LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
OF
Monday, June 14, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
I must advise the House of the fact that Mr. Speaker is not available,
and I would 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. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Isabel Acheson,
John Pelletier, Loreen Stevens and others requesting the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it
was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition (Ms. Cerilli), and it complies with the
rules and the practices of the House. Is
it the pleasure of the House to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Madam Deputy Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition (Mr. Maloway). It complies with the rules and the practices
of the House. Is it the will of the
House to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
* (1335)
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Ashton). It complies with
the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the state of Highway 391 is
becoming increasingly unsafe; and
WHEREAS due to the poor condition of the
road there have been numerous accidents; and
WHEREAS the condition of the road between
Thompson and Nelson House is not only making travel dangerous but costly due to
frequent damage to vehicles; and
WHEREAS this road is of vital importance
to residents who must use the road.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Chomiak). It complies with
the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of
Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has
considered certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to
sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Jack Reimer (Acting Chairperson
of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Mr. Speaker,
I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments presents the following as its
First Report.
Your committee met on Wednesday, June 9,
1993, at 7 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Your committee has considered:
Bill 6‑‑The Real Property
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biens reels
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT clause 2(b) of the bill be struck out
and the following substituted:
(b) by adding "and takes effect from
the day the instrument is assigned a serial number" after "district
registrar".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 52(3.1), as
set out in subsection 3(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out
"presented for registration or entered in the data storage system,"
and substituting "assigned a serial number,".
MOTION:
THAT Section 5 of the bill be struck out
and the following substituted:
5
Subsection 72(4) is amended by striking out "exercisingthe function
of a notary public or having jurisdictionor authority as a notary public in
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 7‑‑The Builders' Liens
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le privilege du constructeur
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 8‑‑The Insurance Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendment:
MOTION:
THAT the English version of Section 7 of
Bill 8 be amended by striking out "of" where it occurs for the second
time.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 12‑‑The International
Trusts Act; Loi sur les fiducies internationales
Bill 19‑‑The Court of Queen's
Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
Cour du Banc de la Reine et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres
loi
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for
Motion agreed to.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 43‑The
and Consequential
Amendments Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I move
(on behalf of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship
(Mrs. Mitchelson)), seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay), that Bill 43, The
Motion agreed to.
* (1340)
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Barley Marketing
Plebiscite
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister (Mr. Filmon).
Mr. Speaker, we were visiting some of the
rural communities over the weekend as the Premier was in
Many producers are saying they should have
the ultimate say on whether there will be changes to the Wheat Board in terms
of barley. There should be a plebiscite,
something that has been said before by producers.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier
(Mr. Filmon): Will he be calling on the Prime Minister‑designate to have
a plebiscite to determine the manner in which we are going to be dealing with
barley, as many farm groups have stated, or is it going to be business as usual
in terms of the unilateral action of Charlie Mayer, as reported by the former
Prime Minister in the country?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the member has asked that
question before in the House. I think
farmers do want an opportunity to choose what they do in running their
business. Whether the Wheat Board is
selling in the
In addition to that, one of the member's
colleagues attended the Gate to Plate Conference in February in
Mr. Speaker, this opportunity is
there. If the member is worried about a
plebiscite, there will probably be one before the end of the year called the
federal election.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, anybody living in
Western Canadian producers whom we
listened to over the weekend and have been listening to for the last number of
months want to have a direct say in their marketing board and not have it
determined by 95 seats in
Barley Marketing
Premier's Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): I read the text of Kim
Over the same weekend, Brian White has
been critical of Charlie Mayer in dealing with unilateral actions. He says it is unacceptable for the federal
government to be dealing with these changes in this way, on both the Crow rate
and the changes on orderly marketing of barley in the Wheat Board.
I would like to ask the Premier: Will he be taking a position at the First
Ministers' meeting with the new Prime Minister‑designate to have a
plebiscite for western Canadian producers?
Will he be taking a new style of inclusive politics to that First
Ministers' meeting, or is it going to be business as usual with Charlie Mayer
and the same kind of action for producers as we had with Brian Mulroney with
Kim Campbell, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite read the entire text of the speech,
he will know that there was no reference to fishing. There was no reference to forestry. There was
no reference to mining. There was no
reference to oil. There was no reference
to many things.
Obviously, there was discussion about the
big picture, about the future, about
Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, I will always
seek an opportunity to talk about consensus, to talk about bringing all parts
of the country together, and will indeed look forward to an opportunity to co‑operate
with my fellow Premiers as well as the new Prime Minister and look for common
solutions that meet our needs and our problems throughout all of the regions of
Canada.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I guess only the Canadian people
will ultimately decide whether the Prime Minister‑designate was talking
about the big picture or whether that in fact was the last picture in terms of
the Mulroney policies.
I was disappointed the Premier did not
tell us whether there would be a new change in terms of involving western
Canadian producers on some of these very important issues.
Barley Marketing
Government Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Again, Mr. Speaker, Brian White goes on to
say over the weekend that he was absolutely shocked that he and other federal
Conservative M.P.s were received by Charlie Mayer‑‑‑in terms
of the treatment they received from Charlie Mayer. It was brutally frank. It was not a productive meeting. We came out of the meeting, with our own
federal Minister of Agriculture, absolutely shell‑shocked because he was
not willing to wait and discuss this issue with farmers and the people.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon): What position will the Premier
be taking to the First Ministers' meeting on the method of payment that has
major implications for producers? It has
major implications for railways. It has
major implications for communities in rural
What position will the Premier take to
that meeting on that very important industry for
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the transportation question of
method of payment has been around western
The Crow benefit was put in place for the
benefit of western
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of
discussion on the topic. Some people
obviously identify that the development of the livestock industry is going to
be inhibited by maintaining the present method of payment and that changing the
method of payment will increase the opportunity to diversify and value‑add
on farms in rural
I have a lot of confidence in the panel
chairman that has been appointed by Mr. Mayer‑‑Dr. Ed Tyrchniewicz,
a graduate of the
Mr. Speaker, many other good western
Canadian and eastern Canadian citizens will be appointed to that panel. They will analyze the information that is at
hand and determine a course of action that will be good for the further development
of western
Firearms Control
Pellet Guns
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I would like to know what the provincial
government's policy is on the use and acquisition of pellet guns in the
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, we here in Manitoba have strong concerns, as
reflected in the views stated to us by members of the public, about violence in
general and youth violence in particular. There has indeed been an escalation
in the level of and frequency of violent offences being committed in
We were able to achieve another review‑‑the
last one was back in 1989‑‑of all aspects of the Young Offenders
Act.
But we ought, also, Mr. Speaker, to look
beyond just the Young Offenders Act, because that is only one part of the
picture when we are dealing with young offenders, and perhaps I can deal with
that further in response to the next question.
* (1350)
Ms. Barrett:
I appreciate the information and the update on the Young Offenders Act,
but given the fact that the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code in the
province of Manitoba deal right now with offences after they have occurred, I
would like to ask the minister what his government is prepared to do, what
steps he is prepared to take immediately to remove pellet guns from the hands
of young people, which has a potentially harmful, if not fatal, impact.
What immediate steps is he prepared to
take provincially to deal with this explosive issue?
Mr. McCrae:
The honourable member wants me to respond
directly to the question about pellet guns and, you know, Mr. Speaker, pellet
guns are one dangerous item, as are kitchen knives, as are guns, as are
slingshots, as are various utensils, if I may call them that. When they are used in the wrong way and by
the wrong people, they become dangerous weapons.
Any young offender accused of a crime, and
that crime has included the use of an article like that, is dealt with very
seriously indeed by my department and hopefully by the judiciary.
Ms. Barrett:
Mr. Speaker, what assurances can this government give to the people of
Manitoba that they will in effect do anything about this particular issue of
pellet guns, when six months ago the City of Winnipeg and this opposition asked
the Minister of Justice to investigate the possibility immediately of having
knives be unacceptable and illegal when carried in public? That was six months ago. We have heard nothing from this minister.
How long is it going to take for this
minister to do something about this particular issue, and who is going to‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. McCrae:
In asking her question about this, the honourable member fails to take
note that before this government came into power in 1988, no government before
us took serious stands on issues related to violence in our society. It is honourable members on this side of the
House who have made the reduction and elimination of violence in our society a
high, high priority for us as a government.
I could talk chapter and verse all
afternoon, Mr. Speaker, about measures this government has brought forward to
deal with violence in our society. The
honourable member sometimes misses the point because we have significant gun
control measures in
That is very bothersome, so I think the
time has to come when we deal very seriously with those people who would do
those kinds of things. That is precisely
what we are doing here in
Federal-Provincial
Relations
Transfer Payments
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
Now that that other leadership race is
over, the Premier this morning has heralded in a new dawn, he says, a new dawn
in relations between our government and the federal government.
I want to ask the Premier, taking him at
his word on this very important occasion where we are rebuilding this
relationship, what assurances he received from Ms. Campbell before signing on
to her camp.
It is now over and she has been
successful. Presumably, he had some
criteria which he based his choice on.
My question for the Premier‑‑for instance, an urgent matter
for her was reduction of the deficit. (interjection)
Surely the Premier did not just jump on the bandwagon of the perceived
frontrunner. He must have had some
criteria. He must have gotten some
assurances from her in his position as the Premier of Manitoba.
My question for the Premier: Did he receive assurances, for instance, that
this province would not be penalized in a further reduction of transfer
payments given that Ms. Campbell has indicated she wants no deficit within the
next five years? Can the Premier tell
us, did he get a commitment from her with respect to any further reduction of
transfer payments to this province?
* (1355)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
I would think that a question that talks about party politics and
federal issues, Mr. Speaker, is totally out of order. It is a very silly question, and for somebody
who has been in a leadership race, I would like to see the written commitments
he made to the 810 people who voted for him.
If he is willing to table those, I will answer that question.
Mr. Edwards:
Ms. Campbell is the Prime Minister‑elect of this country. This is the Premier. He was on TV yesterday, schmoozing with her.
I am asking him, in this new relationship,
this new dawn, what commitments has he received that this province will be
treated fairly? He said in December of
1992 that he was absolutely disgusted.
He said he unloaded a litany of complaints about this province's
complaints with the federal government.
What will the new era bring for our
province? Did he receive any commitments
when he was there from the new Prime Minister with respect to transfer payments
to this province, which is a matter of very serious interest to all Manitobans? Did he receive any commitments that this
would not be the way that this new Prime Minister seeks to balance the books?
An Honourable Member: No‑schmooze Paul.
Mr. Filmon:
I think all the schmoozes are in that party, Mr. Speaker.
I think the member opposite has his tongue
firmly planted in his cheek when he asks these questions.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about party
politics here in Question Period. This
may‑‑(interjection)
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will get
a chance to judge the wisdom of my choice as an individual member of my party
for the leadership of the party during the forthcoming election. He may be very concerned, as I noted most of
his federal colleagues were, about the selection of Ms. Campbell, because I am
sure she represents a tremendous threat to them.
When I see Sheila Copps and Michael Kirby
there tearing her down, I know exactly what is going to happen. They are scared silly that, of course, they
are going to lose the next federal election.
The member opposite will have a chance to join with Mr. Chretien and the
tired old bunch to see whether he can help them form a government.
Mr. Edwards:
Let me just say, for very partisan reasons I am just thrilled that Ms.
Campbell won the election yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
ACCESS Programs
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): My final question is for the Premier.
Just 10 days ago, the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) complained on the record that the federal government
had unfairly changed the way that ACCESS grants were to flow in
Can Manitobans now expect, in the new era
of fairness and the new dawn of relations, that will be reversed and that type
of punishment to this province in the past, as the minister has called it, will
cease?
* (1400)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, the new Prime Minister of Canada is an individual who is committed
to the inclusiveness of the political process and decision making within the
federal government. She is committed to
the kind of consultative and broadly based discussion when she arrives at the
policies and the decisions of her government that I think will be healthy for
this country in future.
I am sure, whether it is the Minister of
Education or any other member of our government, they will be able to contact
the new Prime Minister and to make their views known and to involve her in
discussions that are of concern to Manitobans.
I believe that in the long run, her election will, indeed, be an
opportunity to build some bridges and gain a greater awareness of
Northern Freight
Assistance Program
Reinstatement
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Minister of Natural Resources
or perhaps to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Northern Affairs.
In
Mr. Speaker, this current crisis affects
the income of literally hundreds of families in northern
My question to the Minister of Northern
Affairs is: Can he explain to this
Legislature and to the fishermen in northern Manitoba and the communities they
represent why this government has refused to take this matter seriously and
take this crisis seriously and meet with the fishermen to find a way to address
the problem, which may include reinstating the entitlements under the northern
fishermen's freight subsidy program?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of
Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that
this government takes very seriously all the concerns of the people of the
North and all of Manitoba as it relates to their job opportunities, their
income and any difficulties they may have.
The specifics of the question, Mr.
Speaker, I will take on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns).
Fisheries Amendment
Act
Consultations
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, on a related question, this government has introduced
legislation which will allow for the sale of fishing quota.
My question to the Minister of Northern Affairs
and the Minister responsible for Native Affairs is whether this government can
tell the Legislature and the people of northern
Hon. James Downey (Minister of
Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I will again take that question
as notice for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns).
Mr. Storie:
This is the Deputy Premier and the Minister responsible for Northern
Affairs. Mr. Speaker, this government is
about to sell out the birthright from northern fishermen, northern communities,
and he has not consulted.
Withdrawal
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, my question is: Will
the minister then request the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) or the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) to suspend this legislation, withdraw this legislation,
until community fishermen's associations and fishermen have a chance to understand
the repercussions of this legislation on their livelihood and their future?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of
Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me, at the outset, say that
the Minister of Natural Resources and this government have worked extremely
well with the northern communities in relationship to co‑management
agreements, in relationship to the proper use of resources, and I will take the
question as notice as it relates to the specifics of which he has asked.
Health Care System
Kidney Dialysis Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, on June 1, when the member for
Now, reports in the media, Mr. Speaker,
and a letter from the heads of the program at St. Boniface Hospital and Health
Sciences Centre indicate there is a serious problem.
Can the minister assure this House that
alternatives are in place to reassure the families and the patients who are
undergoing this very traumatic experience, Mr. Speaker, that they will not be
dislocated and they will not suffer the repercussions of this government's
actions?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my honourable
friend's question. I appreciate it
because I do not think there have been too many areas of program within the
hospital system in which we have dedicated more initiative in an attempt to
provide more service than in the dialysis program.
Over the past two to three years, despite
that fairly substantial increase in resources as well as locations in which
dialysis is available closer to home for Manitobans, we from time to time,
despite best efforts of the system, run into circumstances unpredictable in
terms of new patients having to access that service.
Mr. Speaker, when that happens, we attempt
as best we can to provide the service as close to home as possible, but there
are circumstances from time to time that do require stable dialysis patients to
visit another centre in the province that may not be at capacity, and those I
think are fairly reasonable requests to make on a temporary basis.
However, Sir, the concern about having to
uproot their families, et cetera, and move out of province is not something
that any Manitoban on dialysis should have concern about having to do, as may
well be voiced in concern over the program.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, that is the same response the minister gave on June 1.
I will ask the minister: Will he assure this House that proper
arrangements will be put in place for these patients in
Mr. Orchard:
Well, Mr. Speaker, to help my honourable friend understand the sincerity
of the commitment we have made to dialysis in the province, maybe I might share
with my honourable friend a recent clipping from the Portage Daily
Graphic. The headline is: New dialysis unit a blessing for kidney
patients.
This is an example of the expansion under
this government that I have mentioned.
The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) I
know would have in his files similar headlines from the Thompson newspaper
which had‑‑(interjection)
Well, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is not exactly accurate with some of
his comments from the seat. The expansion of the program in Thompson took
substantial commitment of operating budget, as does kidney dialysis wherever it
is in the province.
This
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, the minister's response is quite unfortunate.
My final supplementary to the
minister: Will the minister assure this
House that this problem will not keep recurring insofar as last year there were
clawbacks and cuts to the hospitals?
This year, hospitals are facing more than $20‑million cuts in
their budgets, and that will directly impact on programs like this.
Will this minister give us assurances this
year that this will not happen again, that there will not be longer waiting
lists still because of the $20‑million cuts in hospital budgets?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, I know I must have not heard my honourable friend correctly
when he said it was unfortunate in my answer when I referred to expanded
capacity in
I hope my honourable friend did not
consider that to be unfortunate, because that is exactly, if my honourable
friend thinks about it, what he is requesting this government to do to attempt
to provide meaningful and improved access to dialysis.
Mr. Speaker, let me share with my
honourable friend a couple of circumstances.
This year, we have undertaken 34 transplantations for kidney dialysis
patients. That is a higher rate than we
have ever achieved in a similar period of time in any calendar year. That takes people off dialysis, but, still,
despite that and despite the increased capacity that the
Mr. Speaker, we are working within a
number of initiatives, including a recent round table discussion on the whole
issue of dialysis and nephrology, as far as improvement of management of the
system and services, what we can do within the system to make it work more
effectively for those who need care.
* (1410)
Health Care System
Kidney Dialysis
Services
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):
Mr. Speaker, as we heard today in the House, there are certainly grave
concerns about the
Could he tell us, with that analysis, if
it was done, did his department put some plans into place so we would not be in
the situation that we are today, where in fact some patients may have to
receive treatment away from their home community or out of province?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my honourable
friend's question, because in direct response to this dialysis initiative‑‑which
I might say we have been very supportive of, even from opposition. It was the encouragement of my colleague the
Deputy Premier in opposition who finally got staffing budget so the dialysis
machines that were purchased by the Kidney Foundation for
We have been working and urging resolution
of dialysis closer to home for the last seven or eight years with some
substantial success, Sir. The Thompson
initiative is certainly helpful to those residents who had to dislocate from
northern
Mr. Speaker, in reference to my honourable
friend's question about an analysis, yes, this year a round table was held on
nephrology and on kidney dialysis to see how we can manage the resource within
the system in a more appropriate fashion to serve those Manitobans needing this
type of care in a better fashion.
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Health could tell this House if in fact
there was discussion and there were some decisions made on how this problem can
best be managed, could he then tell the House, what is the solution, what his
department decided as far as management, because obviously there is a problem
and there are people who will have to go elsewhere for their treatment?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, my honourable friend makes the point that there is inconvenience in
the system. That is correct.
Surely my honourable friend from the
Liberal Party would concede, that for the individual in Portage la Prairie who
instead of driving to Winnipeg to receive dialysis, having it in Portage la
Prairie closer to home, where the husband drops her off at work in the morning
and picks her up at noon on the way home for lunch, is a much more convenient
initiative for the individual. That is
what we have been working on.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we are
expanding in the very near future, it is hoped.
You do not do this instantly or overnight, but we have very active plans
to increase the number of patients who can be served in
In addition to that, Sir, we are
investigating the possibility of increasing the capacity, for instance, at
Morden, where the dialysis unit has been in operation for several years.
Ms. Gray:
With all of these suggestions the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has
proposed, can he tell this House and then tell Manitobans, when can we expect
some of these suggestions he has mentioned put into place so that in fact we
alleviate some of the concerns of dialysis patients?
Mr. Orchard:
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would have appreciated that question on May 18 when
the Portage Graphic indicated the expansion in
My honourable friend could have asked the
question in somewhat laudatory terms of coming to grips with the problem and
establishing a new centre with new capacity to serve people closer to
home. I know my honourable friend could
have thanked the government on behalf of northern Manitobans, because I do not
think the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was quite laudatory about the
expansion and the bringing of a brand‑new program to northern
Mr. Speaker, this issue will constantly be
before us, Sir, because it is a program that has been growing and growing and
growing despite best efforts of transplantation, despite increased budgets,
significantly increased budgets over the last five years and significantly
increased capacity to carry on the program.
Government Support
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):
My question is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, over the past three years, we
have asked many questions concerning the government's plan for Clearwater Lake
Nursery in The Pas, but, unfortunately, for the people in The Pas and area, we
have received very few answers.
Again, today, I would like to ask the
Minister of Northern Affairs, given that the nursery in The Pas, which employed
as many as 40 people most summers in an area where more jobs are needed‑‑why
did this minister and this government not support the nursery? Where is this new growth the government was
talking about last week here in the House, or is that new growth happening in
Hadashville?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of
Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the specifics fall under the
Department of Natural Resources, but I would say though that when we took over
office from the previous administration, which he found favour to join, there
was something like 90 percent unemployment in many of the northern and remote
communities.
This government has taken action on the
resolve of the Northern Flood difficulties, putting monies into those
communities, creating economic opportunities for the communities.
As it relates to the
Mr. Lathlin:
My second question is again to the Minister of Northern Affairs.
Since over 30 people work there most summers,
I want to ask the minister whether the job implications for The Pas and area
were taken into consideration when the decision was being made to quietly close
the nursery without even warning the community?
Mr. Downey:
Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous administration and their management of
the Manfor cutting operation, the changeover to Repap and the replanting of
trees which was going neglected under the previous administration, we have
taken action for major replanting programs.
In fact, in committee the other night, we identified a major replanting
operation with the
Again, as it relates to the
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Beauchesne's
Citation 417 states very clearly that:
"Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the
matter raised and should not provoke debate."
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you, if
the minister does not know the answer to the question and is taking the
question as notice, all he has to do is stand up and say, I take the question
as notice.
We do not need the debate and irrelevancy
we just heard from the minister, and we ask that you call the minister to order.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I had no idea
the honourable minister was taking the question as notice, and I believe this
question actually has two answers now.
The honourable minister has attempted to
answer it and according to the honourable opposition House leader, who said,
should deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate, I believe the
honourable opposition House leader is quite correct, that the honourable
minister was attempting to provoke debate, was not dealing with the matter
raised, and I would bring the honourable member to order.
* * *
Mr. Lathlin:
Mr. Speaker, would the minister explain to the House here just exactly
how it is that it is more efficient to throw more than 30 people out of work in
The Pas and ship seedlings from the South to the North? Should trees cut in the North not come from
seedlings that are grown in the North?
Mr. Downey:
Mr. Speaker, without taking objection to the comments you made, the
member has asked me to explain something, and I do not believe I have time in
the answer.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to
seedling operations, under this Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and
this government, there have been major seedling contracts left with the band at
Portage la Prairie which started up a nursery in a private way, giving job
opportunities for aboriginal people in Portage la Prairie outside of government
operation, employing the people whom he continues to speak on behalf of.
Again, we are interested and extremely anxious
to see everyone with a job opportunity in this province, wherever it is, and
particularly as it relates to the aboriginal community. We have worked very hard in that area.
* (1420)
Water Conservation
Plan
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, this government claims to support and to have a commitment
to sustainable development, yet it continues to support the unsustainable use
of water. The Minister of Environment in
Estimates admitted that not having a water conservation program before the
diversion of the
Can the minister tell the House why there
was no program for water conservation in place before this government accepted
the proposal for the
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): The member chooses to misrepresent the
situation that surrounds the‑‑you do not like that word, Mr.
Speaker? Let me withdraw that word‑‑
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable minister.
Mr. Cummings:
‑‑and indicate that I am appalled that the member would
choose to reflect on this program in such a way that makes it look like there
is not a lot of work being done in putting together the needed development
plans that surround that river, so they know what they are doing in terms of
the water retention and the demands along the river, because there are a lot of
demands that are traditional uses of that river that are all part of the
consideration going before the commission, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell you the member is doing a
disservice to reflect on the work that is going on out there right now in the
way she has.
Ms. Cerilli:
Mr. Speaker, the number of demands is the reason why we are asking for a
basin‑wide review.
My question to the minister though was,
why was there no conservation program in place to this area before the proposal
was accepted for the
Mr. Cummings:
Mr. Speaker, I would be a little curious what the member is referring to
when she says no conservation plans in the area. The sustainability of the uses on that river
is of a primary concern. If she is
saying that we should go back and maybe do something about the diversion that
protects this city from the ravages of spring floods, I hope that is not the
kind of thing she has in mind.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
I move, seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for Swan
River (Ms. Wowchuk), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic
Development be amended as follows:
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen); Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)
for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), for Tuesday, June 15, for 10 a.m.
I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): I move,
seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
Motion
agreed to.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would move,
seconded by the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the Chair and that this House resolve itself into a Committee to
consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion presented.
Mr. Praznik:
Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask as well if you could canvass the
House to see if there is a willingness to waive private members' hour?
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into
a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the
Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Jack
Reimer): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This afternoon, this session of Committee of
Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of
Education and Training.
When the committee last sat it had
considered item 4.(c)(1) on page 39 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
when we were last together the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) asked for some
statistics on the Churchill Northern Studies Centre, the year, the number of
full‑time staff and the number of students at that time. I would like to table that.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I want to ask some general questions
about what fuelled the government's decision to transfer to a loans‑only
policy.
I wonder if the minister could tell us
about the growth in demand for student assistance over the past‑‑well,
whatever is reasonable to provide, about the last three or four years, whatever
is available from her staff here at the moment.
What percentage increase has there been in the applications for student
aid?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, from 1986 to 1993, the increase of
assistance to post‑secondary students is $4,874,700 or 72 percent. The average yearly expenditure increase is 12
percent. That is for the Manitoba Student
Financial Assistance.
* (1440)
In the member's broader question, the
issue was, what was taken into consideration in the decision of changing from
the bursary to the loans program? One of
the things that we had to look at was the amount of money that was
available. By continuing to put more and
more funds into it and to provide a bursary, there still was only so much money
available to provide assistance.
By moving to the loans program, we now do
not have to look at in any way limiting the number of students who would
receive Manitoba Financial Assistance or limiting the amount to enable more
students. In this way, students who have
the required need and who meet the criteria would be able to access the money
that they need.
Ms. Friesen:
I appreciate that information, but it was not, of course, the question I
asked.
The question I asked was, what was the
percentage increase in applications over the last few years? We are talking about an issue of need. The issue of increase in amount of money spent
would perhaps also reflect the increase in fees, particularly at universities
over that period of years, and also, of course, the increase in costs and cost
of living, of rent, bus fares, bus passes, that kind of thing, on which some of
these elements of bursaries were based.
So what I was looking at was the question
of the increased percentage of people who were applying.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, certainly I did take into consideration all of
the issues that the member asked about and had hoped that she had made
reference to. We certainly are aware of
all of those issues and certainly consider them. With that in consideration, that is why I
provided for the member the increase in the amount of money, the percentage
increase in the amount of money that had been given into that particular
program, and I thought that would help the member if she understood the support
that was being provided to post‑secondary students.
In terms of the question she has just
asked, there has been an increase on the Canada Student Loan year over year of
approximately 3 percent per year over the past four years. From '91‑92 to '92‑93 in the
applications for the bursary loan rebate, there was an increase of 15
percent. Now, the increase may be due to
students applying earlier for this assistance than in previous years, and we
will get the percentage of actual bursary loan rebates granted from that
increase in application. We are just
working on the figures.
Ms. Friesen:
Does the minister want to wait until those are ready? I will ask another question perhaps then
while we are waiting.
There are a number of programs across the
country which, under bursaries and student financial assistance, make special
cases and have special programs for students with disabilities.
I wonder if the minister, under this
program or any other program, has considered special bursary relief, loan
rebates or some kind of program which would take account of the extra costs
that disabled students face and also their greater difficulty in finding
employment after graduation.
Mrs. Vodrey:
I just would like to answer the member's previous question first. I had told her that the number of
applications for
In terms of the actual awards year over
year, I can tell her for the last four years:
'89‑90, the actual awards went up 9.5 percent; '90‑91, they
went up 15.2 percent; '91‑92 to '92‑93, they went up 18.7
percent. I beg your pardon, that would be
from three years; four years, year over year.
The total, over those years, then, the increase is 49.7 percent.
* (1450)
Then the member has asked about any
assistance that
Approximately 23 students per year have
qualified, and the amount varies because sometimes students have asked for
support for things such as a hearing aid, and in other cases, they have
required assistance for the purchase of special typewriters or other equipment
to help them in their studies.
Ms. Friesen:
Is there any special consideration for disabled students after
graduation, taking into account the greater difficulty they have in finding
jobs?
Mrs. Vodrey:
In terms of the Canada Student Loan, there has not been any special
considerations made, and in the area of Manitoba Student Financial Assistance,
in our new program, we have not made any special assistance at the moment,
although I will remind the member, as we discussed the last time, we were
sitting on this issue that Manitoba does provide the six‑month period in
which we continue to pay the interest, whereas Canada has said that it will be
moving to remove that period.
Ms. Friesen:
I recognize the distinction the minister is making, but I am also
looking at programs in
I wanted to know, did the minister
consider this in her new loan program?
From the sound of it, it is as though it has been rejected, but I wonder
if it was considered and rejected and for what reasons.
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, at this time, in looking at the first
year of operation coming up for our Manitoba Student Financial Assistance and
our change into the loans‑only program, we looked at the amount of money
that we have available to service the loans, and so we will be looking in the
first year at the costs to Manitobans in terms of the new program.
What the member has said is a point to, I
would say, be considered again as we look at the situation that we find
ourselves in, in the following year and following the first year of the
program.
Ms. Friesen:
Is the minister suggesting then that there will be a formal review, an
informal review, any reports tabled, and what is anticipated at the end of this
first year of the program?
Mrs. Vodrey:
We will be looking at an internal review of our program because we would
like to, first of all, look very carefully at it in its first year of
operation. We also will be looking for
any changes which might occur under the Canada Student Loans Program. We have been waiting for some time for any
changes to be announced and particularly changes in the area of benefits.
When we receive any information on what
So, for two reasons we would be looking
internally: one, completing the first
year as we will go into the first year of operation, and then, two, if
Ms. Friesen:
Those changes to the Canada Student Loans Program are creating, and
deservedly so, a great deal of anxiety among students and educational
institutions. We have talked about this
before. The Canada Student Loan,
essentially, their regulations are the gatekeepers of this program. They are setting the guidelines by which
people in
There are two rumours that are
particularly disturbing. One is the move
to 80 percent course enrollment before any applications can be accepted. Manitoba, as the minister knows, has the
highest rate of any province of students in employment, what students sometimes
think is part‑time employment but which seems to me to be far too
frequently full‑time employment, and they try and fit their courses and
their programs around that.
I think
So each of those is very disturbing for
educational institutions. Some of them
have particular import for students in
Are we looking at changes that are going
to be made before the next academic year?
Are we looking at changes by the end of the next fiscal year? Has the minister got any sense of that kind
of timetable?
Mrs. Vodrey:
As the member has said, these are rumours, and therefore I cannot
provide her with any more information on the rumour. In the area of time line,
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
I have a number of questions that I want to raise with the minister
dealing with this section and particularly relating it to the students in the
BUNTEP program.
I had a chance last week to meet with a
group of some 27 students that are in the BUNTEP program in Lynn Lake, and I
can tell the minister that one of their ongoing concerns was the continuing
changes in support and assistance available to BUNTEP students generally and a
concern about the commitment to the BUNTEP program in particular.
My first question, I guess, relates to the
allowance that the BUNTEP program offers the seven students in
It is my understanding that originally the
province was providing significant support and that as of this year the allowances
were reduced some $3,000. I am wondering
whether the minister can share with us any sort of analysis that was done that
would have justified reducing the support to this particular group of students.
* (1500)
I do not know whether the minister has had
a chance to visit with some of the people who are involved in the BUNTEP
program. I do not know if she has had a chance, for example, to visit
I had a chance to have those students
share their particular circumstances with me and for the many single parents,
for the many individuals for whom this is a last chance, the people who have, because
of the circumstances in
I guess my first question is, what
justified the reduction of that $3,000 in students' allowance?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, as the member said, he was out last week
and we passed this line last week. This
line of questioning falls under the ACCESS programming. We did have some thorough discussion, which
is all recorded in Hansard, around the ACCESS grants and around the amount of
funding available and about how much each student is eligible for.
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are under the Student Financial
Assistance, and I understand that the people who have had this reduction‑‑well,
the minister is shaking her head. I hope
that some day she will genuinely develop a concern for the students who are
involved in programs like BUNTEP. It is
easy to say, well, I am sorry, we passed that last week. That is not good enough for the people in
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey:
On a point of order, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. The member was travelling in
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): The minister did not have a point of order,
but I would ask the committee if there is a willingness to revert to that line.
Mr. Storie:
On a point of order, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. This section is
Student Financial Assistance, and if the minister does not understand what this
branch does, perhaps I will read it into the record for her. It says‑‑
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): I would point out that the member for Flin
Flon did not have a point of order.
* * *
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): I would ask the committee whether there is a
willingness to revert to item 4.(b) Access Programs.
Mr. Storie:
With all due respect, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I want to read to
you and to the committee the objectives of this branch. Student Financial Assistance Objectives: To increase, through the administration of
the
If the minister would have been kind
enough to wait until the second part of the question, she would have understood
that I am relating this cutback in support to the BUNTEP students through the
BUNTEP program, to the Manitoba Student Financial Assistance Program. I am asking the minister to justify
transferring what was support to individual students back into a loan that the
government may or may not make individual‑‑(interjection) If I may continue to ask the question that is
directly related to this particular item in the Estimates process, and that is
the Manitoba Student Financial Assistance Program.
My question was, how, what evidence, what
process did the minister use to justify eliminating a $3,090 allowance provided
through the BUNTEP program and turn it into a loan program that may or may not
fit the needs of these students?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The questions were answered last week when the line was covered. There was a full explanation. The member might like to refer to Hansard.
Point of Order
Hon. James Downey (Minister of
Northern Affairs): I think it is obvious that the minister has
answered the question a week ago, dealt with this line in the Estimates book,
and we should proceed to carry on with the Estimates that are before us.
The minister has every right to not
respond at this time. It is a matter of
having dealt with an issue and not reverting back. We will never get through the Estimates of
any of the government departments if we keep going back and forth and not
proceeding in an orderly manner.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): The honourable minister did not have a point
of order.
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of
Government Services): On a point of order, I was also here when it
was being discussed. We go to great
expense in Hansard to record everything that happened previously, and I suggest
to the member that he go back and read those particular questions that were in
during that discussion.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): The Minister of Government Services did not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, with all due respect, this is the Student
Financial Assistance line in the Estimates. It deals with the Manitoba Student
Financial Assistance Program.
My question was, why did the minister cut
back on the student assistance available through the BUNTEP program by some
$3,000, and why are students now being told to apply through the Student
Financial Assistance Program when that may not in fact suit their needs? This is an additional burden. It is a reduction in support and what was the
basis? What informational basis was used
for that reduction in support?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, I can say to the member that all of the issues relating to BUNTEP
were covered under the appropriation before this. They were covered under the ACCESS program.
The member asks about any reductions which
had taken place to some students in that area.
I discussed the numbers fully. I
discussed the reasoning fully in the last week when we covered that particular
line.
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I can tell the minister that the students
in
When the BUNTEP program first started, the
concept was to provide support for those people who would not otherwise have an
opportunity for an education. This
particular branch, the Student Financial Assistance branch, is supposed to be
that branch which provides that alternative for these people.
The fact of the matter is this government
has slashed and hacked at every educational program in the province. They took $16 million out of the public
school system. They have cut the
Manitoba Student Bursary. They have cut
the Student Social Allowances Program.
They have cut ACCESS programs by 11.2 percent. They have cut support to students in the
BUNTEP program and similar programs, and you will understand if the students in
These were exceptional programs. They have been around for 20 years. The Student Social Allowances Program is
perhaps the best example. The government
did absolutely no homework on the efficacy of that program, and it looks like
there are going to do the same thing to the BUNTEP students.
* (1510)
All BUNTEP students after 1991 have had
their allowances cut. The government
originally told BUNTEP students that existing students in the program would
have their benefits and their allowances grandfathered. The government has now reneged on that
promise.
So you will understand why the current
students, the students that began only a few months ago in Leaf Rapids, or
I am concerned because as it stands now,
the BUNTEP program is only supporting seven of the 27 students in the
program. If the students do not come
with other resources, with other financial resources, support from other areas,
there are going to be fewer and fewer people who can take advantage of the
opportunity that these programs present.
My question was related to the
government's decision to cut $3,000 of support and apparently ask students to
apply under Student Financial Assistance Program. My question is, is the minister guaranteeing
that these loans will be available? Is
the minister going to ensure that after these loans have been made available
they can be supported by the students themselves? Are there going to be no special
considerations for the circumstances that these people find themselves in?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, again, the answers that the member is seeking
are all fully answered in Hansard from last week, but let me also tell him, I
do not know whom he spoke to at
Mr. Storie: I did not say they were students. I realize that the students in
Mrs. Vodrey:
I do not think the member is really displaying any understanding of what
has occurred.
There were some students who were
grandfathered. Of 712 students, it was a
small number of students who were grandfathered. He somehow leaves on the record an impression
that there were more, that it was all students.
In fact, there was an unequal number, but
I would refer him to Hansard. The issue
was fully discussed in Hansard last week.
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not have to refer to Hansard to know
that the minister did not provide one shred of objective evidence to suggest
that this program was going to be enhanced by the government's cutting student
allowances‑‑not one shred of evidence.
If the minister can now put on record what
objective evidence she has to suggest that this kind of cutting and slashing is
going to benefit BUNTEP students, then I would be pleased to hear it.
Mrs. Vodrey:
The questions were fully answered last week.
Mr. Storie:
According to the people who asked the question, this minister has not
answered fully a question since the Estimates began.
Certainly, the people taking the BUNTEP
program in
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey: On a point of
order, Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, there has not been a refusal. I have referred the member to exactly where
he can find the answer. The question was
fully answered last week.
* * *
Mr. Storie:
Unfortunately, the students in the Lynn Lake BUNTEP centre only met with
me last week, and their concerns are obviously different from most other BUNTEP
students, given the fact that this BUNTEP centre is the latest and the only one
that has opened since 1991.
The students want to know the
justification for eliminating $3,000 in support; that is what they want to
know.
Mrs. Vodrey:
I have checked with the staff.
Again, to remind the member, he has spoken again about
Mr. Storie:
The fact of the matter is that they received a lower level of allowance.
They were not grandfathered, because
grandfathering occurred after 1991. This
is the only BUNTEP centre that has begun since 1991. The students in
Well, perhaps the minister would care to
repeat it for the benefit of the students in
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess
perhaps we need to discuss the principles that underline the assistance that
the province provides. It seems to me
that, since this government and particularly this minister assumed
responsibility, what we have seen is a continuing reduction in the means for
students to get financial assistance to pursue their education.
I am wondering whether the government, the
minster has considered any alternative ways of financing programs, such as
BUNTEP, than the few that are currently proposed, which is the Canada Student
Loans and the Manitoban Student Financial Assistance Program.
Mrs. Vodrey:
As I discussed last week, the funding available to students through the
ACCESS programs and the total amount of money which would be available under a
series of categories provides a student with up to $10,600 on an average. It can be more than that, in fact. Following that, students may then apply for
the Canada Student Loan, which, again, is supplementary; and then following
that, students may also apply for Student Financial Assistance from
The member speaks about the BUNTEP program
in particular, a program which leads students to a professional degree, a
professional end to their course of study, and that is similar in the
supplementary supports to all other students in
Other students, all students in
Mr. Storie:
Perhaps the minister can explain why, when I contacted the BUNTEP
office, I was told that a single‑parent student with two children would
be entitled to approximately $284 per month.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, again, we discussed
the details of the amount of money available under different situations when we
discussed the ACCESS programs last week.
The line has been passed.
Mr. Storie:
I understand the government's, including the former Minister of
Education's, sense of urgency in getting this issue behind them. They have been undermining the opportunities
of students in the province for five years, and this minister, unfortunately,
is left holding the bag.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the bottom
line is fewer and fewer students are seeing support from the provincial
government. The BUNTEP program that I
established in Cranberry Portage when I was Minister of Education worked very
well. I cannot take responsibility for
the Lynn Lake Centre. The fact is, of
course, the government of the day watched the community collapse before they
saw fit to establish a BUNTEP center in
* (1520)
The minister rushes in to defend the
indefensible. The fact is there are
fewer and fewer students who are getting the kind of support they feel they
need. This is not coming from me. This is coming from the students in
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the concern
that was expressed to me was that a number of these people are going to be
forced back onto welfare, going to be forced out of the program. The question is, what does the minister
propose to ensure that these students succeed as they want to do, as their
communities want them to do?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, I can tell the member in Hansard of Tuesday, June 8, 1:30,
Hansard No. 78, on page No. 3973, we began the discussion of the ACCESS
programs, so the member might be interested in reviewing the discussion that
took place and following that, I would just remind the member that in terms of
an allowance‑‑perhaps his memory of what is provided for the ACCESS
programs has slipped somewhat, because he may not have remembered all of the
areas which are covered in the ACCESS programs, including tuition, including
rent subsidy.
None of those things have changed in the
grants that are given. All that has
changed is the grandfathered amount, and then following that‑‑and I
have given him the number as I gave to the members who were present in the
Estimates of the Department of Education last week, the amount of funds
available, and I have explained also that students up to‑‑there are
712 students currently enrolled in the ACCESS program, so students on average
are able to access totally in the amount of $10,600. That includes things such as tuition. Following that, as all other students, they
are also able to access other funding, and I would remind the member, too,
there are also students studying in a professional program.
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, when the program began, the concept was
that individuals with limited means, with limited access to post‑secondary
education opportunities, disadvantaged by distance from educational centres, by
remoteness, by culture, by economic circumstance would be given an opportunity.
When this government took over, the vast
majority of BUNTEP students were sponsored by the BUNTEP program. They did not require additional loan support,
first of all, because they could not foresee the possibility of that type of
assistance being useful. Right now, in
the Lynn Lake BUNTEP Centre, there are 27 students. The province is now supporting seven.
The question is, is this government heading
towards a situation where it has no responsibility, where dozens and dozens of
students who would have liked to have had the opportunity are going to be
denied, while others who are more fortunate, who are being sponsored by bands
and other agencies, take over_ What is
going to happen to those people from small communities with limited resources
who need the exceptional support that these programs have offered? Is the government simply washing its hands of
20 students in the
Mrs. Vodrey:
The line has been passed.
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister keeps repeating the line has
been passed. Can we answer the question
for the people in
Mrs. Vodrey:
As I have said, the students who are in post‑secondary programs in
Mr. Storie:
The minister has referenced the fact that some 600
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, under the Student Financial Assistance line, as
we discussed last week also, we certainly provide a priority in terms of the
processing, but those students do fall under the same criterion as other
students in Manitoba, and where there is need, we look to support the need.
Mr. Storie:
I guess the question is, where is the recognition that this program was
designed specifically to support people in exceptional circumstances, that it
is not simply a question of their immediate financial need, that in fact, it is
a question of their life experiences, their concern over amassing debt for
educational opportunities. This program
has never been treated, as the minister seems to want to suggest is now the
case, like every other program.
This has been an exceptional program, and
the needs of the students are exceptional.
I am wondering whether the minister can indicate whether she met with
students in the BUNTEP and the ACCESS programs prior to deciding that these
changes were going to be practical in terms of those programs.
Mrs. Vodrey:
As the member looks back on the line that has been passed, he will see
that the government's commitment is $9.9 million. We have talked also, when we looked at that
line, as he will see when he refers to three days of Hansards for that line,
that we have also had an intake of new students as well. He would have to refer to Hansard to the
number of students covered in that particular intake.
However, we did talk about the importance
of that program, the government's commitment to that program. What I am saying to the member is that it was
fully discussed over a period of three days, and he is certainly able to look
at that. I think he will find all the
answers that he is looking for.
Following that, when we look at this particular line under Student
Financial Assistance, the additional support which students might require is
available to those students under this particular line we are talking about
now, Manitoba Student Financial Assistance.
Mr. Storie:
My question was whether the minister would consider students under this
program as a priority. My suggestion is
that the minister do so, that for these students in particular, because of
their background, in many cases their disadvantaged, in one way or another,
background, they be given special consideration in terms of the relatively
limited number of people who are going to get the Manitoba bursary anyway.
It seems that the government is losing
sight of the goal of the program in its desire to create equity. The minister talks about, well, they will be
treated like everyone else; that was never the point of the program. They, in many cases, come from isolated
communities, require additional support, and that is what the program was
providing.
The minister acknowledged that there are
only seven people who are supported by the BUNTEP program. We are missing a generation of people who
want this additional training, who would be willing and able to come, had the
program criteria not been changed continually by the government.
* (1530)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Our government's commitment to these students has been recorded in the
past week under the discussions that we have had. (interjection) I hear the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) saying
that students will love that.
If the member does care to look up the
information which has been fully discussed and passed by the members of his
caucus, then I think he will see the information which he is looking for.
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know that the minister has put a
significant number of words on the record, but just so the record is clear, let
us say the government's record when it comes to education is fairly clear and
not that commendable, I think. The fact
is that government has cut Student Financial Assistance by 7.3 percent in this
budget. They have cut the
Mrs. Vodrey:
For the member for Flin Flon, I hope he is able to hear this particular
answer on behalf of ACCESS students. I would
remind him that ACCESS students' maximum amount of funding under the ACCESS
program is $16,000; Canada Student Loan, $5,040; Manitoba Government Loan,
$5,040; Manitoba Government Bursary, $5,040.
The maximum amount of funding where students have need is $31,120.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, could the minister tell us how many
people received the maximum funding?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Numbers of students receiving the maximum Canada Student Loan,
9,951. Students receiving the maximum‑‑and
this is last year's figures‑‑Manitoba Government Bursaries,
1,065. The number receiving the maximum
government grant and loan rebate, the third level of assistance last year, was
204 students. In terms of the number of
students receiving the maximum ACCESS, we do not have that number available.
Ms. Friesen:
The issue I was after was, of course, when the minister was saying that
ACCESS students will be eligible for over $30,000 under all of these programs,
so the question I was asking was how many ACCESS students have received that.
Obviously, we cannot answer that because it is a new program. So what is the estimate of how many students
will be receiving that $30,000 that she spoke of? It would seem to me that the number she has
given‑‑certainly it would be less than 204.
An Honourable Member: You cannot answer that question, you do not
know until they apply.
Ms. Friesen:
Well, then you cannot boast about it, can you?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I am not able to tell the member, of those 204
students who received the maximum at the third level, how many of those
students are ACCESS students, again, because we have passed that line with that
information.
Ms. Friesen:
So the estimate then of $30,000 being available for ACCESS students is
an estimate of potential, and the minister does not have an estimated number of
the ACCESS students, or former ACCESS students, who will be applying for that
and who will be eligible.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, again, that number is a possible number. A student may have a need so great that they
may access over $31,000 in a single year.
However, there are many variations to their particular circumstances.
As I have said, and I did put this on the
record last week, where a student in the ACCESS program has extremely high
need, then from the ACCESS program alone, they may be able to acquire
approximately $16,000. That $16,000
would then be looked at as students apply for the Canada Student Loan and also
carry on applying through the other levels, their need in each case.
I believe that is what we have been
speaking about today, is the way any student might receive money from any of
the supplementary programs would be based on the needs assessment and the needs
evaluation according to a criterion. The
criterion is what establishes, again, the sense of predictability for students.
Ms. Friesen:
But I suppose we can at least establish that there will be fewer than
600 students across
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the 600 students was an estimate of students
who may receive the bursary. The member
has been asking how many might be ACCESS students, and we have to wait till we
see what the applications are and what the level of need is. So the projection was, though, total in the
Student Financial area, that there would probably be in the area of 600
students who would qualify for the third level.
* (1540)
Ms. Friesen:
We were speaking earlier of the policies which exist in other provinces
for particular consideration for loan repayment relief for students with
disabilities, and I understand what the minister said, at the moment she has no
policy in this area on this, that is, in the transition to loans; and that she
will review it at the end of the year.
Other provinces also have similar loan rebate relief for aboriginal
students, and, in the case of
Mrs. Vodrey:
As I said to the member, this is the first year of the program coming
up. We will have a look at the costs of
the program coming up. We will have a
look at the students accessing the program coming up, and I have said that we
will have a look at issues as they pertain to the program. I have told her that we will be looking at
that in the coming year.
Ms. Friesen:
Well, I find this rather surprising.
This is not reinventing the wheel.
These are programs which exist in other provinces that do have loan
programs, and here we are in the middle of June. What is it?
Well, six to eight weeks away from the beginning of registration for
post‑secondary institutions. The minister has not yet met with credit
unions. She does not yet have an
agreement with the Royal Bank. She does
not have an agreement with the bankers in general. She has not looked at the question of
students with disabilities. She has not
looked at the question of priority for aboriginal or other students who have
greater difficulty in finding employment.
It seems to me that this is a program in
process, and that it has been hurriedly arranged as a result of program‑‑what
should I say‑‑as a result of the government's determination to
slash its budget rather than upon the needs of
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the member is wrong. She cites a whole list of issues. They were not correct. I have told her about the interim agreement
with the Royal Bank, and so she puts a whole list of issues forward. I would remind her that when considerations
were made‑‑and I have told her today of the increasing amount of
money that this government has put into Student Financial Assistance over the
past three to four years. It has increased at a very large rate, most recently
at 18 percent, and so we wanted to make sure that students in
Had we made no changes to the loan
program, we would have had to look at, perhaps, with the amount of money
available, having students receive funds on a first‑come, first‑served
basis. That would have meant some
students would receive no funding. Or we
would have had to look at limiting very strongly how much money could be made
available as the second and third supplementary step. The member herself might have rather made
that particular choice.
We made a choice on behalf of
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, those options that the minister is
speaking about, I remember that she did use those options in Question Period in
response to one of my questions. This struck me as very odd, a very unusual
response to a question since it was not close to anything I had ever suggested
or discussed. I puzzled about that for
some time.
It seems to me that since those
discussions are not coming from the opposition, they must be coming from the
minister's own caucus, the minister's own colleagues. I can understand why the minister believes
that her solution is perhaps the most palliative of all the ones that she is
suggesting, but she should not try and put those suggestions into the mouth of
the opposition.
Could I continue, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, with some questions about the alternatives, because what we have
here is a program which has been planned very quickly and put into place very
hastily that the options that are there in other programs across the country
either have not been considered or have been considered and rejected for
various reasons. If they have, then I am
always interested in hearing the minister put the reasons on the record.
One of the ones that I found interesting
in my look at programs across the country is the
I suppose the minister watched, like
others did, the video shown by Patrick Boyer at the Conservative
Convention. I unfortunately missed
it. I only read about it in the Globe, I
think it was, this morning, and I believe it began with a student selling
flowers on the streets of
A number of questions I think come out of
that. One is, I want to ask the
minister, did she consider in her planning of this program, which to me gives
every appearance of a very hastily planned program, did she consider a similar
program to
Is $40,000 something that the minister
would consider appropriate, say at the end of a four‑year program? What would be considered appropriate? Is it advisable for students, in the
minister's mind, to take one year out of school to repay the debt and then go
back again? What kind of life path is
the minister essentially advising for those students who are increasingly
finding themselves with $30,000, $40,000 debts, and in the case of some
students I know who locked in their debts, through no fault of their own, at
interest rates of 12 percent and more and who are now in very low‑paying
jobs and are essentially finding themselves on a treadmill of only being able
to pay off the interest?
I am wondering what kind of advice the
minister has, since she has made the decision to move to a largely loans‑only
program and is essentially suggesting to Manitoba students that if you do not
have a family who can pay for you, if you cannot find a summer job, if you
cannot find work during the school year, and now you are only going to be
allowed to take 20 percent of your time in that, you essentially are going to
run up debts. What debt load do we
expect
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, let me start by the range of ideas which
have been expressed by a number of people in terms of options.
The member does not seem to think any of
the options would have been suggested by her particular party. It seems to stand to reason that her party
would blissfully carry on spending money and continue to increase the debt for
Manitobans, so those people who wish to study would virtually have nothing when
they came out. Certainly our children
would have nothing because the debt and the deficit would be so large, they
would not have any hope. It is not hard to come up with an endless number of
ways to spend money, which the member would like to do, not hard at all.
However, what this government has had to
do is make a number of decisions which were difficult decisions to make but
which we believe would still provide students with the funds that were
required, so those students could attend post‑secondary programs. They vary in length, the programs that
students take, as the member may know.
She refers primarily to university programs, and I have attempted over
the course of the Estimates to remind her that students also take a number of
other kinds of programs, as well, which are considered post‑secondary
programs.
* (1550)
The member has asked about a video which
was shown by one of the candidates for the Progressive Conservative leadership
campaign. It is interesting that she was
interested in that particular video and interested in the leadership of our
party, as well.
Yes, I did see the video. I also read the same article that the member
read this morning. The member refers to
a very specific instance that individual chose to reference.
I have no way to speak about that
individual's circumstance. I do not know the individual. As the member may know, Patrick Boyer comes
from
So she might like to have some opportunity
to speak to her colleagues in
The member asks in terms of our
government's plan; I am much more able to speak about our government's plan
than what is happening in
I have also told the member that, because
of our seriousness in this area, we will have a look at the program over the
course of the year. We will look at the
students who are applying; we will look at a number of issues; and we also, as
I have said to the member, have been waiting for the Government of Canada to
announce what changes that they will be making to the Canada Student Loan.
The kinds of changes that the Government
of Canada will make to the Canada Student Loan will then be very important as
all provinces look at their own student financial assistance, because Canada is
looking at the needs assessment, Canada is looking at a number of different
areas. The member has referred to them
as rumours, or rumours that she has heard in particular, well, we are waiting
till we hear definitely from
Ms. Friesen:
The minister makes reference to
One of them, which I specifically asked
the minister about, was whether she had considered any interest‑relief
program for students who, after graduation, were making in the region of
$19,000‑$20,000, which
I did also mention the
Again, what I am suggesting to the
minister is that there are different ways of looking at these kinds of student
financial loan programs, but they appear not to have been considered by this
government. I wondered if they had, and
had been rejected, and if so, for what reasons.
So I think that
Of course, the third thing that Ontario did,
which I think is significant, and which I have raised in the House a number of
times in private members' resolutions last year and this year, is that Ontario
put over $2.5 million into work study programs at the universities, because of
course that is the other side of student loan issues.
Student loans began in the 1960s when
there was a reasonable expectation of students and their families that money
could be earned during the summers and that money could also be earned, to some
extent, by part‑time work during the winter. Both of those conditions are very, very
different now for students in the 1990s.
I am sure that we will see that when we look at the employment rates for
students at the end of this summer.
Those kinds of summer jobs that would pay the fees basically of students
simply have gone, because students now have to support themselves during the
summer. Their fees have gone up and
continue to go up, and the summer jobs are not there in the same number, either
from the federal government, from the provincial government or from private
enterprise in
So I thought the minister's answer was
really not very helpful. I was
specifically asking her about different kinds of programs in other
provinces.
Has she looked at these? Has she made any consideration of them, or
was this simply a determination to cut a line and to reduce it, as we know by
about 1997‑98 there will be about $2 million or $3 million left in this
line without, it seems to us, any kind of consideration of the broader social
needs?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have provided the member with our
reasoning for moving to this particular program. I have also told her that we
will have a look at the students who are applying and that we will be having a
look at our program this year. However,
we are also hopeful that we will hear from the Government of Canada regarding
the Canada Student Loan, which then will have perhaps some impact on our
Manitoba Student Financial Assistance and allow us then to make other kinds of
changes as well.
Ms. Friesen:
The answer then, I assume, is that the minister did not look at any of
these mitigating factors and proceeded on the basis of the desire to reduce a
line.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, as I explained to the member, our goal
was to make sure that students in
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, could the minister then answer my other
question as to what, in her view and in her policy, is a reasonable debt load
for students to carry?
* (1600)
Mrs. Vodrey:
It is very difficult to talk about that issue specifically, because we
have to have some idea of the personal circumstances of each individual
student. The member is asking me to make
some kind of a judgment around the amount of money that might be acceptable to
those individual students and without giving any indication of program or other
kinds of supports available.
Ms. Friesen:
One assumes that students taking a student loan have very few
supports. Does the minister think that
the amount of student loan carried by students should have any relationship to
the industrial wage? Should it have any
relationship to the anticipation of the employment levels, in particular
professional areas? For example, we see
the number of teachers declining in
Mrs. Vodrey:
As I have said to the member earlier, we have determined our program
based on the need of the student. The
need of the student has been a prime consideration.
Ms. Friesen:
I do not know whether the minister chose to misunderstand, but I think
what I said was quite clear. I asked her
what she considered, as a Minister of Education, as a reasonable debt load for
a student to carry. She chose not to
answer that.
The second part of that that I asked was,
had she essentially considered some of the programs that there are in
The issue is very much one of need, one of
need for students who are in programs, one of need which is related to their ability
to find employment afterwards and that varies according to the kind of program
they are in. Has the minister given any
consideration in her planning of these programs, the loan program, of the
various ways in which student needs in
Mrs. Vodrey:
I have explained that our prime consideration was need. The member continues to reference what is
occurring in other provinces, but she references only a very small portion, one
individual point of each of the programs in other provinces. She seems to want
us to not really‑‑not to put on the record on behalf of those
provinces that she seems to be so familiar with what their whole programs
are. I would say that it is perhaps
misleading, one might say, to just use a single point of what occurs in another
province and to somehow assume that then a student might get the same kind of
benefits and perhaps more.
What I am saying to the member is that we
have looked at the amount of money based on need, and that I have told her we
will be looking at this program in its first year of operation. We will be looking at many aspects of the
program, and we felt that the most important area‑‑I can say it
again for the 10th time or more‑‑was to make sure that students
were able to access funding so that they could continue or enter into their
program of study.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, for the minister to say that what I am
putting on the record is misleading, I think, is unwise. I have asked specific questions about specific
mitigating elements that other provinces deal with.
Yes, I am more familiar with
Yes, as the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) says, it would have indicated planning; it would have indicated an
understanding of what is happening in the rest of
To say what I am putting on record‑‑that
is, the interest relief program, the loan rebate program in Ontario and British
Columbia, the program for work study in the universities and colleges of
Ontario‑‑it seems to me what I am putting on record are programs
based upon principles, principles which affect students in Manitoba and which
one would have expected, anyone would have expected, any government in Manitoba
of whatever political stripe to have looked at when they made a transition from
a bursary program to a loan program. So
the issues here are ones of understanding the needs of Manitobans, of
understanding the educational financing picture across
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member has asked for consideration
for the people of
I can tell her I am the most familiar with
the
As I have said from the very beginning,
those students who are the most disadvantaged, we make sure that they are
eligible for the nonrepayable study assistance.
For students who are aboriginal, the
member has spoken about targeted funds available for targeted groups of
students, in her words, and she does, I think, know‑‑perhaps maybe
I could let her know about in Manitoba‑‑that we have the Prince of
Wales and Princess Anne scholarship.
There are also some special bursaries for handicapped students, and we
have also spoken about some of those for those students. The member also has referenced rural
areas. The member may know, in
Ms. Friesen:
But the issue that I was addressing was change. The Prince of Wales
programs and the way in which rural assets are determined is not an issue in
the change that is happening in this department.
Yes, those have remained standard, but
what the minister has done is move from a bursary program to a loan program,
and that is going to have a very long‑term influence upon the kind of
students who will think about university or college or further education in
some way as part of their possible experience.
Again, I have tried to get from the
minister some estimate of what she will be suggesting to students through her
Skills For Independent Living program, for example. What will be a reasonable debt load for
students in particular circumstances?
I have looked for ways in which the new
policies and the new programs had mitigating elements, mitigating factors, for
students across Manitoba who have particular needs, and I find the minister's
responses are‑‑well, they are both predictable and repetitive.
* (1610)
It seems to me that she could at least
acknowledge that they did not look at these elements of other programs. They did not look at what other provinces
were doing, but they simply took one line, slashed it, said everybody is going
to be treated the same and they are all going to go into debt, a debt that
could be crippling for many students and which will also, I think in the long
run, be limiting for the kind of population which we will see in post‑secondary
education institutions in Manitoba.
That, in terms of provincial institutions
and provincial programs, of course, is the real tragedy here. People who, for the past five or 10 years,
might have thought of themselves as possibly having the opportunity for post‑secondary
education will now look at their brothers and sisters coming out of
universities and colleges with large debt loads‑‑$40,000, we do not
know if that is an average or less than average or what we expect at the end of
a Manitoba four‑year program or two‑year program‑‑and
simply will say, well, no, that is not for me; I am going to have to reduce my
expectations.
It will have nothing to do with ability,
have nothing to do with their ability to contribute to
I am looking, from the minister's
perspective, for some indication of thinking about what this could do to the
We have an economic framework policy which
talks about inclusiveness. It seems to
me that this program is in the long run not going to be an inclusive
program. We are already seeing, in terms
of the ACCESS programs, an exclusive kind of program, one that is ensuring that
the vast majority of students who are accepted into those ACCESS programs must
find funding in some other way.
So it is the trend. It is the reasons for this kind of program‑‑the
absence of planning, the reluctance to look at any other province's experience,
and it seems to me, the long‑term impact of this on
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, we have been talking about the member's
familiarity with programs from other provinces, and I wanted to make sure in
the course of this discussion that she was also familiar with the
I would also remind her that decisions had
to be made on behalf of all Manitobans and how much debt all Manitobans can
continue to support. So in making some
of these difficult decisions, we tried to make decisions on behalf of
Manitobans. However, those decisions were inclusive. They made sure that students had access to
funds needed for post‑secondary.
In addition to that, I would just tell
her, on behalf of aboriginal students whom she has spoken about, we paid
$140,000 at $200 per student for the Prince of Wales and Princess Anne awards. There were 1,100 students who received them.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, could the minister tell us what the loan
default rate has been in
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the information on the Canada Student Loan
and the default rate comes from the Auditor General of
The Secretary of State currently has the
information and is analyzing the data in that area by province. They will be providing the information back
to the
Ms. Friesen:
When will they be providing that, because I understand other provinces
already know that?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, if the member says other provinces know
that, I would say she is perhaps right.
Our information says that is very surprising, but on behalf of
Ms. Friesen:
Does this section of the department still maintain the
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Chairperson, in the
Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do continue to support the
Ms. Friesen:
What proportion of student assistance applications come through the
Mrs. Vodrey:
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, will the minister's review at the end of this
current fiscal year include the operations of the
Mrs. Vodrey:
The member perhaps has not quite understood what will be reviewed. We have not said for the Manitoba Student
Financial Assistance that we would be reviewing the office operations. I have spoken about the fact that we would be
reviewing the program.
* (1620)
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chair, I think it was‑‑I do not know the date
exactly, but I believe it was in this current calendar year‑‑that
Status students won, if that is the right word, the right to be considered for
Manitoba student bursaries.
Does the minister have a particular policy
paper on that, or is there a letter which particularly addresses that change in
policy or a confirmation of practice?
Mrs. Vodrey:
In terms of how that opportunity was provided, the member speaks about
winning. The opportunity was provided by
a decision of this government to ensure the eligibility of aboriginal students
for Manitoba Student Financial Assistance.
Ms. Friesen:
I am sure the minister understands that for many aboriginal students
this was not a clear‑cut policy, certainly at least in the last two years
that I am familiar with. So what I was
asking the minister is, when was that policy confirmed if indeed it was a
policy before? When was it confirmed,
and what is the written document that does that.
Mrs. Vodrey:
The eligibility was a decision that has been made by this government
recently, and the eligibility for that funding will begin as of June 1.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when was that eligibility confirmed and through
what means?
Mrs. Vodrey:
It was a decision of government, and it has been confirmed recently.
Ms. Friesen:
How was it confirmed? Was it
confirmed in a letter? Was it confirmed
in a regulation? Was it confirmed in a
letter to bands? How was it confirmed?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The students, as they apply for the Canada Student Loan, when they have
a need greater than the Canada Student Loan, then are able to be processed into
the Manitoba Student Financial Assistance, its being the second level.
Ms. Friesen:
My question was, when was that policy confirmed, and in what way was it
confirmed?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The policy was confirmed as a decision of government. The decision of government is now being acted
upon by the Manitoba Student Financial Assistance Branch. As students, as I said, make application,
their applications are processed.
Ms. Friesen:
When was that policy made by government?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Recently.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thought I was asking questions which were
relatively simple about the date and method of communicating a particular
policy. I am very confused as to why the
minister seems unable to answer this question.
When was it made? Perhaps a month
would help.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs): What time of the day,
Rosemary, 10:30‑‑
Ms. Friesen:
Well, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh)
wants to suggest that I am asking about the time of the day, and that is just
silliness. I am asking for a general
indication of when this policy was made.
Which month was it made in?
Mrs. McIntosh:
She does not want to know the day as she said she did. She just wants to‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Could I ask the honourable members not to get into debate across the
table. The honourable member for
Wolseley is asking a question.
* * *
Ms. Friesen:
Could the minister tell us which month this policy was made?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The policy was made recently, as I said, and the member is very
interested in the details of government process. The policy was‑‑well,
the member says yes, she is, and I know she is, and she has not had the
opportunity to sit in government. That seems to be, I suppose, the basis of
some of her questions to find out more.
As I have said, the policy was made
recently. I can tell her if this will
help her any: it was made in May. She has asked for an approximate‑‑that
would be the approximate. The department
is now processing. It is the second
level of support that aboriginal students are eligible for; however, we also
will make sure that letters go to bands over the signature of the deputy
minister. Those letters are in progress,
but I want the member to know that for those students who are eligible, we are
not waiting for those letters to go out.
In fact, we are beginning to process applications now.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, so after asking several times, the minister is
able to say that the policy was established in May, that it has been conveyed
to her officials who do establish the relationships with the students who
apply, and she has conveyed it to the bands and others who would be interested.
* (1630)
I cannot understand why the minister could
not have said that in the beginning and why that has to be accompanied with the
patronizing comments that she seems to think it needs. I really do not understand.
So I want to ask the minister why this policy
was established after the government moved to change its policy to a primarily
loan policy rather than a bursary policy.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member continues, in the process of these
Estimates, to address very personal comments to me as minister and attempts a
series of characterizations through those very personal comments. I would just like to say on the record that I
am not sure what those personal comments and judgments she is making have to do
with the discussion of the Department of Education and Training's Estimates.
However, in terms of the question she has
asked, let me provide her with that factual answer. There was no relation between the two
decisions.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the minister tell us when the decision was
made, in which month the decision was made, to move to a primarily loan
program?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a number of decisions are arrived at through the
normal process of government review, also through the process of
Estimates. I can tell the member that
the date, which is important to Manitobans, is the date, of course, at which
that information of the change was made known, and that Manitobans were given
some information about any changes and also when the changes would come into
effect. That would be the date that
affects Manitobans.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the reason for my line of questioning‑‑I
am sure the minister is aware‑‑is that there is a perception
amongst many Manitobans who are affected by this policy that for a number of
years there was a great deal of confusion, shall we say, about whether Status
students were eligible for Manitoba programs.
I certainly handled a number of cases through my own constituency where
that was the case.
It seems that now, as of May, we do have a
standard program which says that Status students are eligible for
Am I right, in interpreting the minister's
comments of the last few questions, that this was not in the minister's mind,
that this was not the policy of the government, or was it indeed a policy of
the government to say, yes, we are moving to a loan program, and at that time
we will confirm that Status students will be eligible for our programs?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, let me remind the member, as it perhaps has slipped
her mind, that it was the policy of her government to not allow aboriginal
students access to the Manitoba Student Financial Assistance Program.
The policy of this government has been, in
a recent decision, to make sure that aboriginal students may access that
funding.
I have also explained to her that the two
decisions were not connected decisions.
We made a decision to make sure that
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chair, were any Status students given or eligible for
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, before that time, students were eligible for the
Prince of Wales, Princess Anne scholarship bursaries.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chair, so before May, they were only eligible for those
special programs which were already targeted at aboriginal students. They were not eligible in the same way that
other students were for
Point of Order
Mrs. McIntosh:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the question was asked and
answered and I do not understand this.
Do we have postamble commentary on the responses that are given allowed?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. The honourable member
does not have a point of order. It is a
dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
On a point of order?
Mrs. McIntosh:
No, it was not a point of order.
It was a question for clarification as to the rules. Do we allow postamble commentary on the
questions in committee?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
The honourable member has 30 minutes to ask her question, and she can
take that full 30 minutes as she feels.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, I believe I have answered the question. I explained that this government made the
decision to make sure that aboriginal students were eligible for the second
level of support through Manitoba Student Financial Assistance, which, as under
the previous government which the member is a member of that party, they were
not eligible in the past. She is
attempting to put together a cause and effect.
I am not sure, that seems to be a cause and effect from her mind.
I have explained to her that the two
decisions are not connected. I can go
back over some of the reasons why we looked at moving to the loans program,
guaranteed
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chair, I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton), that this committee condemn the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)
for her failure to plan adequately for students in need before cutting the
Manitoba bursary program.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. I am going to take
this under advisement, and I will return it to the committee in just a little
while.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House
Leader): Just on a point of order, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, it would seem to me, since the motion has been moved, the appropriate
thing would be to give the Chair a couple of minutes to check whether it is in
order, and we can perhaps resume at that point in time.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. I have already
advised the committee that I have taken it under advisement and I will return
to the committee when I have had an opportunity to research it. So, if you continue on with your line of
questioning, we will carry on.
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
It seems to me that the appropriate thing to do, if you are going to
allow speaking to that particular motion, fine.
Otherwise, we should be taking a recess and allowing the Chair to deal
with the decision so that we can get on with it.
We have completed this line in the
Estimates, and unless we can move onto the next line without passing this one,
then we can ask some questions on the appeal board, which is the next
section. If that is what the Deputy
Chairperson wants us to do, we would do that.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was inquiring if
the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) was making a point of order. It seems to me that you could usefully make
some significant time benefits by asking some questions while we are waiting
for you to make a ruling on the motion.
It is a debatable motion when it gets back here, so let us have
questions, and we will debate the motion when it comes back.
* (1640)
Mr. Ashton:
The difficulty here, you have a motion on a particular line. What the member for Dauphin is suggesting is
that we can move to another line if we hold this line open. We can ask questions on another line. However, it would seem to be a bit difficult
if we end up waiting until the matter is resolved in terms of the motion. Yet, we do not have some clarity as to which
line we are on.
So I would suggest we move on to the next
line item, hold this open, hold the vote after we have had the motion dealt
with by the Chair and any subsequent debates or votes.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
I would like to thank all of the honourable members for their advice on
this matter. As I have stated, I will be
taking this matter under advisement, and as soon as I have my ruling, I will
bring the ruling forward.
If it is the will of the committee to move
onto the next line, that is up to the committee and not the Chair to decide. It
is up to the committee to make that decision.
* * *
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
What I was hoping to get from the minister‑‑and
hopefully she has access to the actual numbers.
If not, maybe she can make some form of a commitment to getting back to
me in a relatively short time period, the numbers.
In terms of the Manitoba Student Financial
Assistance Program and the Canada Student Loans and other assistant programs
that are available and made reference to the ACCESS, what I am most interested
in is the number of individuals that are in fact making application or
receiving benefits and the average amount that they are receiving in terms of a
bursary, in terms of a loan and so forth, and not just for this particular
year. What I am more interested in doing
is to try to figure out whether or not we have a higher number or a higher
percentage of students that are benefiting from the government's programs that
are there to ensure that individuals do have access to our post‑secondary
institutions.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the
Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I did provide this information a little
earlier in the afternoon. I am not sure
if the member took down the information at that time, but as I have said, is
the member‑‑I can certainly provide it in percentage form as well
as real numbers.
In '89‑90, now this is the
applications area, the applications were 13,995 for the Canada Student Loan,
and the actual awards were 11,791.
In '90‑91, the applications were
14,431; Canada Student Loan awards were 11,930.
That is an increase of 3.1 percent in applications and 1.2 percent in
awards.
In '91‑92, the number of
applications were 14,790; the number of awards were 12,141. The percentage increase for the applications,
year over year, was 2.5 percent. The
percentage of awards was 1.7 percent.
In '92‑93, the applications were
15,284, and the number of Canada Student Loan awards were 12,879. Year over year, the percentage increase for
applications was 3.3 percent, and the increase in awards was 6.1 percent, year
over year, in that '91‑92, '92‑93.
In the applications for the
The previous third level of support then
was the
In 1991‑92, the number of
applications was 318, the number of awards was 239. That is a percentage increase of 50 percent
in applications and 44 percent in awards.
In '92‑93, there were 801 applications, and there were 595
awards. That is a percentage increase of
152 percent in applications and 149 percent in awards.
Mr. Lamoureux:
To pick up on the very last one:
For the government grant, '92‑93, why is it that there would have
been such a substantial increase? Where
does that come from?
Mrs. Vodrey:
As we have discussed, there have not been changes to the Canada Student
Loan for several years, and because there has not been a change in the weekly
loan limit, or in the needs assessment area, either one, then there has been no
increase in the amount of award money available through that particular award.
So for students, they have then sought a
next level of assistance and this being the third level of assistance. That is why in our discussion this afternoon,
we have been speaking about the need for Canada to make clear whatever changes
that they wish to make because that will certainly affect then our whole system
which is supplementary to the Canada Student Loan system.
Mr. Lamoureux:
We noticed that there is a steady increase in terms of number of
applications, number of individuals being awarded. Does the minister, again, have the actual,
not necessarily percentage, the medium of how much money is actually being given,
whether it is a loan or a bursary, for those particular years? Again, she does not have to read them
in. I am just more so interested in
having those sorts of figures. Is it
safe to assume that drop, that medium has been dropping down?
* (1650)
Mrs. Vodrey:
The member has asked in average numbers what the amount of funding would
be. The average Canada Student Loan
award is $3,274, and the average government bursary award is $2,193. The average loan rebate award is $1,125, and
the average government grant would be, I am informed, very similar to the
government bursary, which is $2,193.
Mr. Lamoureux:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, one of the things that I know I
personally would look at, and the purpose of having government assistance, is
to ensure that other individuals that do not necessarily have the income have
the opportunity to go to post‑secondary institutions.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
I am wondering if the minister has
anything that does tracking in terms of are we seeing a higher percentage, you
know, of the lower income individuals attending our post‑secondary
institutions, or has there been a decrease, increase? Is there anything in place that tracks that
sort of a stat?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, in the course of the afternoon, we have spoken about
students being eligible based on need as well as on length of program. Length of program may help to establish need,
and we have talked about increasing numbers being able to access those
programs.
Chairperson's Ruling
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. At this time I
have reviewed the motion, and it is in order.
It has been moved by the honourable member
for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton),
that this committee condemn the Minister of Education for her failure to plan
adequately for students in need before cutting the Manitoba bursary program.
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would be happy to
continue on just my line of questioning.
I believe the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has to be here, because
if he is a seconder he should be here in his seat. So I will continue to question?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. The honourable
member does not have a point of order.
It is not necessary for the member to be here because you do not need a
seconder for a motion in Committee of Supply.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, I would take a few moments to speak on this motion
because, as I have explained during the course of our discussion, we certainly
have provided for a way to assist
I have explained during the course of the
afternoon, first of all, a recognition of the needs of
I have also spoken, in the course of this
Estimates, about a meeting I had in
The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) seems
to have not understood that the people who took part in that meeting were
Education ministers from across Canada, and he may like to know that as there
is no federal minister of Education, then issues which relate to education are
looked at by ministers across Canada through the Council of Ministers of
Education.
Through the Council of Ministers, we then each
had an opportunity to bring forward concerns of our particular province, and I
brought forward issues as they relate to Manitobans and concerns that were
raised to me by students and by institutions.
In addition to that meeting, I have also
met with the new Secretary of State who has not been able to provide, on behalf
of
We are looking forward to those changes,
as are other provinces across
What we have done on behalf of Manitobans
though in terms of our planning is, especially in view of the increasing
statistics and numbers that I have been providing, to say that where there is,
Manitobans can provide only a certain amount of money which would be available
as a third supplementary amount of money.
Point of Order
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. Could I ask the
honourable members wanting to carry on a conversation to do so outside in the
hallways so I could hear the honourable minister? I am having problems hearing
her, just like you are having trouble hearing me.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, as I was saying, we have to
look very carefully at the needs, and we also have to look at the fact that it
would be a third level of support in that students are required to provide some
basis of ability to help themselves in an area of post‑secondary
education, and then Canada Student Loan becomes a supplementary support.
The Canada Student Loan describes itself
as a supplementary support. Then
But, as I was saying, Manitobans can only
provide a certain amount of money from our tax base, and we wanted to make sure
that students were able to access the funds that they needed so that they could
go on to a training or a program of study which would be of benefit to them in
the future, benefit to them intrinsically and benefit to them in terms of a job
market.
In order to ensure that would occur,
* (1700)
As I have said, we could have made other
decisions had we dealt with the amount of money, and it is a finite amount of
money that we had available. If we did
that, it would be limiting to students.
It would either limit students to a first‑come, first‑served
basis. Those who applied first would be
able to acquire the money that was available; those who did not get their
applications in or whose course of studies started at a different point in the
year would not be able to access funds. We thought that was wrong, and so we
moved to a program which allowed students to access the funds that they needed.
Secondly, we could have made another kind
of choice. The choice could have been
that we would have reduced the amount of money that was available to students,
and we felt that was not appropriate either, based on need, because our program
is based on need.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please. The time is now 5
p.m., and time for private members' hour.
I am interrupting the proceedings of the committee. The Committee of Supply will resume
considerations at 8 p.m. Thank you.
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 1.(b), page 77
in the Estimates manual.
Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber?
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Madam Chairperson, we discussed in some length the minister's blue book
and other aspects of the minister's plan.
The minister was to provide us with statistical data on bed closures and
bed details. One area that I wanted to
ask the minister about was the plan to still close another additional 200 beds
at the city hospitals. I am wondering if
the minister can advise the Chamber and the committee what the status is on
those particular closures.
* (1440)
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Madam Chair, the status of the investigation
around a further downsizing in the urban hospital bed complement of 200 is
ongoing and is part of the continuing committee work and task force work on the
various program areas that have been discussed in the last‑‑what?‑‑three
days or four days that we have been at Health Estimates.
As the pattern of implementing these
changes will remain consistent, should we have any announcements around agreed‑upon
closures that we think are manageable within the system‑‑let me
indicate again what I believe by manageable.
Where beds can be retired from service without compromising access and
volume of procedure being done, we will, after careful consideration and
consultation within the department with the various members of the Urban
Hospital Council, agree to those proposed closures, and as they are announced
and agreed to, Madam Chair, we of course will provide information on them and
give my friend the kind of information and assurance that he wishes.
But if my honourable friend is asking when
we might expect some announcements, I would indicate to my honourable friend
that it would be over the course of this fiscal year as reports are completed
and recommendations analyzed and agreed to.
Should they involve retirement from service of additional acute care
beds, as I said, announcements would be forthcoming.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, this may not be, necessarily, a fair question so‑‑maybe
the member for
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I do not know whether rejigging is the appropriate
language to use in talking about shifts and changes in the health care system,
but nevertheless, my honourable friend, I know what he is attempting to ask
here, and maybe rejigging is not the appropriate phraseology, but I think the
question itself has merit or the essence of the question has merit.
Madam Chairperson, that statistic my
honourable friend will find about midway through the Health Action Plan, and it
is reflective of I believe, pneumonia and pleurisy at our two teaching
hospitals‑‑no, that is another set of statistics that are part of
the Health Action Plan. Basically they
have the same essence behind them.
We are‑‑and I will give my
honourable friend a little bit of background.
Our health care system as being‑‑the part of our health care
system that is, of course, the acute care sector, which is the hospitals, being
our major single largest expenditure in the entire $1.8 billion‑plus
expenditures. Our hospital system is by
far the largest single line at well over $930 million, I guess it is now. I have not got the numbers right in front of
me. We will get to that in due
course. It requires some pretty
interesting investigation in terms of what services can be provided where, and
the issue, if I can be so direct, is to determine in essence what health care
service, what support does the individual need, and having established that,
where might that service be provided as close to home as possible in as patient
friendly a way as possible.
Now, that answer builds on two important
principles. First of all a utilization
of existing capacity within our acute care system, and that is where the
admissions of the least complexity out of rural and northern
In the chart my honourable friend refers
to I think it is interesting to note that complexity of care ranges on a used
scale. This is not one we invented. This is a standard comparison scale. It goes from one to 100, with 100 being the
most complex. In terms of complexity, I
suppose, very long, complex neurosurgery or heart surgeries would be at the
upper range, and simple pneumonias and other medical needs would be towards the
bottom of the scale of one to 10 possibly.
It is interesting to note that most of our
hospitals, and I think it is fair to say this, most of our acute care hospitals
that we fund in Manitoba have the ability to handle the least complex care, the
one to 10 patient rating category.
The observation is made there that if
Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface, as our primary hospitals delivering
tertiary level care, pardon me, if they are still having patients access those
hospitals from rural and northern Manitoba with very low complexity‑of‑care
requirements, should we not investigate why, and should we not make initiatives
and efforts to assure that capacity that exists in rural and northern Manitoba
is utilized for those care needs?
So that is the first principle that is
being built in there, and I think my honourable friend can see two benefits
flowing from that. First of all, you
reduce the inpatient demand at Health Sciences Centre, St. Boniface and other
Now, there is an overriding benefit which
is outside of the patient's benefits or care benefit, the care equation, if you
will, and that is that often you can provide those services at considerably
less cost to the system.
The average cost, as my honourable friend
well knows, decreased from tertiary down to our rural and northern hospitals,
but it is not just an issue of taking the per diem cost and saying, well, if
you save 10 days of admission at Health Sciences Centre or St. Boniface, for
instance, and those are undertaken at Thompson General Hospital, let us say,
that you should be able to take $775 a day, 10 days, and take it out of the
Health Sciences Centre budget.
Well, that is not exactly the way the
system is able to organize and manage, but the principle clearly is there that
providing those patient services in an underutilized ward in rural or northern
Manitoba will add very little incremental cost to that hospital's budget in
rural and northern Manitoba.
Now, how do we achieve the savings on the
other side of the equation, on the urban hospital? It is in removing that inappropriately used
bed capacity at Health Sciences Centre, St. Boniface. That of course is why we, in the first year of
the proposal, downsized both of those institutions to the tune of 264
beds. That was our method of reducing
their global budget and reinvesting that money elsewhere in the system.
The question still remains, can we
undertake more of that within our existing hospital configuration? Clearly, I think yes, we can. Clearly, I think we can manage care delivery
in a better fashion and provide more of those services in underutilized acute
care hospitals in rural and northern
I want to indicate to my honourable friend
that in doing so, the budgetary increase in those respective rural and northern
hospitals will be very minimal, almost undetectable in some cases, because if
you are taking a ward, and let us use figures from a 50 percent occupancy to a
54 percent occupancy by looking after that individual in a rural or northern
hospital versus a Winnipeg one, the costs of providing that care are basically
a few more meals a day and maybe some medical supplies. They are not significant in terms of the
overall global budget of that institution.
But if you utilize that capacity in a more appropriate fashion, are able
to downsize your expensive capacity, the system provides the care and has
budgetary integrity, can save incremental costs in the more expensive acute
care service delivery areas of Winnipeg and Brandon. That is the direction we are trying to hit.
The second area we are trying to
determine, and this is very much under active discussion with ideas being
shared, I think, on a fairly regular basis.
My first proposal was to provide those services within the existing
system. The second proposal is then to
analyze sort of the "what ifs."
What if this level of service was provided ex‑Winnipeg, ex‑Brandon,
and rural and northern hospital facilities?
What additional patient needs could you look after with some additional
program support or new program support or different budgetary support?
* (1450)
That very much is under investigation as
we attempt to have our rural facilities collaborate between communities and
between service facilities in a given geographic area, so that they can come to
us with ideas for rationalization within a number of hospitals and service
facilities, and as well, give us some ideas on what service enhancements would
be possible with what commitment of either personnel or a resource or budget
and where could we find reallocation opportunities within the global budget of
$1.8 billion.
That second phase is the one that is
certainly inviting innovative ideas from our rural and northern caregivers and
will facilitate further movement beyond the fundamental movement that I
indicated in the first part of my answer.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, we talked briefly previously about nursing education
and some matters related to nursing education.
Can the minister advise whether his Council on Nursing Education is
still in existence? If it is, can he
provide us with a list of who is on the council and what its mandate is at this
point?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I presume my honourable friend is referring to the
nursing council that was chaired by Professor Anderson some time ago. No, the committee has not had an active role
for approximately 15 months now or 18 months.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, does the minister envision any major changes to
nursing education in the next 18 months to two years?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, Madam Chair.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister outline what those changes will be?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, without wanting to limit the scope of the debate, I think
my honourable friend is probably quite familiar with some of the initiatives in
terms of the collaborative training program between the
There was even a wider envisioned
expansion of the collaborative baccalaureate programs. Those are under discussion because we have to
be very, very cognizant of meeting reasonable training goals for the
marketplace. It would be, I think,
imprudent fiscally and not very appropriate to create educational opportunities
and capacity for educational opportunities without having some larger sense as
to the career opportunities that would be available post completion of those
educational opportunities. The
baccalaureate discussions are ongoing and have been for several years with some
movement but not certainly a complete understanding of direction to take us into
the year 2000 yet established.
There is certainly a lot of discussions
around the educational and professional future with the licensed practical
nursing education program. As I
indicated to my honourable friend, I think, Thursday last, there is a June 28
report coming out that has been independently commissioned by the Manitoba
Association of Licensed Practical Nurses, and I think that may well assist us
in crafting a plan for the future there.
My honourable friend would be, I think,
quite familiar with initiatives ongoing.
My honourable friend was not here, but I think it was three years ago
that we consolidated the schools of psychiatric nursing that were operating at
Selkirk and Brandon to a single school in Brandon and at the same time
undertook a fairly sophisticated investigation as to the opportunities in terms
of registered psychiatric nursing and their role in a changing and reforming
mental health system with greater emphasis on noninstitutional and community‑based
care. That investigation is ongoing as
we speak in terms of a study funded with support of funding from the Health
Services Development Fund to the Registered Psychiatric Nurses' Association of
Manitoba, and they are looking at the educational opportunities and the
preparation requirements for psychiatric nurses in
When my honourable friend asks, is there
going to be changes over the next couple of years, yes, I would suspect there
will be changes that reflect all three areas that I have just discussed with my
honourable friend. Those will prevent‑‑I
think that, as we see better information in terms of employer survey as to what
they think the need for a professionally trained nursing staff is five years
down the road, we will be able to better focus on the educational requirements
as well as have a better sense, hopefully, of the capacity we have to build
into our education system to meet best projections as to what future need is.
Very much those are under discussion and,
hopefully, over the course of this calendar year, this fiscal year, we will see
some maturing conclusions as to where government ought to head in a number of
areas where they have been under significant discussion without a solution that
would be advanced at this stage of the game.
Mr. Chomiak:
Does the minister have any projections on a five‑ or 10‑year
basis as to the requirements for RNs, LPNs, registered psychiatric nurses and
aides and the like?
Does the minister have any projections on
a five‑ or 10‑year scale for the requirements for those various job
categories?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, that is the issue that we discussed, I think, Thursday last
in terms of the employer survey. If I
recall correctly, we were going to provide, and I do not think we have it today
or else it would be with me, provide my honourable friend with a summation of
those employers who gave us a five‑year projection. Our survey was not complete. I shared those numbers of those facilities
reporting with my honourable friend the other day. The difficulty was that we did not have the
five‑year‑out projections from some of our major nursing employers,
some of our larger facilities.
I am not pointing fingers of blame. This is a very difficult thing for them to
come and give a projection on because we are, let us face it, into a changing
environment in nursing and acute care service provision right across the length
and breadth of
We would like to avoid that. We are trying to focus as much knowledge and
experience around the issue as we can, but appreciate, and I think my
honourable friend would appreciate this, the institutions themselves, the
senior management in our major hospitals will have a somewhat difficult time to
give us a projection into the future that even they can be assured is going to
be accurate, because that is a fairly difficult projection to make today in a
changing environment. It has always been
difficult to make, and that is why we have had sort of peaks and valleys in our
training capacity.
* (1500)
The one thing that I want to indicate to
my honourable friend is that he might recall‑‑I have to search
back. I think this was in 1989‑‑or
was this 1990 that we did the advertising campaign in co‑operation and
collaboration with MARN, with the Manitoba Association of Registered
Nurses?. It was either the spring of '89
or the spring of '90, but I think it was '89, because all of the discussion at
that time was around an impending nursing shortage. My honourable friend was not in the House,
but I know there were questions about difficulty to recruit and retain in
northern
As a result of that, we put a very
aggressive, and I have to say to my honourable friend, successful television
advertising campaign which focused in on mature students in particular to
consider nursing as a second career, if you will. We had a number of individuals make the
decision that they would enroll in nursing.
Subsequent to, and I have to get my years right, the 1991 strike in
January, it was 1991, shortly thereafter, we did not have a shortage of nurses.
I am not saying the two were linked, but I
think, clearly, in the build up to the negotiations in 1991, there were maybe
some overzealous statements in terms of shortage of nursing professionals in
the province, and without a reasonable mechanism to see whether that was right
or wrong, we decided professionally with MARN to run this advertising
campaign. Post the 1991 strike, there
were virtually no vacancies unfilled anywhere in the province, and within a
short period of time, within a two or three‑month period of time.
I have to tell my honourable friend that
one of the more difficult discussions I had was at the Pro Show over at the
faculty of medicine, where we had all our institutions from rural and northern
Manitoba who choose to attend in really boostering their communities in terms
of recruitment for physicians, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists,
occupational therapists and other health professionals to attract them into
jobs in their community. I ran into a
young woman who had left a career, and had a young family at home, to upgrade
her skills by going into nursing training.
She was graduating within six months and pointed out to me that she considered
the advice and the advertising campaign to be inappropriate because she was not
facing very buoyant job prospects at the time.
I had to say, yes, that is right. Had we had the 20‑20 vision in
hindsight, we probably would not have been as aggressive as we were with MARN
in terms of that educational recruitment campaign, because it was
successful. It sent the right signal,
but unfortunately on maybe the wrong information that the system had at the
time. That is why this is such a tenuous
and difficult area to try to put some clarity around, in terms of where we
should be creating educational opportunities, what they should be and in what
student capacity numbers.
It is very, very challenging to come up
with an approach that five years from now we can look back and say well, yes,
we were right on. Chances are we have
not been too successful in the past, and we are trying to get as many of the
stakeholders around that discussion so that we have a better sense, not a
purely educational sense, not a purely professional sense, not a purely
departmental sense, but as much as we can get a system‑wide sense of
where we ought to go in that regard of educational opportunities for nursing.
Mr. Chomiak:
Can the minister indicate whether or not the
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I do not know whether it was or not.
Mr. Chomiak:
Part of the mandate, of course, of the
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I will attempt to accede to my honourable friend's request,
but there were two basic recommendations, as I recall it, and that was for a
collaborative program at Health Sciences Centre as well as St. Boniface, and I
believe the Health Sciences Centre collaborative program was subsequently
initiated.
My honourable friend might recall that, as
they initiated the collaborative baccalaureate program, the Health Sciences
Centre decided to not accept students into the diploma registered nursing
program for fall of 1992, and that was based on‑‑and again, I have
to indicate to my honourable friend that some of the projections that were even
contained in the Anderson report in shorter order than one would expect turned
out to be not necessarily accurate, given current circumstances, because at the
time the collaborative program was decided to proceed at Health Sciences
Centre, as I say, the diploma course entry was curtailed for the fall of '92
because there were at that time clear indications that there was an oversupply
of nurses, and that was the circumstance that I alluded to in my preceding
answer.
We went from a circumstance in possibly
spring of 1990, when I reflect on it now, with an advertising campaign to
encourage students into nursing, to one year later having virtually no
vacancies anywhere in the province and a lot of new graduating nurses looking
for employment and able at best to probably secure part‑time work, part‑time
and casual shifts in order to get their foot in the door of nursing recruitment
to some of our major institutions.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the minister could outline for us what
the status is of the central purchases review as well as the study of the
reported central kitchen facilities that were being proposed by the urban
hospitals.
Mr. Orchard:
Yes.
Mr. Chomiak:
I wonder if the minister might outline what the status is for members of
the committee of both of those particular reviews.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I will attempt to have staff put together a current status
report. They do not have that at their
disposal.
Mr. Chomiak:
I did not quite catch the minister.
I assume he is going to table the status or he is going to provide us
with a verbal update as to the status?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, I will make that attempt.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, is the minister indicating he will table the report
or is the minister indicating that he will provide us with a verbal update?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I do not have the completed report, and I will provide my
honourable friend with as much current information as I can receive from the
department.
* (1510)
Mr. Chomiak:
Just returning to the Connie Curran matter for a second‑‑the
member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) takes me literally‑‑returning to
the Connie Curran matter for a few brief moments, at least from my part.
We spent a fair amount of time on this
issue, and I never did receive any kind of assurance from the minister as to
how we will be able to calibrate, how we will be able to measure at the end of
the day one year from now whether or not the 45 to 65 reported savings have
been achieved. How will we know? How will we be provided with information in
this House that those savings have been achieved?
Mr. Orchard:
They will be part of the budgetary process that both those two
institutions will be going through as they always have gone through.
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):
Madam Chairperson, I will begin and ask a couple of mundane questions,
and I hope they have not been asked before as I have been perusing the
Hansard. Just very quickly, if the
minister could tell us under Executive Support, Professional/Technical SYs,
there are four SYs. Could the minister
indicate who those people are and why there has been an increase of expenditure
from '92‑93, '93‑94. Did you
ask that already? (interjection)
Sorry.
Mr. Orchard:
Well, that is not a mundane question.
That is a very appropriate one.
It was asked, I forget by whom, but of course it was answered fully and
completely.
It is 1.(b) that my honourable friend is
referring to in terms of the Estimates book.
Yes. Those are support staff in
the deputy minister's office, I believe, and mine. Oh, yes, it was the Professional/Technical. That line increased year over year because of
some reclassifications in the Professional/Technical staff.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell us, the four positions, what the classifications
were and what they were reclassified to or what was the nature of the
reclassification, and if the minister could also indicate what the names of the
classifications are, because I am not necessarily familiar with the abbreviated
forms of classifications.
Mr. Orchard:
Our major reclassification there was‑‑this is the area in
which we are providing the SY for our senior nursing consultant that we are in
the process of recruitment to fill. We
reclassified that position or that SY from an Administrative Officer 1 to a
Senior Officer 1. Then the secretary to
the deputy minister, I have nothing further than from an AYD to an
Administrative Officer 2, and then one of the secretaries in the deputy's
office was reclassified from an Administrative Secretary 3 to the AYD. One went from an AYD to an AO2, and the other
went from an AY3 to an AYD. That is all there was.
I was incorrect when I said four were
reclassified; three were reclassified.
Ms. Gray:
Madam Chair, can the minister tell me, the senior nursing consultant
position, is there still a vacancy in that position? I understand that that position is a new
position. It was announced, it must have
been, over a year ago. Can the minister
tell us when the expectation is that someone will fill that position, and is
there going to be a bulletin or competition for it?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, yes, it has taken a significant amount of time to fill this
position. The current SY that we have
slotted is a vacant SY. We have
bulletined the position. I would attempt
to provide my honourable friend with the bulletin, not that I am reflecting on
the fortunes of my honourable friend's newly led party, but you may be
interested.
Ms. Gray:
Madam Chair, can the minister tell us, what qualifications is the
minister looking at in this position? Secondly, why will this position report directly
to the deputy minister?
Mr. Orchard:
I think the bulletin, if we can provide that maybe this evening, will do
as much to explain the job envisionment or the role of senior nursing
consultant. Reporting directly to the
deputy minister was a decision we made to assure that there was‑‑how
would I put it?‑‑in no other word than that we take this issue
seriously in terms of having a reporting structure to the deputy minister.
We have been challenged, and my honourable
friend probably listened to the discussion with the official opposition critic
earlier this afternoon. We have been
sent some wrong signals, and we have sent some wrong signals, as a ministry, in
terms of nursing, the education requirements, the class size, et cetera, the
skills requirement.
It is an issue that we believe needs a
great deal of intellect focused around it, not simply from within ministry, as
has been the tendency in the past, but to have stakeholders around the
issue. One of the roles that the senior
nursing consultant would undertake is a lead role in that issue.
Ms. Gray:
Madam Chair, can the minister tell us how this position fits into the
overall organizational structure of his department? What is the role of this particular position,
and which other positions will this particular position be working very closely
with? How does it fit into the overall
structure?
Mr. Orchard:
The senior nursing adviser will be working with the ADM of Healthy
Public Policy in terms of initiatives in community health. She will be working with Long Term Care
because nursing professionals are certainly an important component of caregiver
in long‑term care, and indeed with the Hospital sector in terms of
ongoing relationships with them. So the
individual will have a facilitating role and an information‑gathering
role from a number of the separate areas of the ministry.
Ms. Gray:
Madam Chair, if the position is just about to be bulletined, I am
assuming there has not been a competition to date, can the minister tell us why
it has taken so long or why there has been such a lengthy vacancy in this
seemingly crucial position?
* (1520)
Mr. Orchard:
We were challenged to come up with a job description. I say this partially in jest‑‑I
have said it in jest to some of the professional nursing associations when they
have posed the same question: To have a
nursing adviser who would have credibility across the system and would not be
viewed as being maybe focused on one area of nursing, you almost have to have
someone who started working for the candy stripers, became a nurse's aide, took
an LPN course, and then went for diploma nursing and upgraded to baccalaureate
and has a master's now, so that no one can say you do not care about my area of
nursing.
I will be very direct, and I have said
this to nurses and their professional associations: Internal politics in nursing are very, very
interesting politics, and to come up with a‑‑there is always a
missing element in a job description one might put forward. Some base has not been touched. It was a difficult initiative to write the
job description and to do the appropriate bulletin.
We had a number of initiatives around
nursing that also were paralleled and probably caused some delay, a delay of a
couple of months in terms of the recruitment initiative. The reclassification: once we got into determining the calibre of
individual that we should appropriately attempt to recruit, we find that in
today's market that we needed to have a reclassification on the job. I think my honourable friend understands that
from time to time the classification can be a more lengthy process than one
would envision.
So there were a series of reasons for the
time lag, but clearly we are on track now and we hope to have interviews, and I
think, are we not targeting about within two months to have the process
complete? Is that not what we indicated
last week? Yes.
Ms. Gray:
Madam Chair, in the minister's comments about the difficulties in
developing a position description, it sounded like the minister had done some‑‑or
that someone had done some draft position descriptions, and perhaps they were
circulated to a number of organizations or advisers outside of the department.
I may be making an assumption here, but can the minister tell us, who is
responsible for developing the position description, and did he test this
position description with individuals from MARN or other organizations given
that it has taken this long to develop an appropriate one?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, Madam Chair, and of course, seeking that kind of input did take a
little more time as well, but it was not the sole reason for having a lag time
here, that the reclassification I think was part of it. We did do consultation with nursing to see
what an appropriate job description, et cetera, ought to be.
Ms. Gray:
Is the minister prepared to table the position description of this
particular position for members of the House?
Mr. Orchard:
I indicated to my honourable friend that I would provide her with that
information.
Ms. Gray:
I apologize, I did not hear the minister make that comment and I thank
him for providing us with a position description.
Actually, I have a question on Other Expenditures
which I do not know if the minister would consider answering even though we are
actually still on Salaries. I noticed in
the Estimates under Other Operating, $52 million. I am wondering if the minister could tell us
what types of expenditures come under Other Operating? It is a question on Other Expenditures,
(b)(2).
Mr. Orchard:
This Other Operating covers, for instance, travel and accommodation,
meals cost for myself and for the deputy minister when we are on ministerial
business. There is allowance for
publication and then there is another category in there and if you want to know
what is in the other, I will have to get a greater breakdown of the other under
Other Operating expenses.
But what we are budgeting is a decrease in
the other category and we are budgeting a level budget for the hotel/meals for
the deputy, myself‑‑and one other individual in the deputy's office
from time to time would access this line‑‑no. Okay, that is just the deputy and I then.
Ms. Gray:
Madam Chair, I would move to a few more general questions in the area of
the health reform. I would ask the
minister really to get some insight into how he has perceived his health reform
process to date, that if the minister had to begin the health reform process
tomorrow, what changes would he make to the process; if he had to do it again
tomorrow, are there things that he would have done differently?
Mr. Orchard:
We discussed this at fairly significant length in an earlier day where
we dealt with the Estimates, but given circumstances, I think if I could
revisit the whole issue I would try to compress four years into three years and
maybe commence the process a year ahead of time. We are already a year ahead of other
provinces by and large and some were up to a year and a half ahead, but I think
the times would make it‑‑if I could revisit an aspect of it, it
would be to try and advance the time schedule by a year if we could so do
that. I have to tell my honourable
friend that there will be constant discussions around the issue of health care
reform. It does not matter whether you
are in
I mean, we want to go into some
details. You know, I have a black book,
and all you have to do is, you can go to any province in
There is not a forum that is usable. Any of the successes are just accepted: That is what you did for me yesterday, but
what are you going to do for me today, type of thing, and I am not saying that
in a critical fashion of the system.
That is the reality of the health care
system. The changes that are good are
implemented with satisfaction, with no impact, et cetera, but even those, you
will always find someone who is willing to comment about the process being
inadequate, about the process, you know, not including them.
* (1530)
I mean, you are unfortunately just going
to have to live with some of that criticism, because the one thing that is
apparent to me as I visit with colleagues and as I visit with people in the
Manitoba health care system who have knowledge of the process in our
neighbouring provinces because of their professional organization attachment or
their affiliation as a CEO with CEOs in other provinces, our process has more
integrity in Manitoba than the other provinces.
I am rather proud of that because that is because there is a substantial
understanding, first, and commitment to, secondly, change in
I pointed out, and we got into quite a
lengthy debate with the member for Kildonan, I think, on the first or the
second day of Estimates, where we got into the pediatric consolidation of the
Children's Hospital pediatric consolidation.
I appreciate that there were a couple of
people, individuals who were professionals‑‑one was a physician‑‑making
some pretty dire predictions about the change.
Those dire predictions, I say to you, have not materialized.
The process of change has been relatively
smooth, and some of the concerns expressed, I think, were maybe concerns
expressed because of a personal practice observation rather than a system‑wide
observation. That is
understandable. I mean that is
completely understandable.
We recognized those, and we listened to
those concerns, but we react to them where they have identified flaws in the
proposed change. I have to say that
there have not been those kinds of flaws identified. So we can talk about the process of reform,
and it can be criticized that the process has flaws.
Well, I will not argue with that. No process of change is going to be a perfect
one. No process of change will be
without change itself. I mean that is
what reform is all about. An agenda
direction that you may have established and embarked upon a year ago could be
changed quite significantly after a year's experience and refocused. That is the nature of change and reform.
But the end goal, as identified in the
Health Action Plan and as reinforced in a number of subsequent studies, still
has integrity. No one has said it is the
wrong thing to do.
So what I tried to get with my honourable
friend the member for Kildonan, the official opposition, the NDP's Health
critic, I said, okay, you can legitimately observe that there may be flaws in
the process, but after that let us talk about the policy that is in place. Let us talk about the program change, and let
us talk about whether that has integrity in the health care system. If it does,
then sure, let us argue about the process by which we made the change.
But on the other hand, if you believe the
change is inappropriate, then tell me how you would make it different. Tell me
how you would reverse that decision. Let
the system know where you are coming from because we have to move beyond a
focus on criticism of the process and start talking about what the change is. If there is fundamental disagreement about
what the change is, then let us get that on the table, let us debate that, let
us investigate whether counterarguments present a better process.
Now, the member for Kildonan never said
whether he was not in favour of the consolidated in Children's Hospital
process. He would not answer that
question. I am going to paraphrase for
my honourable friend the member for Maples (Mr. Cheema). I think he indicated that change was not a
bad change. I am not putting words in
his mouth or anything, but I do not think he found anything from a policy
standpoint inappropriate with the change.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the
Chair)
So process is constantly maturing in terms
of our reform, but if I had to change two things, I would try to advance it by
a year. I think in retrospect maybe we
could have advanced it by a year if we had done certain things a little bit
differently.
Certainly, if that was possible to table
that document a year previous, on May 14 of '91, instead of '92 I would have
done it because we would have been well on the way to change in
But in terms of underpinning principles
and overall goals and directions, very few of the central themes would be
changed. I think I would have to refer
my honourable friend to discussions around this issue that I had with the
member for Maples (Mr. Cheema) because organizations, large and small, broad
and narrow, still generally support those principles and have continued to
support those principles embodied in the agenda for change in The Action Plan.
Ms. Gray:
The question I had asked the minister was: If he had to begin the health reform process
again, what would he do differently? In
his lengthy answer, he did talk about time frame as one. He would certainly change the time frame,
fair enough.
He also spent quite a bit of time talking
about a concern about criticism of the process.
Be that as it may, I am not asking the question to be critical of this
minister or this government necessarily.
I think it is very important that any
governments or any departments have an opportunity to analyze processes and
what they have done so far so that in fact, when they continue on with reform, they
can make changes or modify as they go along.
The minister did indicate that, yes, the process had flaws.
I would imagine as well that the staff
have a number of suggestions as to what could be done differently or what they
might have done differently and what then they would do differently as they
continue along in the process.
I would simply ask the minister‑‑and
certainly for the record, which I am sure the minister knows, we do support the
principles of the health care reform.
There is no question about that, but perhaps the minister could indicate
for us what some of the flaws have been so far and what steps he or his
department have taken to perhaps correct those flaws as they are continually
refining the process as they move along in the health care reform.
Mr. Orchard:
I know my honourable friend was not being critical in posing the
question, and I did not intend my answer to be defensive in any fashion. If it was, I certainly did not intend it as
such.
How has the process been changed? Sometimes bringing in people with a different
focus in terms of the issue has been part of the process of change. The whole issue of attempting to seek input
and decision making is in the process of change.
We had, as I mentioned earlier on, a
retreat some eight, ten weeks ago maybe‑‑April 30th it was‑‑where
we brought in, really, the key stakeholders right across the system, about 100,
110 people, along with a lot of our departmental staff that were involved in
the health care reform program, and a number of the investigative committees
presented their status reports.
Now, that process of the retreat, it had
its advantages; it had disadvantages.
That is being refined because it also has a good forum to get the
stakeholders around the issues to come with suggestions around an understanding
of complex shifts and decisions that we are going to have to make as a
ministry, as a health care delivery system.
So even the process of the retreat, which
was the first that has ever been really held, is being revamped in terms of how
we approach it for the next one, because we intend to have follow‑ups. That was the intention from square 1. That process will change internally, if we
are able to do it.
* (1540)
I make this observation because there have
been occasions when I have been over to the reform office and to other parts of
the ministry where, rather than have a bunch of staff come over to brief me, I
go over to the office. I mean, they are
putting in significant hours. These
briefings I have had are always in the evening, and there are always 8, 10, 12,
14 staff in a reform office there, and sometimes these briefings will go on
past ten o'clock and that staff is still there.
If there is one potential flaw in the
whole process of reform is we are really getting significant commitment from
staff in time and in work effort to bring this around. If I could, in some fashion, bring on more
expertise to focus on the issue, I think that would be helpful. Of course, we have done it in part, I mean,
we have seconded a couple of people to come in from outside the department,
from other areas of the department to focus on reform.
I will give my honourable friend another
broad sort of wish list if we could do it.
I will tell you that this is applicable across government as well. It is not just narrowed to an issue of
importance to the ministry. We have been
pretty successful in developing the Health Action Plan by really using players
within the ministry, within the system in
We have had the likes of Dr. Philip Lee
from
Each and every one of those initiatives is
a commitment (a) of time, of staff, but (b) a commitment of resource, because
when you bring someone in from Toronto to look at waiting lists or emergency
medicine and you pay costs, you pay travel and you pay time, but within our
limited resources we have, I think, invested fairly wisely in having experts
come in to help our experts create better solutions. I think that is a good way for government to
proceed.
I guess one of the challenges is to
identify who those potential people are and to be able to utilize them. That is an issue that I am going to try and
raise either formally or informally at the Health ministers' meeting this fall,
because I think, if we are serious nationally about bringing together good
ideas around health care reform, all of us have pockets of expertise in our
respective provinces.
Let me give you an example. When I say we bring experts into
The Centre for Health Policy and
Evaluation is the specific example I give my honourable friend. When I go to ministers' meetings, I will
generally have one or two of their newest studies that they have released. I will take those to our meetings, and they
are on the table for a half an hour at best. They are very, very well‑sought‑after
documents, because they have such good science and integrity behind them.
Subsequent to that, we have had a number
of provinces‑‑and Alberta has been in, I believe Ontario has been
in and two or three other provinces have been in, B.C., to take a look at the
structure and the capability of our Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation and
I think respectively are creating a similar organization in their province, but
we are trying to have them focus on an area of health care where we do not have
the expertise so we do not parallel and reinvent the wheel province by
province. I think that is very
helpful. If we could develop a greater
sophistication around that nationally so that we had the ability to access and
share more of our investigative reports, province by province, I think it would
be very helpful in speeding the process change.
I will be very direct with my honourable
friend, because I think my honourable friend has not been around for more years
than my other honourable friend from the New Democrats who would understand the
politics behind it. I mean, there are
some initiatives and investigations each province is undertaking that they are
reluctant to share with another government, because they never know for sure whether
it will end up on the floor of their respective Legislature taken out of
context a week later. I mean I am as
sensitive to that. I have been around
long enough to be sensitive to that as well.
An Honourable Member: You have been here longer than both of us put
together.
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, well, if you add it up, yes.
I think Canadians and the nation are
wanting us to get beyond that if we can.
I will just close my brief comment here by
saying, I appreciate what my honourable friend has said because the critic for
the Liberals has also said that they support and recognize the need for
change. They are not going to be without
their criticism of the process, but they recognize the need for change. That is appreciated. I tell my honourable friend, that is unique
in probably
Yet, in provinces that are governed by New
Democrats they are not taking the same kind of process. It is that kind of narrowness in approach
that can founder the health care system and makes ministers of different
political stripes, Liberal in
I can understand the dynamics behind it
because my colleague, for instance, in Ontario no doubt will go to her
Legislature and have a Conservative opposition come at her in the same fashion
that my honourable friend from Kildonan comes at me for doing exactly the same
thing, because that is the nature of the beast, and it makes everybody just a
little bit nervous.
We have achieved I think a remarkable
degree of candor and forthrightness at our ministers' meetings, particularly
our ex officio ones where we do not have the formal translation, et
cetera. That is where we have really
good discussion sessions. I hope that if we could do nothing else we build upon
that process, because I think it is healthy.
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am wondering if the minister could tell us‑‑and
he alluded to it in his comments‑‑how the health reform process has
impacted on the ongoing service delivery, whether that service delivery would
be in the hospitals or in the community.
Could he give us some information as to what the impact has been on the
ongoing service delivery? He did allude
to the fact of long hours that staff have spent working, and I certainly do not
doubt that.
I am wondering how his department has been
able to manage this new health care reform and been able to manage the health
care reform and come up with new ideas and implement health care reform, which
I am sure is almost a full‑time job on the part of people who could be
involved with that. What have they put
in place to manage that health care reform as well as ensuring that of course
the day‑to‑day service delivery, whether it is in the hospital or
whether it is in the community, still occurs?
* (1550)
Mr. Orchard:
Well, let me deal with the hospital side, or the institutional side,
first. Of course, we do not have the
direct hands‑on there. I think it
is fair to say that in almost every one of the institutions that in a
significant way are undertaking change, their staff are putting in the same
kind of additional hours and are putting that extra effort in.
We are fairly confident that at our
hospital level, the various programs have been maintained in terms of level of
activity, even though there have been fairly significant budgetary
reductions. The maintenance of the
service provision with less budget consumption have been accomplished through
some fairly difficult decisions at the hospitals, but they have been in terms
of management of resource, not curtailment of service delivery.
Within the ministry, yes, we have staff
who are in some areas wearing distinctly two hats, a very significant
commitment at ADM level, for instance, in terms of reform process as well as
the day‑to‑day administration of the delivery activities that they
may well be responsible for. Quite
frankly, the commitment and level of responsibility goes right down throughout
the department.
Maybe my honourable friend can correct me
on this, but I think there is a pretty fair commitment at all levels of staff
within the ministry to really move and change with the times. They see quite an
interesting time, not a time without its concerns, but nevertheless I think
they have been making, doing the extra effort to assure that if they have to
wear two hats, reform as well as regular administrative and program duties,
that they are doing that and giving us the assurance that they are maintaining
a commitment to quality service.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell us specifically, are there any changes in
procedures or changes in the way the department does business? I do not mean necessarily in regard to
changes in criteria for delivery of service, but any administrative changes or
anything that is done differently in the ministry to assist with not only the
ongoing delivery of the service, but this management of the health care reform,
for instance any differences in regulations or how staffing submissions are
processed in the department as opposed to in other departments.
Mr. Orchard:
There have been some administrative changes. I think the most prominent one, of course, is
the establishment of the reform office under the secondment of Bernard Blais as
ADM, but in terms of some of the process, I am reminded that the Associate Deputy
Minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance had left at their level
of responsibility certain sign‑off procedures that were formerly done
only by the deputy minister, so there has been a vesting down in terms of
decision‑making authority, if that is the kind of issue my honourable
friend is getting at.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell us, is there a staffing freeze on right now in the
department? I ask that question because
I do not know. Is there any kind of
staffing freeze, or what is the process for filling positions currently?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, there is a staffing freeze on, but it has exceptions to it in terms
of key delivery areas. Public health
nursing, Continuing Care are two of the program areas where the recruitment
process is‑‑it is not immediate.
This does not happen in our recruiting process, but that is another
issue. There is an ability to recruit quickly, but we have to provide
justification for the nondirect caregiving areas, as all departments do, in
terms of recruitment into a support area position or even a director level
position to assure that we have to have this non‑service‑delivery
area vacancy filled to maintain the ongoing programming of the department.
I guess that is‑‑what? Is that the fifth year that freeze is in
place or the fourth year? It has been on
for quite a while. We have tried to work a process through Treasury Board where
we have some greater flexibility in two areas, mental health reform being one
of them, because there are some broad goals to be accomplished there that we
have some greater flexibility in terms of program movement, where we are moving
from institution, establishing community.
It is unusual for government to double fund something; my honourable
friend is aware of that. So the advance
of the community‑based service prior to the downsizing of the
institution, we have some greater flexibility there.
In general, we must comply with
requirements around staffing and justification of filling vacancies similar to
every other department.
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am sorry I did not quite hear part of the
minister's answer, but did he indicate that Administrative Support positions,
i.e., clerical, who would be supporting public health, and home care, mental
health, are they part of the exemption?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairman, in part.
There is not a blanket. If they
are essential to a program delivery area, they have an exemption, but if they
are not‑‑there is a series of services that are considered
essential, and recruitment into those areas is not under the same kind of
constraint and, I might add, potential delay, that the nonessential service
delivery areas of the ministry are in terms of authority to recruit being
sought and given.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell us, would not all of the Administrative Support
positions in regional services that support mental health home care sitter be
considered essential? Because, of course, if those positions are not filled,
then those deliverers of services, i.e., public health nurses, et cetera,
cannot do their job.
Mr. Orchard:
Well, in part, but I cannot give my honourable friend a blanket yes or a
blanket no, because there is flexibility within the management of those
regional offices to share staff, and they have to do that just during a normal
vacancy even if it is a protected position.
You do not instantly fill a position the day the incumbent leaves the
job.
I cannot give my honourable friend any
more specifics in terms of how it works.
If my honourable friend had some specific questions I would seek and
tell her whether yes, no or maybe.
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not have specific questions or a specific
position that I am referring to. These
are general questions, but perhaps the minister could assist me in understanding
his answer by explaining what he means by "in part."
Mr. Orchard:
Well, that is where I get into my honourable friend's question. I cannot tell you which part until I know
what part you want to ask about, and then I can give you whether it is in part
yes or in part no.
Ms. Gray:
Well, perhaps if I take a couple of examples of SYs then, can the
minister tell us, for those in Administrative Support positions that directly
support home care case co‑ordinators, directly support public health nurses,
directly support mental health workers, are those SYs, if I can use the term,
"fast‑tracked"? Are they
given the same type of priority for filling as would a home care case co‑ordinator
or a public health nurse position be given?
* (1600)
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I will attempt to provide that information this
evening.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell us‑‑he has indicated the management of
health care reform and his ministry attempting to do that along with the
ongoing delivery of service. Can he tell
us if there was or if there is an analysis that his department has done in
regard to the workweek reduction and what the impact of that workweek reduction
will be on delivery of service within his department?
Mr. Orchard:
In terms of the service delivery, we are not expecting the service
delivery to be diminished. All of the
proposals to manage the reduced workweek in the service delivery areas are very
sensitive to maintenance of the service delivery levels.
In terms of the nondirect service
delivery, yes, there will be‑‑my department is no exception, myself
included. We are taking the 10 days off
without pay. It is, one could say,
inappropriate that these people who are working diligently‑‑and I
recognize that and acknowledge that‑‑do not think much of a reward
of 10 days off without pay, and I think that is fair to say.
But I think also there is a general
recognition across the system that that is a much better alternative than
coming to all departments and saying, then if you cannot achieve it through 10
days off without pay then achieve it through direct staff reductions. I think that would be much more compromising
of the process of change, because there we would have individuals no longer with
the ministry who might have had roles to play in the reform, whereas with the
10 days off, it is just that, 10 days off without pay, but the individual still
maintains that role in terms of providing support to reform and any other
initiative the ministry undertakes.
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, the minister referred in his answer to nondirect
positions and gave himself and some of his staff as an example.
Can the minister tell us which programs
being delivered within his department are considered direct service, and in
fact, if I can read between the lines, will not be part of the workweek
reduction, or are all positions going to be part of that workweek reduction,
and if that is the case, what contingency plan is being put in place to ensure
that the service is delivered on those Fridays or Mondays when staff are off?
Mr. Orchard:
Well, just that. In the areas
that my honourable friend identified, for example, our contingency plans, our
managers have some assurance that they can maintain delivery of service in all
areas. There is always a contingency
plan for emergency services and in the other areas of the ministry, the 10 days
off will apply.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell us, will his staff, any staff at the directorate levels,
are they considered nondirect service and will all of those staff be taking
time off during the summer?
Can the minister also indicate to us, in
regard to service delivery of home care, mental health, public health and home
economics, are those services considered essential or nonessential?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, to the first question, and I will have to provide the information
to the latter.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell us, and if he is going to provide the information
to the latter, I do not know if he is able to answer this question, but if
there are some contingency plans that will be put in place, does he have
information as to what those contingency plans are in regard to those services
that will not be running in full during those particular days off?
Mr. Orchard:
I think my honourable friend would appreciate they are tailor‑made,
if that is the word to use, depending on the program area. There are individuals who will maintain,
well, I guess, in essence 24‑hour emergency service on call or be the
contact point for 24‑hour emergency service, not dissimilar to weekend,
that we have now. We have some program
areas where there is the ability to, on an emergency basis, seek remedy.
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am not sure if this is a question the minister
can answer in terms of where we are at in Estimates under Executive Support,
but in regard to these days off, is this considered a layoff for staff, or a
leave of absence without pay, or what exactly are these days considered?
Mr. Orchard:
Ten days off without pay is what they are considered. These are not layoffs, Mr. Acting
Chairperson. These are, within the collective agreement, the opportunity to
exercise 10 days without pay and reinforced with the legislation that will be
part of the session's diligence and work.
Ms. Gray:
I do not necessarily expect the minister to have these details now but
perhaps when we get into Human Resources.
I am wondering if the minister will be able to provide us with
information as to what the stand‑by pay is for staff on those days off
and particularly the differences, should there be any, between the various
classifications, i.e., medical officers of Health and field staff.
Mr. Orchard:
We will attempt to put that together.
We may not have that for this evening, though.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister advise me whether or not it is
on this line of the appropriation that deals with the Canadian Blood Agency, or
is that dealt with under 1.(c)?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, my Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance is our
nominee to the Canadian Blood Agency. The costs of our participation in that
agency, as well as through support of purchase of blood products, of course, is
in the Hospital line. So whatever my
friend wants to pursue today, I have Mr. Anderson here.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am just more concerned at some general
questions in terms of when the next meeting will take place and what the
situation is with respect to the fractionation plant, the issue that I had
raised with the minister in Question Period about a month ago.
Mr. Orchard:
The next meeting is in September.
In terms of the fractionation plant, when my honourable friend posed
that question, I think, possibly‑‑and I am speculating here‑‑my
honourable friend might have read an account where approval had been given, or
at least that was the news report that approval was given, to Red Cross to do
the joint venture with Miles Laboratories to do the joint venture in blood
fractionation. That wire copy report was not accurate.
There was no approval given at the May
meeting of the agency. The presentation
was given, and I think it was the unanimous decision of the agency not to give
approval to Red Cross and their two proponents, Red Cross and their partner in
the proposal, Miles Laboratories, to move ahead with a fractionation
plant. There was no approval given and
the agency that is representing all provinces indicated that they would not be
giving approval for fractionation at this time.
* (1610)
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) discussed
at length the issue of compensation for hemophiliacs and the minister responded
and I will not duplicate time in this committee by going over that territory
again. The minister said there is
another meeting of the Canadian Blood Agency in September. Is that where the minister is intending to
meet with his fellow ministers to make the decision concerning compensation or
is it another ministers' or deputy ministers' meeting where that decision is
being made?
Mr. Orchard:
The fall ministers' meeting or the annual ministers' meeting is in
September of this year and a number of my colleagues wanted to discuss again
the issue of compensation for hemophiliacs infected with HIV from the blood
supply in the mid‑'80s. It is at
the ministers' meeting that that issue will be discussed again. It was at the ministers' meeting, I guess,
three years ago that the issue was first discussed and subsequently reported to
the ministers. It will be again the
ministers' meeting that we will discuss the issue.
Mr. Chomiak:
Has the government of
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, we have no difficulties with the inquiry that has
been acceded to, as I understand it, by the federal minister. I guess the only observation we would make is
that if we can‑‑I think everyone wants not to have a prolonged
investigation but rather to attempt to put a report before the federal minister
as quickly as possible which might make any number of suggestions including the
management of the Canadian blood system.
I think it is fair to say that recent
initiatives, the Canadian Blood Agency being one of them, is an attempt by all
provinces to manage the system better.
If there are still improvements, I do not think and I do not have any
right or any authority to speak for other ministers across Canada, but I do not
think any ministers in Canada would object to an investigation, an inquiry
coming up with reasoned recommendations on how to make the system work better,
to provide assurance of product quality amongst other things, as well as to
assure that the system is affordable over the long term. We have had no difficulty with the federal
government acceding to the inquiry as recommended by the parliamentary
committee, and I believe is agreed to by the federal minister.
Madam Chairperson:
1.(b)(1) Salaries $529,000‑‑pass; 1.(b)(2) Other
Expenditures $167,100‑‑pass.
1.(c) Evaluation and Audit Secretariat (1)
Salaries $717,300‑‑shall the item pass?
Mr. Chomiak:
The expected results of the program indicated the program evaluation
reports. I am wondering if the minister has
or can table for us some of the program evaluation audits or reports that have
been carried out in this particular area in the Department of Health recently?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I can indicate to my honourable friend the areas of
activity, but we do not table the audit reports publicly. They are available to the Provincial Auditor
and senior management within the ministry for ongoing decision making, so if I
can‑‑I mean, I do not know how useful it would be for me to go
through the Activity Identification. I
think that would be an inappropriate consumption of time, however, given the
freshness of the day and how anxious we all are to sit here and listen
attentively, because we have had very relaxing weekends with lots of sleep, I
could do that.
Mr. Chomiak:
I missed the minister's last couple of statements. Somehow it came to me
garbled. I wonder if the minister might
repeat it.
Mr. Orchard:
No.
Mr. Chomiak:
I am wondering if the minister can outline for me the list of the last 10
audits carried out by this branch?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes.
Madam Chairperson:
1.(c)(1) Evaluation and Audit Secretariat (1) Salaries $717,300‑‑pass;
(c)(2) Other Expenditures $238,200‑‑pass.
(d) Finance and Administration (1)
Salaries.
Ms. Gray:
I have a question on this section.
Can the Minister of Health tell us where the
Mr. Orchard:
We will try to get my honourable friend an update, say for eight o'clock
tonight, on that issue.
Ms. Gray:
Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister for getting that information for
this evening.
Can the minister tell us, in this
particular section Finance and Administration, has there been an amalgamation
of the hospital administration all in terms of their financial staff with this
section? I know that there were some
committees that were established in relation to looking at hospitals and
budgets, but does that have any relationship to this particular section of the
department?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I am advised no, it does not.
Ms. Gray:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us in the Finance and
Administration section, does this have any relationship, this particular
section‑‑it must have, looking at the number of SYs that are here‑‑with
what was formerly MHSC? Has this been an amalgamation?
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, Madam Chairperson, the Finance and Administration is staffed and
funded in 21.1(d) and represents the amalgamation between what was formerly
Administration and Finance with the Manitoba Health Services Commission, as
well as Administration and Finance within the Department of Health and is now
the ministry Finance and Administration executive function. Mr. Anderson, who
was responsible for Finance and Administration with Manitoba Health Services
Commission prior to the legislative change and the incorporation, is now the
ADM for the Department of Health as well as the responsibilities for what
formerly was the Manitoba Health Services Commission.
* (1620)
Ms. Gray:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us why library services is
under Finance and Administration?
Mr. Orchard:
Would "because" be sufficient?
Ms. Gray:
No.
Mr. Orchard:
I am advised that this is the absolute best place to have the library in
the ministry, because it supports Administration and Finance activities
throughout the length and breadth of the ministry, and it is just the most
appropriate place to have it.
Ms. Gray:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us, under Objectives it says,
to provide library services, is that just specific library services to this
section? This is not the entire library
services of the Department of Health, is it?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I am advised that this is the library support services that
are at 880
Ms. Gray:
Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us if Finance and Admin has
done any analysis or made any suggestions about the ability to be more
efficient in the area of space, vehicles, et cetera, if in fact they would not
have to go through the Department of Government Services as middle people to
get the job done?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, I think that is the most interesting topic because I am
going to share a little discussion that I have had with individuals that we
will not mention for fear of further repercussion. I say that with tongue in cheek.
Yes, I have. I have had those discussions, and I have
received that kind of advice from senior members of the ministry, the advice
being not solely focused on Government Services and the relationship with them,
but rather on the Treasury Board approval process that all departments and
ministries go through. The simple observation made by this individual, who has
substantive years of experience within the ministry in Admin and Finance, was
that once the budget is established, give us the ability to manage that
budget. If we do not manage it
appropriately, our jobs are on the line, is the bottom line in management.
Really, I think that is probably one of
the flaws in government in terms of our whole process of administrative
accountability around the financial projections and the integrity of the
budget. I would have no difficulty in
vesting that sort of authority as described and suggested, but we are not quite
reform oriented enough internal to government to do that. I think there may be some legitimate reasons
in terms of concerns that the Provincial Auditor might have, et cetera.
Clearly, I think a goal over the next
number of years of government, irrespective of this Ministry of Health, is to maybe
streamline our paper flow in terms of budgetary approval. It is a system that, I think, fairly observed
probably needs a rethink in today's environment to streamline the process. You have always got to have that delicate
balance of maintaining as much managerial freedom and vesting of responsibility
with the difference in public service compared to private service, because
basically the suggestion as made is private sector in terms of its
orientation. I mean you strike a budget
for me and if I manage the budget appropriately, fine, I am around next
year. If I do not, then replace me with
someone who can manage the budget.
There are two differences in terms of
bringing that management style. Firstly,
it is not quite as easily said as done in terms of replacing an individual in
the civil service. My honourable friend is more cognizant of that than most
because, I think, you have probably seen the process being protracted or
cumbersome. Secondly, we are not a private
sector, we are responsible to the taxpayers of
Ms. Gray:
The minister raises an interesting issue in terms of government
efficiency and the ability of government to deliver service. I know that this same issue is being raised
with the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) in the Family Services
Estimates and the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) in the Education
Estimates, and certainly from the minister's colleagues in Education and Family
Services, and also from the minister here today.
I certainly hear the fact that, yes, there
is a recognition that it is a concern, and, yes, it is something that
government should be looking at, and it can happen overnight. I think I certainly recognize that, and I am
sure other members of this Legislature do as well. But I would ask the minister then, given that
there seems to be this concern and a recognition of difficulties and problems
in terms of how efficient are we as governments in delivering our services, is
this issue on the cabinet agenda?
Mr. Orchard:
Well, Madam Chairperson, first of all, I am not at liberty, as my
honourable friend will appreciate, to discuss what is on the cabinet agenda,
and so I will not respond to that part of the question.
But let me indicate to my honourable
friend, when my honourable friend indicates and paraphrases my response as
recognizing that there are difficulties or there are problems, I am indicating
that we are seeking ways in which we can improve process. No process, whether it is the current one‑‑and
it has been streamlined to a degree since we have come in‑‑is
without need of a constant investigation and review.
* (1630)
In terms of internalizing efficiencies
within how we operate in government, yes, that is a topic that this ministry
and other ministries, and I think it is fair to say the government in general,
are attempting to develop the streamlining of processes. I think my honourable
friend can appreciate that movement there is fairly slow.
But let me just give my honourable friend
a simple example. In earlier questions in finance and administration, I mean,
one of the things we did was, we brought the two areas of the department
together, the Department of Health and the Manitoba Health Services Commission. In doing that consolidation, there were a
number of staff reductions because of duplication across the two areas of
administration.
We find that there are other benefits of
having that amalgamation of the commission and the department. In terms of program areas and a better
understanding of program goals as ministry goals, as goals beyond the narrowed
funding line of hospitals or personal care homes or public health or mental
health. The consolidation of the two, as
completed in the last 12, 14 months, I think, has been beneficial in
streamlining our process internally.
I do not think I say this with any fear of
being contradicted; I think it has enabled us to move more quickly on the whole
health reform issue because there is an understanding across program,
administrative and departmental lines of what the larger departmental goals are
for the province. That was only
accomplished‑‑well, that is an overstatement saying "only
accomplished." That better
opportunity to facilitate change in the reform and action plan was certainly
assisted by having a consolidation of commission and ministry.
Ms. Gray:
The minister said he is not about to tell me what is on the cabinet
agenda, and I can appreciate that.
Perhaps that was an unfortunate choice of words, but I do recall‑‑I
do not have the throne speech in front of me, but I believe this government
spoke about, in the throne speech, reform and restructure of government. I would assume that in fact that is common
knowledge across
Can the minister tell us then what process
is in place within his government, not necessarily just his department, to look
at the restructuring of government and any type of reform?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I think my honourable friend, if she thinks about it,
I have already in part answered that question within the Ministry of Health in
terms of some of the initiatives that we have taken. In terms of attempting to develop‑‑and
the main benefit of our consolidation within the Ministry of Health of the
commission and the department was the advantage of having the program
familiarity shared across program lines so that goals for health are better
understood, better focused on, better acceded to.
Let me move that up a second step. In terms of our Estimates development
process, we have the Human Services envelope, if you will, involving the
Ministries of Health, Family Services, Education, Justice and Labour and has
been chaired by the Deputy Minister of Labour in trying to establish envelope
goals in terms of the Human Services Committee so that we attempt, not always
perfectly, I will fully admit, to understand decision making, budget and
program wise, across several ministries.
There are three other envelopes of funding
that also deal in a similar fashion with differing areas of the government and
the ministries. From the Healthy Public
Policy perspective, certainly the Human Services Committee of Cabinet offers an
opportunity for the deputy ministers to expedite discussions around program
collaboration between departments.
I say again, we are not as sophisticated
as we can be. We are not as perfect in
the process as we will be, but we are certainly moving very definitively
towards a more informed process of change across government working in
collaboration with other ministries.
Ms. Gray:
Madam Chairperson, I give the minister credit for being consistent with
his other two colleagues the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) and the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) because they were about as vague
in their response about what the government was actually doing in regard to
government restructuring as he is.
Be that as it may, I know the minister
likes to use the example of the amalgamation of Finance and
Administration. With the MHSC and the
other part of the department, I am wondering if the minister could tell us,
other than reduction of SYs as a result of that amalgamation, what other
achievable results or efficiencies have occurred as a result of that
amalgamation?
Mr. Orchard:
I think it is fair to say that the Admin and Finance with fewer people,
which translates into less commitment of resource, is undertaking their
responsibilities at least as effectively as they did before. I mean that is the achievable.
Ms. Gray:
Is the minister assured that in fact the delivery of those kinds of
services in Finance and Administration is being done as efficiently now with
the amalgamation as it was before?
Before the minister gets up to answer this
question, I have to say, I am not asking the question because I have this
zinger example that is going to prove him wrong. I want to know if in fact there has been any
evaluation of the amalgamation and if in fact we are doing as good a job now
with the amalgamation as we were before.
Mr. Orchard:
I was not expecting a zinger or anything because usually I get a little
sense of the zingers coming and you try to take the z out of the zingers, but
anyway, no, let me answer the question in this context. There has not been identified to me any
difficulties in the amalgamation, and as I say, the Admin and Finance division
is operating at least as effectively as it did before with fewer staff, just
for example, a single payroll system where two payroll systems were in place
before and a single accounting system where there were two accounting systems
in place before.
So I think it clearly has made us more
effective with less resource. In today's
environment of government, I think that is what taxpayers from sea to sea are
asking governments to attempt to do, because remember, I can say without any
equivocation that this consolidation and the subsequent administrative savings
has not, and I repeat, not, diminished the service capability and health care
delivery to Manitobans.
It has used less resource, and if I can be
so blunt, I mean, these were difficult decisions when we made them two years
ago, because some of the people whose jobs were eliminated with the
amalgamation were long‑standing employees of the ministry, and it was not
an easy decision to have those positions, hence those individuals, no longer
with the ministry, particularly if they could not be redeployed.
But, you know, I cannot put it in more
succinct terms other than if we had maintained the old structure, I mean there
might have been upwards of $200,000 or $300,000 that we would not be putting
into dialysis today or another number of other program areas because we have to
seek every efficiency that we can within our administrative structure of
government. Because a dollar wasted in
an administrative function in government or direct funded agencies such as
hospitals, personal care homes, health centres, a dollar wasted in
administrative function or inefficient process within those global budgets or
within the ministry is a dollar that is‑‑it follows that is a
dollar that is taken away from care giving.
* (1640)
So I think all of us who are on the goal
that, you know, we want to be as effective as we can in providing those
services so that there are as many dollars available for those services as we
can glean from government operation.
Ms. Gray:
I am pleased to hear that the minister, and I know he has certainly
stated this in the last number of years, believes in the importance of saving
every possible dollar and putting those dollars towards service delivery. I am wondering if the minister, just a
technical question, could tell the committee, do the assistant deputy ministers
in the Department of Health still spend time approving carry‑over of
vacation days for staff throughout the department? Would you know the answer?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I am advised that ADMs still do that and make their
recommendations as to approval of same to the deputy minister.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell us why assistant deputy ministers, who get paid a
good salary to hopefully do policy development and look at the overall
direction of government or their particular sections of the department, why
they spend time going through individual names of staff to determine whether in
fact there should be approval for a vacation carry‑over?
Mr. Orchard:
Well, I really cannot.
Ms. Gray:
I bring this question up, and I am sure the minister cannot. Is he prepared to look at this? It is to me just one example of many
procedures that are in place now within government, and I am not being critical
necessarily of this government, I am talking about governments in general. These are probably systems that have been
ongoing for the last 10 years when the other government was in power.
But to me to have an assistant deputy
minister not just in Health, in other departments as well, spend their time
going through the names of staff and deciding which staff should have approval
for vacation carry‑over is absolutely a ridiculous, ludicrous, waste of
time on their part.
In fact some of them do not just look at
it and rubber‑stamp it. They send
it back three and four times to the regions so that the regions have to take
their staff time to send back ridiculous justifications as to why these staff
should carry over their vacation when in fact, providing the manager is
following the collective agreement and the employing authority can ensure that,
in fact, the service will be delivered and will be maintained should those
staff carry over their vacation, why does not the assistant deputy minister
really care or why should an assistant deputy minister really care?
I am just wondering if some of these
procedures‑‑and that is only one I give as an example‑‑at
some point could be looked at because I think if there were some efficiencies
in this area, maybe in the overall scheme of things in terms of how government
saves money, it may not be a lot of dollars, but it certainly might increase
staff productivity at a regional level and at least increase staff morale.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I thank my honourable friend for that
suggestion. I do not have an answer, but
I certainly accept what my honourable friend is saying. I will advance her comments to my deputy to
seek an answer for that, because it has application, as my honourable friend
says, not only to the Ministry of Health, but to every department.
I may be very blunt with my honourable
friend. I appreciate the suggestion,
because my honourable friend might recall when we were in‑‑I do not
know how we got to it, but I think it was in one of our committees. It ended up that the issue was untendered
contracts. We ended up with a reporting
structure where, and I forget what legislation we were bringing in, but at
committee stage when we were a minority government and my honourable friend was
part of that official opposition in those days, brought in an amendment that
required reporting of contracts, under $5,000, was it? There was a figure like that, at any rate.
The way the doggone regulation got written
is that there has to be a report every two weeks. I go through my sign book and there are all
these reports which say nil, untendered contracts. Every time I would send them
back and say, why do we not just develop a system where it says here is an
untendered contract and send it in, because that is all you want to know. You do not want to know if there is none, but
yet we set up this crazy process by the committee meeting of reporting biweekly
untendered contracts, including a nil report.
An Honourable Member: Let us change that.
Mr. Orchard:
Well, I know.
This is where I and the Finance minister
have had some discussions about this. I
have to admit‑‑I should not confess these kinds of things because
it will impact on solidarity and it will be viewed, and it will probably be
front page on the Winnipeg Free Press tomorrow that the Minister of Health and
Finance minister in fisticuffs over a process that he refuses to change, but I
have made the suggestion to him. Change
the regulation.
All people want to know is if there is an
untendered contract, what is it for, to whom and for how much money.
An Honourable Member: Speak of the devil.
Mr. Orchard:
Is this not unbelievable?
An Honourable Member: Do not say anything.
Mr. Orchard:
No, we are going to go right back to square 1. Could I take the time of
the committee and go back to square 1? The question was posed here about
administrative procedure, and I am informed by my honourable friend the member
for Crescentwood that we have a process in government where assistant deputy
ministers check through individual staffing's vacation time, and sign it back
and it shuffles paper back and forth.
I give the analogy of how for about two
years now I have been sending the Finance minister nasty notes about why we
have to sign off untendered contracts nil instead of just changing it to
untendered contracts, what they are, to whom, and whatnot, and then we stop
killing all these trees and abusing the environment. I know now that we have this issue on the
floor in this committee where we can make decisions that count, that my
honourable friend the New Democrat, my honourable friend the Liberal and I will
force this change at the earliest opportunity with full co‑operation from
our respective caucuses.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, I concur with the comments of the minister and the
member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray). Most
of these procedures do not go back 10 years.
I dare say they go back to the '50s in terms of a lot of The Financial
Administration Act provisions that have been put in and frankly‑‑(interjection) Yes, this particular
provision‑‑we are talking about a philosophical matter in general.
The minister, within this particular area,
indicates that there is the processing of 48,000 payment vouchers
annually. Can the minister outline for
me what those 48,000 payment vouchers refer to?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I am informed that is to be able to pay our bills in
the ministry.
Mr. Chomiak:
The reason I asked the question was last year it was 50,000 payment
vouchers, and I was just curious as to where the 4 percent decrease in bills
paid by the department might be?
Mr. Orchard:
This is part of the ongoing efficiencies that this government is able to
achieve.
Mr. Chomiak:
The minister cited increased efficiencies in terms of cross and
intradepartmental co‑ordination.
It has been something that we have raised on this side of the House
consistently for the last several years, and the minister only need talk about
the audiology program and what happened in terms of the poor communication
between the Department of Health and the Winnipeg School Division and the
Department of Education and the lack of contact between those two agencies with
respect to that.
* (1650)
We only need to discuss the medical rehab
program and the pilot project initiated by the nurses from medical rehab to go
into Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and provide training to special needs and
paraprofessionals.
I am wondering if the minister might
outline specifically, with respect to that particular program, what the status
is, because the minister in Question Period indicated we would be receiving a
response in several weeks to that program when the program was cut at the end
of the last fiscal year.
Mr. Orchard:
Yes, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Chomiak:
When can we expect an announcement from the minister with respect to the
program to train paraprofessionals in the school divisions. There was a pilot project launched by some
nurses on a part‑time basis from the medical rehab. They did an innovative program, four nurses
on a half‑time basis who launched a program that was well received and
well accepted. They made a proposal to the government for continuing the program.
As I understand it, at the time when I
questioned the minister in the House on this matter, the minister indicated
that the government was going to respond in several weeks. That was several months ago. I am wondering if the minister might outline
when we might receive a response and what program will be put in place to carry
out this service?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, not that I want to correct my honourable friend, but
you know my honourable friend said that the solution was training of paraprofessionals. That may be a component of the
recommendations that come to us from the interdepartmental committee that is
collaborating along in attempting to work through to a solution.
Madam Chairperson, I do not want my honourable
friend to leave the impression that that is the proffered or the preferred
solution by including it in a preamble to his question. There are discussions that are ongoing within
the ministry to try to achieve a resolution to this area of program.
I simply say to my honourable friend that
I will attempt‑‑well, I may not be able to do it for this evening,
but I will attempt to give my honourable friend an answer as to the expected
timing of a report with, I would suspect, recommendations. I am being slightly hesitant here because of
course this committee is not reporting to me.
My ministry is part of it. I will
attempt to get some further information for my honourable friend's edification.
Madam Chairperson:
Item 1.(d) Finance and Administration (1) Salaries $2,312,400‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $1,634,100‑‑pass.
1.(e) Human Resources (1) Salaries
$958,400.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, the department identifies 475 permanent and temporary
employees recruited to fill vacant positions.
Last year, the Estimates identified approximately 650 or 675. I assume the decreased number of positions to
be filled is a function of the basic downsizing.
I am wondering if the minister can give me
a general outline of the 475 positions, generally, where they see those
positions being filled and whether there are any new positions, and I am saying
new positions other than those that are being filled by replacement.
In other words, are there new positions
being filled in terms of that component of 475?
What generally is the rough idea of the component parts of the 475
positions?
Mr. Orchard:
Several noes. The downsizing that
my honourable friend alludes to is not what is happening here.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, last year the department identified 650 positions to
be filled. This year they are
identifying 475. This year the budget is
decreased. Is the minister saying there
are more people working for less, or is the minister saying something
else? It is clear that there are going
to be fewer positions based on that fact.
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chairperson, I want my honourable friend to understand that we do
not go out recruiting people to fill vacancies if there are no vacancies. My honourable friend seems to think that we
should maintain the level of recruitment at 650 as it was last year, whether
there is a need or not. I am saying to
my honourable friend, I do not think my honourable friend really is suggesting
that. I think my honourable friend has
maybe not thought his questions through very well in this area.
My honourable friend alludes to downsizing
in the Ministry of Health as causing this problem. That is not the case. I think my honourable friend, at least from
this ministry's perspective, would have to concede that there are fewer
changeover of staff, there are fewer people voluntarily leaving their positions
and that job security is an issue.
People are tending to probably stay longer at their job, and as they
stay longer at their job, fewer vacancies are traded, hence you need to recruit
fewer people to fill those vacancies.
To answer my honourable friend's question,
over the period of years, yes, we have fewer staff working in the Ministry of
Health, and this year with the 10 days unpaid leave, they will be working for
less money than last year, with the exception of those who qualify for an
increment which my honourable friend knows is not affected by the 10 days
unpaid leave.
Mr. Chomiak:
Madam Chairperson, so the minister indicated there are fewer people
working in the department this year. He
just said it in his statement so I accept that statement, so that certainly
implies to me downsizing. Did he not say
that, or is the minister saying he did not say that?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Chair, about 15 minutes ago in answer to the member for
Crescentwood, I indicated that in the amalgamation of Admininstration and
Finance, we downsized. Yes, if my
honourable friend goes back to the total SY count over a five‑year period
of time, you will find fewer SYs in the Ministry of Health. It has been downsized. Government has been downsized.
Surely my honourable friend is not
suggesting that we go out and recruit 650 permanent and temporary people this
year because we did it last year. I
mean, you recruit to vacancies, you recruit to need. If we can anticipate that this year 475 will
be the goals of recruitment, permanent and temporary, surely my honourable
friend is not suggesting we should have put 650 in because we will go out and
recruit people to nonexistent jobs.
I mean, the economy is changing. People are staying in their jobs longer, and
if they stay in their jobs longer they do not leave and create vacancies that
are filled with this process that is identified here. Yes, the ministry is downsized. Government is downsized, and we are
maintaining the level of service delivery.
As I said to my honourable friend, and I know my honourable friend was
listening, that allows us to put resource into dialysis, resource into needs in
the health care service provision menu.
Now, I have to take from my honourable
friend's questioning that he would prefer us to spend money on administration
and cut it out of direct program and care to people. That is not what we are doing.
Madam Chairperson:
Order, please. The hour being 5
p.m., time for private members' hour.
Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
* (1700)
IN SESSION
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for Private
Members' Business.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 33‑Joint Municipal-Provincial
Capital Projects
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale), that
WHEREAS the unemployment rate averaged 9.8
percent during the first nine months of 1992, the highest level of unemployment
recorded since the Great Depression; and
WHEREAS there is no indication of a
significant improvement in the unemployment rate forecasted for 1993; and
WHEREAS this unacceptably high
unemployment rate has occurred in spite of substantial reduction of the labour
force; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
failed to take any direct action to fight the recession; and
WHEREAS there is a serious need for
improved municipal infrastructure throughout
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider the
advisability of implementing a provincial‑municipal infrastructure
program whereby the province would provide a significant share of the cost of
approved municipal works undertaken with the next 18 months.
Motion presented.
Mr. Leonard Evans:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this particular motion because of my
concern of the continual high levels of unemployment in this province and the
need for the provincial government in
When we propose, as we do in this
resolution, a joint municipal‑provincial capital work scheme, what we are
proposing is a classic approach to fighting unemployment, an approach that was
used very successfully in the Great Depression of the 1930s both by the United
States government under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and also by the federal
Government of Canada and indeed by some of the provinces at that time.
Indeed, many of the important buildings we
have in this city, for instance, arose out of the public works projects of the
Government of Canada in the 1930s, many important buildings, the auditorium
building, which is now the provincial library, Archives building. I know of major federal buildings in the
city. There are highways around the city
as well and throughout the province that were also a result of federal public
works projects that were engaged in to create employment and to fight the
Depression.
I note, when I prepared this resolution
some time back, that we recorded a very high level of unemployment, and I
regret to note, Mr. Speaker, that high level was 9.6 the first nine
months. I see that is what the year
ended up with, an average of 9.6 percent for the year 1992. That is the highest we have had in the past
decade, 9.6.
These are figures I am taking from the
Manitoba Labour Market Information Bulletin published by the Department of
Education and Training. Of course, these
are actually Statistics Canada numbers that they have put into this
bulletin. So these are official
statistics showing the highest level we have had in the past decade, higher
than we had in the recession of '83, '84 as well.
At the present time we are still looking at
a very high unemployment rate. It is
still running on a seasonably adjusted basis at 9.6 in May of 1993. So there is absolutely no question that we
have a very unsatisfactory, high level of unemployment that we have to do
something about.
We have over 50,000 people in this
province who are seeking jobs, and the sad fact of it is, many of these are
young people who have never really had an opportunity to get into the workforce
and to become a productive member of society doing what they could do, and that
is using their skills, their talents, their energy, their abilities to produce
goods and services that we would all benefit by.
The fact of the matter also is that
municipal governments in this province are short of cash to engage in a lot of
worthwhile municipal projects that they would like to proceed with. In fact, that is true of urban municipalities
across this country. They have a long, long list, billions and billions of
dollars of projects that are worthwhile, that are necessary, that are helpful,
that they would like to engage in but they simply do not have the financial
wherewithal to do so.
That is true also of the City of
These are necessary facilities that these
municipalities in
So we are suggesting this resolution, Mr.
Speaker, that the government could be of assistance by bringing forward a
program of incentive to municipalities whereby we would, as a provincial
government, pay a portion of the capital work.
This would provide an incentive and allow these municipalities to bring
forward these needed public works and engage in them at this time, with the
thought that this would therefore stimulate the economy, provide work, provide
jobs, stimulate the business sector and therefore, hopefully with the ripple
effect, with the multiplier effect, provide additional jobs that are badly needed
in the economy so that we all benefit thereby.
This idea, of course, is an old idea. It is an idea, as I was saying, certainly
used effectively in the 1930s but it was also a program that was undertaken, I
know, when I was first in government with the Schreyer administration. I had the privilege of serving in the cabinet
at that time, and I know we had a Manitoba Special Municipal Loans Fund that
was introduced in 1972, and it ran for various years. But it made it possible for municipalities to
build recreation centres, arenas, bridges and enabled them to pave roads,
upgrade senior citizen centres and various other much‑needed municipal
infrastructure.
There are all kinds of ways of scheduling
these programs, of designing them. There
is no one specific way that it has to be engaged in, but we had a procedure
whereby, if the municipality engaged in these projects during the winter, we
would give 100 percent labour forgiveness of the project and 50 percent in the
summer and in this way also offset some of the seasonal unemployment that we
had suffered, as we do in the province, as well as the cyclical unemployment.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that program
assisted municipalities enormously. This
was also engaged in to some extent in the Pawley administration as well. So this is a true way of getting people to
work, to produce goods and services that we need and that we benefit from.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the
* (1710)
If I could refer to parts of this report,
they state in the report that the government is seeking to make capital
investments as strategic as possible, high‑impact investments that act as
catalysts for change. They do this by
changing the fundamental characteristics or performance of infrastructure
systems for the purpose of achieving important public policy goals.
The government of
Strategic investments can certainly help
anticipate changes in the economy and help develop new ways of doing things and
open up new economic and social opportunities.
I think that this government should show some imagination and some leadership
and assist the municipalities and encourage the municipalities to make these
strategic investments.
It could be in various areas. It could be in transportation, as I
mentioned, roads, bridges. It could be
in environmental infrastructure, especially sewage lines. It could be in community development, it
could include telecommunications and knowledge‑creating facilities. There is no end of areas where you could make
strategic investments. With the
combination of this investment strategy and hopefully the stimulus that this
will give to the private sector, we will see more economic growth in this
province.
There has to be a will, Mr. Speaker. There has to be a determination, a plan, if
you will, a plan of action on the part of the government to bring this about,
but the Ontario government has made this commitment and is engaged in this
massive enhancement of public works, as I said, with the objective of
increasing the efficiency of infrastructure systems in order to bring about a
higher level of economic growth.
They point out very clearly that the
availability of good quality water and adequate sewage capacity has already
emerged as important constraints on the ability of many American municipalities
to attract and retain manufacturing investment. They make it very clear that
investment in water and sewer facilities will help meet both environmental and
economic renewal priorities.
So, Mr. Speaker, we see the
So you are achieving two things. You will be reducing unemployment. Secondly, you will be stimulating the
economy, and thirdly, you will be putting in place an improved infrastructure
which should enhance economic development.
Further, I would point out, you would even be relieving, to some extent,
the burden on property taxpayers, of course, who finance municipal
activities. To that extent, you will be
helping municipal finance.
Mr. Speaker, I know the usual answer we
get from the government is, well, we do not have enough money. We want to restrain and want to cut
back. I want to take this opportunity to
appeal to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to give consideration to going
after the Bank of Canada to have some assistance, because it is in the Bank of
Canada Act. There is enabling resolution
or a section of the Bank of Canada Act which allows it to finance provincial
debt, if necessary.
An Honourable Member: Finance provincial debt.
Mr. Leonard Evans:
Yes. It can buy provincial
government‑‑(interjection)
and no more printing money than selling your debt to somebody else. The Bank of Canada has the ability to buy
provincial bonds if it so chooses, but the point I am making is that it would
enable provinces to engage in capital investment at a lower interest rate
burden.
An Honourable Member: It sounds like the Social Credit.
Mr. Leonard Evans:
Well, Mr. Speaker, it may sound like that to the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), but it is much more comprehensive, much more sophisticated than
that, and there indeed‑‑(interjection)
You know, I find it so remarkable that the Minister of Finance is so negative
on this, because this is a solution to help provinces to fight the economic
recession, if he would only listen and think about it.
An Honourable Member: Who pays the interest?
Mr. Leonard Evans:
The interest is paid by whomever buys the bonds. In this case, it will be the provincial
governments who will pay the interest, but it will be at a lower rate than they
would get by attempting to sell their bonds on the private market. Mr. Speaker, that is perfectly legal. It is constitutional, and it can be
done. It will help to create jobs. It will create more economic activity, and it
will help the business sector. It will
help all of us. We will all benefit by
it.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of information
about how the central banks can be activated to stimulate the economy, but that
is beyond this particular resolution. At
some point, some other opportunity, I would like to be able to speak on this
subject, because that is the solution to the major economic recession that we
continually face in this country. I
appreciate it is beyond the ability of any one single province, but if
provinces worked together and addressed unemployment and recession and made
that a priority, then I suggest we could then see there is some economic growth
and we could then begin to bring down the rate of unemployment and put
Canadians and put Manitobans who desperately want to work, to work in useful
jobs, something that we will all benefit by.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that the
Minister of Finance and the government of Manitoba give this serious
consideration, help the municipalities, create work, provide necessary
infrastructure that will enhance the rate of economic development in this
province. As I said, there are other
provinces; particularly, the
With those few words, I believe my time is
up, half a minute, so I only hope and pray that the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) and his colleagues take this matter under serious consideration and do
something to fight the economic recession that we have in this province.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Brian Pallister (
The reality of what the member speaks is
something that I think we all accept in this House. The need for co‑operation and
partnership between levels of government is something we all attest to. Certainly, in terms of the municipal
infrastructure that the member speaks‑‑for example, the Manitoba
Water Services Board has been working since 1972 to facilitate improved co‑operation
among various levels of government in terms of infrastructure improvements,
assisting not only the municipalities in the provision of water supplies and
water planning and sewer infrastructure as well, but also working with the
individual business people or farmers in assisting them in dealing with water‑related
issues as well.
It should be noted I think, Mr. Speaker,
that the Water Services Board also provides grants for projects which may vary
in percentage between zero and 60 percent.
These particular project proposals come, for the most part, from those
people who will certainly be closest to the project, and its initiation is by
them.
I think when we talk about partnership, it
is important to recognize that the local people in rural
In terms of the commitment by this
government to the municipal infrastructure program, the capital programs for
the coming year in terms of municipal water and sewer infrastructure are in
four categories: the municipal water and
sewer percentage $2 million; water development $0.4 million; drought proofing
over half a million dollars; and as well the federal‑provincial PAMWI
agreement of $4.4 million in this year's budget alone.
There is a considerable financial
commitment to the partnerships the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans)
referred to. I think it is important to
recognize that we are in fact accessing federal dollars and working co‑operatively
with the leadership of rural
* (1720)
With the election of a new leader
yesterday, the possibilities are enhanced perhaps that we will be able to do
that. It is important. We need that support, we need that co‑operation
in terms of any of the worthwhile projects that are going to come forward,
whether it is initiated by our provincial department or by the municipalities.
In total, including the federal and local
contributions, this year alone, Mr. Speaker, we will be putting towards
municipal water and sewer infrastructure activities about $22 million, and that
is a significant contribution. The key,
of course, is not simply the capital contribution of the project, but it is the
employment opportunities that will ensue from these projects. The estimates
this year alone are that we will have over 300 man‑years of construction‑‑I
hope that is not a sexist term‑‑but person‑years of
employment created in
This does not refer to the related job
opportunities that will be created by such projects. Certainly there will be possibilities for
similar gains in the manufacturing sector and the consulting sector, because
certainly with the PAMWI projects there is consulting necessary in the
preparation of the projects as they are put forward from the local communities. Certainly, the possibility of increases in
offshoot benefits in the local economies where these projects take place is a
very real one.
In terms of rural Manitoba, we all
recognize that having a reliable water and sewer system is essential to
economic development in the areas of this province that are nonurban
areas. For sustainability of rural
economic development, we need to have those types of improvements and projects
in place. Certainly, we share this concern, Mr. Speaker, as your riding and
mine are both in rural Manitoba, and they are areas that are very dependent on
water and sewer infrastructure and the improvements and maintenance of those
projects that we have there to encourage further economic development whether
it is expansion of existing businesses or the attracting of new ones.
In terms of rural Manitoba's economic
development, some of the projects that are presently taking place at various
stages and being undertaken by the Water Board are in Brandon, where they are
upgrading their sewage treatment plant; in Virden where they are improving
their water supply line.
Certainly, the one that is of naturally greatest
interest to me is
This has been a constraint to
With the announcement just recently of the
PAMWI signing and commencement of that project which will take approximately
three years to complete and which will result in a contribution of
approximately $30 million from federal, provincial and local governments, we
will see the removal of a constraint that we have had in our community for a
number of years, Mr. Speaker.
It is a very exciting time in
Portage la Prairie is a community that,
like many in rural Manitoba, desires to have an opportunity presented for its
young people to stay and to work in that community. So it is important to recognize that constraints
such as the limits on water and sewer infrastructure in our community are ones
which inhibit our ability to retain the young people of our community, such as,
well, the Pages in the House today, Mr. Speaker. Certainly their parents and other parents and
members of the community would like to see those two young gentlemen stay in
our community and work there. We would
like to see them make a future for themselves in our community The simple fact is that without job
opportunities, they will be unable to do that.
So in terms of economic development, it is
precious and it is important to us in Portage la Prairie, as it is in most of
the rural communities, to have the opportunity to attract new business and to
see existing businesses expand further.
In
Our Portage Community Centre project is
one which I know a number of people in the community are involved with as
volunteers, and certainly volunteerism will be key to the success of any rural
Manitoba and Winnipeg success as well in terms of the strengths that people can
give to projects which they deem to be worthwhile as opposed to the solution
that so often seems to be coming forward from members opposite, Mr. Speaker,
which is to throw money at problems.
What volunteers and volunteer involvement
depict is a sincere desire to work towards solutions that do not require the
involvement of government necessarily.
Now, this is not to say that government should not be a partner in the
process, certainly, but the fact of the matter is that worthwhile projects
should be generated by the communities that those projects most relate to.
Certainly that is true in the case of the
Portage Community Centre project. It is
an exciting project which I would invite the members of the House to learn more
about. It is something which, I guess,
would be similar in some respects to the Core Area Initiative for
Portage Community Centre will be a signal
to other communities in rural Manitoba that there is a strong will to survive
and a strong will to excel, and I am very excited by that project and I am very
honoured to be a representative for the people who have given so much time to
that project and continue to, Mr. Speaker.
Other initiatives which members of the
House are aware of, I believe‑‑Southport Aerospace Centre is an
exciting initiative and a very worthwhile project that is way ahead of schedule
in terms of its self‑sufficiency.
The project is on track in terms of its occupancy. It is not quite self‑sustaining, but
the goal initially was to see it be self‑sustaining over a five‑year
period, and it is generating a considerable amount of its own funds as we
speak.
In terms of other initiatives locally, the
chamber of commerce industry committee has been very active. They employed until recent months a lobbyist
to pursue opportunities in terms of business coming through the community. CalWest Textiles actually was an exciting new
announcement for
Those two that I mentioned are also strong
and contributing members to our local round table, Mr. Speaker. They have been working together to co‑operatively
develop a vision for our future community.
The City of
These are the types of initiatives that
are underway in my own community, Mr. Speaker.
I know they are not at all different or unique from many of the
initiatives going on in your own constituency.
I know some of my friends in Treherne, for example, are very, very
aggressively involved in pursuing economic development projects for their area
and with other communities as well in the province. We now have over 40 community round tables
which are working very effectively towards economic goals for those people of
those communities.
* (1730)
This is indicative of the type of leadership
that I think our government and our province will depend upon in the
future. It will be based at the local
level, with the government, provincially, being a full partner and contributing
to the support of those groups who choose to exercise their rights and their
obligations to volunteer and support the communities which they are a part of.
In terms of highway infrastructure, I will
just briefly comment, Mr. Speaker, that this year over $110 million will be put
towards infrastructure costs for highways in this province. That is a
significant contribution.
As I said earlier, much of what is being
said by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) in his resolution is
very true and very worthwhile I think.
I would like to move, seconded by the
member for
THAT Resolution No. 33 be amended by
deleting all of the words following the first "WHEREAS" and replacing
them with the following:
reliable water and sewer systems are
essential to the economic development and sustainability of rural
WHEREAS the Manitoba Water Services Board
has been assisting municipalities in the provision of water and sewage
infrastructure facilities since 1972; and
WHEREAS the Manitoba Water Services Board,
in conjunction with local and federal governments, anticipate an estimated $22
million worth of capital work, representing 300 man‑years of work being
completed in 1992‑93; and
WHEREAS approximately $170 million is
spent in
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba continue to support the government's actions
and programs for municipal infrastructure.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member's amendment is in order.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
rise today and speak to this resolution put forward by the member for Brandon
East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
It is an important topic to discuss the
need to do something as a government to deal with the unemployment problems
that our province is currently facing, but it is also important to recognize
that there are large national problems.
However, provincially, we seem unable to deal with the consistent
unreasonably high levels of unemployment.
It is interesting to me that we as a
society seem to tolerate these levels of unemployment. Others around the globe do not. I think that speaks to a fundamental policy
decision that governments make as to whether or not it is acceptable that 10
percent or more of the working population do not have work and are nonemployed
or underemployed or simply unemployed. I
think our society needs to make a commitment to not accepting unemployment as a
consistent part of our economic agenda for the future.
I want to speak to the first WHEREAS. It speaks about the unemployment rate
averaging 9.8 percent. I believe it is
probably even higher than that in current months if you factor in some of the
newer figures. Secondly, there is no
indication of significant improvement in the unemployment rate forecasted for
1993 and that that unemployment rate is unacceptable. I certainly agree with that. It is important to recognize, as the
resolution points out, that is despite the net loss of people from this
province.
Now the minister speaks with pride that,
well, the number of people who are leaving is going down. I think it was 9,000 two years ago, and I
think it is down to 5,000 or 6,000 for last year. So that is a big improvement.
That is still a net outmigration from this
province, and that is despite, I believe in 1992, approximately 9,000 people
moving into the province. So I believe
it in fact is closer to 14,000 people that have left the province and that is
offset by 9,000 coming in through immigration programs.
The problem with those who were moving in
through immigration programs into the province is that‑‑and the
problem for rural Manitoba‑‑by and large, those immigrants move to
the city of
So I want to build that into my comments
about this resolution, because I think it is important to recognize that in
terms of the loss of population in the province, really, we are all suffering
in the province, but the rural areas are suffering most.
There is a depopulation which continues to
occur which will continue to threaten the infrastructure in rural
I venture to say that in years to come
even more of those communities, if the current trends continue, will simply
disappear. Mr. Speaker, with them will
go a way of life and a unique society within our provincial community that I
think we need to try to salvage, and we need to try to find ways to have
economic growth occur in the province and in particular in the rural areas.
So I have put forward a number of
proposals, the Liberal Party has put forward a number of proposals that we
think are important to get investment by Manitobans in
If those projects come along and they are
profitable and they are in the best interests of the province, that is
good. Mr. Speaker, they cannot be the
sole economic growth agenda of the government.
You cannot tie our futures to people who live outside this province and
count on them endlessly to save us with these megaprojects. It is no way to live, and it is no way to go
forward as a province and meet the challenges of the 21st Century.
We have to solve our own problems if we
are going to do it for the long term, and by that I mean for future
generations. The way to do that, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is to tap private
investment in this province, Manitobans who invest millions and millions and
millions of dollars every year, many through pension funds like RRSP donations
and others, and keep some of that money here.
Manitobans, many of them, invest a lot of money every year. The disturbing fact is how little of it stays
within our borders.
Down the road here at Portage Avenue,
Investors Group, one of the biggest investment houses in the country, controls
$18 billion in private investment. The
whole budget for this province for a year is $5.5 billion and they are controlling
$18 billion, not in government funds, in private money. How much of it stays here? All Manitobans controlling those funds, how
much stays here? A fraction, Mr.
Speaker, a pittance compared to what is invested on the
We can hardly blame them. They are using the vehicles that are there to
maximize profit. We have a role to play
as governments in giving incentives to keep those private dollars here, in
* (1740)
The Canadian government offers a subsidy
for a private investment in a wholly‑owned Canadian company. There is nothing stopping us from using tax
incentives, not direct grants but incentives, to leverage and to facilitate
private investment in our economy by our own people.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is the key to
our economic growth for the long term. I
do not think we can tie ourselves to others from outside of our province to
save us, as I believe that the current government wanted to do with some of the
megaproject investments that they made.
Mr. Speaker, it is also interesting that
this resolution comes forward today when I am led to believe, and I have not
seen the figures, but I am told Statistics Canada has produced the economic
gross statistics for the 1992 calendar year.
It is my information that
I think that is what inflation was. I believe inflation was approximately 1.1
percent. So in effect when one factors
that in, we have not grown at all. The
national growth rate is 1.4 percent. We
are behind again on the economic growth in this province as compared
nationally. It is another indication,
Mr. Speaker, that this province is slipping further and further in its role
nationally in the national economy and on the national stage. Every day when we confront the government
with these issues, what do we hear?
Well, this organization or this organization is saying it is going to be
better, it is going to be great, we are going to get investment in this
economy, we are going to grow. That is
what we hear day in day out, week in week out, month in month out, and year in
year out. That is what we hear. It is going to be great.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not great. Economic growth is not occurring in this
province at a rate needed to sustain our role in the national economy and to
retain and maintain our citizens and, in particular, our young people who need
to have an economic future in this country if we are going to retain them.
The fact is that I have some sympathy with
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) when he stands up and says, we have no
money to make direct investments of a large scale in the economy. Those days are gone. I have some sympathy with that position. You are right, we have no money because the
biggest debt in the history of the province was wrung up last year by this
minister, by this government.
When one takes out the $200 million
transferred from the slush fund they created, when one factors in the $100
million which the member for Rossmere very kindly pointed out to the House, you
have a deficit of $862 million. That is
the 18th year in a row of a deficit, and that is the largest in the history of
the province. So I have no doubt that we
are out of money.
The key to our success in the future is
going to be tapping private investment, and by that I mean Manitobans investing
in their own communities and in their own province, and they want to do
it. We have a role to play in
facilitating that, and that is why the proposals that I have made in this
House, even in the last week to the Premier of the province, are geared towards
that.
Mr. Speaker, getting back to this specific
resolution, I note that some months ago the federal government and the
provincial government announced their joint plan to spend millions of dollars
building roads. I note that, and I am
pleased that some of that money is coming to
I recall some months ago that the joint
plan came out in terms of road building.
We were all happy to see those dollars, but as the head of the
Construction Association pointed out, Mr. Lorenc pointed out at the time, it
was a lot of sleight of hand because what was given through the federal program
was taken away in the provincial highway construction budget.
Well, in fact, and I‑‑and the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says that, apparently he is denying from his
seat that that is the case. I look
forward to his speaking on this bill and to clarifying that situation because
at the time, his Minister of Highways and Transportation did not have an answer
to correct that view at the time and did not put it forward.
It is true, Mr. Speaker. I was at that meeting and that comment came
up and it was not‑‑perhaps the Minister of Finance can do a better
job than his colleague, but the point is that what was given by the federal
government was, in large part, not in whole, but in large part, taken back in
the cuts in the provincial budget.
Well, now it is true. Now the Minister of Finance is saying it is
true. Well, I mean, first it is false,
now it is true. Maybe he does not know his own mind on this, but I do look
forward‑‑that will not be anything new‑‑but I do look
forward to an opportunity for him to put some comments on the record.
Of course, we would all like the
governments of this country to have endless amounts of money to supplement
employment. I believe that we, in
Manitoba, are deserving of our share, obviously, of federal funds and that the
province should make a commitment to infrastructure because as we all know,
they deteriorate, and if we are not keeping up, it simply means if we are going
to maintain these standards, we are going to have to spend more money down the
road.
I do, however, think that on the issue of
economic growth, we, as a province, have to focus on things that will give us
long‑term ability to provide these essential services which are so costly
and which we all in this House have agreed at various times are essential.
We need to find ways to do that for the
long term. I think that the long‑term
answer to that is quite simply to take our future into our own hands and to
provide means and vehicles and ways for Manitobans to invest in our own
communities and our own businesses. That
is the answer in my view to long‑term economic growth and long‑term
ability to employ the many people in this province and to not continue to have
them leave.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Committee Change
Mr. Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness), I will recognize the honourable member for Niakwa
with his committee change.
Mr. Jack Reimer (Niakwa): I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal
Affairs be amended as follows: the
member fpr St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): It is a pleasure to rise today and address
this resolution. It has, certainly, some
import.
Let me begin by, first of all, publicly
congratulating the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) in his achieving the
leadership of his party. I wish him
well, and I actually wish him and his party partial success.
Point of Order
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I recognize
that there was a problem and that you wanted to recognize a member for a
committee change and so your eyes were on that side of the House, but in fact
the Minister of Finance and I both stood at the same time, and I believe it is
the practice of the House to alternate back and forth.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, indeed, I had
recognized the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), but I believe at the
same time, I had said, prior to recognizing the honourable Minister of Finance,
I would recognize the honourable member for Niakwa.
The honourable member seems to make reference
to the fact that the practice is, generally, we attempt to try and rotate from
one side of the House to the other. I
attempt to do that. In this case, I had just recognized the member on this side
of the House, and indeed, I was just going to the other side of the House.
Therefore, I have recognized the
honourable Minister of Finance.
* * *
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, again, as I say, I would like to congratulate the member
for St. James (Mr. Edwards), and I will come back to his comments in brief
order, but first of all on this great day heralding the renewal of our federal
party, I would like to talk about some of the important issues of the day, and
certainly unemployment is one of the very important issues of the day.
* (1750)
I will not recite or again go through the
list of capital projects, as my colleague for
An Honourable Member: Are you talking about provincial?
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, I am talking about provincial, because that is what I am
responsible for. We are in a provincial
setting and that is what we are debating today.
So I am saying to the members, nobody has to say to this government that
the maintenance and indeed the stimulation of infrastructure is important. It is very important. So do not let anybody say that this
government does not recognize the importance of employing people and indeed the
infrastructural renewal.
You know, I listened to some of the
commentary from the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), and I do not
know. I think he is aware.
But in talking to the federal Minister of
Finance, he has told me on several occasions that the G‑7 member
companies‑‑pardon me, too tired, Mr. Speaker, from a long
convention‑‑nations, that they are totally focused on this
unemployment question. It is the most
bedeviling, vexing question in the world economy today‑‑unemployment. This is not a
An Honourable Member:
Mr. Manness:
I am telling you the economic powers of
the world are trying to come to grips with this because it is a real
problem. It is a real problem because
you have this tremendous adoption of technological change. With it comes, of course, some economic
growth, but ultimately the outcome is the reduction in employment. So I guess the sure solution is to let us
wipe out some technology. Let us take
away some of the advancements, and that would help.
Then I hear the member for Brandon East
talk about the Bank of Canada and the fact that legislative authority for the
Bank of Canada to lend money to the provinces at a greatly reduced interest
rate so that they can, again, stimulate infrastructure renewal. I will say to the member that finding cheap‑priced
money today is not the problem. I can go
to
An Honourable Member: Eight hundred sixty‑two, you mean.
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, 862‑‑that is right. That is how much came in. No, it did not but well over $250 million for
a new issue‑‑(interjection)
An Honourable Member: It will not even pay your deficit.
Mr. Manness:
Well, you do not pay your deficit.
You see, now that is the intellect of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer). You do not pay your deficit. So what he is saying is you did not borrow
enough money to pay enough money that you needed to borrow for‑‑(interjection)
An Honourable Member: What was your target?
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, 6 percent. So the
question is, and I say to the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), how
low should we be able to borrow money, at what low interest rate? Yet, I ask
him‑‑it is still debt‑‑who is going to be the
beneficiary of this interest, and ultimately who is going to create the money
because if it is just a slight of hand where the Bank of Canada is going to
print money and print money, then we know ultimately what is going to come from
that‑‑inflation. We know it
is inflation.
An Honourable Member: It does not create some money.
Mr. Manness:
Yes, it does, but it does so in keeping with the general economic growth
and the population growth, and it is a very fine tuning. It is very fine tuned, the creation of the M‑1
money supply, and the member knows that because it cannot be allowed just to
explode. It cannot be allowed to do that‑‑(interjection)
An Honourable Member: . . . and we are underemployed . . . .
Mr. Manness:
Of course, we have a recession and we are underemployed. Of course, we are, but the member also must
acknowledge that we are overtaxed and the only way that you can hope to pay the
interest is if you tax more.
Now I would like to say something to the
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) because he talked about the Free Press
article and I know the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Doer) is in the House and, of
course, Mr. McNeill came running down and said, hey, did you know that there is
this press release about '92 preliminary forecasts as to the growth of the
economy?‑‑(interjection)
An Honourable Member: We did not print that‑‑Stats
Mr. Manness:
No, Stats Canada by the way put it out a month and a half ago. It is old news.
By the way, the index that it is focused
on is the one that nobody ever uses, which is on factor cost, not on market
prices which we always use.
We use the market price, so let me again
for the record say to the member, the new Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr.
Edwards), of course, who has a reporter call him and say, hey, we are on this
series, on this index, we are at eighth place.
Let me give him the fact that the common
estimate of the economic growth had the province in 1992 in fifth place tied
with
An Honourable Member: What are you using in your budget? You must be using factor cost in the budget.
Mr. Manness:
No, I use market price because that is what all the forecasters
use. That is what the forecasters use.
An Honourable Member: There are two approaches.
Mr. Manness:
That is right. I know there are
two approaches. You are going to use something that I do not use in the budget,
that the forecasters do not use, but because a reporter calls you and uses
something that nobody uses, you will use it.
Anyway, be that as it may.
I listened to the member for St. James
(Mr. Edwards) talk about tap the pension funds.
Well, that would be nice. I heard
that today in the airport. Somebody
said, you know we should take some money out of our double RSPs, we should
allow for that. Well, where is that
money? Is it sitting on a shelf? That
money is working in the economy today.
So you are going to have to withdraw it from the economy to put it back
into the economy. It does not make a lot
of sense.
The member for St. James really blew it
when he said, offer incentives. Again,
check the budgets across the land and over the last four years there has not
been a government anywhere that has provided the level of incentive to the
taxpayers, to the wealth creators, to those that want to try and contribute to
wealth creation, provided as has been in the case of the budgets of this
province, and the Liberal Party had voted against them every time.
I do not care whether it is in the mining
industry; I do not care if it is on the investment tax credit side; I do not
care if it is on profit taxes associated with small businesses; I do not care
if it is on the payroll tax offset, Workforce 2000; the Liberals have voted
against it consistently.
Not a government anywhere else in the land
has provided the incentives to try and produce wealth and therefore reduce
reduction as compared‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) will have four minutes remaining.
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.