LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
June 28, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): It is my duty to inform the House of the
unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, and I must therefore, in accordance with
the statutes, call upon the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the
petition of Phillip Cramer, Frain Cory, Shirley Lord and others requesting the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of
the Student Social Allowances Program.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the
petition of Philip Gershuny, George Harris, Gord Wallace and others requesting
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring
funding of the Student Social Allowances Program.
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Bob Rose
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the
Second Report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments
presents the following as its Second Report.
Your committee met on Thursday, June 24, 1993,
at 7 p.m. in Room 254 of the
Your committee heard representation on bills
as follows:
Bill 11‑‑The Regional Waste
Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion des dechets, modifiant la
Loi sur les municipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois
Mr.
Bill Roth ‑
Bill 15‑‑The Boxing and Wrestling
Commission Act; Loi sur la Commission de la boxe et de la lutte
Mr.
Bob Holliday ‑ World Wrestling Federation Mr. Bob Holliday ‑ West
Four Matchmakers Mr. Martin Boroditsky ‑ Can‑Am Wrestling
Your committee has considered:
Bill 5‑‑The Northern Affairs
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du Nord
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
Your
committee has also considered:
Bill 11‑‑The Regional Waste
Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion des dechets, modifiant la
Loi sur les municipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendment:
MOTION:
THAT subsection 17(2) be struck out and the
following substituted:
Qualifications of auditors 17(2) A person who is entitled to practise as an
accountant under The Chartered Accountants Act, The Certified General
Accountants Act or The Society of Management Accountants of Manitoba
Incorporation Act, is qualified to be appointed under this section as the
auditor of an authority.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 13‑‑The Manitoba Employee
Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en
corporation le Fonds de participation des travailleurs du
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT section 2 of the bill be renumbered as
section 4 and the following added as sections 2 and 3:
2
Subsection 4(3) is repealed and the following is substituted:
Rights of Class "G" Special Shares
4(3) Where an agreement entered into
between the Fund and the Government of Manitoba requires amendments to the
rights attaching to the Class "G" Special Shares, the directors
shall, by filing articles of amendment under The Corporations Act, make those
amendments.
3
Clause 5(1)(c) is amended by adding ", the Minister of Finance in
trust for Her Majesty in right of Manitoba or the Minister of Finance (Canada)
in trust for Her Majesty in right of Canada" after "corporate
investors".
MOTION:
THAT section 3 of the Bill be renumbered as
section 5.
MOTION:
THAT section 4 of the Bill be struck out and
the following substituted as section 6:
Coming into force 6(1) This Act, except
sections 2 and 3, is retroactive and is deemed to have come into force on March
21, 1992.
Coming into force: sections 2 and 3 6(2) Sections 2 and 3 come
into force on the day this Act receives royal assent.
MOTION:
THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to
change all section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the
amendments adopted by this committee.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 15‑‑The Boxing and Wrestling
Commission Act; Loi sur la Commission de la boxe et de la lutte
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT section 9 of the bill be amended by
striking out subsection 9(3).
MOTION:
THAT the following be added as subsection
28.1:
Delegation 28.1 The commission may delegate to one of its
members any power conferred on the commission under this act except
(a)
the power to hold a hearing under Section 18 or make an order under Section 20;
and
(b)
the power to make regulations.
MOTION:
THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to
change all section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the
amendments adopted by this committee.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 18‑‑The Corporations
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les corporations
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT the following be added as section 9.1 of
the bill:
9.1
Subsection 349(1) is amended by adding "or duly qualified
agent" after "member of his staff".
MOTION:
THAT section 11 of the bill be struck out and
the following substituted:
11
Section 360 is amended
(a)
by striking out "Superintendent of Insurance for
(b)
in subsection (1), by adding "or to perform such duties imposed on the
superintendent under this Part as are specified in the appointment" after
"as the superintendent"; and
(c)
in subsection (2), by adding "some or all of" after "shall
perform".
MOTION:
THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to
change all section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the
amendments adopted by this committee.
All
of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Rose: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the
committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENTS
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister responsible for Seniors): Madam
Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to invite the members in this House
to join with me in celebrating Seniors Day in
This celebration is one of the many related
activities that have been held in the communities across the province during
June, Seniors Month, including special Seniors Day events in Russell, Gimli and
Carberry. Seniors Month offers us a
unique opportunity to honour and thank seniors across
It gives
all Manitobans a chance to recall the immeasurable contributions that seniors
have made to our beautiful province. They come from a variety of cultural
backgrounds and diverse regions of the world.
They farmed the rich prairie land, fished our lakes and rivers, worked
in our forests, built factories and thriving businesses in communities, and
they prospered by raising families and creating the towns, villages and
neighbourhoods which today we are very proud to call home.
The
contributions of seniors will continue to have an enormous impact on the lives
of all Manitobans. From all of us, they
deserve our deepest respect, admiration, appreciation and thanks.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in recognition of all
the achievements of senior citizens, I ask the members of the House to join me
in applauding
*
(1335)
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of our
opposition party, we join the government in celebrating Seniors Day scheduled
for tomorrow.
However, one day for seniors is not
enough. We need more seniors' home care
for those who need it. We need a more
compassionate government for Pharmacare.
We need more nursing home care facilities for our seniors. Above all, we need protection from the hidden
taxes that affect our senior citizens.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy
Speaker, on behalf of our caucus, I want to join with the minister and my
colleague from the New Democratic Party in again welcoming seniors to the
We
hope many will take advantage of that.
This is their building, truly, as with all Manitobans, but we, of
course, want to recognize seniors for their special contribution over their
working lives. Many of them are still
contributing to our society in many, many ways.
I
am not sure who the author is, but I recall the saying that the test of a
civilized society is how it treats its elderly. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think
that is an appropriate measure for us to keep in mind in this House.
Of
course, tomorrow I look forward to an opportunity to specially address and
welcome those who have given so much to our community, to this, their building,
and thank them for their contribution in a fitting way. Thank you.
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister responsible for Seniors): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I file the 1993‑94 Supplementary Expenditure Estimates
for the Manitoba Seniors Directorate.
Introduction
of Guests
Madam Deputy Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw
the attention of all members to the public gallery, where we have from
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.
We
also have in the public gallery this afternoon fifty Grades 10 to 12 students
from
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Bill 22
Essential
Service
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on Friday last, we had
the tale of two Fridays. On the one
hand, we have Fridays being days that people in Child and Family Services and
other essential people in the public service are being told that their services
are not required. They are
nonessential. Dealing with children and
families in crisis is not an essential service on a Friday. On the other hand, we have the Premier and
five of his staff or people in his entourage attending the swearing‑in of
a nonelected Prime Minister.
I
would like to ask the Premier: Is this
the Conservative definition of essential, one being the swearing‑in of a
Prime Minister and the other one being Child and Family Services not being
allowed to work on Fridays and deal with children?
*
(1340)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, I find it somewhat
hypocritical of the member opposite to take the position that he does, you
know. He is the one who gleefully stands
up in this House several times a month saying, why do you not just pick up the
phone and call the Prime Minister, and spends a great deal of time needling and
criticizing this government for having poor relations with the Government of
Canada.
Just in Friday's paper, there was an article
that denoted the very heavy dependency of this government and all provincial
governments, but this government, I think, about the fifth heaviest dependency
on federal transfers from
Madam Deputy Speaker, when the Prime Minister
calls directly and issues an invitation to come and attend the swearing‑in
of a new cabinet and have the opportunity to meet that new cabinet on a face‑to‑face
basis, I think it is in the interests of the
Rossbrook
House
Sister
MacNamara Scholarship
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): If the Premier thinks this is economic
leadership, if the Premier thinks this is sharing the pain, he is getting more
and more out of touch every day, Madam Deputy Speaker, with ordinary Manitobans
and people who are having a tough time making ends meet.
I
would like to ask the Premier another question.
The Premier and his government in the so‑called, sharing‑the‑pain
allegation for their programs has just cut off the money to Rossbrook House,
the Sister MacNamara scholarship, a scholarship that is used for aboriginal
people, for inner‑city kids. The
government has said they do not have enough money to fund the $2,400 that went
to funding inner‑city kids in education and funding inner‑city kids
to go to university.
How
can the Premier justify the expenditure of money, on the one hand, for his
entourage to go to
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, more than a third of
our budget depends on transfers from
The
relationship between the government of
When I take the opportunity to get to know the
members of the new cabinet and ensure that I am there on a basis that provides
for a better relationship, the member opposite wants to delve into cheap petty
politics. That is all he is looking for.
I
say to him, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have to bear in mind what is important to
the province of Manitoba in the long term, and it is important in the long term
that we establish good and solid relations with the Government of Canada.
*
(1345)
Mr. Doer: Madam Deputy Speaker, the public will know
that when the Premier attended with his entourage, it was with his political
staff. It was not the Deputy Minister of
Federal‑Provincial Relations. It
was not the clerk of cabinet. It was not some of the people working on economic
programs. It was the swearing‑in
of a nonelected Prime Minister and only one Premier attended, felt that the
cost was worth it. One Premier in
I
come back to my original question. Would
it not be better for the people of
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, we have seen decisions
by members opposite for far more than the money we are talking about here. We have seen decisions by members opposite to
spend $27 million on the sands of
Madam Deputy Speaker, my senior staff met and
networked with chiefs of staff‑‑(interjection)
Well, I repeat that it is important to the people of Manitoba, when we depend
on Ottawa for transfers of billions of dollars annually, that we have good
relations, solid relations, with the cabinet of the Government of Canada.
Judicial
Council
Role Review
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Justice.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the public deserves to
know that complaints against judges are handled with sensitivity and
expeditiously. The Judicial Council's
role in the handling of Judge McDonald's case have called into question,
through a series of articles, the functioning of this role and the way that
cases against judges are handled.
What actions will this minister undertake to
try to restore the public's confidence in the handling of complaints against
judges? What actions will this minister
take in order to rectify this situation?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am the person who
referred this matter to the Judicial Council, that we have today.
The
questions that have arisen over the past few days do indeed require some
attention. The honourable member has
correctly identified some areas of the operations of the Judicial Council that
need attention in my submission.
I
believe the issues that need to be looked at are the issues respecting the
composition of the Judicial Council and the composition of the inquiry board
proposed by the Law Reform Commission.
Issues related to evaluation of judges need to be looked at, although I
do not want to necessarily attach myself to the recommendations of the Law
Reform Commission, but evaluation is an issue, and something to improve, I
believe, is the reporting relationship between the Judicial Council and the
public.
Judge
McDonald Case
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): I am pleased to hear the minister has
referred this to the Law Reform Commission, if that is my understanding.
My
supplementary question to the minister is:
Will the minister consider, given the gravity of this case and this
situation, bringing in an outside impartial reviewer or body to review the
actions over the past period of time concerning Judge McDonald in order to
restore public confidence in the system?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, unlike complaints in the past in
this particular matter that have not been referred for hearing to the Judicial
Council, in this case I used the power I have as minister under The Provincial
Court Act to require that an inquiry be held.
That inquiry should, unless there are reasons it should not‑‑that
inquiry would be public and in front of the Judicial Council, and so we should
await the outcome of the proceedings in this particular case.
My
reference to the Law Reform Commission though was a commission report we
already have, and it has made recommendations.
Some of those recommendations give us some difficulty, but some of them
are also very useful indeed, and should result in improvement to the operations
of the Judicial Council after we bring forward legislation in the next session
of the Legislature.
*
(1350)
Mr. Chomiak: My final supplementary is to the minister.
The
Law Reform Commission has made some recommendations concerning the Judicial
Council. The minister has ordered a
review of these particular circumstances.
Can
the minister indicate whether anyone will be looking at the past 20 years and
considering the situation of Judge McDonald in terms of the past 20 years, the
various complaints, and the way they may or may not have gone forward to the
Judicial Council for review?
Mr. McCrae: Some of that may happen in the hearings
before the Judicial Council itself. I am
awaiting from the department certain options that might be available to us in
the way of what we might do while the Judicial Council is carrying out its
legislatively sanctioned function.
We
have to be careful that we do not have an overlap or that one course of action
does not in any way interfere with the other, but we are looking very carefully
at the options available to us.
HIV
Infection‑Blood Transfusions
Communication
Strategy
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
This weekend, the Canadian Hemophilia Society
found it necessary to place ads in both papers in
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the minister
realizes‑‑I know from his prior comments‑‑the
seriousness of this issue to all Manitobans, and, in particular, of course,
those who may have been affected. Our
former Health critic raised this on April 19 and asked the minister to take a
proactive approach and do essentially what the Canadian Hemophilia Society has
now found it necessary to do.
My
question for the minister is: Will he
now do the necessary advertising and public education to alert the many
Manitobans, who indeed did receive any sort of blood transfusion in this
province during those years, so that they can be properly apprised from the
Minister of Health, not just one society, because this affects far more than
hemophiliacs?
Will the Minister of Health do what I think
the people of this province have a right to expect of him and educate the
entire province that this indeed did happen and bring these people forward at
the earliest opportunity to have a blood test?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister
of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, that process is in train
now, in collaboration with the
That communication is following upon the
recommendations of the recently tabled parliamentary committee, and it does not
in any way, shape or form detract from, but rather collaborates with, the
recent initiative that the Canadian Hemophilia Society, Manitoba division, did
in terms of placing an ad in a public communication. That was their desire to do so, and, in
collaboration with the ministry, have offered to be one of the referral
services available for counselling of anyone who is contemplating undertaking
the testing for presence of HIV in their bloodstream as a result of
transfusions prior to 1985.
Madam Deputy Speaker, contrary to the
impression my honourable friend would like to leave, there has been a
considerable amount of collaboration with the
*
(1355)
Mr. Edwards: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to
hear that the minister is in consultation with the
I
would like to ask the minister, as a supplementary, specifically what
information he has asked the college for.
Is he searching for the identity of any of those who may have been
affected, and will there then be direct communication with those individuals or
will there be some advertising campaign?
What is contemplated in this process?
He
has talked about the first part of it.
What is the entire process going to entail, in terms of getting in touch
with those people‑‑from the Ministry of Health?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, we have always believed
that an appropriate communication strategy with citizens of
I
want to indicate to my honourable friend that this is not the first time that
this initiative has been undertaken. It
was undertaken in the mid‑'80s, shortly after the HIV controversy and the
concern for the blood system was expressed.
This is part of an ongoing attempt to identify
and to assure individuals who may have been exposed through the medical
services system to HIV, that they take every opportunity for blood testing as
well as for counselling and that, Madam Deputy Speaker, is where I have
indicated earlier that the Manitoba division of the Canadian Hemophilia Society
has been most co‑operative in offering their services of counselling.
Mr. Edwards: The minister indicates that the
communication, he believes, should occur through the doctors, which is fine,
Madam Deputy Speaker.
I
just want to ask: Will the minister
assure the members of this House that in fact once the number of Manitobans and
their identities have been determined, each person affected in those years 1978
through 1986, potentially affected, will be directly communicated with through
their doctors? Is the Minister of Health
taking responsibility that this in fact will happen?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not certain that
my honourable friend understands the responsibility of medical service delivery. Physicians do have a responsibility to inform
their patients and those whom they have served of the potential danger. I think that would be the most appropriate
first role to provide the medical advice, to provide the counselling, to
provide the advice as to how to access the services that the province does make
available so that individuals can avail themselves of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a very difficult
issue in terms of assuring an adequate look back and contact with all
individuals. That is an almost
impossible task, whether it be in
Cazador
Explorations‑Negotiations
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, since this government
took office, more than a thousand miners have lost their jobs and three mining
communities have been devastated. Last week, an additional 133 people working
for HBM&S were told that they would be without employment.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Cazador Explorations
Limited has been attempting to restart the mine in Lynn Lake, the LynnGold
Mine, along with what they had hoped for would be support from MMR, Manitoba
Mineral Resources.
My
question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Can the minister explain why, in a letter to
the president of MMR, the president of Cazador expresses concern for the fact that
after 11 months of "discussions," the government has yet to table a
response to a proposal put forward by Cazador which would have seen the
creation of some up to 70 jobs in the community of Lynn Lake and the
revitalization of that community?
Hon. James Downey (Minister
of Energy and Mines): Madam Deputy Speaker, the member should know
that the Manitoba Mineral Resources is operated by management and reports to a
board of directors. As well, as it
relates to the issue and Cazador's request, it is my understanding that there
have been very positive discussions taking place in the last few days. As progress develops, I am prepared to report
it. At this point, there are
negotiations taking place between Cazador and Manitoba Mineral Resources.
*
(1400)
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, talking about the
sanctity of management from a minister who plundered $16 million from the
company without the approval of management of the board of directors sounds a
little‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member have a subsequent
question?
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, my subsequent question
is: Given the fact that Cazador has let a contract to build a road, and that
the subsequent phases of development may be in jeopardy because of the delay in
the negotiations or setting of a position with MMR, can the minister
responsible for MMR tell this House today that he will instruct MMR to conclude
negotiations, so we can have the 70 jobs in Lynn Lake, so we begin to
revitalize that community and create some employment?
Mr. Downey: Madam Deputy Speaker, at the outset, let it
be clear that the reason why a lot of these mine closures have taken place in
Madam Deputy Speaker, what I said earlier in
my answer still holds. There are
discussions currently taking place between MMR and Cazador as it relates to the
As
well, I think it should be known that we too, as a government, are anxious to
see development take place in that area, but it is not our intention to get
involved with the board and the decision of management.
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, can the minister tell
this House whether the fact that MMR has been raided of some $16 million is
impeding MMR's ability to conclude a joint set of negotiations with Cazador
Explorations? Is that the reason, that
they made a mistake and took $16 million out of the kitty?
Mr. Downey: The direct answer is no. In fact, the property which is being
requested by Cazador, which is now held by Manitoba Mineral Resources, known as
The
direct answer is, the $16 million that was contributed to the Treasury in no
way affects the decision as it relates to
An Honourable Member: That is not true.
Mr. Downey: It is so true.
School Tax
Assistance Program
Income
Testing
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Madam Deputy Speaker, this Tory government,
what it will not do directly, it is doing indirectly. This Tory government has promised Manitobans,
to read its lips‑‑no taxes, and yet it has continually imposed
silent and hidden taxes on the citizens.
Just like the Tomahawk missiles that hit
My
question, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to the honourable Minister responsible for
Seniors.
Can
the honourable Minister responsible for Seniors explain why the government has
reduced the renter or tenant portion in the form of Pensioners School Tax
Assistance, which provides benefits up to a maximum of $175 for pensioner
tenants among senior citizens, under the Pensioners School Tax Assistance program?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister responsible for Seniors): Madam
Deputy Speaker, in case the member from across the way did not hear, several
times that has been explained by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). It is income‑tested. That has been also explained to the member
several times in this House.
School Tax
Assistance Program
Income
Testing
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): To the honourable Minister responsible for
Housing,
Madam Deputy Speaker: Can the honourable Minister responsible for Housing
explain how many tax dollars seniors who own their homes are entitled to have
as benefits under the Pensioners School Tax Assistance program for homeowners,
and what changes, if any, the government has made on this Pensioners School Tax
Assistance program for homeowners, particularly among senior citizens?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): As my colleague, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
Minister responsible for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme) has indicated, these programs
are income‑tested. Those who can afford
to pay more will pay more. Those who
cannot will not.
School Tax
Assistance Program
Income
Testing
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): My final supplementary, Madam Deputy Speaker,
is to the honourable First Minister.
Will the honourable First Minister consider
restoring full benefits to senior citizens under both the Pensioners School Tax
Assistance program for homeowners, as well as the pensioners tax assistance
program for tenants, for seniors, by removing the income restriction
ineligibility based on the means test?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have great difficulty
understanding how the New Democrats have their philosophies. They always say they want those who earn more
to pay more. They are constantly talking
about taking more away from people who have more. Income testing means that those who can
afford it will pay it, and those who cannot will not pay any increase.
It
is very simple and I wish the member opposite would try and understand that.
Hospital
Budgets
Tabling
Request
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): This government likes to promote the illusion
of open government, yet on Thursday in the Estimates process the Minister of
Health declined to give any detailed information on Manitoba's hospitals'
budgets. The budget line is some $926
million, almost half of the total budget of this government.
My
question for the Minister of Health is:
Will he reconsider today and provide that information to the House so
that the opposition and Manitobans will have an opportunity to discuss the
hospital budgets which is a very, very important issue? Will he do that today?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I look forward anxiously to the next, oh, 30 minutes or so, until we can resume
that very important debate.
Ms. Gray: Will the minister quit hiding behind the
guise of tradition which he talked about at length on Thursday and reconsider
his position today and table for this House the information on what the
hospital budgets are? Will he do that
for the House?
Mr. Orchard: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, we had quite an
extensive discussion on that on Thursday, and I fully expect we will continue
that this afternoon, this evening, tomorrow, Thursday next, however long it
takes my honourable friends.
Ms. Gray: Rather than playing word games in the House,
will the minister come clean and provide this information for the House and for
Manitobans? Will he do that? It is a simple request. It is an important
request.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, a simple request
deserves simple answers.
Waste
Reduction‑Packaging
Implementation
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): This government has been moving at a snail's
pace on implementing any of the powers under the waste reduction act and
program. We know they have been in
ongoing negotiations with the grocery producers and manufacturers of the
country and are pleased to see that they may be showing some fruit from those
discussions with the waste reduction program.
I
would ask the Minister of Environment:
What is the time line for the implementation of the program for waste
packaging for the province, and when can we see some actual changes in this
area?
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would be reluctant to
provide a specific date, but let me assure you that we have been for quite some
time working with various facets of the waste‑producing sectors in the
province, as evidenced by the fact that we now have a tire process that is well
underway. Let me assure the member that
we expect to move with some expediency in this area as well.
Public
Hearings
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Madam Deputy Speaker, will the minister make
a commitment to hold public multistakeholder hearings on this proposal as they
have similarly on the various waste streams under The WRAP Act?
Ms. Cerilli: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is
well known that in the implementation of regulation we always consult the
public and the area which may be subject to regulation. It seems to me a little strange that the
member would now be looking for a process that would diffuse some of the very
good negotiations that are going on. Let
me assure her that my objective is to get a more comprehensive recycling
program in place in this province as quickly as possible.
*
(1410)
Deposits
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Can the minister tell us if this waste
reduction program is their policy instead of having a deposit system on
packaging in
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Deputy Speaker, we have indicated that
by the 1st of August we would be making a decision regarding deposits and that
we would have a process in place where either we would be implementing deposits
or we would be dealing with a waste stream by alternative methods. That has been a time frame that I have put
forward and one which I intend to continue to work towards, because there was a
national protocol signed on waste reduction and reduction of packaging across
this country and
Workforce
Reduction
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, on Friday I asked a
number of questions to the minister responsible for Hydro about the impact of
the announced elimination of 480 positions at Manitoba Hydro. At that time, the minister indicated that he
would check into the details, obviously unaware of the details of what had
happened.
I
would like to ask the minister now if the minister, the same minister who was
previously responsible for decentralization, can confirm that a significant
number of the positions that are being eliminated through Manitoba Hydro are in
fact in rural
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for The Manitoba Hydro Act): Madam Deputy Speaker, let me at the outset
say that the management and the board of directors at Manitoba Hydro, due to a
reduced demand for energy nationally and across the system, caused the looking
at the management of and the operations of Manitoba Hydro so we could maintain
the lowest hydro costs in all of this country‑‑in fact, no increase
next year.
In
light of that, decisions were made.
Tough decisions were made by the board and by management which in fact
not only will impact on the city of
Mr. Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, Manitoba Hydro is
indeed in good shape because of the NSP power sale and Limestone. I asked the minister a specific question,
because he is obviously unaware of the fact that many of the layoffs are in
rural
Will the minister provide details to this
House? If he does not have those
details, will he apprise himself of those details? Four hundred and eighty positions‑‑we
expect some answers from the minister.
Mr. Downey: Madam Deputy Speaker, again, let us remind
the members opposite that we are talking about positions. We are talking about almost 200 individuals
who took voluntary early retirement and under a hundred people within those
positions are directly affected.
I
think, Madam Deputy Speaker, the numbers the member is looking for‑‑out
of 480 throughout rural and northern areas, we are talking something like 140
positions versus the balance in the city of Winnipeg.
Mr. Ashton: I appreciate the fact we are finally getting
some answers.
I
have a final question to the same minister.
Can the minister confirm that, in fact, a number of the positions that
are being eliminated are nothing to do with what the minister is talking about,
a lower demand, but the fact that Manitoba Hydro is now going to be privatizing
a number of the services provided by in‑house staff, and that is leading
to fewer jobs and layoffs?
Mr. Downey: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not so sure whether
the members opposite, the New Democratic Party, want to follow what happened in
Is
that the position the member opposite is putting forward, that he does not want
to see Manitoba Hydro operated efficiently, that he does not want to maintain
low hydro rates, that he is, in fact, in the other situation where he wants to
see increased rates?
As
it relates to the future operations of Manitoba Hydro, there are management
people, there is a board of directors, Madam Deputy Speaker, that will make the
decisions to make sure Hydro runs on a solid foundation.
Social
Assistance Employment
Creation
Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon
East): There is a definite correlation between the
lack of economic growth and the lack of jobs in this province and the growth in
poverty and the growth in the number of people on municipal welfare. In fact, we have 18,000 on welfare in the city
of
The
City of Winnipeg has proposed a joint federal‑provincial‑Winnipeg
program to employ some 2,000 welfare recipients, Madam Deputy Speaker, and a
couple of weeks ago the Minister of Urban Affairs replied that he was studying
the matter.
I
wonder if the minister today can tell us whether a decision has been reached
and, if not, when can we expect a decision.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, the whole question is
somewhat complicated in terms of you have three levels of government
participating in the sharing of current welfare payments.
In
order to make the program work, it requires the involvement of all three levels
of government. It also requires that
certain regulations related to the cost‑sharing of social assistance
benefits are waived, if you will, in order to have the money flow in a
different direction.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are in the process at the present time of attempting to
find a way to deal with that with our colleagues in the federal government, and
we hope to have some resolution of that in the very near future.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for the answer, Madam
Deputy Speaker, and would ask him, as a minister who I know should be very
concerned about this matter, whether he would give it priority, use his good
office, in view of the fact that there is this large number of people on
welfare, and, also, in view of the fact that we have had precedents.
We
have had agreements with the federal government to utilize welfare monies to
give people jobs back in the early 1980s, so there is a precedent for it, and
maybe the minister would like to look into this, but would he certainly give
this matter priority in view of the serious unemployment situation?
Mr. Ernst: Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been giving
this matter very serious consideration over the past several weeks. We have a concern that people on social
assistance would rather be working, would rather have a job, would rather feel
productive. At the same time, any public tax dollars that are being spent are
better off being spent on public infrastructure and things of that nature than
they are on, simply, social assistance payments. So I think from both perspectives, it is
advantageous to everyone.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are working very
diligently in this matter.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Deputy Speaker, in light of the last
answer, I wonder if the minister, in co‑operation with the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), would undertake to use this approach to
provide jobs for welfare recipients in some of the other urban centres of
Manitoba, including the city of Brandon which is also suffering from a
considerable amount of unemployment.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been working
very closely with my colleague the Minister of Family Services. This is a very difficult situation, as I
indicated to the member earlier. It is
not quite so simple as to simply say, take the money that you spend on welfare
and spend it on something else and employ the people doing that. There are a host of issues related to those
things that are necessary.
Until we get, kind of, a formula set, Madam
Deputy Speaker, to indicate exactly how this would work, what the benefits are,
what the cost savings are, where the interrelationships occur, until we have, I
hate to use the word "pilot," but until we have some kind of a
formula established with our colleagues in Ottawa, it is going to be difficult
to expand it beyond that.
We
are, however, not unaware that there is need, both from a social assistance
side and from an infrastructure side, elsewhere in the province, and once we
have an opportunity to deal with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, as far as Winnipeg
is concerned, we can apply it more broadly.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
*
(1420)
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENT
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Madam Deputy Speaker, could I have leave for
a nonpolitical statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Emerson have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Penner: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to
rise to recognize Cathleen and Leslie Forrester of Emerson, who have been
awarded the 1993 Manitoba Farm Family Award at the Red River Exhibition this
week.
Les
and Cathy Forrester, of course, have been farming with their family in the
Emerson area for many, many years. Their
grandfather started the farm in 1881. It
has since progressed to become one of the largest farms, one of the most
diversified farms in that area.
Les
and Cathy are, of course, also known in the area as one of the progressive
community leadership families, having been involved in the establishment of the
Halbstadt‑Marais Water Co‑op, the Manitoba Pool Elevators
Association, the Emerson Community Recreation Complex, the church and many
other community organizations. Cathy, of
course, has been very, very involved in 4‑H activities, amongst many
other things involving young people.
We
congratulate today, Madam Deputy Speaker, those of us in the Emerson
constituency, the Forrester family, not only for the many years of community
service, but for the advancement of agriculture in that area, as well as much
of the other area of the province.
Les
Forrester's father was one of the people who helped establish the sugar beet
industry in this province, which, of course, creates some 5,000 direct and
indirect employment opportunities in this province and contributes very
substantially to a $36‑million annual industry which many of us derive an
income from.
So
I stand before and ask all members of this House to help me congratulate and
recognize the Forrester family for their achievements today.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would ask if you could please canvass the House to see if
there is a willingness to waive private members' hour today.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Is there leave of the House to waive private
members' hour?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No.
Leave has been denied.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would move, seconded
by the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that Madam
Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair and that 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 and the
Department of Labour.
*
(1430)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Good afternoon. Will the Committee of Supply
please come to order. This afternoon,
this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume
consideration of the Estimates of Education and Training.
When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 6.(a)(1) on page 42 of the Estimates book.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, when we were last together, I said I would table some
information from our community colleges, the 1993‑94 Permanent and Term
Employees Affected by Redeployment, Term Expiration or Layoff. I would like to table those now.
I
also had said I would table information from
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the honourable minister.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister
for the information.
I
would like to just to start with‑‑and this question, I suppose, in
a sense, is strictly a policy question, and it brackets the colleges and the
universities, but I notice it is repeated over and over again in some of the
submissions to the University Review Commission, and that is the discussion
around creating a separate department for post‑secondary education and
moving the relationship of the colleges closer towards that of a relationship
with the universities.
I
am just wondering if there has been any discussion.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know the
universities have probably spoken to the member about this, and the
universities have been quite interested in a profile for post‑secondary
education. As the MLA for
The
decision will be one that will be made by government and by the Premier (Mr.
Filmon). At this point, I do not have
any further information that I can provide to the member.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wonder, though, has
a similar discussion come up on the colleges?
The minister is quite right. I
have had conversations with the universities.
I have not had conversations with the colleges on that particular issue. I am just wondering if that is an issue for
the colleges.
*
(1440)
Mrs. Vodrey: I can say to the member that the colleges
have not had that discussion, if his question is still around the issue of a
department. Colleges have not had that
discussion with me.
Mr. Alcock: Is there a vehicle, a committee, a working
group or whatever, where the colleges and the universities come together?
Mrs. Vodrey: There is not, within our province or really
through any organization that is currently operating across
Mr. Alcock: As I understood the discussion on training
within the private sector and the relationship with the colleges, particularly
given this market‑driven approach, there is‑‑I mean, the
minister spoke at some length last time we met about the creation of a learning
culture within an organization and a number of policies that were directed at
encouraging private‑sector organizations to move in this direction. As I understood it,
Is
there any similar relationship with the universities?
Mrs. Vodrey: There is currently operating between the
colleges and the universities a program, which is a joint program, which has
some training being done at the colleges and then two further years being done
with the universities in the area of teacher education, business education and
industrial arts education, where they begin for two years at the colleges and
then move for two years to the university.
The
Roblin commission, the University Review, we have asked to look at articulation
between the colleges and the universities, so that people who do wish to move
between institutions should be able to do so and not be blocked in the same way
they may feel blocked at the moment.
Mr. Alcock: The whole sense of market‑driven training
we talked about before presumably comes out of some mechanism or some
opportunity for the colleges and the community, the private sector, to meet, so
there is some identification of the areas in which they want training.
Is
this done on an individual basis by the colleges, or is there some co‑ordination
of that? Are the universities left to do
that on their own, or is there some mechanism that co‑ordinates this in a
general sense? If a company comes
forward expressing a certain need or is canvassed and expresses a certain need,
is it shopped around, or does it just happen with the colleges?
Mrs. Vodrey: At the moment, market‑driven training
is negotiated with each individual college, and now that the colleges are board
governed, they are able to do that very directly.
The
secretariat and the Colleges Advisory Board will also have an opportunity to
talk about the kinds of market‑driven training which the colleges
individually have been approached to do, where that has been occurring across
the province, and what kinds of market‑driven training the different
colleges have been asked to put in place for their particular region.
Since the signing of the Canada‑Manitoba
Labour Force Development Agreement, we have been moving toward the setting up
of the Canada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development boards. They are not an arm of government, but they
are intended to be made up of private‑sector individuals who will then
assist in funneling federal government money at this time into training
programs.
That
will be another way in which the market‑driven training programs will
then be identified, because they will be identified by people representing
various sectors and then looking for the training which would then meet the
needs of that particular sector.
In
terms of the universities‑‑and we may like to discuss this more
fully at that line, when staff is available, in terms of Continuing Education‑‑one
of the areas which the Roblin commission may be looking into is the area of
market‑driven training and if, in fact, universities can or should be
involved in that particular kind of training, and so in that case, we are
looking forward to the report to determine what the universities' role may be
in that area.
Mr. Alcock: With reference to the Canada‑Manitoba
Labour Force Development Agreement and its impact on market‑driven
training, is there any sense‑‑I mean, there were some really large
numbers talked about in that agreement over a relatively short period of time‑‑of
what proportion of that will be spent on purchasing services from the colleges,
or is it too early to tell that yet?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, at the moment there is a
working group and a subgroup of the total working group that is joint between
EIC and the provincial government, and it also has college representation on
this particular subgroup. It is to look
at the co‑ordination of the indirect purchases among institutions. That would be the way that some of the market‑driven
training would be purchased.
We
know for '93‑94 the federal government has directed that $9 million flow
for direct purchase, but the indirect purchase, which is an area that this
working group is looking at, is not yet determined.
Mr. Alcock: Can the minister just refresh my memory, though?
What is the size of the Labour Force Development Agreement? Was it not in something in excess of $100
million?
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, $138 million is a figure that seems to‑‑
*
(1450)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in the agreement for the
two‑year period, the amount of money was $273 million. Of that, $138 million was from
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chair, is it anticipated that the
entire $273 million will be committed within a 24‑month period?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, just let me clarify again
that the $273 million, I beg your pardon, was for '92‑93. Of that, as I said, $135 million was from the
federal government and $138 million from the province.
Also, yes, it is expected that money will all
be expended within the time frame.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chair, so that between the '92‑93
and the '93‑94 fiscal year, the last year and the one we are currently
dealing with, some $273 million will be expended in labour force development,
part of which may be training delivered by the colleges.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, the colleges will be
included within those training dollars.
Mr. Alcock: Has any of that $273 million been spent at
the colleges to date?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, for the year 1992‑93,
of the $273 million, $13.9 million were spent at the colleges, direct and
indirect purchases.
Mr. Alcock: And the $9 million that was referenced at
Mrs. Vodrey: The $9 million was the confirmed amount for
direct purchase for '93‑94, but that would be spread through all three of
the colleges, and then the amount of money for the indirect purchase is still
being negotiated.
Mr. Alcock: Is it just my maybe lack of information, but
I am under impression that not a full year's proportion of this $273 million
was spent in the last fiscal year and that it would be carried forward to this
year?
Mrs. Vodrey: It certainly was the agreement that $273
million was spent, but I would like to stress again that was the amount of
money for '92‑93, and then there is an amount of money for '93‑94. The total amount of the agreement was
slightly over $500 million.
Mr. Alcock: I realize I am moving a little further afield
than just colleges, and I appreciate the minister responding to that.
There is one other statement in the Expected
Results on the colleges. We talk about
multiyear operating and capital planning, and I believe that, as we were ending
on Thursday, we were talking about this ability of the colleges to actually
accrue some profits from their market‑driven training, and it would then
roll back into, presumably, to their budgeting.
As they move into this new relationship, are they going to be allowed to
carry over funds year to year, or are they going to face reconciliation and
bring money back to government?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, under governance, it is the
intention that the colleges would keep their surplus, but then the colleges would
also be responsible for their deficit, and the colleges are not to run a
deficit.
Mr. Alcock: So the colleges will be able to carry over
monies. They are not going to be faced with the silliness of the use‑it‑or‑lose‑it
year‑end phenomenon. They will be
able to, should they have a surplus, carry it over into the next year and be
expected to be responsible for their deficits.
How will they account for that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the colleges will account
for this process through the financial statement. They do not operate on a cash basis; they
operate on an accrual basis, the matching of the expenditures and the revenues.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, although, as I understood the basis on
which they were funded, they will receive a grant from government for some
amount, and then they will be able to sell services for which they will operate
on a break even or small loss, small profit, but presumably they are going to
attempt to be profitable on this, and that will give them their total amount of
operating revenue for the year.
You
are saying if they incur a surplus they can carry it forward to the next
year. I guess one of the problems is
that, when attempts have been made in the past with government organizations,
one of two things happen. They begin to
accrue surpluses that then somehow magically become configured into their grant
setting in the next year, that their grant is reduced as a result of the
appearance of the surplus. They are not
allowed to depreciate buildings and equipment and all of that sort of thing, so
they are not allowed to accrue really sizable surpluses; but then they lose the
benefits of carrying forward the surplus simply because it exists, and
government then reduces their grant in the subsequent year.
*
(1500)
I
am wondering what safeguards are in place to allow the colleges to be truly
independent. I mean, we hear the
discussions, not with this Minister of Education, I will warrant, but with the
previous Minister of Education, about the universities having big surpluses and
having to find all this money within and really stripping out of them the
ability to do the very thing you want them to do, which is to take
responsibility for their deficits in lean years.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, one of the reasons that we wanted the
colleges to move to governance was to be able, with their surpluses, to expand
in their diversity and to operate with their boards of governors making some of
these decisions. The Colleges Act does
provide for powers of the board and also powers of the minister. As the member said, yes, government will be
reviewing the budgets of the colleges as they are brought forward. At the moment I am not able to say anything
further other than that government will be reviewing the budgets year by year
and decisions will be made year by year based on how the colleges' affairs have
been managed and exactly where the surplus funds may, in fact, go. They may go to expanding programming, which
is one of the great potentials for the colleges.
Mr. Alcock: I appreciate that. I shall not pursue this line of questioning
any further because in a sense you are asking the minister, how will you
safeguard yourself against doing something nasty in the future? That is really not a fair or legitimate
question.
But
there is a problem. There is a great
strength inherent in the direction you are moving, and I am frankly prepared to
be quite supportive of it. I think the
problem always has been that as soon as a government‑funded organization
begins to actually become successful, begins to accrue some surpluses, and if
they are prudent, put aside some surpluses against days of deficits, then
government swoops in and steals the surplus in much the same way that‑‑you
force the college into some other form of use it or lose it. They find some way of creatively accounting
for it or whatever. This is all
hypothetical at this point.
The
real question I have now is this one on multiyear budgeting, because that may
be a way to step aside from that, if this is incorporated in some multiyear
budgeting approach that will take the colleges out of the government's
budgetary cycle. I am wondering, when you are talking multiyear here, as you
are on page 134 of the supplement, what does that mean? Is that two year, three year, four year, five
year? You talk further down here about a
periodic five‑year organizational review.
Is that the window?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the statement the
member refers to, it refers to multiyear planning as opposed to multiyear
budgeting. In the multiyear planning,
that has been seen as an important role for the colleges.
We
are looking for the colleges' multiyear planning to take place for a three‑
to five‑year period. We would like
to be able to look at the planning of the colleges in conjunction with the
planning of the AEST branch, the Advanced Education and Skills Training area,
so that there is some co‑ordination.
Mr. Alcock: But, surely, if you plan for more than one
year, you have to budget for more than one year, otherwise your planning is
fatuous. It does not mean anything.
Mrs. Vodrey: In the area of multiyear planning, it does
require a certain amount of information for future budget commitments, in that
when a college comes forward recommending programming which is, in fact, a two‑year
program, then government's question would be, what would be the cost in the
long‑term commitment for the multiyear planning?
We
will have to take all of those areas into consideration, but in the wider sense
of the multiyear planning, it will be difficult to match exactly in terms of
revenues and expenditures, but it will give government the idea of the plan of
the colleges, where they intend to go, length of programming and what their
commitments would be.
Mr. Alcock: I want to leave this whole area now. In fact, I am prepared to leave colleges now,
other than to wish you luck with it. I
think it is the direction to go in.
I
do have just one question‑‑and it is this movement of staff in and
out of here. There is capital to be
talked about under the colleges, and I am wondering, for the sake of efficient
use of staff time, if the member for Wolseley would agree, if it would make
sense just to deal with the capital for the colleges right now. Then the colleges' people can get back to
doing useful work, and then we will go on to universities.
If
the minister agrees with that, just to begin the discussion‑‑Jean,
do you have any objection to that?
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): No.
Mrs. Vodrey: That is fine.
I appreciate that. Staff appreciates
it. Thank you.
Mr. Alcock: Just to begin that discussion, can you just
tell us what is planned? I notice that
there are reductions in capital for the three colleges, consistent with the
overall reductions, but what is the intention of that capital?
Mrs. Vodrey: As a result of budget restraint, the member
will notice that, yes, there has been a reduction in the area of Community
Colleges. However, I would say that in
looking at the last five years there has been a significant increase in the
capital budget line for colleges. I
would just like to provide the figures so that it is perhaps a little bit
easier to compare. In '88‑89 the
amount was $1,639,200. It increased in
'89‑90 to $1,803,100. It increased
again in '90‑91 to $1,893,200. It
increased again in '91‑92 to $1,893,200.
It increased in '92‑93 to $2,385,200. This year, the decrease still sees the
capital budget line at over $2 million, at $2,120,600. So it is still fairly
significantly above the '91‑92, though it represents a slight reduction
due to restraints that government has been under for this year.
*
(1510)
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am not even going to get
into that discussion as to what it should be.
Can the minister just tell us what the requests are for?
Mrs. Vodrey: For the colleges, capital grants do not
include resources related to the maintenance of the physical plant, for new
construction, or for any major renovations to the college buildings or
facilities.
The
kinds of activities that budget line would serve would be for the development
of‑‑for storage cabinets, for desks, for computers, for printers
and office furniture, by and large, and some electronic equipment which would
be used in coursework.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chair, so all capital, large and
small‑‑you mentioned new buildings and that, that would be one
project, but maintenance, operating, small repairs like patching holes in the
walls, painting and all that kind of stuff, that all comes out of Government
Services budget?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, that is correct.
Mr. Alcock: You mentioned filing cabinets and
equipment. I think at the end you said
course‑related equipment. The
question there‑‑there was a report written. Now this goes back. I think it may even predate this government. One of the problems that was identified
within the colleges, and I believe in industrial arts programs, was that it was
difficult for them to stay current with machinery and equipment. You want to train people on the latest
equipment because that is presumably what the businesses are using, and just
the capital cost of trying to stay current with the latest in welding or
automotive or machine fabricating, whatever‑‑even computers, if you
are doing computer science‑‑was such that the colleges were falling
seriously behind.
I
am wondering if there is any tracking of that.
What is the demand for new capital for training? I am not talking about office stuff for the
operations of the college, but to have equipment available to students in the
college. What is the difference between
the demand that sits out there and our ability to meet that demand right now?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, colleges do their
inventories yearly, and they prioritize the most important. As I look at the schedule, I see replacement
by course where they have in each course identified what it is that they would
like to have replaced in that year. I
look at a lathe and an oscilloscope, and it is all attached to the specific
courses.
The
colleges, where they recognize or have determined that they have additional
need, have been successful in the area of some college fundraising, also in the
area of business donations. I look at
the partnerships between
Then a third part is that we are moving to
workplace partnerships: training within
the workplace, and particularly through the co‑operative education
programs in the community colleges. So
with that we are looking again to have students train on the equipment of the
workplace, actually in the workplace.
Mr. Alcock: Presumably, if the colleges are able to
accrue surpluses, they would be able to direct these surpluses towards
capital? Question No. 2, just on that
while we are on it, can they do that without the prior approval of government,
or do they need to come back to government as to how they spend those
surpluses?
Mrs. Vodrey: As the member knows, the budgets of the
colleges will be approved by government, and the spending would be noted against
particular programming. So in some ways
it would be dependent upon how the colleges put forward the use and for what
purposes. In addition, however, the
surplus which may come from the market‑driven training does not flow
through the provinces. So what the colleges accrue through the market‑driven
training, they can apply to capital expenditures which may, in fact, assist
sequential students as well.
Mr. Alcock: Thank you, Madam Minister. I am prepared to certainly let this pass, and
I appreciate the time of the minister and the staff in discussing it.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, this is on colleges, not
necessarily on the capital line, although I did want to start out with one
question on capital, and that was, when donations are made or when partnerships
are established in the future, are there any tax incentives, for example,
offered from government to companies like Toyota or others who might want to
donate? Are there any government
incentives as opposed to college incentives?
Mrs. Vodrey: Under The Colleges Act‑‑and it is
Section 17(i) that authorizes the establishment of a charitable foundation as
defined in the Income Tax Act for the colleges.
I understand that
Ms. Friesen: So that colleges will be treated like any
other charitable foundation. It is not
that there will be a particular incentive from this provincial government.
Mrs. Vodrey: Just for the colleges, until their foundation
is established, Manitoba Finance is prepared to receive gifts for the colleges
and provide the tax deductible status.
*
(1520)
In
addition, my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has introduced a
bill into the Legislature regarding the establishment of a Crown agency
foundation in
Ms. Friesen: Between the three colleges, there is obviously
a difference in their ability to attract that kind of donation. Presumably,
both
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, first of all,
the colleges and some of their ability to raise money or to attract other kinds
of funds are taken into account when the grants are calculated. I think we spoke about that concern regarding
the equity when we spoke about tuition fees remaining the same for each of the
colleges.
In
terms of the colleges being able to attract additional money through charitable
foundations, again we need to look over the next two to three years, but we
recognize in the area of
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I assume that
each of the boards‑‑and again this is a policy question directed at
the minister‑‑is in this first year conducting a needs assessment
of capital.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Friesen: A related question, in a way, which is
continuing renewal. The minister may
remember that I asked some questions about this last time, and that is concern
for retraining, updating, et cetera, continuing development of staff. I wonder what the minister could tell us
about the plans of the community colleges for that this year. I am particularly concerned since there have
been so many staff dismissals, as well as I guess bumping of people, so that
people may be in jobs for which they were not initially hired. That kind of training, updating, retooling, I
think, will be a very important consideration for each of the colleges at the
moment, but also in the long term.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the issue of
staff training has been an issue for some time because of the rapidly changing
technology. The community colleges do
work with technology, and so the requirement has been there for reasons other
than those mentioned by the member. The
colleges have prioritized the area of staff training. The boards have named staff development as a
priority as well, and they will be looking at proceeding with that.
I
would also say, having spoken a little bit earlier about the work education and
co‑operative work, where there is actually training in the workplace,
that it offers not only the opportunity for students to have some time with
exactly the kind of equipment which is being used in the workplace, but it also
allows some of that same opportunity for staff.
Ms. Friesen: I wanted, finally, to ask some further
questions on market‑driven training and just get some clear definitions
from the minister about what is meant by market‑driven training. I went back over some of the discussion that
we had. Am I right in assuming that what
the minister means by market‑driven training is a situation where the
employer comes to the college and asks for a particular type of training for
employees?
*
(1530)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, in the area of
market‑driven training, it may be that the employer approaches the
colleges for a customized training, or it may be that the colleges approach an
employer with their potential to provide a customized type of training for that
particular employer, and it may be any kind of an employer.
But
there are courses which are available for other Manitobans as well. These courses, however, first of all, may be
less expensive for other Manitobans because the market‑driven training
courses tend to be more expensive. They
are customized, very intense. Other
Manitobans may take another kind of course that is less expensive, and it is
usually longer.
An
example of that kind of a course would be the mechanical engineering diploma
program which is a two‑year program which Manitobans may choose to take
and enroll in. However, there is a
statistical process control market‑driven training program which is
customized, and the aerospace industry tends to use that specifically. That same kind or part of program would also
be covered in the mechanical engineering diploma program, but where it is
market‑driven, again, it is customized primarily for that employer.
Ms. Friesen: That was my concern, how other Manitobans who
were not employees had access to training programs that were in demand in the
marketplace.
Taking that as the basis, the concern that I
have, how will those programs be adjusted to meet the demand, both from the
student and from the employer, because I think what we are seeing in many of
those right now is a long waiting list‑‑or waiting list in some of
them, certainly‑‑and how will innovation come about? Is innovation to be driven by the
market? Where are the educational
principles for innovation?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that some of the innovation
actually may come from market‑driven training as a result of market‑driven
training courses.
Using the mechanical engineering diploma
program, I am informed that the market‑driven statistical process control
program, designed for the aerospace industry, has provided some very strong
staff development and information which is then directly put back into the
program which is available for the public of
In
addition to that, through the joint management committee, which we have set up
between the
Ms. Friesen: I can see where‑‑what the
minister is suggesting is that new information, new technologies, innovation in
that sense, comes back into the other courses through connections with the
workplace. What I really meant was,
innovation in new courses, new programs.
How do we decide how the community colleges are to serve the people of
We
can see that through market‑driven, they are going to be serving certain
kinds of industries, but how will the colleges decide how ordinary Manitobans
are to be served, particularly since there is this, I would think, intense need
in one or two of the colleges to make the profit that can be made in those
industry‑based market‑driven training courses to balance the other
courses?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, part of the way that
the new or innovative programs would be identified, one would be through the
boards of governors themselves, in that the boards of governors do represent
the community and they represent the knowledge of community needs, regional
needs, and also the interests of where, as community leaders, communities may
wish to go and what kind of training might be required. In addition, from government, through the
Economic Innovation and Technology Council, as government develops its plan and
its policy, that would be another way that programs and innovative types of
programming would be identified.
Again, through the federal‑provincial
networks, as a third way, because our governments are attempting now, through
the Labour Force Development Agreement to work in a much more co‑operative
and a complementary way in terms of labour market planning, in terms of the
sharing of information, and being able to look at the needs that are‑‑in
need for the province of Manitoba, as well as the wider area. So that labour market tracking which we
discussed when we were doing the Labour Market line would be another way.
In
addition, as government provides its grants to the colleges, then we would be
looking at innovation, but we would also be looking at issues as they relate to
equity and the needs of the province as a whole.
Ms. Friesen: How would the Economic Innovation and
Technology Council make known its needs to the colleges? What is the mechanism for that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, as Minister of Education of Training
and the minister responsible for the labour market, then information from the
EITC would flow to the Minister of Education and Training.
In
addition, I would like to stress the two‑way flow of communication,
because as the colleges provide their proposals to government and their
proposals which come through the colleges and the boards of governors, that
information then would also be important information to be considered in the
light of EITC and the information from the colleges.
*
(1540)
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): 6.(a) Colleges
Secretariat (1) Salaries $187,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$9,500‑‑pass.
6.(b)
Resolution 16.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $39,427,100 for Education and Training, Support to
Community Colleges, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, we have had some
discussion on 16.8 Expenditures Related to Capital. We have discussed 16.8(b) Community Colleges
(1), (2) and (3). I have had some
indication that the members are willing to pass those three lines at this
time. I believe the member for Osborne
(Mr. Alcock) is on the record in Hansard agreeing to pass the capital of the
colleges only of that line, leaving not yet discussed School Divisions and
Universities.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Is it the will of
the committee to consider 16.8(b) Expenditures Related to Capital for Community
Colleges? Does the committee agree to
that? (agreed)
Item 8.(b)(1)
Resolution 16.7: Support to Universities (a) Universities
Grants Commission (1) Salaries $246,800.
Mrs. Vodrey: I would just like to take a moment to
introduce Dr. Robert Goluch, who is the executive director of the UGC, and Mr.
Waverley Simpson, who is the commission secretary.
Ms. Friesen: I wanted to begin with some questions about
the University Review, if the minister could tell us something about the
publication plans. I believe in January
that they had anticipated that they would be able to publish either the summary
of the hearings or the verbatim account of the hearings. I have not heard recently what the schedule
of publication is for that. Then, second of all, I am interested in whether
there will be an interim report, or whether it will be a final report, and when
that is likely to be due.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, in terms of the
University Review hearings, the hearings have been completed. The committee is now looking at a synthesis
of the information which flows from the hearings, and they did attract a great
deal of information. At this time, the projected date for the completed report
will be‑‑I expect it in the late fall of the same year.
I
am expecting an interim report, but it will be an interim report to the
minister to, again, simply have a formal accounting of a number of hearings,
where the committee is. Again, they are
looking forward to releasing their information in the late fall.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the minister said
they would be releasing, at some point, a synthesis of their hearings‑‑no,
okay.
Mrs. Vodrey: No, they will not be releasing a synthesis of
the hearings. My understanding from the
chair is that they are using the information that has come from the hearings,
and a synthesis of that information, as a basis for the preparation of their
report and the recommendations which will be included within their report.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, could the minister
tell us what the cost has been to date of the University Review? I remember that there was a larger amount
mentioned. I wonder if that budget had
been adhered to or not.
*
(1550)
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the amount of money that
had been budgeted was $350,900. The
amount of money expended to date, and this is to date rather than specifically
fiscal year by year, to date is $196,525.
Ms. Friesen: The report will be later than the minister
anticipated. You had anticipated it
would be this summer. Can the minister
give us any sense of what kind of public process she envisages around the
presentation of the report? Are you
looking at public hearings, the presentation of a white paper, a public
discussion, a public forum?
Mrs. Vodrey: Government has not yet made a final decision
on how that report will be handled in terms of the public.
Ms. Friesen: The review, I believe, also met with people
other than residents of Manitoba, and I wonder if the minister could give us a
sense, through her staff, of what kinds of groups were convened, what kinds of
individuals were approached, what kinds of specialist reports, if any, have
been commissioned by the review.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the chair of the
committee, Duff Roblin, and one staff individual went to
Then there have been four major studies which
have been commissioned: the University‑Industry
Linkages Study; Application of Technology to University Education Study;
Community College‑University Linkages Study; and University Funding
Study.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give us an idea of who is
doing these contracts or who has been contracted and what the length of the
reports is anticipated to be?
Mrs. Vodrey: The University Industry Linkages Study was
undertaken by Dr. Thomas McEwen (phonetic).
He was recruited having submitted his curriculum vitae to the
commission. He, I am informed, has
extensive experience in the area of industry‑university relations.
The
Application of Technology to University Education was done by Dr. James
Walker. Dr. Walker was chosen to do the
technology area on the basis of work that he has done for Inter‑Universities
North.
The
Community College‑University Linkages Study was done by Ms. Joletta Brown
(phonetic). She had been a senior
analyst in the Department of Advanced Education in
The
University Funding Study was done by Dr. Gerald Farthing who is employed by the
Department of Education and Training in
The
length of the studies, I understand, has varied, in terms of their length.
Ms. Friesen: It sounds as though these studies are all
complete now. Is that the case?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no, the studies are
not complete yet.
Ms. Friesen: Will these publications be made available at
the time of the presentation of the review?
Mrs. Vodrey: The review commission may or may not include
those studies, depending upon, again, I suppose, whether or not they appear to
be a part of what the commission will be submitting to government as their
report.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me where Dr. Thomas
McEwen (phonetic) is from?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, from
*
(1600)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, have there been any
specialist round tables convened, as boards of review often do? I am going from
the experience of the constitutional committee where several expert tables were
convened simply as sounding boards.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there have not been,
as far as I am aware. I again have been
very careful, as minister, to have the commission operate at arm's length to
government to make sure that they are able to operate independently and to do
their work.
Ms. Friesen: In terms of the University Review‑‑again,
I am struggling with the arm's‑length issue, too‑‑but has the
minister spoken to the review, and has there been a consideration that all
views in
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I have not met with the
committee to ensure that they have solicited the views. However, within the mandate, they were to
solicit views from all sectors of
Mr. Alcock: I apologize if I am repeating one question‑‑the
cost of the review to date?
Mrs. Vodrey: The cost of the review to date, not by fiscal
year but to date from when it began its work, $196,500.
Mr. Alcock: I am assuming‑‑and maybe this
will just head off a lot of discussion‑‑that there will be no
significant policy decisions taken relative to universities until the review is
completed and there are some product to deal with from that. Is that a fair assumption?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, that is a fair
assumption. We have been very careful to recognize the work of the committee
that is ongoing now.
Mr. Alcock: With that in mind, can the minister sort of
spell out the steps and timetable if possible once the Roblin commission
reports?
Mrs. Vodrey: Government does expect to receive that report
in the late fall of this year; and, when we receive the report, government then
will have to review the report.
Government will be doing an analysis; in addition, as we have discussed
with the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), we are not able to confirm at this
time how we will make sure that there is an opportunity for public response as
well. So I am not able to confirm in any
more detail at the moment other than to say that those would be the steps which
we would be looking to undertake.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess that, if I
have a concern here, it is that‑‑and I do not hold this particular
minister solely responsible for this, but this government has been
particularly, I think, lax and somewhat irresponsible in its relationship with
the universities since it came into power.
We are now talking the 1993‑94 budget year. We cannot make any significant policy
decisions or do anything useful. We have
not done anything in five years, six budgets.
We
will be well into the work up for the '94‑95 budget year before this
commission even reports, and so I am assuming it will have very little impact
on '94‑95; and, if we get into further consultation, it could be '95‑96
before we see any product. I guess the
question is, when the government speaks so strongly and so supportively about
education and the knowledge‑based industry and blah, blah, what are we
doing? Are we just leaving universities
on hold? Is the phone off the hook for
another two years?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in terms of the
universities, I can say to the member that as minister I meet as frequently as
requested, No. 1, as agreed upon also, with representatives of the
universities. I do meet with students,
and those people who are the presidents of the student unions and other
representatives whom they wish to bring with, as a group.
We
have an agreement that we meet at a minimum of twice yearly, and then,
following that, at the request of either side where there are issues to be decided
or where there is information to be given or to be received. That relationship, as minister, I can say I
have certainly attempted to make as open and responsive as possible.
Then, in terms of the four presidents of the
universities, we also meet as Council of Presidents of Universities in
In
addition to that, where individual presidents of universities have required
meetings, have had particular issues which they wanted to discuss with
government, with myself as minister, those meetings also have been arranged in
as responsive a manner as possible, as quickly as possible, in some cases where
universities individually have felt that time was of the essence.
So,
though we are waiting for the University Review to look at the information to
move our universities through into the year 2,000, I would not say that somehow
things are in a complete limbo, because there is the day‑to‑day
work that is required and the day‑to‑day communication, the ongoing
communication between the universities and government, and I mean all parts of
the universities.
I
can also say that I have visited with the boards of governors from the
universities, have attended a board meeting, and have also made visits to the
universities to meet with each of the universities, with those people that they
would like to have present‑‑representatives of faculties, boards of
governors and student representatives‑‑to make sure that the needs
of the university and the vision of each of the universities has been
communicated to me, and that I am able then to communicate that to government.
So
that is ongoing and, I think, is an important part of the work as we wait for
the Roblin report. Then, when we receive
the Roblin report, government will have to look at what has been recommended,
but there will still be that day‑to‑day work which will be
required, and that day‑to‑day communication and decisions to be
made on behalf of the universities by government.
*
(1610)
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, most of that day‑to‑day
sort of decision making, it seems to date‑‑and I am reminded of our
discussions in this committee in the last budget in Estimates process where the
answers to all of the substantive questions were, well, we have to await the
outcome of the Roblin Commission.
I
mean, I can sit here. I do have a rather
lengthy list of recommendations and comments, but I am not wanting to take up
all of our time just sitting here giving the minister‑‑and I am not
even being critical on the part of this‑‑I certainly would be
saying the same thing if I was minister and I had a major commission out. I would be wanting to hear from that commission
before I made a policy decision.
But
it does seem that we are a very long way out.
I mean, we have been discussing some of these issues for two, three,
four, five sessions now. We were
discussing them with the previous minister, and now we are hearing a report in
'94, well, the fall of '93, which will be right at the heart of the‑‑and
a report that may not be a final report.
It may not be a report for implementation; it may be a report for
further review and discussion. Why you
would want to have public input on the findings of a report that is a result of
a public input process, I am a little befuddled by it, but then I befuddle
quite frequently, it seems.
This budget year we are just entering into,
presumably we will not have product from this prior to the next budget year
given the time, so we are another two years away from seeing anything. In the meantime, the universities' roofs are
falling down around their heads, class sizes have grown completely unmanageable. They are having a great deal of difficulty in
maintaining quality in their programming, and the government's response to date
has been, shall we say, limited, and, in keeping with the letters from the
minister to the university, not in what we would call a positive direction.
I am
not even sure what kind of question to frame at this point. Actually, I am prepared to pass it because I
have just two or three very small questions, and I see no purpose to be served
in even discussing universities because the product of this government's work
in universities is sort of nonwork. You
are almost in a kind of a permanent stall, and you have been that way for six
years.
So
let me deal with the specific. I have a
letter here from the minister to one individual talking about one of the few
decisions that the government was prepared to make, and that one was the
elimination of the remission of tuition fees for family members. Can the minister tell us what the status of
that decision is? Has that one been
implemented?
Mrs. Vodrey: This has been part of the collective
agreement negotiated by the universities.
Universities have taken a variety of different methods to deal with
this. At the
For
the University of Winnipeg, the benefit was negotiated a number of years ago as
an alternative to salary increases, and this question will be reopened, I
understand, with the faculty union, but the university, again, is now
bargaining.
For
For
St. Boniface College, it is not a negotiated benefit at CUSB.
Mr. Alcock: If I understand the minister on that, we are
allowing the collective bargaining process to deal with this particular
issue. We are not imposing. It has been made as a recommendation by
government to the universities that they eliminate this from the benefit
side. Were the universities penalized at
all because it is suggested, certainly in the case of the
Mrs. Vodrey: There has been no penalty attached to this
particular provision. However, we
certainly understand, I do not have the exact numbers here, that there have
been some savings to the universities by removing this through the collective agreement.
Mr. Alcock: Given that we are in Estimates, why do you
not have the correct numbers here?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said to the member earlier, not all the
collective agreements have been negotiated.
Mr. Alcock: Okay, well, let us ask specifically about the
Mrs. Vodrey: The universities know the amount of money
they will be receiving from government for the coming year. We will not know exactly the figures until
the hearings for the '94‑95 budget proposals are brought into the
Universities Grants Commission, what the actual numbers for '93‑94
are. This was an expenditure reduction;
it was an opportunity for the universities.
However we will have to wait until we see exactly what has been
negotiated and until we see what the actual numbers are. That will not be, I am informed, until the
budget hearings, with the proposals, for '94‑95, which will occur in the
fall of '93.
Mr. Alcock: Let me just quote from a letter that is
signed by the minister dated June 17, 1993:
More than 12 collective agreements expired before March 31, 1993, and I
challenge the university to keep
If
I understand what you are saying now is that you will not know about that for
another year, will that be the case?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said, we will expect to know more in the
fall of '93, which is not a year from now.
As the member knows, university budgets are presented on a cyclical
basis and when we have the opportunity to look at the budget proposals for '94‑95,
we will have an opportunity to look at the actuals for '93‑94, and then
we will have an opportunity to do some questioning in that time period as well.
Mr. Alcock: This was not a requirement to the
universities, this was just a suggestion.
The minister goes on to state in this letter that the government also
encouraged the universities to join the province's civil servants in adopting a
version of the work‑reduction program which could achieve significant
cost savings for universities without affecting the integrity of their academic
programs. Can the minister tell us the
status of this recommendation?
*
(1620)
Mrs. Vodrey: The
The
Mr. Alcock: Do you hear me?
An Honourable Member: We can hear you. We . . . but we can hear you.
Mr. Alcock: Jim, I would not want you to miss the
significance of this question.
Government also asked universities to charge
visa students a 75 percent premium on tuition fees to bring
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, this was
announced by government. There was not a
penalty attached to the universities implementing this process. I am informed that the universities of
Mr. Alcock: Can you then explain to me what is served by
this change in policy? What end is
achieved? What have we done?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this was, again, a
revenue source for the universities. The
universities have decided in this year to provide bursary assistance with that
revenue. The presidents, I am informed,
will be meeting as a council of presidents, and they will be looking at
developing a consistent statement of how they will deal with this for '94‑95.
Mr. Alcock: There once was a time when you did not charge
the 75 percent, or you did not charge the equivalent of what the increase of 75
percent would create, and so Manitoba would seem to have, if you like, in the
marketplace a competitive advantage, that we had a lower rate and we can
attract a large number of visa students.
You went through this dance with the universities where, now that they
have increased their fees but it makes no difference because they give the
bursary, what have you achieved? How are
we or anybody else better off now as a result of all of the disturbance you
caused?
Mrs. Vodrey: This provided the universities with a revenue
source. It provided the universities
with a choice.
Mr. Alcock: Presumably, they had that choice all
along. They could have made that choice
without the government getting involved, and their revenue choice was not to
take it. What did you achieve?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the universities had not
raised this in the past. Government did
raise it this year. This is a year of
very significant fiscal challenges, and government raised it. Government did make a statement about it, and
the universities made a choice regarding this as a revenue issue in these
difficult times.
I
can say to the member as I have said previously in the House, that despite no
differential, we have not had an increase in registration in Manitoba, whereas
in provinces where there is a differential, in Quebec and in Ontario, where the
fees are among the highest, there has been an increase in registration.
Mr. Alcock: Just to go on, and I quote again from this
June 17 letter from the minister:
Collective agreements, the work reduction program and the surcharge to
visa students represent three among several opportunities for universities to
reconcile their fiscal resources for '93‑94 and beyond.
Can
the minister outline some of these other opportunities?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, again, another opportunity
universities have is to examine their overhead and their administrative
costs. In addition, universities might
look at their surplus accounts and the kinds of choices that they need to make
in this very difficult fiscal situation.
Mr. Alcock: Would the minister give us the surpluses for
the four institutions?
Mrs. Vodrey: I can get the member the information for '91‑92
from the audited financial statements as the universities were coming into '92‑93. The accumulated surplus for the
*
(1630)
For
the
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and in the Grants
line for this year of $202,201,900, can the minister distribute that among the
four institutions?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, the answer is
yes. They were all give the same
percentage.
Mr. Alcock: Is it a just a coincidence that the 2 percent
reduction in funding happens to relate to the 2 percent of total operating
grant surplus that exists across the institutions?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I can tell the member that
that is purely coincidental.
Mr. Alcock: How was the decision arrived at to reduce
them 2 percent?
Mrs. Vodrey: Government went through a very difficult,
very long and very arduous process of budgeting this year. We had to look at each area, and we also
tried to look at each area with some element of fairness in terms of where
reductions or changes were being made.
Education, for the first time, had to provide some share to work towards
reducing our deficit. They were
extremely difficult decisions. We wanted
to have a look at what our funding would be but to make sure that our funding
was not‑‑well, I suppose it would be easier to say it was in fact
something which we felt that the universities could make some adjustments in
terms of working with the amount of money provided.
It
was not an easy decision by any means.
We worked extremely hard in the area of Education as in all other
departments. We know that in other
provinces similar decisions have had to be made, but again, we really looked
within
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, so when we are
looking at ways in which the department, through the minister, believes that
the universities can reduce their expenditures, the changing collective
agreements, the work‑reduction program, the surcharge to visa students,
an examination of general overhead, examination of administration costs and
that question about the use of the surpluses, these are the major areas. Have I left any out? Are there any others?
Mrs. Vodrey: I would say that those are the major headings
which the universities would examine, but I am informed approximately 83
percent of the costs of the universities are accounted for in staff costs, and
so the negotiation of agreements would have been a very important part for the
universities.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chair, so the position of the,
presumably, Universities Grants Commission, through the minister, that overhead
costs at the universities are too high, is that the case at all four? Do all four have overheads that are
considered to be too high by the department or is it one or two of them?
Mrs. Vodrey: I did not say in any of the universities they
were too high. I did say, however, that
one way that universities could look at dealing with the funding was to look
for efficiencies.
Mr. Alcock: Are they inefficient now?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, no, I had not even
suggested that the universities were inefficient. However, all of us have had to look within
our own homes and across government at the way we spend money and then to spend
it in the most efficient ways.
Mr. Alcock: But I understood from the letter and from the
response from the minister to my question that overhead was something that the
department had listed among several opportunities for the universities to
reconcile their fiscal resources. Now,
what aspect of overhead then is subject to reduction? I mean, where are they spending in such a
manner that they do not‑‑spending on things they do not need?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, that was when the member asked what
other areas would be considered; I mentioned areas such as overhead.
Universities do make decisions within their own costing and within their own
budgetary process, and it relates to the running of the universities, costs
such as transportation, postage, travel.
The university will have the opportunity to look at all of those costs
and look for efficiencies within all of those costs, will look for the most
efficient way in which to do the work required, but also to look at that work
within budgetary restraint.
Mr. Alcock: Well, the minister lists it here as one of
the, quote, opportunities for universities to reconcile.
*
(1640)
Well, I am not certain in the discussions I
have had with the universities‑‑I do not recall them ever
mentioning to me that their overhead was excessive or that they had lots of
room in it. Let us move on to
administrative costs. The next one of
these, quote, opportunities for universities to reconcile their financial
resources, is to reduce their administrative costs.
Is
that the case at all universities? Are
all universities overadministered or do they have more administration than they
require? If not so, which ones are the
ones that are being targeted by the minister for reductions in administrative
costs?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I can say to the member,
certainly not, and we as government are not targeting any university in particular. These were pointed out as general areas to
explore. The member knows the fiscal
situation, as do most Manitobans. The
universities, in light of this, know the areas that they can look at. This was to encourage universities to explore
all areas to deal with a year of very difficult fiscal decisions.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister has made
a habit of pointing things out that tend to become realities. If the minister does not have an analysis
that says they are top‑heavy or overadministered or have too large an
overhead or whatever, I mean, when the situation of visa students arose, there
was a very simple analysis that said these other universities are functioning
in this way, and we feel that ours could be also.
But, absent, is it not a little irresponsible
to run around suggesting that they are either carrying too large an overhead or
have too large an administration? If you
are not prepared to defend it, why say it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member may decide
that there is no way, as he looks at it, to produce any reductions, but there
is a reality. The reality is our current
fiscal situation.
With that in mind, each one of us as
Manitobans has had to look at how we spend money, where we spend that money and
where, in fact, we might spend that money perhaps differently or more
efficiently.
That is the challenge that was presented to
the universities. The universities were
aware of how much money was available in this year, and the challenge then was
to look at ways to spend money in the most efficient way.
Mr. Alcock: I do not see this as a terribly fruitful use
of time. I have one final little tiny
question here about capital and I am done.
What accounts for the 50 percent reduction in
capital available to the universities this year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the capital
allocation was made based on the amount of money that we had available to
provide the universities with. In
addition, the member may know that the UDF, the Universities Development Fund,
expired on March 31, 1993. That was $4
million which was no longer available with the expiry of that fund.
We
did, however, make every attempt to maintain as close as possible the equipment
and renovations budget, though it did receive some reduction. With the amount of money available, we were
not able to embark on any major capital projects. However, some special capital projects were
approved for '93‑94.
Ms. Friesen: There are a number of issues that we have
already looked at, which have a relationship to universities, and I think, for
the record, I just want to run over them.
ACCESS, I think, is one of the most tragic
changes that this government has made in its relationship to universities, and
to the general accessibility of Manitobans to universities and to professional
and post‑secondary training.
We
have already looked at student loans and the impact that that is going to have
upon students across
In the
House, we have talked about the visa issue that the member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock) raised again here. In the House,
I have also raised with the minister, from time to time, the issue of graduate
students and research and our concerns for the government's policies at the
universities, particularly the major graduate institution, the
In this
particular line, we are looking at University Review, and I have asked the
minister some questions on that. I
anticipate, as the member for Osborne did and does, that again, like many of
the reviews of this government, this one has been predicated upon an assumption
that a review means that no action need be taken, no policies need be
developed, no cabinet committees need meet, because a review is in place. We have seen that happen in the North and in
rural communities, as well as in the universities.
I
wanted therefore to put those on one side and to look at the UGC in particular,
since that is part of the line we are looking at. We do have an annual report for the UGC from
'91‑92, but we do not have anything, I believe, that covers '92‑93. So if my questions could be directed at the
experience of the past year, the academic year '92‑93, I wanted to know
how often the UGC had met.
What we are hearing in the University Review
is a great deal of concern‑‑and it is not just in the University
Review; we have heard it for many years‑‑about the role of the UGC,
whether in fact it is arm's length, whether it serves a useful purpose, how
many times it meets, what the level of discussion and analysis is that is
provided to it, because I think many of the concerns do relate to the broadness
of the task and the smallness of the staff and the inadequacy of the funds for
the task that the Grants Commission is given.
So
in preparation, in a way, for the University Review, I wanted to ask the
minister to comment upon those long‑standing critiques of the UGC and to
perhaps give us some indication from the past year about what kinds of meetings
have taken place, what decisions have been made, what programs have been
approved, what programs have been rejected.
*
(1650)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the UGC has met
approximately nine times this year, and in the process of that, they do review
the budget proposals from the universities, and also they provide the
allocation of funds to each of the universities, determine how those funds will
be allocated.
In
addition, the UGC has received statements of intent from the universities for
some program additions. Of those, there
have been 10 statements of intent, two have been deferred, and the UGC has
asked for formal proposals regarding the other eight. Of the eight where formal proposals were
recommended, there has been a program approval at the U of M for a Ph.D.
program in religious studies‑‑that was April 1992. There was one refusal and there was one other
approval, a recent approval at
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us what role the UGC
played in the clawback to universities in the spring?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the UGC implemented the
reduction measure for the universities.
Ms. Friesen: I am not quite clear what the minister means
by "implemented" there. The
normal procedure, I understand, for granting is that the government gives the
UGC a global amount, and the UGC then allocates it to each of the
universities. Is that the same process
that was followed in the clawback: the
government allocated a global amount that it wanted back from the universities,
or that it was not prepared to transfer to the universities, and then the UGC
indicated how much would be allocated in clawback requirements to each
university?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the UGC, the executive
director met with the vice‑presidents of the universities. The universities had been informed by
government that 1.08 percent of the grant would not be flowing. Therefore, the universities were again then
met with in person, their vice‑presidents, and informed of the amount of
the grant that then would be flowing, taking into account the reduction of 1.08
percent.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I wanted to ask a couple of
questions about the Distance Education report, if the minister could tell us
what the next step is in the First Year by Distance Education and the Inter‑Universities
North.
Mrs. Vodrey: The UGC increased the allocation to FYDE and
Inter‑Universities North by $70,000, but no new centres were
approved. We are awaiting some direction
by the Roblin commission regarding any approval of new centres.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, we are close to the end,
and I wanted to thank the minister and her staff for their long service. Just to put on the record that there are
certainly many more questions that I would like to ask on universities and
distance education in particular, and some specific issues dealing with capital
grants at universities.
But
the hour being late and other departments wanting to have their Estimates
examined, I think we are prepared to let this one go.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 7.(a) Universities Grants Commissions
(1) Salaries $246,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $208,100‑‑pass;
(3) Grants in Lieu of Taxes $16,891,600.
7.(b) Grants $202,201,900‑‑pass.
7.(c) Access Fund $790,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 16.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $220,338,400 for Education and Training for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
Item 8.(c) Universities $6,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 16.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $32,285,400 for Education and Training for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
I
am just going to go back to 8.(a) School Divisions $24,164,800‑‑pass.
As
previously agreed, Resolution 16.8 is accordingly passed.
We
are now going to move back to 16.1. At
this time, we will ask the staff to leave.
We
are now dealing with (a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 16.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $3,463,400 for Education and Training (for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994).
This concludes the Department of Education and
Training. The next department to be
heard in this committee will be Northern Affairs.
The
hour being five o'clock and time for private members' hour, this committee will
reconvene at 8 p.m.
HEALTH
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Health.
We
are on item 7. Health Services Insurance Fund (d) Hospitals. Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Chair, I would
like to leave my honourable friends the critics with copies of the contract,
government of Manitoba, Health Science Centre and American Practice Management;
government of Manitoba, St. Boniface General Hospital, American Practice
Management; government of Manitoba and the participating hospitals and American
Practice Management on purchasing; and the second one on management, for my
honourable friends, knowing that they may want to have this information at
their disposal, so they can have their analysts go over it in the next couple
of hours, and then we can spend the balance of this evening and tomorrow and
the next day and any amount of time my honourable friends want to discuss the
issues.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Madam Chairperson, I thank the Minister very
much for that information. Following along
that line of openness and information sharing, I would ask the minister one
more time if he is prepared to give this committee a breakdown of the budgets
from '92‑93 of the 74 community and district hospitals plus the various
other facilities as indicated in this section as well as the '93‑94
budgets.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, as I indicated Thursday,
that has not been the nature of debate in hospitals or personal care
homes. We have attempted to debate the
issues in terms of change in policy, change in approach, general funding
parameters that are there for view and passage in terms of the Estimates.
As
it has not in the past, for the last number of years, the last decade, served
any useful purpose to deal with proposed budgets of individual facilities, it
would simply lead to my honourable friends not debating the larger issue of the
direction, the funding policies, the changes that are being envisioned, part of
which is the APM contracts that I have given to my honourable friends today.
The
purpose of the Estimates is to establish general budgetary frameworks, the
appropriateness of them or lack of appropriateness and the opportunity for
honourable friends in the opposition to suggest any alternatives that they
might wish to put forward at this time for consideration by the health care
system.
*
(1440)
Ms. Gray: Well, it is very presumptuous of the minister
to make assumptions, but be that as it may, I would like, Madam Chairperson, to
move that 7.(d) be reduced by $100,000 taken from Health Services Insurance
Fund, Hospital, program and reallocate it to 7.(d) Health Reform for the
purpose of developing ambulatory care and surgical alternatives in hospitals,
and that this committee strongly urge the minister to consider providing a
detailed breakdown of subappropriation 21.7(d) in order to identify further
funds to be utilized for alternative surgical services in hospitals.
Mr. Orchard: Madam‑‑
Chairperson's Ruling
Madam Chairperson: Excuse me just one moment. Order, please. I have reviewed the motion, and according to
our Rule 54.(2), the motion is out of order:
"No member, who is not a minister of the Crown shall move any
amendment to a bill or to Estimates that increases any expenditure or varies a
tax or a rate of tax or provides an exemption or increases an exemption from a
tax or a proposed tax, but a member who is not a minister of the Crown may move
an amendment to a bill that decreases an expenditure or that removes or reduces
an exemption from a tax or a proposed tax."
Point of
Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Just for
a clarification, I was in committee just last week, and I understood that there
was $100,000 that was reallocated out, and that particular motion was in fact
ruled in order by the Chair of the other committee. I am wondering if it might be best to revisit
that decision or at least compare the two resolutions, so that what is
happening inside the Chamber and what is happening inside the committee room
is, in fact, consistent with the rules of our House.
Madam Chairperson: I have been informed that the motion in
question referenced by the honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, just for clarification, so
if the word "urge" was moved‑‑
Madam Chairperson: The operative word is "consider."
Mr. Lamoureux: So if we put the word "consider" in
it, then it would in fact be ruled in order?
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member will have to indeed, if
that is the intent, withdraw this motion and move a new motion.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Chairperson, I do not believe
their motion has to be withdrawn for the simple reason that it has been moved
ruled out of order. I know the member
for Crescentwood would in fact like to move the appropriate motion this time if
she could get a copy back.
Madam Chairperson: That is correct. The motion has been indeed ruled out of
order. The honourable member for
Crescentwood could indeed move a new motion or reworded motion.
* * *
Ms. Gray: I would like to move
THAT 21.7(d) be reduced by $100,000, taken
from Health Services Insurance Fund hospital program; and
THAT we urge the government to consider
reallocating to 21.7(b) Health Reform for the purpose of developing ambulatory
care and surgical alternatives in hospitals; and
THAT this committee strongly urge the minister
to consider providing a detailed breakdown of subappropriation 21.7(d) in order
to identify further funds to be utilized for alternative surgical services in
hospitals.
Motion presented.
Mr. Orchard: Madam‑‑
Madam Chairperson: It is a debatable motion.
Mr. Orchard: Yes, it is a debatable motion. I want to indicate to my honourable friend
that naturally we will not be accepting my honourable friend's motion, but I
want to indicate that this is exactly the kind of debate that we ought to be
engaging in to find out where my honourable friend's priorities are and the
kind of reallocation of budget resources.
This is exactly the kind of suggestion that opens this whole process up
for debate around the amount of money we spend, how we spend it, what programs
we spend it on, whether the priorities are right, whether there should be
shifting priorities that government can consider.
I
congratulate my honourable friend the member for Crescentwood for, on the
second motion, putting one on the table that is worthy of substantive debate in
terms of approach to funding. We can
continue that this afternoon with a great deal of benefit in terms of
understanding the position of the Liberal Party as espoused by the new
critic. I look forward to this kind of
debate and suggested shifts.
However, we are unable, as government, to
accept that motion as written, even though it is only suggesting certain things
be done, because I want to indicate to my honourable friend that as we move
through the budget year and we are able to make those exact kinds of shifts
within the hospitals and hospital program, we will. That is the process of reform, of finding
better ways to move the resource we discussed Thursday last, for instance.
We
discussed the budgetary issue of increased budget at Concordia, Deer Lodge,
Municipals in terms of accommodating the chronic care patients for the
downsizing that were formerly cared for in a downsized Health Sciences Centre,
St. Boniface. That is the kind of
reallocation of budgetary funding that we certainly find necessary if we are
going to achieve the tenets and the end goals of health care reform, and
certainly is the kind of suggestion that ought to come forward from opposition
parties so that government has a better idea of where they think the process
can be modified beneficially.
I
welcome the suggestion. However, we will
be not accepting the motion and certainly would be pleased to debate the tenets
of it over the next several hours as we debate the Hospital line.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Chairperson, I can indicate that we on
this side of the House, in opposition, are going to support the motion as put
forward by the member for Crescentwood, particularly, in light of the fact that
a similar motion was put forward by the former critic for the New Democratic
Party the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), last Estimates
period after diligently trying to extract that information from the
minister. We alone, unfortunately, were
fighting this battle.
I
am happy to see that we are now in common cause with the Liberal Party in
trying to get this information forward, because as I understand it, both the
government and the Liberal Party voted against a similar type of motion last
session. I am very pleased that the
motion has come forward to provide us with that kind of information, because it
was a task that both the former critic and myself as critic have tried and
information we have tried to extract from the minister.
*
(1450)
Madam Chairperson, I could not help but notice
the minister's comments about what he thinks the opposition should be, what the
minister thinks the opposition should be providing in terms of opposition. It is curious that the minister, in providing
the information, is also attempting to determine what kind of information he
thinks the opposition should be providing to him as minister and somehow
control the debate, which sits in with the kind of information that is given
out by the Department of Health and by the minister in the context of most of
the debates and most of the issues.
If
you look at the types of debates that take place, most of it is either‑‑and
it is ironic, Madam Chairperson, that in the context of this motion, the
minister should say, yes, I welcome the suggestion, but, no, we are not going
to accept it, which is typical of the government to say, yes, you can say
whatever you want, but we are not going to listen. That is effectively what the minister says on
most issues. In terms of most criticisms
and most suggestions that are made by all members of the House with respect to
the minister's health reform policies, but notwithstanding, in the interests of
proceeding in this Estimates process, I will indicate that we will be supporting
the motion as introduced by the member for Crescentwood.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I realize my honourable
friend is wanting to say that we are not accepting any suggestions from
honourable members opposite. My
honourable friend listened carefully to‑‑what I indicated is that
we will not be accepting this motion as a formal motion, because it mandates a
transferral of dollars that we think we have appropriately allocated, but I
said to my honourable friend, that is exactly the process that we are into in
health care reform. Where we can make
those reallocations of funding as the process changed, we will.
Now, my honourable friend says we will not
tell them. This government has provided
more information than any government has ever provided on the direction of
health care reform in the history of the province‑‑in the history
of the province. My honourable friend,
who is unable to understand the integrity of the information, says, well, you
never give us any information. I understand that. I understand that lack of attachment to
change that the member for Kildonan has, that his party does not have a
position, that his party does not understand the need for changes, tries to
fight every aspect. I understand all of
that.
Madam Chairperson, that is what these
Estimates are to do. Now that the Leader of the New Democrats is even here, the
Premier in waiting, he might tell us what the New Democrats believe in,
although I doubt that.
Now, Madam Chairperson, my honourable friend
said that in some fashion I am trying to engage members of the opposition
parties in bringing forward suggestions and commentary about what is right and
what is wrong about the process of health care reform and the changes we are
undertaking. The member for Kildonan says
that that may be the position of the minister, myself, wanting to have you lay
those sort of alternatives out.
I
assure my honourable friend the member for Kildonan, that is the position of
Manitobans. Manitobans want to know
where political parties stand today in terms of health care and health care
reform, because my honourable friends sit in front of their television sets and
they see the New Democrats against everything that is happening in health
care. They are against the Manitoba
Nurses'
But
not once, and I have challenged my honourable friend the member for Kildonan on
many, many occasions to stand up and unequivocally state for the people of
Manitoba which of those changes that we have made, financial, policy or
otherwise, that he would say today, we disagree with and we will change it when
we are government and we will reinstate the funding, because my honourable
friend, Madam Chairperson, other outside observers would say he is being
dishonest with the people of Manitoba by not making those kinds of statements
clearly to the people.
Now, other observers from outside this Chamber
would say that. I cannot, Madam
Chairperson, because of the parliamentary rules of this Chamber, but my
honourable friend the member for Kildonan now has an opportunity to tell the
public what he believes in, what the NDP in opposition believe in, because I
want to you tell you, there is a a great deal of confusion amongst the
public. The public in
What they would like to see, as Manitobans, as
citizens preparing to vote in the next provincial election‑‑they
would like to see what you believe in.
They would like to know where you stand, and that is the purpose of
these Estimates, to give Manitobans that opportunity, to see where you stand,
to see how you would govern differently, see how you would manage health care
differently, because Manitobans are confused.
They see a New Democratic Party in opposition
here, lining up all of their friends in the union movement to protest Bill 22,
when, in fact, in 1984 when the revenues of the Province of Manitoba were
growing by 8 percent, the New Democrats in government offered those same unions
zero, and they went like lambs to the slaughter because it was for the
cause. But today when revenues are
decreasing by minus 1, we find our honourable friends the New Democrats
decrying every single piece of legislation, every move.
Now
at least the Grits have not been doing quite so crass a job of that. But the confusion comes when the people of
They see New Democrats in opposition in
Now
we know my honourable friends in the New Democrats here would love to go out
and run a campaign on that, but I beg them to do it. I beg them to stand up today and tell us where
they stand on health care. Give us some
ideas; tell us where you stand for, what you believe in. Do not hide from the people. Do not hide from the people until the 35‑day
election campaign, and your leader says to me across the way here: Oh, well, just wait till the election
campaign. We will lay it all out then.
Well, my eye, you will. Now is the time to be laying it out and
telling people what you really believe in and where you stand and what you
would do differently. Besides that, you
might actually benefit the people of
I
will openly admit that, if there is a good idea that is advanced in these
Estimates, I will take it up. I have
done it before when the member for The Maples brought in different ideas where
he said: This policy is going to impact
in this fashion, and you should change it in this fashion to make it
better. And we did; we made it better. But we do not hear anything like that from
the New Democrats.
*
(1500)
So
I welcome, again, getting back to the motion, Madam Chair‑‑I
welcome the motion, because it again starts to show where Liberals are coming
from in terms of a reallocation of funding priorities that if they had created
the budget, they would have done that.
That is good because that is the direction we are heading in. That is exactly where we are moving, towards
more ambulatory care funding, but we cannot accept it because of the process
that we are involved here, but I welcome the suggestion. The principle behind it is correct.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I will speak very briefly
because I do not let the minister's tactics attempt to‑‑as he tries
to control all debates and all actions in his own department and otherwise‑‑I
do not let him control the official opposition, much as he would like to, as
much as he would feel more comfortable in the official opposition where he
revelled in the role and attempts to play that role from the seat of minister.
I
will speak briefly to the motion again, as the minister spent 15 minutes, as usual,
going off in fashion talking about other provinces and other jurisdictions, and
went off on his usual tirade and tangent.
I will cease and desist and only speak to the point.
The
minister says yes, he accepts this motion, but no, I will not provide the
information necessary for you to make a determination of a $900‑million
expenditure. We on this side of the
House and the Liberal opposition are asking the minister to tell us, how do you
divide up $900 million so we know what you are doing with that money? What is the minister saying? The minister is saying no, n‑o, I will
not provide that information despite the fact that he has made claims about
being the most open minister, et cetera, but I will not get off into the
rhetoric, Madam Chairperson. We are here
to seek information not to play games on the minister's playing field, the kind
of games that the minister likes to play and the kind of political rhetoric and
the political debate. I will have a
debate with the minister any time. I
will not waste Estimates time.
I
will play him on his playing field, but not now when we are trying to get
information on behalf of our constituents and the people of Manitoba who are
concerned how the minister is spending this money, how the minister is wasting
money, how the minister is throwing money away, $3.9 million to a U.S.
consultant plus up to $800,000 in expenses, probably tax free, probably
Canadian tax free, while people have trouble getting home care, while people
have trouble getting into hospitals, while people have trouble hanging on to
jobs, hundreds of families whose jobs‑‑who relied on the incomes of
nurses, LPNs and the like‑‑and the minister sits there and talks
about other provinces and talks about playing political games.
We
are trying to find out information on behalf of the public of
The
minister as usual picks a point of debate‑‑and I will not argue his
debating skills. They are very, very
good. They are probably the best in this
House, and people noticed it in Question Period. Unfortunately, most of the time the temper
gets the better of him, but he misses the point by not referring to the
substance of the motion. The substance
of the motion is provide us with the information as to how that $900 million,
the largest single expenditure of any item in the budgetary Estimates, is
allocated. Just give us a
breakdown. The minister refuses to do
it. He has refused to do it. He is continuing to refuse to do it, and he is
trying to take attention away from that fact by moving the argument onto some
kind of other level in this Chamber.
It
is a simple question. It is a simple
request. The minister has said no. There is nothing more we can do in the
opposition.
Mr. Orchard: You know, Madam Chair, with regret I have to
engage in the discussion again. I have
to tell you I am just so terribly frustrated with my honourable friend the
member for Kildonan, because‑‑
An Honourable Member: You mean, I have not got a say?
Mr. Orchard: Well, of course, but your turn will come.
Madam Chair, my honourable friend is saying
that we do not provide information, that we do not provide a conceptual
framework, et cetera, on how health care reform should go.
You
know that is simply inaccurate. I mean,
this process of change has had more information shared with more of the
stakeholders in health care than ever before in the
I
want to say to my honourable friends, though, that, and I make no bones about
it, there are groups and individuals who certainly are not happy with some of
the changes that are taking place in health care. This is why this debate is so important,
because what we are doing, we are doing as government. I strongly believe, after having talked with
experts from the length and breadth of the health care field in Manitoba, that
the initiatives we are undertaking are the correct ones, that the initiatives
that we are undertaking will preserve and protect the medicare system for the
balance of this decade and put it on a footing able to deal with the fiscal
realities that this province and every province is going to face over the next
number of years.
Now
to sit back and know that you cannot afford to maintain the current expenditure
and management practices within our health care system and do nothing about it,
to know that it is unsustainable and then not to take action to try and make
changes which will preserve the access to the health care system is the
ultimate in responsibility. I had an
opportunity on Friday morning to indicate to a group just exactly that.
That is why I provided my honourable friends,
particularly the member for Kildonan with the APM contracts at St. Boniface,
Health Sciences Centre and between MHO and the other hospitals on purchasing
and on management. I provided those to
my honourable friend so my honourable friend has the opportunity to put his
researchers to work on them and to tell us what he does not like about it, to
tell us what he thinks is troublesome there.
I
want to say to my honourable friend, he is taking the contract‑‑and
I admit it is the largest contract we will probably ever engage in. That is right. I did not engage in that thing very
lightly. I sought a lot of advice, and I
had the urgings of the two academic health centres and their leadership saying
that probably the most appropriate way for us to establish the best practice
centres was with the engagement of Dr. Connie Curran and the firm that she
represents.
Now
knowing that expertise is out there, knowing we have got a fiscal challenge,
knowing that one of the outcomes of engaging these people is not diminishing
the quality or necessarily the quantity of needed health care services but
doing it at a lower drain on the tax purse, I think, knowing that opportunity
is there for an investment of $3.9 million from our casino funds and not taking
it would lead two and three years from now to a far greater criticism than what
we are undergoing right now, because understand that, in achieving those
financial savings within those hospitals, those are annual savings from now,
from the year they are achieved on into the future. Every single year we save those dollars
without compromising quantity and quality of needed health care services.
Now
is that not rather a remarkable goal that we ought to strive for? Knowing that that goal is at hand by the
engagement of this consultant, which was urged on us by the leadership of the
two academic teaching hospitals, I think that there is a better case to be made
that we are irresponsible in simply using the blunt instrument of budget, to
say your budget is cut by so much to fit the fiscal cloth of the province of Manitoba,
without any engagement of expertise to allow you to make those changes without
compromising quality and quantity of needed patient care. That would be irresponsible. That is what is happening in other
provinces. You know, my honourable
friend was reading a document there in Question Period; I could not help but
notice.
But
I want to share with my honourable friend a little article from the Medical
Times. Now these are physicians, so I do
not expect my honourable friend to necessarily buy into this, but here is what
they say: While the OMA, that is the
Ontario Medical Association, understands the need to reduce expenditures to get
a handle on our growing deficit, the OMA, along with an increasing number of
thoughtful and concerned citizens and organizations, cannot accept the massive
extent of the proposed cuts, said OMA President, Dr. Michael Thoburn
(phonetic). Quote, the government's
targets are simply impossible to meet.
If implemented, they will destroy the fragile economic recovery and the
very fabric of our health care system, end of quote.
*
(1510)
That is what they are saying in
I
think that is an overstated position, because I do not think, even though the
That is what causes Canadians such confusion,
because it is no longer philosophically attached to a given governing party of
a given political philosophy that health care is being put under the management
microscope‑‑not so. It is
happening from
Now, it is all right to stand up and be
against everything government is doing, but the public at large are starting to
demand, well, now we know what you are against, please tell us what you are
for. That is where these debates in
Estimates can be so very, very enlightening for the citizens of
That is why it is not simply good enough to
have the criticisms come from people about the changes that are being made,
whether those criticisms emanate from organizations in
The
issue becomes, let us debate the direction, the philosophy of this spending
approach where acute care hospitals are being asked to get by with reduced
levels of funding this year over last year, that we are making shifts, that we
are engaging consultants to try to give us more ability to manage the budget
better in a more cost‑effective fashion while maintaining and oftentimes
increasing the amount of care given by professionals in those very same acute
care centres and hospitals.
I
think that is the time to debate this whole issue very actively to let
Manitobans know where you stand. Our
agenda is laid out for all to see, for the NDP in opposition to misinterpret
and distort at their will, which is fine; they can do that in opposition.
There comes a time, and it is going to happen
within the next 18 to 24 months as we approach the next election, the people of
Manitoba are going to say, okay, we have listened to all of the things that the
government has done that you believe are wrong. Start telling us what you are
going to do to correct that. What
changes are you going to make? What is
going to be your fiscal and your economic and your taxation and your borrowing
policies to make these changes that you think are important?
The
next election in the
We
are doing that right now in health care.
We are doing it in every other aspect of this government from economic
development through education through family services. We are providing the only agenda for change
in the
When you go outside this
That is what we intend to do, and that is why
I welcome this debate.
Madam Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question?
All
those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Madam Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Madam Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The motion is accordingly defeated.
Item 7.(d) Hospital $930,770,500.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I have a question in
regard to a couple of hospitals, one in particular. I recognize that there are a number of issues
from various hospitals, but because of the essence of time and the fact that
the number of hours left in the committee for spending Estimates is slowly
reducing and there are a number of departments that we have not had an
opportunity to ask questions on, it is unfortunate we will not be able to ask
as many detailed questions as we would like to have in this session.
I
am sure the minister has received correspondence from a number of individuals,
concerned citizens of Carman and community regarding the
One
of their questions was, as I am sure the minister has received this
correspondence, that they have perceived they have had difficulty in obtaining
approval of expenses. For instance,
$40,000 of surgical expenses on the current budget was not approved. They are not sure what the reason was. I am wondering if the minister could tell the
committee today: What is the situation
in regard to
Mr. Orchard: Does my honourable friend know which funding
year that $40,000 request was from, then I might be able to provide a more
informed answer?
Ms. Gray: It does not say in this particular document
that I have received, and it is the same letter that Minister of Health would
have received on June 18.
Number one:
Has the minister done anything with this letter since he has received
it? Has he passed it on to his
officials? Have they been able to determine upon getting in touch with the
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, the process with Carman
Hospital is the same as with other institutions wherein should they have
incurred a deficit, have the opportunity to appeal that deficit, and in some
circumstances, the base budget for the fiscal year in which the deficit was
incurred is adjusted to accommodate in part or in whole.
In
other areas and other times during that review process, that additional monies
are not made available, and the hospital, whether it be Carman or any other
hospital, is required to accommodate those previously incurred deficits out of
the current‑year budgetary provisions.
I
can tell my honourable friend that we are in the process of reviewing the
financial position of Carman Hospital, as we have probably for the last four or
five years on an annual basis, and will make whatever adjustments are
appropriate and are found to be necessary after that full review. I cannot give my honourable friend a status
as to the outcome on this particular $40,000 today.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister indicate‑‑they
also speak in this letter about a report that was done with individuals from
the
I
am wondering if the minister has any further information on this report that
was completed, that talked about cluster of rural hospitals.
*
(1520)
Mr. Orchard: That report that would have emanated from
Carman et al was a report in terms of their work towards an affiliation of
communities and facilities in rural Manitoba to find opportunities for program
service, administrative and other areas of consolidation, so that they could
provide equivalent services with less financial commitment, and that suggestion
by the group was sent back asking them to reconsider certain aspects of it.
It
was not rejected in its entirety as might have been alleged there. It was indicated that, look, this is a good
start, however there are other areas that we think would produce meaningful co‑operation
if you were to investigate them.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, have there already
been decisions that have been made or plans the department has as to where
these clusters of hospitals should be?
I
ask that question because the understanding from Carman, et al., was that they
should be looking at a population base of around 10,000 to 30,000. They are saying that their proposed region
contained 32,000 to 33,000, yet when the report was rejected, it was suggested
that they rewrite the report and include the towns of Morden and Winkler, which
have also a catchment area of 30,000 to 50,000 people.
Can
the minister tell us, what are the guidelines that these small hospitals should
be looking at in terms of what are viable services within particular catchment
areas, and why would it be suggested they look at Morden and Winkler?
Mr. Orchard: Maybe the proposal as it finally ended up to
the Rural Health Reform Advisory Committee, as I recall at least one stage of
discussions, there was, if you will, a semicircle affiliation commencing with
Emerson and moving through Morris, Carman, Notre Dame, Swan Lake, Manitou in
sort of a half‑moon configuration, with Morden and Winkler and Altona
basically outside the loop.
In
other words, it was a perimeter, if you will, affiliation. Even with that proposal coming forward, I
know there were some members of that were starting to ask questions as to
whether that would serve best, and I am not sure if that was the proposal that
was finally submitted to the Rural Health Advisory Council.
Certainly, with all of the proposals that came
in, we originally targeted 10,000 to 20,000 people, regions or affiliations or
clusters, if you will, and found that some had exceeded that and some had just
met it. The Rural Advisory Committee, in
collaboration with the ministry staff, asked for a revisit of the plans with a
goal of, I believe, 25,000 as probably a minimum target.
There were a number of reasons for that which
we can discuss this afternoon, but there were aspects of the program that had
significant strength and were excellent starting points, if you will, for
further consideration around the opportunity for greater affiliation.
Ms. Gray: This group is asking for a meeting with the
minister to discuss further their concerns.
Is he prepared to meet with the group?
Mr. Orchard: Which group?
Ms. Gray: The Concerned Citizens of Carman and
Community.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, we attempt to provide
information and meetings as often as possible.
During the course of the summer, I want to attempt to meet with a number
of people outside the city of Winnipeg, city of Brandon, because there has been
a great deal of confusion in some communities as to what ought to be done, what
ought not to be done, what the opportunities are.
Although many communities made very excellent
first attempts in terms of coming up with proposals for greater affiliation, we
see opportunities emerging over the next number of months to build on the
strengths that were brought forward.
My
office is open and we attempt to meet with groups regardless of whether they
are concerned citizens or interested citizens.
We have already had a number of meetings in rural Manitoba across the
length and breadth in terms of reform process, probably more meetings with
senior staff present to attempt to lay out the process than has ever happened
before. From time to time those meetings are repeated upon request. So we are very open.
Just this Tuesday last I was at the Manitoba
Health Organizations once again, speaking to them in June for the sixth time in
a row.
Ms. Gray: Was that a yes or a no to my question?
Mr. Orchard: That was a distinct maybe.
Ms. Gray: One other question in this area, regardless
of whether the minister decides to meet with this particular group, and I can
appreciate, there are many groups that probably do want to meet directly with
the minister, can the minister tell us, it seems to be quite obvious from this
letter that, again, whether rightly or wrongly, there is a perception however
that the departmental staff are favouring a policy of centralization and would
prefer to have a large hospital at Portage or Morden.
Now, this seems to be the indication that this
group of concerned citizens of Carman and community have. Again, this is their perception. It may be correct or it may not. But my question would be to the minister: Can he tell us what he plans to do to ensure
that obviously there is a better communication between the department and this
particular group?
Mr. Orchard: I do not know from time to time from whence
these petitions emanate, but I will tell my honourable friend what I have done
probably over the last, not within the last 12 months if I go back and check
the calendar, probably not, but prior to that I have met with Carman Hospital's
board, their medical staff, their administration, because Carman's perceived
concern is that the combined facility between Morden and Winkler is going to
close their hospital.
I
have pointed out to them that, if you think about it, would that not be a
little bit on the silly order for that community when I was the MLA who lobbied
strong and hard to have that hospital built, reconstructed‑‑it is a
very effectively run hospital with four or five physicians practising out
there, a very excellent surgeon‑‑that I would then plan to have a
facility built some 25 miles to the south which was going to eliminate Carman
Hospital?
I
have told the board, the medical staff, the administration that that is not in
the cards. I have told them that face to
face. But somehow, I do not know how
these things get going and who stimulates them and who roils them, but I have
said it time and time again, I will say it again so my honourable friend can
sound the Hansard out if she so desires, that is not what is being proposed.
No
matter how many times one explains that it seems as if paranoia is more
comfortable, and I do not know how you get around that kind of paranoia.
You
know, in terms of hospital, acute care and health care services, when you take
a look, and this is ironic, because it leads to the kind of political
accusations that were tried at one time by members opposite, that we are
favouring construction because I happen to represent the area and some other
members of the government happen to represent the area.
But
that area of
*
(1530)
That area has incredible growth
potential. It also has the ability,
through, for instance, the combined regional facility serving Morden and
Winkler first and offering regionalized services that citizens would have to go
to Winnipeg for, to present a tremendous opportunity in providing services
closer to home as the reform package indicates.
It
has a wonderful opportunity in that reconstructed hospital between Morden and
Winkler of affiliation with a Carman hospital, with an Altona hospital, with
the other smaller hospitals that do not have surgery or obstetrics in that
region and to provide an enhanced level of service.
Well, I am not sure that I am going to make an
accurate statement here, but at some point in time, this province has got to
start thinking instead of what happens in another community is going to hurt
me, we have to start thinking about how do we build Manitoba. How do we make/create opportunities across
the length and breadth of
Everybody, unfortunately, is so narrow from
time to time in their perspective. They
see something happening in another community threatening their community rather
than adding strength to it. I do not
know how you get over that. I do not
know how you calm the fears of Carman and the concerned citizens.
We
have tried that through meetings at which there has been substantial attendance. It works for maybe a month or two, and then
everybody gets paranoid again. We
believe there is an opportunity to build upon strengths in Carman with a
combined facility between Morden and Winkler, a tremendous proposal by those
two communities, who have seldom co‑operated and collaborated on too many
issues, have and have moved it very substantially down the road for the benefit
of the their citizens and the benefit of the southern Manitoba region.
This petition was featured on Peter Warren the
other day. I cannot answer any more
calming of fears than I have at meetings with the staff, with the board and
with some of the citizens' representation there than I have today, because
probably there will be a petition three months from now, again.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister for
his comments. I appreciate those. I agree with the minister that communities in
But
you have to admit that the history in this province over the last 20 years has
been based on various political parties oftentimes pork barrelling and giving
to various constituencies, if you happen to have the right representative who
happened to be a member of the government.
I
mean, I think we all have a responsibility as politicians from all three
parties to try to change that, but it is only going to be through actions of
working together that we actually change that long‑standing
tradition. It will take some time, but I
certainly agree with the minister's comments about communities working
together.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, during the last session
when the committee met, the minister indicated he would provide for committee
members a breakdown of the reduction from last year's expenditures to this
year's expenditures and the relationship of Bill 22 and the 2 percent reduction
to that particular exercise.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, it would appear as if in
terms of the nursing settlement‑‑now here is where I am having a
little trouble, because I think this is an annualized impact where we do not
have full‑year application. But if
this was an annualized impact it would be in the neighbourhood of $5.3 million
for nursing on a 12‑month basis.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, so the minister is saying
of the approximately $20‑million reduction from grants through the Health
Services Insurance Fund to the Hospital program from '93‑94 down $20
million from '92‑93, $5.3 million are the nurses, and the remaining $15
million would be outright grants to the programs.
Mr. Orchard: No, I am not saying that, Madam Chairperson.
Appreciate that when these Estimates went to print, there was no contract with
the MNU that we could put a figure into the budget as providing for a finalized
contract. The only budgetary provisions
that are printed in Estimates are contracts at the time Estimates are printed. Does my honourable friend understand?
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, yes, I understand
that. So therefore my question remains
that I had originally asked the minister on Thursday. To what extent is the reduction of
approximately $20 million from last year's appropriation to this year's
appropriation? To what extent is it
attributed to an outright reduction in grants to the hospitals for services
provided, and to what extent is it a reduction for services provided of that
$20 million?
Mr. Orchard: Well, Madam Chairperson, we do not expect
there to be a service reduction with the minus 2 funding to the hospitals. We do not expect there to be a reduction in
the volume of services from that. Now,
that is very much under discussion with the hospital system right now in terms
of all of the areas that we are analyzing with them, be it programs, some of
the program committees that we have ongoing, through implementation and working
with the hospitals with the opportunities as presented in the efficiency report
done by the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, and the
management restructuring or any number of initiatives that we have got ongoing
right now. When we struck the budget, we
struck the budget for hospitals to provide 2 percent less funding year over
year.
We
had not within that budget put any dollar value up or down for the Manitoba
Nurses' Union contract. That was not
settled. We do not make provision. We do
not print Estimates guessing as to what a settlement might be. We simply do not do that. We only print basis the financial commitment
that we anticipate is required with known contracts. So there was no provision for the Manitoba
Nurses'
My
honourable friend asked the question:
What will be the impact in the hospital budget from the MNU settlement
on minus 2? I indicate to my honourable
friend that the best estimate I can give him on an annualized basis of a minus
2 in nursing contract would be about $5.3 million. For a minus 2 provision of all other salaries
within our hospitals, that impact would be in the neighbourhood of some $8 million,
but that was not printed into these Estimates at the time these Estimates were
presented.
What, in essence, I am saying to my honourable
friend is that with the passage of the legislation that is now before committee
of the 10 days off and that sort of management opportunity to reduce their
respective payrolls without layoffs this year, this is one of the options they
can use to manage service delivery with a lower budget. The opportunity is there to achieve in
essence what would be a minus 2 in their salary component.
*
(1540)
I
would fully expect that with the reduction of global minus 2, that we are
imposing through this budget exercise on our hospital facilities that they
would exercise to the maximum degree possible the provisions of Bill 22. Bill 22 was not factored in and neither was
the nurses' contract factored in to the $930,770 global hospital grant budget
that was struck.
That was struck at a time when we realized our
federal transfer payments were down, that the federal calculation in terms of
the population formula would take, I believe, $75 million out of our transfer
payments this year, in addition to the $120 that came out of transfers last
year. We had to, and we forewarned the
hospitals a year ago that they could expect less, at best flat funding but
probably reduced funding in the next fiscal year and to start making management
plans to accommodate that. When we came
to print the final number in the Estimates, we used minus 2 because that was
the maximum that, given the resources the province had from taxation, from
federal government transfers, the maximum resource that we could dedicate to
it.
Since that time, yes, I think it is clear to
say that some of the management decisions have been eased somewhat. I am not saying in any way, shape or form
eliminated with an agreement with MNU for the balance of this fiscal year to
take a minus 2. That is going to be helpful.
It is not the complete answer but it certainly is going to be helpful. But that is why I am able to say to my
honourable friend that we have some confidence that during the course of this
fiscal year we will maintain the level of activity utilizing less resource
because we are going to be paying less for the hands‑on services, minus 2
in most cases as we are taking in this Chamber and right across
government. It is part of everyone
sharing difficult times with the Canadian taxpayer and the
We
believe that this budget as presented will allow us to maintain both the level
and quality of service within our acute care system, not without challenge‑‑I
would never say, Madam Chair, without challenge‑‑but these are not
the easiest times to administer any public program anywhere in Canada, and we
think we are equipping our managers with as many assistive tools as possible
for them to engage in their respective acute care facility service delivery
enterprises without compromising quality and quantity of care.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, what I garner from that
answer and can isolate from that answer as one conclusion is that, and the
minister can correct me if I am wrong, the $930 million did not take into
account the 2 percent reduction and that in addition the 2 percent reduction
would be on top of the $930 million with the proviso of the $5.3 million that
will go back into the budget as a result of the nurses' settlement.
Mr. Orchard: Providing I am concluding accurately what my
honourable friend is concluding, which I do not think necessarily I am
concluding him in the way he is concluding me, but he is not concluding
correctly, if I conclude what he concluded, accurately.
The
$930 million‑‑$930,770,500 is the amount of money that we expect
the hospitals to spend to maintain their service levels this year. It will not be reduced by 2 percent because
of the nurses' settlement or Bill 22.
There is $930,770,500 available to fund acute care hospitals in the
Assisting the managers in achieving the level
of service, the quality of needed service within that budget will be such
things as the Manitoba Nurses' Union contract signed at a minus 2 for the
balance of this fiscal year, but it will not be another $18 million reduced
from the $930 million. The $930 million
is the budget that we are asking all of our acute care hospitals, because they
are all under the no‑deficit policy now, not just the urban hospitals, to
provide their services within that global Hospital budget of $930,770,500.
Mr. Chomiak: Since the minister will not provide us with
hospital‑by‑hospital base budgets or breakdowns, will the minister
perhaps do it by sector? For example,
would he provide us with breakdowns as to how much funding goes to the primary
health care and the specialty community health centres, how much goes to
community hospitals, the two teaching hospitals, the federal nursing stations,
et cetera, just by general sector?
Mr. Orchard: I will consult with staff and see whether we
can make that breakout readily and easily in time for this evening perchance.
Madam Chairperson: 7.(d) Hospital $930,770,500.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I want to have the full
opportunity that this evening we can discuss the APM contract even though we
have passed the Hospital line, for St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre.
Madam Chairperson: Shall the item pass‑‑pass.
Less:
Recoveries $(4,265,700)‑‑pass.
7.(e) Medical $285,128,700.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I noted from previous
Estimates that the issue of tray fees was given extensive discussion amongst
all participants in the Estimates debate, and I notice that there has been an
increase, at least brought to my attention, in terms of some fees being charged
by physicians and doctors for in‑house services. Is the minister aware of any increase or any
expansion of the increase of tray fees for in‑house operation and might
want to discuss perhaps general policy in that regard?
*
(1550)
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I know that the tray fees issue,
as my honourable friend references, has been a subject of discussion for a
number of years now, because I think tray fees have been charged in some
circumstance since circa '84‑85, but I am not aware of any increase. Certainly, I do not recall correspondence
through my office indicating that there was more. We have some areas where‑‑there
is one instance in
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister outline
what‑‑in the minister's Health Reform package there was reference
to the, I believe, private medical clinics and walk‑in clinics. I am
wondering if the minister can give us an update as to what the government's
position and stand is in that respect.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, as we discussed now, I think,
for probably two Estimates‑‑I am not sure, one for sure‑‑I
think at a debate of Estimates two years ago, the four‑year agreement
that we reached with the MMA in 1990, the fall of 1990, had provided within
that agreement the retention of external consultants who would do basically two
areas of investigation and be jointly funded by the MMA and the Ministry of
Health.
The
two investigations basically were around fee‑schedule reform in terms of
trying to come to grips with some of the fairly obvious discrepancies, if that
is the right phraseology, of our current fee schedule and to try to make a
better allocation of resource within a reformed fee schedule; secondly, to try
and understand what factors were playing a significant role in what seemed to
be an ever‑increasing volume of billed services that Manitobans were
being asked to pay for through the Manitoba Health Services Commission.
I
want to share with my honourable friend just one statistic, and I have used
this in some of the presentations that I have made recently. I am going to go by memory here, but the
figures will be pretty much on target.
Since 1970, we did a 1970‑to‑1990 track of a number of
indicators to deal with the medical program, Madam Chair. One of them was, of course, to naturally
track the population of Manitoba, and since 1970 our population grew by 11
percent, 1970 to 1990, but in that period of time, the number of physicians
increased from just under 1,000 to just under 2,000.
In
other words, while the population grew by 11 percent, the number of physicians
doubled. It is coincidental that the
number of services doubled that were billed to the
Now, one could say that was appropriate if one
was receiving what one might conclude was a significant improvement in the
health status of Manitobans, but using one indicator of how much longer we
live, we found that with that doubling of the number of physicians to serve 11
percent more Manitobans, a five‑fold increase in the amount of money the
taxpayers were putting into the medical remuneration in the medical programs,
one indicator would be that Manitobans on average were living significantly
longer, but that was not the case. Our
average life expectancy went up by some 4.3 percent during that period of time,
which was just under three years of average increase in length for a male in
Now, even if you attributed all of that to the
doubling of doctors, the fivefold increase in billed services, you would have
to ask, was there a better investment somewhere in the system? Because you
cannot attribute that to the straight increase in billings of physicians, or
the increased numbers of physicians. It simply cannot be done.
In
fact at a recent meeting that I had out of the city, a physician, in
questioning some of the information on reform and what not, made that
indication to me that, as an individual doctor, what they do does not increase
the life expectancy of Manitobans significantly. I thought it was rather a daring statement
for a physician to make in front of his confreres.
Nevertheless, what we have to remember is that
there were a significant number of other initiatives over that 20‑year
period, 1970‑90, that significantly increased one's length of life.
The
drinking and driving laws, I mean, significantly reducing the death on the
highways, particularly of youth, which is a significant contributor to
increased average life.
We
are more successful in a number of disease entities, with better drug
therapies, in achieving probably longer life, but in terms of the number of
actual procedures billed by physicians, one would have a difficult time
attributing a great deal of our increased longevity to increased expenditures
in the medical line, which gets us right into the very fundamental discussion
which causes the OMA to make the statements they are making about Ontario that
I quoted to my honourable friends earlier on this afternoon.
We
have to seriously take a look at the other factors behind the health status of
Manitobans and Canadians and find out where maybe we can make wiser investments
than continuing to pour very substantial resource into the formal health care
system. Because other factors, such as
environment, lifestyle, the general wealth and well‑being of the society
at whole, the economic stability of society, probably have a greater amount to
contribute and a greater opportunity for improving the health status of you and
I, Madam Chair, as well as every other Manitoban.
Madam Chairperson: Item 7.(e) Medical $285,128,700‑‑pass;
Less: Recoveries $(1,277,800)‑‑pass; (f) Personal Care Home
$250,537,700‑‑pass.
7.(g) Pharmacare.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I wonder if my honourable
friends might bear with me, and I will‑‑I have the information that
I would like to have shared with my honourable friends in terms of the new
residential charges as authorized in the Personal Care Home program. I think my honourable friends would probably
want to have that shared with them so they have a sense of the process that we
went through. I will share the information
with my honourable friend at this juncture in the Estimates so that I can
attempt to answer any questions my honourable friends might have.
First of all, Madam Chair, I want to indicate
that when we approached this issue of increasing the per diems we wanted to
assure that only those Manitobans that had the resources to pay additional
charges would be required to pay those charges, and the second premise that we
wanted to protect was that we would not compromise the ability to live
independently, and that is what I want to share with my honourable friends this
afternoon, that we did not want to compromise the ability to live independently
by a spouse living in the community whose partner was in a personal care home.
We
also did another thing. We surveyed the
other provinces as to where they were at in terms of costs, maximum residential
charges.
For
instance, in
*
(1600)
That is the range across, western provinces
tending to be lower than provinces to the east of
What we did, Madam Chair, in coming to grips
with the issue is we chose $46 per day as the maximum charge that would be
levied on individuals who are resident in a personal care home. That $46 will
become the charge for all residents in the personal care home unless they
demonstrate that they do not have the ability to pay $46. That will lead to residents who have income
which is less than that required or assessed to pay $46 per day, that they will
be able to, with provision of last year's notice of assessment for the 1992 taxation
year, by demonstrating what their taxable income is which, by definition, will
become the net income less total tax payable as reported in the previous year's
income tax return.
In
specifics, that is for the 1992 income tax return, line 236 less line 435, and
that leads to our definition of income, and it uses last year's
assessment. So the question my
honourable friend the member for Kildonan asked is, will individuals have to
produce their income tax form? The
answer is no. Individuals who are
resident of a personal care home will provide their notice of assessment that
they have received for filing last year's income tax. It is from that notice of assessment, using
line 236 less line 435, that their income will be determined, and it will fall within
the newly provided guidelines.
Let
me explain those newly provided guidelines so my honourable friends understand
the process. Currently the disposable
income that we leave with individual residents of personal care homes is
approximately $110 per month, and that led to the $26.95 per diem charge. Under the maximum of $46, the income left
with the residents will increase from $110 monthly to just under $200
monthly. So in other words, as the
income goes up, the amount that the individuals retain will also go up. Now, that deals with an individual who is a
sole family member and living in a personal care home. In the circumstances where an individual has
a spouse who is living independently in the community, we have determined that
they will be left with a minimum income in the community of $15,600 per year,
same definition, before any additional charges will be levied on that family's
income to pay for per diems for the partner living in a personal care home, so
that the figure that we have chosen for living independently in the community
is $15,600 per annum, after tax income.
Now
I want to explain how we arrived at that so my honourable friends know the sort
of information base that we chose. Manitoba Agriculture maintains probably the
most sophisticated annualized family living costs in government, and their
guidelines do two things. They deal with
homeowner income and renter income, and then they do a second breakdown or a
second criteria of car owner or public transit user. Now, for a homeowner with a car, it is
determined by a Manitoba Agriculture survey that it requires after tax income
of $13,674 for a single to live independently, and if the homeowner does not
own a car but uses public transit, that drops to $12,421.
A
renter with a car has a yearly income requirement after taxes of $13,278, and
if they are a public transit user as a renter, that income requirement annually
is $12,025. So by setting the $15,600
minimum, we have allowed for the highest living cost as estimated by Manitoba
Agriculture of $13,674 and added approximately $2,000 on top of that for the
homeowner with a car and all others. So
the income that is at one's disposal will range from $2,000 above what Manitoba
Agriculture indicates as a requirement for independent living to $3,600 above
if you are a renter using public transit.
Now
there is another aspect of this that we took into consideration. As my honourable friends know, we made some
changes in terms of consumer contribution towards the Ostomy Program and in
some of our Home Care supplies programs and in terms of Pharmacare.
The
appeal process that we will have individuals being able to access is to the
Manitoba Health Board. If they are
living independently in the community with a spouse in a personal care home,
and they have costs which have been recently increased because of other
budgetary decisions of government, those will be factored in as a consideration
to allow a greater income for the independent living spouse in the community
beyond the $15,600, to accommodate for those additional costs because of
budgetary decisions this year. That
appeal process is through the Manitoba Health Board. We think we can take some comfort in knowing
that there will be an opportunity to appeal, and if a reasonable case is made
by an individual, then the Manitoba Health Board has the ability to make those
adjustments, as they deem appropriate, based on new information provided by the
individual so affected.
There are some circumstances where there are
couples, both of whom are living in personal care homes, and the personal care
homes are not the same personal care home.
In each of those cases, the ministry itself will handle the
determination of the per‑diem charge in those circumstances. We will not ask administrators who do not
necessarily have that information to handle those circumstances. We will do that internally within the
ministry.
We
believe that this is probably the fairest and least intrusive way to increase
the per diem. As I said earlier to my
honourable friend the member for Kildonan, his concern was, will administrators
be asking for income tax forms from residents? The answer is that we do not
expect that to be the case, because the notice of assessment for the 1992 tax
year contains all of the pertinent income that one would have to have to make
the decision as to what disposable income is available to the resident, and
from that it would determine the maximum per diem that the individual would be
required to pay as a resident of a personal care home.
We
think we have covered most of the concerns that have been expressed and most of
the inquiries that have been made to the ministry and to personal care home
administrators. The process should be
relatively simple in terms of administration and not complex. It is not a dissimilar process to what is
currently used in other areas of program in government.
It
has taken a little longer to get what we think is a certain amount of
confidence around the per diems and that they will be set only on an ability‑to‑pay
basis without compromising the independent living opportunity of a spouse in
the community who has a partner in a personal care home, by setting that
$15,600 income and then offering an avenue of appeal through the Manitoba
Health Board, if individual circumstances would say a different consideration
of disposable income ought to take place.
In
having put all of those discussions together, we were delayed by two months in
terms of implementing the new per diem rates.
They will be effective October 1 of this year, and after that will be
revised every August, I am advised. So I
trust that information is as my honourable friends wished, and I would be
prepared to answer any questions.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, will the minister be
tabling the regulations that he read from?
It is very difficult to follow unless we have the actual documentation
in front of us.
Mr. Orchard: The regulations that formally attach will be
going out within the next two weeks. I
can share those then, but what I can do, is I can share the table of
residential charges so that my honourable friend sees what they are for given
categories. I only have the one copy
here. I should have brought more. We will get photostats so that my honourable
friend has that. We have gone through
several copies in creating this, so I just want to make sure that that is the
version that we approved last week.
*
(1610)
The
communication will be with the administrators of the personal care home as soon
as we possibly can, although we have some flexibility, given the October 1
implementation. We will get it for this
evening. We have two corrections on
there. We will get you a copy of that
this evening.
Madam Chairperson: Item 7.(f) Personal Care Home $250,537,700‑‑pass;
(g) Pharmacare $48,514,200‑‑pass; (h) Ambulance $6,001,300‑‑pass;
Less: Recoveries $(1,232,500)‑‑pass; (j) Northern Patient
Transportation $2,577,200‑‑pass; Less: Recoveries $(345,000)‑‑pass.
Resolution 21.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,534,979,100 for Health, Health Services Insurance Fund
$1,534,979,100, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
Item 8. The Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba,
Board of Governors and Executive $169,100‑‑pass; Finance and
Personnel $337,700‑‑pass; Drug and Alcohol Awareness and
Information $519,300‑‑pass; Program Delivery $9,091,700‑‑pass;
Funded Agencies $1,885,000‑‑pass; Less: Recoveries $(1,608,300)‑‑pass.
Resolution 21.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $10,394,500 for Health, The Alcoholism Foundation of
Manitoba $10,394,500, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
Item 9. Expenditures Related to Capital (a)
Health Services Insurance Fund.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, do I sense that we are probably
going to move through the Estimates by five?
Okay. If that is where we are
heading, my statement is in here. I will
not bother reading it on the capital program.
Madam Chair, can I ask for guidance? I would like to have as part of the capital
presentation, to become part of Hansard; it is about six pages of introductory
remarks, the capital program. Could those be included in the Hansard as if they
were delivered in the essence of saving time?
My
honourable friends are going to receive those now, and it would save time
rather than have me read them. They are
important, I think, background to where we have been trying to head. The public may receive Hansard, but they may
not receive the capital program. So I
would like to have the remarks included as part of Hansard so that anyone who
is following Hansard in health care reform would have those remarks so that
they would receive the context under which we prepared our capital Estimates.
Madam Chairperson: Is that the will of the committee? Agreed? (agreed)
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, Fellow Honourable Members:
I
am pleased to table the 1993‑94 Capital Program Estimates for Manitoba
Health. This is the second capital
program to be announced following Quality Health for Manitobans‑‑The
Action Plan, and the second to be prepared within a Health Public Policy
framework. A Healthy Public Policy
framework is the approach within which
A
Healthy Public Policy approach can reduce our reliance on health care. This will allow us to direct our resources to
healthier communities and healthier Manitobans.
By reducing our reliance on health care, we reduce the need for the
bricks and mortar, in other words, our institutions.
But
how do we reduce demand? To accomplish
this, we must know what it is that determines our health.
The
five basic determinants of health are:
environmental factors, socioeconomic factors, productivity and wealth of
society as a whole, individual genetic endowment, and lifestyle. Of these, lifestyle is an important
factor. For instance, many studies have
clearly demonstrated a link between the health of an individual and his or her
productivity in the workplace.
Studies have shown, for example, that a
healthier lifestyle either reduces stress or improves our ability to cope with
it. By providing education and
information through a variety of forums, we can influence the health care
consumers' lifestyle choices. These
choices will, in the long term, raise the level of health of consumers, while
reducing their need for health services.
By promoting positive lifestyle choices, such as better eating habits,
encouraging more exercise and recreational pursuits, we can also effectively
alter the health care cost spiral.
As
government, we recognize our obligation to work with people to promote health,
prevent illness and postpone disability.
This is a challenge not only for government or health professionals; it
is a challenge for the private and public sectors, but more especially, for
each of us and for every family in the province. The potential results are enormous, not only
in the area of cost containment, but in the overall improvement of the health
of all Manitobans.
A
Healthy Public Policy approach to targeting resource allocation facilitates the
health system shift which will see a more balanced spectrum of services in
which institutional health care is the service of last resort, rather than the
focal point, and too often the entry point, of our system.
The
decision to invest significant capital dollars in our institutional health care
system must, therefore, be made following serious review of the facilities'
role, services and expected activity in a restructured environment based on the
real health needs of Manitobans.
Investment in our infrastructure‑‑that is, the bricks and
mortar‑‑is a decision which will impact our future for many
decades.
Decisions on capital expenditures are long‑term
commitments and cannot be made on the basis of the most aggressive or active
lobby efforts, but must be made to meet the real demands now and in the
future. The motivation must come from a
deeply held sense that, through diligent study, collaboration and review by all
of the stakeholders, the capital solution recommended in this program is an
appropriate one.
The
Our
commitment to a reformed mental health system continues and is evidenced by the
projects which will assist to accomplish these objectives: a 25‑bed acute psychiatry unit within
Brandon General Hospital; a 10‑bed child and adolescent unit in Brandon
to include space for outpatient clinical programs; alterations to existing
hospital areas in Dauphin and The Pas to provide acute inpatient psychiatric
services; funds to modify existing facilities to accommodate unique population
groups from Brandon Mental Health Centre.
We
are continuing to expand our personal care home resources in underresourced
areas. A number of beds announced last
year are in various stages of design or construction. I am pleased to announced additional
commitments in the Interlake at Fisher Branch and Teulon, and upgraded and
realigned facilities for Hartney,
The
hospital sector is undergoing significant study and realignment. Therefore, our capital activity within the
hospital sector will await the outcome of this rebalancing. There are a number
of hospital projects in which capital planning and construction activity will
be held in abeyance pending the finalization of the community plan as outlined
in our health reform.
Significant planning activity is now underway
to assist the province to define the appropriate sites of care for a range of
clinical programs based on: our
commitment to the principle of care as close to home as possible; developing
centres of excellence; and a reformed and empowered rural health care system.
We
are committed to the rational allocation of capital dollars driven by
population health needs and a vision of health care requirements within a
reformed system. Hospital projects in
rural and northern
Projects within the hospital sector will
proceed with the capital planning and construction process. However, the projects must be carefully
reviewed to determine if they fit with our vision of the future. The review will include both their role,
which includes programs and services, and the activity, such as the number of
visits and cases. For example, Altona
and Stonewall hospital projects will go to tender this summer. Provincial resources such as the Manitoba
Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Health Sciences Centre
continue to receive our support with their redevelopment plans.
The
1993‑94 Capital Program for the Department of Health continues a strong
commitment to maintaining our infrastructure built on a solidly researched
vision of our future. It targets
programs in our system such as mental health, where the vision has evolved
through a collaborative process and the implementation path is clear.
Madam Chairperson and fellow members, I am
proud to present the 1993‑94 Capital Program. It reflects our commitment to a healthier
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I am wondering if the
minister could indicate‑‑and the information may be in the material
that he has presented to us, but is there a plan or what‑‑are there
any new or additional personal care home beds that are anticipated over the
next three to five years?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, there is renewal in the next two
and a half years or thereabouts, probably‑‑let us say three years
to be on the safe order‑‑of some 560 new personal care home beds,
the majority of which, if I recall correctly, will be in the city of
Winnipeg. Not all will be additional new
ones, but replacement of, for instance, I think it is a figure of 230 beds at
municipals. There is a 230‑bed
proposal for municipal hospitals.
But
let me try to take my honourable friend now‑‑I gave three books
away, and I should have kept one of them because I think the pages were
numbered on them, and I have last Friday's copy which is not bound as nicely. But, if I could take my honourable friends
through, there is a project description which deals with completed personal
care homes, urban. At Deer Lodge, we
upgraded 55 new personal care home beds which are available for service at Deer
Lodge Centre. Foyer Valade, I had the
pleasure of cutting the ribbon on Foyer Valade, but that was a construction
project that was initiated, I think, in 1986 by the previous administration.
Fred Douglas Lodge, we replaced 65 beds in the
hospital area with 84 new beds. So there
were not only new beds, but additional new beds at Fred Douglas. Golden West, we added 25 new personal care
home beds there in Golden West, as well as upgrading 91. Holy Family, there were no new beds there,
but a pretty significant new attachment to their facility joining the personal
care home with elderly persons' housing.
Middlechurch was a complete upgrade.
Now
getting into rural
*
(1620)
We
opened in August of 1989 with the former Premier Douglas Campbell present,
because this facility in
Then in terms of health facilities, my
honourable friends will note that in Benito, Erickson and Manitou we replaced
an acute care hospital with what we called a swing facility which add acute
beds plus a personal care home attachment.
That added 20 personal care home beds in Benito, 14 in Erickson and 18
in Manitou, along with in each of those facilities five, 12 and eight multiuse
medical beds. In Vita's hospital, we
added a new 10‑bed acute facility as well as 14 personal care home beds.
If
we had time, I would like to have my honourable friends engage in promoting the
oxygen concentrator initiative to other provinces. That has been one of our most significant
economic, as well as health opportunities in the province, in that we have 22
oxygen concentrator installations in the province now ranging from Churchill to
the southeast corner of the province and the southwest corner of the province
as well. They are presenting us an
opportunity with significant cost savings and provision of oxygen services.
The
battle we had to go through as a province to get the CSA standards approved for
manufactured oxygen was just incredible. The reason they are incredible is
because there are large dollars at stake in terms of oxygen supply. To put it to you very bluntly, the current
supply system was not welcoming of oxygen concentrators for manufactured oxygen
production. But, as a result of that
initiative being in
Let
me go to Schedule I, Swan River has new personal care home beds under
construction and 70 new, as well as, above that, the two personal care homes
River East and Kildonan Centre both with 120 beds. They will be on stream we think late this
calendar year. That is 240 beds in North
Kildonan and
Now
let me take my honourable friend to Schedule II, projects approved for
construction, because Schedule I was projects in construction. You will see Bethel Winnipeg, there is
proposed construction for 100 new PCH beds in west‑central Winnipeg;
Donwood Manor in North Kildonan, a 40‑bed expansion; and Lions Manor,
just on Portage Avenue, a long history of hostel beds and a long‑term
agreement, which would have led us nowhere had we lived by the letter of the
agreement with the Manitoba Lions.
We
arranged a mutual agreement where they are de‑insuring empty and no
longer used hostel beds in their facility, I believe 135 is the figure. We are now in the plans‑‑and I
cannot tell you whether the final plans have designated 80 or 100 beds, but
somewhere in that neighbourhood‑‑of Level III, Level IV personal
care home beds to be added to the Lions Manor complex on
Municipal Hospitals, of course, 225 personal
care home beds to replace the two aging facilities; and in rural Manitoba,
Beausejour, 20 personal care home beds; some renovations at Minnedosa, as we
discussed earlier on; Oakbank‑Springfield, 30 personal care home beds
linked with their elderly person housing; Ste. Rose, 25 beds added to their
personal care home facility of 40 beds; and an addition of 20 to Stonewall.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
Now, I want to take my honourable friend to
one of the major areas that have been under consideration, and it is Schedule
IV, Projects Approved for Architectural Planning. There has been a significant difficulty in
the Interlake region. We try to target
our personal care home beds according to the formula of so many residents over
age 75 that are resident in the area, and we have a formula of so many beds per
residents over age 75.
In
the Interlake region, the Interlake region itself has an appropriate number of
personal care home beds. The difficulty
was, they were just terribly distributed to serve the citizens of the
Interlake. There was a significant
concentration of those beds in Selkirk, and that concentration‑‑and
I will be very blunt‑‑grew up over some of those political decisions
that my honourable friend the member for Crescentwood referred to in the time
that there were certain members representing Selkirk who made sure the north
end of the Interlake did not receive personal care home beds, but rather
Selkirk did.
Now, we are doing the recalculation in the
Interlake, and that is leading to some personal care home additions in the west
Interlake and north Interlake region, with Fisher Branch going to get receiving
approval in this capital budget to go to architectural planning for
construction of 30 personal care home beds in Fisher Branch.
If
you take a look at that north Interlake region, the citizens are driving at
minimum to Gimli and often to Selkirk to visit their loved ones who are
panelled in personal care homes in the south Interlake. They are driving long, long distances, which
we found in our survey of the area to be inappropriate, and that will be
incredibly good news for Fisher Branch in the north Interlake.
As
well, Souris and health district has a proposal to make a consolidation and a
shift of beds between Hartney and
So
a long answer to my honourable friend's short question, yes, you will find in
this capital budget a significant commitment to increased personal care home
bed capacity in Winnipeg and in certain underserved areas of rural Manitoba.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, with the 240 beds
planned for Kildonan Centre in River East, just for the record, can the
minister tell us within the city of Winnipeg how it was determined that those
beds should go into those areas of the city?
Mr. Orchard: In terms of our following basically the four
quadrants of the city there were two underserved areas of the city. The north, sort of, old
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I noted under
Schedule III that there is going to be a replacement of the Wawanesa
hospital. I have been in the Wawanesa
hospital recently, in the last two years.
There is no question it needs some changes to it.
My
question would be: Is there any planning
that has been done between Wawanesa and Glenboro hospitals, which is very close
by, any possibilities of any type of sharing of services or with this planning
for upgrading Wawanesa? How was that
done within the context of what goes on out in Glenboro hospital?
Mr. Orchard: There has been that kind of
collaboration. My honourable friend will
note‑‑let us go right back to square one. Wawanesa has developed
now two plans of acute care replacement. They have a very constrained physical
area to redevelop in the location that they are on. That has caused some difficulties and some
trying to rethink of how to configure that.
It was one story. Then it went to
two stories, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly.
This request for approval of architectural
planning is to try and achieve an appropriate design for Wawanesa but also to
give us the opportunity, as my honourable friend suggests, to examine the
affiliation potential with the other areas.
Currently, if my memory serves me correctly, Wawanesa is affiliated with
Glenboro, Treherne and Baldur in terms of a four community joint management
collaboration.
*
(1630)
Certainly the architectural planning, the
design, the initiative is going to try to marry those two concepts of seeing
where there can be opportunities for shared service to make this
redevelopment. It will no doubt be different
than what was proposed, say, even two years ago but in collaboration with the
other communities we hope fitting for the area.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, in these capital
projects I do not see anything similar to what we have in Winnipeg, Fred
Douglas lodge, places that are developed for people who are elderly but they
are not personal care homes. Does the
Minister of Health have any jurisdiction in that area?
The
reason I ask the question is one of the things that has come up in my recent
door‑knocking in the north Fort Garry area is a number of people there
who feel that within the Fort Garry community, although there may be some
personal care homes, they are looking for a place similar to downtown, such as
Fred Douglas, where its apartments are for elderly people but not like the old
kind that MHRC used to develop that are basically really small and only
bachelor suites.
They are wondering, is this within the
jurisdiction of the Department of Health, or is there any type of joint
planning that is done with perhaps private industry or whatever to look at
something like this? What kind of
statistics are there, if the minister happens to have that at hand, in regard to
the
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, as long as I
understand the question my honourable friend has posed, our responsibility in
terms of these Estimates we are debating right now are on the provision of
personal care homes, the choosing of sponsors and the operating funding
budgeting process. When you move beyond
that into the elderly persons housing, that goes over to the Manitoba Housing.
There has been in the past sort of‑‑when
I came in, in 1988, the thought process between the two ministries was that we
ought not to even locate elderly person housing juxtaposed to the personal care
homes, because it would establish a preferential flow. That was the concern from the EPH over to the
personal care home.
There were some pretty persuasive arguments
made by‑‑I cannot remember the chap's name, and it was just because
I was not thinking of mentioning this‑‑but in south St. Vital,
Meadowood Manor, probably was one of the leading administrators in terms of
saying, look, this is an opportunity to enhance both without compromising the
integrity of free and equal access to the personal care homes.
We
concurred, and since then a number of facilities have put EPH next to personal
care homes. You will note that in
Springfield‑Oakbank it is the exact opposite. It is an elderly persons housing to which we
are juxtaposing a personal care home this year.
We have found that the affiliation of service and the comfort of knowing
that personal care home is there has probably led residents to live
independently much longer with less assistance, because it is the comfort
factor is the best I can put it.
Last December we cut the ribbon at the Holy
Family. The Holy Family built an elderly
persons housing on the same property as their personal care home, and the
Ministry of Health provided funding to put a link between the two, complete
with activity area and open area for the residents as well as some office space
for administration of those two facilities.
It is just a very excellent working relationship.
Now, to answer my honourable friend's
question, it is not my ministry that makes the elderly persons housing, but we
are collaborating more in terms of direction between Housing and Health,
because there are, I think, some reasonable opportunities maybe even to go
further in terms of looking at where we can make program marriages with our
elderly persons housing. The managers of
social housing have some pretty interesting ideas that they put forward with
the Continuing Care Program, for instance, so if anything we are moving closer
to trying to collaborate rather than maintaining the solitudes. For financial responsibility, Personal Care
Home is mine; the elderly persons housing approval and assessment of need and
those criteria are followed still by my colleague the Housing minister.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I noticed that the
projects approved for construction total about $173 million. Can the minister just briefly outline what is
the status of the projects approved for construction? Are any of the expenditures of those $173‑million
projects coming out of these present appropriations?
Mr. Orchard: The only time that Expenditures Related to
Capital are triggered is when the project is completed, and then as part of the
funding. Let us take the case‑‑which
one do you want to pick? Do you want to
pick one of the ones where we have an increase in Personal Care Home? (interjection) Okay, Kildonan Centre,
River East. When those come on stream,
they will become part of our funding program although, in those cases, the
capital was put up privately so, with them, our operating expenditure will not
appear in Expenditures Related to Capital.
It will appear back in 7.(f) in terms of operating costs.
If
we were to go to Bethel or Donwood Manor, the 40‑bed expansion at Donwood
Manor, there will be a portion of the Donwood Manor's guaranteed capital appear
in the Personal Care Home Program principal repayments to, okay, and then,
naturally, an increase in terms of program budget under the Personal Care
Home. The similar happens with a
hospital where there is an upgrade in a hospital like, for instance, Grace.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank the minister for that
explanation. Can the minister indicate
how much the Central Biomedical Waste Disposal Facility will cost and when it
will be completed?
Mr. Orchard: We do not have solid figures that I can share
with my honourable friend, but it is going to be a fairly expensive
facility. I will give my honourable
friend a better guesstimate later on, but here is an opportunity that we are
investigating so that my honourable friend gets a sense of the biomedical waste
planning.
Biomedical waste that we are looking at right
now, although there are a number of technologies that are currently being
advanced for biomedical waste, it seems as if the high‑temperature burn
method is probably the most consistent and the most proven. Others certainly may have potential, but they
may be risky in terms of new technology and anyone who brings new in that area
might run into some cost he did not plan on.
So
current thinking is high‑temperature disposal and heat recovery from the
high‑temperature burn. That heat
recovery, we believe there is an opportunity for an approximate annualized
saving of $1 million on heat recovery costs because we are coming to the end of
our useful life in some of our laundries.
Now, if we have to replace our laundries, we think there is an
opportunity to marry those two facilities and do the heat recovery for use to
offset operating costs in our laundry.
So the biomedical waste is being considered in conjunction with the
opportunity to recycle heat from high‑temperature burn into hot water for
our laundry service.
*
(1640)
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister give me an outline of when
the completion date is? I am unclear at
this point as well.
Mr. Orchard: We are probably six months away from having
that functionally designed so that we know whether there is integrity to the
proposal to move it to architectural drawing.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
Madam Chairperson: Item 9.(a) Health Services Insurance Fund ‑
Principal Repayments (1) Hospital Program $41,264,100‑‑pass; (2)
Personal Care Home $10,151,400‑‑pass.
9.(b) Health Services Insurance Fund ‑
Equipment Purchases and
RESOLUTION 21.9: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $61,674,300 for Health, Expenditures Related to Capital,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
10.
Lotteries Funded Programs.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, does the minister have a
breakdown from (a) to (f) with the amounts of dollars that have been spent, any
further breakdown of how those dollars are spent other than what is listed here
in the Estimates?
Mr. Orchard: I will go from memory. Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation is to
assist them in undertaking a number of projects in terms of analysis, similar
to the low‑birthweight baby, similar to the hospital efficiency. It is studies that they are undertaking on
behalf of the ministries.
The
Children's Hospital Research Foundation was a commitment that was entered into
probably 10 years ago, where St. Boniface Research Foundation, then Health
Sciences Centre, then Children's were going to receive support for their
research activities from Lotteries. I
believe that it fell in that order: St.
Boniface first, Health Sciences Centre second, then Children's was third. I am
not sure, but I think this is the last year of that multiyear commitment that
is about 10 years old.
The
Manitoba Health Research Council is our ongoing funding commitment to fund
their research activities. They have a
significant number of projects that they fund with
Health Services Development Fund is the casino
revenues. A major portion of the monies,
the $9 million, will flow to cover the APM contract that we will be discussing
no doubt later on. That is $3.9 million of the $9 million. Then a number of other initiatives that have
either last year, second‑last year or new funding will flow from the
balance of the casino revenues of $9 million to the Health Services Development
Fund.
Evaluation and Research Initiatives, we do not
have specific projects identified this year to undertake expenditure of this
$174,900. As we sit now we do not have
specific projects earmarked.
As
I mentioned earlier on, the Special Hospital Requirements is to assist the
retirement, in part, of deficit incurred at the two teaching Hospitals on
Information Systems, the HIS project.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us
with the Evaluation and Research Initiatives who approves those projects or
initiatives?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I would give the ultimate
approval on the basis of recommendation from my deputy minister.
Madam Chairperson: 10.(a)
Resolution 21.10: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $18,781,700 for Health, Lotteries Funded Programs for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
Item 1.
At
this time I would request that the minister's staff please leave the Chamber.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, as I indicated earlier on, I
have a copy of the proposed residential charges for my honourable friends. Now remember, fellows, if I get cut back, you
are going to have to chip in.
Would it be appropriate to thank my honourable
friends for their contribution?
Madam Chairperson: 1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 21.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $13,907,600 for Health, Administration and Finance, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
This concludes the Estimates for the
Department of Health.
What is the will of the committee?
An Honourable Member: Take a 10‑minute recess.
Madam Chairperson: Take a 10‑minute recess? That is the will of the committee? Well, then, at 5 p.m.‑‑
An Honourable Member: Private members' hour.
An Honourable Member: So there is no use calling in the staff.
An Honourable Member: We could recess until 4:59, and then you can
announce Labour, and it will be five o'clock.
Madam Chairperson: We will recess until 4:59.
The House
recessed at 4:50 p.m.
After
Recess
The House
resumed at 5:03 p.m.
LABOUR
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): This section of the Committee of Supply will
be dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Labour. We will begin with a statement from the
minister responsible.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Madam Chair, I will continue on once this
committee reconvenes at the allotted hour.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour, I am leaving the Chair.
This committee will reconvene at 8 p.m. to deal with the Estimates for
the Department of Labour.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, on House Business, I would like to announce that the Standing
Committee on Economic Development will meet on Tuesday, June 29, at 9 a.m. to
continue consideration of Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and
Compensation Management Act. I look to
the table officers to advise us to which committee room that will be scheduled
for. I believe this committee will meet
in Room 255.
I
would also like to announce that Bill 39, The Provincial Court Amendment Act,
is to be added to the list of bills being considered at the Standing Committee
on Law Amendments, which has been called for Tuesday, June 29, at 7 p.m.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 38‑Video
Lottery Terminals
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
WHEREAS the provincial government has
installed video lottery terminals in facilities across the province; and
WHEREAS the original projection of revenues
resulting from the placement of video lottery terminals was estimated at
approximately $2.5 million; and
WHEREAS the actual revenue generated from
video lottery terminals has reached approximately $7 million in the first year;
and
WHEREAS the provincial government had originally
indicated that all funds generated from video lottery terminals would be
returned to rural
WHEREAS the Union of Manitoba Municipalities
has called for the return of the revenue generated through video lottery
terminals to municipalities outside the city of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba urge the government of Manitoba to consider returning all
funds now raised through video lottery terminals to rural Manitoba and applied
to rural economic development.
Motion presented.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I read through this
resolution when it was first prepared, and look at the figures of what video
lottery terminals are raising now, we see that it is a tremendous, much greater
amount than was ever anticipated. But it
is just as important now, whether the revenues are larger or smaller than
anticipated, that this government keep its promise.
The
promise that they made, the promise that they used to sway rural Manitobans to
allow video lottery terminals to be installed, was the promise to reinvest all
money raised from video lottery terminals in the rural communities back into
economic development in rural
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has
failed in keeping its promise to rural Manitobans. They said all money would come back, and
instead they are putting that money into general coffers, not returning it to
rural Manitobans. They did make a token
commitment to rural Manitobans when they returned portions of it; 3.5 million
was returned out of $31‑million profit.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a very small
amount of money that is being returned.
They also did return some money to some 506 organizations across the
province, an amount of $540,000. By
putting that money back into the organizations, the government is admitting
that their video lottery terminals are hurting the fundraising efforts of many
organizations. Many groups are feeling
the impacts of having the video lottery terminals in their communities. We have seen that in many, many communities.
We have had many organizations tell us that their revenues have decreased.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has
not listened to municipalities.
Municipalities asked for 25 percent at least. They did not get that amount of money. If you look at the numbers, they got maybe
about 10 percent of the revenues that is being generated.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if this government
believes in rural
But
when we look at what this government is doing in other areas, we know that they
have broken many promises to rural Manitobans.
I want to refer to my own constituency where they have broken several
promises. They have broken the promise
on Repap, where they promised us many jobs, and we have got nothing. They promised the people of
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very important that money that is taken out of
rural Manitoba go back into rural Manitoba, and that we do have some job
creation there. The money is used to
improve the quality of life in rural
I
know that the minister will tell us about the REDI funds and the Green Team
funds, and granted, that money is going back, but the point is that all money
that was raised from video lottery terminals in rural
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is
looking at video lottery terminals as a way to raise money but not looking also
at the consequences of having those machines in the rural areas. I had the opportunity to visit some of the
communities, some very small communities, and I invite members opposite to come
out to those communities and see what the impacts of the video lottery
terminals are.
In
particular, I visited the community of Camperville, which is, as you may be
aware, a community of a low economic base, but also a community that does a
fair amount of fundraising within their community through bingos. When this government put the video lottery
terminals into the neighbouring community there has been a dramatic decrease in
fundraising revenues in that community, basically very little money.
Also, the people in the community are very
concerned about what the impacts on their families are by having these machines
in such close proximity to their community.
They are concerned on what the impact is on other businesses. Parents in the community are concerned that a
tremendous amount of money is going into video lottery terminals and children
are suffering because of it.
This government has a responsibility to do a
review of what the impacts of the video lottery terminals are on families and
on communities, but they are not taking that step.
*
(1710)
When this resolution was first introduced,
Madam Deputy Speaker, it was near the time when we had the municipal convention
and at that convention many of the municipalities raised these very
concerns. They raised the concerns that
money was being drained out of them. For
example, the community of
Yes, the community has received a per capita
grant. Although we are told it is an
unconditional grant, now municipalities are required to report back to the
government on how that money will be spent.
That does not appear to be completely unconditional. Councillors, mayors
and reeves expressed a great amount of concern about the fact that money was not
being returned. I would suggest that some
of the members go out into those communities and hear what they are saying.
An Honourable Member: You are out of touch, Rosann.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister across the way tells me that I
am out of touch on this issue. I am
afraid I have to tell him that he is out of touch on this and a few other
issues.
I
have just been into the communities, Madam Deputy Speaker, throughout my
constituency, and I can tell the minister that in the community of
This government is not keeping its
promise. It is a very simple promise
they made, and we would expect that they could keep that promise. They did not realize how much money they were
going to make, and now they look at the rural communities as a cash cow that
they can keep draining and draining and never mind putting back in.
How
can a government with so many rural representatives, a government that says
they believe in rural communities, take such action and break such a basic
promise, a promise to return revenues back?
That is really what people want.
Let
us put that money back into the communities.
Let us have infrastructures. For
example, we are waiting for this government‑‑again I refer to
They say that they are going to put money back
in, but they are not, and they are also not improving services in rural
There are other instances that we see of that,
Madam Deputy Speaker. For those people
who come from rural
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Yes, the government has returned some of the
money to the communities, but not nearly what they should be doing. If, in last year, there was $31‑million
profit from video lottery terminals, why have we not seen $31 million in
economic development? Why have we not
seen that money not necessarily distributed back to municipalities, but
invested in rural Manitoba, to improve the quality of life, to improve services
in rural communities and, more importantly, to have some job creation, first of
all, to have services so that those young people who want to come back can come
back to the community, but also to have some jobs in the rural communities.
But
what we have this government doing is cutting back on jobs. It goes completely against what they had said
on the decentralization. We were
supposed to see improved services, improved job opportunities in rural
So
I urge the Minister of Lotteries (Mrs. Mitchelson) or the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach) to look at this resolution very carefully, and I urge
them to support it as well. If they are
at all committed to rural
As
the members across the way should know, it is a desperate situation in many
rural communities. We need economic
development. We need jobs; we need
economic growth. This government has the
opportunity to show its commitment to rural
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Acting Speaker, I rise this afternoon to address this resolution tabled by the
member for
The
NDP believe that the only way to solve a problem is simply to throw money at
it, and then you raise that money by simply taxing Manitobans. There have been no substantial alternatives
provided by the opposition in terms of how we can address some of the real
challenges that are before us not only in rural
*
(1720)
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I am proud of the record that our government has with regard to
rural
I
know that members opposite find it a little bit embarrassing when they see what
some of their counterparts are doing in other parts of this country. When they look at the plight of the New
Democrats or the used‑to‑be New Democrats in Alberta they
recognize, I believe, although they do not want to admit it, that indeed the
New Democrats in Canada are in big trouble.
Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, it is no different in rural
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I would like to, just for the sake of the record, give some
indication of what has really happened in rural
First of all, it was this government that came
to the assistance of farmers in rural
I
live on the border of
An Honourable Member: And what party is in power?
Mr. Derkach: Which government do we have in
So
let the member take note of a program like that and the amount of money that
has gone into it. We have put over one
hundred million dollars into this program over two years. That shows a true commitment to agriculture,
to rural
Let
us move on, Mr. Acting Speaker, to other programs. Let us look at my own department, the
Department of Rural Development, and what we have done to help rural Manitobans
over the course of the last few years.
First of all, we established the community
round tables, and we have about 41 active community round tables across
Well, let us move on to the Grow Bonds
Program, Mr. Acting Speaker. The Grow
Bonds Program again was initiated by this government to help communities invest
money that is in the bank accounts of their communities into projects within
their communities.
Our
job, as a government, is to make sure that we are ready to help them in any way
we can. We are not going to go out there
and find projects for rural communities.
That is up to the rural communities to do. We have seen four projects come forward which
are creating jobs in rural
Let
us move on to REDI. This is where we use
video lottery monies‑‑Grow Bonds, round table, REDI. What has REDI done for rural
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I can tell you that under the REDI program we have had
something like 200 applications come forward to this department, and of those
200 applications there are many that have already been initiated and are
already investing in their communities.
Now, there are other programs as well. We just announced a REA program at the Rural
Economic Development forum, and we said that we would put a million dollars
into a rural entrepreneurship program.
To date we have got enough projects on the table that would use up the
entire million dollars that we set aside for that program. That shows you that rural Manitobans are
interested in programs that we develop.
They are taking advantage of them, and they are making their communities
grow. It is that money that is being put to use, money that is gained from
video lotteries.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, Manitobans also said that we should be putting money to fight
the deficit, the deficit that was largely created by the members on the
opposite side of this House. They are
the ones who created the debt that today we have to pay the interest on. So we have to use video lottery money to pay
for that debt, and rural Manitobans understand that. They are saying, yes, use that money to pay
for the deficit that you have because, indeed, we cannot expect our children
and our grandchildren to pay for that debt.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I do not know how much time I have. I have about five minutes, and I know that is
not enough time for me to try and elaborate on all the programs we have. But let me say that we have another program
under this government which has helped rural communities in terms of their
infrastructure. It is the PAMWI
agreement that was struck between the federal government, the provincial
government and municipalities. Something like $30 million, provincial dollars,
is going into that program to help rural communities get their infrastructure
back into a condition where it can be used.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I can talk about the Downtown Revitalization programs that we
have entered into agreements with two communities, one being
So
we can go on and on and talk about the kinds of initiatives that have been undertaken
by this government to help rural communities, least of which are programs like
Distance Education which is extremely important for a small community.
It
was not the government opposite, nor was it the NDP government when they were
in power who put in Distance Education programming, not at all. They never had a vision of that kind. We had
the vision to put Distance Education into rural
Mr.
Acting Speaker, we said that we thought we would have about $5.3 million coming
in as revenue from video lottery terminals.
A lot more has come, and we have put that money where it should be
placed, to fight the deficit, but we have not abandoned our commitment to
ensure that money goes into rural
Now
I think the member for
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I can tell you that there, at these meetings, we have an
opportunity to talk to municipal councillors, to talk to reeves and mayors, and
then they can tell you the real story. I
stand up at those meetings and I give them a presentation and then I open up
the floor for questions and also comments.
I can tell you, to date, there have been very positive comments that are
coming back to us.
So
because of the positive things that have happened in rural
*
(1730)
So,
Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson)
THAT Resolution No. 38 be amended by deleting
all of the words following the first "WHEREAS" and replacing them
with the following:
The
provincial government has installed video lottery terminals in facilities
across the province; and
WHEREAS the original projection of revenues
resulting from the placement of video lottery terminals at approximately $5.0
million; and
WHEREAS the revenue generated from video
lottery terminals reached $30.8 million by December 31, 1992, as reported by
the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has tripled
funding for rural economic development initiatives; and
WHEREAS $3.5 million of video lottery terminal
revenue will be transferred direct to local governments in rural
WHEREAS the citizens of rural
WHEREAS 65 percent of video lottery terminal revenue
will be allocated to deficit reduction in 1993‑94.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba commend the government of
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Reimer): In reviewing the proposed amendment by the
honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), seconded by the
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), after due
deliberation and consultation, the amendment is in order.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
I
think that what we have failed to do in this province, as they have failed to
do in other provinces of various political stripes, is to re‑evaluate
what we are doing with gambling in the province of Manitoba and, indeed, in
this nation of ours. I am becoming more
and more concerned that we are encouraging our citizenry to spend money in a
way which in no way is productive. It does not create wealth, except for those
very few people who win at odds which are disproportionate to any real and
genuine opportunity to win. The odds
are, for the most part, ridiculous, and if most citizens knew, I suspect, their
odds of winning, they might indeed be very reluctant to spend the money they
are spending.
But
whether it is bingo, whether it is slot machines, whether it is casinos,
whether it is VLTs, the odds are always with those who own the machines. They are never with the individuals who are
gambling, and I become concerned when I am stopped, as I was not too long ago,
by the owner of a restaurant in Minnedosa who says that he has watched children
falling asleep at their mother's feet while the mother is pushing money into
the VLTs, children who should have been home for naps.
I
become concerned when I know that charitable organizations, some of which I
have volunteered for and given support to, tell me that they will get a bingo
night on the night that the social allowance checks come out, because if it is
the night that the social allowances checks come out, then they can be
absolutely guaranteed a good run, that it will be a big bingo night, so they,
in getting their profits, will do better.
All
of this kind of activity is promoted by government. The government says we want to promote this
activity, because it adds to our coffers.
It gives us additional revenues, additional monies to spend, and that is
true. All governments across this
country, no matter what their political stripe, are participating in gambling,
are paying for advertisements to encourage people to gamble, and are using
those revenues as part of their Consolidated Fund to fund programs.
Some will say that is good, it is a new form
of taxation, but there is, I think, a morality issue here. Should this be what government is promoting
as a form of taxation? Should government
be promoting people to spend their money that should legitimately, I think, be
spent on their children for food and clothing, should we be encouraging them as
a government to spend that money on VLTs or bingo games, lottery tickets? I must say that I think not.
An Honourable Member: Do not make decisions for people.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine) says you cannot make decisions for people. You cannot tell them how to spend their
money. That is quite correct. You cannot.
But
if the government does not put the machines into bars, if the government does
not build bingo halls, if the government does not come up with one lottery
scheme after another lottery scheme, then the people do not spend their money
that way.
An Honourable Member: Who is that restaurant owner from Minnedosa
you were talking to?
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, I see that the member for Minnedosa (Mr.
Gilleshammer) wants to know and, of course, he knows full well who the
restaurant owner is since it was a candidate who ran against him in the last
two election campaigns.
That is not the point here. The point is that we have never in this
province sat down and evaluated the impact, positive and negative, on
gambling. We have never as a Legislature
engaged in a thorough debate on its strengths and/or its weaknesses. We have never, Mr. Acting Speaker, stepped
back and said, is this is a good thing for governments to do in balance or is
it not a good thing for governments to do in balance? That is where I think we have failed to meet
the requirements within our society.
This is not to be put at the blame of one
political party or another political party, because I can quickly point to
*
(1740)
I
would like to see an independent group and committee either of this minister's
choosing‑‑I do not have any particular difficulty with that‑‑who
would in fact take on the mandate. There are positive articles on
gambling. I just read a review this
weekend in The McGill News in which two economists at the
I
think we owe it to our citizenry to step back and do that kind of evaluation of
looking at the positives and looking at the negatives and coming up before we
continue to add more and more and more of the machines, of the gambling
casinos, of the super palaces, if you will, that we have just opened on Regent
Avenue and to say, is this the kind of structure we want in our society? Is this the kind of thing we want to
encourage our young people to do?
I
do not watch a great deal of television, but one of the things that disturbs me
greatly is when I turn on the TV and I see an ad, and I think they say‑‑I
call them the freedom ads‑‑somehow or other, because you win a
lottery, that is going to make you free.
Winning lotteries does not make anybody free. It may give them some
money, but it does not make them free. Freedom comes from inside. It does not come from the amount of money
that you can spend.
I
am not naive. Obviously, if you have
more money you probably can lead a little higher quality life than if you do
not have money. But if you are looking
for instant happiness and instant freedom from winning a lottery, that is not
where it is at.
In
fact, if you look at the studies of people who have won lotteries, many of them
have turned their life into an absolute misery, because they have had a number
of individuals who have approached them for money. They do not know how to deal with it. They have experienced family breakdowns,
because they have achieved these riches too quickly without the background of
knowing how to invest them appropriately.
They feel as if people have stolen from them, when in fact that may not
be the case. They may just have made bad investments.
Winning a lottery does not guarantee
anything. It does not guarantee
happiness; it does not guarantee freedom.
Yet that is the message that comes out in the ads. All of a sudden you can have the big
wonderful house, the grand piano. You
can have the bicycles for your kids, all of which are material possessions and
all of which I do not think any of us would suggest makes for the most
satisfactory happiness of any human being.
An Honourable Member: Do they not help?
Mrs. Carstairs: Oh, I said a few minutes ago, when you were
busy signing your letters, Mr. Minister, that in fact in some circumstances
they could help, but they do not provide that freedom that we seem to be
encouraging within our young people. That is the group that I am concerned about.
What kind of a signal are we giving to
children? Are we saying to young people,
you know, the government spends very little‑‑no government does, by
the way‑‑saying to young people, you have to stay in school, you
have to get well educated, you have to improve your grades, there will be
rewards if you achieve academic success.
We spend very little time.
What does our youngster see watching
television? Instant success is achieved
by winning a lottery, not by hard work. Surely, as a government the signal we
should be giving out is, no matter what your talents or your abilities, nobody
achieves anything without hard work.
That is almost a contradictory response to what we see in an
advertisement about winning a lottery, because winning a lottery takes no
work. It just takes a dollar or a two‑dollar
or a five‑dollar or a ten‑dollar bet, and all of a sudden you have
instant success.
My
concern is about the kind of signal that we are giving to young people, the
erosion of values that we are providing to young people. I think all of us should evaluate that kind
of expenditure and that kind of promotion on the part of government.
There are many debates which take place, I
think, in all political parties about this particular issue. Some are in favour; some are opposed. Some think it has economic value; some think
it has none. Some think it is a tax on
the poor because the lottery ticket costs the poor person as much as it costs
the wealthy person. The reality is, what
we have not done as people who have been elected to serve Manitobans is to do
that evaluation and to say to Manitobans, what do you think?
I
did a survey of my own constituency. Let
me say first of all, Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not a valid survey. When you send out a card to your constituents
and you get 700 of them back, you do not know what the others are thinking, so
it is not a valid survey. I want to make
that very clear. I did ask the question: Do you believe that it is good for the
government to be adding to the amount of gambling that Manitobans are
participating in? In my constituency, 74
percent of the respondents said no, that they did not believe that we should,
in fact, be expanding the amount of gambling in the
So
it is an indication of how people feel, that they want us to re‑evaluate‑‑and
I made it clear that government was in fact using that money for government
programming. The member for Sturgeon
Creek (Mr. McAlpine) says: Do we know
the alternative? We do not know what the alternative is. We do not know, for example, that if all of
those people who are putting money now, presently, in rural communities into
the VLT machines would in fact be still spending that money, but they would be
spending it on other goods and services in that community. That we do not know.
We
do know that millions and millions and millions of dollars are being pumped
into VLTs. We can only assume that those
Manitobans who are now gambling with that money were probably spending that
money in the past, because the rate of savings in
So,
yes, the provincial government may have more dollars to spend, but local businesses
have less money to spend, because their monies have been put into the VLT
machines and half of that money has ended up in the Consolidated Fund of the
government.
So,
Mr. Acting Speaker, I think that it is time that we did the kind of evaluation,
and I would like to see it nonpolitical. I would like to see representatives
either from all political parties in this House or outside so that there is not
any, I am holier than thou because I am a Liberal or you are holier than thou
because you are a Tory or they are holier than thou because they are NDP. That is not the kind of evaluation we
need. We need an evaluation which will
be done in the best interests of Manitobans.
Ms. Wowchuk: I am disappointed that the government should
choose to amend this resolution just to congratulate itself for the work that
it has done. This resolution was
intended to encourage the government to fulfill a promise, a promise that they
had made to reinvest money in rural
*
(1750)
The
minister talks about having been to many municipal meetings and people being
very supportive of the government's actions.
He forgets to mention those municipalities that met last year who were
very disappointed and had passed resolutions asking the government to keep
their promise. That is what we were
trying to do in this resolution, to encourage the government to keep their
commitment to support rural Manitobans.
Now
the minister, in his comments, outlined many areas that the government has
supported in rural
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
The
minister talks, in his resolution, about taking 65 percent of the money from
video lottery terminal revenues to reduce the deficit, and he talked about
where the deficit came from. He has not
admitted that it is his government's management, the government that he serves
in cabinet on that has created the biggest deficit that this province has ever
had‑‑$862 million.
They are going to take video lottery terminal
money to pay down the deficit. Perhaps
they should look at how they are managing this deficit. Perhaps they should look at how they are
running this province and what they are doing for job creation.
If
people were working in this province instead of being on welfare, which appears
to be what this government is prepared to spend their money on, we would have
people who are working, people who are paying income tax. We would have economic activity. We would have money to pay off the deficit. They would have money, but this government
just believes in keeping people on social assistance and keeping control of
people and not improving their status in life, not taking any steps for job
creation and getting the economy going.
If
they did some of those things, Madam Deputy Speaker, we would not have nearly
the deficit that we have, but this government is not managing well at all. They have created the biggest deficit in the
history of this province, and they think they are going to cure it on the backs
of video lottery terminals. Well, they
are wrong. They have to do much more
than take money from video lottery terminals to pay off the deficit.
I
am disappointed that this government has not looked at alternatives to
gambling, and they have not reviewed the impacts of gambling. They have not looked at what the impacts are
in many of the small communities.
The
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) has said that, when he was at the
municipal regional meetings, those people were very happy with what was
happening by this government. Well, I
will tell you he is talking to many different people than I am. He is not addressing the concerns or
listening to the concerns of some of the people in the very remote communities
where there are no jobs, but there is false hope built up by video lottery
terminals. Money is going into those
machines, and this government says, to pay off their deficit, to pay off their
bad management.
Perhaps if this government wanted to address
the real issue of how revenue‑‑maybe, they should be looking at a
fairer taxation system. Rather than
trying to pay off the deficit through video lottery terminals, maybe they
should look at the taxation system and addressing that part of it. Instead, they are trying to clear off their
bad management and their deficit costs on the backs of the poor. They are cutting out on Student Social
Allowances. They have cut off the dental
program. They have cut out ACCESS. They have cut out supports in many areas. On
seniors, they have cut back the tax credit for seniors. They are trying to correct their
mismanagement of the deficit on the backs of those who can least afford
it. That is what they are doing.
They have not looked at the impacts of the
gambling. Nobody is saying that there
should not be gambling in this province. What we are saying is that there
should be a review. Look at the impacts
of what is going on before you expand any further. But this government is all gung ho on
expanding, thinking that they are going to make more money on these video
lottery terminals and not looking at the impacts of people.
They are not looking at the impacts on the
small communities and on many of the people who can least afford it. You have to look very seriously at this. Is this a good idea? The government, instead of reviewing, as we
have asked for many times, the impacts, there is no action being taken.
I
am disappointed that the Minister of Rural Development has amended this
resolution, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we brought it in just trying to
remind the government of a promise they had made. You know, we would like to see governments
keep their promises, and as I say, this government has broken many of them to
rural Manitobans.
They have broken the promise on video lottery
terminals. They have broken their promise on decentralization. There were many communities that were
promised jobs by this government, and they have failed.
In
my constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, they have broken more promises. The whole Repap deal was the biggest failure
this government ever had. That is what
they ran on in the last election, promising jobs to the
All
they are doing is supporting a company and not thinking about the promises they
made to the
Then, they are not listening to the people of
rural
An Honourable Member: Where have you been?
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister asks where I have been. I have talked to many municipal councillors.
An Honourable Member: Where?
Ms. Wowchuk: Across the province. I may not have attended the regional
meetings, Madam Deputy Speaker. I may
have had other commitments, but I have talked to many municipal councillors
throughout the riding, and they are not happy with this government in what they
have done.
They have not listened to the
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed that the minister would not take the
advice that we have given in this resolution seriously, because he should
listen to what Manitobans are saying when it comes to video lottery
terminals. He should also be listening
to the other words that rural Manitobans are saying.
They have said many times that this government
has let them down. They have not come
forward with the jobs they have promised.
What they have done is, in reality, reduced
services in rural
When I look back at other areas that we have
talked about, they have made promises, but not kept them, Madam Deputy
Speaker. So I think that the Minister of
Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) says that he has been listening to rural
Manitobans, I would advise him to go back out into that rural community and
really talk about video lottery terminals, and they will tell him that they did
expect this government to keep their promise.
When they said that money generated from video lottery terminals would
be invested back in rural
We
thought that the government would keep that commitment, but they have not, and
we are disappointed.
But
I would hope that in all of this also, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the
government is considering what they should be doing that they will also review
the impacts of these video lottery terminals on the people and also on the
communities where they have had their ability to raise funds for their various
organizations reduced tremendously.
So
I urge the government to think about what they are doing. If they are draining
this tremendous amount of money out of the rural that‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before this House,
the honourable member for
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) for
the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr.
Pallister) for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).
I
move, seconded by the member for St. Vital, that the composition of the
Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be amended as follows: the member for Gimli for the member for St.
Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); the member for
Motions agreed to.
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., I am leaving the Chair
with the understanding that the House will reconvene at 8 p.m. in Committee of
Supply.