Thursday, June 24, 1993


The House met at 1:30 p.m.








Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines):  Mr. Speaker, I have a brief statement to make to the House.

       I wish to provide the House with an update with regard to actions pertaining to the Northern Flood Agreement.

       This morning, Chief Eric Saunders, York Factory First Nation, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Canada, Manitoba Hydro and the Province of Manitoba to negotiate a comprehensive settlement agreement under the terms and conditions of the Northern Flood Agreement.  The settlement agreement is expected to be signed by June of 1994, and in the interim, York Factory First Nation will cease actions before the arbitrator.

       As you are aware, a settlement agreement was signed with the Split Lake First Nation in June of 1992.  Settlement agreement negotiations are underway with Nelson House First Nation, and I anticipate that an agreement will be signed by the fall of this year.

       Discussions are currently underway with Cross Lake First Nation with respect to developing a process to enable comprehensive settlement agreement negotiations to be undertaken.

       Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are making substantial progress in regard to settling our obligations under the terms and conditions of the Northern Flood Agreement.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the statement here this afternoon.

       We certainly believe that the five bands that were part of the original Northern Flood Agreement signed, I think, a number of years ago, in fact in 1977‑‑many of those conditions and many of those issues are outstanding.  The government is proceeding on a band‑by‑band basis, but there are still two bands that are outstanding, I believe, from the Northern Flood, and we are not sure from the minister's statement today whether there will be a referendum of the people in the community prior to the actual signing of this proposed agreement, which has been the tradition in past agreements.

       Mr. Speaker, there are other general issues that have not been dealt with either and, of course, would have been dealt with under the Conawapa environmental assessment.  The whole issue of the environmental impact was in the original agreement signed by the former Lyon government and the bands, dealing with the changes with the Hydro development.

       I think, in terms of the micro, signing community by community, that is certainly the right of the community to make that decision.  We respect their right to do so, but there are still two communities outstanding, and there is still the provision that is outstanding on the overall environmental impact which was contained within that treaty or that agreement between the government.

       Mr. Speaker, that was one of the disadvantages of the provincial government cancelling halfway through the environmental impact study that was well underway between the federal and provincial governments.  I am not saying that by way of criticism, just by way of fact, because there still could be court cases from communities that are not signed dealing with the part of the original Northern Flood Agreement to have that provision fully complied with.

       Mr. Speaker, we will await the decision of the community on the proposal from the minister.  I do appreciate the fact that they are going community by community, but we still have two communities outstanding and the macro issues outstanding.  These are difficult issues.  I do not pretend to say anyone in this House can say that these are not very difficult issues to resolve.  Different communities come at it from a different philosophical and historical approach, and I guess all of us will feel much better if all issues in the Northern Flood Agreement are ultimately resolved.  Thank you very much.

* (1335)

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, as I said back in June of 1992 when the agreement was announced by the minister with respect to the Split Lake First Nation, I will say again here, we are very pleased indeed to see this progress made.  I want to congratulate the negotiators for the York Factory First Nation as well as for the government in achieving this settlement.  I think we all agree it is high time that there were settlements like this.  We have every hope that this community as well as others will now go forward to a new future.

       Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that we have, of course, I think, learned a lot through this process as a community and as a society, as people who represent the people of this province in this Legislature‑‑about how to and how not to go about northern development.

       I think in many respects there were many, many mistakes made, but the truth is that these agreements are very important for the future of these people, for the future of these nations, and we should congratulate those who today, better late than never, have come to these settlements.

       Mr. Speaker, my final comment, I want to give credit where credit is due.  The Hydro representatives were before the committee some time ago.  They were questioned at length on their new approach, any revisions in their approach towards development in the North and towards native communities.  They did display, on the record, a very different approach, which I think was consistent with more of a progressive view towards development in a co‑operative fashion in the North.  I do hope that those spoken commitments at that time from the Hydro are representative not only of that organization, but other Crown corporations working in the North and this government.

       Mr. Speaker, I do hope very much that the people of York Factory First Nation will move forward under this new agreement to have a new life and a new relationship with the rest of us in their future years.  Thank you very much.


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 Souris School fifty‑two Grade 5 students under the direction of Ms. Theresa O'Brien and Mr. Glenn Wallman.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose).

       Also this afternoon, from the Fisher Branch School we have thirty‑two Grade 8 students under the direction of Ms. Linda Smithson.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).

       On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.




Senate of Canada



Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, since the Charlottetown accord was defeated last year, and in fact since Brian Mulroney announced his resignation as Prime Minister of Canada‑‑in fact, he has one day left I believe, and many of us think that is very good that he only has one day left‑‑15 people have been appointed to the Senate of Canada, 15 patronage appointments, many of them fundraisers for the Conservative Party, other people are friends of the Prime Minister, functionaries of the Progressive Conservative Party.

       I think most people find this cost and this body to be totally out of date, a $50‑million patronage body, when health care and education are being cut back.

       Yesterday, 14 Liberals including the former Leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party along with 11 Conservatives and one independent voted another $6,000 in provisions for the Senate of Canada.

       Our phones have been ringing off the hook.  This group was supposed to be a sober second body.  God knows they have not got the sober second thought of anybody, Mr. Speaker.  We do not need them anymore and will the‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.

* (1340)

Mr. Doer:  There was one Manitoban who voted for this yesterday, and it was the former Leader of the Liberal Party.  But all of them should be condemned collectively by this House.

       Will the Premier, at the First Ministers' meeting that is being called by the Prime Minister‑designate, call for the immediate abolition of the Senate?  It is time to get rid of that body.  It is not good for a sober second thought, and it is too costly for the people of Canada and the taxpayers of Manitoba.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, although one should not look for any small comfort when faced with such a wrong‑headed action, I do take a little bit of comfort in noting that there were 16 Conservative members who voted against that particular raise and none of those who voted for it were any of the Manitoba Conservative members of Senate.

       I agree with the Leader of the Opposition.  It was wrong, wrong, wrong, and it is why I, as a member of those who attempted to negotiate a constitutional package last year, included serious Senate reform.

       If these people were elected, I do not think there is any way that they could show such a disdain for public opinion as they did with that action yesterday.

       I join with the Leader of the Opposition in condemning what I think to be a terribly inappropriate move by the Senate of Canada.

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, in the last number of years we tried to reform the Senate.  It failed.  The people of Canada have spoken.

       At the Manitoba task force hearings, just as many people proposed to reform the Senate and just as many people in Manitoba proposed to abolish the Senate.

       The First Ministers are meeting with the Prime Minister in the first week of July prior to the Tokyo Summit.  We have an opportunity to have a referendum with the people of Canada tied to the federal election which must be called, constitutionally, this fall.

       Would the Premier agree to take a resolution to the First Ministers' meeting?  It should not take more than five minutes to discuss this issue to abolish the Senate and put that to a referendum along with the federal election which is scheduled this fall.  Let us get it done.  Let us get rid of this high‑cost and out‑of‑date institution.

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, as much as I agree with the Leader of the Opposition vis‑a‑vis the terrible inappropriateness of the measure taken by the Senate of Canada, I recognize that this is a hot political issue.  It has been on the open‑line show all morning, and the Leader of the Opposition wants to capitalize on that.

       The fact of the matter is there are some very significant matters, I think, that have to be talked about at the First Ministers' meeting which will be, unfortunately, brief, but we do have to talk about common approaches to Canada's position on the G‑7 conference.  We do have to talk about common approaches vis‑a‑vis getting our fiscal house in order and getting our deficit and debt reduction patterns established by all provinces and all jurisdictions in Canada.

       We do have to talk about getting Canadians back to work and talk about economic development and investment creation and opportunities for all of those things.  I do think that we will have to give that kind of serious and major consideration to those issues at a meeting in which we get together for the first time in about a year and a half as First Ministers.  I would think that those are the agenda items I will be concentrating on, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, Manitoba got rid of the Senate here in this province after an experience of six years from 1870 to 1876 because we could not, quote, afford it any longer.

       In terms of getting our fiscal house in order, what better ways for the First Ministers to show that we are going to get our fiscal house in order and save $50 million and perhaps put that into health care or education that have been starved by the federal government?  What better way to show leadership in getting rid of an outdated institution?

       People are absolutely furious.  They see every day the appointments of senators reminiscent of the way Trudeau stacked the Senate back in his dying days as Prime Minister of this country.  They are absolutely disgusted with the 15 or 16 Liberals who have voted for this provision and the 11 Tories who have voted for it.

       It is time, Mr. Speaker, that we spoke with the people of Canada.  Vote to abolish the Senate at the First Ministers' meeting and let the people vote for it with a referendum that could be held in conjunction with the federal election this fall.  Let us finally get it done.

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, I repeat my previous answer.


Homemaker Services



Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Mr. Speaker, this government and this ministry this year has introduced user fees on home care supplies, is increasing the nursing home rates, in some cases by more than 74 percent, and is cutting the homemaker services that used to be provided free of charge to many senior citizens and many who are confined to their own homes.

       Can the minister advise this House today whether or not any guidelines will be provided to the new organizations that are now going to be providing this fee for service in terms of homemaker service?  What cost will it be to our sick and to our elderly who will now have to pay for this homemaker service?

* (1345)

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my honourable friend's question and invitation to reply in front of the television cameras, the identical discussion we had Tuesday last.

       My honourable friend, in his preamble, forgot one important dimension to the question of individuals on home care paying for housecleaning and meal preparation, and that was that the policy in 1985 introduced by the then‑New Democratic Party government brought in the home support for seniors program, which, with the use of volunteers, would establish those types of services in the community, and when they were available, they would be the first call for service provision at a cost to the client receiving them in the home care program formerly for free.

       Now that policy, Sir, was agreed to by all members of the House as introduced by the NDP.  This decision today completes that policy direction by the NDP in 1985.  My honourable friend seems to want to forget that little piece of history.


Home Care Support Workers

Employment Status


Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Mr. Speaker, the minister is now introducing a fee for service on nursing home beds.  He is now introducing user fees, and he has not answered the question, how much it will cost these people in their homes.

       Can the minister then advise us, since he will not tell us how much it will cost, how many homemaker, home care support workers will be losing their jobs as a result of this government's initiative?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, again, I am dismayed at the‑‑an outside observer might observe about the lack of integrity in that last question.  I, Sir, will not make that observation.

       My honourable friend said that we are introducing a charge to residents of personal care homes.  Again, history will show‑‑if my honourable friend wants to go back when personal care home charges became part of the Ministry of Health's insured service provision‑‑it was introduced in 1973, by a New Democratic Party government which introduced a per diem charge.

       Now, my honourable friend is saying today, that we are just bringing it in.  What a callous distortion of history and fact, Sir.

Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Speaker, as usual, the minister has refused and is unwilling to answer the question.  He will not provide the facts to the public of Manitoba.

       My questions I will compile both together, and maybe he will try to answer finally.  How much will it be costing these people now for the homemaker services, and how many of the approximately 1,500 or so home care support workers will be losing their jobs as a result of this government's initiative?

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Speaker, we do not have those figures because there is a reallocation of hours that happens on a regular basis as, again, we discussed in these Estimates, Tuesday and Monday.

       There are individuals in the Continuing Care Programs who are working more hours than their casual employment at the commencement of the same casual employment, and so the figure varies region by region according to the needs and the competence, I would presume, of the caregiver.  Some individual caregivers, their hours go up quite significantly; others do not, and others leave the program.  We do not maintain day‑by‑day records as to who is working and who is not.  The hours of care is the important dimension.

       Again, in Estimates, my honourable friend knows that the hours of important care are going up in the Continuing Care Programs this year, not down, as my honourable friend would try to allege in front of the cameras today.

* (1350)


Labour Adjustment Strategy

Status Report


Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, in the last eight days in this province, we have witnessed the announcement of 1,265 layoffs:  116 LPNs and 32 registered nurses, up to 600 from Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, 480 from Hydro, 20 from Cortelco, 39 from Great‑West Life, with more expected, and 10 from the municipal hospitals.

       Now, Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier this morning: Given that on March 26, 1993, with much fanfare, there was an announcement by the provincial and federal governments which stated that up to half a billion dollars would be spent in the 1992‑1993 years, which this agreement is in currency, and that one of the primary goals of that very large amount of money would be labour market adjustment, how much of that money can this Premier tell those 1,265 laid‑off Manitobans will be dedicated to retraining them, to getting them back into the workforce in this province, with dignity and with the least amount of economic stress to them and their families?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is misstating a number of things, firstly, the Hydro layoffs that will amount to less than a hundred.  Most of the adjustments will be made by early retirement, and obviously those people are not candidates for retraining, so I urge him to get his facts straight.

       With respect to northern Manitoba, as a result of things such as the Mineral Exploration Incentive Program and other measures that we have put in place, activities in drilling and exploration for new orebodies are probably at an all‑time record high.  We have met with several companies even in the last few weeks who have significant prospects for orebody development that will, we hope, address those 600 or so people from the mining industry with skills, potentially, for that kind of effort.  I can tell him that there are a number of very serious prospects in ones that we are looking at.

       With respect to almost a thousand of the ones that he names, there are things that are in place to address their concerns and their needs.

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that they are in place, and I do not think the workers agree that they are in place.  As for Hydro and other Crown corporations, we have also heard that MTS expects to cut another 400 positions in the ensuing year.  It is not certain and Hydro could not be certain how many people would actually be out of work.


Labour Adjustment Strategy

Status Report


Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  My supplementary question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), flowing from the first question:  Of that half‑billion‑dollar commitment, joint program, which runs until March of 1994, how much is going to be available for labour market adjustment, which is one of the key areas indicated in the press release, and will the Premier be making an announcement, or will he make it now, as promised by the Minister of Education and Training when she said on March 26, the day of the announcement, that further announcements would definitely follow the signing?

       Now would be an appropriate time to have a further announcement for the 1,265 people in this province, who in the last eight days have been told that they are going to be out of work.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Speaker, following the signing of that agreement, Manitoba has begun working with a joint management committee with the federal government.  That joint management committee is working on the consultation process that will move towards the setup of the Canada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Boards.  Those boards are the boards that Canada has designated to flow this money through and to determine, based on the information from the boards, how best that money should be spent in Manitoba.

Mr. Edwards:  It is often the case in this House that those types of terms are thrown out.  I want something that the 1,265 workers can understand, and I want the minister to answer to them today as to how much of the half billion dollars‑‑leave aside all the studies and the boards and all this consultation talk‑‑how much is going to be available for them, to retrain them, to get them back into the workplace.

       When is that going to happen?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, Canada has announced how much money it would spend over a period of years.  Previously, however, that money was spent not in consultation with Manitoba.  It was spent based on decisions made by Canada alone.

       Based on that agreement now, we will have a much better joint decision making.  Manitoba will now have input into determining how best that money can be spent so that where training and retraining occurs, it will occur in areas where in fact it is needed.

* (1355)


Student Social Allowances

Program Reinstatement


Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):  Mr. Speaker, when this government tries to defend its elimination of the Student Social Allowances Program, it finds itself with some pretty thin arguments.

       First of all, it says these students, who are existing on $5,000 a year or less, must share the pain.  Second of all, they say that no other province does it.

       I want to ask the Minister of Education whether she is aware that the Saskatchewan Skills Development Program provides social allowances to Saskatchewan students to complete Grades 10, 11 or 12.  Will she reconsider opening the doors of education again to those 1,200 students that she threw into the street?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):  The member speaks about the student social allowances, and I think she knows that students may, in fact, at the high school level, attend programs within their local high schools, within their home high‑school area.  That has been an option.  That continues to be an option.


Student Social Allowances

Program Reinstatement


Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):  The minister must know that is not an option for over half the students on that program.

       Is the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) aware that metro Toronto has 12,500 students on social allowance who attend high school?  Will she reconsider her defence of this program, and will she allow those 1,200 students in Manitoba to complete their high school programs?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):  We have indicated, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has, that many difficult decisions had to be made within this budget.  We have indicated that those students have some options they can pursue.  We are currently in discussions with the City of Winnipeg on some of those options.  Students historically have gone to school part time and worked part time, and there are options available for them.

Ms. Friesen:  Is the Minister of Education aware that the New Brunswick Income Assistance branch supports 1,500 students who live away from home because they are in danger in their homes, and attend high school, and will she reconsider and bring back those 1,200 Manitoba students into the classroom?

Mr. Gilleshammer:  Mr. Speaker, we have made those budget decisions, and I have indicated to members opposite that there are opportunities for those students, all of them making individual decisions how they are going to pursue their education, either on a full‑time or part‑time basis.


Brandon General Hospital

Mammography Services


Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):  Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health.

       Women in the Westman area continue to wait an unacceptably long period of time for a mammography test for breast cancer.  A recent example is a woman whose family has a history of breast cancer and whose doctor submitted her name to the Brandon General Hospital last November, and now, seven months later, she has still not been given a date when she can have this procedure at the Brandon General Hospital, and as a result, is suffering considerable stress.

       Will the minister now reconsider his position and provide the necessary funds to the Brandon General Hospital to allow it to reduce the waiting lists from 10 months to something more acceptable, such as the 10‑day waiting period in the city of Winnipeg?

* (1400)

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my honourable friend's question, and my honourable friend knows that the waiting time which is longer in Brandon is for elective mammographies.

       If a circumstance exists, as he described for a woman in the Brandon region‑‑if a circumstance like that exists where there is a history of breast cancer in the family, those are the kinds of circumstances with which physicians recommend, not an elective mammography but priority access to the service.

       Now, I would appreciate if my honourable friend can share with me in private the individual's name so we can investigate that, because that clearly, Sir, is, if the circumstances exist as my honourable friend says, not an appropriate referral to mammography for that individual.

       I would be very interested in pursuing that because I am advised that in circumstances where there is some immediacy and urgency, the delay or the waiting time for mammography in Brandon is not very much different from what it is for similar circumstances in Winnipeg.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister this question.  How can he continue to discriminate against those women in Westman whose doctors want them to obtain a mammography test?  Yes, elective, as the minister states, but the women in Winnipeg who are on the same elective basis can have a test done within days.  In Brandon, you wait 10 months plus.

       I say this is a clear question of discrimination in view of the fact that the incidence of death from breast cancer is the highest‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Speaker, I am frustrated with dealing with this issue with my honourable friend, because my honourable friend wants to make all sorts of allegations that are not correct, absolutely not correct in terms of this government discriminating against women or anybody in the Westman region.

       It has been this government that was leading the charge for CAT scanning, for instance, in Brandon General Hospital, dragging the government of the day, then kicking and screaming, along to put it in.  It was this party representing Brandon and the Westman region that established dialysis in Brandon.  It was this government that established cardiac support services for the Westman region in Brandon General Hospital for the service of all those individuals.

       Now, Mr. Speaker, what I want to say to my honourable friend is that he can attempt to raise this issue for a fear campaign and a partisan campaign, but it will avoid the issue of expert opinion as to the value of mammography as a screening mechanism for women under 50.  Study after study after study says that is a waste of resource which would deny services, if invested there, to other areas of health care which my honourable friend would then stand up and complain about.

       Sir, for needed mammography in Westman region, a physician has the opportunity to make that service available for a woman so judged as in need and that is appropriate.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Mr. Speaker, it is amusing and amazing how this minister can rewrite history.  He knows darn well that it was the previous NDP government that put the CAT scan‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  This is not a time for debate.  The honourable member for Brandon East, with your question, please.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Mr. Speaker, I want to‑‑(interjection) It is not me that is saying you are discriminating against‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable member for Brandon East, with your question now, please.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Mr. Speaker, will the minister undertake to study the firm recommendations and the position of the National Cancer Institute of the United States which maintains that if every woman over the age of 50 years‑‑(interjection) Well, you can make light of this if you want, but there are women in Westman who are damn afraid of this issue because of the inaction of this government.  You are discriminating‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Will the minister undertake to look into this, because there is evidence that if women had an annual test, that the deaths from breast cancer could be cut by one‑third, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Speaker, New Democrats constantly amaze me. Now they want to adopt the American for‑profit system which has every woman from 20 years up going for a mammography test for profit for the physician, for profit for the radiologist.  I prefer in this case to rely on a Canadian study which says exactly the opposite, Sir.

       On the one hand, my honourable friend decries American consultants and then the next time, when it fits their narrow partisan approach to health care, they want to adopt American policy.

       Well, Sir, we will use the best advice we can get, regardless of whether it comes from the United States or any part of the world in making health care available, affordable, effective and preserving medicare in Canada.  We will not take the knee‑jerk, crazy reaction my honourable friend would suggest from time to time, without, I might say, much knowledge‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable Minister of Health has had an opportunity to answer the question.  Now we are moving on.


Firearms Control

Government Position


Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):  Mr. Speaker, we were concerned this week when we heard that the Justice minister had made comments in Brandon and he talked about a need to relax gun control laws.  The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) has certainly been on record in this House as espousing tougher gun control laws, and we are very concerned about his comments which would indicate the opposite.

       Can the Premier today clarify the position of this government respecting gun control laws?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, is that sort of reminiscent of the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) talking about having more casinos in Manitoba when he was running for the leadership? (interjection) Oh, yes, we recognize that he will never be a minister.  That is true.  We recognize that.

       Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the Minister of Justice, I will take that question as notice.  I think he should answer in his own terms to clarify what appears to have been a misunderstanding.

Ms. Gray:  Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said:  Decent law‑abiding gun owners, many of them hunters and farmers, should not be treated like criminals.

       I would like to ask the Premier, who is responsible for this government:  Is it the government's policy and does this government believe that the current gun control laws do treat individuals like criminals?  Is that the position of this government?

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear to anybody in my party that any decent, law‑abiding citizen should not be treated like a criminal.  If the Liberals believe otherwise, let them say so.

Ms. Gray:  Mr. Speaker, that quote came from the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae).  We are very concerned that we have a Minister of Justice who is talking about relaxing gun control laws outside of‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable member for Crescentwood, kindly put your question.


Point of Order


Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader):  On a point of order, I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne 409.(10):  "A question ought not to refer to a statement made outside the House by a Minister."  That is very clear.

       Mr. Speaker, I say the question in the vein of questioning put forward by the member is out of order.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it is very important that we find out in terms of what this government's policy is on gun control.

       The question is not out of order.  It is seeking a response from the Premier to clarify government policy on gun control.

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  On the point of order raised, the honourable government House leader did not have a point of order.  The honourable member for Crescentwood clearly did state that the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) had made a certain remark or comment, but in her question she also did ask what was the policy of the government.

       I am going to ask the honourable member for Crescentwood to put your question now, please.

* * *


Ms. Gray:  My question to the Premier is‑‑what I want to know is the first question that I asked that you did not answer, which is:  What is the policy of this government respecting gun control laws?  We want it clarified.


Point of Order


Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  Very quickly, I will clarify that. The honourable member is repeating a question which was previously asked, and it is therefore out of order.

       Now, if the honourable member for Crescentwood would like to rephrase her question, please.

* * *

* (1410)

Ms. Gray:  Can the Premier of this province tell us, does this government support the fact that there should be tougher gun control laws?

Mr. Filmon:  Tougher than what?


Bill 47

Correspondence Request


Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):  Mr. Speaker, security deposits‑‑(interjection)

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  We are moving right along here now.  We have the honourable member for Burrows, who has the floor.

Mr. Martindale:  Mr. Speaker, security deposits of low‑income tenants have been a perennial problem, particularly when some slum landlords refuse to return the security deposit at the end of a tenancy.

       The Residential Tenancies Act, which was supported in this House by all three parties, had very strict provisions to try to cure this very serious problem which frequently forced people to take food money for their next security deposit and forced people to resort to food banks.

       When the act was being debated, landlords were opposed to the security deposit provisions in trust.  Now, less than 10 months after the act was proclaimed, this government is withdrawing those provisions with undue haste.

       I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs:  Will she table a list of all landlords and landlord groups and tenants and tenant groups who met with her or who phoned her or wrote her requesting specifically that she withdraw security‑deposit‑in‑trust provisions from the act?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):  Mr. Speaker, no one has specifically asked that we withdraw security deposits from the act.  A lot of people have expressed concerns about the amount of time that was being taken to deal with this.

       The administrative staff at the branch whose workload has increased by 300 percent‑‑and that is the figure that we looked at from last year to this by virtue of having to handle security deposit accounts just in terms of handling the files‑‑have said this change will cause increase in cost and size to government of probably in the area of about 10 extra staff in order to handle the auditing of these, to handle a $1,000‑ to $2,000‑a‑year problem.

       The cost of that seemed greatly excessive to the branch. Tenants had requested specifically a compensation fund which gives greater protection than the trust deposits ever did.  That we are able and willing to provide for them at this time, Sir.


Residential Tenancies Act

Security Deposits


Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed the minister would blame her staff when it is really landlords who want this change.

       I would like to ask the minister, when The Residential Tenancies Act was proclaimed, if landlords were required to have their security deposits in trust on September 1, 1992, or whether there was a year of grace extending to September 1, '93, and when was the deadline‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  The honourable member has put his question.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):  Mr. Speaker, there were several questions in there, and I think I know what the member is trying to indicate or infer by his remarks.  I would indicate to him that the greater protection that is in here, because of the changes that are being made for tenants, is what he really should be concerned about.

       There was no undue pressure put upon this government by landlords.  The security deposit provisions‑‑any landlord who puts forwards a bad track record, we still can order those security deposits into the branch.  That was a result of consultation by tenants, which is what I thought he was looking to have us do.

Mr. Martindale:  I would like to ask the minister:  Why did she not use the money that was already in her department for a compensation fund and get the staff to enforce the current provisions, instead of caving in to pressure from her landlord friends?

       Mrs. McIntosh:  Mr. Speaker, this is about the fifteenth time that member has said, "caving in to pressure" from her Tory landlord friends.  I resent it, it is not true, it is wrong.

       I am improving the system here for the betterment of the marketplace for tenants, for landlords, for the taxpayer who has to be concerned about the cost and size of government, which this member is not concerned about.  He would rather have tenants, who are taxpayers, pay more taxes to build an empire in a particular government branch for no reason that I can see that would protect the marketplace, because what we have here will protect the marketplace better.

       I spoke on this bill extensively yesterday.  I do not know if he heard what I said.  I look forward to him putting this bill into committee so we can debate it at length, rather than snip at knee‑jerk questions in Question Period.


Asessippi Provincial Park

Ski Hill‑Conditional Approval


Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):  Mr. Speaker, this government received a proposal for a ski hill at Asessippi Provincial Park, and the researcher hired to provide background environmental information found critical habitat for rare migratory birds that would be destroyed if the ski development proceeded.

       My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources:  Has his department reconsidered its conditional approval for this project, based on the research information that was provided?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):  Mr. Speaker, the department will, as in all other instances, make its position known with respect to any proposals within our natural environment when the proponent follows the provisions of The Environment Act and in fact places a proposal before it.  That, to my knowledge, has not been done at this time.

Ms. Cerilli:  Mr. Speaker, what are the conditions for this approval, for the conditional approval, if there is shown that development is going to destroy an environmental‑sensitive area? What possible conditions could there be to reject a proposal, if not that it is going to do this?

       Can the minister tell us what is it that his Wildlife branch in his department recommended with respect to this proposal, based on this research information?

Mr. Enns:  Mr. Speaker, at some point I would like the honourable members of the opposition to at least acknowledge that we take very seriously in government due and proper process.

       My department advised the proponents that prior to any further thinking about this development, they would be well advised to seek some expert advice, hire somebody to provide that advice to them.  I believe the department and my colleague there within Rural Development, in fact, provided some funding for that advice.

       This is the advice that is now coming forward, that, in fact, there are some sensitive questions relating to the particular species of bird life, wildlife in that area.  That was done at our instigation, internally, within this government, because we take the causes of the natural environment extremely seriously. When that information is brought back to appropriate department officials, that will all go into the mix of developing a proposal.

Ms. Cerilli:  Mr. Speaker, it is good that we have environmental studies going on.  Now let us follow them and‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Your question, please.

Ms. Cerilli:  I would ask the minister:  If we cannot count on this type of critical habitat to be protected in a park in Manitoba, where can we count on this habitat to be protected? How and in what form?

Mr. Enns:  Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer the honourable member this way, because honourable members will be aware that on another matter that concerned the natural environment, namely, the development at Oak Hammock Marsh, it was often falsely alleged by members opposite and regrettably by the media, that we were in some way in violation of the Ramsar Convention, that internationally renowned organization that monitored and, in fact, privileged our Oak Hammock Marsh with its designation.

       Just last week, 3,000 of the world's specialists concluded a Ramsar Convention at Kushiro, Japan.  They concluded with a resolution calling for specific developments for public education, precisely the kind that this province built at Oak Hammock Marsh.  This was led by . . . .  They applaud the actions taken and there has been no suggestion, in fact, they view in official resolution.  In fact, they go so far they further recommend that appropriate share of wetland conservation funds should be allocated for this kind of public education.  Mr. Speaker, once again, Manitoba leads in this quest.


School Division

Boundary Review Information Release


Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Mr. Speaker, a month ago, on May 26, I asked the Minister of Education in terms of what she was doing with the school division boundaries.  She then indicated that we would be doing something shortly.  We have a government that has made an election campaign based on boundary redistribution, a commitment in terms of the throne speech.

       Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is:  When will this minister provide details of the proposed review of the school division boundaries?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Speaker, the member anticipates what will be in any announcement that I am making.  As I said to him earlier, I will be making an announcement regarding that particular initiative shortly.

Mr. Speaker:  Time for Oral Questions has expired.

* (1420)




Mr. Speaker:  Does the honourable member for Kildonan have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Mr. Speaker, I, together with many members of this Chamber, had the pleasure of attending the annual Negev dinner in Winnipeg honouring the Simkin Family‑‑Jenny Cohen, Clare Erlichman, Jim Simkin, Saul Simkin, Israel Simkin and Abe Simkin, six members of a pioneering family who, through their community efforts and hard work, have transformed our community and made it into the kind and caring place that it is.

       This is a pioneer family, Mr. Speaker, which rose from modest roots to become "a phenomenal Canadian success story."  As a testament to the love and respect that is felt by the community toward this family, over 1,800 people attended the dinner that night, making it the largest Jewish National Fund dinner in the entire world.  The proceeds from this dinner will go toward the many dynamic projects undertaken in Israel by this organization.

       I am sure all members of this House will join me in honouring the Jewish National Fund as well as the Simkin family on this outstanding offer.

Mr. Speaker:  Does the honourable Leader of the second opposition party have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, I, too, had the honour and the privilege of attending the recent dinner this week held in honour of the Simkin family.  I know that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was in attendance as well, perhaps other members of the Chamber.

       Mr. Speaker, I want to join comments with my colleague the member from the New Democratic Party in honouring officially in this House the valuable contribution of the Simkin family over the many decades that they have been active in the Winnipeg and Manitoba community.

       Mr. Speaker, I simply want to add my congratulations to that family on their enormous success and thank them for their enormous contribution to this community.

       The dinner was a magnificent success.  As my friend indicated, there were over 800 people in attendance, I think testament to the very high regard that all, not only in the Jewish community but throughout this city and this province, have for the Simkin family.  Thank you.


Committee Changes


Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows:  the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).

       I move, seconded by the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows:  the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) for the member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme); the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae); the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) for the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister); the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner); and the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) for the vacant position.

Motions agreed to.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), for June 24, 7 p.m.

Motion agreed to.




House Business


Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, on House business, firstly I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet on Tuesday, June 29, at 7 p.m. to consider Bill 14, The Personal Property Security and Consequential Amendments Act.

Mr. Speaker:  I would like to thank the honourable government House leader for that information.

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Speaker, I would ask whether or not there is a willingness to waive private members' hour.

Mr. Speaker:  Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour?  No?  Okay, leave is denied.

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

       Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Health.

* (1430)



(Concurrent Sections)




Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau):  Order, please.  This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of Education and Training.

       When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 6.(a)(1) on page 42 of the Estimates book.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I note that the critic for the NDP party is not here.  Should we not wait until they arrive?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  We can carry on the questioning.

Mr. Alcock:  Perhaps you could instruct me as to procedure in the committee then.  Is it the procedure to go ahead when one of the official critics is not here?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  The honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) had said she was finished on the Colleges Secretariat. I understood the member for Osborne still had some questions in that area, so we were taking the opportunity to give you the chance to ask questions on that line, and that is 6.(a)(1) Colleges Secretariat.

Mr. Alcock:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was simply asking you the question, whether it is customary to proceed without the presence of both critics.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  There have been a number of occasions when we have started with just one member.  If the honourable member would rather wait until the critic for the opposition gets here, it is at the will of the committee.  If you would like to wait until such time as they get here, then that is what we will do.

Mr. Alcock:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am prepared to proceed, but it does concern me that we would start the committee without at least giving the other members an opportunity to be present in case they do have questions.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Well, this committee was called to order in the House 15 minutes ago, for the honourable member for Osborne.  I believe that is enough time for just about everybody to be here.  They know the meeting has been called, and I believe it is up to all members to be here on time.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have some items to table at the beginning of the session today.  I have information on response to inquiries regarding three companies under the Workforce 2000 training incentives component, and I would like to table those now.

       Then, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, under Workforce 2000, there was a question regarding training incentives to small‑ and medium‑sized businesses, support to priority groups through wage‑assisted training, and I have that to provide today.  It is broken down by region, number of employees trained and the total number of priority group members trained.

       Then, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there was information requested regarding our Partners with Youth program, approved sponsors and project descriptions.  I have those today, and this is for the 1992‑93 year.

       Then, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have a list under Workforce 2000, a list of trainers and training type under the Workforce 2000 program.  What I will table today is the legal name of the company receiving training, the trainer name and the training type.  The training type is by code, and so I would also like to table today the explanation of the training codes to go along as an explanation with this document.

       Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I also have to table, on behalf of Manitoba's community colleges, the percentage of enrollments in the 18‑to‑24‑years‑of‑age group.  The request was for the percentage of enrollment in that age range for the last five years.  I have the information to table today from the year 1988‑89 through to 1992‑93.

Mr. Alcock:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister for the information, and I will see that it is passed on.

       I have a question.  I understood that we had passed the line dealing with Workforce 2000.  I realize what the minister is doing is just following up with stuff that was committed, but I note that the staff and such are here.  Is there an intention to recall them for further questioning?  Is it necessary that they stay here?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the staff who are here are staff who support the Colleges Secretariat.

Mr. Alcock:  Actually, perhaps the minister could, for my benefit at least, introduce the staff who are here and are involved with the Colleges Secretariat.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Let me take a moment to introduce Dominique Bloy, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of the AEST Division; Mr. Bob Gorchynski, who is the Acting Director of Management Services‑‑I introduce them by the title, since there has been a reorganization in the AEST branch and these are now titles under the reorganization‑‑Mr. Earl McArthur, who is the Acting Director of the Labour Market Policy Planning and Analysis Branch; Mr. Rick Dedi, who is the Acting Director of the Colleges Secretariat; and Margaret McDonald who is the Financial Officer.

Mr. Alcock:  Thank you.

I note there are staff present in the back of the room who were here for Workforce 2000 and other programs.  It just seems such an enormous waste to have people sitting around doing nothing.  I have no intention of calling any questions about Workforce 2000, certainly.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate that.  The staff did arrive with the information to be tabled.  Having brought that information, they have remained for a couple of moments to see if there was any clarification required by members.  Perhaps that clarification may not have been through the Estimates process, but the I thank the member.  The staff have now left, back to their offices.

Mr. Alcock:  I thank the minister for that.

       We left last session talking about the relationship between Government Services and the colleges, given the change in governance.

       The minister mentioned that at ACC, parking and security is done by the Government Services under contract.  The question that arises from that for me is, is there an attempt to build a special operating agency that does contract to the colleges in the same way that Government Services has worked to create a special operating agency that contracts with the government departments around the services of automobiles and repair?

* (1440)

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are not aware of any attempt or effort in that direction.  The member may like to speak to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), however, in the process of his Estimates to determine if any discussion is held with him.

Mr. Alcock:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, how has it arisen then that at ACC there is this arrangement?  What is the history of that?

Mrs. Vodrey:  In the case of ACC, this was a matter of operating efficiencies.  It would seem to be more efficient in that particular college.  It was not a matter of program delivery; therefore, there was an agreement on all sides that this would be contracted through Government Services.

Mr. Alcock:  Has there been a discussion about contracting similarly at the other colleges for these services?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, Keewatin Community College does their security by contract.  They have done so in the past and continue to do so.  Red River Community College, the largest of all the colleges, has found it economical to have its own.

Mr. Alcock:  As I recall the discussion from last Tuesday, the parking and security services at Red River are handled by staff that formerly worked for Government Services and that have been transferred to the employing authority of Red River?

Mrs. Vodrey:  That is correct.

Mr. Alcock:  And in the case of KCC it contracts privately for these services?

Mrs. Vodrey:  That is correct.

Mr. Alcock:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if we can move on then to a question that came up, as I recall, in the Estimates in the previous year's budget‑‑and at that time it was specifically about Red River Community College, although there was an indication, I believe, from the minister that the department was considering generalizing it to the other colleges‑‑this is the whole question of the introduction of Total Quality Management to the operations of the colleges.  I wonder if the minister can give us some background on the progress to date and the programs that have been instituted and whether or not it goes beyond Red River.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, Red River Community College, I am told, does continue to expand its commitment to operating within the principles of Total Quality Management, and a number of work improvement teams have been established to address various process‑related issues.  Approximately one‑third of the college staff have now participated directly in a TQM approach, and the college is looking to develop the capability to provide training within the Manitoba‑wide network.

       The other community colleges have not implemented TQM.  I am informed that they are looking at TQM or other related styles.  I understand that Red River Community College recently won a quality service award from TQM Manitoba.

Mr. Alcock:  Can the minister just clarify the comment that Red River is about to provide training in "the Manitoba‑wide network"?  What does that mean?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, Red River Community College is part of a TQM network.  It has been organized through Winnipeg 2000.  It is called Q‑Net, and it is a quality network.  It is primarily within Winnipeg, though some of the businesses within Winnipeg that are using this have also subsidiaries outside of the city of Winnipeg.

       Through this, Red River Community College participates as a member.  They, at the moment, particularly the president of Red River Community College who has a strong level of expertise in this area, have participated in some training which at the moment is not a training which is charged for, but is part of the work done by this network.  However, Red River Community College may, in fact, look into some customized delivery of TQM, and that may, in fact, operate as a market‑driven training course.

Mr. Alcock:  So Red River is a member of this Q‑Net, which is the Manitoba‑wide network, presumably, of people or businesses or whatever that are interested in TQM.  Red River is currently or may in the future provide training to members in the network?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, the training that is provided is not a training for cost or for payment.  At the moment, it is done through the network.  It is done collegially through the network as a support to develop TQM.  However, it is possible that in the future Red River may, in fact, develop, depending upon the demand, a course in the market‑driven training area.

Mr. Alcock:  ACC and KCC have not currently instituted programs in TQM, although you indicated that they may soon introduce something that is either TQM based or "other related styles." What might these other related styles be?

* (1450)

Mrs. Vodrey:  First of all, the member has gotten a little bit ahead of what I had said.  They are looking at, they have not yet said that they intended to introduce, this kind of programming. The president of Red River Community College has met with the presidents of the other colleges and has certainly explained the TQM process and how it applies to Red River.  The colleges are also looking at the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation program, the 12 attributes of effectiveness, all of them aimed at improving.  However, the colleges have not indicated when they would adopt such a system, if they would adopt such a system, and which one that they would be looking at.

Mr. Alcock:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I recall a discussion last year that the new president at Red River has a background‑‑I believe there was some discussion, I think, from his experience at Thunder Bay where he had been involved in the introduction of TQM and was presented as someone who had a reasonable degree of expertise in this.  That is why Red River was proceeding with this.

       I wonder if the minister can tell us what programs have been introduced at Red River that would fall into this category of Total Quality Management?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, in terms of the accomplishments over the past year, I may have stated those already, that Total Quality Management concepts have been introduced into many aspects of the institutional operation over the past year, and approximately one‑half of the staff have been directly involved in the projects relating to improving the processes associated with the support of the administrative and the academic process.

       For 1993‑94 the objectives are to use the TQM techniques to improve the ergonomics of the classrooms, labs and office space; to use the TQM approach to address the recommendations from the president's task force on services to aboriginal and multicultural communities, and to complete the review of all diploma‑level curricula by June 1993 for the purposes of incorporating appropriate TQM concepts and methods, the fundamentals of economic sustainable development and an understanding and an appreciation for cultural diversity.

Mr. Alcock:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a fairly standard observation of TQM programs that they produce on average 10 percent improvements in efficiency per annum during their implementation phase.  I am wondering if the minister can tell us what the experience has been at Red River.  Have they seen any improvements in efficiency?  Can they point to reductions in cost, ease of improvement?  I mean, we are talking fairly generally here, but what of a substantive nature has occurred in the last year under the direction of this new president?

Mrs. Vodrey:  I am informed that we do not have any statistical information on the gains in this year because it is has been a fairly new implementation.  However, the gains have been more noted through the development of a college team.  That has been actually noted just in the way that the college team is working.

       Also, there has been noted, again by observation within the college, an effectiveness in the area of the management of equipment and resources.  Now people's familiarity with the whole idea of TQM is allowing them to apply the principles of TQM through some of the college initiatives.

       One of the initiatives that I had spoken about was in the area of the president's task force on services to aboriginal and multicultural communities.

Mr. Alcock:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess the problem I have, and it comes back to the same problem I had when we discussed this last year, is that there is a lot of high‑minded labelling going on in the sense that wonderful things are happening under the name TQM, but the reality is, when you come down to an accomplishment:  Did something happen faster?  Did something happen at a lower cost?  Were some steps in a process removed? Were applications processed faster?

       It is fine that they have a team, and I suspect they may even have T‑shirts or something that substantiate that.  But what has happened that improves life on a daily basis for the students at that schools?  Or what has happened that makes the working conditions better for people who work there?  What has been the product of this other than a variety of meetings, training and feel‑good work sessions?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, I know last year when we spoke of the goals of TQM, we spoke about them in terms of measurement or, actually, categorization within a behavioral area and within a statistical area.  I have said that we do not have that statistical information that I can provide the member with this year, because it is in its first full year of operation.

* (1500)

       What I have been able to describe to the member is the behavioural effects of TQM in this first year.  I am certainly informed that those who are very involved with the college of the sense of ownership and the creation of this sense of teamwork that people are, in fact, working as part of a group and people's opinions are important.  I think that is one way.  Again, it is hard to measure based on a statistic, but it is able to be measured behaviourally and certainly in the tone that is set out at the college.

       In terms of efficiencies, though I have spoken in the House previously and I may also have spoken about it within Estimates, one area where Red River has looked for improvement has been in the area of the registration of students.  Previously, students could register for a number of courses, and it was very difficult to actually then determine the number of actual students applying, because one student may have applied for five or six courses.  In this coming year, one of the improvements has been that there will be one student number or one number for each student.  Then we will have an idea of the same student applying to a number of courses.  So we will have a better idea of how long the real potential enrollment list may be, or that a person may be looking for a priority acceptance into one area, followed by a second or a third choice.

       Again I would say that we would certainly be looking in the second year for some measurable, other than behaviourally measurable, results of TQM in the college.  I am sure the college will be looking to that as well.

Mr. Alcock:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it just strikes me that we get caught up in sort of new fads and new approaches to management.  God knows, we have been through a number of them in the last decade.  I would not want to even begin to enumerate them all, but it strikes me that prior to‑‑I mean, is the position that has been taken that, prior to the current president, people's opinions were not important at the school, that people were not listened to?

       What is it that TQM has brought to the management of the school?  The concern I had last year was that when you introduce TQM, if you are not introducing it to an industrial process, if you do not have the statistical processes in place to measure the current situation and then to identify the opportunities for improvement in others, what you may have is very little different from what we have had for the last 20 years in terms of attempting to build different approaches to communication.

       What TQM offers is an ability to measure both the current situation and then to substantiate some change or some improvements as they are introduced.  Now what I am hearing the minister saying is that, after one year of doing this, they have nothing other than a different feeling.  You know, they could have a different feeling from any one of the labels that could be applied to a change in management.

Mrs. Vodrey:  I know last year in the Estimates, we had a fairly lengthy discussion on the issue of TQM, because I know the member has been viewing it as is this‑‑as he said even again today‑‑one of several choices that may be used and used for a short time without any real changes, and then maybe another style or another particular program may be adopted.

       I can only at this point‑‑I think it is important to go back to how the president and the people of Red River Community College have identified the effects of TQM for themselves.  One of the areas, and I spoke about this earlier, is that approximately one‑half of the staff have been directly involved in projects related to improving the processes associated with the support of the administrative and the academic process.

       I did give the member an example of the changes put forward in the registration program, identified and then actually put into action.  Things have to start somewhere.  In this case, it is putting together a team, a team that has a variety of skills, as opposed to a very single and narrow focus where one individual may look at determining what changes may be made.  So there has been a change, and it has been reported to me as an important one, where staff is now involved at a much wider level in terms of projects and involved in the process.

       Then I also spoke about the TQM approach being used to address the recommendations from the president's task force on services to aboriginal and multicultural communities.  A concrete step that has come from that is an additional section of 15 students will be added to the college preparation for natives program, as part of the plan to increase aboriginal student enrollment by 25 percent.  An additional 15 aboriginal students will be accepted into the urban native integration and adaptation program, a microcomputer application program.

       So flowing from the results of the task force, how that task force would be implemented and applied within the college, there has now come some very specific concrete direction that will affect the student life of the college.

       In the two examples, registration, and also this particular program, that is one way that students then will feel the effects, and we hope and believe they will benefit from the effects of this particular management style, which again, I will remind the member is really just into its first year at Red River Community College.

Mr. Alcock:  I will leave this just with a couple of comments, as I will not be here to ask these questions in the subsequent budget year.

       TQM is a process that grew out of really industrial programs, where they had an ability to measure very carefully.  Statistical process control was a central part of this.  The concern I have had from the beginning when I start hearing people talk about this as a management technique in soft service, in human services, is that it is very difficult to do that without the measurement base.

       I believe you can create that in some areas.  I think it is very difficult, but I think it would be a very exciting experiment if you could, in fact, create some of those measures and begin to look at really what is occurring other than we feel better or we communicate better.

       What new manager in an organization has not said his senior staff communicate better as a result of his or her new processes, whether you call them TQM or quality circles or communication circles, whatever label you want to attach to them.

       For me, the interesting thing about this attempt to introduce a new management style or a new management process into a college as opposed to a business is that as soon as you step out of the transactional processing arena, you have a measurement problem. I do not say that pejoratively.  The excitement may be in how you solve that.  I would be very interested in hearing about that.

       I understand that it is only a year, and the minister is saying that they can point to some things on the feeling side and then some process things with the registration although it is hard to clarify.  But that would be a transactional area that one would presume there could be some measures and some comparisons in.

       So I will leave this just with the comment that I would be interested in future years in hearing whether or not you have been able to establish some of those measurements and some of those processes, and we can look to some real implementation of a managed quality program.  I will move off of TQM at this point.

       I would like to ask though a question about this.  The desire to choose TQM in Red River has not been replicated in the other two community colleges.  Is that simply because the desire or the agreement to move towards TQM was in part a result of the new president having these skills and having this background?

Mrs. Vodrey:  I am informed that TQM often does get started with someone referred to through the system as a champion, someone with experience, and that is what has happened at Red River Community College.  The president does have that kind of experience and background and therefore was wanting to put it into place at Red River.

* (1510)

Mr. Alcock:  And the minister is quite right.  So it was not a result of a government policy to move in this direction, and there will not necessarily be a proliferation.

       Certainly, if the president at Red River creates something unique and interesting, and other presidents choose to adopt it, they could do so, but the other colleges are completely free to move in their own direction?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Those colleges are free to move in their own direction and have indicated they are looking at other systems as well.

Mr. Alcock:  Mr. Deputy Chair, I know the member for Wolseley had some questions, and I am prepared to leave TQM, although I have more questions on the secretariat.

       If the member has some questions she can go for awhile, and I will come back.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):  Thank you.  I wanted to raise a procedural issue for a minute.  There are two basic lines dealing with colleges.  Is the minister prepared to take all the questions on colleges and then pass them both at the same time or pass them one after another?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Yes, we will try and answer the questions then in that block and provide the information in whatever order it is required.

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Deputy Chair, I wanted to ask about Assiniboine Community College and the international programs there, particularly.  I think these have been touched on in earlier Estimates, but I am really looking for a progress report and some indication of how these have been established and what their plans are for the next year.

(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, there are several international projects occurring at the colleges.  Assiniboine Community College is currently involved in projects with Kenya and Tanzania.  Keewatin Community College is anticipating a project with Zanzibar. With Red River, she might like to ask in a further question.

Ms. Friesen:  I am particularly interested right now in the Assiniboine Community College ones.  Could the minister give us some more details?  Could she tell us, for example, what the purpose of these programs is?  How many people are involved both from the host college and from the overseas component?  What the anticipated results of each project will be?  What the length of the programs is?  That is, are they one year, two years, are we looking at a longer‑range planning here?

       Are there any connections between Assiniboine Community College and Brandon University in the delivery, administration or involvement of these programs?  Are we focusing the resources, the academic resources, of both institutions in these programs. Is there an economic spin‑off for the community of Brandon or other communities involved, and does the government have a sense of what it is or will be?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we do not, at this time, have the level of detail the member is asking for, but I will be happy to approach the college and get that information for her.  I am happy to table it at the next sitting.

Ms. Friesen:  As the minister knows, part of what I am looking for here is establishing what the relationship is between the government, the secretariat and the colleges.

       Would that kind of information I have asked for be included or available from the minutes of board meetings?  We have established that is the primary public level of accountability.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in this case, as the colleges have moved to governance, it is unlikely that they would be available specifically through the minutes, unless they were discussed issue as an agenda item.

       However, I am informed that with the new relationship, if a person wanted to have that information, the colleges should be able to provide that directly to an individual.  The records would, again, have, I suppose, the usual concerns around personnel matters and so on, but otherwise, that information should be available from the colleges.

Ms. Friesen:  I assume the minutes would show the introduction of such programs.  Presumably, it would also show the staffing of them.  It might, in an annual report, look at a kind of status report of each particular program.

       The final question I asked in that series was what was the economic impact in the communities of those particular programs. Now I would anticipate that would not be conveyed through board minutes or through board considerations, not that it would not necessarily be part of their deliberations, but that is not their focus.  Their focus would be to deliver the programs and to look at the educational impact and educational evaluation.

       It does, however, seem to me that it would be the minister's responsibility or the cabinet's, in some way, to understand the economic impact of such programs.  My sense is that they would be very beneficial.  But I am really looking for the government's responsibility in the use of community colleges as part of the government's overall economic framework or economic development.

* (1520)

Mrs. Vodrey:  Just in response to the first part of the member's question, yes, there would be the annual report.  The annual report we would expect to cover the details of the work being done at Assiniboine, and the area of international programming and international support would be an important one.

       In terms of the government's role, government, by policy, does support international programming.  The college's role in this has been to provide training and development in third world countries, and there has been a transfer of training and a transfer of skills.

       In terms of the direct economic benefit, that has been somewhat more difficult for us to measure.  We do know that when we do assist other countries with project development, the technical equipment is acquired, where possible, from Canada, and Manitoba, specifically, where possible.  So that becomes another part of the benefit, in terms of our equipment, particularly our technical equipment, around the world.

       The government of Tanzania was most recently here, and they were taken out to Assiniboine Community College.  The future benefit of that particular visit, as yet, I am not able to tell the member.  There may be future benefits of transfer of programming, certainly more ideas, obviously some professional development among college instructors in that particular area.

       So the overall specific question of economic benefit, I suppose, is somewhat more difficult in each case to speak of, and the details I am not able to provide her today.  I can tell her that to tie the college's task force with the Advanced Education and Skills Training area, this task team has been struck to examine the college international education policy guidelines.

       So that is one way we are trying to look at the international role.  For Assiniboine Community College, as part of their midrange plan, they identified a goal to develop a strategy for involvement in international programming opportunities and develop new models for international educational activities that utilize local resources and contribute to the local economy.

Ms. Friesen:  I think, if I remember rightly, that the government, or this department rather, did not make a submission to the Rural Economic Development commission.  This department did make a submission to the Northern Economic Development commission, but not to the rural one, and I wondered if there was some substitute for that formal presentation.

       Has there been a Department of Education position on the role of community colleges, whether it is Red River or Assiniboine or KCC in the future economic development of rural Manitoba?

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Mrs. Vodrey:  In terms of rural economic development, the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) held a forum on rural economic development.  The staff from the Department of Education were represented at that.  We understand, I am not able to confirm today, but we believe that the president of ACC also attended that particular forum.  ACC has been working with the Brandon Council, the Keystone Agricultural Centre, Brandon University at looking at ways to establish ACC as a centre of excellence, particularly for technology, technological training in the rural areas.

       ACC has been working itself with a number of initiatives to serve the rural communities.  They have the provincial mandate for agricultural training.  ACC's agricultural and rural enterprise division offered 25 programs to 1,250 students in 59 Manitoba communities in 1992‑93.  ACC also currently enrolls 664 participants in 19 agriculture Distance Education courses in 140 communities, and enrolls 140 participants in eight Distance Education business courses in 25 communities.

       Over the past six years, approximately 115 rural communities have participated in ACC's Distance Education courses.  At ACC's Parkland campus in Dauphin, they offered seven full‑time programs to 118 students and continuing education programs to over 1,200 residents of the Parkland region, including Ste. Rose, Gilbert Plains, Grandview and McCreary.

       The Parkland Southwest Regional Centre delivered a business skills refresher course to 11 participants who graduated in December, 1992, and the centre offers several evening courses in co‑operation with Major Pratt high school in Russell.  In 1993‑94, ACC is offering continuing education courses to approximately 450 students in approximately 15 rural Manitoba communities and is co‑operating with school divisions within the ACC catchment area.

* (1530)

       There are a number of other initiatives.  I am wondering if this is the kind of initiatives the member is interested in knowing about regarding ACC's role with rural Manitoba.

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I was really interested in is how ACC's mission is conveyed to it from the government, looking at the role of the government in adjusting, in determining and changing the mandates of the colleges.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, our role at this point is to support ACC in what is seen as their catalyst role within the Brandon community, that role to establish Brandon as a centre of excellence in the area of rural development.  Part of that has occurred then through some of the programming offered which I have been describing, some of which takes place actually at the college, some through Distance Education and some through the satellite campuses.

Ms. Friesen:  If ACC wanted to go beyond the mandate that the government has established, that is the catalyst for rural development, how would those kinds of changes be accomplished? What I am looking for is, yes, the colleges have gone to governance, they have a certain amount of independence and flexibility, but they also derive a substantial proportion of their income from the government.  There is a policy established now which determines particular roles for particular colleges. How frozen is that?  How do those changes occur?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, under The Colleges Act, No. 3, it speaks about the mandate of the college.  I know the member has a copy of this or could look at it.  I am pleased to provide her with mine if she would like to have it.  The mandate of the college is extremely broad, and it has been maintained in that very broad way to allow for the boards then to adapt the colleges to the areas of regional needs and to the areas that they see they are able to develop within their community, within that wide community area.

       The government's role providing such a wide‑ranging mandate would be to provide program approval through the approval of the budget and would also be to monitor those programs.  That monitoring would occur through the annual report as well as through the contacts that the secretariat would have with the colleges.

Ms. Friesen:  The annual report is fairly clear.  Could the minister explain how that program funding works?  The colleges will apply or they will present their budget to the colleges. They will present their asking budget, I assume, to the secretariat and that will be detailed in terms of program.  So, for example, the kinds of questions that I asked on the international programs would presumably have been included in a request to government.  Again, I am looking for‑‑I am using this as an example of how the relations do work or will work or how you anticipate that they will work.  Why would you not have the information on the international programs, if it had been presented to you as a program proposal?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, part of the difference is how the budget this year was provided.  The budget was provided in a block, not by program.  Next year, the budget will be by formula.

       I just wanted to check also regarding the proposal because, in terms of the international programs, I spoke about some of the programs which were currently ongoing, but now the member speaks about a proposal.  A proposal has been provided to government, a concept proposal to establish a centre of excellence for international training in agriculture, rural microenterprise, secondary processing and value‑added production.  That has come as a proposal from the college to government now.

Ms. Friesen:  So that is something that the government is looking at now as part of the overall mandate of Assiniboine Community College.  It is not something which is yet in the budget.  Okay, but there have been‑‑I mean we have talked about this before‑‑continuing relations between Assiniboine Community College and various overseas kinds of programs.

       When the minister said formula, could I ask her to elaborate on that?  In the future the regular practice will be to fund by formula.  Is that on a per‑student basis, per program?  How does that work?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, the development of the formula is one of the tasks of the Colleges Secretariat during the year '93‑94 to have in place for the year '94‑95.

Ms. Friesen:  Is that a formula that will be established on a same basis for each college?  Is that what the government is aiming for?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, it will be a formula that applies to all colleges.  It will be a formula somewhat as the public schools formula is, one which involves principles which will apply to school divisions, and then the schools funding formula, again, allows for in the first year of application and so on to look at how it applies and where there may need to be adjustments.  We will see what is put forward from the Secretariat regarding colleges.

Ms. Friesen:  Will the formula include capital equipment as well as operating grants?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Yes, it will.

Ms. Friesen:  When would the minister expect this to be put on stream?  This will be for the next year's budget?

Mrs. Vodrey:  It will be in place‑‑we intend it to be in place for the '94‑95 budget.

Ms. Friesen:  How will this be announced, and how will it be conveyed to the colleges, and will there be any kind of public discussion before the provision of Estimates?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, the colleges will be involved in a consultation process as the formula is being developed, and then the guidelines for the use of this formula will be‑‑the colleges will have that for the budget cycle '94‑95.

Ms. Friesen:  Can I look at this now from the perspective of establishing fees at the colleges?  How have fees been established?  Just for the record, if the minister could explain how fees were established in last year, how they were established in this first year of governance, and the process for establishing fees in each of the colleges under the new formula system.

* (1540)

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, in the past the colleges have had the fees set as part of the normal budgeting process, and the way that we look for the tuition fees to be set in the future‑‑The Colleges Act gives the boards of governors the authority to set tuition fees; that is 17(d) in The Colleges Act.  So in practice the colleges will identify tuition fee revenue in their annual budget submissions, and the department then will review requests for tuition fee changes as part of its annual review of the college budget submission.

Ms. Friesen:  This will be different, then, than the universities' process of establishing fees?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, it will be different than the universities' establishment of fees.

Ms. Friesen:  Does the government have a policy of establishing the same fee for the same course in each college?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Until now that has been the case where the costs for course have been fairly comparable.  Certainly, I realize as minister, and the government realizes, that tuition fees do represent a significant factor in the accessibility to community colleges, so we will certainly be viewing tuition fees as an important consideration in maintaining the accessibility of the community college system and also in reviewing the budgets of the community colleges.

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, accessibility is certainly part of the reason I was asking the question, but equity was another.  For example, one could argue that there are higher costs in the delivery of one course in KCC than there are, for example, in delivering it in Brandon or delivering it in a rural area.

       Again, I am asking the question from an equity perspective. Does the government or will the government have a policy of looking at equal charges or equal fees for the same course throughout Manitoba?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, at this point I can say that certainly as we look at the tuition fees established, we would also look at where the course was being offered.  We are in the process, again as I said, of looking at the funding formula for the colleges.  All of these issues will have to be considered in the development of that formula.

Ms. Friesen:  Can we expect or anticipate a formal policy statement on the funding formula at some point?

Mrs. Vodrey:  We will certainly make the funding formula known. How it will be made known, I am not able to commit to today.

Ms. Friesen:  I want to look at the impact of federal cutbacks on community colleges.  The minister has often spoken of this.  I wonder if we could have some detailed information on the impact of this in the past year on each of the colleges and the anticipated impact next year.  I would doubt that there is a longer planning horizon than that from the federal government, but if there is I would like to hear of it.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the federal direct training purchases will decrease by 28 percent in 1993‑94, and they are scheduled for elimination by the end of 1994‑95.  The federal government will continue to make indirect or project‑based training purchases from the colleges in '93‑94 and, we understand, in subsequent fiscal years.

       Historically, direct training purchases have provided the colleges with ongoing commitments for block purchases of training in existing college programs.  Block purchases provided a high degree of stability and also financial security for the colleges and the provincial institutions.

       Again, the indirect purchases, which the federal government is moving to, do not provide that guaranteed level of funding provided under the direct purchase arrangements.  Training is sold to the federal government on a project‑by‑project basis. The colleges are in competition with other training suppliers for federal training projects.

       The new market for training services created by the federal government has required the colleges to become more entrepreneurial in order to access the federal training funds. Indirect or contract training is provided through the delivery of training to private or community organizations and the provision of training to specific clients of Employment and Immigration Canada, such as job entry or job re‑entry programs.

       In 1994‑95, when the direct purchase of training ends, Keewatin Community College will, we expect, have the most difficulty in accessing alternate funding due to its smaller population base and the proximity of its market area.

       Assiniboine Community College and Red River Community College have been, so far, relatively more successful in attracting alternate training clients through their market‑driven training programs.

       The provincial contribution, through provincial operating grants in '93‑94, will rise by 2.1 percent.  That increase‑‑we look to continue to support the college during this change, the federal government's method of funding programming.

       Again, Manitoba has and will continue to express its concerns to the federal government regarding the net loss in federal funding due to the decreased UI benefits and also increased UI premiums in Manitoba that have not been fully compensated by the increased federal training expenditures.

       In this particular area with the UI benefits, we are concerned about reductions for the community colleges.

* (1550)

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Deputy Chair, what is the overall impact then on the community colleges of the elimination of all the federal money by next year and an increase of only 2 percent from the provincial government?  What is the net decline, decrease?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, the reduction of the federal government can be measured in the direct purchase area, and we see that reduction as approximately $3.4 million or about 28 percent.  It is much harder in the indirect, because those can be negotiated on an ongoing basis.

Ms. Friesen:  I am looking for the impact on the colleges of this.  The 28 percent is a decline in‑‑that is 28 percent less than the federal government contributed last year.  What proportion is that of the overall colleges' budget?  If we take the overall federal contributions, those that we can measure, the direct purchases, what is the decrease in percentage terms to the colleges?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, the 28 percent reduction of the federal government direct training purchases at the colleges has had an impact on the budget.  College revenues from the federal direct training purchases represented 18.1 percent of the colleges' expenditures in 1992‑93.  Federal purchases represented only 13.5 percent of the colleges' expenditures in 1993‑94.  That is a predicted loss of $3.4 million from the previous year that I have been discussing.

Ms. Friesen:  So, for example, Red River Community College, if we take that as an average‑‑the minister may want to give me or put on the record the specific colleges.  The colleges have lost as a result of the federal changes 13.5 percent of their budget essentially.  Okay, maybe we should take one example, Red River Community College.  How much less does it have this coming year as a result of the federal budget, federal purchase changes?

Mrs. Vodrey:  The percentage of the direct purchase funds was 18.1 percent of the colleges' expenditures in '92‑93.  We predict that it will represent 13.5 percent of the expenditures in '93‑94.  That would be a change of 5 percent, and that is looking at all three colleges together.

Ms. Friesen:  Maybe we should look at it in the context of one particular college then, just to get an idea of how it is going to work.  What was the budget of Red River Community College last year, and what will be its budget this year?  I assume there are going to be several components of that budget, but again, I want to go back eventually to fees, how those fees are going to be charged and how they are going to be arrived at.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Taking, for example, Red River Community College, we predict in expenditures that there will be a reduction of approximately 4.4 percent in the area of expenditures.  Now, again, that is a prediction, because the colleges may in fact gain additional funds through the indirect purchases and their negotiation for the indirect purchase with federal dollars.

Ms. Friesen:  How will Red River be establishing fees next year? Has it already established its fees?  Is there an increase in the fees, and how is that an estimate of what is required from fees?

       Obviously, if you are having a reduction from the federal government, you have a small increase in the provincial government which is not going to meet the gap.  Two ways of meeting the gap:  one, the minister says indirect purchases; the other presumably is fees.  So I am looking at the timing on that and the principles that the colleges are going to use.

       Are fees going to be used?  Essentially, once you have determined what your indirect purchases are, is then the other side of your budget fees, and is that how it is going to be allotted, or are there other principles at work here?

Mrs. Vodrey:  I just want to check with the member, because I see that we are now looking at the revenue side for the colleges, because we had spoken about what the expenditures we expect to be.  We look at a decrease in revenue from the direct training purchases of the federal government, but to support the revenue side, I have also spoken about an increase in provincial funding.  Yes, tuition fees are another way to support the revenue side; but, in addition to that, the revenue side can be supported through course charges for the market‑driven training, and those are cost recoverable.  So the revenue changes would not have to be looked at specifically through the area of tuition fees, because the colleges will have other opportunities to increase revenue.

* (1600)

Ms. Friesen:  My concern is that the 2 percent increase of the provincial government is not going to be enough to meet the needs of the community colleges, so the pressure upon revenues is going to be high.  That is the basis of my concern.  The minister says the provincial government is going to increase its contribution by 2 point something, 2.1 percent, 2.3 percent?  What is that a percentage of?  Is it a percentage of last year's base which included federal contribution, or is it percentage of last year's provincial contribution?  I guess I should not say contribution; I think it is referred to in the book here as a grant or transfer payment.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that 2 percent is the difference between last year's provincial grant and this year's provincial grant.

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister also used two terms on the revenue side.  One was course fees for market‑driven training, which are cost recoverable, and the other one she used was tuition fees.  I am not sure the distinction that is being made there.  Are not the course charges tuition fees?

(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mrs. Vodrey:  Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, The Colleges Act gives the board the responsibility to set tuition fees and rates and other service charges to be paid by students.  However, in the market‑driven training, that is the cost that is arrived at through negotiation of a contract.  When that contract is negotiated by the colleges with EIC, for instance, or it might be another industry, for instance, that required that market‑driven training, then the cost of that would be again negotiated by the contract; it would not be the same as the tuition fee.

Ms. Friesen:  Is it possible that a course could be given as tuition based, student based, and the same course, for example, something might be computer training for industry, but essentially the same course being given through contract and through negotiation, but that could be negotiated at a different level?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is, I suppose, possible that might occur, but the courses which are provided for market‑driven training are usually very specialized to the particular client who is requiring the training.  The cost of market‑driven training is also higher than the cost of tuition, because a student paying tuition is actually receiving the cost at virtually a subsidized rate, whereas market‑driven training does pay for the full cost of the course.

Ms. Friesen:  Presumably, in the future, there is less of a subsidy available to students because of the overall decline in support for community colleges from the federal government.

Mrs. Vodrey:  The difference is that in the direct purchase the federal government did underwrite more of the total cost of the training.  In the indirect, the federal government will not be underwriting the total cost.  Those students could be entering into any of the programs offered at Red River Community College. They are not necessarily students in the market‑driven.

       Those people in the market‑driven training are different from the direct purchase, which the federal government provides, or the students who are paying tuition.  Market‑driven amount is arrived at by contract.  It is fully cost recoverable.  There is also a profit to the college through the market‑driven. The profit to the college is then reinvested in the college within the infrastructure or for the equipment within the college.

Ms. Friesen:  Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know that in the past the colleges have been able to negotiate essentially market‑driven training with the federal government that has had that profit basis in it that has enabled them to subsidize other courses and programs and, I suppose, even infrastructure within the colleges as well.

       My concern is, when you go to a market‑driven system, it is the market which will determine it, not the federal government, no sort of abstract federal price which may in the past have been more advantageous to the college.  When the market determines, the market determines.  I mean, it is‑‑why would we anticipate that the college would be able to negotiate contracts that will essentially enable them to make a profit particularly if, as the minister says, the intention is to establish a competitive environment with private trainers, private vocational schools, for the delivery of that training?  Why is the price not going to go down considerably?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Madam Acting Deputy Chair, there are three types of training we have been talking about.  Before there was a direct purchase.  With the direct purchase, there was a guaranteed block of purchase which was a more dependable type of purchase.  The federal government has moved now to indirect purchase.  It does require negotiation.  However, the community colleges are able to negotiate for that indirect.

       In the area of the market‑driven training, the colleges previously still had to go through government to respond to the market‑driven request.  Now they do not have to.  Now they are more able to be more immediately responsible to the federal government or to business, industry and labour who are requiring the market‑driven courses.

* (1610)

Ms. Friesen:  Madam Acting Deputy Chair, but my question is not to do with flexibility or ability to meet the needs.  The issue is price and the market determining the price in an environment that the government is increasingly anticipating will be competitive.

       The purpose of that competition, presumably, is to reduce the cost to those people who require the training or who desire the training.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Madam Acting Deputy Chair, I just want to go over again the market driven versus the direct and indirect, because I am wondering if the member somehow is mixing up an opportunity on behalf of someone who wanted to take the course.

       The direct or the indirect are sponsored by the federal government.  They have phased out direct.  They are moving to indirect.  Indirect training which a person wishes to take part in may be any one of the college courses, or it may be a program or a course offered in another institution.  That was why I was speaking about the fact that the colleges, for the indirect purchase dollars, will be required to be competitive, will be required to make sure that people see the value of the courses they offer for that indirect training dollar.

       (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

       In the area of market driven, however, market driven is the development of a tailor‑made course which a business, industry, labour group or the federal government may approach the colleges to develop.  In terms of that, the cost would be not a regular tuition fee but, rather, again, what the market would bear, because this is a skill that the market has particularly required.

       So the market‑driven profit, where that has accumulated, would then be put back into the college for the benefit of students in terms of equipment or infrastructure.  But it is separate from the indirect purchases of the federal government, and the tuition fees would be different because of the nature of the programming.

Ms. Friesen:  I think what I am focusing on here is the amount of profit that is going to be there for the market‑driven contracts that people will be coming forward with; suppose, for example, a market‑driven program in computers.

       You know, there are many trainers around now in computers. There are courses that are offered at community colleges.  There will be courses that will be offered perhaps by two or three of the private community colleges.  Somebody who wanted that training, or the company or corporation that wanted it, could approach any one of those.  That is the market.  That market is going to competitive.  The impetus of that market is going to be to reduce the costs in a variety of ways.

       So what I am concerned about, in the long run, is there going to be any profit, enough profit in those market‑driven training courses that can be applied to the community college infrastructure in the way they have in the past?

       The community colleges have lost a lot from the reduction with the federal government.  It has not been made up by the grants of the provincial government, although those, I accept from the minister, have increased, but it is not making up the gap.

       The gap has to be made up, in part, by fees and by market‑driven training courses.  In the long run, how much profit is going to be in those market‑driven training courses in a competitive environment, and is it going to be enough to sustain the long‑term support of the community colleges, because I think that is the public's concern?

Mrs. Vodrey:  The colleges, now that they fall under governance, are free to seek other sources of revenue apart from the provincial funding and also the tuition, and the sources of revenue that may come to the colleges are the indirect purchases.  That is the one where there is some potential competition and where the colleges will want to make themselves as competitive as possible for those indirect purchase dollars.

       A second area is in the area of market‑driven training, and the colleges are in the position to be among the most responsive to developing market‑driven training because they have already a great deal of the infrastructure required.

       The colleges are saying at this point that they expect certainly to be very competitive in market‑driven training, that they expect a profit in the range of 15 to 30 percent, and that this profit would then be put back into the colleges for the benefit of the colleges.

       So we do expect that the market‑driven training, simply by the nature of the equipment available at the colleges and so on, would, in fact, be beneficial to the colleges.

       In terms of the students' fees‑‑and I know that this has been the underlying part of the discussion in terms of where will this lead for individual student fees‑‑well, again, with the profit, that should assist in the area.  But also individual student tuition fees are subsidized and continue to be subsidized through the province.  Students at our community colleges pay approximately 8 percent of the actual costs of the particular course.  So the provinces continue to underwrite in the area of tuition fees, but market‑driven training is a different type of course for profit and fully cost recoverable.

* (1620)

Ms. Friesen:  What will the fees be at the community colleges in the coming year, that is, under the budget that we are looking at?  How much have they increased by?  Is the figure that the minister just gave me, of 8 percent of actual cost, still the stable relationship that will be maintained in this coming budget?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, the fees for the community colleges for next year will be $825, annual fees for '93‑94.  Our fees at our community colleges do remain among the lowest in Canada.  They are lower than those in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Prince Edward Island.  There are only in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick some colleges that have lower fees.

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Deputy Chair, that $825 is a per‑course fee, that is, in the sense of a course that lasts a year, or a program fee?

Mrs. Vodrey:  That is the cost for a full‑time, 10‑month program for an academic year.

Ms. Friesen:  Has that increased from last year?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, there has been an increase from last year.  The amount is approximately $75.

Ms. Friesen:  Does that $825 approximately equal 8 percent of the actual cost of the course?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, it represents 8.5 percent.

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Deputy Chair, does the minister have available today a five‑year historical perspective on the college budgets, that is, the amount that a college has in its budget?  I am not speaking so much of the provincial transfer, but the combination of transfers and income over the past.  I am looking really for a baseline number that we can use for the next five years to measure from.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the Supplementary Estimates for Education, on Schedule 6 there are expenditures listed from 1989‑90, Support to Community Colleges.  This is the expenditure line comparatively over the last five‑year period. The revenue has always been listed separately, and it was listed in the revenue section of the Estimates until this year.

Ms. Friesen:  The member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) and I would both like to know if the colleges do produce an annual budget, or rather an annual report, an audited report, that has presented expenditures and income and revenue.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the college budgets would be presented in the Department of Education Annual Reports and those are available within the library.

       The colleges will present their first annual report with their budget in October 1994.  Because of the transition, it will be for that one year, a 15‑month accounting.

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one of the other elements of this we should have in here, I think, is the amount of Government Services support there was in the past for community colleges.  Now, how has that been managed in the transition, and where will we find that number?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, in the 1992‑93 Estimates, the total amount of Government Services transferred to the colleges is a total number, $2,294,900.

Ms. Friesen:  When the minister says that the grant to the community colleges has increased by 2 percent, it was 2 percent over the grant of last year.  Now, when the minister referred to the grant of last year, did that grant include that $2,294,000 of Government Services money?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, the Schedule 6 within the Estimates had been adjusted to reflect that.

Ms. Friesen:  And so the 2 percent increase, 2.1 percent increase, was an increase of a total number that included‑‑it was based upon the grants of last year, the Government Services of last year, added together, 2 percent of that?

Mrs. Vodrey:  That is correct.

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Deputy Chair, I wanted to look at reduction in staff in community colleges.  Could the minister give us an idea, in each of the community colleges, what the decrease in staff has been, first of all, in positions, and then second of all, in the actual numbers?  I guess I would be interested in both:  the diminishment of positions, and then the number of staff who have been laid off.

* (1630)

       I understand there have been a series of layoffs and I wonder if the minister could ensure that the numbers are up to date as of the end of July, I suppose.  We must know by now the people who are to be laid off even in July.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, I have the number of positions where there have been reductions across the community colleges: Assiniboine Community College, 13.41 positions; KCC, 8.21 positions; Red River Community College, 35.19 positions‑‑for a total at the three community colleges of 57.29 positions.  That is positions, not individuals.

Ms. Friesen:  And the number of individuals would be?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, there is a total of 42 permanent and 30 term or contract employees who have been affected.  Since the elimination of a position and incumbent mid‑year results in less than a full staff‑year saving‑‑many of the employees affected are part‑time employees‑‑the total staff years, positions and the employees affected will not balance.

       But the member was asking in terms of phases:  for Phase 1, at Red River Community College, six permanent and three term; for ACC, six permanent, no term; and, for KCC, one permanent and one term.  For Phase II, June 30 and beyond, Red River Community College, 26 permanent, 19 term; for Assiniboine Community College, three permanent, three term; and, for KCC, no permanent, and four term.

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Deputy Chair, that is a very surprising drop for Red River Community College in the second phase.  Can the minister give us an idea of what kinds of positions those are? Are these teaching positions?  Support positions?  Are they maintenance positions?  I am looking for the impact on programs of study.

Mrs. Vodrey:  We will total up the numbers and look at positions, as well as persons or individuals, and give the total and a breakdown for the member as soon as possible.

Mr. Alcock:  Just clarify one thing for me.  The 57.29 positions that were lost at the colleges, is this as a result of organizational changes that took place as a result of the move to governance, or is this as a result of Bill 22?

Mrs. Vodrey:  These were not a result of moving to governance. They were a result of the federal reductions, which then changed the programming.

Mr. Alcock:  What is the impact of Bill 22 going to be?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Each of the colleges will be taking 10 days, as are government and Crown corporations.

Mr. Alcock:  Is that all staff at the colleges?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Yes, it will include all staff.

Mr. Alcock:  Has there been any discussion about essential services at the college, or are there sufficient staff in each of the areas to rotate through, so the losses do not impact on service?

* (1640)

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, as a result of governance, the colleges are able to choose their days.  They will choose their days to provide the least disruption to inservice, and that would mean to students, to clients, to any contract obligation.

       So they will not all be operating on exactly the same 10 days but rather the 10 days that are the most feasible and efficient for those colleges.

Mr. Alcock:  Let us start with the teaching staff.  How are the teaching staff affected by this then?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, for Red River Community College and Assiniboine Community College, they have notified us of the closing on the following days:  six Fridays in July and August, July 2, 9, 16, 23 and 30 and also August 6.  They will also close on November 12.  November 12 was a staff development day, not a day in which classes were held, and they will also close three days during the Christmas season, December 29, 30 and 31.

       Keewatin Community College, we have not had a confirmation yet on the days they will be closing.

Mr. Alcock:  For the six Fridays in July and August, were these days that would normally have offered classes?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chair, I am informed that those are not regular class days.  If there is any summer program taking place in that time, then arrangements will be made to make sure that the integrity of that course is protected.

Mr. Alcock:  You mean there is no summer instruction taking place at Red River Community College?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Yes, there is summer instruction, but they adjusted the program offered to allow for those days.

Mr. Alcock:  Can you explain how the programs were adjusted?  I mean, if it took them five days a week to offer them before, how were they adjusted to accommodate this?

Mrs. Vodrey:  They did not provide us with the details.  The colleges simply assured us that they would be accommodating the full course.

Mr. Alcock:  Well, I would be interested in perhaps between now and the next time we meet if the minister could find out the details of this, because adjusting to meet the full course in some other circumstances has meant a net loss in either instructional time, laboratory time, marking time, tutorial time for students.

       I appreciate that the secretariat is not able to answer that question right now, but I would be interested in hearing that. That is for Red River.  Am I correct in assuming the same circumstance exists at ACC?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Alcock:  And the three days that are being lost at Christmas, are these days within the holiday period when the college is not operating?

Mrs. Vodrey:  I am informed there would normally not be classes on those days.

Mr. Alcock:  So what would instructional staff be engaged in doing on those three days?

Mrs. Vodrey:  We will get the details of what staff would be doing on those days for the next sitting.

Mr. Alcock:  Perhaps then we could move to another aspect of this new financial relationship, although I did have one question on fees, and I am not certain whether it got completely clarified in the earlier questioning.

       There is an implicit if not an explicit move at the university level towards fees covering 25 percent of the operating costs of the institution.  Is there any policy of that nature with the colleges?

Mrs. Vodrey:  We do not have any plans to move to a prescribed portion of a fee.  Tuition is set on an annual basis, and we do not have any plan to change from that at this time.

Mr. Alcock:  At the three colleges, what percentage of total operating costs do fees cover?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the tuition as a portion of operating costs varies among the colleges.  We predict that, for 1993‑94 Assiniboine Community College, it will account for 6.6 percent; Keewatin Community College, it will account for 3.6 percent; and Red River Community College, it will account for 10.4 percent.

Mr. Alcock:  So am I correct in assuming that, if we take the example of Red River as the larger institution, a student going to the University of Manitoba will have roughly, I think it is about a 78 percent subsidy right now headed towards a 75 percent subsidy, whereas a student going to Red River Community College will have in the order of a 90 percent subsidy.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, colleges have traditionally been institutions which attempt to maximize accessibility, and so, according to the numbers, that would appear to be correct.

Mr. Alcock:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the government seems to be moving quite forcefully to change that relationship with universities, to reduce the amount of subsidy, to increase the amount of support that students pay directly, and yet is not doing so with colleges.  Is there a reason that has been discussed, or is it just an oversight as a result of the move to governance, or is it something that has been dealt with at this point?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that 25 percent has been an amount, I understand, discussed across Canada, but we have not been looking at moving to that.  This year, for both the colleges and the universities, we were looking at the issue of accessibility.  When we get to the universities, we will maybe be able to talk more around the attempt to make sure that those tuition fees remain within an accessible range.

* (1650)

Mr. Alcock:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will get into the details of university fees when we move to that line, although I do not think it is in dispute that fees at the University of Manitoba, in any event, once being a decade ago covered about 16 percent of operating costs and now cover about 21 percent, so whether there has been a published government policy to move towards the 25 percent level that was talked about, that has been the effect of government policy over the last six or seven years.  I do not see anything similar to that with the colleges now.

       I think what I am hearing the minister say is it is just not an issue that has been discussed at this point, or it is not something that currently sits on the agenda with the colleges, that this sort of ad hoc process of setting the fees each year, depending upon the combination of revenues and the demand for services, is really what is driving fee setting.

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would take exception to the term "ad hoc" and would not call the setting ad hoc.  The setting of tuition fees has been part of a process that has included many factors.  It has attempted to always include the concerns for accessibility.  It has also looked at comparison with other provinces and where Manitoba's institutions stand in relation to other institutions across Canada.

Mr. Alcock:  Yes, I certainly would apologize for any offence that arises from the use of the word "ad hoc."  That was not my intention.  It was more the sense that comes out of this line of questioning that each year the college sort of sits down and thinks this through, that there is not a particular direction that it is headed in.

       I mean, I get a little perhaps confused when I read what exists here in the expected results and the objectives and activities of the secretariat, when I see things like formula mechanisms and frameworks and a whole bunch of things that suggest that there are relationships established here that are the product of policy.  Yet when we talk about how these things get established, they seem to relate more to a series of sort of soundings in the community each year.  That is certainly different from what one observes when one looks at the way the universities are funded.

       I was just asking whether there is a difference.  I guess the minister is saying that there is a difference, and there is no policy in place to relate fees to the total operating costs, et cetera.  It is the mechanism that is currently in place that will go on into the future.

       With that, let me move on to a related question here.

       The member for Wolseley was asking about market‑driven courses or market‑driven programming and making the case that if you are moving into a competitive situation, this could drive down the costs for certain kinds of programs or certain kinds of services, and that carries with it some attendant concerns about the basis for such competition.

       It is equally true that it could drive up, that one could earn a profit from programs, and one could actually have fees not covering 10 percent, but it could have fees in certain program areas covering 100 or 110 or 130 percent and actually accrue a profit.

       I guess two questions:  Is this not the case, and is this not occurring right now?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Yes, that is the case in the market‑driven course area, and yes, it is occurring now.

Mr. Alcock:  Which leads me to the question about how the college accounts for the use of its funds to government as it is moving into what is more of an arm's‑length relationship, and appropriately so too.

       Is the funding that government gives it‑‑and I keep seeing this talk about a funding program and formula mechanism‑‑that is a portion of the funding the college receives, is that decided on a line‑by‑line basis?  Is there a line‑by‑line accountability for that funding, or is it transferred as a block in response to expected results?  How does it relate to the surpluses accrued from the market‑driven?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as the member knows, the funding has previously been provided in a block.  The accountability has been in a line‑by‑line basis.  As the colleges have now moved to governance, we will be looking not at line by line in the future.  We will be looking more at sort of a program envelope, program by program.  The Colleges Secretariat in the 1993‑94 fiscal year is charged with the development and the implementation of a results‑based framework which includes legislative requirements and guidelines for program evaluation and review, annual reports.  I believe you have that information.

Mr. Alcock:  Yes, I noticed it here, which is why I am raising it now.  If we think about how this might work, particularly if we are going into program envelopes, that a request will come forward to government as part of its annual budget submission, and they will ask for a particular amount of money, presumably justified in a somewhat of a line‑by‑line basis.  I mean, there will be some detailing to the request, and that will form the basis for whatever the government‑‑they will make a policy decision as to how far they are prepared to go with this or not to go with it or approve or disapprove, and that will form the basis for the grant.

       The question I have is what happens to the revenue that comes in from the market‑driven side of this?  Does the college capture this and use it as discretionary funding?

Mrs. Vodrey:  The colleges would be looking to match the revenues that come in with the expenditures.  As I said earlier, any profit which comes, particularly from the market‑driven area, is expected to be put back into the colleges into the infrastructure or equipment area.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.

       Committee rise.




* (1430)

Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay):  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 5.(b) Hospitals and Community Health Services, page 82 of the Estimates manual.  Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.

       Item 5.(b) Hospitals and Community Health Services (1) Salaries $31,517,800.

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):  Madam Chairperson, I am just wondering if the minister had some material for us from the questions the other day.

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Madam Chair, I am just having staff pull that together, but, yes, we do have.

       I thought we had already provided this, but apparently we did not provide it, and if we did provide it, we are providing it again.  This is the current reform office flow chart.  There are the attached committees and membership of committees.  Was that what you wanted?

Ms. Gray:  Yes.

Mr. Orchard:  In the openness of these Estimates, I am positive I made that available, and what I had to do was refute‑‑well, not refute, but discuss an outdated one that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) had before my honourable friend assumed critic status.  I think maybe it was when the member for The Maples was here.

       Now, what else was there?

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, I know this is not exactly in the section that we are on, but I know the minister has no difficulty in answering any questions about his department.

       I want to clarify again the minister's position on the nonprofit cleaning services that are available in home care, and I do not know if that is part of the material that he was going to provide today.  I am still concerned that the department is removing people from home care who were receiving a homemaking service.  I am concerned about a couple of things.  I do not have specific cases, but I am concerned that some of the calls that have been coming into our office about people who are being taken off the program, that I am not sure there is appropriate follow‑up with them to suggest to them what other alternative services there are, because if there were, you know, why are they calling our office and seem to be quite distressed and upset?

       I am certain some of these are cases of my colleagues, which I am certainly prepared to pass on to the minister, but I guess I would like to know, are there any specific guidelines or protocol that was put in place for staff‑‑although they should know this but I can appreciate their caseloads are very heavy‑‑to provide support and follow‑up to these individuals to ensure that in fact they are able to avail themselves to an alternate service?

Mr. Orchard:  Madam Chair, I appreciate my honourable friend's questions.  I may not be able to answer them completely, but the advice I get is that if the home care worker making the judgment that the referral would be appropriate for an individual to go from the housekeeping, the meal preparation, to a paid‑for‑service, if they consider that there needs to be follow‑up to make sure that happens, that is a course they follow.  But in developing this program, I want to tell my honourable friend that we have left it to the discretion of the assessors and the co‑ordinators of the program to make the judgment as to who would be able to handle, you know, the retaining of this service on their own.  People who are slightly disoriented or, you know, do not have that ability in the judgment of the staff are not taken off the home‑care‑provided program.

       The best way that I found in the past to handle these circumstances is if my honourable friend has the ability just to pass the individuals on, and we do an inquiry and we find out what the judgment circumstances and decision‑making circumstances were.  It is completely revisited, and if there has been an inappropriate assessment, I mean, we have reinstated the service.  If the judgment has been appropriate, we provide that kind of information to my honourable friend on behalf of the individual so that they will know the reasons for the judgment. But I cannot appreciate, I cannot deal with these circumstances sort of in a hypothetical way.

       We have in the past been able to resolve, I would say with few exceptions, any individual cases that were referred on to the satisfaction of the individual.  So if my honourable friend is able to do that, that would be a process I would suggest.  In some cases, maybe the person does not want their name forwarded on, and I respect that, but we look at each one of these very, very seriously as they come in, and do a full review of circumstances.

Ms. Gray:  I can appreciate you cannot deal with part of my question, because you do not have a specific case, but I had also wondered if any special protocols or procedures were put in place so that these people taken off home care were followed up with.

       But just in regard to those individual cases, with respect to individuals who are prepared to have their names go to the minister, can we deal directly with the minister's staff verbally in terms of getting a response as opposed to via the letter route, which I find very cumbersome?  It usually does not say what we want it to say when we have to put things in writing, and it usually takes about six weeks.  That is not a criticism of the minister; that is just a reflection of workloads and how long things take.

* (1440)

Mr. Orchard:  Well, I appreciate my honourable friend's observation, but I would prefer to have those referrals come directly to myself for forwarding on.  Appreciate it puts staff in an awkward position‑‑like, my staff in an awkward position if staff in the Continuing Care Programs are being contacted directly by MLAs.  It is not trying to make the process more politically safe.

       There have been instances where staff discussions have been‑‑whether right or wrong‑‑have not been understood correctly, and it puts pressure back on staff.  So the preferred route is to channel them through my office, and then when the request for review comes from my office, it is expedited, and we try to deal with them as quickly as possible.  So, for the sake of not putting untoward pressure on staff, I would prefer to maintain that route.

       It has worked rather successfully on behalf of people with concerns about program for the past five years and before, because a similar process was followed before, when I had to, from time to time, deal with individual cases, or members of my caucus had to deal with individual cases as opposition members.

Ms. Gray:  Well, the minister and I will disagree on how successful that process is, but we will not get into a debate on that today.  Suffice it to say, we disagree on that issue.

       But I am wondering if the minister can tell us‑‑I do not know if he has this material with him today‑‑over the last year, how many home care cases, where homemaking was either the sole service or part of the service, have reviewed where people have been taken off the home care program, and referred to other services?

Mr. Orchard:  Appreciate, Madam Chairperson, that we dealt with this three or four days back, and I will have to take that question and provide my honourable friend with an answer at a later date.

 Ms. Gray:  Again, just to clarify, when the minister said in the House today, in response to a question from my colleague the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) that he talked about‑‑(interjection) Sure, he is a colleague.  He talked about reviewing cases and he used the quote:  Where services are available.

       Now, I wonder if he could clarify when he speaks of services in the community, is he referring to nonprofit services such as the one in north Winnipeg that is called‑‑I forget what it is called‑‑the northwest council on seniors, and they provide a home maintenance program?  Is he referring to those nonprofit services or is he talking about any services in general, such as Molly Maid, or those kinds of profit services?

Mr. Orchard:  I missed the last part of the question.

Ms. Gray:  I want to clarify whether you were referring to nonprofit services, home maintenance, cleaning services, or whether you were also referring to any other services that might be out in the communities, such as Molly Maid, or any of those private types of services?

Mr. Orchard:  First referral is to the not‑for‑profit providers. Where they do not exist a list, I understand, of service providers is made available who would be private service providers.

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, I know the minister has talked a lot about consistency of this service.  He cites as one of the reasons for not having some people on Home Care and other people going to nonprofit services because that was not fair and consistent.

       I would then ask the question, again using it as an example, I am aware that people in the northwest part of the city have an opportunity to be referred to the northwest council for seniors because they have a nonprofit cleaning and home maintenance service.  So in the sense of consistency, what nonprofit service do the people in south Winnipeg get referred to?

Mr. Orchard:  I gave my honourable friend, the other day, names of services that are in the general area of south Winnipeg.  Let me deal with the issue this way.  In terms of Winnipeg and the rest of Manitoba, Winnipeg does not have the same coverage of Support Services to Seniors Programs.

       Rural Manitoba and Brandon have almost‑‑I have to be careful here, it is not complete coverage‑‑but they have a significant amount of rural, northern Manitoba and Brandon covered with Support Services to Seniors funded programs; that is to a significantly greater degree than Winnipeg.

       Within Winnipeg there is a difference between north Winnipeg and south Winnipeg.  We are encouraging, and have been, the initiation of services in community in parts of the city that do not currently have Support Services to Seniors.  There has been some progress.

       The progress has not been as fast because for approximately, I guess, a year, while we undertook an evaluation to make sure that Support Services to Seniors was a very effective way of delivering supportive services for independent living that government naturally cannot provide.

       I mean, governments cannot provide every single service, and I think that is recognized by everyone.  It was certainly recognized by the previous administration when they established the Support Services to Seniors Program.

       We undertook a review, and the review indicated that they were a valuable service in communities where implemented.  But during the time of that review, we did not approve that many new programs.  We, maybe, approved only a few during that year‑and‑a‑half period of time.

       Other than that, we have had a fairly steady increase in the number of programs that are funded, and expansions of some existing programs were appropriate.

       This year, in trying to focus our diminishing resource base on care, we made the decision that when the service was solely housekeeping or meal preparation, that there were not other medical indicators that would say the individual was unable to arrange those services themselves, we would remove those people, in a gradual fashion, from the government‑paid‑for, taxpayer‑paid‑for service.  They would be referred first, as is always the case, to not‑for‑profit, if they existed, and where not existed, provide a list of private providers.

       The whole intention was to remove that level of service delivery, which was inequitably provided throughout rural Manitoba and Winnipeg, to make it consistent that the government would not provide that anywhere in the province, and to reinvest those dollars into the needed‑care services which, of course, we went through in substantial detail in terms of the increased‑‑I am not probably going to give the right category, but there was a decrease in the hours and units of service of the home care workers.  At any rate, the HAs and the home support workers was an increase because that meets with more intense care needs, and it is not the nature of housekeeping and meal preparation.

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, one of my concerns is that some of these people are being reviewed and taken off the program before there is a nonprofit service available.  Is that correct?  The minister is agreeing to that.

       Well, I guess my question then is:  How is that consistent? When you have people, then, in one part of the city who are afforded an opportunity to deal with a nonprofit cleaning service, which has to be quite a bit difference in price than a private for‑profit service, I do not see how that is consistent at all.

       * (1450)

       I am wondering why this was done, these people taken off the program, before the minister and his department ensured that there were more of these Services to Seniors Programs available.

Mr. Orchard:  Madam Chair, my honourable friend, the process for Support Services to Seniors and community resource councils is this:  The community develops a proposal which they then present to the department.  The department assesses it and says, yes or no, and provides the funding.  The department does not go out into communities in south Winnipeg and say, develop resource councils.

       Now, is my honourable friend saying that we should have gone to south Winnipeg and forced the communities to set these resource councils up?  That is an action which the communities undertake on their own, and it has not been undertaken universally across the province.

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, yes, I am suggesting that Support Services to Seniors staff find out who the community leaders are of the community groups in various parts of the city, as they have done in the past.  Because I recall, when the service was developed in north Winnipeg, one of the priorities of the Support Services to Seniors staff was to actually work in the North Kildonan and East Kildonan areas, because it was felt that there were a lot of community groups out there, certainly, a sense of community, that they like to participate in projects for the good of the people who live in their community, and they are actually the first step of the process.

       In some cases, there was initiation on the part of government staff to meet with these community groups and to say, here are some of the programs and services that we have seen developed in other areas of the city.  If you are interested, or should you feel this is something you want to do, we are here as resource people to assist you to do that.

       So, in fact, although certainly the community can initiate, and it is excellent when the community does.  There is nothing to stop the ministry from doing some of that initiation and taking some proactive steps.  In fact, it has been done in the past.

Mr. Orchard:  It continues, Madam Chairperson, to be done, but if the community does not take up the advice, take up the creation of the program, what does one do?  I mean, you assist the communities.  The ideal is to have the community approach the government and say, we want to become part of the process.  You make them aware of the availability of the process, but if the community does not come forward with their proposal, surely my honourable friend is not faulting government.

Ms. Gray:  What I am doing is asking then the minister if, in fact, the community does not take that initiative, whether it is the help of staff or not, and I am not sure whether staff have initiated that, the question then becomes, how does the minister of the department deal with that real inconsistency in terms of what is service, particularly when he is on the record most of the time talking about how important consistency of service and fairness is?  That is what I do not understand.  How does the minister reconcile it in his own mind?

Mr. Orchard:  Very easily, Madam Chair.  As I have indicated to my honourable friend, how do you justify?

       Now let us deal with the issue of income.  Theoretically, the south of Winnipeg is supposed to be wealthier.  So one would assume the residents are more wealthy south of the Assiniboine River.  The north of the city is supposed to be not as high an income area of the city of Winnipeg.  Yet, in the north of Winnipeg, because of a program that had been put in place by the previous government, which is a good program, since 1985, people in the north end of Winnipeg who theoretically have less disposable income, have been paying for housecleaning and meals through a not‑for‑profit service provision by the volunteers of the community, while theoretically‑‑not theoretically, but it is happening‑‑people in the south end of Winnipeg with theoretically higher incomes are receiving it at the taxpayers' expense because there is not the creation of the support community.

       Now, if we believe that income separation is accurate‑‑and I believe it is; I believe it can be statistically proven‑‑is my honourable friend saying that we should continue to support services that less wealthy Winnipeggers in the north end pay for, that we should maintain them free of charge for Winnipeggers south of the Assiniboine River?  I think that that would be inconsistent and that is why we changed policy and changed the approach so that there is consistency that, regardless of where a person lives in Manitoba, housekeeping and meal preparation shall be at the cost of the individual receiving the care instead of the mishmash, the inconsistency we had, where some paid and some received it free of charge, depending on where they live.

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, the minister has pointed out the inconsistency that was there before.  I agree that there was an inconsistency; however, he is generalizing in terms of income. In fact, when you look at the city of Winnipeg in terms of dividing it into postal codes, the highest income area, I think, happens to be in an area of St. James.  But, be that as it may, what the minister has done is taken one inconsistency and just changed the inconsistency and now we have another one, but the minister says, what would you do?

       I guess what I would want to know, as a minister and as a department, what research has been done to show that the type of services that can be provided for individuals, particularly the elderly and/or the young or disabled, but particularly the elderly, depending on the variety of services, can lead to a delay in hospitalization or institutionalization of people as they grow older or as they have medical problems?  What research shows what types of interventions are necessary?

* (1500)

       I ask that question because I know the Support Services to Seniors Program.  I have always supported that program.  I think it is a good one, but there is a big difference between having a network of nonprofit support services, particularly in the area of home maintenance and meal service for the elderly, and having the elderly in the community who are there basically‑‑they cannot avail themselves of a nonprofit service because it is not there. They would have to go to private service or rely on friends or neighbours.  In fact, they may not, and therefore, their health may deteriorate as opposed to be maintained, and we might start to see people going into hospitals or personal care homes sooner.

       Are there any long term, any longitudinal studies that have been done to show what is the best type of service to provide in a home care situation?  Where do we actually have the biggest impact on service?  That would be my first question to the minister.

Mr. Orchard:  My honourable friend's first question will be answered with approximately a dozen answers over the last several days that we have dealt with Continuing Care, where we maintain exactly the objectives my honourable friend states, maintaining independent living without the necessary advancement of placement in personal care home or admission to a hospital is in the provision of the home care assistance services, nursing services, all of which are increasing with this budget because of this decision.

       That is our best value to maintain independent living.  It is exactly where we have to go.  That was recognized, I believe, by Mr. Desjardins as minister in the government of the day by creating Support Services to Seniors, to take and invest modestly in volunteer co‑ordination, salary support, so that volunteer groups and not‑for‑profit service groups could provide, at a cost‑recovery, at a cost to the individual, meal preparation and light housekeeping, and in addition to that other services that government did not provide, that the individual, because of the lack of a resource council, did not have friendly shopping, did not have friendly visiting, did not have phone calling, did not have any of a number of other programs.

       So what I am saying to my honourable friend is that we have been encouraging, with the exception of the period of time that we had the Support Services to Seniors Program under review to make sure we were getting good value in replacing dollars from elsewhere in the ministry into Support Services to Seniors.  We have that confidence, and that is why we are moving as quickly as we can reallocate budget to Support Services to Seniors.

       Now we made the decision, and the decision is to make consistency with homemaking and meal preparation.  Let us do a little hypothetical.  The person who receives from the home care program light housekeeping and no meals‑‑let us take that as a scenario.  Now the individual may receive that care for once or twice a week, maybe, whatever; maybe even once every two weeks‑‑

An Honourable Member  Probably once every two weeks.

Mr. Orchard:  Probably once every two weeks.  We are saying now that they would seek out alternate care.  Under the current program the home support worker, if I have got the right category of worker, would go in and do the housekeeping.  The individual might say, you know I would really like to get my yard cleaned up.  Sorry, we cannot provide that.  You know I might want to have my laundry done every couple of weeks.  Sorry, we do not do that.  Well, no, because they are not assessed for it, and the individual would say but I am willing to pay you for it.  Well, I am sorry we cannot do that.  And you know where it stopped?  Just exactly there.

       Now by referring this individual to a private supplier of the housekeeping, they ask the same question, I would like to have my yard cleaned.  Well, we can handle that.  And I am willing to pay for it, the individual says.  Well, that is what we are here for.

       What I am telling my honourable friend is, this change will do more to put in supportive services that we could not put in as government, did not put in as government, cannot put in as government, by having these individuals referred to an alternate service supply for which they will pay a modest amount every two weeks or whatever our assessed need was, but they will have the ability now to pose the question:  Well, could you do certain things for me?  The answer in this case will be yes.

       I submit to my honourable friend, although she may want to disagree with me, that this will provide a greater range of service for that individual than we were providing in‑house in government and probably maintain the independent living status. The hang‑up that I hear my honourable friend coming at is, we are going to ask the person to pay, but that is not really the hang‑up my honourable friend is saying because she accepts that principle when it is support services for seniors.

       What the principle is, is that it is not going to be for a not‑for‑profit.  I presume my honourable friend is concerned, instead of paying‑‑let us pick a figure‑‑$7 an hour, they might have paid $9 an hour for the cleaning.  Yes, that may well be a concern, but that concern can be resolved with those communities getting together and putting in support services for seniors and not‑for‑profit cleaning if they so desire.

       I think there is value to this direction, because it allows us to reinvest that resource into more sophisticated care by not providing inconsistently in the province of Manitoba, housekeeping and light housekeeping and meal preparation.  We have now more dollars for more sophisticated care.  I submit to you that that has been proven to delay the need for personal care home admission or hospital admission on a temporary basis, and that is where we have to be moving and making scarce resource available.

       We can agree and we can debate this until the proverbial cows come home, but what these decisions are, as difficult as they are, they are consistent with the objectives of health care reform; they are consistent with the program of community‑based care.  I throw out the challenge to my honourable friend that I have thrown out to the member for Kildonan:  If you were in government, would you reverse the decision?  Do you know what?  I will bet you, you would have to stand up and say, no, you would not, because it is a consistent decision.  Maybe we argue about how it was implemented, but I will guarantee you that there would not be a government replacing this one or a minister replacing myself who would reverse the decisions.

Ms. Gray:  What I would want to do is to be assured that government as a potential initiator had done everything that they could within the various communities of Winnipeg that do not currently have the nonprofit services to seek out groups that might be prepared to look at that kind of development of a seniors council.

       That would be No. 1 that I would want to be assured of.  I do not disagree with what the minister has said.  He talks about a modest amount; I raise it as a concern.  My concern is for the people who may fall through the cracks.  That is a concern, that there are people who may fall through the cracks.

       The reason I say that is because I do not necessarily have the same faith that our government system‑‑and this is nothing to do with the individuals in the system‑‑has the ability to ensure that those people who may not any longer be eligible for a service are assisted to make sure that things are done, that they are either referred to appropriate services or that they have some supports in the community so that they can maintain themselves in the community.  That is my concern, that some people might fall through the cracks and that some people will not receive the kind of support that they need from government, not necessarily home care service, but support from an individual to assist them and getting them to the right places or to the right organizations.

       That is the concern that I raise, and I raise that because of high caseloads and because of bureaucracy in general.  So I will leave those comments on home care at that.

* (1510)

Mr. Orchard:  I appreciate my honourable friend's concern.  Her concern is not held with any less commitment than my very same concern in that regard.  I fully admit to my honourable friend, in some cases we might be vulnerable in that there has not been an adequate enough follow‑up or consultation with the individual.  That is why I say to my honourable friend, if those cases come to her or her colleagues' attention, we will follow up on them to make sure that they have not fallen through the crack, because no system is perfect, never has been and never will be.

       I want to tell you that my office gets substantially more letters of thank you on home care for very, very excellent service than we do letters of complaint.  I think that is a pretty generous sign that the program and the people who work within the program have the interest of the individuals receiving care as their foremost concern.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Madam Chairperson, while we are on this topic, I am wondering if the minister would table for us the guidelines for household maintenance, the guidelines for meal preparation, and the guidelines for the meal preparation service.

Mr. Orchard:  Madam Chairperson, unless I am mistaken, they are part of the guidelines that my honourable friend had at his disposal some two weeks ago and read from.

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, which information is the minister referring to that I had at my disposal two weeks ago?

Mr. Orchard:  I could go back to Hansard, and I could do that right now if my honourable friend would give me a few minutes to go through my Hansards.  My honourable friend posed a question within the last two weeks that we have been in Estimates, when we talked about the policy of the Continuing Care Programs.  He quoted from a title and had a book in front of him.  He described the color of the binder, and he said, is this the policy that which home care is guided by, and I indicated yes.

(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, the guidelines that I read from‑‑I asked the minister a general question on some guidelines that were the bottom line for home care.  The minister knows full well, despite the smirk on his face, that there are new guidelines that have been issued by the department with respect to those two programs.  He has just spent half an hour talking about this new program.

       Can he outline what the guidelines are for those new programs instead of playing games in this House and wasting time?

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, the decision in terms of meals and housecleaning as single‑source services provided by the Continuing Care Programs is where the individual is believed to have reasonable ability to arrange those services themselves and acquire them from alternate sources other than the Home Care Program.  Where they are the sole services, those individuals will be reviewed and, where deemed appropriate, referred to alternate services.

Mr. Chomiak:  Are not the household maintenance guidelines (a) if the client is frail (b) there are no family members and (c) no nonprofit, then Home Care will take the service on?

Mr. Orchard:  With the exception of the last criteria.

Mr. Chomiak:  When did that come into effect?

Mr. Orchard:  As of the budget for this current sitting of the session.  As I have indicated to my honourable friend the Liberal critic and to my honourable friend when last we visited this subject, the individual is then provided with a list of individuals and firms‑‑or let us not say individuals but a list of groups who can provide housecleaning services and/or meal services.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson):  The honourable member for Crescentwood.

Ms. Gray:  It kills you to say that, does it not?

       A question on the organization structure that the minister provided to us‑‑I hope this is not going to take too long but could the minister‑‑the one that starts out implementing the steering committee.

       I know who the deputy minister is.  I am wondering if the minister could tell us who the members are on the various implementation committees expanded‑‑is this very long?‑‑co‑ordination committee and the working groups?

Mr. Orchard:  I do not know whether my honourable friend has that information, but that information is part of Hansard that was given two weeks ago.  I am quite willing to dig it out and repeat it again if my honourable friend wants it.

Ms. Gray:  No, that is fine if it has already been asked in Estimates.  I do not have an interest in knowing again who they are.  I will read it in Hansard.  That is fine, thank you.

       The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson):  5.(b)(1) Salaries $31,517,800‑‑pass; 5.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $6,043,400‑‑pass; 5.(c)(1) Salaries $12,741,700.

Mr. Chomiak:  The minister's Health Reform document speaks about the fact that there is a substantial cost increase in terms of lab services, particularly in the area of private labs.  I am wondering if the minister might outline in general what the government policy is with respect to lab work and referrals of lab work from physicians to private versus public labs.

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, this is not a new policy. I think this has been the policy for 20 years probably, where the physician has the choice of either referring his laboratory work to either a public lab or a private lab.  It is the individual physician's choice.  There is only one exception to that rule of choice, if you will, and that is since about, I cannot remember the year, but circa 1985 or 1986 there were amendments introduced, I believe, to The Health Services Insurance Act, which in effect gave government more control over the licensing of private labs.

       My honourable friend might know that the implementation of laboratory services in rural Manitoba was through LAXes, the lab and X‑ray unit service.  That was brought in place about 20 years ago, I guess.  It was to provide government labs throughout non‑Winnipeg, Manitoba, if I can put it that way, with the exception of Cadham lab which was the major government lab in Winnipeg.

       The legislation brought in in '85 or '86 gave government the ability to control private lab establishment anywhere in the province.  Primarily, I think it is fair to say, the focus was on rural areas where the implementation of private labs, when there was sufficient public lab capacity, was deemed to be not a good use of resource, so that the rule of thumb of choice is only compromised where there is not choice in some areas of rural Manitoba where the lab for referral is a government‑owned lab through LAXes.

Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, is the minister contemplating any change in policy at this time with respect to the policy that he just reiterated as a long‑standing policy, in light of the minister's Health Reform document?

Mr. Orchard:  Yes, and that was the issue we discussed, I believe, two and a half weeks ago when I asked my honourable friend if he would be willing to give speedy passage to potential legislation that we were contemplating that would put in a constraint on conflict‑of‑interest referral of lab work by physicians, i.e., a prohibition of referring lab work by physicians to laboratories in which they or their family had beneficial interest.

       I did not have to pursue that matter with my honourable friend, because when I pursued it, I believe it was on a Thursday, our legislative drafting agenda had all the resources committed, and it was not possible to bring that legislation in in this session.  It is contemplated and expected that we would be crafting such legislation and bringing it in next session.

* (1520)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson):  Item 5.(c)(1) Salaries $12,741,700‑‑pass; 5.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $9,329,600‑‑pass.

       Item 5.(d)(1) Salaries $966,100.

Mr. Chomiak:  I understand that this year there is a change in the Air Ambulance Program with respect to the provision of receipts by individuals who‑‑pardon me, provision to the Northern Transportation Program with the requirement‑‑I correct myself there‑‑that receipts be provided for transportation.

       Would the minister outline what the change in policy is?

Mr. Orchard:  My honourable friend will recall, I think it was last budget, or was it two budgets ago, that we introduced the $50 contribution by people receiving patient transportation warrants to access service out of east of Lake Winnipeg and north of the 53rd, with exceptions around certain chronic condition and escorts.

       Now that policy change remains consistent.  It is administered by Flin Flon, The Pas, Thompson, Churchill.  Those four centres administer the issuance of the transportation warrants, and I am advised that the program is consistent; it has not changed, but maybe if my honourable friend has‑‑okay.

Ms. Gray:  I am wondering if the minister was able to find out any more information on the question I had about ambulances?

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, I think the question was on miniambulances.

Ms. Gray:  I do not know what you call miniambulances, but those smaller versions of ambulances.

Mr. Orchard:  Yes, I think we are talking about the same thing. Can I call them miniambulances so that I think I am talking about what my honourable friend wants me to talk about?

Ms. Gray:  Yes.  They are still in use.

Mr. Orchard:  Miniambulances are an ambulance conversion based on a modified minivan chassis.  The units generally have modified roof lines to give higher head room and are designed primarily to accommodate stable patient transfers.

       Winnipeg Ambulance first began exploring the acquisition of minivan units for economic reasons in 1988, prior to the proclamation of The Ambulance Services Act.  When the act was proclaimed, Winnipeg indicated they had purchased five miniambulance units which would require special accommodation, as they did not meet all the requirements for a Class C, B or A type ambulance vehicle under the legislation.

       After considerable negotiation with the Emergency Health & Ambulance Services Branch, these vehicles were approved for use by Winnipeg as Class D or as specialty ambulance units.  The minivans have a special equipment list, which approximates most of the equipment carried on a normal ambulance.  However, it carries fewer quantities due to limited space.

       Some of the larger and bulky items, such as monitor defibrillators, are not carried in the miniambulances routinely for the same reason.  Since the miniambulances could not routinely stock the same quantities of equipment as the regular‑sized modular ambulances, the licence approval granted to Winnipeg for these units carried the condition that they not be used for emergency responses but be limited to interfacility transportation.

       Winnipeg objected to this restriction, indicating there were occasions when the units may be asked to provide primary care and transport patients to hospital.  Emergency Health & Ambulance Services acknowledged that this may occasionally occur and that the City of Winnipeg should report each and every incident in writing‑‑ah, I remember that now‑‑on a quarterly basis.

       The city agreed to this condition, and in 1992 there was one report of a miniambulance used for emergency purposes.

Ms. Gray:  I thank the minister for that thorough answer. Somebody did a good job on that one.

Mr. Chomiak:  Can the minister outline us what the status is of that process in rural Manitoba, that is, outside of Winnipeg with respect to the utilization of vehicles to transport, quote, stabilized patients interfacilities?

Mr. Orchard:  There was to be a Motor Transport Board hearing, and I believe that hearing was to be in June.  I believe the hearing has been deferred to September.

Mr. Chomiak:  Can the minister indicate whether or not any regulations are being drafted under his department to deal with this particular issue?

Mr. Orchard:  I do not know whether you would call them standards.  In the course of hearing the application from I believe an applicant out of Beausejour the Motor Transport Board asked my ambulance division to give them some guidelines as to what would be minimum requirements.  I think they have been provided to the Motor Transport Board now, have they not?  Yes.

Mr. Chomiak:  Is there any move or thought on the part of the department to put these guidelines into effect under The Ambulance Act or any other of the legislation arising out of the Department of Health?

Mr. Orchard:  Not at present.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson):  Item 5.(d)(1) Salaries $966,100‑‑pass; 5.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $2,726,600‑‑pass.

       Item 5.(e)(1) Salaries $478,300.

Mr. Chomiak:  I am only rising to inquire whether‑‑I assume we will be talking about Capital programs under 9, rather than this category?  That is my only question.

Mr. Orchard:  Can I ask my honourable friends for a little guidance here, because I had made some changes to my introductory remarks around Capital, and those were completed in the last few hours.

       Now, if we are going to complete Estimates today I would make available a pieced‑together Capital program, and it would not be the one that we distribute.

       If we are not going to pass the Estimates until, say, Monday, then I would have the regular version ready for Monday.  I am at the disposal of the committee.

Ms. Gray:  Just to clarify, this put‑together version the minister has, does it basically have all the information?

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am not going to answer that, because they may ask for it and then not pass the Estimates today.

* (1530)

Ms. Gray:  Perhaps I could ask the question again.  I am sure the minister might respond this time.

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, if we cannot have a little levity in the House here, I mean‑‑no, in essence the information is not any different, but it is an extra process, because when we put the capital program together, we put it together in‑‑I do not know how many we put together, but it is used for distribution.

       All it is is an extra step.  It does not change the information, but it is a wasted step.  If we are going to complete today, I would have staff do that.  If we are not, I mean, I would have the regular program available for debate on Monday.  That is the only difference.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson):  5.(e) Capital Construction (1) Salaries $478,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $227,500‑‑pass.

       Resolution 21.5:  RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $64,832,700 for Health, Health Services for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.

       6. Insured Benefits (a) Salaries $5,214,400.

Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister just tell me where we are in terms of the contract with chiropractic, when that particular agreement with the association runs out?

Mr. Orchard:  I think our contract expired March 31, so we are currently without a contract and are attempting to reach one.

Mr. Chomiak:  Can the minister just indicate how many years the lapsed contract lasted?

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, the contract that expired March 31 of this year was a three‑year contract.

Mr. Chomiak:  The Estimates indicate that approximately 236,000 Pharmacare claims will be paid this year under the program.  Last year the Pharmacare claims paid bout 223,000.  Can the minister just indicate what the difference is in terms of claims paid, why?

Mr. Orchard:  I think there might be a little confusion, and I will have this clarified, because, with Pharmacare claims paid, it can be one claim per family per year or some claim on a monthly basis.  As my honourable friend can appreciate, what we have done in the last number of months, we have had‑‑well, particularly the issue was, I guess, focused rather directly last year with the decision of standing by the April 30 deadline for claims refund.  There were a number of people who were asking advice around that, some of whom had missed the April 30 deadline.

       We pointed out in the course of last year, in last year's decision of April 30 being a definitive or final deadline:  Look, as soon as you reach your deductible, you are eligible for a refund, and you do not have to wait until after December 31 or until April 30 to file.

       Let us consider a circumstance of a fairly substantial user of pharmaceuticals that you would have, in the month of January 1992, a significant amount of use, and by maybe February or March the person would be eligible for refund under the program.  It makes little sense to wait an extra 14 months to get the refund, and a lot of people did not know that they could file quarterly or more frequently than once.

       So I think it is fair to say that we now have a greater number of more frequent claimers during the year, so that, even though the program costs are staying level and maybe decreasing, the number of claims are there, not necessarily the number of individuals claiming, but the number of times a number of individuals claim.  So that is the reason for 223,000 to 236,000 as in terms of frequency of claims.

       What I will try to do for my honourable friend is to give him an example of how many claimants there were year over year.

Ms. Gray:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, did the minister put in place an ongoing evaluation of the impact of the changes that have been made to Pharmacare over the past year?

Mr. Orchard:  I am sorry.

Ms. Gray:  Did the minister put in place an evaluation of the impact of the changes to the Pharmacare Program, the changes that he has brought in over the past year?  Is there an ongoing evaluation as to the impact of those changes, whether positive or negative?

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am not sure that I am able to answer my honourable friend's question.  The decisions that we have implemented in terms of the formulary, No. 1, have all been on the basis of review by the Pharmacare Advisory Committee, which is composed of pharmacists and physicians.  The other decisions in terms of deductible and co‑payment, of course, were policy decisions of the Ministry of Health and Treasury Board and government.  The decisions on the formulary are made professionally on the basis of meeting health care needs in a cost‑effective fashion.

       In terms of the evaluation aspect, where there have been circumstances where an individual has said that decision will compromise my access to therapy, that has been investigated and where that can be established as accurate, the benefit through the EDS, exceptional drug status, has been reinstated.

       Where there are alternatives, which was the original reason for the changes in the formulary, all the changes in the formulary did one of two things in general:  removed a product from the formulary which was available over the counter and hence did not need to have a prescribing fee and extra cost attached to it; or there was an equally effective lesser cost alternative therapy than the one that was deleted.

       Only in cases where there was an exceptional individual circumstance were those guidelines overturned or overruled.  From that standpoint that would be the extent of the review done into the best confidence we have.  We do not believe that there has been any negative impact from a health perspective from the decisions.

* (1540)

       I would not begin to argue that some would make the case that because they could no longer receive an insured benefit under Pharmacare for certain things, that there was a financial impact, but in terms of medical impact, no.

Ms. Gray:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, if I recall correctly, there is an appeal mechanism established with these changes.  Can the minister tell us how many appeals that there have been since these changes were in place, and how many were upheld, how many were denied?

Mr. Orchard:  We do not have that detail here, but I am pretty sure we can make that available in terms of number of appeals and the number of times the appeal resulted in a change, okay?

Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am wondering if the minister can provide us, and it does not have to be today with a‑‑actually I might be asking if this is the wrong section‑‑whether we can get a breakdown of the Pharmacare benefits paid at the optometric, chiropractic, dental, the breakdown of those major categories that are administered under these insured benefits.

Mr. Orchard:  Yes, and if we have those here, we will give them now.  But if we do not have them here, we will provide them.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson):  6. Insured Benefits (a) Salaries $5,214,400‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $586,900‑‑pass.

       Resolution 21.6:  RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,801,300 for Health Insured Benefits for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.

       7. Health Services Insurance Fund (a) Manitoba Health Board $570,500.

Ms. Gray:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, does the minister have a list of who is on the Manitoba Health Board?

Mr. Orchard:  It is in Hansard already, because I provided that last week, I think.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Ben Sveinson):  7.(a)‑‑

Mr. Chomiak:  Just in general, can the minister outline what their per diems are, or what the payments are in terms of members of the Manitoba Health Board?

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, out of the $570,000, let me break it out for my honourable friends here:  The commissioner's remuneration and travel is estimated at $89,000, with $16,700 in terms of travel, and remuneration $72,300.  Part of this is a budgetary commitment as well for the Health Advisory Network, where there is a budgetary allowance of $250,000.

       Now, in addition to the board's remuneration and allowance for travel, we fund from here a number of committee expenses: the Dental Review Committee; the Medical Assessors for the ministry; the Pharmacare Professional Services; the Manitoba Drug Standards & Therapeutics Committee, that is the one we just talked about in terms of the formulary changes; the PCH Prescribing Guide Committee; the Medical Review Committee, which does the physician practice reviews; the Medical Appointments Review Committee; the Standing Committee on Diagnostic Services; and consulting contract with the Manitoba Drug Standards & Therapeutics Committee, and that is a $50,000 committee.

       So the committee expenses in total, all those that I have mentioned, are $198,000 of the budget, and there are miscellaneous expenses of $6,100 and other fees of $1,200.  I do not know what those are, maybe they are membership fees‑‑(interjection) Pardon me?  No, no.  Well, I think that is part of the travel, I think is their lunch.

       The travel expense probably has increased since this board has come in, because this board has probably visited every acute care hospital in the city of Winnipeg, or in the province of Manitoba, either as one or two members, and visited with boards. They have been a very active board in dealing with trustees and administrators throughout the province.  They have moved the commission board meetings out of the city of Winnipeg.  They have been in Brandon; they have been to Dauphin; they have been to northern Manitoba.  It has been an active board.

       Also, the commissioners have had additional duties to try and interface originally with the Health Advisory Network.  A member of the board was attached to one or two and sometimes more of the Health Advisory Network Task Forces.  But in total, the expected expenditures are composed of the Health Advisory Network board, the committee expenses, in total the $570,500.

Ms. Gray:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, does the minister know the per diem of the chair of the Manitoba Health Board, the daily per diem?

Mr. Orchard:  Yes, the vice‑chair does not get anything.  That is my deputy.  We do not allow that double dipping. (interjection) Well, yes, I mean, he is worth more, they tell me. (interjection) Well, it is Frank and Frank and Fred.

       The half‑day meeting for the chairperson is $256; full‑day meeting is $446.  For the members, a half‑day meeting is $146; and a full‑day meeting for members is $255.

Ms. Gray:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, is that not a lot higher than some of the other per diems for other boards such as commissioners for civil service?  Are they all paid those kinds of dollars?

* (1550)

Mr. Orchard:  I cannot answer that, but these are the per diems that were in place when we came into government and this board is the‑‑it is the highest per diems that I have in any of the boards I have within.  They are reasonable per diems, but I want to indicate to my honourable friend that the individuals that are on there have professional backgrounds that they have used extensively in providing advice to the ministry.

       The chair is a Bachelor of Nursing by educational background and has had pretty extensive both acute care and long‑term care administration as well as community service delivery work and has done consulting for administration in her private career.

       The members of the board have professional experience from chartered accountancy through a lawyer through a physician through investment councillor and have put a tremendous amount of respective professional opinion to the board in a number of fashions.

       We have almost made our per diems in terms of, if you would, consulting on varying matters depending on the expertise needed by the board.  It has been a very active and I think quite an effective board.

Ms. Gray:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am not certainly denying probably the qualifications of the people on the board or the fact of the amount of hours of work they put in.  I can appreciate the minister does not know what the per diems are in other areas, and I probably will ask a question on that in the Civil Service Commission because I would be amazed if board members of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation and Civil Service Commission receive those per diems, but I might be wrong.  I thank the minister for that.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson):  Item 7.(a) Manitoba Health Board $570,500‑‑pass.

       7.(b) Health Reform $15,000,000.

Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am wondering if the minister can give us an outline of the $15 million, in terms of that money that is now allocated, that money that is proposed to be allocated, and that money that still is not earmarked for any specific project or projects.

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, some of the reallocation direction was a reallocation to Municipals, Deer Lodge and Concordia in terms of the commissioning of additional beds at those three facilities for long‑term care with the downsizing at both our teaching hospitals.  The pediatric consolidation led to a use of these dollars from the teaching and community hospitals that wound down or phased out their pediatric inpatient capacity.

       There are funds in here for reallocation to the Winnipeg Mental Health program and the shifts in the Mental Health program.  Then there is, out of the $15 million roughly, a little over $4.5 million which has not been earmarked.  Most of the first three categories have been earmarked already, with the exception possibly of some nondedicated money in the Mental Health reform program, because appreciate we have not received a budget for the safe house yet, as an example.  You might recall we discussed that one.

       In terms of the $4.5 million out of the $15 million yet to be allocated, there are a number of our committees that have been on the list that I gave at the start, and I think I tabled it again today, where some of the dollars in terms of the surgical program investigations that are going on, we expect that there will be a need for some reallocated resource there.  We know there is going to be need for reallocation of resource around some of the community health centre developments that we discussed earlier on in the Estimates program.

       We are using some of these dollars to cover the cost of experts that we have had come in, not the APM contract, but for instance, Dr. David Naylor, Dr. John Crosbie, came in and assisted us on emergency medicine.  So we have a portion of the dollars here to provide for those experts to be brought in to share their experience and their expertise in guiding program change.

       There is a broader and more general area of just the establishment of alternative community programs and the co‑ordinating costs relating to them as a result of Health Reform where we are shifting services.  That portion yet to be allocated totals $4.5 million, almost a third of the $15 million.

Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister indicate whether or not this funding, therefore, is transitional funding and it will not be allocated, for example, necessarily in the next budget year.  That is my first question.

Mr. Orchard:  Yes and no.  Transitional in this year's budget, but once reallocated from the teaching hospitals, as an example, for the budgets to maintain the 60 beds at Concordia, 44 beds at Deer Lodge, 20 beds at Municipals, transition from teaching hospital to those hospitals this year, but once completed this year it will become a reduction of the budget at the teaching hospitals and an addition to the budget at those three respective facilities.  So transition in terms of this year, but into the base budget either as an increase or a decrease for future budgets.

Mr. Chomiak:  Just so I understand, let me use some hypothetical figures, and for purposes of this argument, I will use a hypothetical bed just so I understand.  Let us take the assumption that there is a $700 bed from the Health Sciences Centre that has now been allocated to Concordia at say $200. Therefore, the $200 for that bed will come out of this $15 million this year, and then next year the $200 for that bed will be added to the budget of Concordia Hospital.  Is that the way the minister is indicating the process works?

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, in essence, that is the process that we are engaged in here with the exception being that I would not attach veracity to the dollars.  I will give my honourable friend an example so that he understands the difficulty the system has when they are downsizing as to what portion of their global budget was used to maintain those beds. The costs that are part of the Health Reform document are average costs, and they are demonstrative of the average cost of a patient day in a teaching hospital versus community versus personal care.

       I know my honourable friends understand that there is a range in each of those facilities.  We spent a considerable amount of time trying to develop some sophistication around what are accurate figures.  Appreciate, I do not say this in any way trying to offend the managers of our hospitals, but always when they are reducing size, the cost is very marginal and incremental and very small, but when they are adding those beds, gee whiz, the cost can be pretty high.

       There had to be a way to get around this, and I have to share an anecdote.  I know particularly my honourable friend the member for Crescentwood would appreciate this one because this is getting back to farming again, you see.  Mr. Acting Chairperson, this is an old farming story.  We had a circumstance where there was a ward to be phased out of service at one of our hospitals. By the time we went through all of the calculations, it worked out to something like, I do not know, maybe $40 or $45 per day of cost to operate each of those beds, so that the amount of money that the budget for that hospital was going to go down was very, very small.

* (1600)

       I advised my deputy minister that that was the best news we had had, because we were going to use a long‑standing tradition where two farmers buy a piece of machine together, and they buy it and split the cost.  The way we handle things so we do not have to engage lawyers and spend all that extra money on legal work is we just have a simple agreement.  It is called a buy‑sell agreement.

       If I am a 50 percent owner of this machine and I decide I want to sell my share and my partner wants to buy it out, we establish the price in this way.  If I say, on a $10,000 machine, where I have $5,000 invested, by golly, that machine has appreciated in value.  It is now worth $14,000 and my 50 percent is worth $7,000.  My partner sells his half to me for $7,000. You can appreciate you get to a pretty honest evaluation of what it is worth right off the bat.  Nobody inflates the price and nobody tries to deflate the price.  You get to an honest price pretty quick.

       What we sort of did here is I said, well, that is the best news I have ever had.  If we can get beds at $45 a day, I want to move the entire program for Manitoba to that hospital at $45 a day.  We then eventually got a pretty reasonable cost.  Now, that was in the good old days before we engaged the services of Michael Lloyd and Associates.

       Michael Lloyd and Associates has developed a fair degree of integrity and sophistication around the incremental costs of beds in all of our hospitals.  We feel pretty comfortable that when one institution downsizes, another one adds capacity, that we can establish a transfer based on budget reduction on facility A, budget addition on facility B based on an assessment by Michael Lloyd and Associates that is as accurate as we have ever had.  We have not had that luxury in the past, and it is basis the Michael Lloyd assessment that we will do the budget area reductions within the teaching hospitals and provide the incremental budgets to the Concordias, Municipals and Deer Lodges.

       My honourable friend's premise is correct, but we think we have a fairly accurate assessment of the actual costs in each instance, whether it is a downsizing or an increment to the facility.

Mr. Chomiak:  Essentially the minister is saying, my flow‑through, irrespective of my arguments, in terms of numbers is correct, in terms of the budget moving from hospital A to hospital B, being picked up next year in hospital B's base budget and essentially being removed from Health Reform.

       That deals with hardware.  I guess there is a breakdown in terms of software, if I can use that analogy, in terms of there is a fair amount of consulting expertise in everything that is also associated with this Health Reform.

Mr. Orchard:  There is some, but of the 15 million, it will be a very, very small portion.  I would suspect that probably less than 150,000 of the 15 million would be for individuals‑‑no, it would be less than that because the Michael Lloyd and Associates contract was through the Health Advisory Network budget on the teaching hospital cost overview.  It was a fairly sizable commitment but that has already been done. (interjection) Yes, that is not part of here because that was done in, in essence, the last two years of budget through the Health Advisory Network.

Mr. Chomiak:  If, say, community health centre X had a proposal for some kind of community‑based reform, is it conceivable that money would come out of this budget, therefore we are saying there is probably still $4.5 million kicking around that could be utilized in the next year for community‑based programming?

       (Madam Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Orchard:  Madam Chair, yes, that is right.  Approximately 10 million has already been committed in here in terms of the shift in long‑term‑care beds, the pediatric consolidation and the facilitation of community‑based mental health programs, but there is $4.5 million that can be committed to those kinds of proposals.  Some will be committed to the Health Action Centre program.  That is one that we discussed already.  That will come out of this $15 million, and other alternatives, as they prove to be worthy of the funding shifts, can access this fund.

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, the Health Reform committee's material that the minister provided for us, is this basically the‑‑this is a list of the major reform committees that are currently underway with the Department of Health, this list.

Mr. Orchard:  Yes, Madam Chair, in essence, that is the committee structure that is focused on the reform initiative, but appreciate that we have got other areas where there will be committees at work within the ministry that had been either there or part of the ministry's commitment to normal function, if you will.  But those committees have been created since the reform process, if that is the question.

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, whom do these committees report to, or do they all report to different people?

Mr. Orchard:  Those committees my honourable friend has at hand report to the reform committee, steering committee. Incidentally, you know, not that I want to discourage or dissuade my honourable friend from asking questions, but we did deal with this pretty extensively at the start of Estimates.

 Ms. Gray:  I just have one more question.  You may have answered this as well.  I guess the one thing I do not see here, other than where it talks about the committee dealing with provincial cancer control, is the area of promotion of health, wellness and primary prevention.  Are there no committees that are specifically dealing with that?

Mr. Orchard:  Well, not specifically, but as I explained before, each of those committees will have that component integrated in. We have tried, and when we debated the Healthy Public Policy section of the ministry, they have an attachment from pure community right through to Capital Planning in terms of bringing the wellness, illness prevention, Healthy Public Policy perspective to all aspects of the ministry, including the committee structures that we have there.  The notable exception would be the Labour Adjustment Committee, where that is more technical in nature, but most of the program committees will have the component of education, prevention and wellness as part of their investigative mandate.

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, with all due respect to the minister, I really believe that if as a government you really want to deal with a particular issue area that rather than trying to integrate it into other committees, you will be further ahead if you actually have a committee established with its own mandate that specifically deals with something such as primary prevention and looks at planning over the next 10 years.  It may not be plans that can be implemented during this particular mandate of the government, but it is looking at long‑term planning.  I feel strongly that I think somewhere there needs to be a committee, a group that is specifically looking at primary prevention, that is looking at health promotion over the long term.

Mr. Orchard:  Let me give my honourable friend the comfort that she is absolutely right.  That is what we are doing.  That is why we have the Healthy Public Policy Programs Division of the ministry.  That is the very focus that they are engaging in and developing some sophistication around.

* (1610)

       In addition to that, as we plan through our varying programs we have, as part of the program discussion, the aspect of wellness and prevention and education.  So we do not end up with the sole focus being fixing in these various program entities but rather the prevention component, because all too often maybe we have inappropriately invested, if I can put it that way, by concentrating on the efficiency of the program that is fixing and curing the disease entity or the difficulty rather than on the prevention side.  We are putting in every one of these programs the up‑front prevention and wellness aspect and the education aspect as well as the treatment and follow‑up and palliation. That is part of the program.

       That is not the sole focus.  In addition to that, the Healthy Public Policy Programs area, under the Assistant Deputy Minister, Ms. Hicks, has the education, wellness and the long‑term development of program and policy initiative on wellness, on illness prevention, on education as a major focus within the ministry.

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, I really hope we see some results out of that division over the next year.  I think it is very important that we do see that.

Mr. Orchard:  Well, are we speeding right along, because I have an issue that I think we will want to debate this afternoon on the personal care home per diems.

Ms. Gray:  Speaking of prevention, does the minister happen to have the information about the SYs, the public health program in Winnipeg region, the information on home economics, et cetera?

Mr. Orchard:  Madam Chairperson, in the home economics positions, of the seven SYs that are there, six are filled and one has been vacant since a little over a year, May 1992.  We have been having the home economists, the other six, sharing the workload in the Winnipeg region and concentrating or focusing their efforts on nutrition and general public health policy areas.  We have not filled the seventh position.  It has been vacant since May of 1992.

Ms. Gray:  Can the minister tell us why that position has been left vacant?  I ask that question because I know the minister is a supporter of these services.  I have seen memos going forward from himself to his staff in the department talking about the importance of the program and to not have a diminution, if I can recall the term from the memo, of those kinds of services.

Mr. Orchard:  My honourable friend is right.

Ms. Gray:  I recognize the minister has been a supporter of this program, and I am wondering why that position has been left vacant for a year.

Mr. Orchard:  I missed my honourable friend's question.  I was indisposed there for a moment, to Madam Chair.

Ms. Gray:  I am asking if the minister knows why that position has remained vacant for a year.

Mr. Orchard:  Well, it is rolled up in a number of issues, not the least of which is a desire to manage our vacancy rate.  I would suspect that it has fallen in part into that directive that has been quite long standing from Treasury Board, and I will, having been availed of this information, make further inquiries.

Ms. Gray:  I would hope the minister does, just to satisfy himself as to if he wants to see that vacancy remain.  I mean, the reason I asked the question as well is I would wonder why part of a public health program that specifically deals with promotion of health and primary prevention, why the department would allow that position to remain vacant for that period of time.

       One could make some assumptions that in fact they may wish to be using that vacancy for something else, but if that was the case and the decision was made to transfer that position and to be used in another manner, why that was not done already.  I would question if in fact it is allowed to be vacant for‑‑to maintain vacancy rates there are usually other positions around that would allow that, but I would hope the minister would satisfy himself as to why that position has remained vacant.

Madam Chairperson:  7.(b) Health Reform $15,000,000‑‑pass; (c) Manitoba Health Status Improvement Fund $3,000,000.

Ms. Gray:  Both the member for Kildonan and myself basically would like to know what the $3‑million dollar grant is, how that breaks down.

Mr. Orchard:  We are just digging up the ability to access this fund.  We have set these funds aside to assist hospitals in implementing innovative programs and in terms of some costs that they often will incur in terms of the Continuous Quality Improvement or Total Quality Management program.

       Would my honourable friend be interested in the criteria of access?  You just want to know whether‑‑I think the question is, has there been access of this fund by the hospitals?

       One project that we are close to approving to fund this year‑‑I cannot be any more specific because an announcement will be coming, I guess, in the next few weeks, is what I am advised. An example of last year, the LDRP, labour delivery recovery postpartum, at Victoria Hospital, we utilized this fund to support some capital renovations to the ward that was used for LDRP.

Madam Chairperson:  7.(c) Manitoba Health Status Improvement Fund‑‑pass.

       7.(d) Hospital $930,770,500.

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, between (d) and (e) there are considerable questions with respect to the funding of hospitals and the various breakdowns.  I think I had asked several weeks ago, and we had talked about bed capacities for the various hospitals and the funding to those hospitals.  Do we have that information for us today?

Mr. Orchard:  Well, as I have indicated to my honourable friend when we touched on this subject I think earlier on this week, we have not dealt with individual facility budgets, either in personal care or in the hospital sector, but we can deal with how the budget, the reduction year over year, 950 to 930 in terms of the Hospital program, medical program, and if we wanted to roll in the Personal Care Home Program, I can give my honourable friend probably a reaffirmation of a number of the topics we have discussed in the last couple, three weeks as to how we expect each program to utilize or deliver services with a lowered budget this year.  That would be the kind of discussion that I would think would be most productive.

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, does the minister have those breakdowns available for us now?

* (1620)

Mr. Orchard:  Madam Chairperson, in general terms, I think it is fair to say that the largest area of reduction in terms of the hospital areas in this year's Estimates over last year's is the downsizing of the two teaching hospitals.  There was a significant downsizing in both.

       Part of the budget was transferred to other facilities, yes, but there was a fairly significant downsizing of the two teaching hospitals in terms of budgetary reduction year over year.  I think it is fair to say that the largest portion of that is at the tertiary hospital level, although I do not think there is any hospital this year that will have an increased or even a level budget year over year.  Most will have a decreased budget this year.

       Of course, that general communication of decreased budget was based upon downsizing, implementation, where possible, of the opportunities presented in the Efficiency Report.  The recent contract agreement with the Manitoba Nurses' Union is going to be a helpful component in terms of the reduced funding and implementation of the provisions of Bill 22 is also built in, in part, to this reduction in the hospital line, because we are asking the hospitals to, as much as possible, accommodate the parameters of Bill 22.

       In addition to that, we have made some specific requests of all hospitals and personal care homes in terms of reducing their management budgets and to do really a very pragmatic review and overview of their management dollar commitment with the clear objective of reducing the dollars spent in terms of management. All of those initiatives, some of them introduced last year in the budget, but all of them part of this year's budget preparation, to lead us to the reduced financial commitment in the hospital line.

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, in reading past Estimates debates, I know there has been an ongoing debate over the issue. Frankly, at this budgetary line, it is probably the single largest provincial expenditure in the entire province.  It is $1 billion.  It would be useful to have a breakdown of the various component expenditures of that if we are to do our jobs appropriately in terms of this Chamber.

       Let me give you an example.  Let me give an example to the minister.  The overall expenditure in grants to hospitals is $950 million last year, down to $930 million this year, roughly a $20‑million drop in funding, yet we know, for example, that St. Boniface Hospital this year has publicly stated they are reducing their budget by $25 million which exceeds this entire amount, the entire $20‑million amount at this point.

       It is very difficult for us to do our job as legislators in terms of having an understanding of what is happening.  Now, I anticipate the minister will indicate that part of that $25‑million reduction of St. Boniface Hospital is the deficit financing that had been encountered from previous years and the policy directives in that regard that go back to the deficit financing moratorium put on hospitals, introduced in the late '70s by previous administrations‑‑

An Honourable Member  Mid‑'80s.

Mr. Chomiak:  Mid‑'80s, pardon me, correct, by previous administrations.

       However, notwithstanding that, it is very difficult for us to do our jobs in this Chamber unless we have more definitive breakdowns in terms of the categories of expenditures.  Frankly, it just does not make a lot of sense to me.  As someone who has spent considerable time in terms of the Education Estimates, we have been able to have the breakdowns in terms of individual school divisions and the related expenditures on a division‑by‑division breakdown for years and were able to determine program directives in program efforts as a result.

       So I am asking the minister, he has access to that information:  What definitive information can he give us in terms of breakdown to allow us to discuss this particular item with some degree of information?

Mr. Orchard:  Well, Madam Chair, I understand where my honourable friend is saying that the school division budgets are made available, but that is not the individual schools, because the divisions will naturally allocate their budgets accordingly. There is no magic here.

       When I was critic debating these Estimates, we debated the line without having individual hospital budgets.  They never have been part of the individual debate, but the debate is always centred around whether the budgetary provision is adequate to maintain level of service.

       In that regard, that is a very important debate.  I think it is the kind of debate that we definitely have to get into, because my honourable friend is right.  My honourable friend is absolutely correct, this single line is larger than any other single line in the Estimates of the province.  There is no other single line that has more financial commitment and more presence throughout the province.

       It also is‑‑as my honourable friend will follow from the reform document, the Quality Health discussion paper and blueprint for change that we tabled on May 14 of last year‑‑the portion of the budget that consumes nearly 90 percent of our budget.  If we are intent about maintaining our health care system and its ability to deliver needed services, and to maintain those services within the fiscal capacity of the nation and the province, you have to go to your areas which spend the most.  That is where we are.

       It is a very difficult series of decisions that all the partners and the stakeholders have to make here.  I can tell you without any equivocation, I do not think there is a single hospital in the province of Manitoba that is happy to be dealing with a lower budget than they had to deal with last year.  But, at the same time, I think each of those hospitals, their board's administration understand that there is a necessity to very, very prudently review all their spending aspects.

       We have taken and presented as much information around how we spend in health care in Manitoba, and the relative effectiveness wherever we can identify that through discussion papers, through the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation papers.  All of the initiatives that we are undertaking are guided by the principles of trying to put the patient at the centre of change.

       What you are seeing here, and I have a high level of confidence that within the $930 million that we are spending this year in hospital care, that we will maintain the level and the quality of service for Manitobans within that budget.  I am convinced of that, and so are many others who are part of this budget preparation.

       We also know that there are further‑‑

Ms. Gray:  Will we get the same information on individual hospitals?

Mr. Orchard:  Pardon me?  On individual hospitals?  No, not on individual hospitals‑‑

Ms. Gray:  Why?  We could ask for individual hospitals.

* (1630)

Mr. Orchard:  Well, you can, but you know what the answer is, so it is up to you.  But if there were difficulties with an individual hospital, let us discuss them.

       Part of the figures that my honourable friend the member for Kildonan bounces around in terms of budgetary targets, et cetera, yes, that is correct.  There are a series of factors that are involved in those numbers.  In some circumstances, deficits have been part of it, both operating and supply.

       This funding level is requiring, for instance, the hospitals to absorb increased supply costs within this budget.  There are contractual arrangements.  Now mind you, the signed contract funding arrangements are being provided within the budget, but there are a number of areas where there has to be a very prudent use of resource within these institutions.

       With those challenges, we have confidence that we are going to maintain our ability to deliver care.  It may not be in the same fashion as we have always done it.  It may use fewer resources, fewer people, fewer patient days, definitely, but the care itself will be there.

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate, on a global basis, what the deficit carried into this budget year is for the hospitals?

Mr. Orchard:  Staff advise me that the carried‑forward deficits of all of our hospitals are approaching $4.5 million from last fiscal year.  So in other words, of the $950 million, there was a $4.5 million overexpenditure.

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, can the minister give us an idea as to what the accumulated deficit is out of that figure?

Mr. Orchard:  That is the accumulated deficit for the last fiscal year.

Mr. Orchard:  So the minister is saying that all of the hospitals in Manitoba, between last year's expenditures, are carrying into this year's expenditures a deficit of $4.5 million, but that there are no other outstanding deficits that are being funded, or not being funded is probably the correct term, by the ministry with respect to deficits.

Mr. Orchard:  In terms of the operating deficits from last year, they are approaching $4.5 million, but there are carried‑forward deficits that we are dealing with.  In terms of the accumulated information systems from the implementation of the Unisys agreement, there were incurred deficits on information systems. We are providing some one‑time funding to retire that carried‑forward deficit, but that was accounted for, if you will, separately from the operating deficits.  The operating deficits last year approached $4.5 million.

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, and the $4.5 million will not be paid by the ministry this year?

Mr. Orchard:  That is correct.  The deficits have not been paid, unless they were incurred for legitimate and identifiable program shifts under the appeal process.  The appeal process still exists, has existed for a number of years and has been utilized fairly extensively since the no‑deficit policy of 1986.

       So that deficits have not been paid unless there were, in the review of that deficit, circumstances which would legitimately lead to an increase in funding.  Otherwise the facilities have been required since 1986 to pick up last year's deficit in this year's funding allocation.

       We have extended the policy of no deficit which applied, basically, to the Urban Hospital Council members, the teaching hospitals, the community hospitals in Winnipeg and Brandon General Hospital.  We have extended the no‑deficit policy to all of our hospital and personal care home facilities.

       That has been the only expansion of the no‑deficit policy. In the past we have not had the no‑deficit policy applicable to any but our Urban Hospital Council members.  It did not apply to our other facilities.

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, in returning to my original statement that the president of the St. Boniface Hospital has stated publicly that that institution has to shave $25 million from its budget this year, can the minister indicate how that could be the case, that it must shave $35 million from its budget when the total deficits entering are only $4.5 million and when the total decrease in funding between last year and this year is only a total of about $20 million?  How is it that that director has made the public statement that $25 million must be shaved from the budget this year?

Mr. Orchard:  Two aspects that I want to deal with to try answer that.  One of them, my honourable friend will recall, if he has read Hansard from last year, because we dwelt on this issue for literally hours and hours in last year's Estimates.

       Hospitals develop a budget based on anticipated financial needs.  That projects supply‑cost increases and known salary‑cost increases, et cetera.  That is, if you will, the starting point for budget preparation, and the Ministry of Health says, here are the dollars that you have to operate with.  The management role is to attempt to deliver the program within the budgetary commitment.  That is the same this year as last year.

       So that is one aspect of the cost reduction that would be in reference to St. Boniface.  The second aspect of that statement, I believe, was made some time ago at a time when the projected deficit for the St. Boniface General Hospital was looking like it would be considerably higher.  They undertook a number of initiatives, and the deficit reconciliation at year‑end was substantially lower than what was projected, quite possibly, at the time that statement may have been made.

       There is, as the third aspect of that component, the reduction in budget to St. Boniface this year as their portion of the reduction of $20 million.  So there will be three aspects to that figure.  I cannot give my honourable friend a breakdown of how much that would be, and I cannot even verify the accuracy of the $25 million today.  Certainly that is not the circumstance in terms of the budgetary preparation today, because a number of initiatives have been undertaken at St. Boniface which have reduced their expected year‑end deficit for last fiscal year.

* (1640)

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, the department goes through a planning process with the executives of the hospital‑‑I am not sure if it is a three‑year or a five‑year plan‑‑in terms of their budgets.  Can the minister outline for me what information has been given to the hospitals, specifically the urban hospitals in Winnipeg, as to what their budget projections should look like in the next several years?

Mr. Orchard:  Madam Chair, my honourable friend is right at the nub of the issue with the urban hospitals, and the common complaint‑‑and it was a legitimate and real complaint that stemmed back in '88, '89, '90 and even to a degree '91, and is to a degree still a legitimate concern, but we are certainly much advanced on the issue now than we were then.

       We had a big problem three, four and five years ago when we were a minority government.  We could give best projections of what the funding was in terms of hospitals, but until the budget passed this House in a minority government, we could not be definitive.  There was one‑‑I forget which fiscal year it was, but we did not finalize budgets until March 31 because of the passage of our Estimates and the assuredness that the financial authority was indeed there.

       That has led to the facilities saying to us, look, we need to have some anticipation as to what our financial resources are going to be for more than just one year ahead.  For the first time, I guess, we have ever gone to a three‑year projection with the urban hospitals to indicate to them, as we sit today, here is our best projection as to the resource that we believe will be available to run your respective facilities.  Those financial targets have been shared with the urban hospitals and are shared as information with the best accuracy possible.

       Appreciate, and I think my honourable friend can appreciate this, we have no ability to say‑‑and this has always been the quandary government has been in‑‑what the '94‑95 budget will be. I mean, I have absolutely no authority as minister and neither do my staff, because that budget does not have any accuracy or legitimacy until it is passed by this Legislature.  The best we can do is give them the best projection as we see it.  We have worked fairly extensively with Treasury Board to try and get from Finance what their best projections are in terms of revenues, longer term.  They are the best projections we have been able to provide.

       We have shared those best projections with our hospitals. They are using those in their planning efforts knowing that if circumstances change, such as happened to us November, December of 1992, in the significant lowering of federal transfer payments, that even those projections can change and be lowered, but it is given then a planning goal so they can do some very productive and, I think, long‑term planning.

       I will tell my honourable friend I am not prepared to share the figures, and I think my honourable friend can understand why, because I have no authority to share those figures.  I have no authority to share them as anything but Estimates, and I will not do that because that would be inappropriate discussion in this House.  I will simply indicate to my honourable friend that the projections we have given to the hospitals are that they ought to plan their activities around a lowered budgetary commitment for this year and the next two years.

       Now, we think that is the real world.  We see other provinces giving the same kind of projections to their facilities.  Let me tell you why we are being definitive in saying that and indicating that to the urban hospitals.  In the past, I think it is fair to say that the way budgets were struck as they were struck, and if they were exceeded there would always be pressures and other circumstances which would allow the institutions, and particularly in health care, to receive additional funding.  That is of course why the previous administration, in 1986, put in the no‑deficit policy.

       But we also have now a considerable amount of more sophisticated information and process and ability to help the health care system plan around those reduced budget targets.  I mean, in one area alone like‑‑and I have had a number of discussions with individual hospitals in the last number of weeks.  With few exceptions, each and every one of them are experiencing fewer patient days in this calendar year, and those fewer patient days are not because of a lowered level of activity.

       It is in terms of bringing about opportunities from the efficiency report that the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation laid out about a year ago in terms of average length of stay.  It is in changing process on how individuals are admitted.  It is in changing more processes to outpatient procedures.  It is an impacted technology.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomies are taking significantly fewer patient days, and all of these are reflecting in a reduced level of activity as measured by patient days in our acute care hospitals.

       There is some comfort, I would not say a great deal of comfort, maybe "comfort" is the wrong word.  There is a willingness to acknowledge that there is an opportunity to provide the same level of care with a reduced budget commitment. That is why I say this year I have got a great deal of confidence around the ability to maintain our quantity‑quality of service, if you will, within a lowered budgetary commitment.

       We think with the processes of change that we have got in place within the ministry, including the consulting contract with APM, that we think we can indeed meet those lowered financial targets next year and the year after without compromising the ability to provide needed health care services in our hospital sector.

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, to what extent is the reduction from $950 million to $930 million reflective of the government's Bill 22, 2 percent overall reduction?

* (1650)

Mr. Orchard:  Madam Chair, we are having quite a little discussion here, so that what I am going to do for my honourable friend when next we meet, I am going to give him an estimate of what the minus two‑‑if it was able to be applied universally right across the system.  You know, there are certain circumstances in our acute care sector that disallows that.

       We will consolidate the best guess as to what that means to the $950‑million budget from last year, because I think that is what my honourable friend wants to get a sense of, and we will provide that to my honourable friend.  It will not be a straight minus two.  I think my honourable friend can appreciate that, because the 950 is not all minus‑twoable, if you will.  It is not all salary component.  We will provide the best guess, and we will provide that for Monday.

Mr. Chomiak:  I thank the minister for that because my line of questioning is incumbent upon having that information.

Ms. Gray:  Just to clarify after the minister's soliloquy, is he saying that he is not prepared to give us in committee an indication of what the budgets were per hospital and per facility last year and what those budgets are for this year?  Am I correct in interpreting his statements?

Mr. Orchard:  Correct, Madam Chair.  We have not, in these Estimates, and this is now my sixth time, dealt with individual facility budgets in these Estimates, and we had not beforehand. That is correct.  We have dealt with these lines in terms of the debate around their adequacy to meet the service‑delivery goals, but we have not dealt with individual facility budgets.

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, tradition aside, because I do not see what relevance tradition has to do with this particular discussion, can the minister reconcile his unwillingness to provide that information with his statements about openness and communication and his open government?

Mr. Orchard:  You cannot get much more open than printing for Estimates a reduction in funding and the process by which we expect it to be achieved.

Ms. Gray:  The minister is suggesting that by providing a budget and saying total grants that are almost a billion dollars and not allowing the committee an opportunity to see how that is broken down, that is openness.  I do not understand how that can be.  I would think, in this spirit of co‑operation and openness that the Minister of Health likes to purport, that surely to goodness with a billion dollars or close to a billion dollars he would be prepared to indicate the budgets of the various hospitals.  Is he also suggesting, if I asked about a budget of a particular hospital, that he is not prepared to release that information on an individual basis?

Mr. Orchard:  Madam Chairperson, that has not been the detail of Estimates in the Hospital budget or the Personal Care Home budget.

Ms. Gray:  Can the minister explain what that has to do with this issue if we are looking at openness in government?  Does it really matter what information has been provided over the last number of years based on tradition?  Are we not trying to change some of the traditions in terms of how we do business as politicians, and should this not be one of them?

Mr. Orchard:  We certainly are.  That is why this debate is so important at this juncture, because previous debates have centred around, often but not exclusively, the fact that the budget did not increase enough.  Now we are dealing with a budget for the first time that is decreasing.  That ought to be the focus of a very fundamental debate.

       The majority of the decrease, year over year, on these grants is in our teaching hospital budgets because of the downsizing.  I think my honourable friend can appreciate that.

       I think we would be well served to talk about whether this is achievable, whether this is a policy that ought to be approved by this Legislature, whether my honourable friend has concerns about this budgetary provision, whether my honourable friend believes that it is unachievable and has concerns about it, because I am willing to answer those concerns.  However, I am not prepared to lay individual hospital budgets projected for this year on the table.  We have not, Madam Chairperson, done that as a matter of course over the last number of years.

       Suffice it to say, Madam Chairperson, if my honourable friend had some specific concerns from individual facilities or on behalf of individual facilities, I would be prepared to deal with them, but I am not here at this juncture to lay out for my honourable friend what a particular facility's budget is projected to be.

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, what is the minister afraid of in releasing that information?

Mr. Orchard:  It has nothing to do with afraid of.  If I were afraid, I suppose we would just have Minister of Health budget and have it at $1.8 billion with no detail.  My honourable friend gets more detail than probably ever before in the history of debating Health Estimates.

       I will pose the reverse of that question in terms of broad principles of how the health care system can provide needed services within this budgetary requirement.  Is it possible or no?  Those are the kinds of broad principles we ought to be dealing with, because I can assure my honourable friend, as I stated earlier in discussing this issue, there is not a single institution that would not want to have more budget.  This is not an area where I am going to have the committee time tied up with an individual lobby effort by individual members on behalf of individual facilities for more money of $930 million.  I want to talk about principles behind the provision of care, how we can organize it, how we structure it, how we deliver it, how we meet needs.

       But in terms of turning it into a lobby exercise as to whether hospital A's budget is too big or too small‑‑like my honourable friend said the other day, questioned the new construction at Virden and Minnedosa.  What I assumed from that, that my honourable friend, if they had the individual budget, would cough up and offer a million dollars from each of those two budgets to put elsewhere in the system.  I do not think that would be appropriate.

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, can I ask the minister why he is making assumptions as to what we might want to do with that information.  Why is he making those assumptions?  What are they based on?

Mr. Orchard:  I am not making any assumptions.

Ms. Gray:  The minister indicates he is not making assumptions. He is making assumptions.  I do not understand why, with a billion‑dollar budget, the minister is not prepared to share with us so that we can then in turn ask.  It is only reasonable that one can ask the most reasoned and logical and intelligent questions when one has a good deal of information in front of you.

* (1700)

       We are accepting the fact that a lot of those budgets are being decreased.  We are not disputing that fact.  What we are asking for, the member for Kildonan and myself, is basically a breakdown of $1 billion.  Does the minister believe that the taxpayers of Manitoba do not have the right to know what the budgets are for those individual hospitals that are in their communities?  The minister says that we give breakdowns of school divisions.  Shall we start step by step and ask for a breakdown of each region in the province of Manitoba which would incorporate a number of hospitals?  We can start that way, but your department is going to have to compile the information.

Madam Chairperson:  Order, please.  The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour.  Committee rise.  Call in the Speaker.




Committee Report


Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees):  Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

       I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.


Committee Changes


Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows:  I would like to rescind the motion that I made earlier, the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) for the vacancy.

       I move, seconded by the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister), that the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) replace the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows:  Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for the vacant position.

       Motions agreed to.


House Business


Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader):  House business, Mr. Speaker.  I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will sit Friday, June 25, that is tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. in Room 254 to consider Bill 38.

Mr. Speaker:  I would like to thank the honourable government House leader for that information.




Mr. Speaker:  The hour being 5 p.m. time for private members' business.




Bill 200‑The Child and Family Services Amendment Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), Bill 200, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).

An Honourable Member  Stand.

Mr. Speaker:  Stand.  Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)

       And also standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) who has one minute remaining.

An Honourable Member  Stand.

Mr. Speaker:  Stand.  Is there leave that that matter also remain standing? (agreed)


Bill 202‑The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), Bill 202, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation, standing in the name of the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister).

An Honourable Member  Stand.

Mr. Speaker:  Stand.  Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)


Bill 203‑The Health Care Records Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 203, The Health Care Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux, standing in the name of the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).

An Honourable Member  Stand.

Mr. Speaker:  Stand.  Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)


Bill 205‑The Ombudsman Amendment Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Bill 205, The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman, standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).

An Honourable Member  Stand.

Mr. Speaker:  Stand.  Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)


Bill 208‑The Workers Compensation Amendment Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), Bill 208, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail, standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).

An Honourable Member  Stand.

Mr. Speaker:  Stand.  Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)


Bill 209‑The Public Health Amendment Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 209, The Public Health Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la sante publique, standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).

An Honourable Member  Stand.

Mr. Speaker:  Stand.  Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)


Bill 212‑The Dauphin Memorial Community Centre Board Repeal Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), Bill 212, The Dauphin Memorial Community Centre Board Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil du Centre commemoratif de Dauphin, standing in the name of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).

An Honourable Member  Stand.

Mr. Speaker:  Stand.  Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)


Mr. Speaker:  Bill 214 (The Beverage Container Act; Loi sur les contenants de boisson).  Are we proceeding with Bill 214?  No. Are we proceeding with Bill 216 (An Act to amend An Act to Protect the Health of Non‑Smokers: Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la sante des non‑fumeurs)?  No?  Okay.




Mr. Speaker:  The resolution of the honourable member for Elmwood, No. 37. Independent Review of Immigrant‑‑

An Honourable Member  Six o'clock.

Mr. Speaker:  What is this?  Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock?

Some Honourable Members:  No.

Mr. Speaker:  Okay.


Res. 37‑Independent Review of Immigrant Investor Program


Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), resolution 37:

       WHEREAS in 1991, Manitoba had the worst economic performance in the country; and

       WHEREAS in 1992, the projected deficit is expected to be in excess of $640 million, the worst in Manitoba's history; and

       WHEREAS the hands‑off, step‑aside policies of the provincial government have led to record layoffs, closures, and a doubling of social assistance usage in just two years; and

       WHEREAS among the many other economic failures the provincial government has presided over, it has failed to properly monitor the Immigrant Investor Program; and

       WHEREAS in one example, a businessman with a number of previous projects which failed was allowed by the provincial government to use the Premier as a reference for soliciting money under the Immigrant Investor Fund; and

       WHEREAS the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism has admitted that he and his colleagues have failed to monitor the program due to adverse publicity, he has now requested an independent audit of the program.

       THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism make the audit of the Immigrant Investor Fund fully public so that Manitobans can judge for themselves the merits of the program; and

       BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly request the minister to release all relevant data concerning this program including meetings with cabinet ministers and prospective investors and safeguards put in place by the minister.

Motion presented.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to address this resolution, and because the resolution was submitted some time ago, there have been some developments in the program, and that, of course, should be understood by those of us in this House.

       Mr. Speaker, I have quite a few serious observations about this program and how it developed and how it came about, but fundamentally there is a‑‑

Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader):  No, no, not in private members' hour, . . .

Mr. Maloway:  Well, you can see that the government members obviously are not interested in hearing any more speeches on the Immigrant Investor Program.  I can see why they are not, because they have a lot to be held accountable for on this particular program.  This is one of the biggest boondoggles that this government has involved itself in.


Point of Order


Mr. Manness:  Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, would you do a quorum call, please.

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  A quorum call having been requested, I would ask all members present in the Chamber to please rise and the Clerk will call out the members.  All members, please rise.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):  Mr. Evans (Brandon East), Mr. Santos, Mr. Maloway, Mr. Evans (Interlake), Mr. Martindale, Mr. Gaudry, Mrs. Carstairs, the Honourable Mr. Manness, the Honourable Mr. Rocan.

Mr. Speaker:  Due to lack of a quorum, this House now is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).