrae: These numbers that we are looking at here, my
staff and I, include considerations for benefits that go to those who are
working in the program, and while we did come in under budget, it was not by as
large an amount as I had thought a few minutes ago. When you take into account that employee
benefits have been moved from some other line into this line and you take that
into account with what is estimated and what is actual, we estimated $63
million for the total under Home Care Assistance in '93‑94 and we came in
at about $61 million. That is a lot of
money but it was not as big as I had initially thought by way of
underexpenditure.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, under the Home Care
Assistance detail then, in the previous year's Estimates, there was a line that
indicated grants of $1 million which is not in the Other Expenditures list on
page 57 of this year's, so that is $1 million difference.
I guess what my question is, a number of years ago the Home
Care Assistance line, the department used to overspend in that line. Either the volume was higher than what was
estimated or we were not as good at estimating what the volume was going to be.
My question would be for the minister, does he feel that
the $69 million that he has estimated for this year in '94‑95 is an
accurate reflection, and if, in fact, you underspent last year, I am surprised
that you did not indicate that there is more of an increase than some $2.3
million, because, in effect, you are budgeting more than what you spent last
year and more than what you have indicated in your throne speech or your Budget
Address. So I would think you would want
to take advantage of that.
* (2030)
Mr. McCrae: I think budgeting takes a fair amount of skill,
and, of course, my own skill in budgeting for Home Care Assistance will be
tested a year from now I suggest. The
trouble with our system is that you get to vote against our budget before you
even know how it is going to perform.
That is the way the system works, so honourable members opposite voted
against the budget, I guess, assuming that we will not come in at exactly the
numbers that we have estimated.
Although, I think our budgeting in this government stands up to the
budgeting anywhere else in the country and certainly previous governments
budgets. In Manitoba, we stand up much
better than them.
In any event though, Madam Chairperson, I think what we
have seen over the years is a fairly rapid growth in a program, as the
consuming public and the care providers, physicians who make decisions about
hospital discharges and people like that have learned of the services available
in the community and have adjusted their discharge policies accordingly.
We are not finished with that process, but I think we have
reached a point where we can expect that, unless there is a new surge of
understanding about the ability of the system to absorb more discharges than we
have seen in the past, then we might have seen a levelling off in the last year
or two, when in fact the program was undersubscribed. That is a sign that we, maybe, have reached
that plateau, although you would have to look and I think people in the
department who assist with the budgeting process do look at trends. They do look at population demographics and
those kinds of considerations in making their budget projections.
Our population continues to age and that is not going to
abate, according to demographers, for some time yet. So better to err on the safe side, in my
view, if you are going to err at all. I
am not budgeting with the design of erring, but I am budgeting to try to make a
reasonable judgment as to what the demand is going to be.
The honourable member has pointed out that in the past the
budget figures have fallen short of the growth of the home care needs, the
demands on the Home Care program. It may
be that we are now at that levelling off.
I do not know, but indications are that with the population continuing
to age and with continuing efforts not to abuse our hospital system as we have
done so blatantly in the past, although it has not been on purpose, it has
happened, we have abused the acute care system, and as we are able to make more
earlier discharge decisions in the future we should try to budget accordingly in
the Home Care budget.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, with the increase as
estimated in the budget under the Home Care Assistance line, can the minister
indicate, has that increase been estimated basically because of a volume
increase in terms of the types and kinds of services, but with the same number
of clients?
Mr. McCrae: Yes, we are looking at increases in numbers
of clients and units of service as well.
If you look through the budget and look at it as a whole, the health
care budget, you will see decreases in spending in the hospitals, which tells
you that we know we can find more capacity to take out of acute care in
Manitoba. This is an area which is
fairly sensitive, but on the other hand, what we are doing in Manitoba is being
done on a phased basis and, may I suggest, with respect far more palatable and
far more reflective of a sense of planning than we see in other jurisdictions
in Manitoba.
I do not say that to be nasty to other jurisdictions, but I
am kind of pleased that we have planned for the kinds of reforms that are going
on in Manitoba.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the number of people
serviced though, according to last year's Estimates and this year's Estimates,
remains approximately, in terms of the Home Care program, 24,000 individuals. So with changes to budgets and services at
hospital we are servicing the same number of people, but perhaps we are serving
them for a longer period of time or the units are more, but the numbers are the
same. Is that correct?
Mr. McCrae: I think the honourable member's reading is
quite accurate. What we are going to see
is higher levels of care requirements, that means more units of service. It means that with earlier discharge and some
people being able to be kept comfortably in their homes until well into old age
before they need to be placed in long‑term care, the answer to that is
indeed a higher intensity of service.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I wanted to ask that
question because I imagine the minister and I will agree to disagree on terminology
and semantics because he refers to expansion of the Home Care program, and I do
not see it as an expansion. I see the
program as there is volume increases, and the number of units we are providing
is more. I see an expansion of a program
is when you actually change the breadth and scope of a program and you offer
more services, or offer services to a different clientele.
I would imagine we will perhaps agree to disagree on those
semantics, but that is why I wanted to ask the question about the Home Care
program and the types of individuals we were servicing in that program. When we get into the hospital line we will
have an opportunity to examine more earlier discharges or if we have a sense of
if hospital days have reduced in certain areas of medical care, et cetera.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I do not think there is
any utility for the honourable member and me to engage in a discussion about
what we mean by expansion or growth or whatever. I think the honourable member will agree with
me that it is incumbent on us, having committed ourselves to a full continuum
of services, that we agree on the one thing, and that is, that whether it is an
expansion or whatever you want to call it, there is a need for us to keep up
with the demands that we will create and that an aging population will also
create. I do not know if I disagree with
the honourable member or not.
If
the honourable member wants to keep me from trying to take credit for
something, that is all right, that is quite understandable, and I can accept
that. The only thing I ask credit for is
that we are taking a phased approach and a planned approach to health care
renewal. I mean, we can quibble about
whether there is a little more this year for a particular kind of service or a
little less. The point is, you are
seeing that shift that is envisioned in the Quality Health for Manitobans: The Action Plan. That shift is probably more apparent in this
budget and more well provided for in budgetary terms than I might have been able
to argue in the past.
* (2040)
Of course, honourable members opposite might have argued
that the opposite was happening in the past.
They are not quite as able to do that this year because we are able to
show increases in the community in various areas, not just in the Home Care
area of the budget. We are able to show
by way of budget commitment increases in the community and corresponding
decreases in the acute care sector.
I am advised that even though the program has experienced
tremendous growth since its inception, the changing environment resulting from
the new realizations that come about with health care renewal, that changing
environment has led to the development of several initiatives to enable
Manitoba Health to meet the emerging community health care needs.
If the honourable member does not mind, I will just take a
minute to touch on them again, and maybe where I think I am being repetitive, I
will be very brief. We talked about self‑managed
care. That is going to be an expansion and
a corresponding movement of funds away from the established program, but we are
going to expand self‑managed care, and I think I have the honourable
member's unqualified approval for that particular move.
The Home Care Branch is also participating with the Mental
Health Division in the establishment of a pilot program for intensive case
management of older persons with mental health problems. This pilot will be Winnipeg‑based, but
will complement and co‑ordinate the existing psychogeriatric services resources
both at the institutional and community levels.
Then there is the expansion. This is an expansion, Madam Chairperson, and
I do not think there is any need for a semantic discussion about it‑‑the
expansion of the adult day club spaces.
The Home Care Branch jointly with the Long Term Care Branch, is involved
in a province‑wide expansion of the adult day club spaces and
sponsors. This expansion will involve a
50 percent increase in the number of spaces per week throughout both urban and
rural Manitoba from the present. I want
the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) to hear this because this is important,
because it is indeed an expansion by any definition when you take the number of
day club spaces from 1,262 to 2,418 in one year. That, with all due respect, is an amazing
expansion. Rural areas will see an
increase from 616 to 1,533 spaces per week.
Additional program sponsors will also be required. Such expansion will address the need for
increased respite options for caregivers.
We have interim community living spaces. A proposal has been developed through the
health reform initiative to establish up to 12 spaces within an existing
housing facility. Such a resource will
enable disabled individuals with high‑care needs who are ready for community
living, but where no existing group care housing options are available, to be
discharged from either hospitals or nursing homes. While in this interim facility, appropriate
alternate community living plans would be developed‑‑and on and on,
Madam Chairperson.
I know the honourable members have other things to discuss,
but the papers I have in my hand are just filled with expansion plans for our
Continuing Care Programs. That is not
semantics; that, too, is reality.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan):
Madam Chairperson, I am quite taken
aback by that show of support from the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns). With respect to the last bit of information
exchanged between the minister and the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), I
found it most useful. I am not going to
re‑cover territory. I agree with
most of the sentiments expressed by the member for Crescentwood, and indeed, I
suspect I would probably go much further and cause the minister to, if he does
not agree to disagree with the member for Crescentwood, I am certain that he
would agree to disagree quite vehemently with me on some of these issues
because I would probably take a little stronger stand.
Having said that, I would just like to expedite the
operations of this committee and not continue rehashing the same ground,
although I do have quite similar concerns about the We Care operation, and one
of my criticisms of the lack of expansion of the Home Care would have been to
have put in place a lot of programming prior to the actual devolution from the
acute care system. But, having said
that, I have some specific questions I wanted to ask.
The first is, do we have any calculation of the amount of
revenues that has come into the department from the public with respect to the fees
that are paid for the ostomy equipment?
Mr. McCrae: We have not compiled those numbers in order
to make them available today. I
understand there have been some revenue enhancements as a result of that move,
but I do not have that here tonight.
Mr. Chomiak: I wonder if perhaps it could be brought
forward to another meeting, the next time we meet or subsequent time that we
meet, if that is possible. Also, would
it be possible to calculate somehow in quantitative terms the effect of the
removal of the $50‑or‑less item, the impact that might have had on
patients?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, other than in revenue
terms, I suppose it would be like saying to the honourable member, what would
it be like for you to have to pay $50, or what would it be like for your
neighbour? If you are below the poverty
line, I can see that being a problem. If
it is a different situation, the problem reduces according to your income, so
any time you make a charge for something there is an imposition. There is no question about that, every time
you charge somebody for any service and any time there is an increase in that
charge.
It is quite an imposition, for example, to tax the
people. The people do not have a whole
lot of say in it other than at election time.
You raise their taxes by millions and hundreds of millions of dollars in
a few years' time. That is an imposition
on people, and they resent it. I do not
know quite how to answer the honourable member's question, unless I can put it
in some kind of numerical terms.
I can understand, though, the lower your income, the more
any increase or imposition will hurt you.
That was exactly the issue that I took up with the Ostomy Association;
very shortly after taking office, it was that very issue. The Ostomy Association people visited with me
in my office. They said, they agree with
the policy; however, though they agree with the policy, and they think that
people should pay, they said they knew of a handful of people in Manitoba who
might be hurt by such a move. It would
be more than inconvenience; it would go a little over the line into perhaps
some level of hardship.
I said, well, that was never our intention. So I would ask the Ostomy Association and
senior members of the Department of Health to work out some whereby those who
might be in that position could find some relief, and that is exactly what we
have done.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, we are going to have to
disagree on this one. I will just give
two examples, because I do not want to belabour the point. These are not ostomates necessarily that I am
dealing with‑‑[interjection] It is fortunate I have a cold.
* (2050)
There is an example in my own constituency of a constituent
who was impacted on three separate occasions as a result of this particular
charge, and to the credit of the government and the minister, I wrote to the
minister, and I subsequently got a response that he would be taken care of,
which I appreciated.
At the same time there is another individual whom I know
also the member for Crescentwood has contacted and I have contacted, who has
been impacted, whose parent was impacted two or three separate‑‑they
are in a position where they can pay, but they were being nickelled and dimed
by the cost effect of this woman's father's illness, and it was going on and on
and on.
And one could not necessarily make the claim to the
minister on a hardship case, on a specific hardship case, but the two points I
want to make are, firstly, one should not have to go cap in hand to the minister
asking for an exception, as was the case in my own constituent, and the second
point was the question of the woman whose father was ill, who had all of the
accumulated expenses. Eventually it does
add up and eventually it does hurt; it hurt their financial situation. They felt that they were treated quite
unfairly. And that is just two examples
that I wish to cite to the minister's attention.
Mr. McCrae: I think the honourable member wants to
disagree with me quite a bit, but I do not know that he has a point here to
disagree on, because the only supplies we are talking about are the ostomy
supplies and the low‑cost equipment items. [interjection] All right, so
it is on the low‑cost equipment item that he is making his case for
hardship.
That is something that‑‑like the rest of the
programming, prior to the '70s these things were not provided by
government. These things were not the
responsibility nor were they provided by government. You got into programming, and this was during
times when growth of revenues was twice, three, four times what the growth in
revenues has been in the last few years, and growth in the program has been‑‑well,
as I have said, it has gone from zero to nearly $70 million in 20 years. That is very significant. Certainly in the last six years the spending
on the Home Care program has increased by some 93 percent.
So the low‑cost equipment items and the ostomy
supplies are the items we are talking about.
The honourable member would have, I believe, the world at large think
that every bandage, every incontinent pad, all of those kinds of things, were
not being covered by the program, and that is not the case. So we have to be very clear about it. I do say, it is always regrettable when
government has to pull back from support for something that it previously had
been able to support, but I remind the honourable member that these kinds of
things came out in times when revenues were increasing at two‑digit
levels. Yet spending on health care by
government in those days was not growing to that extent. Now, when revenues are flat basically, over
the last few years, we have outstripped revenue in terms of spending on health
care.
I guess I need to remind the honourable member that no
government has shown a commitment to health care spending like the present
government of Manitoba. The present
government of Manitoba now spends 34 percent of total government spending on
the health care budget. Now that is up
about 2 to 3 percent from what it was a scant six years ago. Previous to that, health care was not the
priority of the government. The previous
government did not view health care as a priority; this government does.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I have two questions to
ask the minister in this regard. The
first question is, will individuals who feel aggrieved in terms of the Home
Care Equipment program have access to the Home Care appeal process? That is the first question.
The second question is about the same woman whom I
referenced, whose father was having difficulty with the Home Care Equipment and
they had to pay over and over again. She
was also buying supplies from a retail store, formula for her father who was
suffering from cancer. She could obtain
those wholesale basically from the hospital much, much cheaper because of
volume buying, but, of course, she does not have access to the hospital volume
buying.
Has there been any consideration given to an expansion of
the Home Care Equipment program to provide this type of service or this type of
resource to individuals who are convalescing at home, and taking a burden off
the health care system by being at home, but at the same time are paying retail
prices for supplies they could get basically wholesale at the institution‑‑not
supplies, feeding formula, et cetera, for cancer‑related illnesses?
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member makes one suggestion
that I think has some merit. That is
where equipment issues become hardship issues, that lack of equipment because
of lack of ability to pay for it will have the effect of working against
somebody's care plan and perhaps having them end up back in hospital or in long‑term
care or something like that or even on welfare.
Those are issues we would have to look at. We are not going to turn people away. If they want to make a point to our advisory
committee or our appeal panel through the appeal mechanism, we are not going to
turn them away and not listen to them.
It is hard for me to say today whether it will result in a
change of policy, but certainly our hearts and our minds are wide open. We are trying to provide care to people. We are very committed to providing care to
people. We want to make sure that we can
keep doing it and not go broke in the process so that we do not have a health
care system, which is what some people in this province are advocating. When they advocate, leave things the way they
are, they are advocating the destruction of our health care system.
I wanted to point something out to my honourable
friend. I do not know if I have it with
me. No, I gave it to his Leader. I gave it to the honourable member for
Concordia (Mr. Doer). I guess nobody
else has it.
An Honourable Member: What is that?
Mr. McCrae: I am referring to an editorial that was in
the Brandon Sun on Saturday.
Mr. Chomiak: I read it.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member for Kildonan tells me
that he has read it.
What the editorial calls for is for the New Democrats to
say something about health care as to what they would do as an alternative to
what we are doing in Manitoba today, which is that phased approach to health
care renewal that I have referred to. Do
they approve of that approach? If they
do, they have a funny way of showing it.
Do they approve of the hack‑and‑slash method used in most
other jurisdictions in Canada, or is there some other magical response to all
of the problems that we have in health care which we would continue to have if
we did not take action?
I say that just as a gentle sort of reminder to my
honourable friend the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), because he wants to
disagree on the point about low‑cost equipment. He wants to disagree and add on to
expenditure with regard to specialty or therapeutic food provisions. He wants to disagree with the government's
policy on various other things that would be new if we were to bring them in.
I say, if the honourable member feels so strongly about it,
why were those things not brought in during those high‑revenue growth
days of the NDP in Manitoba? When the honourable
member makes these kinds of suggestions and recommendations, while he disagrees
with the present approach but wants to add more and more, I say, why did he not
do it when there was money flowing into the province and being borrowed in
great big gobs? That is what is
different between then and now. I say to
the member, what is the response of the honourable member to the suggestion
made in the Brandon Sun editorial that says it is not good enough just to
criticize, especially when your friends in other provinces are taking the slash
and burn and hack and slash method to health renewal or health reform, then you
are really not offering anything by just criticism all the time.
* (2100)
I would very much like to provide these things. If I had a choice, I would be providing
them. I do not have that choice. We have to make very hard decisions every
year in the provision of health services, and when you consider the way the
health system in Manitoba has expanded and grown in the last number of years,
certainly the last six, before we put an end to the massive hacking and
slashing that was going on in Manitoba previous to our coming in and bringing
in a phased approach to health care renewal, I say to the honourable member,
what is his alternative? I mean your
whole alternative to health care is to reinsure low‑cost equipment. There is more than that that I am asking for
in terms of an alternative to what we are doing in health care in Manitoba.
I have maybe spoken a little too long for a response, but
maybe the honourable member will take 10 or 15 minutes and explain his party's
platform when it comes to health care.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I take it from the
minister's response, the answer to my question was no.
Mr. McCrae: No, it was yes.
Mr. Chomiak: I asked two questions. I asked about the appeal process, Home Care
Equipment, and, secondly, I asked about the question of the formulary issue and
consideration about retail, wholesale, sale of that product, since the
individual is now doing it at home and would be forced to do it in the
hospital.
Maybe I will pose the question again so the minister
understands. The individual's father is
dying of cancer. She has taken him out
of the hospital and put him at home and is looking after him at home. She is providing all the nursing care,
effectively, to him. She is feeding him
with a formulary that is a pablum‑like substance that he can digest. She unfortunately has to pay high‑volume
costs at the retail place to obtain this formulary.
Secondly, she brushes his teeth using special swabs that
you can only obtain from the hospital.
Unfortunately, she cannot obtain them, and if you do obtain them‑‑she
gets them only on loan and she cannot get it.
The issue is, since she is doing this at home, can any consideration be
given either to the supply of the formulary or the supply of the swabs and
other material to her to take some of the burden of the cost off the family
since in fact they are doing at home what in many cases individuals would do at
the hospital? It is, in my mind, sort of
a retail‑wholesale question but‑‑
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, my family has experience
with this very issue, and when it came to keeping our dad home, he wanted to be
there. We did not really get into
whether‑‑I remember we had to pay for the oxygen; at that time we
had to pay certain charges relating to oxygen for my dad. There were other supplies, but Home Care was
there for that.
The point is, I do not know, under the circumstances today
the honourable member was referring to, whether this was the family who wanted
the father to be home as opposed to the hospital, whether planning for this,
the care plan had the input of the physician.
I do not know all of the details, but I would be glad to go over them
again and to review them again and look at the issue the case raises, which is
what I think the honourable member wants me to do.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I will draft a letter to
the minister with specifics on this because I did not realize it might be a
factor. I wanted to know what the
general policy was, but I can wait until the minister is in receipt of my
letter. That would suffice.
The other question I think you answered was with respect to
the appeal process for Home Care Equipment, and the minister indicated that
that would be looked at in terms of the appeal process. That is what I took from your response.
Mr. McCrae: So, really, I think the answers were yes and
yes when you come right down to it. When
you strip away all the rhetoric on both sides of the House, I think the answer
was yes to both questions.
Mr. Chomiak: I will agree, although I might add, Madam
Chairperson, that I kept my rhetoric to a bare minimum. The minister would have to agree with that.
Mr. McCrae: I will agree that, for the honourable member,
he kept his rhetoric to a minimum. This
is very, very unusual.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I wanted to move on to the
Continuing Care program with some general questions in that area, and I wonder‑‑I
posed some questions to the minister earlier with respect to the maximum‑minimum
payments in personal care homes, and I can wait for that information. I am wondering if the minister has
information and data to me on the average monthly caseloads for the Continuing
Care program in terms of admissions, waiting lists for personal care homes and
the like.
Mr. McCrae: Personal care?
Mr. Chomiak: Yes.
Mr. McCrae: In respect to personal care in Manitoba, I
will give the honourable member figures from 1991‑92 through to the first
nine months of '93‑94, which is the latest numbers we have available.
In 1991‑92, admissions to personal care in Winnipeg
throughout the course of that year, 1,204, and rural, 1,070, for a total of
2,274. That is admissions. Discharges in that year: Winnipeg, 1,174; rural, 1,020‑‑for
a total of 2,194.
Moving to 1992‑93, admissions: Winnipeg, 1,329; rural 1,080‑‑for
a total of 2,409. Discharges in 1992‑93: Winnipeg, 1,307; rural, 1,029‑‑for
a total of 2,336.
For '93‑94, April to December, admissions: Winnipeg, 1,471; rural, 920‑‑for
a total of 2,391. Discharges for that
same period: Winnipeg, 1,290; rural, 945‑‑for
a total of 2,235.
What I see is that if this trend continues a fairly
significant increase in admissions certainly in Winnipeg in 1993‑94.
* (2110)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister give me
figures as to those panelled for placement in personal care homes over the
corresponding period of time? [interjection]
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. This section of Committee of Supply is still
dealing with the question raised by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak).
Mr. McCrae: The New Democrats should keep quiet over there
when we are in session here.
Here is the number I want the honourable member to remember
as I talk about people panelled for long‑term care placement in '93‑94. I want him to remember that in 1992‑93
there were 2,875 people assessed for PCH placement. That is where we were in '92‑93; that
corresponding figure in 1993‑94 would be 2,504, which is quite a
significant decrease in panelled persons.
In the Winnipeg region, panelled for personal care home and in hospital,
767; in the community, 568‑‑for a total of 1,135. In the rural regions, in hospital, 602; in
the community, 567‑‑for a total of 1,169. So the provincial total: in hospital, 1,369; in the community, 1,135‑‑for
the total that I mentioned earlier of 2,504.
So that is reflected in the fact that 60 personal care spaces were
opened at Concordia Hospital, 120 personal care spaces at the Kildonan personal
care home and 120 at River East. There
were 20‑‑[interjection]
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. This section of Committee of Supply is still
in session, and the honourable Minister of Health to finish his response.
Mr. McCrae: In short, Madam Chairperson, we have
effective April 30, 1994, since May of 1988, a net of 514 additional personal
care home beds in the province of Manitoba, which is reflected in the earlier
numbers that I gave only in part because there has been the same kind of
increase in the number of people placed because of that capacity that we have
built into the system in the last few years.
Report
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(Deputy Chairperson of Committees): Madam
Chairperson, in the section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 to
consider the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training, the member
for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) moved that the question now be put. The motion was defeated on a voice vote, and
subsequently two members requested that a formal vote be taken.
Formal Vote
Madam Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
Both sections in Chamber
for formal vote.
* (2130)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. In the section of the Committee of Supply
meeting in Room 255 considering the Estimates of the Department of Education
and Training, a motion was moved by the honourable member for Point
Douglas. The motion reads as follows:
THAT the question now be put.
The motion was defeated on a voice vote, and subsequently
two members requested that a formal vote be taken. The question before the committee is on the motion
of the honourable member for Point Douglas.
A COUNT‑OUT VOTE was taken, the result
being as follows:
Yeas 20, Nays 29.
Madam Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated.
The two sections of the Committees of Supply will now
continue with consideration of departmental Estimates.
Order, please. The
honourable member for Kildonan, the honourable member for Crescentwood, the
Minister of Health has requested, if it is agreeable to the committee, a two‑
or three‑minute recess while the other section is moving into 255.
[agreed]
The committee recessed
at 11:33 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at
11:39 p.m.
HEALTH
(continued)
Madam Chairperson: Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister for
that information. I wonder if he might
also give us the number of units of home care tenant services and home support
R.N.s and LPNs that correspond to those breakdowns that he has given in terms
of the other continuing care assistance.
* (2140)
Report
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(Deputy Chairperson of Committees): Madam
Chairperson, in a section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 to
consider the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training a motion was
moved by the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). The motion reads:
THAT this committee censure the Minister of Education and
Training for failure to protect the interests of disadvantaged youth by cutting
ACCESS Program funding while continuing to provide Workforce 2000 grants to
businesses for questionable projects despite obvious program abuse in a program
where hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars are paid in private training
grants to businesses which are not being held publicly accountable.
Madam Chairperson, this motion was defeated on a voice
vote, and subsequently two members requested a formal vote on this matter be
taken.
Formal Vote
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
Both sections in Chamber
for formal vote.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. In the section of the Committee of Supply
meeting in Room 255 considering the Estimates of the Department of Education
and Training, a motion was moved by the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen). The motion reads:
THAT this committee censure the Minister of Education and
Training for failing to protect the interests of disadvantaged students by
cutting ACCESS Program funding while continuing to provide Workforce 2000
grants to businesses for questionable projects despite obvious program abuses
in a program where hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars are paid in
private training grants to businesses which are not being held publicly
accountable.
This motion was defeated on a voice vote, and subsequently,
two members requested that a formal vote on this matter be taken. The question before the committee is on the
motion of the honourable member for Wolseley.
A COUNT‑OUT VOTE was taken, the result
being as follows:
Yeas 27, Nays 26.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The motion is accordingly carried.
The two sections of the Committee of Supply will now
continue with consideration of the departmental Estimates.
HEALTH
(continued)
* (2230)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, in 1994‑95, there
were a very large number of units of services provided to Manitobans under our
Home Care program. There were 2,554,000
home care attendant services. There were
955,000 home support worker units of services.
There were 58,705 LPN units of service.
There were 129,538 registered nurse units of service.
Mr. Chomiak: To the minister, is that for '93‑94, or
is that projection for '94‑95? I
am sorry, I missed that.
Mr. McCrae: I am sorry, that is projected for '94‑95.
Mr. Chomiak: I am wondering if the minister could outline
for me the information concerning the length of time in terms of placement in a
personal care home. Does the minister
have statistics on that particular figure?
Mr. McCrae: If I understand the honourable member
correctly, or if I heard him correctly‑‑he is asking for how long
you wait to get into personal care?
There is no average because of all of the various circumstances. We can say that, today, as a general
statement, you do not wait as long as you used to, but you might find somebody
who did wait for a long time compared with somebody else.
It is very hard because of the way the panelling system
works, the way the prioritizing system works, the various policies of the
various personal care homes, the choice of personal care home that you might
make. All those things make it very,
very difficult to give a number, and an average would be misleading because
that average would have quite long waits and some very, very short waits.
* (2240)
I do not know how to answer the honourable member's
question because I know the honourable member will probably find someone who
has a short wait, if he is looking, or he might find somebody who waits for a
long time. That is the long and the
short of it, if I can put it that way.
Mr. Chomiak: Well, the minister, by indicating that the
list is down from previous years, basically answered my question.
My next question is‑‑and I am certain these
figures will be down as well. Can the
minister give me the figures of the actual number of patients awaiting
placement while occupying acute care beds in each hospital in the city of
Winnipeg?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, as of March 31, 1994, the
number of people in acute care awaiting long‑term, that is, personal care
placement, at Concordia Hospital was 11, at Health Sciences Centre 7, Grace 28,
Misericordia 6, St. Boniface 31, Victoria 15, Seven Oaks 24.
Mr. Chomiak: The staff complement in the Long Term Care
Branch is cited at 15.16. Is this the
group and the individuals who look after the per‑diem rates, the
enforcement of the guidelines, the administration, et cetera? Is this the sum total of individuals involved
in the whole operation basically of Long Term Care; that is, the 15.16 staff
years located on page 59?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the 15.16 equivalent full‑time
staff years listed on page 59, again, is head office staff, as opposed to
people who are involved in the direct administration of panelling and waiting
lists.
Mr. Chomiak: Again, I assume that those people‑‑of
course, that would make sense‑‑who assist in the panelling, et
cetera, would be located in 5.(b).
Mr. McCrae: That is correct, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Chomiak: There has been a fair amount of discussion,
and the minister has a task force reviewing the whole question of the standards
and the guidelines for personal care homes.
Can the minister table the guidelines and/or the standards that have
been established by the department for personal care homes?
Mr. McCrae: The information the honourable member seeks
is bound in a very, very thick, thick document.
We will take his question under advisement.
Mr. Chomiak: That is fair.
I understand it is fairly complicated.
I guess the issue that I really want to get to the heart of
is what I mentioned in my opening remarks, and that is basically the phenomena in
personal care homes where the acuity and level of care has increased and the
commensurate allocation of resources in terms of staff has not necessarily kept
up with the issue of the kinds of patients, given the demographic make up of
the patients and the acuity of care.
I am just wondering how the department is adjusting to that
particular issue, considering that there has been movement from acute‑care
beds into long‑term care beds. The
question is how has the commensurate resources shifted because certainly on
dollar value it does not appear to have shifted, but maybe I am not
understanding it totally.
Mr. McCrae: I think the honourable member may indeed have
come to the conclusion‑‑without the work having been done yet, he may
have come to the same conclusion that we may yet come to as a result of our
review. I do not know that yet, but the
staffing guidelines that exist, I am advised, have indeed been adhered to, but
within‑‑we talk about Levels III and IV.
We have staff that would look after a Level III and IV
patient or resident mix. However, as a
percentage of the total population of a personal care home, the IIIs and IVs
now occupy a larger percentage. So in
light of that, I think the honourable member is suggesting we ought to be
looking at staffing guidelines and maybe looking at adjusting staffing
guidelines because of that phenomenon, as he has called it, the fact that we
have more cognitively impaired individuals under care in personal care
situations.
It is because of these things that the member mentions and
because of issues raised by the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) and others
that the review we referred to earlier in this review of Estimates is underway,
and we will be addressing the issues raised by all of the people I have
mentioned.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, equally, or as well a
factor that has also I think been raised in the same regard is the whole
question of security systems, and the minister is aware of that. I presume that will also be looked at by the
task force.
* (2250)
Are there standards of security that have been upgraded in
the last year, that are in the process of being upgraded at certain
facilities? What is the process if the
facility wants to put in place a more secure or a safer environment? Is there something available from the
department in order to allow a personal care home, for example, to upgrade‑‑if
they have a lot of cognitively impaired individuals, for example‑‑their
system in order to protect those individuals?
Is there some kind of special provision that is in place now to deal
with that?
Mr. McCrae: When new residences are being constructed,
the latest in security systems are approved for those newly constructed
facilities. When centres apply to the department
for funding assistance to retrofit and to bring their security systems up to
modern standards, those applications are always approved. I guess that, when we build new personal care
centres, the designs include the up‑to‑date security systems. We try to remember that personal care‑‑well,
they are called old folks' homes by some people or personal care centres, but
they are homes. There is a really
important balance to be drawn here. We
have to make sure that our people are safe and that every measure is taken to
ensure that safety while at the same time trying to deliver a quality of life
that brings some comfort to people.
If you look at some of the residences of more recent
construction, you will see that for cognitively impaired people they have
pathways and those kinds of things because some of these people are quite
physically able to ambulate and get themselves around, but we do not want them
to walk too far away unsupervised or without any help. So we have to try to draw that balance, remembering
these are not jails we are putting people into.
These are homes.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, my colleague from the
constituency of Kildonan has asked some appropriate questions on the task force
that is looking at personal care homes, et cetera, and some of the questions
related to waiting lists. I am wondering
if the minister could give us an update, today's status, of the application of
Bill 22 as it applies to personal care homes.
Mr. McCrae: The latest that I have is basically where we were
last time. I think the department will
be reviewing all proposals that come forward, including those which basically
say we cannot comply. Bill 22 is what
the honourable member said in her question, but we did leave that issue
relatively flexible for personal cares, for hospitals, for everybody, as to how
they might arrive at the savings that Bill 22, if used, would bring. We are not insisting on Bill 22, on its
application.
Every personal care home will have its unique circumstances
and perhaps unique opportunities for savings.
Perhaps some have been paring down unnecessary expenditures in previous
years and can make that case to the department, and thereby the department
would look at that situation a little differently from perhaps a personal care
centre that had not been making the same amount of efforts in past years.
Basically, where we are at, at this time‑‑I am
sure if the last few weeks' events are repeated, my honourable friends will
know just as soon as I will as to the developments in that area.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, with Continuing Care and
the application of Bill 22‑‑and I am pleased to see that the
minister is prepared to be more flexible with hospitals and personal care homes
in terms of how they come up with a 2 percent savings and that it does not
necessarily have to be in the area of salary savings. I am wondering in regard to the application
of Bill 22 as it affects hospitals which are discharging individuals who might
be in receipt of home care, if the minister has given any thought to that
impact.
I ask the question because it came to my attention in rural
Manitoba, it was in the southern part of the province, that hospitals were
ready to discharge patients sometimes on Thursdays or on a Friday morning but
felt that they could not because there was no Home Care staff on some of those
Fridays because of Bill 22, so therefore the individual stayed in hospital till
Monday or Tuesday.
Has he had an opportunity to look into that, or has there been
any thought to being more flexible in terms of closing government offices on
the Fridays? I understand‑‑I
do not know if this is rumour or speculation‑‑that possibly the
Premier had made a comment the other day that they might be willing to look at
the flexibility of keeping some offices open all days of the week, given
certain concerns from one of the established groups in this province, the
Manitoba Chamber of Commerce. Does the
minister have any comments on that?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the home care co‑ordinators
will be‑‑the department is reviewing that kind of suggestion for
home care on Fridays, but I point out to the honourable member that home care
co‑ordinators do not work Saturdays. [interjection] Well, that is another
point, is it not?
* (2300)
The honourable member says, and hospitals do not
discharge. Well, some do. I understand one hospital was accused
recently of not discharging on weekends and that was not true, because they do
discharge on weekends. Here is where we
had a problem with home care prior to Filmon Fridays ever becoming a part of
the landscape in Manitoba because they do not work Saturdays. Well, as I understand the We Care service
working with Seven Oaks, they do work Saturdays. They work Sundays and whenever days they are
required. That is a problem when you are
dealing with staff who‑‑how is there a nice way to put
"unionized staff?" I do not
know a nice way to say that without bringing into the debate some controversy,
but we want to have flexibility. We
talked about that earlier.
Filmon Fridays, in my view, can be Filmon Tuesdays if
managers in the programs can make adjustments to their scheduling in such a way
that not everybody has to be away on Tuesday necessarily. So the suggestion the honourable member makes
is a good one. I just wonder how we can
deal with Saturdays and Sundays if we do not open up our minds to other options
and possibilities.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, it should not be that
difficult to deal with Saturdays and Sundays in expanding the service because
we do it in other programs within the minister's department and those staff
belong to the very same unions. We
provide early discharge programs through public health nurses Saturdays and
Sundays and antenatal home care on Saturdays and Sundays, so rather than
looking at a reduction of provision of service on certain days, we could be
looking at an expansion.
So I have to defend the union on this one, because they
certainly, I think, were reasonable and supportive when we expanded the
antenatal home care program, as well as the public health program.
I would ask the minister then, is there a move to look at
having case co‑ordinators and resource co‑ordinators work on
Saturdays and Sundays? Is that an option
that has been looked at?
Mr. McCrae: It is indeed, Madam Chairperson. That is part of the effort we are making to
try to make the government‑run Home Care program more responsive to the
needs of the patient, not unlike private operators who make it their business
to be responsive to those who are paying the bills. I say those who are paying the bills, because
the private health care operations, for the most part, operate outside the
government‑run system. However, I
think the Seven Oaks project can show us some possibilities that maybe our own
thinking, our own mindset with respect to the operation of a government‑run
home care operation, has restrictions in.
Maybe I am not fair to blame it on collective
agreements. Maybe it is the system that
we operate in, and we should not be laying this at the feet of collective
agreements. But the fact is, we all
should learn to be a little more flexible, and we all should learn to put the
patient first and concentrate on that and the patient's family and friends and
those who look to our programs to provide them with appropriate services,
services appropriate to the need that exists.
You cannot make the need fit into what we are prepared to deliver. We should deliver what we need to deliver to
meet the need.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister for
that information. I have a couple of
questions on Support Services to Seniors in terms of an explanation of a number
of the programs which I do not know what they do. I do not know whether the staff here can
answer those questions. I know the staff
is here, somewhere in the Chamber, and I want to ask this before the evening is
over. I also want to ask, are there
departmental statistics on the number of clients who are receiving home care
who suffer from the HIV virus? Do we
keep statistics on that?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, we would have to do a case‑by‑case
study in order to obtain that. You see,
we would not be able to tell. We can
check through the Life Saving Drug Program perhaps, or Pharmacare, or other
ways, but using that information we would have to trace back the case and check
out whether home care was part of the treatment plan. So it is difficult and I do not know today
how many, if any, HIV people are receiving home care services.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I certainly do not need to
know that information if it is that difficult to compile, but the reason I
asked the question was because of the request for funding from the Kali Shiva
organization who, as the minister knows, provide services to individuals and
their families in the community.
I believe that this organization, which is primarily run by
volunteers, seems to do a lot of good community work for very low cost. That is why I asked the minister if he knew who
many people were being serviced through the Home Care program. This seems to be a good example of an
organization that is cost‑efficient, providing a lot of services for few
dollars
I know the minister had indicated in a letter to my
colleague from Osborne that he felt unable to make a commitment to the
organization for funding for this year, and I am wondering if he or his
department are going to be looking at community‑based organizations such
as Kali Shiva to get a sense of if in fact they are cost‑effective and if
we should be promoting these kinds of organizations for providing services to
people so they can remain in the community for a longer period of time as
opposed to being in hospital beds.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I remember meeting with
representatives of Kali Shiva and being impressed by the depth of their
commitment, their motivation in wanting to help out people at a difficult time
in their lives.
It was with regret that I was unable to provide through the
department funding for the Kali Shiva, but there again, I am not‑‑as
far as I am concerned, these matters are never over as long as we have problems
that are still unresolved, so that we will be interested as we look to the next
budget year as to whether there have been any changes in circumstances for Kali
Shiva or for the government so we will look forward to perhaps having staff of
the department keep up to date on the operations and activities of the Kali
Shiva.
I think of that organization and I think of Support Services
to Seniors and wonder if there are not some program criteria there that might
somehow work for both kinds of organizations, and that is something we ought to
explore together. So we are prepared to
do all those things and leave the door open for further discussions with Kali
Shiva.
* (2310)
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I want to ask some
questions about some of these organizations for Services to Seniors. I had a list of some‑‑I guess
basically what I wanted to know is, if I read through this list, if any of
these organizations provide any type of a home maintenance kind of service
similar to what we have in the north end of Winnipeg. Maybe that is the easiest way, if I go
through that. Most of these
organizations on the list all received funding in '93‑94 as well. Are there any organizations who are brand new‑‑I
am talking about in the city of Winnipeg‑‑who for the first year
are receiving funding through this program?
Mr. McCrae: In 1993‑94 there were 33 Support
Services to Seniors organizations in Winnipeg.
In 1993‑94, we added three new ones and expanded two others, to
make a total actually of 38 altogether.
We are hoping to establish four more new ones in 1994‑95 in the
city of Winnipeg.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I know this may be tedious. I just want to go through a few of these that
I have circled in order‑‑and if the minister could briefly outline
in a sentence or two the nature of the approved grant. The first one is the Bethel Mennonite Care
Services Inc. of Winnipeg.
Mr. McCrae: Bethel Mennonite Care Services is a Support
Services to Seniors organization set up at Bethel Place on Stafford. They provide basic sorts of services like
transportation for people, like perhaps providing grocery shopping services or
escort services, those kinds of things, to improve the quality of life of the
residents there.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the next one, on the same
page, is the Seniors Home Help Project Inc., Winnipeg, about halfway down.
Mr. McCrae: This Support Services to Seniors group, Madam
Chairperson, assists seniors living in three buildings which are within
approximately a block or closer of a First Mennonite church. I guess there is a community of interest
involved here, but they provide home maintenance for the people who live in
those three buildings, shopping, escort, transportation, again, and a
translation service as well.
Ms. Gray: I believe the minister also said congregate
meals, if the Hansard did not pick that up.
The next one on the next page is Seniors Outreach Services
of Bren‑Win Inc.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member will no doubt be
familiar with the Rural Municipality of Brenda and the Rural Municipality of
Winchester. Bren‑Win, that is what
this one is about. It provides similar services
as we last spoke about in the Deloraine‑Waskada area.
Ms. Gray: The last one I was interested in was on the
same page, the Manitoba Housing Authority Inc.‑TRC. It was a grant of $100,700.
Mr. McCrae: This money is provided to Manitoba Housing
Incorporated to employ four tenant resource workers to provide identical sorts
of services, as we have already discussed, to seniors living in 10 public‑owned
buildings in Winnipeg, all over Winnipeg.
* (2320)
Ms. Gray: That was the series of questions that I had
on those projects. Most of the other
projects, particularly the ones in rural Manitoba, it is quite obvious that a
lot of those provide those similar kinds of supports to seniors, and they were
a little more explanatory. So I think
the minister for that information.
While we are on the subject of long‑term care‑‑and
I know I am jumping around here, and I do not have my notes with me, but I do
not know if the minister recalls a meeting or a letter of inquiry from an
organization, a group of individuals who want to start a business in respite
care. I cannot recall the name of them,
but basically they were trying to get information about how they would go about
this.
I know that there is no such thing in the province of
Manitoba in terms of an organization, a business or for‑profit
organization, that actually provides respite care, that respite care is usually
provided through beds that have been designated in personal care homes and the
per‑diem rate is attached to that, but this group was interested in any
kind of information they could find out about such a project, and they did not
seem to be getting much help through the bureaucracy. Either they were not asking the right people,
or they were asking the wrong questions.
Can the minister give us any information this evening about
the whole issue of respite care? What if
an organization wants to provide a service in the area of respite care that is
a little bit different and has not been tried before? What would be their best route in terms of
who they should talk to or how they should go about at least looking at the
feasibility of it?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chair, if I am not mistaken, the
organization is Generations Care. The
staff of the department have recollections of discussions with that particular
organization.
One of the problems we have had as we have developed all
kinds of new programming over the years is this is an area which we have not
gotten into in terms of funding. That
presents problems for someone wanting to get started by partnering with the
government. We have not done that. We have expanded in any number of other areas
and started up other areas still, and this is not one the Health department has
gotten involved in.
I understand the Department of Family Services Residential
Care people may have some insights here.
As far as actual partnering or funding arrangements, I am not aware of
any possibilities at the moment.
As we look at respite care and the possibilities there‑‑and
my understanding of it is that there are times when we maybe place people in
personal care when we do not necessarily always need to do that, or for other
levels of service when maybe a respite situation might fill the gap that
exists. I understand that, yet we have
not yet been able to see our way clear to make funding available for that type
of programming.
Again, not unlike the previous topic when we were talking
about Kali Shiva, we will keep an eye on circumstances and conditions.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I do not think it was funding
that the organization wanted, or this group of individuals. I think it was more a sanction or a licence.
To make it easier, is there a particular individual, either
in this department or in Family Services that perhaps this group should be
talking to, again to see if they can get further information?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chair, I believe the honourable member
is correct. The organization was not
looking for funding but was looking for some kind of a sanction to go ahead. They can have further discussions if they
want. As I understand it, this is not a
regulated area anyway.
My understanding, subject to correction if I am wrong, is
that you do not need a licence for this.
There are no standards of care in existence that I know of for this particular
kind of care. If someone wants to get
into business, they need a business licence or whatever you require under
provincial or municipal taxation and business licence laws, but beyond that we
do not require a licence of them, and we do not provide inspection at this
point. We will have to monitor this to
see if it does become an industry. If it
does, then we will have to look to see to what extent we need to get involved.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I just have a few more
questions in this area. When an
organization applies for support to seniors assistance, I am sure there is a
regular form they fill out and put together with some instructions.
I am just wondering if the minister next time we meet can
table for us just copies of those forms.
I could phone the department I guess and get it, but since we are at
this point, would it be‑‑
* (2330)
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, we will bring that
material to work tomorrow.
Mr. Chomiak: One of the areas we may have not talked about
is the short‑term emergency project which was a project last year funded
around $609,000 and again this year $609,000.
What is the status of that project?
Mr. McCrae: I will give the honourable member a little
bit of detail on the STEP‑‑Short Term Emergency Program. The
program is a demonstration project. It
is sponsored by the Home Care Branch and it is funded by the Health Services
Development Fund, which is Lotteries or gambling money which is used to develop
these demonstration projects. The goal
is to prevent admission to hospital and promote early discharge by creating
alternative forms of community care and developing protocols and care models
which will allow for more effective management of primary chronic care patients
within the community.
I will give the honourable member a few examples from
hospitals. At Concordia Hospital, the
goal of the Length of Stay Reduction project is to reduce length of stay for
patients with selected conditions by providing rehabilitation and other
resources which will facilitate discharge home.
The primary target groups for the project are patients admitted
following a cardiovascular, accident, hip fracture or other falls and
myocardial infarction. The anticipated
length of the project is one year.
At Grace General Hospital, the Grace has designed a STEP
project to examine the management of psychiatric emergencies. The goals of the project are to gather data
which will identify patterns of utilization and characteristics of patients
presenting to the emergency department with psychiatric complaints, and to
design an intervention based on the data that will improve the management of
these patients and connect them to community services.
At the Health Sciences Centre, the goal of the Prevention
of Admission to Hospital Project‑‑all these hospitals have their
own acronyms for their programs. The
first one was at Concordia, the Concordia Length of Stay Reduction is called
CLOSR, and at Health Sciences, the Prevention of Admission to Hospital Project,
that is PAHP. PAHP is to prevent
unnecessary hospital admissions by ensuring that medically stable clients who
require some care in order to be discharged will receive that care
immediately. This guaranteed home care
will be provided to anyone within the city of Winnipeg.
At Seven Oaks, if I dare talk about Seven Oaks again today,
the first phase of the Discharge Planning Project is a research study of
patients admitted from the emergency department to surgery, medicine and
geriatrics with specific emphasis on the criteria for their admission, the
discharge planning and the resulting length of stay to identify factors that
influence or impede earlier discharge.
Based on the results of the study, Phase 2 will be the development and implementation
of services and protocols which will reduce admission and/or length of stay for
patients presenting to the emergency department. The project is expected to continue for some
time.
Madam Chairperson, just in passing, this program, as
honourable members know‑‑they have raised issues related to
emergency rooms and pressure on the emergency rooms. Pressure on emergency rooms is sometimes the
result of many factors. Sometimes it is
because all the beds are full in the hospital.
Sometimes it is because people do not seek alternative measures for
problems, and sometimes it is because we do not have projects like the kind I
am describing. I think that these‑‑the
whole goal is not to keep people out of hospital. It is to keep people who are not needed to be
in the hospital out of hospital. That is
what this is about.
At the St. Boniface General Hospital, the heart failure
management program is targeted at people presenting to the emergency department
with congestive heart failure as the primary diagnosis and other CHF‑assessed
patients referred to the heart failure clinic.
The goal of the project is to demonstrate that the shift in the
management of patients presenting with CHF from inpatient‑based to
community‑based care can be successfully accomplished while providing the
equivalent or even superior outcomes for the patient.
At the Victoria General Hospital, the South Winnipeg
Integrated Geriatric Program, otherwise known as SWING, is a collaboration with
the Victoria Hospital, Riverview Health Centre
and the Winnipeg Region Home Care program. The program is primarily designed to serve
the frail elderly person living at home and a potentially high user of the
Victoria Hospital Emergency Department.
Two of the goals of the program are to identify and intervene in
evolving geriatric crises of the frail elderly population dwelling in the
community in order to improve their health status and to improve the
responsiveness, effectiveness, efficiency and co‑ordination of existing
community services.
There will also be a STEP at Brandon General Hospital. The impact will be on emergency rooms, and,
of course, it will reduce admissions. As
we know, emergency rooms have been the subject of some comment of late. However, over the last 50 years, I dare say,
emergency rooms have been areas of pressure from time to time. That is not new, but it is something that we
must always be vigilant about, try to make sure that our emergency rooms are
run very smoothly and well so that when emergency cases present where there is no
alternative available but those services, they darn well are needed and should
be there. So, even though emergency
rooms have over the years often been the subject of comment and criticism
because frankly some people with not‑so‑serious problems do end up
waiting, I suppose it is appropriate that those who are in most need wait the
least amount of time.
* (2340)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, under the Long Term Care
appropriation, under Expected Results, it says that 150 budgets will be
processed, drug standard visits will be undertaken, personal care home drug
audits would be undertaken, year‑end audits at personal care homes will
be undertaken and adult day care audits will be carried out.
How does the branch enforce the standards and ensure that
standards are being monitored or being maintained? Is it done strictly by a paper audit or is
there some other‑‑because there is no mention in here of visits to
homes to review standards, et cetera? I
am just wondering how that is done.
Mr. McCrae: Yes, I should not get too far out ahead of
that review that we are conducting of personal care, but I am constrained to
say a couple of things, maybe to put to rest some perceptions that might
exist. I do not think the honourable
member has these perceptions, but they do exist elsewhere.
For example, personal care homes in Manitoba are the
subject of inspections. They are the
subject of standards inspections. They
are the subject of visits at certain times.
For example, you get a new administrator or perhaps a new director of
nursing who might want some input from the department, those are times when it
is appropriate for a visit. There are
surprise or unannounced inspections that happen on long weekends. They happen in the night shift. They happen in the day shift.
I had been led to believe by some that all inspections are
carefully‑‑notices given so that you can have the Moscow tour and
so on. It is not quite like that I am
advised. That might be the perception on
the part of some people if they did not happen to see all the things that went
on. So those are things that do go
on. Some of these things are on a
regular basis, some are on an announced basis.
If you want to do a very large inspection and review, where you want to
have discussions with the staff and department heads and so on, you obviously
give some notice for a thing like that but all these other kinds of things
happen, too.
Mr. Chomiak: In addition to these audits that are
mentioned in here, there are a whole number of these visits that take
place. They are just not acknowledged in
this particular part of the Estimates.
That is all I am trying to determine.
Mr. McCrae: Yes, Madam Chairperson, what is printed on
page 58 is not all inclusive of the inspection activities, audit, review and
monitoring activities of the Department of Health in the annual operation of
personal care homes. It is sort of the
same as not having a police officer on every corner. I mean, a week after an inspection something
might go awry and there would be need for a return visit, or something might
happen that might lead one to an incorrect conclusion that inspections had not
been happening. A variety of things can
happen in the pursuit of safety and standards and observance of standards, but,
on the other hand, we want to keep that to an absolute minimum.
I am speaking now in my professional capacity as the
Minister of Health, and the honourable member's health seems to be declining on
us as the minutes tick away. I am
concerned about the honourable member.
Maybe it is just the way he sounds; maybe he is feeling just fine. I am not sure, but it might be time for the
member for Crescentwood to give the honourable member for Kildonan a break.
Mr. Chomiak: Well, I thank the minister for that concern. In fact, the member for Crescentwood and I
were just signalling. I had indicated to
the vice‑chair that we are going to go through some of these votes
immediately.
Madam Chairperson: 3.(a) Administration (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $272,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $104,500‑‑pass.
(b) Home Care (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,264,700‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $4,421,200‑‑pass; (3) Home Care Assistance
$69,603,600‑‑pass; (4) External Agencies $1,293,600‑‑pass;
(5) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations $609,600‑‑pass.
(c) Long Term Care (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$730,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $112,100‑‑pass.
(d) Gerontology (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $228,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $102,500‑‑pass; (3) External Agencies
$2,898,500‑‑pass.
Resolution 21.3:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$80,422,200 for Health, Continuing Care Programs, for the fiscal year ending
the 31st day of March, 1995.
What is the will of the committee?
An Honourable Member: Twelve o'clock.
Madam Chairperson: Call it twelve o'clock?
The hour being after 10 p.m., this committee is adjourned.
Committee rise. Call
in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam Deputy Speaker (Louise
Dacquay): The hour being after 10 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).