LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, May 19, 1994
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Thompson
General Hospital Patient Care
Mr. Steve
Ashton (Thompson): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Heather Witzel, Joy Smith, Joe Beardy
and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the government of
Manitoba to consider reviewing the impact of reductions in patient care at the
Thompson General Hospital, with a view towards restoring current levels of
patient care; and further, to ask the provincial government to implement real
health care reform based on full participation of patients, health care
providers and the public, respect for the principles of medicare and an
understanding of the particular needs of northern Manitoba.
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Committee
of Supply
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has
adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to
sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable
member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING
OF REPORTS
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual
Report 1992‑93 for The Forks Renewal Corporation, and the North Portage
Development Corporation, 1993 Annual Report.
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table several copies of Supplementary Information
for Legislative Review of the Ministry of Agriculture Estimates.
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of The Civil Service
Superannuation Act): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report 1993 of the Manitoba Civil
Service Superannuation Board.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I
direct the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we
have with us this afternoon His Worship Mayor Doug Webber and council of the
LGD of Churchill. These are guests of
the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson).
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Manitoba
Hazardous Waste Corp.
Tendering Process
Mr. Gary
Doer (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Premier and Minister of
Environment.
On January 17, 1994, we wrote to the
Auditor dealing with a number of concerns that have been raised with us by the
public dealing with the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Corporation. The Provincial Auditor responded to the
government, to the minister, on April 28, and we were given a copy of the
report prior to the committee sitting this morning.
On page 5 of the report, the
Provincial Auditor confirms one of our questions, and that is dealing with the
untendered contracts and the tendering process within the corporation. The Auditor clearly states that their audit
disclosed that the corporation did not publicly tender for electrical work and
the design of developmental services for the soil remedial building. As well, the contractor for the transfer
station was selected without competitive search.
We believe that each of these
contracts should have been tendered. I
would ask the minister responsible for the corporation, why has this
corporation been acting in a way contrary to the practices of the government of
Manitoba where contracts should be tendered for the public good?
* (1335)
Hon. Glen
Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not take issue with the comments that the
Auditor makes.
The only issue, however, that the
Leader of the Opposition did not touch on was that as we have been moving the
corporation into a much more competitive mode and as we were seeking out
private sector partners, it became very evident that there was a market
opportunity which arose rather suddenly late in the season last fall when the
work was done after what had been an absolutely disastrous construction year
and everything was backed up even in the construction of the remediation
facility.
With the opportunity to close down the
collection facility that was at Gimli because it was rapidly becoming in
violation of its licences and to seize a market opportunity that was available,
the corporation did do a review of those institutions or those contractors who
had bid on the soil remediation facility to see if they would be interested in
putting forward bids on a transfer facility.
As it turned out, the local contractor
who had won the contract on the original facility provided what was viewed to
be an acceptable offer and the corporation accepted it.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder what action the
government is taking with their own corporation.
The Auditor further goes on to state
that the total cost of the soils building was approximately $880,000. The original budget which was approved on the
untendered basis was for $620,000. That
is a huge 25 percent variance, a quarter of a million dollars in the minister's
area of responsibility.
The Auditor went on to say that the
reasons for this variance were certain contracts not publicly tendered; no
formal contracts were put into place for the electrical work; significant
changes to the original plan were made; and an independent party was not used
to monitor contract progress or certify payments such as the architect or
engineering firm.
Can the minister explain to the people
of Manitoba why, with this process in place, with the untendered contracts,
which is contrary to the traditions and rules for this Crown corporation, we
had this very, very high cost overrun, and what responsibility does the general
manager take for this fact?
Mr.
Cummings: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let
us not confuse this with the construction of the transfer facility. The tender that the member is referring to
was in fact for the electrical services within the building.
There were a number of things that led
to the overrun. As a matter of fact, the
untendered aspect and the additions to the electrical contract and how they
were handled is of the most concern to us, and I believe to the Auditor. The corporation had been using the expertise
of a particular member of the corporation to be the project manager. As it turns out, some of the extensions were
verbal extensions. I would suggest that
they were handled improperly, and the corporation has in fact taken appropriate
action.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the response by the corporation
for the audit was to be, in my opinion, quite arrogant, saying that the Auditor
had no right, or they did not like, I guess is a better way of putting it, the
probing into their corporation. Well, it
is not their corporation, it is our corporation, and the Auditor is our
Auditor.
I was quite amazed by the arrogant
response of the management group over there, and I hope the minister is quite
concerned about that kind of attitude, which I hear was displayed to the member
for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) when she was asking questions in the committee,
which is her right and responsibility to do.
I would further raise the fact, Mr.
Speaker, that the Auditor identified the fact that the employment contract
between Mr. Johnson and the corporation for the period August 5, '93 to
November 26 was higher. The compensation
level was higher than what was approved by the Crown corporation act and,
secondly, when the general manager was then hired by the same president of the
board to be a person on contract, the contract was not tendered and was not
reported to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson).
I would ask the minister why we have
again this corporation that seems to be acting separate from the Ministry of
Finance and the Ministry of Environment, and what action is he taking on
untendered contracts which are contrary to legislation that was passed in this
Chamber by members of all sides?
* (1340)
Mr.
Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I am reviewing the
remarks that the member is referring to.
I do not like the tenor of them and I have passed that on to the corporation,
but I do not see any place in there where they refer to it in a paternal sense
of being their corporation.
The fact is that the people that we
have brought in to work in the corporation have been charged with turning
around the finances of this corporation.
It has gone from a quarter of a million dollar loss in operations last
year to a half a million dollars worth of profit in the '93 fiscal year for which
these managers were responsible. At the
same time, they were able to turn around the competitive advantage of the
corporation and build the transfer facility out of those additional revenues
year over year. Frankly, the reason that
we have people on contract as we do over there at the corporation these days is
because when their job is done, to get the corporation into a partnership and
into the private sector competitiveness mode, they will be done as well.
Infrastructure
Works Agreement
Sewer Relief
Mr. Harry Schellenberg
(Rossmere): Mr.
Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Urban Affairs.
As the minister is aware, the rain
over the past 24 hours is once again pointing out how necessary sewer relief is
in the city. Given the damage of flooded
basements of hundreds of residents in Transcona, East Kildonan, Fort Rouge,
among other parts of the city, can the minister assure the House that the vast
majority of the remaining Winnipeg infrastructure funds will go to the sewer
relief projects?
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I presume the member is
referring to the Infrastructure Agreement, the three‑levels
agreement. Those projects have all been
submitted to the infrastructure committee, and those projects are being
examined.
At this point, I cannot guarantee‑‑in
quotations‑‑which ones will be ultimately announced, because it is
a three‑party agreement and requires three levels to ultimately make
decisions, but any projects that have been submitted by the city are being
seriously considered by the decision‑makers.
Mr.
Schellenberg: Since over
$30 million is already being spent on an overpass at Kenaston bridge and some
$30 million on the Charleswood bridge, why is this government not making sewer
relief its No. 1 priority instead of bridges and overpasses?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, the member has just
given the House a rather startling new piece of information in that the
Charleswood bridge, he has just announced, is now part of the infrastructure
program, which I am sure will be of great surprise to many people working on
that project.
I indicate, Mr. Speaker, that
priorities are being selected by the three levels of government, and those
projects will be announced in due course.
They are all being given serious consideration.
Disaster
Assistance Board
Claims Processing
Mr. Harry
Schellenberg (Rossmere): Since
last year, the Manitoba Disaster Assistance Board has taken a great deal of
time to make decisions. Has the minister
responsible acted to make sure that claims are processed quickly this year?
Hon.
Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I like the question the member
has asked. It gives me a chance to
clarify for the record when he talks about claims. We handled 8,000 claims throughout Manitoba
in a period of time that it took the administration previously to handle 2,000
claims. So let us get that clear right
now.
I do not know what type of claims he
is asking about now, Mr. Speaker; however, he should know the process, that we
are not reviewing any claims at the present time because it is not under our
jurisdiction under this particular rainfall to review any of those claims right
now.
* (1345)
Social
Safety Net Reform
Federal‑Provincial
Committee
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): My
question is for the Minister of Family Services.
As the minister knows and all members
know, the federal government is continuing to study the social safety net with
a view to coming out with the discussion document some time in June. Now‑‑[interjection] let us be
patient.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the
minister: Given that three provinces to
date, Alberta, Newfoundland and New Brunswick, have all struck their own
committees to review this and the provincial side of the social safety net,
and, in fact, have made a request to the federal government for joint
committees to be put in place for the review which will be happening over the
summer and into next fall, is that what the Province of Manitoba will be
doing? Will we be structuring our
committee so that there is a joint provincial‑federal committee when
those hearings take place?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services):
Mr. Speaker, I thank‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Madam Minister will respond to
this question.
Mrs.
Mitchelson: I thank the
Leader of the Second Opposition for that question because it does allow me to
put on the record Manitoba's commitment to work closely with the federal
government around social safety net reform.
The federal government was to come out
with a paper a couple of months ago, I believe, for distribution right across
the country and provide some information on what their plan was, Mr.
Speaker. To date, we have no idea of
what the federal plan is for social safety net reform and whether in fact it is
only going to be offloading onto the provinces or not.
We have extreme concern that they lay
on the table the information they have and the direction they want to take so
that there can be some feedback by provinces.
We are quite prepared to look at any proposal that comes forward from
the federal government, but there has been great delay in that process.
Mr. Edwards: That kind of wait‑and‑see
attitude, Mr. Speaker, I think is typical of this government, but what we are
asking for is a proactive approach.
There is very little in the social safety net review. As the minister knows, there is virtually
nothing in the study of the social safety net that does not include both levels
of government.
My question for the minister: Why is she not taking a proactive approach to
this and trying to have a joint committee available for Manitobans to speak to,
Mr. Speaker, rather than letting the federal government only assess its side of
this? Why is this government not taking
the same approach that at least three other provinces are to study their own
social safety net and meet the federal government halfway?
Mrs.
Mitchelson: Mr.
Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Liberal opposition should talk to his
federal cousins and ask them what their plans are.
Mr. Speaker, at the last federal‑provincial
meeting, the federal Minister of Human Resources indicated that he would be
calling ministers back together again with a plan. I think it was emphasized at that time that
we wanted to see what the plan was from the federal government.
What is social safety net reform and
is it going to be true reform, or is it going to be offloading onto the
provinces, all of the costs that the federal government has in the past had
responsibility for, Mr. Speaker? We have
not received anything from the federal government that would indicate to us that
they have a plan in place, that they know what they are doing on unemployment
insurance and on social safety net reform.
We are awaiting that opportunity to
sit down with the federal government and hear what their proposals, what their
plans are. When they bring that forward,
we will be able to respond. Today we
cannot.
Mr.
Edwards: What is clear, Mr. Speaker, is
that this government is doing nothing.
This provincial government is doing absolutely nothing to try to renew
and review its own social safety net.
My final question for the
minister: Why is it that three other
provinces have come forward suggesting and asking for joint panels when the
review of the social safety net goes to public hearings in their provinces, and
Manitoba has not made that request, has not even struck a committee to offer to
the federal government as a joint panel when they come to speak in this
province?
Why
has this government not even struck that committee?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, give me a break. My goodness.
Mr. Speaker, this is a federal
government initiative, and the federal government has to come forward and
request things of the provincial governments.
Why should we take the lead on a national program that is looking at
major reform? They need to get their act
together at the federal level, and then we can respond.
I want to categorically deny that we
have not done anything in the province of Manitoba. As a matter of fact, we have had a major
consultation process that has travelled to Thompson, Portage and Brandon and
Winnipeg, a joint process with federal officials and provincial officials. I have been quite involved in that
consultation process, Mr. Speaker, so that we can look at the issues
surrounding single parents and try to develop a process and put forward a
proposal that will be accepted by the federal government to use some of the
strategic initiative dollars to ensure that single parents in the province of
Manitoba have an opportunity to get into the workforce, to get some meaningful
training and to build their self‑esteem.
* (1350)
Port of
Churchill
Grain Export Commitment
Mr. Eric Robinson
(Rupertsland): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Acting Premier.
Has this government received any
commitment or guarantees that the Port of Churchill will be getting increased
shipments of grain this year, sufficient for the port to break even?
Hon. Glen
Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, at this stage, I cannot say that
we received any notification of strong commitments for this year. We continue to advocate the use of the Port
of Churchill, and I am glad the member raised that question today because I see
members from Churchill here.
We in this government strongly support
the use of Churchill, and I notice that back in September, the now members of
the federal Liberal government made strong promises that a million tonnes would
be exported through the Port of Churchill.
They recognize that it is a shorter distance to markets in Europe and
Russia. They recognize it as a lower
cost way to move export grain out of western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know
where the federal Liberal government is in terms of the promises they made last
fall on the Port of Churchill. We are
waiting for them to act, and the Canadian Wheat Board that is responsible for
those sales is a federal responsibility.
CN Rail
Hudson Bay Line
Mr. Eric
Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the same minister:
Has this government pressed CN to seriously promote the rail line to
Churchill, and specifically, has this government written to CN asking them to
work with companies like Paramax, who want to ship 40,000 tonnes of peas
through to the port of Russia this fall, and also AKJUIT, who are developing
the spaceport in Churchill?
Hon. Glen
Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): The answer to all the questions and all those
different issues is yes. I have talked
with Paramax. I have talked with CN
officials about the offer they have made wanting to export certain products
through the Port of Churchill. I have
talked to CN officials about the rail line and the AKJUIT project, the
opportunities that it will create in the North.
There are tremendous opportunities around a number of issues in the
North.
I can tell the member that I was quite
encouraged, as I have said in the House before, about the comments from CN
where they were quite different from what I heard a year, year and a half ago
about their understanding of the promise and opportunity on the end of that
rail line in Churchill. I look forward
to opportunities developing very significantly in that direction.
* (1355)
Mr.
Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my final question
to the same minister: Has this government
told CN that any further layoffs on the Hudson Bay line are not acceptable,
both in terms of safety and also in terms of shipping out of the Port of
Churchill?
Mr.
Findlay: Mr. Speaker, as the member
probably knows, there was a hearing held in The Pas on the VIA Rail issue,
particularly from The Pas to Churchill, and I made representation. I was the first one to appear in front of the
hearings.
The conclusion that we saw from the
federal Liberal members on the panel was not all that conclusive in terms of
supporting that. They sort of talked
around the issue, did not give us the strong commitment we wanted to see, and
we would hope that the federal Liberal government does understand the important
aspect of that line and maintaining it for all the opportunities that lie
ahead. I look forward to their
commitment, which I have not seen yet.
Bison
Fund
Investigation
Mr. Gord
Mackintosh (St. Johns): My
question is to the Minister of Justice, and it is regarding the Immigrant Investor
Program.
Given that the minister has decided
not to lay criminal charges against Lakeview regarding the Winnipeg Renaissance
hotel partnership, will she tell this House whether or not a police
investigation is ongoing regarding the Bison Fund, a fund which Lakeview both
promoted and benefited from?
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the member in this House is
always asking me to divulge information such as what is happening in a court
case before a sentence, et cetera.
However, in the details of that matter, I will have to take it as
notice.
Mr.
Mackintosh: Mr.
Speaker, this is a very serious matter of public interest. It is astounding the minister does not even
know‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Madam Minister has taken the
question as notice.
Ramada
Renaissance Project
Liability
Mr. Gord
Mackintosh (St. Johns): My
supplementary: Is the minister aware of
any claims or potential claims being made against the province and the taxpayers
of Manitoba regarding the Immigrant Investor Program, particularly regarding
the Winnipeg Renaissance hotel partnership?
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, again I would just like to say to
the member, it is a policy of long standing that unless someone is charged as a
result of an investigation, such investigations are not considered to be the
subject of public comment. However, the
details of that question, yes, I will take as notice.
Mr.
Mackintosh: Just so the
minister is clear. It is a question
about a police investigation, not an internal departmental investigation.
My final question is: Now that the freeze is off the Renaissance
project, what action is the minister taking to reduce any potential liability
against taxpayers of Manitoba or eliminate even the cost of defending a claim,
a claim which taxpayers themselves will have to bear?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I will make myself
clear again in the area of police investigations, should the member have not
understood my answer, that again it is a policy of long standing that unless
someone has been charged as a result of a police investigation, such
investigations are not considered to be the proper subject of public comment.
Abitibi‑Price‑‑Pine
Falls
Fines Levied
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, the MLA for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and I met with the
elders and community people of Sagkeeng First Nation who are waiting for
justice and for the province to enforce its environment laws and the polluter‑pay
principle.
The minister's department staff claim
that they are exploring fines levied for the negligence of Abitibi‑Price
for their failure to report the Busan 52 spill from March '94.
My question for the Minister of
Environment is: Under which acts of the
province of Manitoba is the government considering fines, and what are the
total fines under this legislation that could be levied against Abitibi‑Price
under these various acts?
Hon. Glen
Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that there is a joint federal
and provincial review of the event that she described. The Province of Manitoba has pretty well
completed its portion of the review, and the federal investigation is
ongoing. We have turned over our files
to Justice. They will make the ultimate
determination.
I can assure the member that if the
more serious aspects of the incident are viewed to be supportable by the
evidence gathered, the fines are very substantial.
Ms.
Cerilli: Another nonanswer by the
Minister of Environment. I would like to
ask him, under the different legislation in Manitoba that could be enforced in
this case, what are the considerations being taken by this government in
levying of these fines against Abitibi‑Price?
Mr.
Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the
member has been taking legal advice from her bench mate because he knows full
well that the Department of Justice will decide the method by which they will
prosecute and the judge will decide the level of the fine.
Buyout
Conditions
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
My final supplementary for the same minister: Considering that there are now rumours of yet
another spill at‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
* (1400)
Ms.
Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
members opposite to start talking to the people at the Sagkeeng First Nation
and they might learn‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson, with your
question, please.
Ms.
Cerilli: I would encourage the members
opposite to‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Question, please. You have had an awful lot of time for your
supplementary question.
Now,
the honourable member for Radisson, with her question.
Ms.
Cerilli: Considering that there are
reports of another spill, will the minister be accountable to the people of
Manitoba and tell the House if payment for this type of environment and health
liability is a condition of the buy out and the government loan of $30 million
on this mill?
Hon. Glen
Cummings (Minister of Environment):
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not falling into the
trap that so often happens when people have concerns or fears about something
that may or may not be happening to the environment in which they live and,
ultimately, their health by enhancing the possibility that something might have
happened.
Let me be very clear that the ultimate
protection and the best response that Abitibi and this government will be able
to put forward for the well‑being and the benefit of the people in the
community is to get the upgrade done at that plant so that it is an
environmentally sound plant, and it will be done. If the principles and the concepts in the
agreement are put forward, this will be a plant that will operate well within
the guidelines of the environmental act.
VIA Rail
Layoffs
Hon. Glen
Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a
question taken as notice earlier this week.
The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Driedger) took as notice questions from the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid)
about the move of CN employees from Union Station to 433 Main Street. We are informed it is simply a move that is based
on economics, in other words, the rent, and that the end result will be that
CN's move will not have any negative impact on VIA's operations, nor will it
affect their viability in the province of Manitoba.
Foster
Care
Priority Service
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Family Services.
This week, we received the
particularly disturbing news that the Winnipeg School Division has justified
the cutting of its Child Guidance Clinic services, giving as reasons that the
provincial services are in place to meet these needs.
In meeting with the Foster Parents
Association, I have learned that about 90 percent of children in foster care
never see the assessment, intervention or therapy called in the service plans
developed, and about six to seven months is a common waiting period for
promises made by placing agencies.
My question to the Minister of Family
Services: Will the minister's plan to
provide front‑end support services give priority to children who are in
the foster care system at this time?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for
that question, because it does give me the opportunity, again, to indicate that
we are changing our focus on the way we deal with child welfare in the province
of Manitoba with over $6 million more in the budget this year to provide
services and some major changes in focus on family support, family preservation
and family responsibility. We have
changed the focus of the dollars going to the agencies at the Level I level so
that no longer do children have to be taken into care to receive supports, and
those dollars that are freed up will in fact be able to provide new ways of
doing business.
We have been working with Winnipeg
Child and Family Services, and I would hope that the issue that has been raised
is one that will be addressed through the additional resources and the new way
of doing business.
Permanent
Status
Ms. Norma
McCormick (Osborne): Mr.
Speaker, about 12 percent of children in foster care have permanent
status. By the time they have come into
permanent care, the family connections have already been severed, and there is
no natural family to work with.
How can the minister justify reducing
the support to foster parents who care for these children when the family to be
worked with, in accordance with her plan, is the foster family?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): As a result of discussions with Winnipeg
Child and Family Services, this is one of the reasons we are taking a new
direction. In fact, those children who
do become permanent wards of the province, of the agency, and are in a long‑term
foster situation will have the opportunity to have more permanency. Very often children get moved from one foster
home to another, and I do not think that is productive or right for the
children involved.
Mr. Speaker, this will provide the
opportunity for those who are in long‑term placements as a result of
being permanent placements in our system‑‑will be able to have the
continuity, whereby the foster parent will receive the basic maintenance
support at the reduced level that still provides $320 per month tax free for
those basic needs, not forgetting that if there are special needs required,
that those rates will not change, and there can be up to $45 a day tax free per
child for extra special circumstances.
Special
Needs Rates
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): In fact,
the minister has preempted my final question.
Can the minister guarantee that the
rates for special needs and medical needs children will not be reduced and will
not be the subject of contractual negotiation between the foster parent and the
agency?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, what the
basic maintenance rate is is indeed a rate that does provide for basic needs
for children, and that is for food and clothing. Special needs rates are available on a
sliding scale, based on the needs of the individual child, up to an additional
$45 per day tax free for unique circumstances.
That will all be negotiated with
individual foster parents, and there has to be agreement by the foster parent
and by the agency that the new contractual agreement will serve and meet the
needs in a better way for those children that we serve through our child
welfare system.
AIDS
Prevention Programs
Aboriginal Workers
Mr. Dave
Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr.
Speaker, studies find that the overall health status of aboriginal population
is much lower than the original population in Canada. Furthermore, in 1989, Health and Welfare
Canada predicted there could be an AIDS epidemic within the aboriginal
community and identified them as a vulnerable group. We know that aboriginal people constitute
about 60 percent of the individuals utilizing the Street Station project, yet
only 1 percent of the workers are actually aboriginal.
My question to the minister is: Will he advise the House what plans are in place
to train a greater number of aboriginal people, and will he indicate what
specific measures he is taking to train aboriginal people to be involved in the
AIDS community and the AIDS work?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, last evening, we talked a little bit during the Estimates
review of the Department of Health about population health issues and about the
health status of Manitobans. When the
honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and I were engaged in some
discussion, we talked about the health status of northern Manitobans and how,
indeed, that health status is not at a level that you will see in other regions
of Manitoba. Yet, interestingly, people
in northern Manitoba have equal access to health services, albeit distances
have a role to play and everybody recognizes that.
But a lot of people did not realize
that the access is more or less equal amongst Manitobans to medical
services. However, the specific question
the honourable member raises about Street Station, I will pass that on to the
people who operate the Street Station.
* (1410)
Government
Strategy
Mr. Dave
Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr.
Speaker, Manitoba is only one of two Canadian provinces without an overall AIDS
strategy. Will the minister tell the
House today what plans are proceeding to develop an overall AIDS strategy, and
will he make a commitment towards greater education, particularly in the
aboriginal community that has been noticed as a target group?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the Mount Carmel Clinic people work very hard and very
diligently and in a very committed way attempting to address the needs of the
people in the areas they serve.
Certainly, their effort to ensure the prevention of the transmission of
the HIV virus is very commendable and something we support, and is one of the
initiatives that our government undertakes in regard to trying to ensure the
prevention of the transmission of this disease.
Aboriginal
Health Centre
Program Announcement
Mr. Dave
Chomiak (Kildonan): Will the
minister indicate today when we can expect an announcement on the funding and
programs that were put in place to establish the aboriginal health centre?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Health):
In terms of the question most recently asked by the honourable member, I
would like also to remind him of the support of our government for the POWER
organization and the work they do as well, and with regard to the last part of
his question, I think the only thing I can say at the present time is that at
the appropriate time, appropriate announcements will be made.
Cigarette
Sales to Minors
Legislation Enforcement
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here that was signed by over a hundred
members, people from Swan River, a petition initiated by the St. Andrews United
Church. These people are very concerned
that the bill that protects the health of nonsmokers is not being adequately
enforced. In fact, they have done test
runs, and it is very easy for minors to purchase cigarettes.
I want to ask the minister responsible
what steps he is prepared to take to ensure that minors are not able to
purchase cigarettes.
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, this has been quite the subject of discussion in recent
months right across this country. My job
would be a lot easier had it not been for steps taken by the federal Liberal
government with regard to tobacco taxation.
The Leader of the Manitoba Liberals
laughs about this, Mr. Speaker. I think
that is reprehensible. He should not be
defending that sort of a policy through his laughter in the House today.
To make matters worse, I actually felt
pity for the federal Minister of Health.
On the day that announcement came out, an hour or two later, we Health
ministers were all to be meeting with the federal minister. It virtually blew out of the water any
hopeful outcome of a federal‑provincial‑territorial Health
ministers meeting. We all could have
done without that.
The member referred specifically to
the legislation that we have in Manitoba.
I have already said that‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, the
Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) is very distracting this afternoon.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister shall deal with the
matter raised by the honourable member for Swan River. Carry on with your answer.
Mr.
McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I have said already
in this Chamber, either in Question Period or in Estimates discussion, that we
will be bringing forward that legislation at this session to make it more
effective.
Ms.
Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, indeed this is a
very important matter that does affect the health of our young children.
I want to ask the minister, since the
smaller packs of cigarettes, the 15‑cigarette packs or the kiddy packs
that are available right now, are the ones that are purchased most often by
young children because of their limited funds, I wonder whether he would
consider banning that size pack of cigarettes in Manitoba.
Mr. McCrae: That is one of the issues that all
governments, all ministers across the country are looking at.
In spite of what the federal Liberals
did with respect to the taxation issue, they did a number of other things at
the same time. Addressing that
particular issue is one of the things.
The previous federal government had
passed some legislation but had not proclaimed it. The new government has done so. That has some very strong measures in it
which we acknowledge. Working with that
legislation alongside whatever we can do here in Manitoba, we will be
addressing a number of areas.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
AIDS
Candlelight Memorial
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Kildonan have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Dave
Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr.
Speaker, I am making a nonpolitical statement about the international
Candlelight Memorial honouring people living with AIDS that will be held this
weekend.
AIDS takes its toll on families and
communities in many ways. It may
threaten intimacy and trust which are the underpinnings of family life, close
community relations just at the time when they are most needed. Even when immediate families and friends have
not abandoned a person living with AIDS, irrational fear of transmission added
to religious or cultural stigma may lead to rejection by others. Some people become isolated in their fear and
their ability to provide much needed support and it is therefore compromised.
The international Candlelight Memorial
gives us an opportunity to speak out and end the misconceptions and fear about
AIDS, a vital step if we are ever going to conquer this world‑wide
epidemic. We need to stop the idea that
AIDS is only a gay disease and that there is nothing that can be done to
prevent it.
In Canada, public health officials are
still reporting high numbers of new cases of HIV infection. Native leaders cite an urgent need for
improved education and awareness in aboriginal communities. In the homosexual community where the loss
has been greatest, resources are required to maintain current levels of
awareness and knowledge levels, but we cannot ignore other groups where AIDS is
a growing problem. We have learned,
after 10 years of AIDS prevention education, that negativism does not
work. We simply cannot say to people, do
not do this, do not do that. We need to
encourage people to talk about the issue openly and honestly. A positive language and a positive attitude
are our best means of accomplishing this.
Today, as we recognize the
international AIDS memorial, I hope all members of the House will join me in
rededicating our efforts towards breaking communication barriers and stopping
the AIDS epidemic. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Fermat
Mathematics Contest
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable member for
St. Johns have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gord
Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr.
Speaker, I want to congratulate a young fellow from the constituency of St. Johns,
Mr. William Chartrand. He is a Grade 11
student at St. John's High School. He
wrote the Fermat mathematics contest. It
is Canada‑wide and over 16,000 people wrote that exam. He placed first in Manitoba and he placed
19th in Canada with the fourth highest score, just a tremendous
accomplishment. We are very proud in the
neighbourhood.
Just
on behalf of all Manitobans and the members, I want to wish him the best.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Neil
Gaudry (St. Boniface): I
move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition
of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended
as follows: River Heights (Mrs.
Carstairs) for Osborne (Ms. McCormick).
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Jim
Ernst (Government House Leader):
Mr. Speaker, I suspect by the magic of all‑party agreement in the
House that we may be able to turn the clock at five o'clock into six o'clock if
you would care to canvass for all‑party agreement.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the will of the House to
call it six o'clock at five o'clock, thereby waiving private members' hour?
[agreed]
Mr.
Ernst: Mr. Speaker, in that case I move,
seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that you now
leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of
the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion
agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to
consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member
for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Education
and Training; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the
Chair for the Department of Health.
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau):
Order, please. Will the Committee
of Supply please come to order. This
afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will
resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and
Training.
When the committee last sat, it had
been considering item 4.(h)(1)(a) on page 42 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Ms. Jean
Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I wanted to ask some more questions about the province‑wide
special courses that have been offered.
I think we had covered the ones that were offered last year. I wonder if the minister could tell me what
courses have been offered in previous years.
For example, were there ones‑‑I would like the full answer‑‑but
I am particularly interested in which ones have been successful and, hence,
have been repeated or where the department has been evaluating these programs
and what conclusions they might have come to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not have that
information in detail other than to report that in 1992‑93, the first
year, there were only three courses offered at that time.
Ms.
Friesen: Can the minister tell us what
those three courses were? So that was
'92‑93, and there were three courses; '93‑94, there were‑‑what
was that number‑‑was it 14?
How
much was spent on the three courses in '92‑93? How many people were involved?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 49
participants were involved, and the total cost in '92‑93 was $7,800.
Ms.
Friesen: When the minister says total
cost, does he mean the total cost to Workforce 2000? We are not including there the private‑sector
money. [interjection] Okay.
Could the minister tell me of the
courses which have been offered‑‑and I am looking over both years
now‑‑which ones have been onsite and which have been offsite? I think that is one of the categories that is
asked for in the regular forms of Workforce 2000.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, although
we do not have the specific breakout with us at this time, most would be
offsite.
Ms. Friesen: Were there any which were outside the
province?
Mr. Manness: No.
Ms.
Friesen: I was interested in the Deming
one on Total Quality Management, simply because it is the only one that I saw
advertised in a general way. First of
all, is that simply because I only read a certain type of journal or newspaper
where I would see that one, or were the others generally advertised?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do
not advertise. This was advertised as a
result, as indicated yesterday, and that there were other co‑leads,
specifically the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, health care products and
the printing industry, just to name three, who maybe brought a budget together
to do their own advertising, so we do not advertise. In this case it was advertised, but I am led
to believe it was not our initiative.
Ms. Friesen: So these courses are not the initiative of
the department and the minister does not advertise.
Mr. Manness: I said the advertising.
Ms. Friesen: Okay, so the minister then takes the
initiative for these programs, but does not advertise them.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do
not initiate this particular course. We
do not sponsor it. We did support, under
Workforce 2000, the participation of a handful of nine, to be exact, trainees.
Ms.
Friesen: I will come back to the general
question of advertising and open accessibility in a minute, but on this
particular question, were the nine people departmental employees, government
employees?
Mr.
Manness: They were employees of the
organizations who were partners with us in the sponsorship of the program.
* (1430)
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister indicate who those were?
Mr.
Manness: At this sitting we do not know
who the participants are, and we do not know the number or if any belonged to
the following groups, but obviously the nine belonged somewhere‑‑the
Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Printing Industries Association of
Manitoba, the Manitoba Tourism Education Council, and the Manitoba Woodworking
Education Council.
Ms. Friesen: That accounts for four or five, does it, or
would some of them have two?
Mr.
Manness: As I said, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I do not know the allocation of the nine. Maybe some of the numbers I listed out had
none, and maybe one of them had three or four.
I just do not have that information.
Ms.
Friesen: So none of the people who were
supported at this program by the department were civil servants?
Mr. Manness: No.
Ms.
Friesen: Then on the more general
question of open accessibility to these courses, presumably it depends upon
information and advertising. What steps
does the government, as one of the partners in this program and indeed the
initiator as the minister has said, what step does it take to make people in
the general public aware of the availability of these programs? They are called Province‑Wide Special
Courses.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I
have referenced in a response yesterday, in most cases this is an agreement
between Workforce 2000 and sponsoring sectoral associations who come forward
and say that our sector needs training in this specific area of expertise. If agreement is struck between the government
and the association, ultimately, then, it becomes the responsibility of the sectoral
spokespeople to notify their members.
Because, indeed, this is an agreement in the first part struck between a
specific association, Workforce 2000, and then the members under that
association are provided with the information.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, so what the
minister is telling me is that these programs then were only available on a
membership basis?
Mr.
Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
again, as the member can identify, we had three of these courses in '92‑93. It has expanded to 14. All of them can be classified in the terms of
pilots how successful they might be the first year they are offered and whether
or not, therefore, they are worthy of offering the next year.
In that context, I suppose large enrollments
in themselves are not as important as making sure that the curriculum and the
training material itself are developed for the pilot. I imagine after that moving into the next
year, and then a decision has to be made as to whether it is put by way of
pamphlet. I would have to think it would
be by way of pamphlet. I do not think
resources would allow for a significant media buy to advertise.
Ms.
Friesen: The issue is not so much larger
enrollments or smaller enrollments, but it is whether a publicly funded program
has been made available to everyone. One
step in that is knowledge, knowing when the courses were given and when they
were available. That is the point I am
making.
The minister is saying that is not his
responsibility, that he left that to membership organizations, and he
anticipated that they would tell their members so that only members in that
case knew whether these courses were being given.
Mr.
Manness: What is different here as
between publicly funded? I mean, I know
when public institutions bring forward courses they start slowly and they
build. Not everybody has open access to
those, either. I guess I ask what the
difference is. We are not putting in
every dollar as it was indicated in this side.
We put in two to leave her one?
I do not know what point the member is
trying to make, and to the extent that they do work, well, obviously word of
mouth was spread around, and indeed then it will be written up in pamphlets of
training. Then at that time the greater
call outside of the support of industries or sectors will cause Workforce 2000
to make decisions at that time.
Ms.
Friesen: The point is very clear that
other institutions, public institutions with public money which offer courses,
publish calendars, they are known, they are available to all the public. The Department of Industry, Trade and
Tourism, which runs programs for small‑business people, publishes a list
of courses which are available, the times that they are given and how one
applies for a seat in those courses.
Here we have in Workforce 2000 a small
section of it which is publicly funded and which is not available in the terms
of knowledge at this stage. The minister
talks about word of mouth. He also talks
about membership. Well, those are relatively
small circles. I am talking about open,
accessible programs on a province‑wide basis.
Mr.
Manness: I would be prepared to ask the
member whether she is absolutely certain that every public institution in its
first year of operation put out a calendar?
There is no way she could ever be certain of that. This is the beginning of a program. Obviously, as it begins to develop and to the
extent that this information is lodged with institutions, to the extent that
ultimately it begins to build, Workforce 2000 may very well put out its own
calendar. That is the point I am trying
to make.
I understand what she says when she
talks about institutions having calendars.
Sure enough. But right now, what
is the use of putting a calendar out when you are piloting courses which may
not exist a year from now?
Ms.
Friesen: They existed this year, and only
members were allowed to apply because only they knew about it.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that was
the thrust of the report coming out of the STAC report and indeed Workforce
2000, to be directed to instantaneous needs of business and sectors in the
industry. Of course the member has been
against Workforce 2000 since the beginning of time. She wants the money all forced to her
institution and the formal institution.
She does not want to see a dollar escape.
That is the way, the truth. The NDP are diametrically opposed to a dollar
of training leaving formal institutions, and all of the structures and all of
the locked‑in bureaucracies and all of the waste and duplication where it
exists. That is what the NDP wants. Of course we said, no, we are going to take
that off, and we are going to make it open to more people on a spontaneous
basis.
Ms.
Friesen: Now we have heard that from the
minister, I hope we do not have to hear it again. He said it once. I can understand why he is defensive about
this program, a program which has not been advertised, which is essentially
open only to closed circles and closed memberships. I can understand why he is defensive about
that. If the minister has evidence of
any publicly funded institutions which do not have calendars or make available
publicly their programs, then I would be interested in hearing it.
The comparison I drew very directly was
to Industry, Trade and Tourism and to the small‑business programs which
are run there. I put my position on
Workforce 2000 and my position and our party's position, indeed, on workplace‑based
training very clearly on the record in my response to the throne speech. The minister was in the House at the
time. He knows very clearly where we
stand. So this misrepresentation and
distortion of the facts that he has done now, I hope, can be laid to rest. We have heard it once. Let us not hear it again. The issue in this program is public
accountability. That is where I am
starting with these province‑wide courses.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the
member says that public institutions, i.e., community colleges calendar all
their events. There are market‑driven
arrangements, market‑driven training initiatives between local employers
and community colleges which are not calendared. Not everybody has access into them. It is an agreement between a company and/or a
sector and the community college, not calendared. Nobody knows about it. An agreement, no different than this. No different than this.
Ms. Friesen: Under this government, that is exactly what
has happened.
Mr. Manness: Right on, but full accountabilities in place.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister then table the evaluations
of these courses?
* (1440)
Mr.
Manness: The member asked that of me
yesterday. I indicated at that time
those evaluations are presently being looked at by way of the guide. We have them, but we do not have them with us
today.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, will the
minister table those evaluations? When
will they be tabled? Where are the
evaluations from the previous year? When
will those be tabled?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, staff
informs me that the evaluations that would be done would be done on the basis
of participant reaction to the course.
Those are very highly confidential, but, again, the member can laugh and
scoff all she wants. The reality is she
either has to believe in the Provincial Auditor who has seen internally all of
this information‑‑she either has to believe that Provincial Auditor
or not. [interjection] Well, the members say no. The members say no. Do they know something that I do not? Do they know the Provincial Auditor has not
had access to specifically‑‑[interjection] The Provincial Auditor
has access to look at anything she wants with any methodology she wants and can
do it in her way.
All I know is that when she reports
that performance criteria are in place to monitor achievement results and that
assessment of the risks and benefits for each activity. There has been that indeed, at least on the
surface, and I would say beyond that the program is working well.
Now the member says she wants to see
the evaluation of these new pilot areas.
I can tell that the only thing I could share with her if I could, which
I will not, would be participant reaction to the courses. More in keeping with how the evaluation
ultimately will reach the business community and whether or not the course has
been successful will be the call for additional training under this area. We will have to leave it at that point.
Ms.
Friesen: The evaluations then are based
upon participant reaction, and they are not available to anybody other than the
minister. The minister believes that the
Auditor has seen them, but I think if the minister looks at the record, the
Provincial Auditor indicated this week, when I asked her, that this is not the
kind of evaluation that she had looked at, that she had looked at financial
evaluation. In fact we had a small
discussion clarifying some of the terminology that she had used.
The minister then is not prepared to
share with us the evaluations of individual courses. Let us look at the evaluation of the
program. Now this is a program that was
announced in 1990 during the election which was announced again in 1991 by the
first Minister of Education. Here we are
in 1994. Could the minister perhaps tell
us what evaluations he has conducted on the program?
There were three courses which were
offered last year. There have been 14
courses which were offered this year. I
asked initially this afternoon about the evaluation of those first three. Were any repeated? Were the reasons given for repetition? Were any deleted? What are the reasons for deletion? Can we look upon them as a collectivity? What has been the evaluation of the program
from that sense?
Mr. Manness: Is this on the province‑wide
specialized courses?
Ms. Friesen: I am talking about the province‑wide
special courses still.
Mr. Manness: All of the original three or four in the
first year of study were provided again in '93‑94.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us which those were?
Mr. Manness: No, I cannot.
I do not have that information here, but we will provide that
information.
Ms. Friesen: Can the minister tell us when that
information will be provided?
Mr. Manness: The next sitting of this committee.
Ms. Friesen: Was the Deming seminar a repetition?
Mr. Manness: No.
Ms. Friesen: Was the health industries a repetition?
Mr.
Manness: To help out, rather than going
through one by one by one by one, we think not.
We think that the ones that may have been now in place for two years are
train‑the‑trainer.
Ms. Friesen: Were there seven train‑the‑trainer
programs this year?
Mr. Manness: Three.
Ms.
Friesen: There were three train‑the‑trainer
seminars, and what was the total number of participants in those?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I
referred yesterday, one of the ones I listed is going to be in place for '94‑95,
so really there were two reaching out to 21 participants.
Ms.
Friesen: Are those 21 the total number of
participants, because when we looked at the Deming seminar, there were obviously
many more participants, but only nine whom the department had supported? So how are these arranged?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not
know why the member draws a parallel or indeed tries to draw a link between the
two. Train the Trainer were specifically
21 participants in two seminars, whereas the Deming seminar we supported nine
attendees unrelated to the Train the Trainer seminars.
Ms.
Friesen: I am actually simply trying to
get information about how these courses work, who pays for them, who attends
them, how they are advertised, the basic kind of information, so the minister
does not need to get sort of agitated about it.
I am trying to figure out for myself,
because there are no brochures, there is nothing written on it, how in fact
these work. So the Train the Trainer
ones work differently from the Deming one.
Mr.
Manness: As far as the numbers, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I provided all of that last night. I went through that listing, and I indicated
the number of participants slowly, line by line. So I provided all that information, all
right?
Ms.
Friesen: Obviously, there are different
ways of putting together these courses, and the Deming course was put together
in a different way than the Train the Trainer course.
Could I ask how some of the other
courses were put together? I believe one
of them was on competing in Mexico, and I have down seven participants in
that. Now, were those the total number
of participants, or were there others from other supporting organizations?
* (1450)
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the last
two I mentioned yesterday, one of them I had referenced as '94‑95. I was in error in not referencing the Gaining
the Competitive Edge in Mexico seminar and not referencing that it too was in
'94‑95. It is coming into place;
it will be reaching out to seven participants.
I would think those seven participants
would come from these companies, because these are the industry participation, and
I would think they would not participate unless they had a participant. They are Information Corporation/Computer
Solutions, Can‑Oat Milling Products, Vita Health, Standard Aero, Bristol
Aerospace, Kelly Associates and Di‑Tech Wire Sawing Systems. Yes, there are seven companies that are co‑sponsoring
this seminar.
Ms. Friesen: How long will that seminar be for?
Mr. Manness: It will be a one‑day workshop.
Ms. Friesen: Each company will select its own
representative at that seminar.
Mr. Manness: That is correct.
Ms.
Friesen: The Creative Thinking courses‑‑I
think there were either three or two of those, one perhaps which was repeated,
one was creative in lateral thinking, the other was the Edward de Bono‑‑how
were they put together, and what were the industries involved?
There
is one here, for example, which has I think 32 participants, and one which had
one.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what we
know about the Creativity and Lateral Thinking conference, is it was a one‑day
seminar reaching out to 90 participants.
It was organized‑‑and these participants came from small‑,
medium‑ and large‑sized businesses, and it was put together by an
association of employers called the Winnipeg Quality Network.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Ms. Friesen: What was the cost to the department of
that? What was their portion of the
cost?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
out of a total cost of $26,630, the department contributed $9,530.
Ms. Friesen: And the other creative thinking conference,
or was that a seminar?
Mr.
Manness: That is the only one we have
listed. There was another Six Thinking
Hats certification program, but as far as creativity, I think that is the only
one we have listed.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess
I have to seek your opinion. We have
been charged to review '94‑95 Estimates.
I do not mind this, but I am not going to spend an awful lot of time in
reviewing '93‑94 numbers. We have
been doing that now for several, several hours.
Again, we are here to consider '94‑95 Estimates.
The member, if she wants to dig up all
of the detail with respect to a year gone by, I will accommodate‑‑[interjection]
No, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is where the member for Elmwood (Mr.
Maloway) is wrong, because the Public Accounts does deal with the past. What he always tries to do is go forward, and
he knows it. So he is dead wrong again.
I am saying, I will try and continue
to provide this information, but I do not have all '93‑94 here. Much of it is back at the shop. If the member wants to continue to focus on
the training that was all done last year, fine, but again, I indicate, we are
here to review '94‑95 Estimates.
Ms.
Friesen: Well, the minister has very few
plans for the '94‑95 Estimates.
There is money in place. There
are general indications that courses might be offered in some areas in some
places. There is very little to go on,
and there are no evaluations for last year that are available publicly.
So it seems to me quite reasonable to
ask some specific questions about how the department has dealt with these kinds
of issues in the past. It is the only
way in which we can get some indication of how the money that is allocated this
year may or may not be spent.
Mr. Manness: You are asking for details from last
year. That is the difference.
Ms.
Friesen: Well, I have asked the
minister. The minister says I should not
be asking for detail. I have asked for
detail. I have also asked for
generalization, general comments upon or evaluations of the earlier programs,
but even those kinds of program evaluations are not available.
So that leaves me with very little
alternative but to ask some specific questions and to try and develop the
generalizations myself and to present them to the minister and to suggest, is
this in fact the way that the program looks to him? That is what I am trying to do, is to develop
from the individual examples that we have a generalized understanding and a
generalized interpretation of where the government thinks this program is
going. It seems to me that that is a
reasonable process for Estimates.
I can understand the minister does not
have all of the detail here. I am quite
prepared to accept that, but I do expect that the minister will be interested
in providing detail to questions which are asked at Estimates time.
So could I ask about the Thinking Hats
program now, the other creativity program?
I understood yesterday that there was one person whom the department
supported at that. Again, I am
interested in, were others able to participate in this? Was it cost effective in a sort of broad,
Manitoba sense?
Mr.
Manness: This was partnered with, again,
the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Winnipeg Quality Network, Red
River Community College and the EITC, the Economic Innovation Technology
Council of government. This was a
component of an industry‑driven strategy and introduced to Manitoba
quality‑related, creative thinking.
Subsequent to this seminar, the individual achieved certification, and
subsequently, at no cost to Workforce 2000, had a significant number of
seminars, including one at Red River Community College. Twenty people from the board of Red River and
executive managers were in attendance, again at no cost to Workforce 2000.
Here you have a case where we have
tried to help bring and develop that expertise in our province. With the infusion, as I indicated, of $6,000
we now have that expertise in the province and now others are using it outside of
Workforce 2000.
Ms.
Friesen: That $6,000 was to support one
person at this program, or were there more people that were supported in that
one?
Mr. Manness: One person.
Ms. Friesen: Six thousand dollars to support one
person. How long was the training
involved?
Mr. Manness: We do not have that. We can get that.
Ms.
Friesen: This was supported by others
including the EITC and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and Red
River. Were there other people who were
trained at this time, or was there only one person who was trained?
Mr. Manness: At this time, one.
Ms.
Friesen: So all of those organizations
put additional monies in to train one person, in addition to the $6,000 that
the department put in?
Mr.
Manness: Again, we do not have that
detail here. That is what I am trying to
say to the member. We do not have that
here. We do know they partnered it. We know they sponsored it and they hosted
it. To what extent everybody put shares
of money up, I have no idea.
Again, I reiterate for the record, I
do not have this information with me.
This is old information. We are
not here to review old information.
* (1500)
Ms.
Friesen: Again, it is the only
information available to us. When the
department does not put forward the list of ones that it is going to support in
the year, we cannot examine them then.
We would come the next year in Estimates and the minister would say,
that is old information, you cannot ask that.
So there is a logical difficulty there, and I am trying to pursue it in
as reasonable manner as I can.
I am quite prepared for the minister
to submit information afterwards.
Indeed, if the minister would like to publish the list that I assume his
department staff have of who supported these, how much money was there, who was
trained, what they were trained for and what the spin‑offs were and what
the benefit to Manitoba was, I am sure we would not have this difficulty. I suggest to the minister that that kind of
information should be publicly available.
Mr.
Manness: We gave to the NDP caucus and to
the Liberal caucus‑‑indeed, the package of materials is in the hand
now of the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
It is an incredible listing of detail.
I dare say, I do not know what more the members want. It shows who received what. It has been provided, so I do not want the
record to say that we have not provided an elaborate amount of information.
Ms.
Friesen: I think the minister should
recognize‑‑and I understand he probably does not review everything
that goes out of his department. What
was provided and what the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) has in his hand is
indeed quite detailed, but it is the small grant program. We did receive that from the minister, and we
did receive the payroll tax deduction program.
These other programs of Industry‑Wide Partnership and Province‑Wide
Special Courses are not ones on which we have received any detail, which is why
I am beginning with that kind of a question.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
as I recollect, members did not ask for that information. [interjection] All I
need is a request for that information‑‑not expected to do it
today, but indeed give us some time to put it in a proper fashion similar to
that information given.
The member keeps taking us through,
for the last several hours, and again trying to extract all this information
which is her right to do but not at this sitting. I will provide everything that she wants in a
similar fashion to the other two programs.
All I need is a request, and I will undertake to do that. To stay here today and try and go through all
of this in a painstaking fashion, without the opportunity to bring it together
in some consistency, is, I think, unfair to the process and indeed to staff.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I am
just clarifying for the minister the information we do have and the information
we do not have.
If the minister is prepared to create
a list which does indicate the partnerships involved in each of these province‑wide
special courses, the number of participants, the number of participants
supported by the department and an evaluation of the program‑‑[interjection]
I said program. Surely you evaluate your
programs.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
the first three requests are fine, but when the member starts asking
evaluations, I will ultimately decide in what fashion they come out
obviously. Again, I refer to the
Provincial Auditor's report which has looked at the management style, not only
in the financial but the deliverables with respect to the training, because the
audit was more than just financial. [interjection]
I
would challenge that statement. It is
more than just financial.
Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, certainly the first three requests we will attempt
to provide.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister indicate when that will be
provided?
Mr. Manness: Whenever it is we might have it ready.
Ms.
Friesen: In the absence of a specific
date with information which presumably is already tabulated and that his
department staff are reading from, could he then tell me something more about
the creative‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr.
Manness: On a point of order, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, the member makes a flamboyant statement that my staff are already
reading from prepared material which in essence could be tabled right now to
answer her concern. That is‑‑
An Honourable Member: No, I did not say that. Give me a date.
Mr.
Manness: The member said
"presumably" is ready, prepared.
It is not prepared. I state that
for the record.
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please. The minister did not have a point of
order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, my
frustration is in the minister not giving me a date. Is this a one‑week event, is this a two‑week
event or is it the month event? When
will we be able to get the list of 14 courses with the three pieces of
information that I have asked for? That
does not seem difficult to me for the minister to give me a date for that.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that we can do
in a week.
Ms.
Friesen: Could the minister indicate what
the benefit has been or what he anticipates the benefit will be to Manitoba and
Manitobans and which segments of the Manitoba economy, from the Creative
Thinking courses?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
it is in total keeping with the whole thrust of the framework for economic
development. The member may discount
that document, maybe has never read it but probably has. She would see that the heavy emphasis in that
document falls into the areas of innovation and creative thinking in a global
context and a global society, very much based on the latest information
technologies that are in place. The
basis of all today, the great natural resource, is the ability to create and to
be of creative mind in today's reality of wealth generation.
So we are trying to put into place an
opportunity through seminar, through preparation of curriculum, to challenge
our decision makers to be ready for that competitive perspective that is
required in today's smaller global village.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
two out of the 14 courses were in that area.
How does the minister look at that package of courses in terms of the
general priorities of Manitoba? Two are
devoted to innovative thinking. How do
the others relate as a package, as a group, to the priorities in the economic
framework document?
Mr.
Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, the whole thrust is training.
We are in a training section and the Train the Trainer concept‑‑the
member would know this better than me. What
we are trying to do, of course, is encourage as a result of the recommendations
coming out of the STAC report. We
recognized that we had a culture, a business culture in this country, which was
not forcefully requiring their employees to train or making commitments to it.
So we have tried to cause the system
to lurch into that realization, and we have done it through, hopefully more
speedily, these seminars and Train the Trainers which will build an enthusiasm
with partnering employers who then will take these individuals who are now
trained and hopefully let them move through their companies, through their
sectors, through their industry, and indeed let this training culture take root
and grow. Again, that is in keeping with
the whole thrust of training.
* (1510)
Now the member, of course, believes
that most of it, if not all of it, should be done in an institutional
sense. We have said no. It has to be done at the worksite, and it has
to be done in a less formal manner for a period of time. So Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again that
is what Train the Trainer is all about last year, this year, and now it will be
training for export.
We know that the very social systems
the members decry every time they see us making a reduction are going to have
to have tax‑supported revenue somewhere.
The old traditional industries are certainly suffering worldwide. We are not exempt from that. So we have to create new activity.
A very significant part of that
activity is going to have to be based on exporting, outside of our provinces,
new goods, but also taking existing corporations and businesses of all sizes
and saying, look, you are going to have to expand your horizon. It is no longer just Manitoba or Saskatchewan
and Ontario. You are going to have to
get out into the world, and it is to expand this thinking. So there is another seminar put into place
for that. It is all, though, directed
towards greater economic wealth generation for our province.
Ms.
Friesen: So the minister's basic approach
to this is simply the development of the training culture. There has not been an attempt in each of
these sections of the program to match it specifically or in proportion or in
sense of priorities to the economic framework document‑‑so many for
health, so many for environmental industries, so many for innovation
ideas. That is what I was looking for.
Is there an attempt to sit down and
try and parallel and match those? Where
are the priorities of the government as it looks through those six or seven
areas of the economic framework document?
As the minister is ready to reply,
perhaps I could remind him for the second time this afternoon that our
opposition is not to work‑based training.
I remind him he was in the House when I laid that out very clearly. It is the second time he has used that as his
defence, or at least his form of attack.
It is not correct, and I do not think we need to hear it a third time.
Mr.
Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
I do not need to continue to hear a lot of things either. I do not cry out to the record like the
member for Wolseley. I have heard many
repetitive statements too, which I have difficulty accepting, but I do not go
crying off to the record like the member for Wolseley. I take my lumps.
The point I want to make is, we are
into an area now that represents 2.8 percent of the total Workforce 2000
expenditures‑‑2.8 percent‑‑and it seems to be that the
member is digging in so much because she does not have worded or written
detail. I am going to provide her with
the information she asks in this 2.8 percent slice of the total Workforce 2000
pie within a week.
At that time, I am sure, she will come
to the realization that the courses and the seminars that we are talking about
are indeed worthy of support and, secondly, are in keeping with the thrust of
the framework for the economic development document.
Ms.
Friesen: I was giving the minister an
opportunity to explain in fact how they did relate. The purpose in doing that was to look at the
next $100,000 that the minister has on this line for next year and to see, to
get some indication of what it is we are doing when we pass that line.
Is the minister sitting down with that
framework document and saying a certain proportion is going to X, Y and Z
areas? Has that been done in the
past? Is that what we anticipate in the
future? In the absence of the detail
today, I am looking to create the generalizations that will give me some
comfort about that particular line.
Mr.
Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, the question is fair. I
will try and share with the member some of the broad thrusts that we hope to
see developed under this smaller area for '94‑95.
Planned, and for delivery in '94‑95,
are export‑related courses, including Train the Trainer for Export, and
Gaining the Competitive Edge in the Pacific Rim; the development and delivery
of courses related to industry‑specific foundation skills are planned,
particularly directed at small business; activity related to training
associated with the implementation of quality initiatives, notably ISO 9000;
and creativity will be enhanced.
Further, there will be offerings of
Train the Trainer workshop, piloted in '92‑93 and revised in '93‑94,
particularly Train the Trainer for the Printing Industry in technical writing
skills.
So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I
do not know whether that adds an awful lot, other than the discussion we have
had, but I think it puts again into place the process that we are trying to
follow. Yes, we are trying to match to
the extent that we can, the thrusts that have been set forward in the framework
for economic development.
The framework of economic development
talked about six areas, rightfully so, but through it all there was a
tremendous emphasis on exporting and creativity and innovation, which can fall
into all those six areas, but into other areas too.
All we are trying to do is make our
industry aware of what they are going to need to do to be competitive, because
I dare say, I do not know where a lot of their people are trained and in what
institutions, but indeed somehow, somewhere that has been forgotten. That is the way Canada and indeed Manitoba
has been, and I think we can put a lot of‑‑and although I do not
look for blame, I still sense, in my view, there are a lot of people who are
professional in nature who have high positions but have totally forgotten how
important wealth creation is and how important it is to be maintained and how
different wealth creation changes from the generation we are going into from
where we have come. A lot of our formal
training institutions of course give this very, very little emphasis.
What we are trying to do is catch
up. Obviously, the void has been in
place, in my view, for 15 years. Can we
do it in the space of a short time?
Well, I do not know. Can we do it
with Workforce 2000? Probably not
totally. I know one thing, if we do not
do it quickly, and given the roadblocks of change that exist in so many of our
institutions, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it will never get done, and the
wealth of the province will suffer accordingly.
Who was calling out for Workforce
2000? How come it was basically the
community and particularly the wealth creators?
Why were they calling out for it?
Of course the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) said, well, they are
probably calling out for it because they want a free government handout‑‑and
he nods in the affirmative, because that is his narrow view of the world. He believes that all this training was going
to happen in institutions, but something has gone wrong because it has not
happened.
That is the basis behind Workforce
2000. Yes, within the specialized course
area, to the extent we can meld it with the thrusts coming out of the economic
framework, it will be done. It is
broader than that too, because as soon as we move into the emphasis on
exporting, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that covers all six areas and indeed
other areas of our provincial economy.
* (1520)
Ms.
Friesen: The issue again is not work‑based
training. There is no difficulty with
work‑based training. The issue is
the accountability and the way in which that is conducted.
Again, I have laid out a number of
principles that we believe in on work‑based training. Again, on this line, I am trying to get more
information, more accountability and what is available to me in one of the
opportunities that we have to do that.
The courses in this particular
section, the Province‑Wide Special Courses, seem to have been aimed
primarily at management. Is that the
case? Were there any people who took
part or were supported who could be defined as employees rather than
management?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
we cannot answer that definitively, although our suspicion is it would be
probably in the area of mid‑management to higher management.
Ms.
Friesen: I would like to move to the
Industry‑Wide Partnerships next.
Could the minister tell me first of all how much of the budget will be
devoted to that next year and how much was devoted last year?
Mr.
Manness: Approximately $1.8 million or 44
percent of the budget. This is '94‑95‑‑no,
I am sorry, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.
The dollars were correct. The
percentage was '93‑94. Whether
that percentage is the same or not we will get the number shortly.
Ms. Friesen: What were the dollars last year?
Mr. Manness: The dollars last year were $1.295 million.
Ms.
Friesen: There are 26 partnerships listed
for '94‑95 that will be developed with this. Could the minister give us an indication of
what he is anticipating in that area?
Mr.
Manness: There are not agreements, but
there are discussions in these areas, manufacturing. Again, I am kind of reluctant to indicate the
subsets, the sectors within manufacturing who are presently engaged in
discussion because again there is nothing complete. A group under Construction, a supporting
group: agriculture and rural
development, community business personnel service and transportation and
communication. I will see under this
heading who it is we are dialoguing with, the Manitoba Trucking Industry
Education Advisory Committee. MTIEAC, I
think it is called.
Those were being worked in
developmental stages; the others are in progress or approved. These are the ones that come to my desk for
final approval. For instance, again,
under the heading of Manufacturing:
Health Care Products Association has been approved; Manitoba Aerospace;
a human resource co‑ordinating committee and the Manitoba Apparel Human
Resource Committee.
Then I also have others under the
heading of Construction: communication,
telecommunications, agriculture and rural development, community business
personnel service and again transportation and communication.
Ms. Friesen: So how many have actually been approved for
this coming fiscal year?
Mr.
Manness: Virtually all these that I have
are carry‑overs from last year. It
is hard to define the year. In some
cases the list that the member has there represents up to a period of time, and
then they go beyond that.
Again, just to reiterate, these
programs can start any time and flow into the next year. That is why the approvals for some of these
may have been made a year ago and are still flowing because the start‑up
does not always begin at the approval time.
Ms.
Friesen: The categories then that the
minister has given me seem to be the same over the course of the two
years. Does that indicate those are the only
categories for these kinds of partnerships or are these the only people who
have applied? This would not cover the
manufacturing and industrial base of the province.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr.
Manness: The headings provided is what is
happening right now, but I could add to those.
We have tried to take the Manitoba economy and break it into basically
10 sectors. They are, again, the
manufacturing goods producing; construction; agriculture related;
transportation and communications; business community services; financial
insurance realty‑‑of course, we have had nothing under that;
wholesale‑retail‑‑and we have had nothing there; primary and
other; businesses relocating, expanding, and we have, up to this point, had
nothing there, but we are putting a value into that group this year for the
first time. [interjection] Well, but we probably have not spent it.
As we try and take a snapshot of the
Manitoba economy, that is the way it breaks into these sectors. The number that I have listed, the six broad
headings, of course, is where we have had activity over the last two years.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is
helpful. I guess I am surprised that
there has not been any interest or activity in the primary section.
Mr. Manness: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I share the
member's interest in that because in '92‑93 there were three agreements
for $32,800, but in '93‑94 there were none.
Ms. Friesen: What were the three for, which areas of
primary industry?
Mr. Manness: Again, we are going back to '92‑93. I am sorry, we just do not have that.
Ms. Friesen: Would the minister undertake to provide that?
Mr. Manness: I will attempt to try and provide that.
Ms. Friesen: How much has been assigned to the relocation
number, the relocation label this year?
Mr. Manness: $500,000.
Ms. Friesen: Is the minister involved in any discussions
with any particular group?
* (1530)
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not,
but if I were, I could not share that with the member anyway because of the
sensitivity around any negotiations. I
certainly would not be the lead minister in that. The way it happens right now, the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) are
leads, and once they feel it is time that I be brought in on a training
capacity or function, then I am brought in.
Ms.
Friesen: The business community services
has some programs both last year and this year.
Could the minister give me an example of what kind of partnership might
be involved there, and what services that particular industry is looking for?
Mr.
Manness: Manitoba Tourism Education
Council, Manitoba Motor Dealers' Association, Manitoba Guide Training Steering
Committee, Manitoba Environmental Industries Association, Lord Selkirk
Community Adjustment Committee and the Automotive Trades Association.
Ms.
Friesen: There are a couple there that I
am not familiar with. The Lord Selkirk‑‑what
was the rest of that‑‑and the Manitoba Guide Trainers. Is that outfitters and guides?
Mr. Manness: The short answer is yes. It is part of our tourism thrust in the
North.
Ms. Friesen: What is the Lord Selkirk?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a
community adjustment committee, and what it attempts to do is to cost‑share
in the development of the second and third phase of the labour market survey
for the community and districts of St. Clements and St. Andrews.
Ms.
Friesen: The Lord Selkirk one, the community
adjustment one, is that one that is in process now or is that completed or is
that anticipated?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I
find interesting here‑‑it is one thing for the NDP to really begin
to try to find shortcomings in the Workforce 2000, but I find it strange when
the Liberals of course are attacking us on Workforce 2000, not that they have
done it much, but they do it sometimes, because here is a situation‑‑again,
many of them are joint funded. Here is a
case where Human Resources Development Canada put in $46,000 and asked us to
partner with respect to this. We put in
$7,075. Industry has put in $2,925 in
kind.
Again, this attempts to work in
partnership with as many people as possible and a significant number of times,
certainly since I have been the minister and have been trying to read these
agreements, a large measure of times with the federal government.
Ms.
Friesen: I chose this one because it
looked like an appropriate use of money, and I am trying to find out about it. I do not know why the minister is so
immediately defensive. My question was
quite neutral. What was the Lord Selkirk
association, and what were the plans and what is the partnership? I understand it is a federal‑provincial
partnership with some small amount of private sector money, and it deals with a
labour force development strategy.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was
not defensive. I was just pointing out
to the‑‑I was trying to draw the Liberals into this debate a little
bit. That is all I was trying to do,
because I can tell the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is dying a slow death
there trying to get into the debate.
The reality is, here is a project, in
keeping with the thrust of many of the questions put by the member yesterday,
here we are trying to measure the training and indeed the labour market skills
in the area and the training needs.
Ms.
Friesen: Could the minister tell me
something more about this? The community‑based
measurement of skills and needs and training needs seems to me quite an
appropriate use. I would like to hear a
little more about it and how it is working.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot
offer any more information other than to say that we expect the project to have
been completed recently if not by the end of April, and the results will come,
and ultimately the project will be finally completed hopefully by the end of
June when all the results will be analyzed.
That has not been done. The
surveys are just being completed right now.
Ms.
Friesen: The minister says surveys. I know nothing about this project. I am asking for information. What is being done? The minister says surveys. What are they surveying? Who are they surveying? What are the anticipated results?
Mr. Manness: I do not have much more to offer. I think I cannot be any more straightforward,
what is attempted under this program and our contribution to study the employer
needs in the area, study what set of skills are in the area, see what shortages
may be in place and to just make recommendations as to how they may be
fulfilled‑‑probably a pilot of exactly what the member was wanting
for the whole province yesterday, and which indeed we have tried to do as a
department.
Ms.
Friesen: It was the kind of survey, I
think, that was envisaged in the STAC report of 1990. That is an interesting version of partnership
then. It is a federal‑provincial
partnership essentially with some input in kind.
What other kind of partnerships are
developed in this kind of a program, for example, tourism education or the
motor dealers? How do those partnerships
work?
Mr.
Manness: I will talk about the Automotive
Trades Association because I have it right before me. Here is a total cost of $30,000 to a training
initiative that deals with I‑CAR auto collision repair training. The proposal has been approved by Workforce
2000. The total cost is $30,250. Workforce 2000 has put forward $16,500, and
again, Human Resources Development Canada has put forward $13,750. There is another example of a partnership.
Ms.
Friesen: What is the anticipated result
of that partnership? There seems to be
quite a bit of flexibility involved in these different programs. The Selkirk one, for example, is going to end
up in a survey. Does this one end with
people trained, or is it trainers trained, or what is the purpose of it?
Mr.
Manness: I am using this as a model, I
suppose. What is attempted here is to
upgrade the skills of journeymen, journeypersons, I suppose, to take into
account the new technology that is in this industry. It uses the I‑CAR national
curriculum. It is delivered by MPIC
trainers in MPIC facilities. It is the
introduction, as I have said before, of new technologies and processes, and it
is done in co‑operation with the Apprenticeship branch. It has reached out to, so far, 153
journeypersons and 537 segments of training, units of training.
This is one the member for Elmwood
(Mr. Maloway) would have fun with, and he would say that this represents
support to used‑car salesmen‑‑a kind of a cheap shot, but
that is fine. That is the way he likes
to play politics.
* (1540)
Even though the member for Elmwood
offends a lot of people in the automotive industry, the reality is‑‑I
have been waiting for a long time for this, Mr. Deputy Chair, as you can tell,
and I have some concerns too about some of the money going into the automotive
industry, and I have said that. But here
is an area where you try to upgrade the skills ultimately of people who were
trained under old technologies. You can
say, well, really the paying customer should pay for that, and that could be an
argument made‑‑and it could be a good argument made, I guess,
depending from where you come‑‑but the reality is everybody makes
contributions to these programs.
Secondly, ultimately if we can have our insurance rates drop as a
result, hopefully, of lower cost of Autopac repairs, then you and I have more
money in our pocket at the end of the day.
That might be a long stretch, but that is what taking new technology and
reducing the per‑unit cost is all about.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, in the small
donations, not small donations, the small allocations to businesses under the other
Workforce 2000 program, there are a number of grants for training of new car
technologies. I wonder, how does the
minister decide or how does the program decide between the allocation to
individual owners and to the industry‑wide basis. Obviously, in an industry‑wide basis
like this, there are savings to be made in terms of training; there are savings
in terms of systematic training and also training which brings people together
across the industry. I think there is a
fair amount of value in that.
Again, when I spoke on this in the
House, I indicated that I thought that was a useful way of proceeding with
workplace training. It was not an area
that I found the government talking much about publicly. That is why I am interested in pursuing it
here. How do you make that decision?
Mr.
Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
what we try to do, we have individual requests.
I guess what we will do is back off and try and determine whether the
requests are in keeping with the requirement across a broader cross section of
an industry. So rather than just rush
out, and very rarely do we rush at any time with respect to this program, but
rush out and receive and provide under an application for an individual‑‑let
us say a car dealership, if we look at the training requests, we will make a
determination whether or not those are required across the industry.
In that case, we will say no to the
individual application, and we will say no, but we will be prepared to work
with the association and work for the good of all. Under that umbrella then, individual
companies then can come forward, but they will have to come under the umbrella
of the association.
So we get a better value for our
dollar, if we can do it by way of a sectoral agreement because then we can say
to all, look, this is for the whole industry; we expect you then to also make a
significant contribution on your own.
That is what has happened in the vast majority of cases.
Ms.
Friesen: Well, what struck me in the
Birchwood case is that there were in that case five grants which were made to
Birchwood for the different parts of its company. One wondered why, for example, Birchwood was
not joining with other Toyota dealers or with other Honda dealers or with other
Saab dealers, although I do not know how many there are of those, and doing
that on an industry‑wide basis, or BMW.
Why did that not happen?
Mr.
Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
again, I do not know. The member uses as
an example Birchwood motor dealers. I am
surprised the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) again‑‑I am trying
to draw him into this debate‑‑would not because I know his‑‑
An Honourable Member: No, I never mention Birchwood.
Mr. Manness: Yes, I do not think he will ever mention
Birchwood again and certainly not on the record.
Anyway, what I have reviewed with the
member is the preferred route at the beginning, and as I have said, even to
Birchwood, who have dialogued with me and, indeed, the automotive association,
at the beginning, we took a pretty wide intake, and we did that
deliberately. We are now looking for the
methods that will enact the criteria since I have been in office that would be
in keeping with the statement I made just now and which I think is in keeping
with what the member for Wolseley (Mrs. Friesen) has said. We are wanting to drive more away from
individual commitments to industry‑wide by the method that I have
recorded.
Ms.
Friesen: But the Birchwood case was the
third year of the program. It was not at
the beginning. Certainly, that is my
concern with it. It did not seem to be a
cost‑effective way to go. Well, it
is one of my concerns. There are others
we will discuss later. I do not mean to
single out Birchwood, particularly.
There were certainly other automotive dealers who were involved in
similar situations and who might have been brought together with sections of
the industry to, in fact, deal with this on a more cost‑effective basis.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I
realize I do have some involvement in this whole thing at the very
beginning. To use the automotive
industry, when we first brought forward Workforce 2000, the automotive industry
wanted to have eligibilities against the payroll tax reductions. When I was the Minister of Finance in charge
of that, I said no.
At that time they then turned over to
the Workforce 2000 plan which did not have a well‑prepared, at that time,
sectoral outreach. It was individual
application by firm, and that is how some firms, of course, were able to be more
successful in terms of '92‑93. Of
course, what we are doing since is anywhere we can force it to a sectoral
agreement, which of course will call upon greater amounts of monies from the
sector, then under that umbrella let the companies that have the means and/or
the interest come forward.
Ms. Friesen: I think it was not '92‑93 that
Birchwood was. It was '93‑94. So it is quite recent, I think.
The minister talked about, in his new
approach, calling on greater resources from the association. First of all, could he explain what he means
by that greater resources? Is the
association putting in more money into these than it did before?
Mr.
Manness: I did not mean that specific to
the automobile trade association. I
meant that generally to all, against all sectors.
* (1550)
Ms.
Friesen: In reference to the automotive
association, or indeed any of the other associations, the environmental
association, the tourism education association, does that mean that since these
are membership organizations the training that is offered under this umbrella,
these partnerships, is only available to managers and employees of those
particular members of the associations?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again,
to the extent that the training is homogeneous across the industry and this
system is nurtured and indeed matures, we would not really be accessible to
applications from people within that industry who came to us outside of the
industry agreement. To the extent,
though, that there might be a firm within that industry or sector who had a
specialized need or a specialized training outside, again, the homogeneity of
the requirement, then they could enter directly as a business outside of the
industry association.
Again we are learning, too, as we go
through this process and to the extent that we can define and indeed measure
homogeneity of training across a wider cross section and that is where we
prefer to deal with an association rather than many individual firms.
Ms.
Friesen: How representative are each of
these associations, for example, the Tourism Education Association? It is not one that I am familiar with. Who would belong to that, and how
representative would they be of the tourism industry?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we
cannot say it with certainty. I do not
know whether that is the educational arm of TIAM, the Tourism Industry
Association of Manitoba, or not.
Therefore, I know there are private people there, there are some
nonprofit organizations that also belong to this group, but it is full
characteristic. I cannot speak to it
just now.
Ms. Friesen: Would the minister undertake to let me know
at a later date?
Mr. Manness: Yes, I will.
Ms.
Friesen: The Motor Dealers Association,
does the minister have any information with him or available at a later date as
to who is represented in that association?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will
try and find out exactly who makes up the Manitoba Motor Dealers Association
also. I think, from memory, it represents
all of the car dealerships in the city of Winnipeg and the province.
[interjection] Yes, it seems to me there are 26 or 30 members or something, but
I will attempt to find out how many of that total industry are part of that
association.
I have to point out, the member seems
to say, well, they may not represent everybody.
They may not, but we are not going to pass a law that says everybody has
to belong to them either. This is a free
association.
Ms.
Friesen: The minister mentioned that some
businesses outside the associations could enter directly in special cases. Could he tell us whether any have?
Mr. Manness: Are you talking specifically motor vehicle
dealers or generally?
Ms.
Friesen: Just generally. Again, obviously what I am looking for is the
open accessibility of these courses.
When they are organized through associations and as a general principle
restricted to members of those associations, that is not an accountable and
accessible program.
Mr.
Manness: I guess the best way to answer
the question is, firstly, we have tried to reach out to the needs of the
industry, No. 1; No. 2, somebody has to accept the challenge. So if there was no association there it makes
it more difficult for us and for that industry.
Thank goodness there are associations there.
Individuals not belonging to that
association can apply directly to the program.
Never have we turned down any individual in any field because they are
not a member of an association.
Ms.
Friesen: My question was, have any
applied directly and been involved?
Again, my concern is that there is wide public knowledge about the
availability of these courses.
Mr.
Manness: Yes, it has happened where
companies who were not part of an association have come to us and we have supported
their training. And again, as I
referenced earlier, some, being part of an association, have come to us on
their own for some very specialized training outside of the general requirement
of that industry, and we have also supported that.
Ms. Friesen: Would there be an example of that that the
minister has available?
Mr.
Manness: We will try to get an example of
that, but again from memory in 40,000 or 50,000 success stories we just do not
have that at our fingertips.
Ms. Friesen: Sorry, I missed that number, 40,000 to 50,000
success stories in the industry‑wide partnerships?
Mr. Manness: In the whole Workforce 2000 program.
Ms.
Friesen: I was just referring to this
program in which there are 26 partnerships this coming year. I would appreciate knowing if there have been
other applications and if they have been accepted. Again my principle is the same one that I was
posing in the last section of Workforce 2000, and that is industry‑wide
partnerships are a good idea, work‑based training is a good idea, but we
have public money going into this which is not widely known or equally
available, and that is my concern.
Mr.
Manness: I do not know; when the member
says, it is not widely known, that calls into question that we have not done a
good job of advertising the program. I
guess somewhere in the member's remarks she might like to indicate how it is or
whether or not she feels we should spend $50,000, $100,000, $200,000
advertising the program better?
I know that because when I sponsored
the Parents' Forum and some criticized me for not advertising, I said no, I am
not spending the $40,000 required to take that out in all of the newspapers of
the province to advertise that.
It is very, very costly to have the
message put out. Then I imagine as soon
as we did, if we were to do it now, we would be criticized for of course making
political statements on the eve of an election.
It seems like you cannot win when you are in government.
The member makes the statement, well,
not everybody knows about this. I can
tell you, if we put half a million dollars into advertising the program so
everybody knew, plus the results and the achievements, we would be severely
criticized by members opposite. I know
we would.
* (1600)
Ms.
Friesen: Well, this is not a government
which is afraid to advertise, so I do think that there are other ways in which
one might advertise. We are working in
partnership with associations. Is there
any requirement in the grant for example that the associations advertise
it? They have access to the industry,
not just to their own members. There is
a possibility.
People around this table I think have
just suggested two other possibilities which they may want to put on the
record. Perhaps this is the very area of
innovation and creativity and Six Thinking Hats and Edward de Bono and lateral
thinking that the minister might want to indulge in.
Mr.
Manness: We can carry the message only so
far, and we ask the associations‑‑we do not have to ask them, they
take it to their membership. We sense
that our industries are sufficiently small in numbers of firms within them that
not much happens that is not known regardless of the size of the industry.
We sense that the scale we are talking
about, there are very few businesses who are not aware of the opportunities
under this program.
Ms.
Friesen: It is a general way of thinking
that elites do have, that word of mouth, association members, people in the
know that people will know. I just
remind the minister that it is the money of all the people and there are ways,
creatively and inexpensively, of ensuring that there are means for all the
people to know that these courses and these programs are available for
them. I am sure it is a way of thinking
that all governments get into, but it does tend to narrow accessibility and is,
I think, something which there are ways of avoiding.
Mr.
Manness: I would ask the member, if we
embarked upon any of those ways could we expect any criticism whatsoever from
the NDP? If we would try to publicly
sell Workforce 2000 in an informational sense, would the NDP then not be
critical of our attempt to make the program better known?
Ms.
Friesen: I think the minister understands
my purpose clearly enough. This is public
money which should be publicly available.
Public knowledge, publicly tabled curriculum, public evaluation are what
we are asking for in this program, and public accountability. Accessibility, evaluation and accountability,
the kinds of things which we demand of public institutions we are also looking
for here.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there
has never been a public institution, never since the beginning of time, that
has gone through the rigour of analysis as this money. There has not been ever a public institution
called upon to spend the dollars. Never
has anybody had to publicly‑‑never has a Minister of Education sat
in the chair to be held accountable for the institutions, the formal
institutions of the university and/or the community colleges to the degree that
I have been held accountable for Workforce 2000. Never.
I have never seen a Minister of Education, in all the years I have been
in this Chamber, 13 years, have a go on accountability with respect to those
questions.
Ms. Friesen: You have not been in the Chamber for the last
three days. Three minutes there and 40
minutes out.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was in the session
today for 30 minutes in the House.
Ms.
Friesen: That is quite a statement from
the minister, and I certainly will look forward to quoting that back at him on
a variety of occasions.
Perhaps
he might care to look at the annual report of any university across the
country.
Mr. Manness: I am the accountable, not the report.
Ms.
Friesen: You do not have a report for
Workforce 2000. That is an absolutely
outrageous statement that Workforce 2000 has been subject to any level of
accountability. You cannot provide today
even the names of the programs, the names of the people, the partners who are
involved, the detail of 12 months ago.
You are confused about which year
Birchwood motors got its grant. I quite
understand that you do not have the information available today, and we will
accept it when you do provide it. Then
to claim on top of that that in fact this is the most accountable program in
government is really stretching things a little bit.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, nobody
said this was the most accountable program in government. Nobody said that.
For the member, we have given
information to the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) and to the NDP caucus that
magnifies several hundred times any information that I, as the Minister of
Education, in many cases can request from the universities. Academic freedom is incredible power, and the
member sits there and defends it, but a Minister of Education has no call on a
lot of the internal governance issues and indeed the dollars supporting it and
indeed the reserve accounts of university.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, try to go through
this detail within a public institution and you will have the door slammed in
your face.
Yet, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am the
Minister of Education held accountable for everything that happens within some
of our formal institutions. So let me say
to the member, we do not have an annual report yet with respect to Workforce
2000, not yet. We may not have one, but
in due course we probably will. The
reality is, I am answering questions. I
am giving detail to the members, and I am going to give them more detail. I tell you, we are fully accountable for this
program, this very good program, I might add.
Ms.
Friesen: I think the minister will find
that if he picks up the phone and phones the university and asks them for
curricula‑‑[interjection] Well, pick up a college. Pick up any post‑secondary institution
and ask for curricula, ask for qualifications of the teachers, ask for
evaluation of the programs, ask for the years in which they are given. Any member of the public can do that.
I am trying to represent the members
of the public and to get some basic information on the record about Workforce
2000. I think probably it would be
better for the minister if we stuck to that rather than get into these outlandish
statements that he wants to put on the record, but that is his choice. If he would like to head off into deeper
pastures, it would be quite interesting and quite useful for other purposes.
[interjection] That is right, yes, in great detail.
So in terms of evaluation then, could
the minister tell us what evaluations have been done on the last year of
industry‑wide partnerships?
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
we have done reviews and we have done reports and some of them border on
evaluations. Some may not. It depends, but this is the list of things we
have done to try and monitor exactly what has happened under the 27 sectoral
initiatives.
Ms.
Friesen: I just want to make sure with
the different terminologies that are used here.
The Estimates line says industry‑wide partnerships and the
minister is using sectoral initiatives.
Those are the same thing, are they?
Mr.
Manness: The same terminology. We have had participant evaluations in all
training initiatives. We have monitored
the worksite through visits. We have
done summative project reports, a final report including outcomes in the human
resource committees. We have done
specified external evaluations in some of the longer‑term
partnerships. I am thinking about
particularly here, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the aerospace industry to
name one.
* (1610)
Ms. Friesen: Are those final reports in the human
resources sector available?
Mr. Manness: None of these are available. These are internal working documents.
Ms.
Friesen: What was that the minister said
about accountable, open, responsible, will give detailed information? It could have been only 30 seconds ago.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
that is why the Provincial Auditor gave us a passing grade because everything
was in order.
Ms. Friesen: Did the Provincial Auditor read the final
reports of the human resource program?
Mr. Manness: I would not know.
Ms.
Friesen: My understanding from the
Provincial Auditor was that she did not read those reports, that she dealt with
financial accountability.
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Would the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) like to make
comment?
Ms.
Friesen: So there have been evaluations
done, and it looks like a diverse list.
The worksite visits, how often would that be done during the course of
an agreement?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
we direct most of our visiting to the wage‑assisted areas. Over a year, we would visit possibly once a
quarter, at least two or three times a year.
Ms.
Friesen: I understood that we were
talking about the 27 sectoral initiatives or the Industry‑Wide
Partnerships, and that was where the minister gave me the list of participant
evaluations, worksite visits, summative program evaluations, final reports in
the human resources sector and external evaluations with the aerospace.
Perhaps we need to clarify what that
list was about. I understood it to be
the 27 sectoral initiatives. I have not
yet moved to the Training Incentives Contracts section.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
we have monitored, under industry‑wide initiatives, all of the agreements
struck. I will use some, for example: Cal‑West, D.W. Friesen, Manitoba
Fashion, Manitoba Rolling Mills, Manitoba Pork.
We have monitored Brandon and District Chefs Association, Manitoba
dental lab technicians association and Manitoba Motor Dealers Association to
pick one that is well known. Of course
there is not one that we have not monitored.
I have just gone down the list. We have final reports developed in about half
of the areas, and we have evaluations, formal evaluations, I guess, outcome
evaluations in about a third of these areas.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we do our best to evaluate these programs
in some consistent fashion.
Ms.
Friesen: I am not sure I would agree that
it is consistent if only 50 percent have a final report and if only a third
have outcome evaluations. Is it intended
that those will all be completed in a consistent manner?
Mr.
Manness: Yes, we provide consistency in
all of our decisions. We bring
principles and consistency to all of the programs that we have introduced in
government.
Ms. Friesen: When does the minister anticipate that final
reports will be available on all the programs completed?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
many of the agreements that we, again, looked at in '93‑94 that called
for still support in '94‑95 are still in place. Within three to six months of the completion,
we will attempt to have a final report at that time.
Ms.
Friesen: Could the minister tell us,
again I am still speaking of the sectoral initiatives, what is involved in
monitoring? How often are the worksites
visited, and is every worksite visited?
Mr.
Manness: In the wage‑assisted
areas, we will monitor more frequently, as I have indicated before, than we
would, for instance, in some of the agreements by sector with
associations. In that case, we call on
the association to be more active with us.
We will monitor in the terms of financial accounting and to make sure
the bills and the receipts are done.
Now I know exactly what the member is
going to say. She is going to say, oh,
well, it could collapse right here, but we refuse, quite honestly, to increase
the staff a thousandfold. We are out
there virtually in almost every worksite, and to have inspectors running around
to all the worksites in place, of course, would mean more money would go into
bureaucracy than into training. I know
that is the NDP way, and I know they would like to do it that way, but we will
not.
An Honourable Member: Here he goes again.
Mr.
Manness: The member for Elmwood (Mr.
Maloway) says here I go again. Well, Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, I mean I was not born yesterday. I know where the line of questioning
ultimately will lead, so that is the difference in philosophy between the
members.
An Honourable Member: Go to your corner and create a diversion.
Mr.
Manness: I am not cornered, Mr. Acting
Deputy Chairperson. I have said straight
up that this is a good‑faith model, and to the extent that some break
faith because there is greater opportunity given where training is now
happening in so many more workforces, workplaces than happened before, then
obviously the only way we could make sure that it happened in every case was to
hire literally hundreds of more inspectors.
We refused to do that.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I was
following up on what the minister had said, and he did say that under sectoral
initiatives worksite visits took place.
So my question was, how many worksite visits take place and essentially
under what conditions? How often do you
visit them? Does everybody visit it
once, twice? What kind of inspection
takes place?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is
no hard and set rule. I mean, again,
when we deal with the associations, they are called upon to have a role and
responsibility also in monitoring their members in some of the activity under
the program, and we will do audits from time to time in the sense of arriving
in certain areas. Do we visit every
training site under every program under umbrella? Probably the answer is no.
Ms.
Friesen: It was not quite the question I
asked. I asked under the 27 sectoral
initiatives is every worksite visited?
Is that what you said?
* (1620)
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is what I
said.
Ms.
Friesen: Okay. What did the minister mean when he said,
under the 27 sectoral initiatives that a summative program evaluation was
done. Could he describe what one of
those looks like? Could he tell me who
does it, and are any of those available?
Mr.
Manness: What we mean is, for example,
the association and training consultant prepare a final report including the
number of participants who completed, feedback from instructors and
participants and recommendations for future training. Of course, monitoring also occurs to the
human resource committee structure of most projects.
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, Workforce
2000 will talk to the personnel managers within the various companies and ask
for an assessment from them, also. Of
course, it comes together as one summative report.
Ms.
Friesen: Are those available, any of them
available? Is there a summation of all
the reports of the sectoral initiative to date that is available?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it just
goes to the file, and it is included with all the information therein.
Ms. Friesen: So the answer is no, that they are not
available.
Mr. Manness: Who is asking for them?
Ms.
Friesen: I have been asking for any
evidence of evaluation of Workforce 2000 for some time. Now I am asking specifically where the
reports are, and are these particular ones available? These sound quite general, quite interesting,
a useful guide to the public on how the money has been spent, what has been
successful, what has not been successful, what future directions we might want
to look at in work‑base training.
It seems to me that even a summation of these reports and an evaluation
of the program would be helpful.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as close
as we could come, some of the reports I am talking about are participant by
participant or, more importantly, employer by employer. That is privileged information; that is not
public information.
Ms. Friesen: But we are looking at sectoral initiatives,
not employer by employer.
Mr.
Manness: Right, but under that there are
employers who come forward and we, of course, go down to the employer
level. Even though the agreement has
been struck with the association, the reports that we have are employer by employer.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the
examples that we have of sectoral initiative in this case are the two that we
discussed. One was the Lord Selkirk one
and the other was automotive repair where MPIC did the training and people came
from a variety of areas to an MPIC location and were trained. Now in that case, that seemed to me that what
the minister was proposing there was the way in which sectoral initiatives
worked. Now how does the minister go from
that to evaluate that by employer by employer?
Why is the evaluation not done by the sponsoring partner?
Mr.
Manness: We asked the association to do a
global overview too, but that does not remove us in our responsibility from
still dealing on the micro basis with their employers and to making sure, to
the extent that we can, and have resources to make sure that the training is
taking place and there was a final report with respect to individual employers.
Ms.
Friesen: But the initiative and purpose
of this is to deal with the sector to ensure that the skills that the sector
needs and the sector sees that it wants to develop are being done. So why is the primary evaluation not done
with the primary partner, which is the sector, and which is looking at the long‑term
needs of that sector in the Manitoba economy?
Why does the minister then go back in his evaluation to the individual
employer? I can see that there is a
place for the individual employer in the evaluation, but surely the primary
evaluation should be with the partner, and surely that is quite eligible for
being a public document.
Mr.
Manness: Primary assessment is done with
the industry partner, but we still have requirements beyond that, and that is
why of course we have received such a report, a glowing report from the
Provincial Auditor, because we try to do all of this. But the member is asking, why do you not make
the report that is done by the association public? I can say that maybe a time will come in the
not too distant future where that might happen.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in each of
the cases of the sectoral programs, could the minister give us an idea of what
kind of training plan has been tabled or what kind of curricula has been
developed? The two examples which we
have had so far of the sectoral program, obviously the Lord Selkirk one does
not apply and the MPIC one was done with a national curriculum. Can the minister indicate in the other areas
what kind of curriculum has been involved, for example in the motor dealers'
one?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
everybody has to give us a training plan.
We do not necessarily have a curriculum in all cases, and we attempt to
make sure those plans are followed.
Again,
we are not going to make those public either.
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Ms.
Friesen: So is it fair then to say that
this $1.8‑million program that the minister is asking us to pass involves
largely self‑policing by the industry‑‑no curriculum is
necessarily available, although it may be in some cases‑‑that a
training plan is tabled to the minister of perhaps four to five lines of print?
I mean that is what is left on the
form for it, perhaps some of them are longer, that the evaluations which are
done are done in some part by themselves, and that the outcome evaluations have
only been done for a third of the ones that have already been completed, and
this is the $1.8 million that the minister wants us to pass.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is
not fair at all. As a matter of fact, it
is terribly unfair. I am disappointed
that the member would even attempt to chronicle in the fashion she has, the
discussion over the course of this afternoon.
It would be much fairer to say, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I am sure any objective measurer would indicate that there
is a tremendous mix of training techniques and beyond that as between in‑house/outside.
Let me use an example: Red River Community College, for instance,
delivers some partial programming under Workforce 2000. For instance, I can think of D.W. Friesen,
one of our great printing companies in Altona, offers certification of entry‑level
graphic arts training. My colleague is
sitting beside me, and I talk about this often.
Part of that training, of course, is outside of the facility. Why would we ask them to give us the
curriculum of the outside institution, in this case Red River Community
College?
* (1630)
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the plans
are what are the most important. The
member can say, well, yes, but the people that do then give you plans, it may
be only a three‑ or four‑line plan.
I do not know why she would say that, other than to be mischievous. I do not know why she would state that.
Ms. Friesen: Because that is what is on the form, there are
four lines.
Mr.
Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a
form with four lines does not stop you from adding to it four pages. So I point that out to the member.
Then I can also say the Manitoba
Aerospace project could use a public institution to a significant fashion, and
it does. So then does the member want us
to have on file all of the curriculums of the public institutions? So we just cannot be providing for ourselves,
indeed calling forward all of the curriculum, when much of it, of course, the
firm does not even have; it is offered elsewhere.
I just make the final comment that
given the nature of this programming, which, again, is out of keeping with the
traditional state model, and that is where you force everything through public
institutions. This is a good‑faith
model, and it builds on some trust. It
says, we have trust in some of our employer groups. It says that we trust you well enough that
this training is going to be done. It is
going to be in a formula fashion way.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we will
continue to evaluate the best way we can.
Ultimately, I am sure, we will be reporting in a greater fashion with
respect to results, but ultimately, at the end of the day, we do not have a
battery of inspectors to go around to make sure that the files are all full,
No. 1, and No. 2, to make sure that every minute on the training is done,
because that is the old, hard‑bent, state institutional life. That is what we are trying to get away from,
in some dimension, in our province.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
nobody was asking for a battery of inspectors.
I was simply asking, were the worksites visited once?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I
said, there were 40,000 people trained over‑‑[interjection] I have
to indicate that under those 27 agreements there could be literally a thousand
worksites. I guess what I am saying is
that no, we did not visit all of those many, countless numbers of worksites
that fall under those 27 agreements.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
is that in fact the general number the minister works with, that there are a
thousand worksites in the sectoral agreements?
Again, the only two examples that we have discussed in detail here have
involved one worksite and a public survey, the Lord Selkirk one and the MPIC
one.
Now, I would be interested in learning‑‑and
again the minister must recognize that there is no public information on this
program, so what we are getting here today is the basic step‑by‑step
introduction to Workforce 2000. I am
going from the two examples we have discussed where there was one
workplace. Now the minister tells me
there are a thousand worksites in the 27 sectoral agreements. It certainly does change the nature of the
questions, I agree with him, but that is new information.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
my statement was made not remembering the reference to 27. There is no way we can separate this programming
from the individual businesses, so my statement still stands, but it is across
all the programming of Workforce 2000.
So when the member says, well, then you should maybe focus in on this
area, we still are out there doing what we can across the many applicants who
come in under all of the areas of programming.
Ms.
Friesen: When I first started this line
of questioning on the 27 sectoral initiatives, the minister said that there
were participant evaluations, worksite visits, summative programs, final
reports on human resources and external evaluations involved in the aerospace
one. Now, since the minister seems to
have been going back and forth to the larger program, does he want to sort of
set the record right and tell me again what is involved in the evaluation of
the 27 sectoral initiatives?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I put that on
the record.
Ms.
Friesen: The minister said that there
were worksite visits then under the sectoral initiative and now he says, there
are not. So I am trying to get the
record straight. What exactly happens in
the sectoral initiatives in terms of evaluation?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I
said, worksite visits in those cases where there is wage assistance. That is what I said, and that happens. That happens every 10 weeks to every 13
weeks. Yes, I did say that.
Ms.
Friesen: Under these sectoral
initiatives, how many wage‑assisted parts are there to that? Again, for example, the two that we have
discussed in detail, I understand had no wage assistance involved. So how many did, under these 27 partnerships?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have no
breakout for that. That is old
information. Sorry.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Shall
the item pass?
Ms.
Friesen: Would the minister undertake to
provide that information? We are talking
about evaluation. The minister said
there were worksite visits. At this
point, well, I really would just like to get it straight. Were there worksite visits or were there
not? Is there wage assistance in the
sectoral sections or not? I am trying to
get the basic public information on this program.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I
said that there is wage assistance in this area, and we will attempt to find
for the member which of the 27 categories provide some level of support in a
wage assistance manner.
Ms.
Friesen: In the financing of these
programs, where there is wage assistance, how is that accounted for? I have an example here‑‑I do not
think I have the financial information on the MPIC one. Was there any wage assistance on the MPIC
one? Maybe we can use that as the
continuing example.
Mr. Manness: We are quite sure that there was not, but
again we could stand to be corrected.
Ms.
Friesen: Could the minister then give me
an example of where there was wage assistance and how that is accounted for in
the Estimates? Does it, for example,
come under this $1.8 million, or is there another section of these lines under
16.4(h) that accounts for the wage portion of that?
* (1640)
Mr.
Manness: An example might be wage
assistance provided to Carte International to train some transformer
technicians.
Ms. Friesen: How would I find that on the Estimates
line? Is that included in this $1.8
million?
Mr.
Manness: To the extent it happened in the
past and if it were to happen again in the future, it would be included in the
$1.8 million.
Ms.
Friesen: Under the other expenses on this
line, there is also a section called Social Assistance. I wondered if the wage assistance portion
came out of that.
Mr. Manness: That is the line.
Ms.
Friesen: So where do I find the $1.8
million? How does that break down? What portion, for example, of the sectoral
initiative wage assistance comes out of that?
Or is there a breakdown for that?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
the $1.8 million is included in the social assistance line of $3.2 million, so,
yes the support for wage assistance would be included in this line.
Ms.
Friesen: I am sorry, I missed a step
there, I think. In that $3.2 million,
the wage assistance portion of the sectoral initiative is included, but it does
not include the whole $1.8 million. Does
that $1.8 million come out of that $3.2 million line?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I
am looking at the same page‑‑the $3.27 million plus the grants
transfer payments of $400,000 totals under the program expenditure $3.67
million. The $1.8 million I have been
referring to is one‑half of that $3.6 million.
Ms.
Friesen: I am just a little puzzled about
then applying the terminology of "social assistance" to something
which presumably is a little broader than that.
Mr.
Manness: That is the code used throughout
government in all of our programs. That
is common across all of our programs apparently.
Ms. Friesen: So any grant to an external agency is
classified as social assistance?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I
refer the member to 144 for definitions, of the glossary, page 2 in the
Supplementary Information booklet at the bottom. That includes payments to citizens and
groups. So it is a general heading meant
to relate to all those factors.
Ms.
Friesen: In my book it actually says
Clothing for Citizens, Fees and Services.
So is this defined as a fee to citizens?
Mr. Manness: The word is "allowances." That is in mine. It says allowances. So it is a catchall area.
Ms.
Friesen: So when we look at that $3.27
million or $3.67 million‑‑it is just that I would have expected
this to be under grants and contracts.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, these are not
grants. These are programming funds.
What is different between the top line
and the bottom line, the $400,000 is in keeping with an agreement we have with
the Manitoba Aerospace Industries Association, a five‑year agreement, '91‑96,
and that is a payment directly to the association; whereas, again, the bottom
line is a payment either directly to or in support of the activities of
trainees under this program.
Ms. Friesen: It is more than trainees. It is paying for facilities in the sense of
classrooms and for trainees.
Mr.
Manness: "In support of" is
what I said. I did not say it was paid
directly to them. It is in support of
their training activities. So some of it
obviously would be directed to the activities around that training and would
not flow through their hands.
Ms.
Friesen: I am trying to connect this to
other departments I am familiar with.
When Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, for example, distributes money
for programs, I am not sure that they distribute it under a line called social
assistance. I could be wrong, but it has
certainly never struck me before.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
we acknowledge that the definition is gray, but it is what we have used for
years within Education or within Training and within all of government.
Ms.
Friesen: When the government then
calculates its payments in social services, is this calculated as part of
it? When we talk about, for example, the
increase in social assistance payments, do we then add up all of these kinds of
categories and are these included in that‑‑what most people would
think of as a rising welfare bill? Are
these things included?
Mr. Manness: Definitely not.
Ms. Friesen: Where is that bill calculated then? What is that based on?
Mr.
Manness: That is within Family Services,
within particularly that line. That is
one‑half of the department. The
member knows that is based on volumes; that is based on the changes in the
programming. It is built on price
increases. Those are the basic
components that go into building the social allowance totals. It does not begin to pick up all of the
training needs and the other needs of individuals that are sponsored in a
number of other departments as what would appear to be miscellaneous lines.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I want
to look at the Training Incentives Contracts now, a section of Workforce
2000. Could the minister tell us, what
is the amount of money anticipated to be spent in that area this year and the
amount of money last year in that line?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
before I talked about the total of $1.67 million and I allocated $1.8 of it to
industry‑wide initiatives. In the
training incentives area, that total is $1,645,000.
Ms. Friesen: What was the number on that line last year?
Mr. Manness: The number for that line last year was
$1,558,600, and that was the actual expense for '93‑94.
Ms. Friesen: This does not include the programs which are
run under the payroll deduction account.
Mr. Manness: No, it does not.
Ms.
Friesen: That payroll deduction section
is not included in either of the industry‑wide partnerships or province‑wide
special courses.
Mr. Manness: That is correct.
Ms.
Friesen: So there is in fact a further
section of Workforce 2000 developed in conjunction with industry partners under
the payroll tax deduction program which is not included in this 16.4(h)(1).
Mr. Manness: That is correct. That is housed in the Department of Finance.
* (1650)
Ms.
Friesen: The Training Incentives
Contracts then, could the minister again tell me what has been evaluated in
past years, what has been learned from those evaluations, what the minister has
found valuable in previous years, and which initiatives have been discontinued?
Mr.
Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, I am very happy the member has asked this question, because of
course this is where so many of the individual firms have access to Workforce
2000. Regardless of scope or size or
where they are located or who they are, they have an opportunity to be part of
this wonderful program.
The member asks how it is we monitor
and/or evaluate. This is not an
exhaustive list of what we do in every case, but this is what we do generally,
and in some cases we may do more than one, if not several, with respect to any
one firm. We ask the participant to do
their own evaluations at the end of their training. We will do a telephone survey and talk to
employers primarily.
I made reference before to the
thousand work sites. That was a number
not literally to be taken but meaning a very large number, worksite
monitoring. Do we attend at all of the
worksites? Obviously not, but we do
monitor and visit those that we can.
Then we, in some cases, will visit the training site if that is not
necessarily the worksite. Then we will
request third‑party evaluations.
In this case, the federal Business Development Bank would be a third‑party
example. Then we do a survey of the
training outcome, and we will survey the employers three to six months
afterwards again to determine the impact.
So this is what we attempt to do.
Again, this has been shared with the Provincial Auditor as to the
methods of intervention that we use, and, as no doubt part of the reason that
the report, favourable as it is, has come back in the fashion it has.
Ms.
Friesen: I think there is some dispute
about the nature of that satisfaction.
Can we take each of these items then and examine how they have been
used?
The participants' survey, how has that
been conducted? Is that a written
participants' survey done by each participant in every course, and are the
results given to the department or to the trainer or to the employer?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
again, as I ran down that list, I said that not every one of these applied to
every participant and/or every program.
We do have a large number, though, but not all participants, are
surveyed. They file an evaluation, and
we keep those on file.
Ms.
Friesen: Could the minister tell us what
proportion of courses or programs have participant evaluations? Are we looking at 50 percent, 75 percent, 90
percent?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
we sense that the number would be around 50 percent, although we are not
absolutely certain, but we feel that is a fair estimate at this time.
Ms.
Friesen: Why are some evaluated in that way
and not others? Is it something that is
peculiar to a particular type of courses or to a particular type of training
program? Some lend themselves to
different kinds of evaluations. Or is it
the nature of the trainer, that some are perhaps more careful than others? What are the reasons? Half are being evaluated in this way; half
are not. Is there a rational reason for
that?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
the short answer is yes to the all of the above plus the fact that we do not
have all the resources necessary to enforce it or to make sure it happens in
all the cases. So the member has
answered her own question.
Ms.
Friesen: Well, no, I have not. What I did was give the minister a few ideas
that he might want to cite in response, and he chose not to respond with any of
them. It would be possible, for example,
if the minister believed that this type of evaluation was appropriate, to
ensure that there was a contingent fee applied to that, that until those
participant evaluations came in, in areas where the minister felt that they
were required, then you simply do not pay their final stage of the
contract. Has that happened, or is that
not something the minister considers appropriate?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will take
the recommendation under advisement.
Ms.
Friesen: The telephone survey of
employers, is that conducted with every employer, or is that again a proportion
of employers? Does it depend, for example,
if you have had participant evaluation, you would not phone the employer?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
we did evaluations by telephone roughly of 20 percent of all of the clients,
the employer clients.
Ms.
Friesen: Then we are back to worksite
monitoring. What proportion of the
worksites were monitored, and on what basis were they chosen to be monitored?
Mr.
Manness: Exactly the same answer applies
as to under the other program. We would
monitor every site where there was wage assistance involved and try to do the
best we could in the rest, but, again, we would not visit every site. I do not even know what percent in total we
may have visited.
Ms.
Friesen: What proportion of these
programs are wage‑assisted or have a wage‑assistance component
under this small grant program?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, less than 5
percent.
Ms.
Friesen: The third‑party evaluation
that the minister talked about, how many third‑party evaluations were
done?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in that as many as a third of the training contracts would have been at public
institutions, and, of course, those are very easy to approach and to provide
third‑party evaluations, so that I would say roughly a third.
Ms.
Friesen: The minister gave earlier as a
specific example of that, the Federal Business Development Bank. Could the minister tell us how many were
evaluated in that manner by the Federal Business Development Bank?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, without an
awful lot of work, I cannot provide that number.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Penner): The
hour now being six o'clock, 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 6 page 87 of the Estimates
manual. Would the minister's staff
please enter the Chamber?
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam
Chairperson, I guess you indicated we are dealing with 21.6?
Madam Chairperson: Yes, we are on item 6. Insured Benefits.
An Honourable Member: We can go on to 7, can we not?
Madam
Chairperson: Item 6.
Insured Benefits (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $5,678,500‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $2,337,900‑‑pass.
Resolution 21.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $8,016,400 for the Department of Health for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Item
7. Health Services Insurance Fund (a) Manitoba Health Board $350,000‑‑pass.
(b) Healthy Communities Development
$12,000,000.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I have a few
general questions that concern the whole appropriation 7 that I will attempt to
go through at this point, and I appreciate the assistance of my colleagues in
allowing me to deal with some of the questions at present.
My initial question to the minister is
with respect to funding to the hospitals, and the minister has indicated that
expenditures to hospitals are down this fiscal year, that is '94‑95, by
$5 million, and that is correct. The
last fiscal year funding to hospitals was cut by some $20 million from $950
million to $930 million, and now it is down to $924 million which in the two‑year
period, by my calculations, amounts to approximately $45 million less in the
last two years going into the hospital sector.
* (1430)
I have asked this minister the
question before, but it has been brought to our attention that there is a
government target of a cut of about $100 million over three years which
includes the last fiscal year, 1994‑94 and 1995‑96, which would
constitute about $100 million.
Therefore, in the last two fiscal years $45 million has been
achieved. Presumably there will be a
further reduction to achieve this $100 million goal in the next fiscal
year. I wonder if the minister might
comment on that.
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Health):
Madam Chairperson, I am not likely to confirm the figures the honourable
member has used. To say $45 million less
in the last two years is very much a simplification of all the things that
happen, and to say that over the next three years $100 million will be taken
from the budgets of the hospitals is another oversimplification.
I know the genesis of the honourable
member's raising of this matter, and I have made it clear that the numbers used
by the honourable member, the number used by the MHO, indeed numbers used by
the Department of Health for the purposes of long‑term planning, can only
be described as speculative at this time, and if used inappropriately could be
suggested that they are being used only for the purpose of scaring people. I am not into that, and I do not think that
is the right approach.
I will acknowledge that we are
challenging facilities across the province as part of our health care plan to
make the best and wisest and safest use of the facilities they have because, as
we have been and will continue to develop community alternatives, the
possibility exists for the appropriate downsizing of acute spaces in
Manitoba. It is going to be necessary
that we have the right number of spaces to deal with pediatrics, for example,
that we have the right number to deal with medical needs in hospitals, surgical
needs, obstetrical and all of those things.
It is through a very careful and phased approach that we are able to do
this.
We do, through our correspondence with
the facilities in our ongoing relationship with them, challenge them to look
beyond the one‑year budget year that we are planning for and to begin to
study proposals for how we expect to make this happen. If we did not do that, the extension would be
that we would be building all of these services in the community and retaining
unnecessary services and very expensive services in acute care facilities.
That is where I think the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) yesterday suggested that we disagree on some areas. That seems to be an area where we disagree,
where the party of the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) suggests that we keep
all that capacity in our acute care places and as well build new capacity in
the community. If you think for very
long at all and you look at revenues across this country, you know that
particular approach cannot work. If I am
wrong about that, the member will correct me.
The issue here and the things that we
should, in my humble submission, be debating are whether we are doing this job
appropriately, safely, whether acute care can be downscaled, whether we are
moving quickly and well enough in the area of the community. Those are things I do not mind discussing and
debating with the honourable member.
Obviously, I do not because we have a solid record of achievement over
the last two or three years that demonstrates that the plan is working. We have independent evaluation to demonstrate
that what we are doing is being done safely and the health status of Manitobans
is not being affected in a negative way.
In fact, it is expected we will show that the health status of
Manitobans will improve as a result of the renewal and the reform measures that
are being taken.
I have said I am not going to be
involved in a discussion about phantom numbers, even though the member has seen
that number on a piece of paper. Indeed,
I am confirming that the department is challenging facilities to be efficient
and to stop wasting money. I acknowledge
that is what is happening.
To play around with numbers the way I
am being invited to do, I am not going to do that because I do not want to be
guilty of trying to scare people, as I might, if I did engage in that
endeavour.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, the real
issue is the fact that when acute care bed downsizing takes place, the
community‑based services should be in place prior to the downsizing. Arrangements should be made for the
retraining of staff to move from acute care, if at all possible, to community‑based
care prior to upheaval in the staff.
My next line of questioning, however,
concerns a different issue, and it has to do with waiting lists. Can the minister indicate whether there is
any kind of statistical data or information, be it for the Centre for Health
Policy and Evaluation or any other government agency that is looking at the
whole question of waiting lists for surgeries and other procedures. I know that there has been a study with
respect to surgery and repatriation to rural Manitoba, but this specific
question that I am asking is in relation to the waiting list for surgery in the
city of Winnipeg specifically?
Mr.
McCrae: Very briefly, I will respond to
a matter raised by the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) last evening with respect
to Sandra Sloan that was related to the issue of the diabetic condition of this
particular individual.
I did indeed receive a letter from
this individual. It was dated January 7,
and it explained difficulties Ms. Sloan was experiencing respecting the
financial aspect of her situation.
On March 4, I responded and suggested
this person apply to the Life Saver Drug Program. The program is aimed at providing medications
that are lifesaving to Manitobans who cannot afford them because of low
income. The application form to the
program was made available to Ms. Sloan.
As of May 18, I understand no application has been received by the Life
Saver Drug Program.
I do encourage the honourable member,
if she wishes, to follow this up further.
If there is something more that I am not aware of, I would welcome
further information about it because, as I say, I think we are talking about a
person I have met too and spent a fair amount of time discussing issues with.
Before I get on to the specific
question the member raised, the member for Kildonan, he was saying you should
have community services in place before you look at acute care downscaling, and
there is something to what he says, but we also have to remember there is a
role here with respect to the average length of stay, which is another very
important dimension of all of this, that has an impact on capacity in our
hospitals.
For us to pretend that there have been
no advancements in surgical medical procedures in the last number of years is
to pretend‑‑average length of stay is very much a factor. I do not have a lot of examples before me,
but they do exist, of course, where for certain surgeries length of stay has
been great‑‑[interjection] Well, yes, gall bladder, laparoscopic
surgical techniques, eye surgery techniques, all of these things and
others. Obstetrics is another example
where length of stay has been greatly reduced.
The equation the member is talking
about ignores that factor as well, so that ultimately we can expect to see
outright savings from the health care expenditure when you look at community
care, which does not cost as much as acute care, and when you look at the
average length of stay issue.
* (1440)
Again, I guess you can ask, you can
measure what we are doing and make criticisms but look at comparisons that
exist elsewhere. Were there community
provisions made for the closure of 5,000 beds in Ontario? The honourable member for Kildonan nods his
head in the affirmative. I wonder if
that is a universally held view. I doubt
that it is. I doubt there was much stock
taken for what measures were available in the community when they closed 52
hospitals in Saskatchewan. Those things
are also relevant to this discussion.
Now, the honourable member asked about
waiting lists for the various surgeries, and I know long before any talk of
health care renewal or reform ever took place, waiting lists existed. I remember complaining about them when I was
in opposition in Manitoba. What was the
response of the New Democratic government of the day to the waiting list
problem in Brandon?‑‑well, shut down 42 beds permanently‑‑for
the first time in Manitoba. That was the
response.
Let us put these things in perspective,
but let us also remember that Dr. Ross Brown is the chair of the appropriate
access review group. That committee is
composed of a number of people who have an interest in management of waiting
lists. By saying what I have said, I am
not saying that waiting lists in all areas are acceptable. I am not saying that because there are people
on waiting lists who would like to get that aspect of their lives over with,
get on with their surgery and get on with their lives. I fully understand that.
Sometimes they are in pain. Sometimes they live with a considerable
amount of discomfort and inconvenience.
It has an impact on their jobs, an impact on their families, and I understand
all that. That is why we need to have an
appropriate access review group to address these matters. That is why we need to have bed utilization
planning, so we can improve those circumstances. We know we have enough capacity in our
hospitals but when I hear, for example, about a pile‑up or a jam‑up
in an emergency room, one of the first things I ask‑‑I mean,
Winnipeg is only so big‑‑what is the situation in all the other
emergency rooms? Are they all piled up
at the same time or is there a place for people? If it is not an emergency, it is in surgical
beds or even medical beds. Are we
working, are all our hospitals in Winnipeg working as a team so that we can
serve the people who need the services?
The terms of reference for the
appropriate access review group are to develop better mechanisms for managing
urgent referrals and scheduling in orthopedic surgery, cardiovascular surgery,
angioplasty, oncology and cataract surgery; to review present schedules and
waiting lists by physician and hospital for the above procedures to determine
the following: protection of patient health
status, consistency, appropriateness and equitable access.
Another term of reference is to
develop consensus protocols for determining priority of access to services; to
review priorization criteria used for scheduling urgent and elective procedures
and determine the consistency of these criteria across the system and the
interactions between hospitals providing these services; to identify
accountability measures or practices currently in place with respect to medical
management; to recommend to the Minister of Health implementation of improved
mechanisms for managing urgent referrals and scheduling in the selected areas.
The honourable member needs to be
reminded that while at one time there was quite a long wait for cataract surgery,
that has been reduced very significantly through the mechanism of the
consolidation of cataract services at Misericordia Hospital. We expect to reduce costs, and we also expect
to conduct 600 additional surgeries in the space of a year. Now, I was not directly involved at the time,
but I do not know what position the honourable member took when it came to that
consolidation.
I know there were people in some other
facilities who might have expressed some concern about that, but again I say,
the proof is going to be in the pudding in a lot of these things. We are going to be the subject of lots of
discussion. Ultimately, in these areas,
I think we are going to be able to show that we are bringing about
improvements. The appropriate access
review group will report, and we expect a new system, for example, cardiac
surgery, to be in place later this year.
I think some of the areas of concern
are the ones that I have named: cardiac,
cardiovascular, orthopedic, angioplasty, oncology, cataract surgery and also
areas respecting‑‑I mentioned orthopedic, hip and knee are areas of
concern. As our population ages, there
are going to be more people needing those kinds of surgeries to improve their
quality of life.
We are aware of those areas where further
improvements are needed, but I do want to remind the honourable member that
when I was in opposition, I sat just in the seat next to where the honourable
member is sitting. I used to complain
about waiting lists. I was quite shocked
when, with no other plan in sight, the New Democrats of that day responded to
waiting lists by closing beds at the Brandon General Hospital. It is quite an unforgettable thing. So let us keep those things in historical
perspective.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I also hope
the minister will keep in perspective the fact that he has, this government has
had over six years to deal with this situation.
I wrote to the minister this week concerning a constituent of mine, who
is a 58‑year‑old gentleman, who requires heart surgery. He is in very desperate straits and has been
told he cannot get heart surgery until late '95 or the spring of '96, I
believe. I am not asking the minister
for a response today, but it was an illustration of a serious situation. I have been contacted by the family, quite
desperate because of his condition, and I hope and urge that the minister will
look into that as soon as possible with respect to this individual, Mr.
Felbel. I have sent a letter to the minister
this week.
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I appreciate
that the honourable member has made me aware of that particular situation. One of the more difficult aspects of dealing
with people with cardiac situations is that some, in the judgment of their
physician, require surgical intervention soon, very quickly, and in some cases
the physician will advise the patient and the patient's family that it will be
some time. That, I suggest, is a
function of the physician too, working with his or her colleagues in terms of
prioritizing the urgency of cases.
Rather than discuss the case the honourable member is talking about
here, I will indeed follow the matter up that he has raised with me.
* (1450)
It is not the only one. There have been others too. If you put yourself in the position of a
person who is told by his or her doctor that you need to have heart surgery, it
can be quite a stressful time, because as an organ, the heart is known to be
one of the most vital organs in the human body.
So if you are told that you need to have some kind of surgical
intervention with respect to that particular organ, it is enough to cause a
stressful situation for you, and I understand that.
There again, though, I cannot
substitute my judgment for that of the physician who plays a role in
scheduling. The honourable member knows
the role a physician plays in the scheduling of OR time in the hospital and the
priority that physicians place on their particular patient's condition, but
beyond that, I will follow up further.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I also want
to raise another matter with the minister with respect to an individual
case. The individual has also tried to
contact the minister directly. His name
is Mr. Barr [phonetic]. He has contacted
the minister's office. I have not had a
chance to forward a letter, but I just want to outline the situation to the
minister because I have done some follow‑up on this myself.
Apparently this gentleman's wife was
admitted to the hospital, and she had a kidney stone that was too large to
pass. Apparently they were going to move
her to Health Sciences Centre to a machine called a lithotripter that would
pulverize the kidney stone, thereby removing the problem.
Now, I understand the lithotripter
machine is down for four weeks of the year.
I was advised that it was down for four weeks of the year. In any event, this woman could not get the
surgery apparently in Health Sciences Centre and it is the only machine
available. She was forced to have
shunting surgery done and sent home. She
will have to then be sent back to have the pulverizing done and have the
shunting removed.
The gentleman was also of the opinion
that other individuals were in the same position, and it seems like a real
difficulty and a real human concern whereby they have to have minor surgery,
because they cannot have access to this machine, while waiting for access to
this machine. I would appreciate very
much if the minister could look into this and provide me with some kind of
explanation as to that situation.
Mr.
McCrae: I understand. I know of the individual to whom the
honourable member refers. I also know of
the issue. The only thing is I thought
it was pronounced lithotripsy, but I am certainly not the expert on that. This is a machine that operates most of the
time at Health Sciences Centre, and through routine scheduled maintenance, my
understanding is that the honourable member is correct that for a certain
number of weeks in the course of the year the machine is down but can be
revived for nonelective or emergency circumstances.
So I cannot comment on the treatment
the physician prescribed for the person about whom the honourable member is
speaking, except to investigate further.
That can either be brought up to operation quickly should it be necessary,
or if it is on an elective basis, a case can wait until the maintenance
procedures are completed. That is my
understanding of the situation, and I think it is a question of a technology
that I understand is less intrusive than other ways of dealing with these
particular problems, and it is a good kind of thing to have.
It is also good to make sure it is in
proper working order at all times. I
understand that on another occasion when the lithotripter was down, I do not
know if anyone had any issues to raise or complaints to make, but I knew that
was the practice with this particular machine.
I need to know more about whether this other surgery would have been
necessary in any event. That is my
point. If it was only because the
lithotripter was down, I would want to know more about that because the
lithotripter can be brought up to speed relatively quickly should it be
required.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I thank the
minister for that response, and either myself or Mr. Barr [phonetic], I am
sure, will contact the minister concerning the additional information.
Seven Oaks Hospital is very highly
valued by the people of the community that I represent. There have been some changes in the past, and
there has been some talk about making or developing it into one or more of a
centre of excellence. Can the minister
advise me as to the status of that at this point?
Mr.
McCrae: The honourable member will
recall our discussions about Wade‑Bell and the tertiary review that was
conducted. There was also a secondary
review, and that will include places like Seven Oaks, which I fully agree with
the honourable member, Seven Oaks Hospital is one of those community hospitals
in Winnipeg that is part of that secondary review.
When we talk about excellence, I have
a lot of kind words to say about Seven Oaks Hospital. In fact, the honourable member has heard me
say some kind words about Seven Oaks Hospital, and he has heard me be a little
critical of him too in regard to Seven Oaks.
Seven Oaks has been a leader, if I may say so, in terms of looking at a
renewed health system in the future in which Seven Oaks is a key player. I believe, by its own initiative, Seven Oaks
Hospital is demonstrating to the rest of us that there is room for improvement
in the system. As a Minister of Health,
if I cannot accept that there is room for improvement, then I am not doing a
very good job, because I think there is room for improvement. As long as we recognize that and keep trying
to bring about initiatives to improve patient care, then we will be going in
the right direction.
I think, for example, of a headline in
last weekend's newspapers talking about nurses as hostesses, and all through
the article efforts being made by Seven Oaks Hospital are the subject of
ridicule. I think, well, what kind of
contribution is that article to what Seven Oaks is trying to do? Every service it offers, it is trying to make
it more appropriate to the client, to the patient who, after all, is why we
build all these structures and invent all these machines that help make people
better and help diagnose their conditions.
I try not to be critical of the media,
but sometimes the media only responds to what they are told by other
people. That story quotes people making
very negative and snide and disrespectful and unhelpful comments about the
efforts being made by the Seven Oaks Hospital.
Well, I will stand strong in defence of the Seven Oaks Hospital against
those kinds of stories and comments made by people that lead to those kinds of
stories. [interjection] Absolutely.
The people involved at Seven Oaks,
from the nursing profession right on through to all the others involved, are
involved in what is called a total quality system of delivery of service. The nurses, I mean, who is more important in
a hospital than that group of professionals known as nurses who provide hands‑on
care to patients? My understanding of
the total quality system is that the nursing professionals at Seven Oaks are
very much part of that team, very much want to be part of that team, very much
like being part of that team and take a great deal of satisfaction out of
patients and visitors to that hospital who find their experience more pleasant
for their efforts.
So I am going to be a big supporter of
that, not only at Seven Oaks. I have
singled them out because the honourable member did, too, but I have been to
Concordia Hospital, to Grace Hospital, to Misericordia Hospital, to St.
Boniface and Health Sciences Centre and Victoria Hospital‑‑
An Honourable Member: Eriksdale.
Mr.
McCrae: I have not been to Eriksdale
yet. I have been also to Deer Lodge and
I think I have been to pretty well everywhere.
I have not visited Riverview yet, but I will be doing that too. What I find in each of those places is
pride. They are all proud of the
services they provide. They strive every
day of every week to make sure those services meet the kinds of standards they
should. Even if those standards
sometimes are not high enough in the view of the people who are working under
them, they try to make them even better, try to make it better for the patients
who come there, try to make their stay more comfortable. Kindness is everywhere in those buildings.
* (1500)
I have to say I am pretty impressed, and
you could hardly believe visiting some of these places that they are the same
places we hear talked about in this Chamber or in the newspapers or various
places you read about our hospitals.
Those are places of caring, and there is not anybody in there who feels
otherwise.
So Seven Oaks, which is the one
referred to, is part of the secondary care review and the terms of reference of
this advisory committee are as follows:
to provide a detailed, comprehensive plan for secondary care services
currently carried out in hospitals in Winnipeg with recommended volumes of
activity by service and by facility; identify the current and projected needs
of the target‑area residents by means of appropriate needs‑assessment
methods, including sociodemographic data and health status analysis and the
opinions of key stakeholders and constituents of the community; confirm the
current activity and location of hospital‑delivered secondary care
services within Winnipeg provided to patients, clients by analyzing clinical utilization
data and perform appropriate analyses, for example, peer group comparative
analysis, bed utilizations practices, et cetera; identify and describe the
current components within the hospital‑delivered secondary services
within Winnipeg and analyze for gaps, deficiencies, duplications and identify
areas where services may be delivered outside of hospitals; identify and
describe other models, national and international, of secondary care services
provision; liaise with clinical working groups to review the data and discuss
potential models for secondary care services provision; identify and describe
enhanced utilization management opportunities while ensuring comparable or
better levels of quality of service; determine the options for assignment of responsibility
for teaching and research with respect to secondary care services; identify
alternative means of compensation or funding mechanisms for hospitals and
providers to better harmonize principles of service delivery; identify any
enhanced or different management structure that would ensure most cost‑effective
provision of secondary care services; review the comprehensive planning report
prepared by Wade‑Bell.
The committee members are Dr. John
Wade and Bob Bell, the co‑chairs, and there are working group
members. There is a Dental Surgery
Working Group that is composed of Dr. Boyar, Dr. Claman and Dr. Muirhead. There is the Ear, Nose and Throat Working
Group, and that is composed of a number of people who have expertise in that
area.
Same with the General Surgery Working
Group and Ophthalmological Consolidation Implementation Team. There is the Ophthalmology Working Group, the
Orthopedic Working Group. There is the Reconstructive
Working Group, the Urology Working Group, and this secondary review should, in
the long run, result in improved and co‑ordinated service delivery for
Manitobans, especially in Winnipeg.
That word "co‑ordination"
is the one that is so key here. That is
what I think centres of excellence and consolidation are about. It is a co‑ordination of services so
that we can get more value for our dollars, and certainly ophthalmology is
demonstrating that that is exactly what is happening and will happen.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, we are at one
of these precipices where the comments of the minister could prompt me to spend
a good deal of time entering into discussion about a different vision and a
different view for the health care and the hospital sector in Manitoba, but I
do have limited time, and I do not want to engage in a lengthy debate.
But I do think I have to put on the
record the points that‑‑I do not disagree with the minister's view
of the service provider, the kind of people involved in the system. I do disagree with this government's vision
as to what the future is for the hospital system. I do disagree with the move toward what
strikes me as a move towards a profit, competitive, U.S. kind of based health
care system.
I do disagree with the fact that there
could be expansion to our home care system to provide a service that has now
been not tendered out but given to a private company and to provide‑‑we
are going to disagree on this until the chickens come home to roost. I have a different vision, we have a
different vision as to what we see the government has, but despite the fact we
have a different vision, that does not necessarily mean that we denigrate or
downgrade the efforts or what is being done at those centres and those
hospitals.
It is just that our vision as to how
it is should be accomplished is different than the government's vision, and I
doubt that the twain shall meet. It is
just not going to happen, and that will ultimately be decided I suppose by the
voters.
I have a couple of other questions in
different areas. I wanted just to jump
to Pharmacare for a second and ask the minister, at one time I understand in
the Pharmacare program there were two employees of the Department of Health who
inspected drug prices to provide for some kind of consistency of pricing and
some kind of base level of pricing? I
understand they are no longer employed, and I am of the impression that the
absence of some kind of price controls and price checks is one of the
contributing factors to perhaps increased drug costs. I wonder if the minister could comment on
that.
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the reason I
hesitate on that one is that the people the honourable member is talking about
left the government service so long ago, at least five years ago, and in the
event now we suggest‑‑well, we know‑‑that the kind of
monitoring that will be possible through the Drug Program Information Network
will more than adequately offset that change from years ago.
The honourable member is right in some
of his earlier comments that there are some areas where it is good for us to
both put our points of view on the record, but we are not necessarily always
going to agree, it is true.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I now sort of
leap into the area of personal care homes for a second. It was by use of the language I trundled onto
the area of personal care homes.
* (1510)
From the figures the minister gave me
about those paying maximum prices now in personal care homes would mean that
there is an additional several million dollars going into the personal care home
system as a result of higher payments by residents. For example, the appropriation is $250
million this year, and that, therefore, means that there is an additional,
shall we say, roughly two million or two and a half million into the system
that is as a result of the fees paid by residents. Would that be a correct statement?
Mr.
McCrae: When you look at the total
effort in the area of personal care in Manitoba, while it could be said that
more money came into the program through increased contributions by personal
care residents, it also has to be pointed out that there have been newly
constructed personal care spaces, there have been general salary increases,
merit increments, reclassifications and pay equity for personal care employees,
excluding nurses, because that was done under other arrangements.
There were, as I say, general salary
and merit increases. There was
significant new construction. There were
then thereby additional operating and interest costs. More people had to be hired. A lot of jobs have been created in the health
care sector in the last year. One of
these days I will get it all organized in such a way that I can tell you how
many jobs have been created, because it is very significant when you consider
that it appears to me that we have opened more beds than we have closed, and
that is something that some people miss sometimes.
I guess the question is, what kind of
beds? That is a very, very relevant
question. You have to remember also that
there was an expansion last year in the adult day club spaces, and there will
be a further expansion this year of adult day club spaces. Psychogeriatric services have been enhanced
as well.
So it is true that from those
residents who have been assessed as such, more money has come from them, but
more money has also been put into this program by the government too to enhance
the services that are available and make more services available.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I know there
is an appeal structure in this area that people can appeal decisions made with
respect to fee payments, and I know that there is a task force looking at the
whole area of personal care homes.
Can the minister also indicate
whether, based on the experience of the last year and problems that have occurred,
the government is considering changing the arrangements with respect to the
fees paid by patients in the upcoming year?
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the last
increase, there was an increase last October, but we did not increase the
quarterly ones last August. That did not
happen, and throughout this fiscal year, you will not see increases on a
quarterly basis as had been the case in the past. So that the answer is no, we are not
increasing those per diems.
You need to remember what you get for
your money. You get nursing care, you
get accommodation, you get your meals, you get your drugs looked after, you get
activities, all of those things. These
are homes and you get, if it is necessary, appropriate security
arrangements. That is one of the issues
we are looking at through our standards committee, but you get the things that
you need or as high a quality of life as we can make it for the dollars we are
asking the residents to contribute.
Mr.
Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I note from
some of the comments the minister had made earlier that before the end of these
Estimates, or shortly thereafter, we will be getting a complete listing of all
of the lottery funded programs, so we can have a breakdown. I hope we will be provided with that when we
reach that particular section of the appropriations.
My next question is concerning the
whole question of the Healthy Communities development, which is a new
initiative that was started last year, I understand, and which is continuing
this year.
* (1520)
I am not quite certain, I wonder in a
very short explanation if the minister could actually explain for us this
particular initiative.
Mr.
McCrae: Very briefly, Madam Chairperson,
to describe what this is, it is monies placed into a fund to assist in that
phased approach to health renewal, that phased approach to moving expenditures
from hospital to community. Here again,
this number is reducing, which demonstrates that the plan is working.
In other words, as programs are
established in the community, it takes a year or so, budgetarily speaking, to
get it properly in a line in the budget, what monies that this is reduced by,
you will see in other appropriations of government.
A good example is mental health, where
there were reductions in acute spaces in Winnipeg. You will see in permanent lines in the budget
in the future, those dollars show up in the community. I hope that explanation is clear.
Ms. Avis
Gray (Crescentwood): Madam
Chairperson, I am wondering if the minister has any details that he could table
for us on the Healthy Communities development, the $12 million. Can he break that down? Does he have a table of information that
could give us a bit more detail than $12 million?
Mr.
McCrae: While the Health department
staff is putting together some description there, I would just like to say a
word about Edith Parker, if I may. Edith
Parker is going to be serving on the Manitoba Medical Services Council, and I
think our discussions did not do her credit, and I would like to just put very
briefly some things on the record.
Edith Parker is a retired nurse. Before her retirement, she was the maternal
child nursing director of St. Boniface Hospital until her retirement in
December of '91. She had worked at St.
Boniface Hospital for eighteen and a half years. From 1972 to 1987, Edith Parker served on
various committees for the Association of Women's Health and Obstetrical
Gynecological and Neonatal nursing, and she is still a member.
She currently serves on a committee
charged with the redevelopment of perinatal standards. She serves on the planning and evaluation
committee for the Youville Clinic. She
received the MARN award for nursing administration in 1988, and only one of
those awards are given out per year.
Ms. Parker received an award of
excellence for nursing contribution from the Canadian Organization of
Obstetrical, Gynecological and Neonatal Nurses.
A scholarship in her name is awarded to a University of Manitoba nursing
student doing work at the graduate level in either maternal child medicine or
administration. The first scholarship
was awarded this year. So I appreciate the
chance to put that on the record. I
think we will be well served by that experience.
I would like to answer the honourable
member's question. The kinds of things
we are talking about that are contemplated in the $12 million, as the
honourable member put it, are the Municipal‑Riverview project, which are
23 long‑term care beds, the mental health with respect to acute care in
Winnipeg, the Pediatric Consolidation, Winnipeg Support Services to seniors,
Mental Health Child and Adolescent and Psychogeriatric initiatives, the
Ophthalmology and Ophthalmology related to Home Care. This is all last year that I am talking
about, and adult day club alternatives, as well as prostate care. That was last year.
This fiscal year the breast cancer
screening will be developed, more work in mental health, psychogeriatric in
Winnipeg, the Winnipeg Central Bed Registry, and further regional association
development.
Pending projects are the Provincial
Respiratory program, the Community Residential Space for Severely Physically
Disabled, Provincial Support Services to Seniors, Antenatal and Nutrition
Services, and Terminal Care Protocol.
Those are some of the things that we
are talking about in this appropriation or taken from this appropriation.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister. That gives me a bit better idea of some of the
projects that are being funded through the $12 million.
I just wanted to get back to the Life
Saving Drug Program. Does the minister
have the information as to what is the yearly income limit for someone to be eligible
for the Life Saving Drug Program?
Mr.
McCrae: While my staff is looking for
that information, I would like to say a word about Dr. Barbara Gfellner, who is
another public interest representative on the Manitoba Medical Services
Council.
Barbara Gfellner is an associate
professor in the Department of Psychology at Brandon University. She received a doctorate in the field of
psychology from the University of Manitoba and has been at Brandon University
since 1978. She teaches courses in the
psychology of aging, special issues in gerontology, child and adolescent
development, as well as introductory psychology. She received the Senate Award for Excellence
in Teaching in 1990.
Dr. Gfellner was described in today's
newspaper as a physician, by the way, and she is not. She is a former president of the Child and
Family Services of western Manitoba, serving on the board for eight years. Currently, she is a member of the multi‑agency
committee on high‑risk youth, associated with the Brandon crime prevention
committee, and chair of the Brandon University research ethics committee. She is involved with a number of social
service and community associations as an evaluation and research consultant.
In addition to teaching, Barbara
Gfellner is involved in research, having held two national health and research
development program grants in adolescent sexuality and the social context of
adolescent drug use, and a social sciences and humanities research grant for
the study of mobility and related issues among older adults in Brandon and the
Westman area.
Over the past 14 years her research
has included the study of psychological and functional health and well‑being,
coping behaviours, needs, social supports and resources of older adults in a
number of community environments, including those discharged from hospital and
those in institutional settings.
* (1530)
In that case too, Madam Chairperson, I
suggest that a person with that background can be of very significant service
and will be a strong person involved in the Manitoba Medical Services
Council. It needs to be said, too, that
these people are extremely busy people and have lots of responsibilities, and
it is nice to have their willingness to help their fellow citizens in this kind
of capacity.
The answer to the question is still
coming. So if I could maybe deal very
briefly‑‑I will wait for another question. If the honourable member wants to ask another
question, maybe I could deal with that.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the reform initiatives
that are going on at the Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface Hospital,
particularly as a result of the APM contracts, I understand that there needs to
be ministerial approval to go ahead with the recommendations that they have
presented. What we have been told from
the hospitals is that everything is at a standstill, that nothing has moved
forward since they have formed their recommendations.
Can the minister tell us where that is
at and when he plans to make a decision on what will happen in regard to those
recommendations at those two hospitals?
Mr.
McCrae: As the honourable member knows,
this project produced hundreds and hundreds of recommendations generated by the
staff of these hospitals. The role of
APM was to lay out a methodology and to assist in bringing all of these people
together to make those hundreds and hundreds of recommendations from,
incidentally, thousands and thousands of ideas.
I am told that not every idea ended up becoming a recommendation.
It is true that some of those
recommendations have a job impact, and I am very concerned about that, and I am
also concerned about patient care. Most
of those recommendations, however, have been very carefully screened in the
area of patient care. Care is also being
taken to ensure that as we get into implementing recommendations that we reduce
the job impact to the absolute minimum.
It is that exercise that we are
presently engaged in with the hospitals.
We are asking the hospitals how the implementation team will deal with the
job impact, whether it be a shift from one job to another, or a layoff, or what
it is going to be, and to ensure that our labour adjustment mechanisms are in
place and that people are able to take advantage of the opportunities that are
available there.
I am told that within the next week we
will hear again. We are dealing back and
forth between the department and the hospitals, and so it takes a little longer
than even I had thought it would take to work these things through. There is a bit of an advantage in this
approach, and that is that the job impacts, the human impacts are reduced, and
that is one of my objectives as Minister of Health.
I am almost ready to answer the
honourable member's question about the lifesaving drugs. I just would like to say that another public
interest person associated with the Manitoba Medical Services Council is Lynn
Raskin‑Levine. Ms. Lynn Raskin‑Levine
is the managing partner for the Winnipeg office of KPMG Management
Consulting. She heads the firm's health
care practice in Manitoba. She also
serves as a vice‑president of the KPMG Centre for Government, an
international institute dedicated to innovation and advancement of health care
and public sector issues.
Throughout her career, Ms. Raskin‑Levine
has specialized in assisting organizations to define their strategic potential
and to manage the change necessary to achieve it.
Since pursuing consulting, she has
successfully conducted many, many assignments with leading health care
facilities. Among her clients, Madam
Chairperson, are Concordia General Hospital, Deer Lodge Centre, Grace Hospital,
Health Sciences Centre, Manitoba Health Organizations, Riverview Health Centre,
Medical Arts Building, Seven Oaks General Hospital, St. Amant Centre, Victoria
General Hospital, Workers Compensation boards of Manitoba, Nova Scotia and
Alberta.
Her credentials include a Master of
Business Administration in health care administration, and on and on and
on. I have got several pages. I will not go through them all, but I say
here again we have another very quality individual whose credentials in the
health care field are extremely impressive.
I think we should all count ourselves as fortunate that she has agreed
to assist us in our efforts.
Madam Chairperson, with respect to the
specific question put by the honourable member, all patients with cystic
fibrosis, all patients with rheumatic fever are covered under the Life Saving
Drug Program with no income limits.
Everybody is covered for those.
Other drugs under the program‑‑there
are other drugs supplied under the program, and the test is the income less the
deductible, and co‑payment amounts of Pharmacare are calculated. If below the social allowance cutoff, which
is $1,360 a month for a family of four, the person would be eligible
financially, and if medically eligible‑‑medically eligible, as
chronic and life‑threatening.
There is a combination of condition
and income, if your income is below that social allowance cutoff of $1,360 a
month for a family of four, and that is after taking into account the
deductible and the co‑payment as well.
* (1540)
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, when the minister
responded back in regard to Ms. Sloan, the MLA for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak)
talked to her again today. She did not
apply for the Life Saving Drug Program.
She talked to the home care staff to see if she would be eligible, and
they told her that she would not. Given
what you have told us today, she is not eligible, although her income‑‑it
is in the form of a disability pension‑‑is $1,000 a month, and she
spends $250 a month on her drugs, which she can claim through Pharmacare, so
that is one‑quarter of her income per month that is going to Pharmacare
payments. That excludes vitamins and
Gravol and other types of drugs that she needs.
I guess my question to the minister,
and we may not get an answer today, is there anything else, any other programs
that she might be eligible for?
Her concern is with that kind of
income, even with a bit of interest, income for $15,000 a year, when you pay,
the deductibles have gone up and she gets 40 percent back on Pharmacare, plus
other costs have come up, have gone up.
She now does not get access to Handi‑Transit as she might
have. That is not necessarily the
minister's problem, but it continues to add up.
So we really have some of these
individuals who are sort of at the difficult level; they maybe are not eligible
for Life Saving Drug Program. She would
be better off in some ways to be on social assistance because she would have
these costs paid for, but, of course, she is an independent person and does not
want to do that.
So my question would be, is there any
other program or is there someone in the department that she could pursue these
issues with?
Mr.
McCrae: Absolutely, Madam
Chairperson. From what the honourable
member has told us, my officials tell me that this person would qualify. I am sorry if somebody working in the Home
Care program misinformed Ms. Sloan.
Unfortunately, this kind of thing has happened in the past, and I regret
it when it happens, when staff misinform people out there in the public. In fact, it makes me very mad when it
happens, and when it has happened, I have reported that to senior people in the
Department and tried to have matters dealt with, because that is not right.
If the information the member gives me
is correct, it is my advice that Ms. Sloan may well qualify. So not only will we give some other name or
number, we are going to send somebody out to see Ms. Sloan to address the issue
of her qualification for the Life Saving Drug Program.
I think I talked about this with Ms.
Sloan myself. I am not sure, but we
talked about other issues, I recall. We
are going to arrange to have someone go and see her. I say that.
I do not do this for everybody, but it sounds to me like she has been
misled, and I do not like the sound of that.
Mr. Neil
Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam
Chairperson, my question to the minister is in regard to moving the offices of
St. Boniface community to a downtown location in early 1991. I had asked a question last May to the
previous minister. He had all good
intentions of replying to my letter of April 22, because every time I would ask
him, he would say, it is on my desk, all I have to do is sign it. It is still there, so maybe you could pick it
up and change the date and sign it, Mr. Minister.
I have always had a concern that
groups that did write to me at the time that there were concerns, like Sister
Clermont Outreach Program, the Norwood United Church, Age and Opportunity from
St. Vital Senior Centre had indicated that.
Every time they have discussed this with me, I have had to say, well, it
was just a temporary location. But it is
now three years. I looked up the
definition of "temporary" in the Webster's dictionary, and it says
very clearly "having a limited duration." I guess my letter is also the same
thing. It has not been replied to.
An Honourable Member: It was the former Minister of Health.
Mr.
Gaudry: It was the former Minister of
Health. I am not attacking him, because
he apologized last May 13. He says: With all the apologies I can muster to my
honourable friend, I will provide that information to him as I indicated I
would and did not the last time he posed the question.
So I would ask the minister, what is
the situation on those offices returning to St. Boniface at this time, and if
he has had any contact from the different groups that have had concerns and
what impact as far as those records show at this time?
Mr.
McCrae: You can always count on the
member for St. Boniface to say something nice about a person's intentions, and
I always appreciate that. Unfortunately,
I cannot give him a definitive and final answer any more than I gave his
colleague from Crescentwood recently when we discussed this matter. It is a question at this point that has not
been resolved in a permanent way by the department, so I cannot sign something
that gives a permanent response. I could
sign something that gives the kind of response that says, we are working on it,
or that the matter is still under review or being looked at by the government
or whatever.
All I want to know from the honourable
member is if there is something wrong with the service being delivered, because
as you know, this kind of function is not something that is office‑bound. If all we ever did was sit around in our
offices, you know how much would really get done out there. However, I recognize there is a need for
space. Whether the space needs to be
located here or somewhere else, it has a lot to do with the service being
provided, whether it is being provided to the public directly from that space
or whether the people are out there amongst the public delivering services that
way. That is a whole other matter.
I am sort of urging the department to
get things in a position where we can give the honourable member a more
appropriate response than that. I do not
have any apology to make except that I will try to move this along and get a
better answer than that for the honourable member.
Mr.
Gaudry: Madam Chairperson, I have a
letter here that I received last February, and I meant to write to the minister
in regard to this issue but I always figured we would go back early into session
and that we would go back into Estimates.
I think I would like to read the letter into the record.
This letter came from a daughter. It says:
I am writing on behalf of my mother, Mrs. Henrietta Haas, who is one of
your constituents. Mrs. Haas was
admitted to St. Boniface Hospital on January 20, 1994, with an asthma
attack. She was in the hospital until
Wednesday, February 2. She was very weak
when she was released and was only taken off her oxygen supply on Monday
morning. The home care provided one
visit by a nurse on Thursday, February 3, and no further plans for care until
Tuesday, February 8, was inadequate. My
mother became violently ill on Friday, and no help was sent. Fortunately, my sister‑in‑law was
available. On Saturday morning, I called
an ambulance to take my mother back to Emergency, as she was too weak to take a
Ventolin treatment on her own. On
Sunday, she was readmitted to the same bed on the same ward that she left. She has pneumonia and is in a very weakened
condition. I feel that she was
discharged from the hospital too soon, and the nurses in Emergency and
Observation are of the same opinion. I
wish to alert you to this situation so that it does not recur. Thank you for your kind attention. Yours sincerely, Elaine Haas. [interjection]
My colleague from Crescentwood
answered the question, but I do not think it is the proper answer. I am just wondering if these cases, what do
we do when they are brought to our attention, to make sure that this does not
recur?
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I appreciate
the honourable member bringing that to my attention, and I do not mind if in
future those kinds of things come forward, he contact me, because we will make
inquiries about those things. Even so,
it sounds, from what I am hearing in the letter that the honourable member has
read, that a decision was made either by a physician or by a physician in
consultation with a hospital. That is
usually how discharges are brought about.
I cannot substitute my medical judgment for that of others who have
better knowledge of the case itself.
* (1550)
I encourage the honourable member,
either through me or directly, to perhaps put the inquiry to the hospital
involved, and they can follow up and give an appropriate response. Sometimes, as a result of these things,
shortcomings are uncovered, and it gives hospitals and physicians an
opportunity to look at their own practice or their own practices. I have seen letters written from hospitals to
people who have made complaints advising the people that an adjustment has been
made in our policy in that respect.
Thank you for your interest because
that is how we are able to keep a high‑quality health care system
going. I do not think that letter‑‑unless
the honourable member is suggesting otherwise‑‑illustrates any
systemic difficulty or problem but a case that perhaps did not go to the
satisfaction of the people most closely involved. So I am not trying to pass the buck, but I am
saying if the honourable member wants my assistance in tracking this down
further, I will make that service available, but it can also be referred to the
hospital or the physician involved for further response.
Mr.
Gaudry: I thank the minister for his
response. My next question has to do
with‑‑just two days ago, I was talking to one of my constituents
who had wanted services in St. Boniface from a Francophone doctor, and it did
not seem that it was available, a fact that Dr. Nicole Caron‑Boulet, who
is Francophone but very involved with seniors‑‑and he mentioned
that there was a couple from Victoria who had made their studies in Sherbrooke,
Quebec, and had applied to come back to their local residence of St. Boniface,
he and his wife. Both are doctors and
had requested to come to Manitoba and were denied their licensing to come to
Winnipeg but did get a licensing to go provincially. They were sort of forced, I guess, to go to
the rural area, or it was sort of a fact that they had to serve in the rural
areas before they would be allowed to come to St. Boniface.
The fact that I think St. Boniface is
a heavy Francophone community, I feel that there should be Francophone doctors
available to the community. I was
wondering, why is it that they have to serve rural before they would be allowed
to come back to St. Boniface? I
understand that later on in the year they will be going to Ste. Anne. Ste. Anne has already, as far as I am
concerned, several Francophone doctors, and I think St. Boniface should get the
Francophone doctors. I am not sure; I
could find out more information, but is there a regulation to the fact that
they have to serve in rural areas before they come to Winnipeg?
Mr.
McCrae: Clearly, as cognizant of the
needs of a Francophone community or any community where there is a certain
community of interest and certainly in rural Manitoba where there is need for
certain specialities‑‑we are cognizant of all of those things. So how best do you deal with it? Well, in future, we think the best chance we
have is through the Physician Resource Committee, which is the result of the
new MMA agreement.
However, the specific case the member
raises, he simply is just going to have to give us more information in order
for us to give a better response to it.
We are pleased to be able to do that.
The Physician Resource Committee,
however, for future matters like this, will be there with the co‑chairpersonship
of Dr. Ian White and Mr. Denis Roch of the department. The MMA will be represented by Dr. Bob
Sanders and Dr. Robin Carter.
The province additionally has
appointed two nurses who happen to be in the employ of the government, but Ms.
Barbara Millar and Ms. Carolyn Park are also on that Physician Resource
Committee. There will additionally be
other persons representing the public interest on that committee, the MMA, the
Urban Health Advisory Council, the Northern and Rural Health Advisory Council,
the Faculty of Medicine, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the
Professional Association of Residents and Interns of Manitoba, the Manitoba
Health Organizations, the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation will
all be involved in addressing the very issues the honourable member raises.
We do not want to be unfair to
anybody. However, we have to address the
reality of the numbers of physicians in the more built‑up areas of
Manitoba versus the dearth of physicians in less‑populated rural,
northern areas. This is the best chance
I have seen for a long time, and other things have been tried, to ensure that
service is available. We have more physicians,
taking out altogether the cultural issue the honourable member raises which is
a legitimate one, but we have more physicians in Winnipeg than we need. We better recognize that.
The physicians represented by the Medical
Association, I believe, recognized that there needs to be a more favourable
distribution of physicians in order to see to the population health needs of
Manitobans wherever they live. I just
think that this is the best hope we have had in a long time of seeing that we
have physicians where they are needed in Manitoba.
Certainly, the case the honourable
member raises has dimensions to it that if this were a case that applied to the
responsibilities of the Physician Resource Committee, I would ask that the
matter be referred to that committee for their review. Certainly the members that I would appoint to
it, I would advise them we want them to keep their minds open on issues like
this.
People, for example, who perhaps leave
Manitoba to train with the intent of returning to Manitoba for the purpose of
practising medicine, there has got to be some sense of fairness involved in the
deliberations of the Physician Resource Committee. I think from my discussions with MMA people,
as well, that they view this as an important job to be done and that it can
also be done in a sensitive way.
There is reason to be a little bit
comfortable about this, and that reason is that, you know, we do not need to
shift very many physicians to rural Manitoba.
We do not need to force march a whole bunch of physicians to rural
Manitoba because in some of the communities one physician would be a wonderful
thing, one. I think sometimes when we
spend a lot of time in Winnipeg, we maybe forget about that a little bit, and we
do not want to do that because people in Manitoba are Manitobans wherever they
live, but if the honourable member will make more information available to us,
we will do more research, investigation into this particular matter.
Mr.
Gaudry: Madam Chairperson, I thank the
minister for his reply, and I will certainly get more information and pass it
on to the minister.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I wanted to clarify
something from the minister in regard to obstetrical care in Manitoba, and
particularly in the Winnipeg hospitals.
Is it the policy or philosophy of this government that the government
supports providing low‑risk obstetrical services in our community‑based
hospitals? Is that a fair statement?
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the whole
issue of obstetrics in Winnipeg has been dealt with in two or three reports,
one being that of the Manning report.
There is also one on midwifery and another one on the economics of
obstetrics by Michael Lloyd. It will not
be too, too long, I hope, that we will be making our policy on obstetrics in
Winnipeg known.
Some things that we are told that
should make us fairly proud as those who are residents of Winnipeg, and that is
that it is a safe place to have babies.
I think the Manning report is clear that for normal pregnancies‑‑I
guess that is what most of them are; the highest percentage are low‑risk
pregnancies‑‑they can be safely cared for in tertiary care. That is a finding, I think, of the
report. I am sure it is a finding of the
report because the report recommends a favourite option being tertiary care
services or deliveries in our teaching hospitals.
* (1600)
That does not mean to say that so‑called
normal deliveries cannot be conducted elsewhere, and I am not saying that they
cannot be done elsewhere. In fact we
have gone so far as to throw our support to regulated midwifery in Manitoba,
and the location of such services will be discussed further by the midwifery
implementation council headed by Carol Scurfield and a committee still to be
named. But I am not precisely sure what
the honourable member is getting at, but I would like to know some of her views
as we head towards making our position known on obstetrics. So I will not get into it in too detailed a
way, because as I say, it will not be long before we will be making our plans
with respect to obstetrics known, and our plans will be the result of looking
at all of these various reports that have been made available to us.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, is not the cost of
providing beds in the tertiary care centres, is the cost not higher than
providing a similar kind of service in a community hospital?
Mr.
McCrae: I think the honourable member
has to understand that our position is that cost is not the only driving factor
here when it comes to bringing newborns into the world. This goes beyond a health issue for me,
because in my view being pregnant with a normal pregnancy is not an
illness. So I do not view it like that.
So cost, while it is relevant, is not
the driving factor here. That is why I
was so happy to visit Victoria Hospital, for example, and look at the LDRP
system that they have in effect that is seen by families as a quality way to‑‑I
have to be careful how I choose my words, because when you are delivering
babies, I have never done that, so I do not know exactly what kind of
experience it is‑‑but as a family experience, you can make it into
something that is, all things considered, a wonderful experience.
Through the LDRP, I think, we have moved
a few steps closer to that kind of an experience. Now, what is the price tag? You know, I never took the time to ask, and
maybe I should and will, but cost is not the only driving factor when it comes
to bringing children into the world. We
will have that in our minds, as we develop, as we move closer to an
announcement on obstetrics.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I know that cost is not
the only factor, and although the minister says he has not taken the time to
ask the question, I am sure he could right now, because I would imagine one of
his staff has the answer. So if he could
do that and just provide us with what the average cost is in one of the
tertiary care centres for an obstetrical bed versus the community hospital.
Mr.
McCrae: I should not say that I have
never asked, because I have been told, as I was briefed on the Manning report,
and I do not have a copy of the Manning report with me today. Certainly other people have seen the Manning
report, and we do not have the number of the members looking for, but we will
make it available to her in the near future.
Ms. Gray: I have a copy of the Manning report. I guess I would ask the minister‑‑he
is saying "soon"‑‑can he be a little more specific on
when we may have a policy announcement on obstetrical care?
Mr.
McCrae: Well, it has to be soon, and I
say that, because I know that there are people who are extremely interested in
knowing which direction we are going. I
know of staff in some hospitals in Winnipeg who are almost on needles and pins
wondering what the future of the service in their particular facility is going
to be. I am very mindful of that, and I
am trying to move this along as quickly as I can, but I will not move faster
than good judgment would allow. That
does not give much of an answer to the honourable member, I know, but if you
can get me out of these Estimates this afternoon, it might be a little quicker.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, we certainly look forward
to hearing about the direction of obstetrical care in Manitoba and in Winnipeg
as well. The minister made some comments
earlier and talked about waiting lists.
My colleague from Kildonan talked about waiting lists which have been here
longer than this government has been here and probably will continue to be here
when this government is not. Waiting
lists are probably a fact of life, as far as health care in Canada. I know I have received letters, and I am sure
the minister has received letters as well, concerns expressed by people who
feel that there have been undue delays in the area of hip repair, other kinds
of surgery such as heart surgery, et cetera, and I think the minister attempted
to address some of those concerns in his comments.
Does the minister have information,
though, as to if we have seen a decrease in waiting lists over the last number
of years? [interjection] A decrease in waiting lists, do you have statistics on
whether there has been a decrease in waiting lists for, say, heart and hip and‑‑
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the shortest
waiting list, or the shortest wait, is somewhere like in Beverly Hills or maybe
Palm Springs or somewhere like that, where there are so many rich people who
can get the service that the dollars they have will afford to them.
Sometimes we in Canada, some of us, I
do not think we are entitled to that Beverly Hills sort of service. As far as I am concerned, we are entitled to
the best we can give them with the dollars we have. We can use Beverly Hills maybe as an
ideal. Maybe we can move that quick,
although we may do better than Beverly Hills in some areas. I am not sure.
I have some information though, some
stats on hip replacements for Manitoba over the past few years. In 1986‑87, hip replacements at Brandon
General Hospital, there were 103 hip replacements that year in Brandon. Moving ahead to '89‑90, there were 120;
and to '92‑93, the last year for which I have numbers, 135.
* (1610)
At Grace, seven years ago, they had
107 hip replacements. Last year they had
172; Misericordia, from 58 to 64; St. Boniface, 88 to 106; Victoria, 54 up to
77; Concordia, actually had a drop from 15 in '86‑87 down to 10 in '92‑93;
Seven Oaks, from 57 to 79; and Health Sciences Centre, 213 all the way up to‑‑well,
all the way‑‑it moved from 213 to 216 seven years later, but on all
of the urban hospitals from 695 surgeries up to 859 surgeries per year.
Province‑wide, when you include
Winkler, Carman, Steinbach, Morden, where they do those procedures, province‑wide
in '86‑87, they did 725, and in '92‑93, they did 929, and that is
for hip.
With respect to knee replacements, and
I will just go from province‑wide here, between '86 and '87 and '92‑93: In '86‑87, there were 194 knee
replacements province‑wide, and there were 443 last fiscal year, which
says that has to be part of the reason for that, the aging population that we
have in Manitoba. Obviously, what it
says is, we are creating pressure on the system with this kind of growth and
these kinds of procedures.
A waiting list is not an easy thing to
describe. It is like an average. What is average? Is the highest number the average or is the
lowest number the average? A waiting
list is even more difficult than an average, because some people's doctors will
place them on a waiting list at a very low priority level.
In the case of my dad when he had his
hip diagnosed that he needed it replaced, I told him, Dad, you are going to get
on a waiting list. It could take you six
months or whatever it was in those days, or nine months or whatever, and he
said, well, it does not hurt that much, and I will not bother. I said, well, Dad, you wait too long and I am
going to be saying I told you so, because you are going to be on a waiting
list. So he waited and he waited, and I
said, Dad, when do you think you might want to get your name on that waiting
list? Well, I am getting around pretty
good.
Well, he was getting around just fine,
and then it started to hurt pretty bad and getting around was harder and
harder. So finally, he got his name on
the waiting list. Well, he waited. That is why they call it a waiting list. He waited about six months or something like
that, and he got his operation. It was a
successful operation and everything, but I said, Dad, you could have saved
yourself so much trouble if you, as an informed consumer, had played a role in
your own case here. You could have
avoided a lot of that discomfort.
Well, frankly, Dad was like most other
people, I think. Nobody wants to go
under the knife, as it were, if you could put it off, which is what the‑‑[interjection]
Sorry, I should not use that kind of language.
But that was what my dad called it, and he was the patient. So I guess I can use it in that context at
least.
I give that example to try to point
out that I cannot answer the honourable member about a waiting list. We have physicians in Manitoba who have
patients on their lists, and we do not know about those lists. So how do you describe what a waiting list
is? Some people are told by their
physician that they will be on this list for quite a while. [interjection] The
honourable member for Flin Flon is talking about a dictionary. I made the point a little while ago that you
look in the dictionary under "temporary" and there is a picture of
Jerry Storie there in the dictionary. That
is especially true of the member for Flin Flon, because we know what his future
plans are, and that is to move on and get on to something else.
Mr. Jerry
Storie (Flin Flon): If they had
the word "dufus" in the dictionary, there would be Jim, but they do
not.
Mr. McCrae: Dufus?
How about dunderhead? Oh oh, now
we are in trouble.
An Honourable Member: You called?
Mr.
McCrae: Fate works in wonderful ways,
Madam Chairperson. I just mentioned
dunderhead and in walks the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer).
For the enlightenment of the Leader of
the Opposition, we were talking about what is a waiting list. A waiting list is‑‑it is a
difficult question to answer. If I could
give a better answer, I would. But there
are a lot of people who think a waiting list is, you get on the end of it, and
you wait your turn. The fact is, for
many procedures, certain things about your condition can change, and your
doctor can make a diagnosis or judgment that you need to be moved up on that
waiting list, and that is what happens from time to time.
We have our various surgeons in
Manitoba working together as groups. We
have had the appropriate access committee, which is headed up by Dr. Ross Brown
from St. Boniface Hospital, to report and take action on getting those waiting
lists properly prioritized so that patients do not have to wait any longer than
absolutely necessary.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, does the minister know why
we have seen an increase in the number of surgeries that we have done in hip replacements
and, he also mentioned, knee replacements?
Does he know why we have seen an increase?
Mr.
McCrae: This is a difficult area, Madam
Chairperson. If the honourable member
looked at the tape that I provided to her, the W5 program talked about‑‑and
if she has not I would certainly understand, because I know we have all been
very busy on these Estimates, but I made available, and at her leisure and that
of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak)‑‑
An Honourable Member: That is it, break the copywrite law.
Mr. McCrae: Oh, I did not take any money for it.
An Honourable Member: It does not matter, you cannot do it.
Mr. McCrae: Oh, oh, now I am in trouble for that too.
An
Honourable Member: As a former
Minister of Justice, I think you just got on the record because you have broken
the law of Canada.
Mr.
McCrae: Every time I turn around, Madam
Chairperson, I get myself into trouble, especially when the member for
Concordia (Mr. Doer) is watching, but in any event, if I am guilty I will deal
with that at a later time and I will maybe talk to the member for St. Johns
(Mr. Mackintosh) and get some quality legal advice on‑‑or the
Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) perhaps, or the member for Kildonan
(Mr. Chomiak). He could be an accomplice
in this.
An Honourable Member: Could he?
Mr. McCrae: He could, yes, because he accepted it.
An Honourable Member: He cannot be an accomplice unless you
committed a crime.
* (1620)
Mr.
McCrae: Well, if he accepted property
that he should not have accepted, then we are both in trouble. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) I
think, Madam Chairperson, is trying to distract me from my train of thought
here. [interjection] I have been here this long, you know.
An
Honourable Member: You are not
supposed to release material like that.
It is against the Interpol convention, as you know.
Mr. McCrae: Okay.
Now I am really scared. Are you
all done charging and cautioning me?
An Honourable Member: Yes, I just want you to be very careful, Jim.
Mr.
McCrae: As I was saying, as set out in
the W5 tape that I made available for the honourable member, it deals with
issues like this. At what point is it
appropriate to have surgical procedure with regard to cardiac, with regard to
orthopedic? Are we improving the quality
of people's lives always by engaging in surgery for people at certain points in
their lives? I am referring to those who
are very elderly. Is it appropriate to
do that hip replacement or that knee replacement?
I do not know the answers, and the W5
program did not answer the question either, but I believe we have a better
opportunity today to begin to answer some of those questions than we have in
the past. Because of the need to renew
our health system we have professionals working more closely than ever before
to examine these issues. I do not know
if that appropriately answers precisely the question the member asked, but it
is getting close to the issue. How many
people are on that waiting list who will never have the operation is a very
genuine and honest question that I would ask.
I do not know how many. I suspect
there might be some who might come to the end of their lives before they get
those procedures. If that happens, should
it, and should they have been on the list in the first place? I do not know all the answers, but I
certainly know some of the questions that are going to be addressed through the
various processes we have been able to set up.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I am jumping around in
issues here, but I wanted to ask this question about MHSC and receiving an MHSC
card in case we had to get information from other staff. If an individual has an MHSC card so they are
qualified to receive services and they get married and that person comes from
another country, but they are married, is the person that they marry then
entitled to receive an MHSC card or to be under the same number as their
spouse?
Mr.
McCrae: To make a complicated answer
simple, at the time that one becomes a landed immigrant, one is insurable under
our system in Manitoba.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, just to make things
simple, this is a case that I have just become aware of, but I do not think we
are going to solve the problem here. Who
is the best person for us to talk to at the Manitoba Health Services Commission
to sort out‑‑this is an issue of spousal abuse and MHSC cards, et
cetera. Who is the best person that we
can talk to?
Mr.
McCrae: The honourable member could
contact directly Mr. Bob Harvey at 786‑7215. By the way, we do not call it MHSC anymore.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I know we do not call it
MHSC anymore, but I still call it that so I know of which I speak. It does not have a name. It is integrated into the Department of
Health.
I wanted to ask the minister about
appeals for rate increases for individuals living in personal care homes. He gave some information earlier on, and I
have written him some letters, which he has promptly responded to. I wanted to know if a lot of the appeals that
came forth after the rate increase was announced for October, have those all
been dealt with?
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, we expect all
outstanding appeals that we presently know of to be disposed of by mid‑June,
which is pretty good. I know that the
board and the staff have worked extra hard to deal with the appeals that have
come forward.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, for those individuals who
appealed the rate increases but were not successful, and in those cases they would
have not only the new rate increases to pay, but do they also have to pay
retroactively to when they appealed? If
that is the case, are there any special arrangements that are being made? Obviously, these people who appealed felt
that there was a financial hardship involved, so not only are they going to
have to pay the increased rate, but for some of them they would have to pay the
retroactive rates as well. Are there any
arrangements that are being made to assist these people to do that?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chair, there are so many rules and
things like that to keep track of. I
would prefer to let the member let me take that question and get an accurate
response for her. I may be able to do it
very shortly. It may take a little
longer, we will see.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I want to ask a question
about physiotherapy services. Children
who require physiotherapy services, where within the department would they
receive those services? I am referring
specifically to a number of children who formerly would have received them
through the Winnipeg School Division No. 1.
So where now would those children and families be accessing those
physiotherapy services?
Mr.
McCrae: Under our health system, people
who need physiotherapy services can obtain them, either through the hospital
system or through the private system, so that those are the services that are
available.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, would the minister happen
to have any information then on what the cost might be to obtain those services
through the hospital system versus what the taxpayers in essence were paying to
have those children receive those services through Winnipeg No. 1?
* (1630)
Mr.
McCrae: I am not able to respond with
respect to the school system service, but with respect to the hospital‑based
physiotherapy services, they are part of the insured system here in Manitoba.
Ms. Gray: I am jumping around from topic to topic, but
we are going to be completed by five o'clock.
The Self‑Managed Care Pilot Project that is going to be expanded
in rural Manitoba and in Winnipeg and the North, I believe, can the minister
indicate‑‑he was going to have some individuals, I think, sit on a
committee that was going to be continuing to review the Self‑Managed Care
Pilot Project, some individuals from the disabled community. Am I correct in that?
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, on the
earlier question with respect to personal care and the appeals, we will get a
letter off to the honourable member or inform her within a reasonable period of
time on that point.
Madam Chair, with respect to the
expansion of the, and this time we are both using the word right I think, Self‑Managed
program‑‑in the past before we came to this stage, there was a
committee that we were working with, a committee of people who were self
managers, and I met with that committee just last week to discuss this very
matter about just how we might manage in the future.
A number of them had really found the
experience enjoyable and meaningful and everything, but they were ready to get
on with the rest of their lives too and that was all very well. We are looking at the hiring of a person to
assist us as we expand this program, a disabled person who will have some
insights that we can use in this area.
We have not given up altogether on the idea of having some form of
liaison with interested parties in the self‑managing community out
there. We do not want to lose touch with
them because we have actually developed quite a relationship even in the short
time I have been in the office.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, that is a good idea, to
hire an individual. Are you going to
advertise this position?
Mr. McCrae: Yes.
Ms. Gray: I am glad to see that position will be
advertised as well.
I wanted to ask a few questions about
ambulance services. I understand that
there are some changes that are occurring within ambulance services and the
northern transportation that is provided to people in northern Manitoba, and I
am wondering if the minister could give us an indication of what some of those
changes are.
Mr.
McCrae: I think I will have to ask the
honourable member if she could put her question again in a different way. We are having a little trouble understanding
the way she has put it.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I believe it was some
changes to who can provide ambulance air carrier service in northern Manitoba,
and that the government was asking possibly for tenders for individuals to come
forward and indicate whether they are interested in providing the service. I know there was some concern expressed with
the aboriginal community because of time frame.
There was an extension that was given,
but there seems to be some concern about limiting the services, also about the
fact that the regulations that would be required for some of these air carriers‑‑that
there may be some groups that are interested but probably cannot comply with
the regulations in a reasonable amount of time.
In effect, they feel they would probably do a better job and provide a
better service if they were given the opportunity to meet the standards and
meet those regulations which may take longer than what initial time frames were
that the government had asked for.
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the
honourable member has clarified the question.
The Air Ambulance Licensing Review Committee, also another George Bass
chaired committee, put out a report. I
have met with some stakeholders, and others in the department have been
involved in such meetings. The member
for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) will recall we discussed this briefly one day, and a
number of concerns have arisen in regard to our moving forward with the
recommendations of the Air Ambulance Licensing Review Committee.
My concern was that not everyone felt
that there had been an appropriate airing of their particular concerns, and I
have a sense of déja vu here that I have done this before, but that is all
right. What the chair of the Manitoba
Health Board did was wrote a letter in May to various stakeholders as
follows: Dear sir, madam or whatever, re
Air Ambulance Licensing Review Committee.
On February 1, 1994, Manitoba Health
introduced a standard for licensing basic air ambulances. The standard was developed as the result of a
broad public and professional consultation process. Following introduction of the standard, a
number of groups, such as the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the Central Air
Carriers Association and the Medical Services Branch of Health Canada expressed
some concern with the proposed air ambulance licensing process and standards.
In response to these concerns,
Manitoba Health is establishing a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Brian
Postl to review outstanding issues arising from the implementation of an air
ambulance licensing process. The
proposed medical standards and basic medical equipment schedules have been
forwarded to the Standards Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Manitoba for review and any suggestions they may have for improvement.
Your organization, as a stakeholder in
the air ambulance field, is invited to appoint a representative to the Air
Ambulance Licensing Review Committee. If
at all possible, committee representatives should have some background in
aeromedicine, medical evacuation of patients by air, northern air operations or
outpost medical procedures. Please
forward by May 21, 1994, the name, address and telephone number of your
representative to the Air Ambulance Licensing Review Committee, name and
address and so on.
* (1640)
This letter was sent out by Gail Roth
[phonetic], chairperson of the Manitoba Health Board. It was sent out May 2 to: Dr. J. Mansfield, Assistant Registrar of the
Manitoba College of Physicians and Surgeons; Chief Sydney Garrioch, he is the
chair of the Chief's Health Committee for the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs;
Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Scanterbury; Ms. D. Hohle [phonetic], Secretary of
the Canadian Air Carriers Association, a box number in Leaf Rapids; the
chairperson, the Thompson Regional Council; Ms. J. Lutley [phonetic], who is
the chairperson of the Northern Regional Council; the president of the Manitoba
Medical Association; Mr. Keith Cale, Acting Regional Director of the Medical
Services Branch for Health Canada; Chief Arnold Ouskan [phonetic], who has the
health portfolio for the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okemakanac Inc.; the executive
director of the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses. Those are the people to whom this letter was
sent.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the individual who is with
the Air Carriers Association then, would she be representing interests of some
of the current and potential air carriers such as Keewatin Air, Campbell
Air? I am trying to think of different
air carriers that I am familiar with.
Mr. McCrae: Yes, Madam Chairperson.
Ms. Gray: I received a letter from a physician out in
rural Manitoba, and he makes some interesting comments about health reform in
general, but one of the things that he spent some time talking about was that
he felt that in regard to Pharmacare and Pharmacare coverage and the cost of
drugs, there was a wide variety of medications that physicians prescribed. He felt that oftentimes physicians were not
as aware as they could be about how lesser‑cost drugs could be as
effective as more costly drugs. He felt,
as a physician himself, that this was an issue.
Is there anything that is being done that the minister is aware of,
either through the College of Physicians and Surgeons or through the
government, that is going to assist physicians in being better educated in
terms of the whole issue of medication management and drug costs and what is
appropriate for patients?
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the efforts
in this area are the kind of information that we send out in newsletters from
the department to physicians and that the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association
makes available to the medical profession.
As there are changes in our formulary, that information is made
available to the medical profession. No
doubt the pharmaceutical companies, generic and otherwise, make their products
known to the medical profession. I think
the medical profession itself has various ways of attempting to provide
educational opportunities to its members.
I think the DPIN will present us with some opportunities to explore new
ways, also to get a message through. The
legislation provides for certain things to happen which addresses some of the
things that the member is raising.
I dare say that the doctor who wrote
to the honourable member, that kind of information ought to be shared with the
colleagues in the Manitoba Medical Association as well as just with the
honourable member, in my view, because that would help as well.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, actually this doctor
did. He copied Dr. Ian Goldstine and Dr.
Jeff Matte [phonetic] from Manitoba Health Organization, so he did pass on that
information to them.
I had one question about the Manitoba
Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation.
I noticed in the budget that its budget has increased substantially. Is that a one‑year budget, or is that
over a period of a number of years, and are there specific projects or
endeavours that the department is hoping that this centre will undertake with
this increased budget?
Mr.
McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the first
part of my answer is this, that the $437,500 that the honourable member refers
to on page 125 of the Supplementary Information amounts to the last quarter
funding only for the centre from the Health Services Development Fund. The previous part of the year was in the $12‑million
figure for the Manitoba Health Services Innovations Fund. In other words, as we talked earlier, this is
one of those areas that is now being hived off and out of that Healthy
Communities‑‑whatever it is called‑‑appropriation, and
the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation now gets its own
appropriation. I hope that clears up
what could be taken to be a misleading, rather large increase in funding.
The 1993‑94 Health Estimates
provided funding of $437,500 to cover the three‑month operating period of
January 1, 1994, to March 31, 1994.
Recently, we have signed a new five‑year contract to take us to
December 31, 1998, with the University of Manitoba, which provides the Manitoba
Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation with total funding of $9.5 million over
the term of the contract. In addition to
delivering five major deliverables each year, beginning in 1994, the centre has
introduced a Clinical Scholar Program which will encourage clinicians working
in the health sector to examine healthy policy issues through the provision of
scholarship support.
* (1650)
Here is another opportunity I think I
should take to tell honourable members that these are gambling dollars that are
used to fund the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation. That centre has now become internationally
celebrated or renowned, and certainly internationally respected, for the work
it does on population health issues. It
is this centre that more people should know about because it is the centre that
is able to evaluate what kinds of programs we should be getting into a renewed
health care system. It is this centre
that is able to tell us why we are going in the wrong directions in so many
areas and which directions we should be going in. This is the centre that settles a lot of
misconceptions we might have. This is
the centre that shows us where our strengths and weaknesses are.
So I think that certainly the research
and evaluation community has a lot of respect for the centre, and we should use
the services of the centre and remember that health renewal based on sound
information and evaluation is going to be quality health renewal.
Madam Chairperson: 7.(b) Healthy Communities Development $12
million‑‑pass.
7.(c) Hospital $924,571,700‑‑pass;
Less: Recoveries ($3,712,200)‑‑pass.
7.(d) Medical $272,486,700‑‑pass;
Less: Recoveries ($1,831,300)‑‑pass.
7.(e) Personal Care Home $250,187,300‑‑pass.
7.(f)
Pharmacare $54,164,000‑‑pass.
7.(g)
Ambulance $6,001,300‑‑pass.
7.(h) Northern
Patient Transportation $2,577,200‑‑pass; Less: Recoveries ($400,200)‑‑pass.
Resolution 21.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,516,394,500 for Health, Health Services Insurance Fund,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
8. Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.
Ms. Gray: I believe the member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak) and I have actually been asking questions in regard to the Addictions
Foundation, and the minister has provided those answers as we have been going
through the Estimates process.
Madam Chairperson: 8. Addictions Foundation of Manitoba
$10,524,300.
Resolution 21.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $10,524,300 for Health, Addictions Foundation of Manitoba,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Item
9 we are omitting, is that correct?
Expenditures Related to Capital?
Item 10. Lotteries Funded Programs (a)
Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation $1,900,000‑‑pass.
10.(b) Children's Hospital Research
Foundation $416,700‑‑pass.
10.(c) Manitoba Health Research
Council $1,752,600‑‑pass.
10.(d) Manitoba Health Services
Innovations Fund $10,000,000‑‑pass.
10.(e) Evaluation and Research
Initiatives $174,900‑‑pass.
10.(f) Special Hospital Requirements
$6,367,100‑‑pass.
Resolution 21.10: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $20,611,300 for Health, Lotteries Funded Programs, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
What
is the will of the committee? Call it
five o'clock?
The
hour being 5 p.m., committee rise. Call
in the Speaker.
IN
SESSION
Committee
Report
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): The Committee of Supply has adopted certain
resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable
member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
Mr.
Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., this House
now adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Tuesday. Everybody have a great long weekend.