LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
June 3, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
* * *
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Dow Fraser, Steve Landon, Carla Bruyere and others requesting the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) to consider making as a major priority the establishment of a solvent
abuse treatment facility in northern
* * *
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis).
It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and
complies with the rules (by leave). Is
it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for‑‑no? Okay.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees‑‑
Order, please. Is there leave to revert to
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Storie). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
[agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
*
(1005)
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Wowchuk). It complies
with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules
(by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board has
played a vital role in the orderly marketing of Canadian wheat, barley and
other grain products since its inception in 1935; and
WHEREAS the federal Minister of
Agriculture is considering removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Wheat
Board; and
WHEREAS this is another step towards
dismantling the board; and
WHEREAS, as in the case with the removal
of oats from the Wheat Board in 1989, there has been no consultation with the
board of directors of the Wheat Board, with the 11‑member advisory
committee to the board or the producers themselves; and
WHEREAS the federal minister has said that
there will be no plebiscite of farmers before the announcement is made.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Friesen). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1,000 young adults are
currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the
Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has
already changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs
for the City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is now
proposing to eliminate the Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the Student Social
Allowances Program will result in more than a thousand young people being
forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time
education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of Health
have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the
Highway Construction Programs for the Department of Highways and Transportation
for the year '93‑94.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention
of all honourable members to the loge to my right, where we have with us this
morning Mr. Sid Green, the former MLA for
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this morning, sir.
Also with us this morning, we have from
the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this morning.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Canada-America
Health Care Plan
Introduction
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
Here in
I want to ask the Premier, in light of his
comments and his longstanding, at least rhetorical commitment to medicare, if
he feels it is appropriate for this kind of a firm that offers the Canada‑America
Health Care Plan to be opening here in Winnipeg and singling out seniors and
advertising to seniors the benefits of an additional insurance plan to deal
with waiting lists here in
*
(1010)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go into a
lengthy dissertation, although I assume I will have as much time as the member
did to ask her question, so that will give me plenty of time to say that the
point I made to the American audience was that
Despite the urgings of some people in the
investment community, perhaps in the business community, that
What they were seeing was the realization by
governments of all political stripe that the way to do it was to work within
the health care system to ensure that we fundamentally adjusted for the
changing times, that through the reform of health care we would provide that
health care on a more efficient basis, on a more effective basis, but that we
would indeed continue to be committed to health care.
That was the gist of my remarks to them,
and I might say that I think they were very well received, Mr. Speaker.
Government
Action
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
I want to ask the Premier, since this firm
charges, say, a family of seniors in the neighbourhood of $1,600 a year for
that coverage, which means a two‑tiered health care system, which means
people pay twice, which means the erosion of medicare, what is the Premier and
his government doing to drive this kind of company out of business to make sure
there is no market for this kind of insurance scheme and the creation of a two‑tiered
system.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, what an
incredible bias to suggest that the role of the government should be to drive
the company out of business. I mean, she
assumes some fundamental ignorance on the part of the public that they would
willingly spend money for something they do not need.
The fact of the matter is, we have had
reports here in this Legislature by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
showing members opposite and others who have concerns as to how we are working
to continue to reduce the waiting lists for people who needed surgery, showing
in some areas that
We recognize that there are some other
areas in which, for a whole variety of reasons, there may be unacceptably long
waiting lists, and we are working to correct and improve that. We are working to improve the health care
system through a program, a very thoughtful program of health care reform,
which is something that is being opposed, step by step, by New Democrats.
The Liberal opposition, a very responsible
opposition, with a knowledgeable critic, are working with the Minister of
Health, encouraging him towards that goal.
The New Democrats are just saying, no, no, no, do not do anything; let
the program deteriorate so that we can take political advantage of it‑‑Mr.
Speaker, a very, very foolish attitude, a very, very irresponsible
attitude. Obviously, Manitobans do not
support that attitude.
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:
Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the Premier
would have found it offensive to see this kind of advertisement‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for
The honourable member for
*
(1015)
Health
Care System
Waiting
Lists
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, I am very
intrigued with my honourable friend's questions. I am really intrigued with my honourable
friend's approach to how business can and should be undertaken in the
My honourable friend is holding up this
new insurance company's venue as an answer to a lot of people's problems. When that was first announced to be coming to
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a very
serious matter. The minister should acknowledge
that we have asked what this government is doing to drive out American health‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I could indicate that my
honourable friend is at least consistent, because when she was around the
cabinet table, they drove out the
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my honourable
friend that if she wants to talk about waiting lists and compare waiting lists
in
But more importantly, my honourable friend
ought to consider the waiting list of 35 million Americans who do not have
insurance and compare that to the 26 million Canadians who have universal
access to our program, receive needed services and have care appropriately
delivered in a very, very good system that is undergoing change, reform and
shifts from B.C. to
Despite the fact that my honourable friend
from the comfort of opposition persists in resisting every single change
proposed in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:
Yes, I regret that I must rise on another
point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would
like the minister to know that the last question I asked was precisely the same
question asked by the Liberal Health‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
ACCESS
Programs
Funding
Reduction
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the
Minister of Education.
As a result of this minister's action,
funds for ACCESS programs at
As a result of this minister's action,
there will be reductions in ACCESS programs of minus 24 percent at the Winnipeg
Education Centre; of 19 percent in the Social Work program at the Winnipeg
Education Centre; minus 19 percent in the
As a result of this minister's actions,
only‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley, would you
kindly put your question now, please.
Ms. Friesen: I would like to table that letter.
My question for the minister is: Where are the possible economic benefits to
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, we have been discussing this issue for some time. I will begin by reminding the member again
that the federal government has changed the way that it is funding ACCESS
students. The provincial government has
moved in to pick up the shortfall of the federal government, $1.1 million last
year.
I will remind her, Mr. Speaker, that in fact,
our commitment to ACCESS programs still remains at $9.9 million, and that we do
have a total funded intake of more than 11 students.
*
(1020)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the minister continues with the
view that it was the role of the federal government.
Two years ago, the federal government did
cut back, and I want to ask this minister, who has made such a public
commitment to Kim Campbell, has she conveyed her views that those cuts to
ACCESS are unconscionable? Will she tell
these ACCESS students and this House, how the world is going to be different
under the Minister of Defence?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to table in
the Estimates process a letter that I have written to the federal minister
responsible, to put forward
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, has this minister, whose
education policy includes building better golf courses and better car
dealerships in the city of
What is the effect‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, let me just tell the member the
total amount of money that is provided for ACCESS students and for ACCESS
supports.
ACCESS students do receive a bursary. ACCESS students also receive rental
subsidy. ACCESS students also receive
transportation allowance. ACCESS
students also receive daycare expenses.
They receive medical and optical benefits. They receive free tuition. They receive special supports.
We currently support 712 ACCESS students
in this province and we have taken in new intakes this year.
Gimli
Country Resort Audit
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, for the past week, we have been examining the audits which have been
conducted on the Immigrant Investor Fund.
We have become concerned about those projects that have not been
audited.
On August 3, 1989, this government
approved a project to Lakeview Developments, from immigration investment funds,
called the Gimli Country Resort. We
raised questions about the appropriateness of that project in 1989. We know that the project was at least $10
million of Immigrant Investor Funds.
Can the minister responsible tell this
House why that has not been audited in light of the previous minister, the
member for Charleswood's (Mr. Ernst) statement, that Lakeview has a proven
track record in syndicating projects through the Immigrant Investor Program?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, when we tabled our original
audit report back in December of 1992, at the end of December, that made some
specific recommendations in which some events had occurred at that particular
time relating to the Sheraton Hotel here in
We basically looked at doing the maximum
amount in terms of the dollar amount of Immigrant Investor Funds in
It was on that basis that we chose the
funds that were originally done. We all
now have seen the audits. We have
provided all of that information to everybody in this Chamber and the public at
large.
From those audits, we made a series of
recommendations to the federal government in terms of how we see improving the
program. I think everybody in this Chamber knows we have withdrawn from the
program. We are not participating in the
program as a result of those audits.
To do more historical audits might very
well confirm a lot of what we have just found which is historical. What we are doing today and have been doing
over the last many months is saying, this is a program that has problems; it is
a federal program and should be treated the same across
The federal government has a
responsibility in terms of compliance, monitoring and due diligence. We have indicated to them, get on with doing
that.
*
(1025)
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the reality is this is one of
the very few, or at least the only one project that we know of, that actually
had a contribution of provincial dollars, all the more reason it would seem to
me for the province to conduct an audit to see what happened to their $1
million of funds.
Can the minister tell us today why, since
there was provincial money involved, not just immigrant investor money, this
government chose not to do an audit in the same process that they did the
audits of other uses of Immigrant Investor Funds?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I have just outlined in great
detail for the Leader of the second opposition party why. When she refers to the support provided to
the Gimli resort project under the Canada‑Manitoba Tourism Agreement, a
joint agreement between the federal and provincial governments, I think, as the
Leader of the second opposition party knows, that is a form of support that is
forgivable over a period of time subject to meeting certain conditions, that
the province and federal government take back security for those funds in the
form of the real estate itself, in the form of the hotel that is up and built
and functioning and operating out in Gimli.
Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of
completing the first phase of that particular audit on the million dollars that
was provided. That forgiveness is given
over a five‑year period of time at approximately $200,000 a year if all
conditions are met. We will be determining whether or not all conditions have
in fact been met. It was tied to capital
costs. We are reviewing those capital
costs to confirm that they have in fact been met.
That is a part of the process that we do
with the Canada‑Manitoba Tourism Agreement, as we do with the
Manufacturing Industrial Opportunities Program, as we do with a series of
government initiatives.
Mrs. Carstairs: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, that
does not answer the question.
We have an Immigrant Investor Fund that,
quite frankly, is in shambles, that has been badly managed, badly set up by
this side, badly managed by that side.
We have an Immigrant Investor Fund that gets a contribution for part of
its project from this province. We
conduct an audit of projects which get no government funding, an independent
audit, but we do not do the same for this particular project. Is it because the government, quite frankly,
did not want the independent audit to put egg directly all over the face of
this government?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the second
opposition party could not be more inaccurate if she tried. We are doing an audit of the funding support
that we have provided, as we do under the Canada‑Manitoba Tourism
Agreement, as is done under all kinds of other financial programs. That support is tied to a series of
conditions. It is tied to a minimum of a
certain capital cost, in this case, some $6.4 million or $6.5 million. Part of
our audit includes verifying that those costs did in fact occur, and there are
other conditions. That is the nature of
the financial support under the Canada‑Manitoba Tourism Agreement.
We have a responsibility to do our audit
to see that all terms and conditions are in fact met, and we are doing just
that. I am not sure where she is heading
with this entire issue. We have audited
other Immigrant Investor Funds. They
pointed to problems in that program, which is a separate program. We made very specific recommendations to
improve that program, to improve the credibility. We have withdrawn from that program, and we
will continue to press the federal government to resolve those issues.
Sunday
Shopping
Minister's
Position
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, last night
we began the process of public hearings on Sunday shopping legislation in the
Mr. Speaker, this legislation has three
strikes against it already as was pointed out last night. It is not wanted in rural
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Rural Development, the minister who is supposed to stand up for the
interests of rural
*
(1030)
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, the member asks whether or not I personally support this kind of
legislation. Over the last year or so,
this has been a point which has been discussed by UMM, MAUM and many of the
organizations, the Chamber of Commerce of Manitoba. I have had extensive meetings with these
organizations. There were resolutions
that were presented at the floor of the general meetings of both MAUM and UMM.
Let me say that in discussing the approach
that has been taken with MAUM and UMM, they did not indicate to me that they
had any serious difficulty in their being able to make those decisions for
their people in their communities, because they are the people who are closest
to those communities.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what world the
Minister of Rural Development lives in, but I have dozens of letters from
chambers and rural municipal councillors opposing this.
Legislation
Amendments
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question
is, again, to the Minister of Rural Development.
Given that last night, in a surprise to
many, two representatives from major chains indicated that they would be
satisfied with no Sunday shopping if there was a level playing field for the
major chains, and given the fact that the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce and
rural representatives there last night said they oppose this, my question
is: Will this minister urge the
government to strengthen the existing laws to meet the interests of the
presenters last night, rather than barging ahead with wide‑open Sunday
shopping which Manitobans do not want?
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, through the hearing process that has been established here at the
Legislature, Manitobans from right across this entire province can come in and
make their views known. That is what the
process is for, to allow Manitobans to express their views.
Mr. Speaker, I deal with many rural
Manitobans and especially with the organizations such as UMM and MAUM, which
represent the municipalities around this province. From my discussions with them, they have
indicated to me that they are the people who are closest to the communities and
they are the ones who could probably make the decisions best for their
communities at that level.
Rural
Public Hearings
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, the members
who presented last night almost without exception said the government is showing
cowardice in fobbing off this decision to the municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, my final question to the
Minister of Rural Development is: Given
that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in their presentation on
this matter, said that there was inevitably going to be siphoning off‑‑and
I quote: We are also worried about the
inevitable siphoning off of‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Your question is?
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Rural
Development now urge his colleagues to move the hearings to rural
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, the member knows well the process and the procedure that is followed
on hearings on debates on bills.
Rural Manitobans are aware of what is
happening at the Legislature. They do
know that if they want to make a presentation, presentation can be made before
the committee. The committee is
publicized widely. It is not as though
rural Manitobans are unaware of what is going on in this building. Rural
Manitobans are very much aware.
Mr. Speaker, if they want to make
presentations, they will be here to make those presentations.
Department
of Education and Training
Administrative/Clerical
Staffing
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education
consistently says that services to children are her primary concern, prior to
cutting back on educational services to children. She says she is also always working within a
plan and a planning process, yet when she cut the Program Development and
Support Services branch, she cut 83 professional and technical staff who
deliver direct services to children, and professionals that provide direct
support such as therapists and child psychologists. At the same time she increased management‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Dauphin with your
question now, please.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of
Education, in light of the fact that she has increased the management ratio to
staff by 20 percent and the secretarial support by 33 percent, how can she justify
this under efficient management? How can
she justify‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, of course,
the member is wrong in his numbers. The
numbers were given to him the other day, and he has the numbers wrong
again. As the member knows also, the
clinicians will now be employed directly by school divisions. They will now be employed directly by the
area where there will be the closest contact and supervision by the school
division who will be making decisions on behalf of students, and clinicians
will work directly with those individuals.
As I also explained in the past,
clinicians' work has been done within school divisions. Therefore, when we look at the administrative
support changes within my department, the administrative support was not
necessarily given to clinicians previously.
That work was done in the field.
If the member also looks in terms of the administrative support, again,
he will find a reduction.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, the minister says my numbers are
wrong. I am using her numbers that she
finally gave us in the House, in the Legislature, in the committee.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that well‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Dauphin, with his
supplementary question now, please.
Mr. Plohman: Nate Nurgitz referred to the yellow dogs, Mr.
Speaker, and‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Dauphin will put
your question now, please.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that
this minister cut clinicians and at the same time revealed‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Plohman: I want to ask the minister how she can justify
cutting the clinicians while increasing the secretarial support for the
remaining staff in absolute numbers from 85 to 87. What sense does this make?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, I have a decrease of
eight SYs in the area of administrative support. As I have said to the member, as well, there
was also some reclassification which was done, people who have been
reclassified from Professional/Technical into the Administrative Support area.
I have also explained to the member that
that administration support is offered not only to the individuals who work on
a full‑time basis within the Department of Education and Training,
administrative support is also provided on a contract basis to those people who
work for our department, for instance, in the area of some languages, just like
heritage training languages, whose support is offered by that administrative
support.
I remind him again that on behalf of
clinicians, administrative support to clinicians was in the past previously
provided by school divisions and now will be provided by school divisions as
they are employed directly by school divisions.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the
clinician funding is totally inadequate, the superintendent of Flin Flon
said: $20,000 per clinician inadequate
to meet the needs, so let not the minister‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member for Dauphin will put
your question now.
Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this
minister how she can justify increasing the management ratio by 20 percent,
while she is cutting the clinicians in the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the member's question tends to
think that we have in fact increased the management when in fact there has been
a decrease in the management. So he
tends to allow people to think that‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Plohman: On a point
of order, this minister continues to
mislead this House. In fact, there was
an increase in the ratio.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member clearly does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, so we have fewer managers within
the PDSS section, Program Development and Support Services division. I will
also tell the member that we have worked very hard, and we discussed this in
the Estimates process around the restructuring and the reorganization within
that division that has included both internal reorganization and external
consultation as well, so that our service delivered will be the most efficient
and will meet the priorities that have been identified by the client group.
*
(1040)
Extracurricular
Activities
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker,
Can the Minister of Education tell this
House: Does she support the decision by
the trustees in Agassiz School Division to take these measures?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, as the member said in her question, it is the trustees' decision about
how they will spend the money available in the area of transportation.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, this minister is a walking,
talking contradiction, because Bill 16 and Bill 22 directly intervene with the
ability of the school divisions to make decisions.
Mr. Speaker: The question is?
Ms. Gray: Can the Minister of Education tell this House,
because she is directly involved with decision making in the school divisions because
of Bill 16 and Bill 22, does she support the decisions of school divisions to
cut out extracurricular activities? It
is a simple question.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member does
not support actions on behalf of taxpayers of
School divisions, with Bill 16, were given
an opportunity within a limited range to look at increasing the amount of money
needed for their special requirement.
There certainly was money available, and perhaps the member needs to
look at whether or not the full amount available was used by that particular
school division.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary for
the Minister of Education. She speaks of
taxpayers. Well, taxpayers want to know
the answer to this question as well.
Does she support the actions of school
divisions to eliminate extracurricular activities? Can she tell the House, come forth, be
honest, let us know her position?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, decisions will be made by school
divisions in terms of how the money that is available to them through our
funding formula and also through their own special levy is spent within their
own school divisions.
In terms of the availability for
extracurricular activities, that will be the decision of the school divisions
and also the other individuals who are involved in offering those activities.
Elder
Abuse
Educational
Video
Mrs. Shirley Render (St.
Vital): I think most of us know of the video, Standing
Up for Yourself, which was produced for the
I have just found out very recently that
this video received second place in the Silver Screen Awards, which is
sponsored by the United States‑International Film and Video
Festival. I think congratulations are
definitely in order.
Would the Minister responsible for Seniors
tell the House how this video provides assistance to
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister responsible for Seniors): I would
like to thank the member for St. Vital for this wonderful question, Mr.
Speaker.
As you know, in 1989, when the Discussion
Paper on Elder Abuse was on, the prime concern that came out of that
discussion, the major concern, was elderly abuse and financial abuse.
As a result of that, a video was produced,
and as a result, there are 1,500 copies throughout
I would like to congratulate further, Mr.
Barry Lank, Lank Beach Productions from
CP Rail
Employee
Layoffs
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, in March,
CP Rail confirmed that 200 jobs were going to be lost in their maintenance and
mechanical areas. Right now the layoff
notices are going out to 170 CP Rail shop employees here in
With the 200 jobs that the CP Rail
announced, actually only 174 of those customer service centre jobs were new
jobs coming to the
Can the Minister of Transportation tell us
what success he has had in keeping railway jobs in the
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, this is such a wide‑ranging
question. For the last two years we have
realized that rationalization is taking place with CP and CN as well. Some time ago, in the last year, CN announced
that they would be cutting 10,000 jobs across the country in order to
rationalize their operations. The same
thing is happening with CP.
As late as this morning, I have heard that
between the two rail lines, they are obviously looking at rationalizing their
operations between the two of them, that ultimately we could end up with one rail
line to provide the service for Canadians.
If the member wants to start picking at
what are the job gain and losses, there will be job losses in the rail industry
as well as in the air industry as they rationalize their operations. These
companies cannot continue to lose money.
The air industry, for example, has lost $2 billion in the last few
years. CN and CP are both on the verge
of losing money, are losing money, and have to rationalize their operations to
be competitive. And that, whether we like
it or not, is what is taking place out there.
Mr. Reid: Is the Minister of Transportation aware that
CP Rail plans to transfer its crew‑calling bureau to
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I could repeat the answer that I
gave before, but I just want to tell the member that the actions that were
taken by our Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in reducing the tax on
locomotive fuel by another 3.15 cents a litre is something that has been lauded
across this country because it basically gives the message out there that we
value transportation.
We know how important it is, and it gives
us an opportunity to continue to negotiate with these companies in terms of
trying to keep the jobs here. You try
and make it as fair as possible in terms of equitable job losses across the
country.
Mr. Reid: My final supplementary to the same minister,
Mr. Speaker: What action will the
minister take to ensure that these 12 jobs remain in
Mr. Driedger: Not only myself, but our Premier (Mr.
Filmon), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), other of my colleagues, the
Minister of I, T and T (Mr. Stefanson) are in constant‑‑[interjection]
The place is falling apart, Mr. Speaker.
There are ongoing discussions in terms of
seeing where there are economic and job benefits to be gained for the province,
and we will continue to do that on an ongoing basis at all levels within our
government to try and make sure that if there are job losses taking place, we
are treated fairly in this province.
Chemical
Warehouse‑Fisher Branch
Clean
Environment Commission Hearings
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
The Premier has throughout his mandate
indicated his concern for the environment, his pleasure at the location and,
indeed, his government's funding of the Centre for Sustainable Development, but
once again, there has been a bad rating of the environmental practices of this
government, this time by the Sierra Club that, in fact, gave the province an F
rating. [interjection]
Well, the government can discount that
particular organization as it does any organization with which it does not
agree, but the reality is they took a look at a few specific projects and said
the government gets an F. I would like
to know‑‑for the Premier‑‑about one specific one.
Will he tell the House today why his
government still refuses to order a Clean Environment Commission hearing on the
Fisher Branch facility?
*
(1050)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, if I may, because this is a
special day, I think, in the life and career of the member for
I think all Manitobans will recognize that
this is her last day in the House as Leader of her political party. Regardless of political stripe, I know we
will want to congratulate her for the efforts she has put in on behalf of
people in
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting‑‑[interjection]
No, mine will not be that soon.
It is interesting that the Sierra Club, in
making its recommendations or its determination from a distance, seizes upon
all of the political issues of the day as justification for trying to make an
objective environmental judgment on a province.
Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely
fascinating when I read the list of projects they choose to criticize the
province for. They choose to criticize
the province for one project that has not even begun its review by the Clean
Environment Commission. Without any knowledge on their part, they have already
made a decision that because the New Democrats are opposed to it, it is a bad
project.
Another one that is gaining public
positive attention right across this country and right across
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, I am wondering, in tribute to the Liberal Leader on her last day in
this House, perhaps if the Premier could answer the question briefly.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: I am sure the Leader of the Liberal Party
will appreciate on her final day in the House that she has finally gotten the
support of the House leader of the New Democratic Party. I am sure she will not consider that going
out on a high, mind you.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the project
at Fisher Branch, I know that is an issue under review by the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings), and I think he has indicated that he will look at
the project in view of concerns being expressed. I take the concerns of the Leader of the Liberal
Party more seriously than I do of those from afar, who make their judgments
based on the press clippings they read of questions New Democrats raised in
this House.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee
Change
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Economic Development be amended as follows:
the member for
Motion agreed to.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement? [agreed]
It is my pleasure to bring the forthcoming
celebration of Philippine Heritage Week to the attention of members of this
House. June 6 to 14 marks a special
observance for
Philippine Heritage Week is a joyous and
exuberant recognition of the Filipino cultural legacy within the context of
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members of
this House and all Manitobans to join with me in wishing our Filipino community
all the best during this festive occasion.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Judy WasylyciaLeis (
This is an appropriate time, Mr. Speaker,
to acknowledge the contribution of the many Filipinos in our community at large
and to pay tribute to the commitment of Filipinos everywhere in
We are stronger for the contribution of
the Filipino community, and this week we delight in celebrating with Filipinos
a number of celebrations, festivities and activities that will enhance our
quality of life and take one more step toward the preservation of our mosaic
here in
So on behalf of everyone here, I would
like to add our congratulations and best wishes to the Filipino community on
their organization of Philippine Heritage Week.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Maples
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to join with the minister and the member for
Mr. Speaker, this is their week of
celebration where they are going to enjoy their traditional culture. Also, as the member for
I think we are proud of them and,
certainly, I would like to commend the community for doing a wonderful job last
year. The celebrations, we all
enjoyed. We enjoyed the food and their
cultural activities.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that Mr. Speaker
would join with the Filipino community and come and celebrate the occasion.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, per
previous discussions and agreement, we are planning to go into Estimates
now. It is my understanding, an
agreement has been struck that Health Estimates will begin at this particular
point in time.
I also understand that we will sit, by
agreement‑‑Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether a final time has been
set‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Two thirty.
Mr. Manness: ‑‑but certainly discussions will
lead to a final time.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), 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.
Mr. Speaker: Prior to putting the question, I will
recognize the honourable opposition House leader.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Just on House
business, Mr. Speaker, the agreement was to sit until 2:30, and I would suggest
that perhaps we announce that now so that we, since we are going into Estimates,
do not have to adjourn Estimates and come back into the House. The agreement was for 2:30.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that. If there is no trust, and I know there was
trust built around that, but if 2:30 was the established time‑‑I am
reluctant to always put that out, because sometimes there is a will.
[interjection] I am not pushed by the government. The government will not push me on that, but
sometimes there is a desire to work beyond that time. Indeed, if the members want me to announce
2:30, that is what I will do. I will
announce 2:30 so not to frustrate the good process of negotiating that the
deputy House leader of our party has engaged, indeed, all House leaders.
So, Mr. Speaker, under that basis, I would
move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), 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.
*
(1100)
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This morning, 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 2.(1)(a) on page 35 of the Estimates book.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): At the end of last time, I think, we were
looking at the changes in the I.B. program over the period since 1985, and I
was expressing my concern about the shift away from the diploma and whether
this reflected anything, any larger concerns in the schools. I think right at the end of last time, I was
expressing my concerns, and I want to follow it up with questions about the
amount of work which is done by students outside of schools in the years above
Grade 9.
I wonder if the department collects any
numbers on that. I know anybody can get
informal numbers by talking to teachers in high schools, but some of the
informal numbers in Estimates that one gets are that over 50 percent of
students in some schools are in fact working more than 20 hours a week. I wonder if the department does collect
statistics on this and how long they have been collecting them and what is
happening in
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): I am informed that we do
not collect formal statistics on the number of hours students work outside of
school time, and our information would be the informal statistics the member
has spoken about to this point.
Ms. Friesen: I am sorry, I missed the last sentence on the
informal statistics.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member referred to informal information
from discussion with teachers, and we would have the same kinds of informal
conversations.
Ms. Friesen: The minister will have to refresh my memory,
but I think between certain ages, the principal must approve students who do
take on work outside school. First of
all, maybe we should get the information correct. What ages is that? What hours of work are limited? Does the department or do the school
divisions collect that information centrally?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is the school
divisions that might collect some information.
They do not report the information to us. The principal may sign off where asked to for
children or young people under 16 years of age who wish to be employed during
the week. I am informed that not all
employers ask for that sign off.
Therefore, the information that we have is
not relative to all employment that young people may take on. It would be the school division doing some
monitoring and then parents doing also, knowing whether their young person is
involved in an after‑school or after‑hours job as parents are
responsible till age 18.
Our Student Support branch which deals
particularly with our at‑risk students, has not had concerns raised by
schools to include this as an area for us to collect data. We are in the process of getting feedback
from divisions regarding the conditions and the characteristics that are a
concern to them in order to revise our data collection process.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am sure the
minister is aware that this is a growing public issue. I do not think it has been addressed in
Once you get above about 10 hours, the
marks drop off. Up to 10 hours, it is
possible that some studies in fact do show that there is an improvement in
marks, but after a certain level they begin to drop off. After, when students are putting in 30 hours,
then the marks drop off very rapidly.
Teachers I have spoken to bear that out, again, in an informal way. It seems to me that it is an area of concern,
and I wonder if the department has ever looked at this and if it is a concern
for the minister.
*
(1110)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I said in my
previous answer, we are aware. We have
done some of the same reading that I am sure the member has. There have been recent newspaper articles on
the issues of students who work as well as attending school.
In the first instance as I said, school
divisions have not raised this as a characteristic of concern for them. Through our Student Support branch, we are
looking at characteristics of students at risk, and we are attempting to revise
our list of characteristics in order to deal better with programs for students
at risk.
So school divisions which would have the
closest association with the number of hours that students might work or
whether or not there are a large number of students within schools working
certain numbers of hours have not raised that as an issue.
I am informed, as well, that there does
not seem to be any conclusive research in the correlation between the numbers
of hours worked and student performance, that there may be some research on
both sides and there may be varying threshold numbers, but there does not seem
to be anything specifically conclusive on that.
Ms. Friesen: Is it the practice of the department to wait
for school divisions to raise issues such as this? This seems to me something which would affect
students across the province, at least in areas where that kind of employment
is available. Is it not possible for the
minister to have a concern and to raise this with the school divisions to see
if it is a concern with them?
It seems to me there is a leadership role
for a Department of Education to play in essentially saying and creating a
climate that does not just say stay in school, but that your first job is to be
a student. I think that is what we are
losing, not just in
Because we are losing that battle to
create I suppose what the publicity agencies would call a learning environment,
I think that any of these kinds of public relations campaigns the minister and
her federal counterparts are involved in are really only going to touch the
edge.
I think we have to get across the idea
that learning begins at the beginning, and it begins in school, and that school
is the most important thing, and that 30 hours a week and 40 hours a week which
students are now beginning to do at Grade 10‑‑and they are doing it
in part because they want to keep a job right through university, so in college
and university, they are turning up having three to four years of experience of
essentially part‑time schooling which has been passed off as full‑time
schooling. Their expectations of what
learning and work and study are about are changing.
I know there are economic reasons for
this, but it seems to me there is also a responsibility of the Department of
Education to begin to say, look, here are the studies which do present
particular thresholds for your marks, and here are the consequences of starting
in Grade 9 and 10 to work 30 hours a week.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member is raising
some concerns about young people and their engagement in the education
process. I agree that one of the main
tasks of education is to seek the engagement of students within that learning
process and then, throughout the process, to continue the engagement and where
students are at risk of that disengagement, for education to be some of the
support which helps students remain in the system.
The federal government and the provincial
government have taken the issue of, and not just students dropping out, but as
the member said, perhaps a sort of part‑time schooling, as an important
issue, in that we want students to be able to remain in school and make the
most of the education process.
As the member said, there are a number of
reasons that young people may decide to work on a part‑time basis which
are outside of the scope of what actually happens on a daily basis in school in
terms of whether schools can entirely influence that. There are economic factors within a family
that may cause a student to work on a part‑time basis. That work may be in order to assist the
family, or it may be on behalf of the student himself to provide for some of
that student's own needs because of the family's economic situation.
The school's role in that area is to
support the student in every way in the continued engagement of learning. There is another outside factor which
influences whether or not the student will continue working part time, will
work part time for a short or for a long period.
*
(1120)
Other issues which influence students
working full or part time are migrancy issues, families moving, students
needing to help out sometimes as a way to become involved in the community.
There are a number of reasons which account for students working and which the
educational system can continue to provide support for the student's continued
engagement in the learning process but which may not be able to change the
factors within the family that cause students to work on a part‑time
basis.
In terms of helping students as they make
decisions about this, because if there are pressures which are not in the family
but which are, in fact, then peer pressures or pressures relating to that
student's own age range, the Skills for Independent Living course, which we
will be offering on a compulsory basis in the fall, does have content areas
which look at decision making, problem solving and choice making. These are some of the considerations which
young people would be using as they make decisions about whether or not they
will be in part‑time work or whether they will limit the amount of part‑time
work to a certain number of areas.
So this point, two factors, one, issues
and pressures outside of what education can control education has to support
them. Where students do not experience those pressures we do provide some
support within our own system to help students make the best choices possible
in terms of whether or not they will engage in part‑time work. Then we also look for parents to be involved
where possible as well, that parents are a valuable source to students in terms
of decision making and also in developing attitudes toward school.
In terms of actually collecting data or a
survey, some of the difficulties with the data collection‑‑this is
outside of a specific reason, but a data collection, for instance‑‑is
that the students may be employed on a short‑term basis for a certain
number of hours and then leave, or they may be employed on a longer‑term
basis and change the hours they are working.
For schools to try and attempt a comprehensive data collection process
would be very comprehensive and could be very time consuming. That is one of the issues that has been
identified as a difficult one.
I can say, again, the overriding issue
appears to be one of engagement. We want
to make sure that students remain engaged in the educational system and in the
process, so where students are at risk, we look to guidance counsellors to
assist in helping to identify those students.
We try to support through course work. In addition, our Student Support
branch is very happy to work with schools on behalf of young people in regard
to a number of issues.
I remind the member too, in terms of the
Student Support branch, the Student Support branch works with individual
schools as they develop programs. It is
not necessarily a whole division‑wide plan that has to fit in. Where schools identify an issue that
particularly affects them, then we can look at working with schools toward
helping them with those students at risk in their particular area.
Ms. Friesen: I am glad to see that Skills for Independent
Living has the opportunity to look at that because I think it is an appropriate
place. I do not think work hours are
specifically identified in the curriculum, but it is one area where there is
enough flexibility presumably to introduce that. I think if the department chose to, if the
minister chose to, there are ways of bringing that to the attention of the
teachers and the students who are going to be involved in that.
The data collection, yes. I mean, data collection from Statistics
I do not think it is impossible to
do. I think there are kinds of spot
studies and small‑scale studies that at least could give us an idea of
whether it is an issue and where it is an issue. For example, I am sure that in the areas of
the province north of the
In other parts of the province, obviously
in agricultural communities, there are going to be different issues than there
are in the inner city and in the suburbs.
My sense is that a suburban school is going to be as concerned by this
as the kinds of communities which we often think of as at risk. I would support the minister if she were to
look at some spot studies of this to see, in fact, whether it is an area that
we should be bringing to people's attention in a public way.
Again, I am looking at it for its effect
upon the whole educational system in the province, from Grade 9 upward, right
through to university and college, because it is not that students are going to
school part time and then working part time.
It is that they are going to school.
I do not really want to use the word "passing off" but,
essentially, that is what it is. They
are going to school full time, but they are not giving their full attention or
their full time to it; certainly, when they are working 20‑30 hours a
week, they are not. That expectation of
what school is and what level of studying and work and written work can be
expected from students begins to go down, and the effect of that is being felt,
I think, throughout all our educational institutions.
So I do think there is a real leadership
role for the government, for a Minister of Education, to play in here. I accept that Skills for Independent Living
might begin to look at that, and on an individual basis students might begin to
take into account the long‑term effects of the decisions that they are
making.
It is also establishing in
So those are my concerns. I did want to draw them to the attention of
the minister, and I would support anything that she could do in fact that would
begin to change those perceptions.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I accept the serious
discussion that we have had on this issue.
I will certainly add it to the consideration of the department in the
next year.
Ms. Friesen: I wanted to again go back to curriculum and
to the International Baccalaureate program and the question that the member for
Osborne (Mr. Alcock) raised. He asked
about the relationship between an international curriculum really and the
International Baccalaureate curriculum.
The minister's concern is that the students fulfill the
What is startling about that program is
that the students in that program complete the
Given that, in the five schools in which
it is offered, there is a range of students who can do that, what are the
reflections of the department? How does
this affect how you look at our own curriculum?
Are there areas of change that we should be looking at? Is our curriculum in those areas challenging
enough for our students? If we have some
who can complete a whole year in one term, presumably, we have another 20
percent who can complete a whole year in half a year, and then, presumably,
there is another 10 percent who can do that year's work much faster.
So, given the desire of the minister and,
I think, Manitobans generally to increase the challenges in our schools, is
there some evidence here? Is there
something we should be working with and paying attention to?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
I would like to remind the honourable member that we are dealing with
(a) Division Administration (1) Salaries.
The line you are dealing with at this time with your questioning is the
Curriculum Services, which is (b), the next line. If you would like, we could pass Division
Administration and move on to Curriculum at this time.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I realize, strictly
speaking, that you are right, but I thought what we had been doing is that, for
example, we have asked questions on the
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: If that is the will of the committee, that is
the way we will do it.
*
(1130)
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not sure if the member is suggesting
then that we not go line by line in this area, but, instead, we discuss it in a
holistic way and then pass the division.
The point that the member raised is that
I.B. students do complete the curriculum in a somewhat shorter time, and then
the question that seemed to flow from that is, is there any effort on our part
then to totally evaluate our curriculum in terms of its own excellence?
Where I would start is again to say, as
the member herself has said, students who do the I.B. program tend to be among
the more advanced students academically, and those students are able to
accomplish that, but other students in
As our curriculum is set up, it is
developed with a set of time guidelines where one credit allows for 110 hours,
and a half credit allows for 55 hours in which to accomplish the content area.
But when we look at our curriculum, one of
the issues we have spoken about is to look at the whole area of standards, and
we do want to make sure that
We are in the process of a review of our
curriculum comparing
So we are looking in an international way at
our curriculum. In addition, we are also looking at revisions within our
curriculum, particularly to strengthen it based on our own review, particularly
in the area of science and math.
Ms. Friesen: Are any of those curricula reviews ready yet
or completed? What is the fate of
them? Are they going to be for public
discussion or is it for internal review?
Mrs. Vodrey: Those studies and reviews are currently in
progress. They are for the use of the K
to 12 Steering Committee, and the K to 12 Steering Committee is made up of a
representative group of superintendents, trustees, teachers, parents and also
post‑secondary institutions.
Ms. Friesen: Is that the beginning of a consistent or a
longer‑term international comparison?
For example, you started with math and science, and, obviously, that is
easier to compare, but is it going to look at other areas; language studies,
for example?
Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of looking on an ongoing basis, as
part of our direction for reform, as part of wanting to make sure that in the
reform process our curriculum is the best, we are trying to look at our
curriculum in comparison to those which people have said are among the best in
the world.
But also today, I would like to tell the
member that the Canadian Directors of Curriculum from across
So we are trying to, through the process
of reform, look at our own internal curriculum review, a curriculum review
across
Ms. Friesen: Thank you, but the question I was asking is,
you are beginning with math and science.
Are you intending in the
Mrs. Vodrey: The next area that we are planning to look at
is vocational education and technology.
Ms. Friesen: I wanted to go back perhaps to the lessons
that I.B., in a way an experimental program, offers, and that is, some students
are able to move much more quickly than others, but we are only looking at a
range of five schools where that is possible.
It is obviously one of the criticisms that is often offered of the I.B.
program, that it is not made available to all Manitobans. There are lots of historical and practical
and financial reasons for that.
But I wonder if the
I wonder, since you have a review in
progress, are those the kinds of questions that a review is looking at?
*
(1140)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would just like to
point out that, first of all, in each of the curriculum areas, there is an area
for enhancement and enrichment and expansion of the curricula as it stands, as
there is also an area for modification of the curriculum where a student may
need more time than the 110 hours or somewhat different teaching style and experience
in accomplishing that curriculum.
Within the curriculum that we have now, we
are looking to offer the most extensive experience for students depending upon
which area their needs are in. We also
do offer, as the member says, some advanced courses. Those advanced courses are available to
students where the curriculum has been completed and then they can take an
advanced course within the high school program.
The advanced courses have been primarily offered in the area of math in
Senior 4.
We have looked at Answering the Challenge
and some of the strategies in Answering the Challenge, and there are two
strategies, Strategies 73 and 74, which look at the development by the
department of courses in an advanced area.
That would be within our curriculum, though, as opposed to the placement
of a university credit within the high school years.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, does the department
have any sense of whether the numbers of students taking those kinds of
programs or of the enrichment being offered within the
I am also looking for, of course, a
trend. Is it increasing or is it
decreasing? What sort of five‑year
period are we looking at here?
Mrs. Vodrey: We know that number is increasing.
Ms. Friesen: Is the minister looking at a particular five‑year
period, or increasing over last year?
What does increasing mean? Can
you get any closer than that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have spoken a
little bit about our tracking system in the past while. The way, at the moment, that we are able to
track students is really at a one‑time‑a‑year snapshot in
terms of enrollment. That enrollment has
indicated that there has been an increase. The latest statistics that we have available
specifically in that tracking are the school year '90‑91, which showed a
continued increase.
As we move to our new management
information system and education information system, we will have a much more
efficient way to track students and perhaps at more than just a once‑a‑year
enrollment date.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, since we are looking
at this section in a global way, I have a number of questions on Distance
Education and Technology.
My first question would be to the
minister. Could she just give us a
snapshot or a synopsis of where Distance Education and Technology is at in her
department, what the objectives or goals are within the next year in regard to
Distance Education and Technology?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the area of
Distance Education and Technology, we really do see some benefits which will be
available to our province with distance education. One of the major initiatives in '93‑94
for the Distance Ed branch is to continue with the five‑year plan for the
K through Senior 4 course adaptation to distance delivery. This plan will help to further develop and
refine courses offered through the Independent Study Program and also the
Teacher Mediated Program.
In 1993‑94, the staff in the
Technology Applications and Training Unit of the branch will be continuing
their research into the area of interactive television, the CD‑ROM and
the interactive video disk materials. An
example of this research is a field project which involves schools
participating as pilot sites to evaluate the Grade 5 science laser disk
materials. As indicated in the 1993
schools funding announcement, a professional development grant has been made
available to each school division interested in advancing in the area of
instructional technology. The branch
will be responsible for approving applications from school divisions for the
funding.
Then the Task Force on Distance Education
and Technology presented their final report to me. During 1993‑94, the branch will be
responsible for enabling divisions to develop consortia to support community‑based,
lifelong learning through the Distance Education infrastructures. Then, during the last year,
Then, in 1993‑94, Education and
Training, through our Distance Education Branch and the Universities Grants
Commission, will continue to support the FYDE program, offering First Year
Distance Education to five rural and northern communities. This year, the branch will support the new
and evolving distance education initiatives, such as the one in
*
(1150)
Ms. Gray: The minister mentions the Evergreen
project. Is that then one of the pilot
sites?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, at Evergreen, it
would be considered a new program. It is
a new area of work, and it is a new area of work in the interactive process. What we will be looking at is offering support
and also developing information again about the interactive learning. Though it could be described as a pilot, it
is, in fact, a new area of work.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister clarify then the particular proposal
that was put forth from Evergreen regarding the interactive program? Has that been approved by the
department? Are there monies that are
allocated for that project?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, at this point the
staff are still in discussion with the Evergreen School Division, and we are
looking at establishing the terms of reference and also the area of significant
work that the department would do and that the division would do. So I am not able to give her, at this point,
a complete end‑point answer.
Ms. Gray: If the department is now working with
Evergreen to look at terms of reference, does that mean that there is some
approval in principle for a project go‑ahead? Where would dollars be coming from for this
project? Will it be up to the divisions
to come up with those dollars, or is there other support from the department?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what we would be
looking at would be a partnership in which both the school division would be
learning and we would be learning while service is being provided to
schools. Because this is under
discussion at the moment, I am not able to give the member details of that
discussion right now or the results of the discussion.
Ms. Gray: Again, just another clarification, is it reasonable
then to say that at this point in time there are ongoing discussions but no
decisions have been made in regard to whether this project will go ahead? Is that a reasonable statement?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is reasonable.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us what discussions she
or her departmental staff have had with MTS, Manitoba Telephone System, in
regard to the whole area of Distance Education and Technology?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, certainly with the
work of the task force there was significant discussion with Manitoba Telephone
System during the process of that task force.
Now there is the potential of regional consortiums. With that potential, and continuing the
ongoing work that was recommended by the task force, then there would be
continued communication.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, with the task force
report that she has, were there recommendations in that report about working
closely with Manitoba Telephone System to look at the entire cost of this
Distance Education and Technology? What
some of the school divisions and individuals in the educational field are
certainly saying to us, and I am sure to the minister as well, is that right
now oftentimes these costs in terms of setting up distance education tend to be
prohibitive for school divisions.
My first question is: Was that indicated in the task force, and was
there a recommendation from the task force in regard to that? If so, what was that recommendation, and what
is going to be done in regard to negotiating with MTS in regard to looking at
some reasonable way to ensure that distance education could be accomplished
within school divisions at a reasonable cost?
In fact, this technology could actually be
used in communities not simply for education, but for other things as well,
whether it is economic development, entrepreneurship in regard to small
business, whatever. I mean, I think the
field is limitless in terms of what could be achieved in rural and northern
Mrs. Vodrey: We think that there are some great
possibilities for distance education and have been speaking about those
possibilities for the education system and for other benefits to communities.
As we have looked at it, costing has been part
of the look that we have done at Distance Education, but I can say to the
member that, at this point, this is still under discussion by government and we
are in the process of those discussions now.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us if there is within
one of the committees of cabinet‑‑and I do not recall the names of
all the committees‑‑is there one of the committees of cabinet that
is specifically looking at this type of technology in regard to the
implications not only for education, but for other areas as well, particularly
economic development?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the issue of distance
education is an important one; it is a broad one; and it is being considered by
government.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, to be more specific,
how is it being considered by government, in what form?
Mrs. Vodrey: The task force report has been a very
significant report. Phase 1 report was a
very significant report. So I can tell
the member that the information has been discussed with all members of
government, and we are now looking at it as a government because we recognize
that the benefits of distance education and the potential of distance education
have a wide effect across many, many departments and ministries.
Hon. James Downey (Minister
of Northern Affairs): Just on this subject,
I would just like to make a comment as it relates to distance education.
This is something that I know that the
minister has taken a leadership role in as we have had to deal with difficult
economic times within government. What
are some of the alternatives that are out there for particularly some of our
rural communities and our northern communities?
It is a technology that holds a lot of
promise, I believe, and I think that there will be tremendous co‑operation
and support for such a project, particularly when we see the interchange that
is available and the technology that is there.
What you are really doing is moving the
education to the students rather than the students to the education. I think it will maintain a lot of communities
that have lost students because they have had to go elsewhere for
education. It all boils down to
efficiency and proper use of money.
*
(1200)
I am quite satisfied that the Department
of Education and the minister have been very open‑minded and very co‑operative
on this front. They have seen that there
have to be some changes take place to deliver the ever‑increasing demands
on the department and on the taxpayers who have to provide the funds for it.
I can say, again, as a member for rural
There are certainly different approaches
that have to be considered. There is the
question of classroom supervision. There are all the technical things that have
to be dealt with. I think the minister
and her department are moving very aggressively on this front. I think we will receive very much support‑‑and
I say this for the school divisions that I represent, a lot of support on this
initiative. It is better to do that than
it is to see the situation where some schools may have to close because of lack
of numbers and increased costs. It is an
alternative.
On the other side of the coin, though, we
have to be conscious of the fact that when we are introducing new programs we
do not always have new resources to put with those new programs. So one would expect, at the same time, for
school divisions to make some decisions as it relates to where they are
spending resources that can be given up to apply to this new process.
I think it is new and modern technology
that has to be applied, has to be done properly. I think it will enhance the education
opportunities for rural and remote communities.
I just compliment the minister and want to publicly urge her to proceed
on this path.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is interesting to
hear the comments from the Minister of Native and Northern Affairs (Mr.
The Minister of Native and Northern
Affairs referred to how this technology in regard to education specifically
could assist some of the school divisions in actually remaining as viable
school divisions, particularly in the rural areas, and not being forced to
close. With all due respect to the five‑year
plan that the minister has outlined, I do not think some of these school
divisions have five years left at the rate they are going.
I guess my question would be, is there any
kind of a move on behalf of cabinet‑‑we have heard about support
from two ministers here in this room today on behalf of Distance
Education. Is there some move afoot to
actually look at this technology, speed up the plan, and actually decide if
there are some things that can be done within the next two years in these
school divisions in rural
I guess I just see a need to have a plan
in place now, to have some dollars available to look at this because how viable
is it? I mean, if it is going to be a
saviour to some of these school divisions in rural
The Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province
is always complaining about how oppositions never come up with solutions or
alternatives. Here is an idea and it is
certainly not an opposition idea, but it is out there by people in the
education field, out in the school divisions.
It has been supported by cabinet ministers here. Here is an idea that possibly has some
solutions for the viability of school divisions and the delivery of service and
education in rural and northern
Mr. Downey: It is not to answer the questions that the
Minister of Education will deal with, but just to further comment, the reason
that it is raised and discussed here, and I do not disagree with the member
that there are broader applications of the technology as well as just in
education, that does have a major Economic Development spin to it. The minister is absolutely accurate. Government is dealing with it. It is on our agenda. It is very much the interest of many of our
members who represent rural
I have a little more confidence though
than the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), when she says that the time is almost
urgent. It has to be dealt with, but I
think we do have a number of years to deal with it. There are other issues within education, with
economic activity, with decentralization of government. It is a total package of activities. It just is not the responsibility of the
Department of Education to make sure that our rural communities and our
northern and remote communities stay alive.
It is a part of government planning, part of government strategy and the
Department of Education will play a major role.
The question of having MTS involved: yes, they are. I hope the member, though, is not asking or
maybe she is asking MTS to subsidize in a major way this whole educational
program. If she is, then let us hear her
put that position forward, because they may be challenged on some of the
charges that they are putting forward for the services that they are going to
be asked to deliver. I do not think, I
hope she is not saying, that they should be asked to subsidize it. If they have excess capacity within their
system and are not selling it into the communities, that is one thing, but if
they have other opportunities to sell the excess capacity, then there is a
competition.
The bottom line is though‑‑the
question is: Is she suggesting that‑‑and
I do not think she is‑‑MTS should subsidize this program? If that is the case, then let her say
so. Again, it has to be part of an
overall rural economic activity, of which education plays a very important role
in combination with other activities that are going on. I, quite frankly, am proud of this
government's role in trying to revitalize a lot of the communities.
Let me just speak about northern
In fairness though, the bottom line is,
and she is scoffing I guess at the work that was done by the Northern Economic
Development Commission. Well, I think
that is a little bit unfair. There is a
whole complex group of recommendations that have come forward from northern
There is a broad range of activities that have
come forward and recommendations have come forward from the communities.
Education is a major part of it. The
Minister of Education has taken the lead with the Roblin commission in looking
at how does this whole area of distance education, where we are at today. These
will all be pieces of information and valuable documents that will add to the
basic platform for the people of Manitoba‑‑[interjection] Well, the
member for Wolseley again makes some comment about the next election.
If she is honest with herself, is she not
thinking about the next election? She is
sitting here as if I would be the only one thinking of the next election. I am not thinking of the next election at
all. I am thinking about, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson and colleagues, the education and the future of the people of
Education is a very major component of it,
and so I say, with respect to the member for Wolseley, I think that she, if she
were fair, would say that the Northern Economic Development Commission probably
will provide some good ideas‑‑[interjection] We now are being
interrupted by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) who participated in
distance education. The problem is he
was so far away from it, he did not get any, that is how distant he was.
Mr. Deputy
Chairperson: Order, please.
*
(1210)
Point of
Order
Ms. Friesen: On a point of order, I think there is some
gall there in a minister who is filibustering these Estimates of his own
minister. He is talking about‑‑who
to talk about the interruption of my colleague.
I believe that the member wanted to speak on distance education briefly,
and I believe that the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) was asking questions
on distance education. The minister took
the opportunity to make comments upon various members around this table. I do not find that very appropriate. I think it changed the nature of the
discussion which we were having. The
minister feels it appropriate to speak upon people's facial expressions‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
The honourable member for Wolseley did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Downey: I apologize if the member is so
sensitive. I hope I did not in any way
personally make any comments that would offend anyone. It was not my intention to do so.
Anyway, the point that I am making is that
I think progress is being made on distance education. I think it is part of a package, a government
strategy. It is to support the youth of
our society, to make sure they have a broad range of opportunities that, in
fact, may not be available to them if it were not developed and expanded in the
way in which it is being done.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and I
think the minister had a response to a specific question of the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray).
Mrs. Vodrey: Just to add a few comments to those put
forward by my colleague who I think has very well described the very wide
interest by our government in the area of distance education, and I have talked
about that in my previous answers.
In terms of action, I can just remind the
member that we did put into professional development through our funding
formula funding for PD and distance education.
Also, I would say, and the member may know this, that the whole
development of distance education really must be integrated into educational
delivery as well as funding for it.
But in the funding area, I can tell the
member that the Education Finance Advisory Committee who has been working now
since the‑‑from the development of the new Ed funding formula, will
be looking at that at their next meeting and they consider it to be an
important area.
In terms of the professional development
for distance education, and just in terms of use of distance education,
teachers have been using distance ed for professional development and they have
used that as a means of reducing costs for those, particularly in the
curriculum implementation sessions for professional development.
Also, with the interactive distance
education satellite delivery, the member asks about application outside of the
Department of Education. Recently, in
the recent Health Education workshops in May '93, they were delivered by
Distance Education to over 40 locations across rural and northern
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just have a couple
of items that have particular interest to me and I appreciate the opportunity
that all members around this table have to ask questions of the minister
because we have constituents and constituents' concerns as well.
I also would like to indicate that while
perhaps people raise points of order for comments that are made into the
microphone, points of order could also be raised for comments that are made
around the table by members opposite as we try to put forward legitimate
questions.
I would like to indicate first of all that
I really would like to commend the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) for
having handled some very difficult issues that have come up for education in
I understand that at the request of the
member‑‑I understand at the request of the member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen), we are having a broad discussion [interjection]
Mr. Deputy
Chairperson: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
for the record, I am raising this point that it is extremely unconventional to
have ministers questioning their colleagues in the legislative committee.
It has been done on occasion in the past,
rarely, and I want it noted, as a point, that this is very unconventional
practice and we object to it and the record will show that.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): On the same point of
order, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) can complain or put on the record,
he can do it until he is blue in the face, we could care less.
The reality is we all represent
Manitobans. We all represent students in
the public school system and we all have the right indeed, the duly right
elected, to be here and to ask questions of our minister and of our
government. I dare say‑‑[interjection]
Of course, it is the people's government, duly elected I say to the member for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I have been in opposition for a number of years. I remember the member himself addressing
questions to his Treasury bench members.
We are not plowing a new turf here.
We are indeed doing what is our parliamentary right to do.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
I would like to thank the honourable members for their advice, but the
honourable members did not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wonder if the
bullying techniques being put across the table could be called out of order and
allow me to proceed with my question.
Point of
Order
Mr. Plohman: On a point of order, it is obvious that the
cabinet procedures are falling apart, that they cannot even question their own
colleagues in cabinet to get things straight before they get to the committee.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
The honourable member does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate the silence
at the table now so I can hear my own voice.
As I was saying, there have been a lot of
very difficult issues that have come forward that affect all of us who are
interested in education, all of us who have particular ties with education in
terms of our background, in terms of our ongoing interests and concerns.
I particularly wanted to respond to an
issue that was raised by the opposition because I feel it was very important,
particularly important for my constituents.
It was a point that was raised in questioning that has now been put up
for discussion at this committee which I would like to enter into because it
has been raised by discussion for the opposition. I feel that I, too, have a right to make
comment on the issue raised by the opposition which will affect my constituents
very directly.
We have two schools in my constituency,
and I was directly involved at the time with both of those schools when the
International Baccalaureate program was introduced to those schools. Indeed, I was a key player at that time. I was quite interested in the comments raised
by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) asking about this program,
particularly interested since with our division we have made valiant efforts
for many, many years to have that program officially and formally recognized by
the Department of Education and steadfastly were refused that recognition. I wish to thank the current government for
finally recognizing the I.B. program and giving that opportunity to students
throughout
The particular point that I would like to
draw to the minister's attention was you had made comment of the statistics,
Madam Minister, about the number of students who were in the full I.B. program,
versus those who were taking the part‑time I.B. program. It is an interesting trend. I would like to indicate on behalf of my
constituents that one of the things they are very grateful for is the
opportunity to take the partial program because while the full program inspires
those well‑rounded students who have a broad‑based ability to
learn, the partial program enables those who are specifically skilled in, say,
language arts, to take the higher‑level learning program there and the
regular curricula for those areas where they have an average ability. So I would like that ability to mix and match
to meet consumers' needs, and I would like to indicate that is reflective of
the views of my constituents, for your information, as you continue work in
that area.
The matter of distance education is
another that is of particular interest to me.
My division had participated, as I think you are aware, with some
preliminary work in technology and electronics in terms of getting programs of
learning to people in isolated areas.
The one piece of feedback information that I received, which I would
like to share with you, is that there are two approaches that could be
taken. One is sort of a piecemeal ad
hockery approach, and the other is to develop an overall plan and then follow
that plan.
*
(1220)
I believe that you are, from your responses
to questions made earlier, on the latter course, which I think will prove
ultimately to be the best course to embark upon, because you then do not have
the risk of having an ad hoc decision made which looks as if it would fit into
an overall plan and then discover later that it does not indeed fit into an
overall plan.
So I wish to share those comments with you
in response to the issues that have been raised here, and if you have a
response to those I would appreciate hearing it. If not, then I turn it back to the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) who had indicated she wanted to speak.
Mrs. Vodrey: Just a quick response to the member. I thank her very much for the information
that she has given me and also the views of her constituency regarding the
ability to do the certificate or the diploma program in the I.B., and also the
sense that distance education is, in fact, and should be a planned and
integrated approach.
Ms. Gray: Well, I frankly do not have difficulty with
the minister sitting here and commenting on distance education. I am actually quite delighted that we have
the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), the Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), the Minister of Government
Services (Mr. Ducharme), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), the Minister
responsible for Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), and the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) here, who have all obviously, if not spoken into the
record, have nodded their heads when the Minister the Education has spoken
about the importance of distance education, the importance of the new
technology available, and in fact how high it is on the agenda of this
particular government.
Now, I want to respond quickly to the
Minister of Native and Northern Affairs.
I am not suggesting that necessarily Manitoba Telephone System should
subsidize Distance Education. I
certainly am suggesting, however, that as a group of cabinet ministers and as
government, they have the opportunity and the resources and the influence to
actually make some decisions on how best this type of technology can be moved
into rural and northern
But I still have the same question, and I
will direct it to the Minister of Education, but I certainly would not have
difficulty if other ministers answer it, because it is a simple question‑‑oh,
and I am glad we have the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) here as
well.
My question to the minister as a Minister
of Education but also as a member of cabinet is: Given that the indications are that this
whole area, this whole technology field is high on the agenda of cabinet, I
simply want to know the process and how this issue is being addressed by cabinet,
by which departments, and what is the process?
A very simple question.
Mrs. Vodrey: I have given the answer
a number of times. The issue is an
important one, it is being considered by members of this government. We are looking at the implications, we are
looking at the importance, and so it is having a very full discussion within
government.
Ms. Gray: If the minister‑‑I know she feels
that she has answered it for me a number of times, and perhaps it could be my
difficulty as a listener, but if perhaps she could‑‑I simply want a
little more detail in her answer rather than using generalities, such as
implementation and it is in process and we are looking at it. Could she be specific about what‑‑without
giving away cabinet secrets‑‑what exactly has been discussed in
regards to this technology?
What is occurring, particularly with the
Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay), and where
is this government at in terms of this technology and using it as an
opportunity to assist not only in distance education, but in the area of
economic development as well?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member knows that we have received the
report on distance education. That
report will allow us to look at the recommendations of the people who worked on
that report.
The report was done by a representative
group of Manitobans, and now school divisions are looking at that report, and
we are looking at in government. Each
ministry has to look at what their part would be as we look at an integrated
process of distance education.
I would say, too, that it is an important
initiative for our government and that all members of government have had an
opportunity to be well brought up to date on the issues of distance education
and, as ministers, look particularly at exactly what their part may be. I can tell the member again that the issue
has been seen as an important one across all of government.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, has that task force
report been specifically sent over to the Minister responsible for the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the report itself has
been discussed by government, and it will have a public release very
shortly. So I am not sure if that helps
the member in terms of exactly where the issues are in terms of the public,
but, again, we have discussed it as a government. It will also have public release.
Ms. Gray: Has the minister asked specifically for
feedback from the Minister responsible for Manitoba Telephone System and/or his
staff, and when has she asked for comments from him?
I mean, knowing governments and how we
work in bureaucracies, when information and materials and reports are sent from
one division to another or one department to another, usually, there is an
explanatory memo saying, here is the report, we want X, Y and Z from you, and
here is the deadline. Has that happened?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said, there has been an explanation to
all members of government. When the
report is released specifically then into the departments, we will then look
for each minister to look at how each department will put its piece in the
distance education process together so that we can look at it holistically.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister release that report to
members around this committee, and is she saying that each minister in cabinet
has a copy of that report and that they have been asked to respond in regards to
their thoughts and inputs on this task force report?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there has been a
presentation of the information in the report to government. When the report is
released, then I certainly will be happy to provide it to the members opposite.
*
(1230)
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us when we can expect
some response or comments from the Minister of Education in response to that
task force report? Does she have a time
line?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I can tell the member that
with the release of the report there will be ongoing discussions among
departments and among the staff of various departments. Again, because it does apply to several departments
across government, I am not able to give her exactly a date in which I will be
able to provide that complete response.
I can add, though, that through the
Education Innovation Forum, which we look forward to hosting in the fall, that
certainly the issue of distance education, we expect, will be one of the items
for discussion.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chair, speaking of this Innovation
Education Forum, can the minister tell us what is the purpose of that
particular forum? What do you hope to
accomplish by that forum that is going to be held in the fall?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, throughout the process of
community discussions we have had presented to us what various constituent
groups see as problems or concerns within the education system. One goal of the fora will be to bring forward
the concerns and the issues that have been presented and ask for ideas for
action that may come from areas other than the Department of Education alone.
We will use the opportunity to bring
forward a number of issues as well which are in progress, issues that relate to
legislation reform, for instance. Then
we will also look for information to improve all aspects of education in
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am going to switch
streams slightly and talk a little bit more about Curriculum Services. In
looking at various curricula and the types of programs and courses that are
offered in schools in terms of what current research tells us, can the minister
also tell us what type of research she has, if any, or what type of research
her department has access to, that speaks to an expansion of the academic
courses, i.e., other activities that occur within the schools, whether those
other activities are sports, debating programs, public speaking programs, drama
clubs, et cetera. Does she have information
about research in regard to the value, shall we say, of those particular types
of extracurricular activities?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have done an
extensive review of literature. We have
done that as we look at the whole area of the learning environment. The whole area of the learning environment
looks partly at areas of academic strength.
It looks at development of students in the cognitive and affective and
the social area. We have also been
working very hard in the area of gifted education with the Advisory Committee
for Gifted Education. So we are looking
at a combined approach in terms of dealing with all areas of education.
Ms. Gray: What does the minister's research tell us in
terms of students within a learning environment and the successes of these
students being involved in extracurricular or other activities within the
school, other than just the core curricula?
What does the research tell us in regard to that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, students do need a sense
of belonging. With a sense of belonging,
research does show that students do seem to do better. The sense of belonging can be accomplished
through a number of ways. One of the
first ways is the teacher‑student interaction. Where that is a successful interaction, then
students do accomplish the sense of belonging. Secondly, academic success leads
to a sense of belonging. Thirdly, a successful involvement with peers leads to
a sense of belonging. Fourthly, attitudes
that parents bring to learning, and attitudes that parents transmit to their
young people in terms of an attitude towards learning helps with academic
success.
Through the High School Review, Answering
the Challenge, which we have discussed over the last few hours, there has been
a recommendation that we also need to involve the community in a wider way.
One of the recommendations has been for
the work education program, Work Experience Program for students, so that
students then are able to develop attitudes towards learning and attitudes
towards work from a variety of community sources.
Ms. Gray: The sense of belonging then, when the
minister refers to teacher‑student interaction and successful involvement
of students with their own peers, would those specific activities or examples not‑‑oftentimes
you would see that occurring in these extracurricular activities or the clubs,
et cetera, that occur in the school.
Would that be correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the sense of
belonging, again, can occur through a number of different ways. The extracurricular activities may be a part,
but I would add to that that the teacher‑student interaction in the
academic sense is a very important part of the development of belonging.
The development of belonging also occurs
through the co‑operative learning models which are often being used in
schools through opportunities for peer tutoring, for opportunities of student
leadership, with mentorships which are being developed, with the educational
community as a whole.
*
(1240)
Ms. Gray: Does the minister support the inclusion of
extracurricular activities as part of the education programming within
schools? Does she feel, and does her
department feel, that in fact is a very necessary part of education?
Mrs. Vodrey: We did have this discussion for quite a
lengthy time period fairly recently. In
that discussion, we talked about the fact that education does occur in many
places. It occurs in the areas of,
again, work experience, community involvement.
It does occur in the way schools organize their activities as well.
Sometimes they organize activities around specific types of learning, or other
schools may choose to organize those activities around what they see as
extracurricular or cocurricular activities.
Ms. Gray: I know the minister is someone who, in past
careers, has certainly been involved in the education system. I have heard the minister speak at
organizations and dinners where she speaks about education. Certainly indications are, in my analysis of
those speeches, that she is sincere about the importance of education. I would ask the minister, what is her
personal opinion? What does she believe
about the importance of these extracurricular activities within the school
system?
Mrs. Vodrey: My personal views are very much the views
that I have been presenting today in saying that I recognize, and my experience
tells me, that learning does occur in a number of ways. Learning does occur where there is a positive
relationship, No. 1, and where a young person is comfortable in a setting. That is why, when we first began our
discussion this afternoon and the questioning of the member, we spoke about the
issue of the learning environment being a very important one. So learning occurs in a place where students
feel comfortable; learning occurs where there is a positive relationship.
Learning also can occur through a number
of other processes. Again, as we have observed, peer tutoring has been a very
helpful way for students to do some learning because it involves a student who
has a mastery of a subject area or a particular skill area, who becomes
involved with a student who does not have that same kind of mastery, and we
find that both students learn from that particular approach.
There are a number of ways. When we look at how schools organize
activities, whether they are within class activities or whether they are
activities that are part of the curriculum‑‑and I point to things
such as work experience and work education and mentorships and job shadowing
and so on, which often occur within our curriculum‑‑learning does
occur in those particular areas as well.
I would say learning occurs in a number of
different areas, and I think that students do need the opportunity to have
several areas in which they have a comfort level and can learn.
Ms. Gray: Let me ask the question a different way. Can the minister tell us, does she believe
that if a particular school division or school, for whatever reason, decided to
eliminate a number of extracurricular activities, be those sports, be those
educational field trips, be those drama clubs, be those debating clubs‑‑does
she believe that the elimination of those programs or activities would have a
negative effect on the education of those students within that particular
school or school division?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member seems to be referring to a
potential action that is being spoken about in terms of whether or not these
will be offered. My opinion is, as I
have said in the beginning, I believe that people who work in education are
professionals, and I believe that they will be considering as professionals and
also considering of the young people that they work with.
Those decisions would be decisions made at
a local area. I would say, as I have said
from the beginning, that I believe that people who work in education are
professional, and I look for them to continue in their professional work with
young people.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am referring to
possible actions and not simply by a group of professionals. They could be actions by a school division,
which is made up of a group of trustees who are members of a community, who are
taxpayers.
The issue at this point in my question is
not who is making those decisions for what reasons. The question is: If those decisions are made, what does the
minister feel would be the impact, if any, on those students within a
particular school if those programs‑‑and I call them programs‑‑educational
opportunities are eliminated? That is
the question.
Mr. Downey: Sounds hypothetical to me.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before the minister
responds, the Minister of Native and Northern Affairs talks about, the question
is hypothetical. Well, my goodness, if
these cabinet ministers are not answering those questions before they make
policy decisions, goodness help the entire
Mrs. McIntosh: I just want to ask a question.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister to respond.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, in my
answer to the member, I spoke about educators.
I said teachers are professionals, educators are professionals. There are a number of people who are involved
in this area.
I believe they do have a genuine interest
in terms of young people. I hope they
are able to continue with that genuine interest rather than a kind of an action
or a job action. If it is that kind of
an action, then I think Manitobans would want to ask why that kind of a job
action might be considered. I am saying
I believe that in all consideration, educators will be professionals.
In terms of decisions taken by school
divisions, the member had mentioned a specific school division earlier
today. If she would like to talk about
the decisions of that school division and their budget, then I am prepared to
talk about that under the schools funding area.
Within that particular school division's
budget, they have made their own budget decisions. The member might want to look at the funds
which would be available to that school division if they decided to use the
funds available or if they made decisions without using the total funding
available to that school division.
The member is asking me to comment on a
local decision where there are options for that school division. If she would like to speak about that
particular school division and their decision, then that is one area we should
talk about when we get to the schools funding and look at that division
specifically.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am asking the
minister a specific question, and I still would like an answer.
The question is: Can the minister tell us if she believes that
should a school division or a school decide that for whatever reasons they are
not going to provide extracurricular activities, whether they be sports,
educational field trips, drama clubs, public speaking, band, whatever you want
to call the programs, does she believe that would have a negative impact on the
students attending that particular school?
That is the question, and that is the question I would like an answer
to.
*
(1250)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in answering the
question, I would say to the school division, how did you arrive at the
decision? Did you have other options? I think that is the question that taxpayers
within that division would be asking.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is the minister
implying in her question then to the school divisions, that did you have other
options, is she implying then that she believes that in fact that type of decision
will have a negative impact on the students within that school? I am trying to read between the lines here to
get an answer. Perhaps she can clarify.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I have said is
that school divisions will be making their decisions, and as we look at the
decisions that school divisions make, all decisions, taxpayers in their area
will have the right to ask questions about those decisions, and I as minister
will be watching to see what the decisions are and will be watching to see what
the response of parents and taxpayers within a local division are, what the
responses are.
But, the member would really like me to
comment on, it may be even since she has not been specific this afternoon, a
proposal. We do not know that this is going to happen. She would like me to comment on a series of
events which have not occurred and for which there would be a number of
questions which would require answers regarding how those decisions were arrived
at.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not see why it
is so difficult to ask a minister of the Crown to answer a question in regard
to proposals or ideas or possible consequences.
I would hope that any minister of the Crown in leading a department,
regardless of the department, would be looking at all implications of certain
decisions and what the impact of those decisions would be, whether they are
making the decisions or whether other areas or groups are making the decisions.
If the minister wants me to be specific,
let us look at Agassiz School Division, let us look at
Another example is the River East School
Division where at this point in time we are hearing from teachers that they are
not prepared to continue on with providing support services to the students for
extracurricular activities. Those are
two examples where there are two groups of decision‑makers who have taken
different decisions, but the bottom line is it is the students who are being
impacted in both cases and students will be denied opportunities for these
types of learning. My question, and the
minister can refer to these two specific examples, is: does she believe that there will be a
negative impact on those students because of the elimination or possible
elimination‑‑they have not occurred yet to date‑‑of
those particular educational opportunities?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, now the member is being
specific about the school division, Agassiz School Division, let me tell her
that Agassiz School Division had an increase of $25,000 in the area of
transportation. So, if they make the
proposed changes which the member is wanting to talk about, and we as Department
of Education have not had a formal confirmation that that is the case, then
perhaps their taxpayers would like to ask a question based on the funding that
they received.
I would also like to tell the member that
field trips, which she has consistently spoken about here and in Question Period,
were never eligible for transportation funding.
So somehow she is trying to draw a line between some decisions being
made and the Department of Education and Training. Well, I can tell her that taxpayers elected
those trustees to make decisions, and they are making the decisions in that
area about how the money will be spent.
They did receive increased funding, and that funding was never eligible
for field trips.
If the member would like to know a little
bit about River East in terms of teacher salary increases, I understand in
terms of their bargaining that there was an increase for 1991‑92 for
teachers of 5.5 percent, and 1992‑93 of 5.4 percent.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, somebody was paying
to have those students out in
I want to know from the minister‑‑and
I do not have the opportunity today to ask every taxpayer out in
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, again, as minister I have
been very careful not to comment on those particular decisions that are made by
school divisions. That is, as I have
explained to the member, the role of their taxpayers to comment on the way the
money is spent by their local elected officials.
Though the member does not have the opportunity
to speak to every taxpayer today, let us see if this is, in fact, what the
board continues with, if this is exactly what the board decides to do. Let us look at what the reaction of the
taxpayers are to that board. I can tell
her, from the point of view of government, we have increased our funding in the
area of transportation. If there has
been any question of that, let that be clear on the record now.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chair, the minister is
incorrect. She is making comments on the
autonomy and the ability of school divisions to make decisions. She has had a direct impact. She has presented Bill 16 and Bill 22, which
is her government saying to the people of
Bill 16 reduces the autonomy of school
divisions to make decisions. Bill 22
encourages school divisions, gives them the opportunity to have teachers take
unpaid professional development and administrative days. Is the minister going to sit here today and
tell me that those particular bills and those policy decisions on behalf of the
government of
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the member wishes to
broaden the discussion now to other areas.
The comments that she had asked for were in relation to transportation
of students on field trips in one particular school division, and I have given
her the information, that information in terms of what our commitment is.
We, as a government, make our commitment
to education through the funding formula.
We have, through the funding formula, made sure that various divisions
have received, in areas where they have felt that there was concern, we have
modified the funding formula in order to provide the funds.
Bill 16 is a measure which still allows
school divisions to impose a taxation on their local ratepayers. It has simply limited how far and how greatly
school divisions may continue to make that taxation in a short term, because we
have heard school divisions and we have heard that taxpayers are saying that
they cannot continue to take and to pay more and more.
However, Bill 16‑‑and I know
when we bring that bill to committee the member will see, and perhaps when we
also get to the funding for public schools area‑‑we will see that
there has certainly been a level in which school divisions can add to the
funding which flows from the government of
We have also allowed for phase‑in
funding, and we have also allowed for enrollment changes. So I think that we will see that for many
school divisions they have been able to, within Bill 16, meet their needs. Some school divisions have not used the total
amount available to them even with the restrictions of Bill 16. I do not have
in front of me the information as to whether or not that applies to Agassiz
School Division, for instance. Though I
do have some information that perhaps they did not use the total amount
available to them under the terms of Bill 16.
*
(1300)
So school divisions do still have a
certain amount of funds that they can raise via Bill 16, through their special
levy. It puts on a limit or a maximum,
and we know that not all school divisions have gone to that maximum.
Then, in terms of Bill 22, the member
wants to talk about that. Bill 22 was to
allow divisions the ability to maintain their staffs and programs. Bill 22 has given school divisions an
opportunity through the workweek reduction so that then there should be an
ability to continue to keep staff and programs.
We said during the funding announcement for
the public schools that it was very important that in the education funding
area that programs and services to students were maintained.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chair, one further question before
I turn it over to the member from
I will ask it one more time and there is
no point in repeating the question 10 times, which I know I have done in
different ways. I have attempted to get
an answer and have yet to get an answer from this minister that is certainly
satisfactory to me, and I would suggest probably to anyone in the education
field who ends up reading Hansard.
But one more time, I will ask this
minister, can she tell me what her opinion is, what her feeling is, as to if
there will be any negative impact on students in the education system should
those students be denied opportunities to participate in a variety of
extracurricular activities? Does she
believe there will be a negative impact to those students?
Mrs. Vodrey: My answer is that, at the moment, we do not
know exactly what kinds of actions or job actions may be taken in relation to
this particular proposal that the member has brought forward.
So we will have to see what decisions
boards make, and whether or not boards have used all of the available
opportunities for them in terms of funding.
We will also have to look at whether there is any action on behalf of
teachers and any job action on behalf of teachers, and we do not know yet
whether that will be the case.
I can end this discussion by saying that I
would like the best for all students in
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just one more
question as a follow‑up. The
minister indicates she is not sure what the impacts are. Is she aware of what the impacts will be, if
any, on Bill 16 and Bill 22, whether positive impacts or negative? Does she
have an analysis or an opinion on the impacts of those particular pieces of
legislation?
Mrs. Vodrey: We will be looking to see how school
divisions have applied Bill 16, and we will be looking to have the cumulative
information on how divisions apply Bill 22, to what extent, if they apply it to
the full extent or only partially. All
divisions have not reported all of that information.
Then in addition, we have to see exactly,
in terms of their employees, what their employees wish to do as a result of the
decisions of the board. Again, we will
look to employees to be as professional as they can in the interests of all
students.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member to bring
the mike up, No. 9.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have been listening
with interest to the discussion on distance education. I am pleased to hear that the minister says it
is a high priority on their list, particularly in light of the fact that rural
children do face many disadvantages when it comes to costs of getting an
education. I am sure the minister is
well aware of the economical situation in rural
As I said, I am pleased to hear that it is
high on the list, but I am disappointed in this government on the actions that
they have taken and the movement that we have seen on the First Year Distance
Education Program, particularly as it relates to the
People‑‑the school board and
staff, teachers in that area‑‑have worked very hard in putting
proposals together. They were invited by
the government to put a proposal in on First Year Distance Education a couple
of years ago and, to this date, have seen no progress. It is very disappointing to the people of the
area when they had hoped that this year, by this fall, we could see something
in place with First Year Distance Education.
Can the minister tell us what progress she
sees, or what hope there is for the people of
Mrs. Vodrey: I know the member is interested in the First
Year Distance Education Program, and I can tell her that it is continuing as a
pilot for one additional year, pending the recommendations of the University
Review.
Because the member is particularly
interested in the First Year Distance Education part, first year of university,
then it is important for us to look at the results of the University Review because
we would like to see what recommendations they bring forward, and we understand
that they too are looking at the area of First Year Distance Education.
I can tell the member that because we
understood the importance for
*
(1310)
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister talks about the University
Review; however, there has been a review of the First Year Distance Education
Program. As I understand it, that review
has been done some time ago, and I believe the minister referred to it earlier.
Why is it taking so long to get that
review out to the public? Also, has it
been released at all? Has anybody
besides people at cabinet seen it, and in that review is there an evaluation
being done of the existing projects under the First Year Distance Education
Program and is that information available?
I think it would be fair that we should be
able to see the progress or the success of the other pilot projects that have
been going on so that people can do some comparing on it.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member may be referring to the Distance
Education Task Force Report. The
Distance Education Task Force Report examined more than simply First Year
Distance Education, and, as I said earlier today, I do look forward to
releasing that. I expect to be releasing
it very shortly, and there will be an opportunity. It will be released to the public, to
divisions. The member is certainly able
to have a copy of that so that she will be able to look at what has been
proposed.
There was also a review done of the First
Year Distance Education. That is a
review specifically as opposed to the task force. As a project review, it is in the hands and
virtually in the control of the presidents of the universities for Inter‑Universities
North.
Ms. Wowchuk: That is the review I am referring to, the
review of the pilot project. It is my
understanding that review was available last December, but it was not
distributed.
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me go over it again. That review is not ours. That review belongs
to the presidents of the universities, the Inter‑Universities North.
Ms. Wowchuk: Then if it belongs to the university, it is
reviewing the pilot project that the government has put in. Has the minister seen that review? Can she share her comments on it?
Mrs. Vodrey: The review of the FYDE program was certainly
referenced by the task force report, and it was reviewed by the task force
extensively.
When that task force report is released,
and again I expect that to be very shortly, our government in particular will
be looking at all of the recommendations which have been included. There will
be information, I am sure, that relates to First Year Distance Education.
Ms. Wowchuk: My understanding is that one of the delays
for releasing information on the First Year Distance Education review is that
the
I think this is rather ridiculous that
those people are going to start worrying about whose territory is whose and
which market share is whose, and, in the meantime, people who want to establish
First Year Distance Education in their community are being held up because the
two bodies cannot decide who is going to be delivering the program in that
area.
In the minister's opinion, is it accurate
that there is disagreement between the
Mrs. Vodrey: Any disagreements or concerns which may have
been expressed, I believe will be dealt with by the University Review. The University Review is looking at issues such
as access, and so right now we do have a mechanism in place to look at what the
further issues are in terms of distance education.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister provide us with any
information on the pilot projects that are existing in the province on First
Year Distance Education or are there any documents which she can provide us
with where we can see the numbers of people who are participating in the
program, drop‑out rates, and an evaluation of the value of those programs
being delivered in rural Manitoba?
Mrs. Vodrey: Would the member like to know the overall
registration by course number for students in Distance Education? We have information‑‑totally
among the sites there were 488 students who started, 284 students actually were
registered and worked towards completing the course.
There have been, from the initial
registration of 488 in total, a certain number of cancelled registrations, and
also a certain number of voluntary withdrawal students as well.
Ms. Wowchuk: I could not hear clearly. Did the minister say that 488 started and 288
ended up so there was a drop‑out rate of 200 people? Is that right?
Mrs. Vodrey: Some individuals who had registered withdrew
before the course began, and other individuals were voluntary withdrawals
during the process of the course.
Ms. Wowchuk: Does the minister have a breakdown of which
project had the highest number of dropouts?
Which of the projects appeared to be the most successful in retaining
the number of students in the program, and which are the poorest? Do you have that kind of breakdown?
Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of the highest withdrawal by course,
it is Introduction to Psychology. The
area with the highest rate of registrants versus students who complete is the
Thompson site.
*
(1320)
Ms. Wowchuk: We were talking earlier about the
telecommunications and the need to co‑ordinate between Education and
Manitoba Telephone to put these programs into place. Can the minister tell us, is she aware
whether the proper fibre optics are in place in the Swan River area to deal
with, first, your Distance Education and also other distance education
programs?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we believe that the fibre
optics are within
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister had indicated with First Year by
Distance Education, there were people from the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, on the Distance Education
Task Force there was a representative, Grant Patterson, from
I can also tell the member that
negotiations are underway between Flin Flon, Kelsey,
Post‑secondary institutions such as
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am pleased to hear that
we are going to have those opportunities to have education expanded in those
five divisions, but I guess the question I have, are there other divisions as
well that are involved?
I represent the Duck Mountain School
Division. I also represent Northern
Affairs communities, and I wonder what steps are being taken. The minister talks about a time line where we
might be starting in the fall of '93 in those five divisions. What time line
can we be looking at where we might see these services offered in other
divisions, as I say, Duck Mountain School Division and the Northern Affairs
divisions as well?
While I am on that I may as well ask at
the same time, is the minister, is this department working along with Indian
Affairs so that those schools, as well, will have the opportunity to have
distance education brought into them?
I think that is very important because
these children also have to have those opportunities. I know the minister will tell me this falls
under federal jurisdiction, but I would like to know whether there is any co‑ordination
being done between the federal and provincial government to be sure that the
children in those communities do not lag behind in educational opportunities.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the federal government was
sent a copy of the interim business education report when it came out. We do
not believe we have had a formal response from the federal government on that
interim report. We certainly would be
willing to forward a copy of our final report to them.
We have not had a specific formal working
relationship in the area of distance education, though we certainly look for
their comments to the work that we have done.
In terms of a time line, as I have explained earlier, first of all, the
report of the Distance Education Task Force will be considered by the advisory
committee on Ed Finance and that will be occurring in, I think it is, late
June, and then in terms of other specific government policy, I can tell her
that there are many departments of government which would be involved in the
Distance Education policy and initiatives, so I cannot give her a specific time
line on that other than to say that, as I think has been demonstrated through
the discussion here today, it certainly has been seen as a priority by our
government.
Just to comment further in the area of
aboriginal education, there is a current project underway, I understand, to
produce an interactive video and print material between Manitoba Education and
Training, Frontier School Division and INAF, the Indian and Northern Affairs,
the federal government.
Ms. Wowchuk: Did the minister say a video is being
produced? Is this classroom material, or
what kind of material is this video? What are children going to be learning
from this video?
*
(1330)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, this is an interactive
video. It will focus on the social
studies area and it will cover a content area such as government structures,
processes in northern communities, band governance, northern community councils
and so on.
Ms. Wowchuk: I would look forward to seeing a copy of that
video and also look forward to hearing some evaluation of it after it has been
presented.
I hope that the government will continue
to work along with the federal government to see that we have improvements in
the aboriginal areas as well.
I want to get back just to a couple of
questions that I have, getting back to
What steps can the Swan Valley School
Division take to assure that that program will be implemented? As I have said, it was the hope of the people
of the area, of the school division and of the children in that area who have
to go to university this fall, that they would have the opportunity to take
courses in the division this fall. Is
there any hope? What steps can they take
to have the program implemented this fall?
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, as we said,
there is not a FYDE site yet in
As I said to the member, the whole issue
of the expansion of the FYDE sites has been, one, subject to the review of
FYDE, but, two, we are also waiting for the results of the University
Review. In addition, we are also looking
at the results of our own Distance Education Task Force.
Mr. Plohman: Just on the Task Force Report on Distance
Education, a couple of brief questions.
Did I understand from the previous questions and answers given here that
this matter of the third phase of the report on distance education has now been
received by the minister? I think that,
earlier in our discussions of Estimates when we began, the minister said she
had not received that yet.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, yes, I have
received the report, and I will be releasing it very shortly.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, has this also
been released to school divisions at this point already?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, it has not been released to school
divisions yet, but it will be very shortly.
Mr. Plohman: I understand that the members of the
opposition would get their copies at the time it is mailed to schools
divisions. Is that a commitment the
minister has made?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I will provide the members with a copy.
Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that. Also, I wanted to ask her which department
and branch staff are co‑ordinating the government follow‑up to this
report. She said many different
departments are involved. I would assume
that this particular division of the minister's department is the co‑ordinating
body for dealing with the follow‑up to this report.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I can tell the
member that the Program Development and Support Services Division of Education
and Training will be taking a lead role, and, as I have also said this morning,
we recognize that other departments and ministers will be having a look at the
report in terms of looking at how it would impact upon their own departments.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, so what we are
dealing with, then, is Education through this division taking the lead. Can the minister just indicate which other
departments are involved in this process?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, Education and
Training, in terms of taking the lead role, is at the preliminary level of
contacts. So far, we have had contacts
with Rural Development; Industry, Trade and Tourism; the Department of
Government Services; the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Northern
Affairs. We look forward to expanding
those links, because as I said this is an initiative which we believe is
important to all of government, and there will be many areas of government that
we believe will be interested in this particular initiative.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I did not hear
the Manitoba Telephone System. The
minister responsible‑‑is that by saying Agriculture? Was she speaking about ministers or was she
speaking about departments? If it was
departments, then is MTS also involved in it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, the question was departments. The minister responsible for the Department
of Agriculture is the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay).
Mr. Plohman: Certainly.
Now the minister has raised the issue of
the ministers. Of course, I was asking
about really departments and agencies. I
wanted to know if the minister was speaking about the ministers responsible for
each of those areas or whether she was talking about the staff. Really I was asking about departmental
involvement and agencies.
I gather the minister has given us a list
which may expand. Will there be a formal structure, like a committee set up
that will deal with this, or is it just a matter of getting feedback from each
of the areas?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said during the course of
discussion around distance education, we have constant discussion with Manitoba
Telephone System. So when the member is
looking at in terms of agencies, yes, I think I have made it clear today that
we do have constant contact with Manitoba Telephone System. In terms of a structure for us to look at
distance education, yes, we will have to look at a formal structure in terms of
our movement.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I just wanted
to switch to another area dealing with the Child Care and Development Branch of
this particular division. This morning I
asked the minister some questions about the staffing ratio. The minister, once again, raised the issues
of school divisions providing the service, that service was going to be
maintained.
I would like to draw the attention of the
minister to the letter from the Flin Flon School Division No. 46 of March 26,
1993, where they have written to the minister explaining that the costs for
providing a clinician in that division would be $65,000 per clinician as
opposed to the $45,000 that the minister is offering.
*
(1340)
I would like to ask the minister, in her
response to that letter, whether she disputes those figures or whether she
feels that they are realistic in terms of the actual cost? Has she any reason to believe that they are
unrealistic? I note, for example, that
the minister did say for the first time, and I quote: I acknowledge that the salary cost of a
clinician exceeds the $45,000 grant.
A statement that was quite straightforward‑‑for
the first time on asking about this, we received a definitive statement that
says, I acknowledge, as minister, that the salary cost of a clinician exceeds
the $45,000 grant. Now that we have that
established, the minister acknowledges her grant is not sufficient to cover the
costs of a clinician, can the minister indicate to us whether she has any
reason at all to dispute the figures that were given by the Flin Flon School
Division?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: In the area of Flin Flon, we did receive a
letter from the Flin Flon School Division and subsequently have moved to assist
the Flin Flon School Division. We
understand that they are reasonably happy with the support that we have been
able to provide them. The support is the
support that I have been speaking about while we have been talking about
clinicians over the course of the Estimates, that the grant is $45,000 and that
we are allowing through supplementary funding up to $10,000 to assist, which is
up to $55,000. So I understand that that
has been of interest and also pleased the Flin Flon School Division.
Mr. Plohman: I understand, though, that the minister said
supplementary support at Flin Flon is around 70 percent, so that would be
$7,000 of the $10,000 would be available.
Am I reading that correctly?
Mrs. Vodrey: In total, the Flin Flon School Division will
be receiving in the range of $10,000.
Mr. Plohman: Well, that seems to vary some from the
information the minister gave. She
mentioned that Flin Flon, and I quote: Flin Flon is a low‑assessed school
division such that the equalization factor used to calculate '93‑94
supplementary support is in excess of 70 percent. I assume 70 percent was used because it is
not in excess of 80 percent. So it must
be in the neighbourhood of 70 percent.
Then the letter goes on to say: In order to assist school divisions that will
employ their own clinicians for the first time in '93‑94, $55,000 per
eligible clinician employed will be added to the '92‑93 allowable
expenditure. So that is $10,000 more
than the $45,000, and if the factor is 70 percent, it should be 45 plus seven
and it gives us 52. I am just asking if
I am understanding that correctly.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the support is on two
clinicians. The amount of money is
assistance of $5,300 per clinician for a total supplementary support of
$10,600.
Mr. Plohman: Okay, so it is less than what I thought it
was; $7,000 would have been the figures had I been interpreting it
correctly. It would have been $7,000 per
clinician the way I was assuming it, which would have been $14,000. The minister is saying it is $10,000, so it
is $4,000 less.
I am assuming this on the basis of the
letter that I have from the minister, the copy which she graciously provided to
my colleague the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
Mrs. Vodrey: The member obviously did not interpret it
appropriately. The total amount is more
than $7,000. It is $10,600. Flin Flon School Division has expressed the
fact that they are satisfied with the assistance that has been provided.
Mr. Plohman: The minister should not put words in my mouth
about the interpretation. I was asking
her for the interpretation and the clarification. She has now given that; however, the figures
I was using was, was it $7,000 per clinician coming to a total of $14,000?‑‑and
that is why I am saying it is less. It
is $10,000 in total. So, in fact, we
have established that there is some supplementary funding there. That is fine.
It is less than I thought it was.
Now, the precise amount‑‑the precise amount was not known.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Flin Flon School
Division, notwithstanding the fact the minister says she is providing some
additional funding, is saying that it is costing them $65,000 per
clinician. The minister is providing
around $50,000. So we are talking
$5,500? So we are talking about a $15,000
shortfall here.
Does the minister have any reason to
dispute the figures that were brought forward by the Flin Flon School Division?
Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, costs will vary in school
divisions as they hire their clinicians.
Costs vary according to the clinician's training and also according to
the clinician's experience.
We have moved to assist school divisions
this year, and again, those needs vary where there is a need at all. I can tell the member that in the following
year when we have calculated the total amount, the total amount will be
eligible for supplementary funding.
Mr. Plohman: On a percentage basis, I take it, depending
on whether they are a low‑assessed or high‑assessed division, is
that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is correct. That was the meaning of the supplemental.
Mr. Plohman: It is interesting that the minister has not
commented on the costs associated in this particular division. The minister has
no reason to dispute the $65,000 figure.
Is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: The $65,000 estimate is based on a Class 7
clinician. We have not had an indication
that they wish to hire a Class 7 clinician, and that, as I have said, the
salary requirements will vary based on the classification of the clinician and
also the years of experience.
Mr. Plohman: In that case, could the minister indicate how
many of the clinicians that will be laid off effective June 30 are in the Class
7 category?
*
(1350)
Mrs. Vodrey: We do not have the exact number of clinicians
who are Class 7 because clinicians have not indicated totally to us where they
wish to go and become employed. We might
estimate that of all the clinicians, there may be at the most two who fall into
the Class 7 category. I understand that
in the Flin Flon situation there was an offer made to a Class 7 clinician who
turned it down.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Flin Flon
superintendent also explains how a different method of sharing with, for
example,
In this particular case, we have
established that if it is a Class 7 clinician that is required or the one that
they hire, or the two that they hire, that we are dealing with almost $15,000
per clinician additional cost to the school division because of the way the
present system has been drawn up with regard to conditional grants versus
unconditional. So they had asked in
their letter to the minister whether she would consider making these
unconditional so they would be better able to afford the hiring of these
people.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the example given by
the member with Snow Lake, I can tell him that Snow Lake has entered into a
satisfactory arrangement with Frontier School Division, so that is not an
issue.
In terms of unconditional grants or block
grants, the grants are tied to the service, and by giving a block grant we
would not have been able to look exactly at the level of service.
Mr. Plohman: Well, clearly they were not proposing that
the money be used for anything else but that service. They said the government could stipulate that
all expenditures in this category‑‑and I take this right from their
letter‑‑must be in the delivery of the intended services, so they
are not intending to use this money for anything else.
Is the minister saying that she is going
to require a certain level of service but not prepared to fund it fully? Is that really what she is saying?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I understand in the
situation discussed in Flin Flon‑‑and the member says the division
did not want to use it for anything else, well, I think divisions do make
decisions; they are autonomous decisions.
My understanding is they did want to use some of that money not for
direct servicing and not for the direct work of the clinician, that, in fact,
with the money, they would perhaps have hired fewer people.
Our view is that the funds should go to
provide the service, so that is why we provide the $45,000 grant for clinician
services. Also, if money is required for
that clinician service beyond, it would be covered in supplementary.
Mr. Plohman: The minister should say partially covered in
supplementary, not covered. Is that
correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the nature of the
supplementary funding is that it covers a portion of the cost. However, as I
have said, in the year following this, we will look at covering the full cost.
I would also say to the member that 19
school divisions have been operating in this way quite successfully, and so
other school divisions now that are going to be employing their clinicians
directly, we believe will also be able to be successful in this way.
Mr. Plohman: It is an interesting comment by the minister
that she is going to look at providing the full funding for the following year‑‑that
would be '94‑95. There is a
supplementary system here; it does not cover it all. But the minister will find out exactly what
the costs are as a result of whom divisions hire this year.
*
(1400)
Is the minister saying that based on that,
she intends at the present time to develop a supplementary system that would
cover all the costs of the clinician based on the current formula of one for
every 700 students‑‑every eligible clinician based on the current
formula? Is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: We are talking about covering the eligible
costs.
Mr. Plohman: Well, is the minister saying that some of the
65,000, for example, since I used that example‑‑some of those costs
are not eligible and if so what portion would not be eligible?
Mrs. Vodrey: The costs in Supplementary are eligible for
support, but then the formula applies on a formula basis of how much is
eligible for that division for supplementary support.
Mr. Plohman: The minister should go‑‑you know,
I do not want to push this too long because it is just one particular division,
but it is important. There is a concept
here now that the minister has introduced, and I recall her words, that look at
covering the full costs in the following year.
We will say the full eligible cost.
So I am just trying to determine what the difference would be from what
is eligible this year and what the formula allows for as compared to what the
minister is talking about for next year.
What is the difference?
Mrs. Vodrey: The supplementary costs are always determined
based on the previous year. So this
being the first year for these divisions, we started with a threshold amount of
money and have allowed that in this year.
Next year we will have an opportunity to look at what the supplementary
cost and what the supplemental support was for those school divisions to then
make it eligible for the following year.
Mr. Plohman: Okay.
Well, then taking it one step further and my example is, assuming that
the $65,000 are actual costs, which they predict they are, would they be all
covered by way of the minister's new formula for next year?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just to clarify
further. If there are certain costs that
are not eligible for supplemental in this $65,000 estimate, then please tell me
what they are.
Mrs. Vodrey: I can see how the member could be confused
with a number of issues. I have
explained to him the costs are eligible for support, but what the member has to
look at is how the formula applies per division to cover the level of eligible
support. By the way, I would also like
to say around the $65,000 amount of money‑‑I have explained that
the $65,000 is a Class 7 clinician. We
do not know that this is going to be a Class 7 clinician, and in fact we do not
have that many Class 7 clinicians in
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister admitted earlier, though,
that there was an offer made to a Class 7 clinician, so the example was
realistic, and that is what we are really dealing with here is a concrete example. Just to further clarify this, the minister is
saying, then, that perhaps the formula, the equalization factor that is
available this year, may be changed next year so that it would apply
differently.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, no, the member is not
correct, but I would say that the advisory committee on Ed Finance does always
consider the issues that are before school divisions. I have made no commitment nor asked them
specifically to look at changing. What I
have said to the member is that supplemental funding in its normal course is
based on the expenses of the previous year.
Therefore, next year, in the second year, we will know what the real
costs have been, and then we will be able to look at providing the funding for
the supplemental funding. This year we
had to look at a cost which we saw as a base cost or a threshold cost. We had to arrive at a number which we wished
to assist divisions, and that is what we have done.
Mr. Plohman: So then actually for this transitional year,
if we want to call it that, in most cases, with a base being used, divisions
are probably not going to be eligible for as much supplementary funding as they
would be once they have proven their costs.
The minister can indicate whether the base would have been realistic in
what was assumed would be the cost, or is it an average? How was it arrived at?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is our best
estimate of the cost. We took into
consideration issues such as salaries and travel costs. Again, I would remind the member that they
will not be the same for each division and the supplemental funding will not be
the same for each division.
Mr. Plohman: So it is possible then that next year, when
the minister talked about covering all of the costs on a formula basis, some
divisions could actually get less. If
they spent less than was projected, they could actually get less money next
year.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, where divisions'
costs are lower, then we would be covering the eligible costs. So where costs are lower, then yes, they
would perhaps get less.
Mr. Plohman: Okay, I understand that. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I would like to ask a couple of other
questions regarding clinicians. I have
received a fax from a clinician who has raised a concern about the principles
and issues that were raised previously with the minister. I do not know that they were clarified.
I want to ask just as to the clause that
was put in by the Civil Service Commission and communicated through the human
resources staff that because you have‑‑and I quote from the letter
that was sent to me. This was written in
a letter from Mr. Gillespie to the clinician.
She quotes, because you have more than 10 years of service, you are
eligible for enhanced severance upon permanent layoff except in the following
case: if you are re‑employed by a
school division to which Manitoba Education and Training now provides
additional grants for the provision of clinician services.
Then in the same letter she says, I do not
feel that this is fair as it is my understanding if I went to work in a
hospital setting I would qualify for the enhanced severance and I should not be
penalized if I obtain employment with a school division.
Does she have the information wrong here
or is this absolutely correct that hospitals are treated differently than
schools? If they are treated
differently, is it based on grants that are provided for clinicians? Do hospitals through health care also receive
funding for clinicians?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we did discuss this
earlier. The person in question‑‑and
I do not have the letter in front of me that the member has the advantage of‑‑and
I am assuming that within the letter, the person is a certified school
clinician. The certification for school
clinicians does speak about specific work which is done within a school. Therefore, should the member become rehired
by a school division, she would then continue the same work that she had been
doing previously. Should the person in question become hired by a hospital or
by a university or by some other area in which she might apply her skills, she
would not then be doing the specific work of a school clinician. Therefore, the distinction is around the work
and the specific type of work that individual would be doing.
As a clinician myself who has worked in a
number of settings, including a hospital, a university and a school, I can tell
you the work is different.
*
(1410)
Mr. Plohman: Well, yes, it may be different. The work may be different, but is it fair
when you consider that the employer is not the same? The minister surely recognizes that if
employed by a school division, that is not the same as an employee of the
government in the civil service. It is a
different employer; therefore, applying this requirement for no severance pay
under those conditions is discriminatory.
Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of the issue of compensation, I can
tell the member, she most certainly does get severance. She does not get the enhanced severance, and
that is the issue. So please do not let
it go on the record that the individual does not receive severance. She does.
Then, following that, she then becomes
employed in a job, perhaps in exactly the same job as she did before. It might be in exactly the same school
division with exactly the same clients.
So that individual, by virtue of the decisions that had been made, then
under this current circumstance, working again in a school using the terms of a
school clinician, would not be eligible for the enhanced severance.
The individual may also‑‑and
again, I do not have the advantage of the letter, I do not know the type of
clinician, I do not know the years of training of the clinician and the years
of experience of the clinician, because the member has not shared the letter
with me‑‑but that individual may in fact earn a higher salary.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, that may be possible. That is not really‑‑the question
is how the former employees of the government are being treated, and whether
they are being treated equitably?
Certain employees after 10 years receive enhanced severance pay because
they are leaving this employer and they are going to a division‑‑it
might be a different school division than they were in before, if they do in
fact go to a school division.
So it is a different employer again, even
than they were working with as an employee of the government. So they could be working in different
situations‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Downey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, are
we not discussing the expenditures of the Department of Education and monies
that will be spent in the province on behalf of the province, not on what will
happen to employees who have been with the government of
So I would ask, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
that you call the member to order and deal with the specific subject which we
are dealing with. One can speculate all
they like what will happen to other individuals. If the school divisions want to hire them,
they will.
An Honourable Member: This is not a point of order.
Mr. Downey: Yes, it is.
We want to deal with the subject matter that is before us.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before I was so
rudely interrupted by the Minister for Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), I was
making the point that this branch of government has, either initiated by
themselves or with the consent of the Civil Service Commission, made certain
decisions with regard to former employees of this branch.
They are now going to be, hopefully‑‑
An Honourable Member: We wish them well.
Mr. Plohman: Well, they would like your callous
attitude. The Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey) is not being particularly helpful here for his colleague
when he talks flippantly about wishing them well as they go, when we are
talking about her colleague.
I want to get back to this point because I
believe it is somewhat discriminatory treatment of former employees. I made my point with the minister about
that. I do not think it is particularly
fair that people are treated differently depending on which employer they go
to.
The minister has to recognize as well that
school divisions are not viewed as one employer either. When teachers move from one school division
to another they lose due process and tenure‑‑or the seniority and
due process when they move to another employer.
It is not transferable completely.
Under those circumstances it is something
that the minister has to recognize.
These are all different employers.
They are independent employers.
Therefore, staff that are moving to those should not be penalized
because the minister or her staff have not made a determination that they are
going to be doing the same kind of work.
They are not working for this employer any longer, so why are they being
treated differently when they leave?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I remind the member
that the individuals in question all received a severance package. His point
now is around an enhanced package. We
know that this individual had the opportunity also to become re‑employed
in government. That was also an
option. Now the individual is looking
perhaps to be re‑employed elsewhere.
It might be with a school division.
If, in fact, it is with a school division, that person will be doing the
work of a school clinician. The work
will be the same. As I said, it might
even be with exactly the same clients in exactly the same school division,
exactly the same work that the individual was doing before. In fact, the pay scale may vary upward.
I do not have the benefit of the letter in
front of me. I do not have the benefit
of knowing who the individual is specifically.
As I said, there is a severance package which the individual is entitled
to. The individual will make some
decisions now about whether that person wishes to remain in government, wishes
to become employed by a school division or by another agency or hospital.
Point of
Order
Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on a point of order,
has the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) tabled the letter that he has been
referring to? Will he table the letter,
because it is within the rules, when a letter is being referred to, to table
the letter? Table the letter, please.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member is using a point of
order to direct a question to the honourable member for Dauphin.
The honourable member for Dauphin has not
directly quoted from the letter.
Mr. Downey: Yes, he has.
He has referred to it. Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, he has made all kinds of references to it and should table the
letter. The rules of the committee are
to table the letter.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would want to ask
the minister about another branch of the particular Program Development and
Support Services division.
I will respond to the members opposite who
have raised the issue, first of all, just for clarification. I would respond to the points of order‑‑[interjection]
No, I am not, and I do not care‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Downey: On a point of order, I would ask that you
review Hansard to see specifically as to whether or not there has been reference
made to a letter which, under the rules of the committee, should be
tabled. I would ask that you do that,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: On the point of order raised by the
honourable Minister of Northern Affairs, it is up to the member if he wants to
table said letter. It is not in the
rules. I will research the fact, though,
and bring to the committee‑‑I will review the matter and bring back
to the committee in the House, the matter that the honourable minister is
putting to my attention.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just to further
clarify as you are looking at this, in the Legislature, in the Chamber and
during Question Period when people are referring to documents, quite often they
are tabled. [interjection] During Question Period. During committee, documents are not all
tabled because if that was the case we could ask the minister to table her
briefing book and all the other things that she reads from. [interjection] Yes,
she reads from them and I just point out the absurdity of it, so I want to move
on to another point here. [interjection] The whole bunch of them are absurd.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to ask the
minister about the Native Education branch.
The Native Education branch has been mentioned as an area of priority
and one that the minister has talked about, action that took place. Particularly I want to ask her about the
office in Dauphin that was established.
The government has been failing in its
decentralization efforts throughout the province and Dauphin has been one of
the victims of decentralization. As a
matter of fact, we see more jobs being decentralized out of Dauphin than into
Dauphin.
*
(1420)
However, there has been one minor
exception to this with a few employees in the Native Education branch in
Dauphin, one minor exception to a huge failure across the board in so many
other areas in withdrawal of employees.
We have one situation here which has developed with regard to the Native
Education branch, and I want to ask the minister how many employees are
currently working at that branch in Dauphin and what their positions are, what
their work involves.
Mrs. Vodrey: In the Dauphin office, there are four positions,
and they are currently being filled by a Community Liaison position filled by
Lillian la Fuente, an English Language position filled by Betty‑Ann
McIvor, an Administrative Support staff by Barbara Sutherland, and there is one
vacancy of those positions in counselling and career development that we look
to fill as soon as possible.
In terms of the work that those
individuals do, the Community Liaison parent involvement program
responsibilities are‑‑through this area, the Native Education
branch was instrumental in establishing a
The Native Education branch also
participates in the Dauphin‑Ochre Native Education committee. Its purpose is to help parents and educators
work together to address native students' concerns. The committee organized a successful
community barbecue on May 12, '93, which involved trustees, administrators,
teachers, students and parents.
The career development and counselling
position, as I said, is vacant due to a staff retirement, and we look to fill
that as quickly as possible. Its role is
the establishment of a Parklands counsellors' network to provide support to
counsellors from divisions with native students.
In the English Language Development
program position, the individual evaluates proposals and monitors the
implementation of school division programs funded under the English language
enrichment for native students support program, identifies and/or co‑ordinates
development of English language arts materials for and about native people, and
provides pre‑service and in‑service sessions for teachers and
administrators and community members related to English language development.
Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that. Can she indicate which one of those positions
is not filled at the present time and how long it has been vacant?
Mrs. Vodrey: The vacant position is the counselling and
career development position, and it has been vacant since December '92 due to
the retirement of the individual. We
will be looking to fill that position as soon as possible. We will be looking to bulletin the position.
Mr. Plohman: Will this position be advertised externally
or bulletined within the civil service only?
Mrs. Vodrey: We look to have an external bulletin.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to the minister: When were the other three positions filled,
and when was this established precisely, what month and year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the individual who
has now retired transferred from
Mr. Plohman: The minister says, filled by
competition. Was this competition one
that was approved by the Civil Service, under Civil Service hiring procedures,
or was this one of those that was done prior to the removal of a hiring
authority from the department?
Mrs. Vodrey: That position was filled by open competition
and I am sorry, I do not have the details of whether this was before or after
there was a change in our hiring authority.
That question was not covered when our Human Resources staff were here
to give us the details.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister cannot hide behind whether
it was covered or not. I am asking her
the question now and it is under this particular branch and it involves
employees in this branch.
So the minister knows what the next step is,
to undertake to get that information for the next sitting of the Legislature if
the minister is not aware at the present time whether hiring authority was
still with the department at the time these members were hired.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am certainly informed that we followed the
Civil Service guidelines whether it was before or after there was a change in
our hiring authority. So if the member
has a question around that, then I would like him to put it.
Mr. Plohman: I certainly am aware of the Community Liaison
Officer's involvement in the political process in the area, Lillian De la
Fuente, and I want to know whether she was hired under proper jurisdiction of
the Civil Service Commission. That is
what I am asking about.
Now, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister
says, yes, while people are nodding, staff are nodding, yet she could not tell
me whether this happened before authority was in place or not. We know that there were some variations from
proper procedure; that is why hiring authority was removed at one time. It may not have been this particular
case. It may have been other cases. We heard about the‑‑[interjection]
Well, this may have been one too. I am
not satisfied at the present time whether in fact the situation was clear at
that time.
This minister knows that she does not have
all the facts in front of her with regard to the process at this time. She said she does not know whether it was
before of after that hiring authority was removed. On that basis, I think it is incumbent upon
the minister to undertake to get a full report on the circumstances surrounding
the hiring and the hiring authority at that time prior to the next sitting so
that we can discuss this more fully at the next sitting.
She knows where I am coming from‑‑
*
(1430)
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: On a point of order, I certainly did tell the member that the Civil Service guidelines
and rules were followed. In terms of
that competition, the Civil Service rules were followed.
But the member would like to know if our
hiring authority‑‑there had been a change in our hiring authority
exactly at that time. Then I am prepared
to certainly look into that and bring back the information for the member so he
will have full information.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: As previously agreed, the hour being 2:30,
committee rise.
HEALTH
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Health. Does the minister wish to make an opening
statement?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): If that would be in
accordance with my honourable friends and my critics.
I am very pleased to present today the
working Estimates of the Manitoba Ministry of Health for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1994. I will be asking this
committee to support my request of $1,841,360,900 of spending.
In this challenging period, I am
especially pleased to pay tribute to the many dedicated workers throughout the
health care system. The thousands of
dedicated people within the system are to be commended for their willingness to
put foremost the well‑being of the Manitobans whom they serve. I want to especially commend those committed
professionals who have continued to give their time, effort and creative ideas
to facilitate the process of change that the health system is experiencing as
we work together to preserve and protect medicare.
I know I can count on them and all other
dedicated members of the system to continue to support the reform needed to
maintain and enhance our system as the best in Canada, and one of the best, if
not the best, in the world.
Also, Madam Chairperson, my thanks are
extended to the community groups, professional associations, universities,
voluntary agencies, and individuals with an interest in the health of
Madam Chairperson, since I became Minister
of Health in 1988, I have announced a number of significant initiatives, such
as the development of goals for health and health care; Health Advisory
Network; establishment of Manitoba's own bone marrow transplant program at the
Health Sciences Centre; reform of the mental health system; establishment of a
quick‑response team to investigate emerging issues in health services;
the Health Services Development Fund; Health Human Resource Planning, including
among other initiatives, a national nursing symposium, the first ever, I might
add, sponsored in Canada; a physician human resource strategy in conjunction
with the other provinces and the federal government; two new state‑of‑the‑art
linear accelerators for the treatment of Manitobans suffering from cancer,
under the auspices and the operation of the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research
Foundation; $2 million joint provincial‑federal heart health project, in
partnership with the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Faculty of Medicine,
the University of Manitoba; strategic Health Research and Development Fund; the
introduction of Healthy Public Policy and the focus on population health; the
implementation of the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation; the
substance abuse strategy, including establishing a women's centre for substance
abuse; the Urban Hospital Council and the Rural Health Advisory Council; the
strengthening of the Continuing Care service program; $19.1 million for
alternative community‑based mental health services reflecting important
first evidence of our intention and commitment to provide appropriate alternatives
to institutional care before beds are taken out of the system; and a larger
number of other programs, policy, legislative and organizational changes.
Madam Chairperson, I am reading this list
into the record because I want to give a flavour of the range and kinds of
issues that we have tackled over the five‑year period since I became
Minister of Health. This is not an all‑inclusive
list by any means, and if members opposite wish, I would be happy to provide
them with any additional details they may require.
But, Madam Chairperson, I would prefer to
use this time to focus on the key issue before us, because nothing short of the
preservation and protection of medicare is at stake. As long as I am Minister of Health, the health
status of Manitobans and the interests of patients are my first and foremost
concern. I firmly believe that the
preservation of medicare is fundamental to preserving the health status of
Manitobans and protecting patient interests.
I do not think that there are very many Manitobans
who do not want medicare preserved.
Survey after survey has shown that Canadians are more satisfied with the
fundamentals of their health care than citizens of any other country in the
world with theirs.
One of the main reasons for the universal
recognition that we have one of the finest systems in the world is the
fundamental principles upon which it is based.
The first four principles, universality, comprehensiveness, portability
and public administration were features of medicare almost since its
inception. The fifth principle of
accessibility was added in 1984 to clarify the question of user fees.
We are in full agreement with this
principle because we are on record as being opposed to user fees. They do nothing to improve the management of
the system and they may, in some circumstances, jeopardize access for certain
individuals to their needed health care services.
I believe it is time to think about a
sixth principle of medicare, that is effectiveness. By effectiveness I mean that health services
should be provided based on the principle that they do good for the patient,
and that they do it in a more cost‑effective way than alternative
services.
In responding to the call for a more
effective system, each province is currently undertaking significant and rapid
changes in reform. It might be
appropriate at this juncture to ask why, and in part, Madam Chairperson, the
answer deserves a short revisit as to how medicare had its beginnings in
The Medical Care Act was approved in Parliament
in 1966 and came into effect on July 1, 1967,
As a result, the spending signals were
clearly to establish a doctor driven hospital base system. Today in
Two questions might be asked. Is this the most cost‑effective
spending pattern; and secondly, can it be sustained in the current fiscal
environment?
The answer to the first question is
complex but, in part, can be responded to by an analysis and comparison of our
national spending patterns on health care with other industrialized nations and
countries. Today, on a per capita basis,
However, two key indicators show that
people in
Just as the level of spending per person
seems to bear little direct relationship to the levels of health status in the
population in general, the numbers of hospital beds or physicians do not necessarily
translate into better health, the benchmarks we have traditionally used. The number of beds and doctors available in
our system are not measures of health.
They are measures of spending.
That is because many of the determinants
of health lie outside the health care system.
This would clearly demonstrate why our spending priorities need to be
rethought.
Other nations who are competitors in the
global market spend less and achieve better outcomes in terms of population
health. The challenge then becomes twofold:
first, to shift our spending from institutions to community, from
treating to preventing, from medical repair to promotion of wellness.
This is the clear mandate of The Health
Action Plan and of the plans in most other provinces. To shift from institutional spending means
the downsizing of the hospital sector‑‑beds are closed.
Again, this is happening right across
Governments must understand that spending
on health care is only one of a number of determinants of health. The other determinants of health include
environmental factors, socioeconomic factors, the productivity and wealth of
society as a whole, the individual genetic endowment and lifestyle.
*
(1110)
The most obvious casualty of these past
spending trends, in concentrating our resource commitment to spending in the
formal health care system, has been the lack of investment in tools to make the
nation able to better compete in an increasingly competitive idea‑driven
global economy.
Resource spent on health care is resource
that has not been invested, for instance, in the research and development
needed to create new products, new market objectives in a global economy.
When medicare was initiated, it was
assumed that basic services would be provided, medically necessary services,
services to protect the life and health of individuals, but what was missing
was a requirement to demonstrate on the basis of scientific evidence that the
services would be appropriate in terms of patient outcome and cost‑effectiveness.
What is missing is a requirement to
demonstrate improvements in health status for individuals and for the
population. As a result, the demands on
the system and the cost of services have skyrocketed with little evidence that
they have contributed to the health status of Manitobans.
Many services were added without the kind
of evaluation necessary to demonstrate that they were effective or cost‑effective
in preserving people's health.
Some experts, such as Dr. John Wennberg,
Dr. Fraser Mustard and Dr. Robert Evans, contend that overmedicalization that
has occurred in
Now, I know that
Madam Chairperson, there are those who
ask: Do we need health care reform? To put it bluntly, if we wish to preserve the
fundamentals of medicare, urgent reform is necessary.
Over the past 10 years,
Can we as a province of one million afford
these kinds of spending trends? The
result of this kind of uncontrolled growth has been a health cost crisis that
is endangering the very future of medicare in
The second question, though, that must be
posed: Is the challenge unique to
No province and no part of
From
The health cost crisis is truly a national
problem, and no government in
But if medicare had run on the basis of
the principle of effectiveness in terms of health status outcome, from the
outset, services would have been developed on the basis of scientific evidence
in terms of appropriate, needed, effective services. In other words, the system would have been
better managed.
Let me give just one example of how the
system could have been made more appropriate and cost‑effective. This January, the Manitoba Centre for Health
Policy and Evaluation released a study entitled An Assessment of How
Efficiently Manitoba's Major Hospitals Discharged Their Patients, commonly
known as the Efficiency Study.
Let me quote from the conclusions of this
study. Quote: We estimate that a significant portion of the
days currently invested in treating acute care patients could be eliminated without
decreasing access to hospital care.
A second quote, beginning: The hospital system appears to have the
capacity to handle more patients or to absorb a sizable number of bed closures
without rationing access to hospital care.
The hospitals and the government have tended to assume that every bed
closed should be replaced by another service, possibly less intense and less
expensive, but nevertheless a replacement.
These data suggest that at least some of the bed closures could be
accommodated simply through more efficient treatment of patients in available
beds. End of quote.
In other words, Madam Chairperson, there
have been more beds in our system than were actually needed. That is, when variations of length of stay
are taken into account we have excess bed capacity. We also have an overreliance on technology.
I am not pointing the finger of
blame. In past the data and the
scientific evidence to build the most effective system has been either
unavailable or inaccessible. That is why
when we embarked on the process of health reform, one of the first things we
did was to establish the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation to
give us the kind of scientific data on objective evidence we would need to
rebalance our system and make it more effective.
That is also why we have obtained the
advice and input from some of the leading scientists, researchers and experts
in health services in North America, people with international reputations like
Dr. Geoffrey Anderson from the University of British Columbia; Dr. Fraser
Mustard and Dr. Robert Evans from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research;
Dr. John Wennburg and Dr. Elliot Fisher from the Dartmouth‑Hitchcock
Medical Centre; Dr. Pran Manga from the University of Ottawa; Dr. Philip Lee
from the University of California; Dr. David Naylor from the Sunnybrook Health
Sciences Centre; Dr. Morris Barer from the Centre of Health Service and Policy
Research, University of British Columbia; and many others.
In May of 1992 I announced Quality Health
for Manitobans ‑ The Action Plan, which has been called by national and
international experts as the best blueprint for preserving medicare in
This blueprint lays out our vision for the
future. It lays out the challenges before
us, and it provides an action plan to meet those challenges and to achieve our
vision. The changes that are outlined in
The Action Plan have already begun to be implemented and are challenging our
institutions, our professional disciplines and government. These challenges are also providing
opportunities for all Manitobans to work towards maintaining and preserving our
medicare system.
I will say more about that in a moment,
but first let me put that in a broader context.
We are just coming out of a serious international recession, and most
analysts predict that the recovery in
The experts agree that long‑term
prosperity means that
I want to give you an example. Lee Iacocca, when he took on the chairmanship
of Chrysler Corporation some number of years ago, stated that there are more
health care costs than steel in a car manufactured in the
American manufacturers of automobiles
typically spend over $1,100 dollars on health insurance per employee compared
to $100 on every car manufactured in
A reformed health care system would make
it less difficult for us as Canadians to address other issues such as deficits
or other social programs like education and training or infrastructure
development necessary for economic renewal.
As investment in infrastructure, increased
health expenditures are not the only nor the best public investment in terms of
improving the health status of the population.
As you are aware, the determinants of health have more to do with
socioeconomic factors, environmental factors and the prosperity of nations and
people than the amount spent on health care.
For example, that is why Healthy Public Policy has become such an
important feature of my ministry and such a key component of health reform.
*
(1120)
We have to find better ways and more
effective ways to provide health services to Manitobans. We have to manage the changes in our health
services system in a way that will contribute to improved health for all
Manitobans. Restructuring and
rebalancing our services, which can include bed redirections and closures but
which must include looking at the system as a whole, must be undertaken with
the underpinning of services provided to meet the needs in a cost‑effective
way.
Over the past five years, since I have
become
The second point I made throughout these
consultations was that I do not believe that the government or any single group
can answer the challenge alone. It is
not only a government problem. It is not
only a doctors' or a nurses' or a hospitals' problem. It is a problem that affects and challenges
everyone in
We face difficult adjustments as people
learn to look at the whole health system rather than focusing on their own
institution or their own field of practice.
That is understandable. Change is
difficult, and the temptation to blame the messenger is always strong. We have been accused of ignoring patient
care, but there is not one shred of evidence to support that view. We have been accused of bringing in outsiders
to help with health reform, but at the same time we have heard that we are not
getting enough input and advice. We have
been accused of closing beds without providing alternative services, but $19.1
million in alternate funding for Mental Health is evidence of our commitment to
providing alternative services before restructuring institutional services and
closing those psychiatric beds.
Madam Chairperson, there comes a time when
it is necessary to ask if the motives of some of these critics are more to
protect the status quo than to protect the integrity of the health care
system. With the interests of patients
and the health of Manitobans as the first and foremost consideration, I know
that the shift in thinking toward the new reality is difficult.
There has never been a recession in health
services in this country since before the Second World War. Health system stakeholders are not used to
thinking in terms of scarce resources or the fair distribution of resources to
the most appropriate and effective sectors.
Health system stakeholders have become accustomed to spending increases
which have often been double the rate of inflation. In the past the issue of fair distribution of
resources among all sectors had not been a traditional concern that had to be
addressed.
Today's challenges require that spending
choices be analyzed between competing demands, between departments, as well as
within a department. Madam Chairperson,
in this province of one million people, the ability of our population to
continue to sustain uncontrolled growth in the health sector is limited. We cannot afford to jeopardize our economic
recovery by continuing to redirect resources to an unproductive, nonwealth‑creating,
consumption‑oriented sector, particularly when there is little evidence
that the health status of the population is benefiting from those significant
expenditures.
We owe it to ourselves and to the next
generation to effectively and prudently manage the system. That is why there is so much agreement that
regardless of the personal preference of some of my critics, the status quo
cannot be sustained. Everyone agrees that we are facing enormous challenges to
preserve and protect medicare. Everyone
who has looked at the evidence agrees that the system requires reform and
restructuring. Everyone agrees that the
It was almost exactly one year ago that I
tabled Quality Health for Manitobans ‑ The Action Plan. Since that time, we have met our commitment
to carefully consult and to begin the implementation of the strategies outlined
in the document. We recognized and we
said at the time of the implementation of The Action Plan that there would be
challenges and difficulties. There is no book that we or anyone else can
consult in implementing health reform. A
change of this magnitude has not been ever before undertaken. We are, if you will, writing the book as we
go along.
What is unique in
Madam Chairperson, the invitation to write
the book with us does not imply empty obstruction just to maintain the status
quo. It does not imply circumvention of
the principles and concepts outlined in The Action Plan that so many have
contributed to. It does not imply the
protection of self‑interest, and most importantly, it does not imply the
right to ignore the interest of patients or the health status of Manitobans.
Madam Chair, I have demonstrated that I am
committed to listening to legitimate critique of our reform plans, and we are
justified by the evidence. I have made
changes accordingly. I will continue to
listen, but I also will continue to act.
The implementation of the mental health reform component of The Action
Plan serves as a good example of my commitment to listen and to act.
The mental health component of our
blueprint for action is an excellent example of how we are going about
reforming the health care system to preserve and protect medicare. We began by ensuring that we would have the
right kind of organizational structure to give all the stakeholders, including
the full range of service providers and especially consumers, the opportunity
to be full partners in the process.
Four years ago we established the mental
health reform partnership with the establishment of regional mental health
councils. We did not just listen, we
also acted. Currently, significant
reform is well underway in all regions in the province, shifting services from
institutions to community. Shifting from institution to community‑based
mental health services will enable care and treatment closer to home and will
give patients a broader range of services from which to choose. Ensuring the
best care, services and support for Manitobans who suffer from mental illness
is the single most important goal of mental health reform.
Madam Chairperson, the mental health
reform process that I have just outlined serves as a good example of the
approach we are taking with the entire process of health reform. The challenges before us, real as they are,
are also opportunities. Even though the fiscal challenges are not diminishing‑‑in
some ways they have even gotten more severe‑‑I have not deterred
from my vision of a reformed health care system.
My vision for the reformed health care
system involves a broad range of consumer choices, services closer to home,
where Manitobans live and work. The
restructuring will also involve a broad spectrum of services ranging from
Healthy Public Policy, through prevention and treatment, to rehabilitation and
palliation. It will involve a better
managed and co‑ordinated system with rebalancing towards more appropriate
community rather than institutional care.
The basis of the health care system of the future will be evident of
outcome and effectiveness in terms of the health status improvement of
Manitobans. When institutional care is
supported by the evidence, we will support it, but hospitals should be seen as
the last resort, not as the first line of response. Experts tell us that community‑based
services are preferable in most instances.
Madam Chairperson, let me emphasize the
importance of the shift towards an evidence‑based system. For example, that is why we are committed to
implementing plastic card health technology into the health care system. As we move into the next phase of health
reform, I invite all of you to come along on the vision for the future in which
we see a better managed, more appropriate system serving the real health needs
of a vibrant and healthy
I invite you to resist the temptation to a
vision that would see attempts to maintain the status quo leading to greater
and greater fiscal and economic damage in
Madam Chairperson, Manitobans are among
the most creative and innovative people in the world, and we are facing the
most difficult challenges since the Second World War or since the '30s, but I
am confident that with the help of all Manitobans we will realize our
vision. The Manitoba Health Services
system will be the leading system in
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Madam Chairperson, I just wanted to speak and
I approached the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), because of some urgent
commitment I have to leave after twelve o'clock. So I just wanted to take some time.
*
(1130)
I was carefully listening to the
minister's words, and I have done that for the last six years. Almost six budgets we have gone through. During this process, it has been a very
learning experience because we all do not know all the things about health
care. It is a very tough portfolio and
you have to learn. It takes time to
understand the concept and also develop in your own mind the long‑term
policies. I think that can reflect on
the own political party's philosophy if you wanted to put both things together.
It is a long process, and it initially was
not very productive because you come to the House and the only thing you know
and you have been taught and you are told that you have to oppose, oppose,
oppose, but quickly you learn that opposing is not the answer. You have to provide some alternates. We have grown up in that area, and I will
read my remarks.
I think it is very important that what has
happened in
I was going through some of the historical
events when the medicare was brought in, and I was so impressed that the
initial part of the health care was that in 1966 and 1984 they wanted to make
it one of the main social policies which has to be most nonpolitical. In fact, this became the most political issue
because it is so important to all of us, each one of us, either our families or
members or yourself, we use the system.
It is an important part of a human being to have access to health care
services.
So it became very sentimental and very
political. That is why I think we lost
touch. The planning which started in
1966 was based on many things which did not happen. It was based on the population that we could
have 36 million people by now, and the system was set up to meet the needs of
36 million people. The physician manpower was set up to meet those needs. The hospitals were based on those needs. All the technology was basing towards that
kind of a population.
That did not happen because everybody came
and they did their job for four years, and they were gone, and most of the
ministers of Health who sit in this country do not have a life span of more
than two years. That is the political
reality.
The only Minister of Health was the
previous member for St. Boniface, and he was probably the longest‑serving
Minister of Health. And now the present
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is the longest‑serving Minister of
Health in this country today.
I think that has to continue because we
cannot change ministries in the Department of Health. It does not work because you cannot provide
the continued‑‑people have to understand. Then you rely upon the
advice. You may be getting the best
advice, but if you do not know what you are doing you are really causing many
problems.
So I think that is one thing that we are
very, very mindful of, that the government has to continue from that point of
view, not for reporting the next morning's poll or anything because eventually
people will appreciate.
The question was asked of me many times in
the meetings, do we have a disaster? I
said no. I mean things are not right,
but it is not really getting out of hand.
Basically, when you are changing the whole structure there are going to
be some problems, there are going to be some growing pains, and we all have to
bear with that. I think that is the
message the people of
If any one of us goes outside and tells
this government or the NDP or us, any party is going to kill the medicare, they
are fooling themselves. They are
not. Everyone is concerned about the
accessibility and the basic principles, but the question here is when we all
agree on the basic principles you have to have a path.
I think there is a problem how you are
going to show your path to develop a health care reform, and that is why when
the health care reform package came in 1991, the package, as we said, the same
thing was said by the previous ministers of Health in a broader principle. All the studies which have taken place as of
1973, they are all put together in a good package which was workable, which is
still workable. The basic principles
everyone agreed on, because that was not the minister's own philosophy or anybody
else's philosophy. It is basically a
collection of ideas. That is why on May
12, that evening, if you watched the news‑‑I am sure as politicians
you all watch the news‑‑there was not even a single comment which
was negative. That shows you that there
is a willingness to listen and work together on the health care reform package.
The package has two years of life. One year is already gone. We did not think it was going to be possible
within two years because it is a major plan but, within one year, that has to
be evaluated.
I mean, the whole issue of these Health
Estimates for me is more a policy now rather than going after one dollar here
and one dollar there. That does not work
in health care. You have to have a long‑term
plan and how you are going to fit the whole thing into the health sector as an
industry, as a service and also as the taxpayers' major expense. You have to combine all of those three things
to come up with a package which will meet the needs of people in the long run. I think that is what the taxpayers are asking
from all of us.
I think that is why when the health care
reform package came here, within three months almost every province is doing
the same thing; whether they are Liberals in
To achieve the same objective that we have
here you have to have a really good framework, you have to have a good
knowledge, and you have to have political will.
I think the combination is there to do all
those things, and I think that is why it is so important for us to make sure
that the health care reform package, The Health Action Plan should
succeed. I think it is incumbent upon
each one of us to make sure it succeeds.
That does not mean that we have to be fearful that if we are not
opposing we are not getting media attention. It does not work any more. I do not think it has worked for the last two
years. We get the same coverage as the
other party but it does not mean that we are criticizing all the time.
People are asking how you are going to do
it in a different way. We are telling
them, The Health Action Plan is a plan, a collection of 20 years of study, a
collection of the previous governments ideas, a collection of the present
government's ideas. It is not a
political ideology. I think that is the
message I want to convey. It is not a
political ideology.
It is basically a concept which is ever
changing but you have to have a broad mind to accept those changes, but within
the five basic principles, do not just follow the principles in terms of the
dollars and cents. Follow the principle
in terms of the service and try to manage it effectively. I think that is the new word the minister has
said. It is the sixth word,
effectiveness, of the health care system.
Every province is doing the same
thing. They are scrambling because, if
anyone does not get access in time, it is cause for concern, but in
What happens with the responsibility if
somebody is failing it at step 1? They
just blame step 10 without realizing and that is what, I think, we have to do
in this House and the members. I have to
do it, and my party has to do it. Make
sure you do not simply derail the process because something has gone wrong
somewhere, one or two or three steps.
You have to make sure that you follow the steps from one to 10, to make
sure each and every person in the health care sector has a responsibility.
*
(1140)
Basically, it is the taxpayers' dollars,
the taxpayers' money, and there is the basic trust which people have put upon
you. You are spending $1.83 billion, one
of the major spenders in our province.
It is 33 percent of the budget, and we should be very, very careful.
Madam Chairperson, I think, in the long
run, it is going to be very, very productive.
When the ministers or the governments are going to be judged, say, in
five years' time, ten years' time, that will be very clearly shown how the health
care plan was functioning in
If you go across the province and meet
with the organization and the hospital boards and the various stakeholders, how
can they say, individually, everything is fine?
But, when something goes wrong, they like the principle, but everybody
is fighting for the turf. That is slowly
going away. I am not saying it has
totally gone away, but that is slowly going away. As I said on May 12 last year, there was not
a single organization in
Those things are really generating a lot
of debate, a very healthy debate. That
will help us to develop a policy which anybody can take that policy and simply
run with that policy and try to make sure you are serving all 1.1 million, not
somebody who really voted for you, whether it is 24 persons or 22 or whatever
numbers you want to put on that.
Madam Chairperson, I think those are very
important from the evolution of the health care sector, how it is evolving, how
this is maturing, and we all have to mature from that process. So that is why I said from the beginning, we
have matured, and in our own way we are still learning many things.
Many things are changing. Even as a patient, they have to adjust the
new realities of life. The health care
providers have adjusted, but if one of the complements of the health care
sector, whether it is the health care provider or the health care recipient, is
not going to be mindful of the changes, then we will have a problem.
It does not matter how good the intentions
are, how good the government wants to do it, eventually you have to have
everybody working together and be open and put everything on the table and not
to worry about if somebody is going to criticize and get a headline
tomorrow. Ultimately, they are all going
to have access to the health care services.
As I said, there are five basic
principles, everyone agrees in this province.
Everyone says, we do not want overbilling; we do not want to have user
fees; we do not want to have extraordinary delays in surgical procedures, and
many things, but when you are agreeing on all of those things, there has to be
quite some plan.
That is why we are asking the minister
that the process should continue in a more open fashion and get patients
involved, the consumers involved. When
they know what is at stake, they will be very, very helpful. I do not think anybody is going to oppose a
good plan.
It is not as if you are looking after one
industry of 400 people, you are looking after 1.1 million people. You are taking care of $1.8 billion. The health care sector employs a lot of
people in this province. A lot of people
work for the health care provider, the hospital and every other staff. So you have to get involved with everyone,
and you have to go beyond some of the active organizations. You have to go to the membership and ask them
what they are thinking, because some of the collective groups, the people who
are in charge, may have their own political views or their own political agenda
or their own benefit. But, if you go to
somebody outside their circle and get them involved, I think that will be very,
very helpful.
Based on that principle, we are asking the
minister that we should look at a health care assembly concept. I will explain to you, there could be much
criticism about that because that is what we want them to tell us, how we can
evolve this health care assembly concept in the long run.
I will give you an example. What will happen tomorrow if the present
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is not the Minister of Health? Who is going to continue some of the things
that have happened already? You have a
change in the deputy minister, you have a change in the ADMs, so you have five
people who are gone. Who is going to continue that? Who is going to monitor the whole thing?
So, if you have a health care assembly,
the membership can be decided by the government, how many numbers you want and
give them the direction, ask them to have open criticism. But, if you put every participant at the same
table and tell them it is $1.8 billion, tell us how to spend. I think they will think twice, because then
they are facing each other in for the same dollar and the same health care
sector.
So I think that concept can be
evolved. There are many things. Some people told us the Manitoba Health
Services Commission board was developed initially on that concept, but then it
became political and it became very consolidated. I do not know about that, but I think that,
if we have an assembly mechanism, that will provide continuity.
At least there has to be accountability in
terms of the process which has to continue in the long run. If you give them a four‑year mandate,
like some of the committees we have‑‑we have Manitoba Hydro coming
in front of the committee‑‑why can we not have a committee where
they can come and the minister can ask them and we can ask them some questions,
how this thing can continue?
That concept, I think, can work. There could be some problems in terms of the
number, who should be there and what is the restriction of the numbers, how
that could function, what will be the leader's obligation. Those things can be worked out, but I think
you have to have a body that will provide not only one part of the health care
but the overall health care system. That way one can get rid of some of the
advisory bodies, all of those things. We
do not need them after you have a health care assembly.
A health care assembly, then, can be told
to look at all of the issues. That way
they cannot blame the government all of the time, because if they are
representing the views of the organization, then they have accountability to
their own organization also.
Those are the basic things I just want to
convey in these opening remarks. I will
have questions at least for 40 hours, and we will go into more policy issues
and how that can help achieve the improved quality, maintain the present and try
to have more effectiveness in health care in the long run. But I will say that without any strings
attached that we like the health care action plan. The basic principles are excellent. It is a two‑year plan. It is a major, major step forward. It is very risky politically, but it is the
right thing to do, and eventually Manitobans will judge in the long run that
this was a good thing and they will appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the official opposition,
the honourable member for Kildonan, wish to make an opening statement?
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): My remarks will be relatively brief, I
anticipate, since I will be dealing with some notes that I have and dealing
with some of the comments that I have heard by both the minister and the member
for The Maples (Mr. Cheema).
I was pleased to hear that the Premier had
recently made comments in the
*
(1150)
I find that very significant that that
includes the concept of co‑operation, the concept of universality, the
concept of working together to achieve a better society. Those are all very, very laudable and valid
goals. I think they are all aspects of
our health care system that we as Canadians utilize to distinguish
ourselves. I think it is very
important. I think it is also part of
the ongoing debate as to the whole question of where we are going as an economy
and as a society in general. As much as
I would like to discuss those general issues, I will confine my remarks to
basically those in the health care system.
I listened with a good deal of attention
to my good friend, the member for The Maples, and I respect his comments and
his advice on many occasions. I look
forward to his continuing tenure in this House for as long as that may be, and
I respect that. Although I must disagree
with some of his comments with respect to the entire process of health care
reform and the politicalization or the nonpoliticalization of the‑‑it
is too cute and convenient to whenever a critical issue comes up to say, well,
a political party is making politics of that.
In fact, one of our duties in the opposition is to raise valid criticisms.
Let me illustrate a classic example. In this budget that we are now reviewing, in
terms of these Supplementary Estimates, the minister has imposed a user fee on
ostomy supplies. After 20 or 30 years of
the home care supply system the minister has seen fit in this budget to
introduce a user fee. The effects,
generally, on 1,800 Manitobans who, for example, have colostomies or ostomy
supplies is quite profound. Many of them
are elderly. Many of them are on fixed
incomes.
It is incumbent upon us in the opposition
to point out to the minister the unfairness of the introduction of these user
fees. It is our duty to point out to the minister, on behalf of these people
and Manitobans in general, what the economics and social effect of this user fee
will be, particularly in light of the comments the minister made earlier and in
light of the comments the minister made on page V of the May Action Plan
report. Quote: User fees do nothing to
encourage effective utilization of health services, and they may serve as a
barrier to needed services for some people.
Well, one of our roles as the opposition
is to point out these issues and, if that is construed as being political, then
so be it because, if I did not raise those issues, if we did not bring those issues
to the attention of the public of
With respect to the principles of medicare
and reform, again, the minister quite accurately pointed out that all provinces
are going through some form of reform.
Most provinces have had a form of royal commission and/or studies, with
the exception of
As the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema)
has pointed out, almost all groups and everyone generally agrees with the
concepts in the reform plan but, again, let me point out a deficiency, let me
point out a major deficiency that we see and we recognize in this health reform
plan.
I attended several sessions conducted by
various members of the minister's health reform, Bernard Blais and others, to
try to get a handle, when I was appointed critic, on what was happening as
health reform and I took notes. On
several occasions I asked in Question Period of the minister to comment as to
whether or not those notes of the comments of those officials in his department
who were implementing the plan, whether or not those in fact were accurate, and
the minister made politics of it. So we
are in a position of not knowing at this point what is government policy and
what is not government policy.
Let me illustrate. All will agree that we should be moving away
from institutionalized based care. It
has been mentioned so often that it goes without saying. Community services are obviously the option,
less expensive community services. Why
is it, one year into the plan, when beds have been cut, I heard the ADM say
that the department is now, the reform agency of the government is now only
beginning to think of the community services they are going to put in place,
with the exception of mental health, which I will get to.
Well, Madam Chairperson, that flies in the
face of what is in the plan. Either you
are going to have community services in place or you are not, or, if you are
going to put them in place, you should have them in place prior to a shift of
services from institutional based care.
That is obviously not the case. Either that is not the case or the ADM got it
wrong, and the minister refused to confirm it in the House for us, so
consequently, as elected members of this Assembly, we were not able to get that
information to our constituents.
Therefore, when constituents phone me, when the public phone us and ask
for confirmation as to what government policy is or why their in‑law or
their parent or their brother or their sister has been forced out of a hospital
bed and has no home care, et cetera, we have a justifiable complaint. I think that is part of the reason that the
perception is quite clear in the public of
The member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema)
made comment about the history of our health care system, and I note that when
the system was brought in by the federal government, transitional funding was
brought in. Transitional funding was
brought in to allow for shift. We have
not seen that under this major change.
Now, I do not know if it was the minister
or the member for The Maples who said it is the most significant shift since
the 1930s, or at least since World War II.
If that is the case, then one would assume that some kind of
transitional funding or some kind of transitional plan would be put in place to
allow for that shift to take place. That
has not taken place.
Let me use another example to
illustrate. The pediatric bed closings‑‑we
were contacted by members of the public, parents, saying, what is
happening? Are the beds closing or are
the beds not closing? Is inpatient
surgery closing or is outpatient surgery closing or are both closing, Madam
Chairperson?
The minister's deputy minister had told
the parents one thing. The head of
Health Reform had told the parents another thing. We raised the question in the House, and of
course, the minister basically refused to give us an answer. So we were faced with the situation of not
knowing what was going on.
I cited an interim report of the
I would like to have had those
recommendations vetted and discussed with the patients and with the caregivers
involved prior to the implementation. A
recommended course of action to the minister was, perhaps you should have a
transitional period during which you would keep some beds open at St. Boniface
Hospital and the community hospitals to see how the transition works. If it works and functions, then proceed on
the basis that you are proceeding on.
But, of course, our concerns fell on deaf
ears, and there was no response. Where
is the constructive communication? Where
is the response, and where is the leadership when the leadership fails to heed
advice of any kind? In fact, advice is
generally seen as criticism. That is
very unfortunate, very, very unfortunate, Madam Chairperson, that when a
government gets into a mold‑‑I have seen it happen on many
occasions‑‑of only seeing the message in negative terms, then they
are in serious trouble, very serious trouble, and that is unfortunate.
Philosophically and principally, I think
that what is happening, the minister spent a good deal of time in his comments
talking about the funding and the money portion of the concerns regarding
health care, and I think that is probably accurate and probably reflects where
the government is going with respect to its health care package.
I believe that the government's concept of
medicare is radically different or more fundamentally different than most
Manitobans'. I think that the government's
concept of medicare is basically that it is there for catastrophic occasions,
that medicare should be a safety net for catastrophic occasions and that the
base of medicare should be winnowed and whittled and whittled down until it
forms a very small base. That is my
belief of where the government is heading, and I will give examples as to why I
believe that.
So the vision, as outlined in the reform
package, sounds well, particularly when reference is made to the five
fundamental principles of medicare, but the vision itself of this particular
government, I believe, is a narrower vision and envisions a medicare base that
is much smaller than the one that Canadians and Manitobans have come to
conventionally believe is the case, Madam Chairperson.
*
(1200)
Let me use an example, again, an
illustrative example, and that is the Children's Dental Program that used to be
a part of medicare in this province. It
was recognized as part of the provision of services by the Minister of Health,
by the Department of Health. Now, the
minister has stated on many occasions publicly that it was a very effective
program. The minister has stated that it
is a preventative program. The minister
stated that it is delivered on a community‑based level, and that is
interesting, because it meets most, if not all, of the requirements of the
minister's health care reform package. It meets all those requirements and the
minister has acknowledged that. But he
acknowledged that the program was cut, and he said this at public meetings,
only because of financial reasons. He
has yet to cite any other reasons other than financial reasons that it got
hacked and slashed in the budget.
Why is that? It was offered up because I suspect that the
government sat around the table and said, well, look this is not really part of
our basic medicare package and we can afford to let this go, even though it
meets all of the requirements of our reform package. Further, it appears, certainly from a public
meeting that I attended with the minister and certainly from his answers in the
House, and I have no other basis on which to make an opinion, that no objective
analysis was done of this program. Not a scintilla of evidence has been offered
by this minister either for or against why the program was cut other than to
say we could not afford it, Madam Chairperson.
As a result, when reasoned analysis
presented to the minister indicated that, for example, for the government to
save $11 million over three years through the loss of this program, those same
parents will be out of pocket $22 million, the minister dismisses it. How does he dismiss it? He dismisses it rhetorically. Does he offer any evidence, does he offer one
scintilla, one shred of evidence contrary, Madam Chairperson? No, he does
not. He does not offer any, because he
has no analysis. If he has analysis, he
should table it, but he does not.
So I return back to the point I commenced
on, and that is basically that the government's philosophical approach to
medicare is radically different than I think most Manitobans' and certainly
radically different than that by members of this side of the House.
I touched earlier on the whole issue of
user fees that have been introduced by the government. The minister likes to call user fees
contributions, Madam Chairperson. He
calls them contributions, a euphemism for user fees. I do not know who he is trying to fool, but
he calls them contributions. His own
briefing notes with respect to the air ambulance Northern Patient
Transportation program calls them user fees.
He introduced them on ostomy and other home care supplies. He calls them contributions. The fact remains they are user fees.
They run totally contrary to the stated
purpose. The minister this very morning
said he is opposed to user fees, and yet in this budget he has introduced user
fees, and in the budgets previous he has introduced user fees. How do we as members of the opposition, or
how do members of the public attach any credibility to any statements where the
minister says one thing and does exactly the opposite? Why can he not at least stand up and say,
yes, we have determined that we have to introduce user fees on home care
supplies? Now we will not agree with him
on that, but at least he would be intellectually accurate.
At this point he is not, because he has
introduced user fees under the guise of so‑called contributions. I hope he is taking all those calls that he
is getting and letters that we are getting from those users, and I will
continue to pass them on to his office, because it is quite distressful to hear
on a daily basis from these people, many on fixed incomes and senior citizens,
who are now forced to pay user fees on the basis‑‑and I might add,
a grave concern of ours is that the entire home care supply program may be
quashed by this government.
The minister did say in the House that the
program was not going to be cut. I would
like some assurances that the program as it exists will not be cut and that all
of those who receive home care supplies will continue to do so through that
program without user fees.
A more difficult issue in terms of health
care, Madam Chairperson, is the whole question of responsibility and leadership
and who has the responsibility and who has the leadership in this government
for the health care policy as it exists.
There is a concept in law called piercing the corporate veil, and that
is, in law we have the concept that there is a veil that sits in front of a
corporation, and courts and legal agencies are loath to go behind the corporate
veil, that is to go beyond the boards of directors to the shareholders, for
example, to make them responsible for their actions, and that is a principle in
law.
There is also a political device that
offloads responsibility onto organizations and onto groups and onto
institutions and bodies in order to insulate ministers from being responsible
for the decisions that are taken on a daily basis. The minister smiles because he knows that is,
in fact, true, that the minister has offloaded responsibilities onto
institutions and has conveniently shunted them aside by creating studies and
organizations and effectively refuses to answer questions and refuses to take
responsibility for his actions. Time and
time again in this Chamber we see that case.
That has happened in the health care field in spades, and I think the
minister has actually refined it to an art form in terms of not taking
responsibility for his actions and offloading responsibility for his actions.
Let me give some illustrations. Again, when we asked questions in this House
with respect to the children's pediatric program, what was the minister's
response? The minister's response was,
phone Dr. Aggie Bishop. The minister
made the decision. I attended a health
care forum when Bernard Blais, the minister's chief reform bureaucrat, said,
all bed closure decisions are made by the minister. I will repeat that in case the minister did
not hear it, because he said, all bed closure decisions are made by the
minister.
The minister refused to acknowledge
that. He is nodding in the affirmative
now. Ergo, if the minister is nodding in
the affirmative and therefore agreeing that all bed closures are ultimately
made by him, I acknowledge that and I appreciate that he has acknowledged that
he makes those decisions. Therefore, he
is responsible for the ramifications and the actions, not those hospital
executives out there. They are not
responsible for those decisions. It is
the minister's responsibility and he ought to accept responsibility for when
the services are there and he ought to accept responsibility when the services
are not there.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): You have got it
wrong. You should blame your deputy for
everything.
Mr. Chomiak: The member for
Mr. Enns: You stay around here long enough, you learn
how to do that.
Mr. Chomiak: The member for
Mr. Enns: Let us get back to that corporate veil that
he shrouded himself in.
Mr. Chomiak: The member for
Last year in the Estimates process, Madam
Chairperson, the minister said, and I quote on page 1502, the best health is a
secure job. We agree with that, and I do
not want to get into an economic debate about the failings of this government to
provide secure employment in this province, that can wait for another occasion,
but I want to dwell for a second on the minister's comments because one of the
greatest concerns that we have about what is going on in the health care
system, aside from those I have already illustrated, is the lack of security by
those caregivers involved in the system.
The feeling of helplessness, the feeling of hopelessness that is
experienced by those caregivers in the health care field now is absolutely
appalling.
*
(1210)
It is very, very difficult for those
people, and we are talking about thousands and thousands of primary direct
caregivers, to adequately provide the kind of care that is necessary in our
health care system. It is necessary for
the healing process to occur.
It is very difficult for them to carry out
their jobs effectively when the government fails to provide information, when
the government fails to answer questions, when the government fails to outline
what its plan is, when the government fails to put in place any kind of
transitional funding or job retraining programs. The uncertainty and the lack of information
in this system is, and I cannot think of a better term, appalling. It is the most striking feature that I have
encountered in the field since I became Health critic as a result of my
meetings with all of those in the health care system. It is almost to the point of no return.
It is ironic that in the context of
speaking about preventative health care and maintaining good health that the minister
last year would say that the best health is a secure job, that all of those
involved generally in the system for whom the minister is responsible feel
very, very insecure. It creates even
more difficulties in the health care field, in particular, when they cannot
adequately and properly carry out the caregiving job that they are required to
do.
The minister talked about the hundreds and
hundreds of people that he has talked to with respect to health care reform and
feedback, et cetera. From my perspective,
I think, most of the discussion regarding health care reform has been one
way. It has been from the minister
down. It has been from the bureaucratic
level down‑‑[interjection] The minister comments he is struck by
the term "the corporate veil" again, that it is no inconsistency to
be behind a corporate veil and to hide behind decision making but at the same
time to not listen to what is coming up from the bottom up and at the same time
to direct those for whom you are responsible to do your bidding without taking
responsibility for the bidding.
I see the minister and the member for
I could use numerous illustrations. I have numerous illustrations of every
comment, in fact, that I am making. I
will just use one example of the lack of communication.
The minister indicated, again, with the
pediatric closings, that MMA, for example, had been consulted. I have a letter on my desk from the MMA that
says they were not consulted on those changes.
Again, it is a perfect example of the lack of information and the
difficulties that are occurring in the health care reform field when the
minister indicates that the affected agencies and bodies have been communicated
with and they in fact indicate they have not been communicated with.
In fact, when one talks about the
pediatrics‑‑I will give the department credit. The minister's deputy minister did speak with
some of the individuals involved when they phoned his office. Bernard Blais,
the head of Health Reform also spoke with some of those others. The problem was, they were getting different
information from both of them. Even when
information was being communicated to patients and those parents of patients,
Madam Chairperson, they could not get it right.
When they did provide the information, they did not get it right.
The minister also radically altered the
Pharmacare program as we know it in this province last, I believe, July when
they changed the entire approach and methodology to how drugs would be listed
on the formulary. The concept, as I
understood it, was at one time, generally, if it was approved by Health and
Welfare
It is noteworthy that when I raised the
question again in the House about the lack of communication, the minister
talked about a pharmacist or some other individual representative coming up to
him in B.C. and saying they wish their minister was as forthright as this
minister, yet I read a quote from the registrar or the secretary of the
Pharmaceutical Association who talked about the incredible lack of consultation
by this government and the chaos that resulted as a result of the
implementation of the new changes by the very individuals who are responsible
for it.
There is another illustration of the
inability or the unwillingness on the part of this government to communicate
with basic caregivers, never mind, Madam Chairperson, the general public.
I note that I have been given time. I do not anticipate I will be getting leave
on this. I will quickly wrap up my
comments because we have much discussion to continue with yet.
The mental health reform is obviously the
government's prototype of where it is going to move in some health reform. Of all of the things government has done in
health, obviously mental health is the furthest advanced and probably the best
thought out. There are some serious
difficulties in that particular process, but at least the government is a
little further advanced in that particular process.
We have offered, and I hope the government
will support us in terms of our health reform, an accountability act that will
provide for some accountability and responsibility on the part of the minister
and the government with respect to health reform and will provide the public
with an opportunity to deal with many of the issues. Perhaps we can reverse this trend of the
government corporate veil being dropped down, this curtain being dropped down
on the public with one‑way communications. The analogy that it actually brings to mind
is the Wizard of Oz, but I will stay off of that analogy.
I know the minister is very, very
concerned about hearing comments about his hiring of the highest‑paid consultant
probably in the history of this province, and that is just in Canadian
dollars. We will be asking the minister
many questions about that particular process and about the whole question of‑‑and
I see that my time is up, regrettably.
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Chairperson: Leave?
Mr. Chomiak: The minister has provided me with leave.
Madam Chairperson: The minister has indicated‑‑is it
the will of the committee to grant leave for the honourable member for Kildonan
(Mr. Chomiak) to continue his opening remarks? [agreed]
Mr. Chomiak: I thank you, Madam Chairperson. Through you, I thank the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard), the member for
I know that all members are anticipating
my return to my comments so, without further ado, I will continue down the path
and allow the minister to continue taking notes as we discuss my brief comments
in the opening of these debates during the Estimates process.
*
(1220)
I actually do not anticipate going on too
much longer, Madam Chairperson, because I do want to cover considerable
territory and ground in this area. Most
of my comments have been reflected before in the House, but I do appreciate the
opportunity of touching on a few other areas in general.
It is our view, Madam Chairperson, that
the government and the minister realized they were in serious trouble with
respect to their health reform package and brought in outside help to try to
salvage the package when they realized that it just was not flying and when
they realized that they were in serious trouble.
That help was brought in the form of a
U.S. based consultant who has now revised all of her charts and put little
maple leaves on the overhead projectors, et cetera, and who has come in now to
rationalize this system and who talks about, again, as consultants have a
tendency to do, and I have had considerable dealings with consultants, a
process and talks about putting in place a reformed health care system that
will meet all of the criteria outlined by the minister in his health care
package but which we have serious misgivings about. We are very thankful that the minister
actually tabled the contract. It is
certainly my opinion and it is my opinion that the contract would not have been
tabled had we not been so vociferous in our discussion in the House and had we
not been so on top of the situation to force the minister to table the contract
and allow us to look at it in detail.
Some of our concerns with respect to the
consultant concern‑‑and I just might add as an adjunct, I had
mentioned this before in the House that bringing in a U.S. consultant who has
an entirely different view of the health care system and the Canadian health
care system as reflected earlier in my comments creates at the very beginning a
difficult situation.
We have seen examples, and I have been
told, and this is hearsay, that when this consultant met with individuals at a
particular hospital, she was unaware of the cultural make‑up or
unconcerned about the cultural make‑up of that particular institution or,
more accurately, I should say the linguistic make‑up and the linguistic
nature of that particular institution.
When asked by assembled nurses at a discussion, she was unaware and
unconcerned, perhaps both, about the effects of Bill 22 on the profession when,
in fact, the effects of Bill 22 on nurses and on health caregivers is quite
profound given what is happening in our health care system. Those are just two illustrations of the
problem.
The numerous concerns that we have with
respect to the contract concern the whole definition of what is TQM, the whole
question as to what the end goal of the consultant is. One of my lingering concerns is the whole
question of home care and the $150,000 portion of the study that is going to
deal with home care. Is that a study of
a study or is it an actual analysis? I
almost found it boilerplate kind of terminology when I reviewed the contract to
see that the U.S. health care consultant was going to conduct a study of the
health care field, have focus groups and meet with those that are involved in
the system and, thirdly, provide a road map as to where we should be going on
home care.
Those are standard consultant kind of
terminology and reflect no understanding of the
The minister nods in the affirmative, and
I am going to diverge for a minute, because it brings to mind another point and
another comment that occurred when I attended another health care reform
meeting, and I have attended many. The
director of gerontology indicated that people would be moved from hospitals who
were "medically unstable." Now
I asked the minister about that and the minister huffed and puffed and talked
about my being inaccurate, but in fact that is what she said.
My question to the minister then and my
question to the minister now will be: If
that is the case, and it is clearly the case that is happening, what systems
are in place to deal with those medically unstable people? I could cite several examples of individuals
who have contacted me, who by my layperson's viewpoint have not been adequately
dealt with in their medical condition.
When you look at the number of people who
have been moved out of institutions, and you look at the number of people who
have been sent home or not admitted to hospital, it begs the question, are the
resources now in place to deal with those particular individuals, particularly
when in my own constituency, the constituency I represent, I have on numerous
occasions encountered individuals who have not received the kind of care they,
to my mind as a layperson, should have received and yet they were not
"medically unstable." What
happens when those people are in the system and they are already in the
system? We are very concerned about what
is happening in the home care field and what kind of care is going to be
provided.
We are also concerned about the lack of co‑ordination
of services by this ministry together with the other ministries of
government. I cite the example again of
the nurses from what used to be the Shriners Hospital‑‑the name
escapes me at this point‑‑that was effectively shut down and turned
into a day facility.
An Honourable Member: The Children's
Mr. Chomiak: The Children's
Just let me set the context of this, Madam
Chairperson, because this is significant, I believe. That is, we have a situation where the
These individual nurses put together a
prototype program that was pioneered in
This program, as I understand it, was cut
and the minister said in several weeks he would be putting in place a program
that would accommodate and deal with that.
I do not believe at this point, and it is now June 3, that a program has
been put in place. We raised this issue
in March, early March, I believe. The effect of this has been students do not
get the service, more nurses are out of a job, there is a potentially medically
serious situation that can occur and fourthly, if the minister wants to now
implement the program, he has to reinvent the wheel. That is not a timely response from this
department nor from the other departments.
It has been a sore point of ours for some time with respect to services.
*
(1230)
The minister always talks about old‑think
and old talk, and the pigeonholing of services by this government is classic
old‑think and classic old style.
Unless the government wakes up to its responsibilities in an
interdepartmental approach, then services will continue to deteriorate as they
have under this government in the health care field and all fields affecting
individuals.
Now that task is easier said than done,
and I recognize that, but the minister had on his plate a perfect example. All he had to say was, look at the program,
and say, yes, we will expand it, or alternatively, put in another program, or
even a third option, come up with some other program as he promised in this
House.
None of that occurred, Madam
Chairperson. The program, as I
understand it, died. The minister has
not provided an alternative, and we do not know what is happening in this area.
That is another example of the failure of this government to grasp some of the
issues that were occurring in the health care field and in the field in
general.
There is no transitional funding, no transitional
mechanisms in place to deal with the loss of jobs that are inevitably occurring
as a result of this government and this approach to health care. I indicated earlier that the significant
changes would certainly warrant this kind of transitional funding, but it is
not in place.
Instead we see funding, for example,
lottery funding, that is going into the system now going to pay for the
consultant who will then tell the government, I presume, which people to cut
and which people not to cut.
The other concern is the lack of
accountability control over that process.
It has now been several months.
The plan is behind time. What is
that consultant doing? What is the time
line? Have they been met? We will be asking those questions, and the
minister, I hope, will be prepared to answer them as we go throughout this
process.
We are also looking for an accounting from
the minister as to what is happening in terms of the rural health care reform.
Again, we heard a report in the media that rural health care reform is off
target. That would not surprise us given
that virtually no target had been met by the government other than the bed
closures.
The minister said in this House, and I
will take him at his word, that the rural health care reform is on target, as
indicated in his May 1992 Action Plan.
We would like some details on that because we hear, and I do not know if
the government or the minister hears, concerns expressed by rural
Frankly, I have stated that if the
government implements the kind of process in rural
The member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema)
took great pains to talk about how unpolitical this process had supposedly
been. Yet the government reacts to every
suggestion of this as if it is an adversarial system, as if any suggestion by
those involved in the system, and we use nurses as an example, that their
suggestions are somehow anti‑reform or antigovernment. You know, I suppose it is reasonable for
people to assume that in the public because there have not been a lot of
positive statements out there concerning this government, but if the government
were more open‑minded, I think we could go a lot further in terms of the
process. So we will be concerned about
what is happening in rural
Having completed those brief opening
remarks‑‑[interjection] Semibrief, as the member for
Madam Chairperson: I would remind the committee members that
debate on item 1.(a) is deferred to the completion of all other resolutions.
Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, my staff is entering, and
I just am going to excuse myself for a minute and a half, with leave of the
committee.
Madam Chairperson: You want a five‑minute break? Okay.
Is that the will of the committee?
The committee recessed at 12:36 p.m.
After
Recess
The committee resumed at 12:42 p.m.
Madam Chairperson: Would the Committee of Supply please come to
order. Would the minister's staff please
enter the Chamber.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I might take the opportunity to
introduce the staff who have just joined me.
My Deputy Minister, Mr. Frank Maynard; Assistant Deputy Minister in
charge of Health Reform, Mr. Bernard Blais; Assistant Deputy Minister of
Finance, Mr. Fred Anderson; Director of Policy and Planning, Denis Roch.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, just at the onset, I
wonder if the minister might provide me with some direction. I believe that the member for The Maples (Mr.
Cheema) indicated he would be proceeding to ask questions in terms of the
health reform package, and I am wondering, at this particular appropriation
1.(b) if the minister finds it convenient, given his staff, that we deal with
that extensively at this point or at some later point. You know, it is of no consequence to myself,
but I am just looking for direction from the minister.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, this is as good a spot as any to
deal with the health reform process.
There is only one precondition I would ask my honourable friend if he
might consider abiding by, the critic for the second opposition party will not
be here this afternoon and, should we pass any lines, that we have the
opportunity to go back so he can pose questions Monday if we pass
anything. I would like to do that in
courtesy to the second opposition.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, yes, I am in complete
agreement as well in fact. I am not
clear now; I anticipated he would be back, which is one of the reasons why I am
assuming we will be dealing with health reform at this point but, certainly, I
will agree with that.
I am looking at a chart entitled
Implementing The Action Plan Organization Structure. Underneath that is a Deputy Minister,
Implementation Steering Committee, Expanded Implementation Committee, Co‑ordinating
Committee, Policy Support and Linkages. I believe it is a standard package that
is provided by the health reform people to various groups. Is the minister or his staff relatively
familiar with this chart?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, from the distance I have to
admit to my honourable friend that at the ripe age that I am my eyes are not as
good as they used to be and I am not sure what my honourable friend has in his
hand that I am confirming or acknowledging existence of.
We have, in terms of our reform
presentations, a package that is made available I believe at the meetings. If that is part of the package, then, yes.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I am going to be asking
specific questions on this particular plan.
I am just quickly looking for a duplicate copy so I can provide it to
the minister so that we are speaking off of the same sheet. While I look through my notes for a duplicate
copy I would like to ask the minister, who comprises the implementation
steering committee, if it is still in existence?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, there is a core group of senior
staff and then, depending on the issue that is being considered for
implementation, we have in effect a rotational membership of expertise in given
areas that can be added to the staff.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
So depending on a given topic the
membership has consistency but it also has variability.
Mr. Chomiak: I then take it from the minister's reply‑‑I
am sending him over a copy, an extra that I have, of the particular sheet so we
can be working off of the same sheet.
The implementation steering committee is a
body comprised of members of the minister's department. On occasion it is augmented by experts from
the various fields that are dealing with the minister. Is that correct?
Mr. Orchard: The implementation steering committee has a
core of senior management people, ADM director, and depending on the issue may
bring in other individuals within the ministry if they have expertise that is
needed in coming to recommendations on the given program area. That membership can be external to the
ministry as well.
Mr. Chomiak: I take it, therefore, that recommendations
come from the implementation steering committee to the deputy minister and then
are forwarded to the minister for final decision making. The question, I take it, that recommendations
come from the implementation steering committee through the deputy minister to
the minister's desk?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, that is correct.
*
(1250)
Mr. Chomiak: The Rural Health Advisory Council is attached
to this flow chart as an adjunct on this chart under Policy Support and
Linkages. I would therefore assume that
with respect to rural health decision making, a recommendation would come from
the Health Advisory Council to the implementation steering committee and up
through the deputy minister to the minister. Correct?
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend indicates that in terms
of the lateral attachment of Policy Support and Linkages, the chart my
honourable friend gave me has provincial committee, Centre for Health Policy
and Evaluation task forces, consultants and ongoing reviews.
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, that is what I have. One of the other groups on there is the Rural
Health Advisory Council. Is that not the
case? It is also an adjunct that
provides Policy Support and Linkages.
Mr. Orchard: The rural reform advisory committee reports
to myself through my deputy minister.
Mr. Chomiak: So the Rural Health Advisory Council reports
directly to the minister. Can the
minister give us a status report as to what the status of that council is in
its recommendations at this point?
Mr. Orchard: I presume my honourable friend is wanting to
have clarification around a recent CBC Radio report in which the reporter
indicated that it would be 12‑ to 24‑month delay in rural reform
implementation. Is that where my
honourable friend is eventually going to get to? Because if that is where my honourable friend
is eventually going to get to, I want to indicate to my honourable friend, in
part or whole, although one can never know how quite these reports come to the
conclusion they do, but my honourable friend might be aware that starting,
well, it varied, but ostensibly, say, starting in January, a lot of our rural
care providers, boards, institutions started a collaboration project within
communities, between communities, in terms of developing plans where they might
find opportunities for affiliation, collaboration of service delivery.
There was a process of providing those
plans to the rural reform advisory committee by March 31, and we provided an
extension of about a month or so. We
provided a modest extension because some of the individual groups indicated
they were having difficulty meeting the March 31 deadline.
Our plan of action from square one in
terms of receipt of those plans was to give them review and provide advice back
to those organizations as to what worked, what did not work in terms of the
department's overview, which I think my honourable friend can appreciate, maybe
take, say, a somewhat larger perspective than he might expect to emanate from
an individual community or couple of communities, neighbouring
communities. In receiving those reports
and doing a review, advice was sent back, I think, pretty generally to all proponents
that they should take the opportunity over the next number of months to revisit
and try to attempt a larger collaboration in terms of efforts between maybe a
wider area of communities.
We expected that the first consultations
would not be the final acceptable proposals from communities or to communities.
So, in asking for more or a larger picture collaboration to be part of a
subsequent submission, we were not moving significantly away from what we
envisioned to be the plan of action, and the development of a plan of action,
but it was interpreted that this was a delay of 12 to 24 months in terms of
health care reform in rural Manitoba.
I think that emanated from an interview
with one of our senior departmental officials wherein there is a difference
between the process of developing and accepting plans and seeing them finally
implemented. I think quite possibly
there was some confusion that, when you expect this to be implemented, about
two years down the road is not an unusual expectation to have some of these
collaborations in place and working, as opposed to a conceptual framework to
develop those changes happening in a much shorter time frame. So I indicate to my honourable friend that,
although there was the impression left by the news report, in this case it was
CBC Radio, there was an almost two‑year delay to be expected in rural
health reform initiatives. That is not
the case. The process is ongoing and
will be a process of, I would be I think quite legitimate to speculate,
continuing consultation back and forth between the rural advisory committee and
the proposing groups of communities and facilities who see opportunity in
collaboration of service provision.
Mr. Chomiak: The minister indicated that generally the
proposals went back from the advisory committee to the communities, and he can
correct me if I am misquoting him. The
proposals went back from the advisory committee to the communities asking for
"larger districts."
Can the minister maybe elaborate as to
what he means by that or is he generally talking in terms‑‑well, I
will let the minister elaborate.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not think that
needs any elaboration. I think that was
the essence of the message and communication back.
Mr. Chomiak: Can I take it from that response, therefore,
that most communities were‑‑there was, as I understand it, a 10,000‑person
catchment area generally given as guidelines.
Can I assume from that that the communities came back with smaller
proposed areas that did not meet that or has the department changed the
parameters?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, my honourable friend
might well know that the suggestion of 10,000 population served was suggested
as a minimum opportunity for collaboration between communities. On the upper limit, there was none. I think it is fair to say that most come in
close to the 10,000, but there were areas significantly larger providing
opportunity for all to revisit in terms of a larger area of collaboration.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister briefly outline what were
the primary two or three problems that were encountered by the advisory
committee in terms of the larger catchment areas? Is there any kind of consistency that the
minister can outline for us in terms of difficulties that were encountered that
required not a revisit but a readjustment?
Mr. Orchard: I think the rural advisory committee saw an
opportunity for building upon a base of collaboration that was identified and
making it a wider base of collaboration and invited the communities to so
participate and develop.
*
(1300)
Mr. Chomiak: How will the implementation steering
committee interact with the advisory council report?
Mr. Orchard: To analyze proposals, to make sure they have integrity
in terms of service delivery, that they offer workable collaboration, that they
deal with program achievement that is not going to add to costs but contain
costs and often reduce costs‑‑there are opportunities. Many communities have already exercised those
opportunities for cost saving, particularly administrative levels. Other communities have not. The steering and implementation committee
will analyze each proposal and judge it to its merits. Hopefully, I will receive recommendations to
approve, from the implementation steering committee, programs that make sense
as we did with the consolidation of pediatrics at Children's Hospital. It was a consolidation that made program
sense.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chair, so the minister stated, the
Rural Health Advisory Council will report directly either to himself or through
the deputy minister. The minister can
correct me if I am wrong. The
implementation steering committee will look at each proposal of the Rural
Health Advisory committee in terms of program, sense of co‑ordination, et
cetera, and then make recommendations to the minister on top of that.
I am trying to understand the
process. The minister can enlighten me,
and we can cut through all of this if I do not understand it, but is that not
the way it is going to work?
Mr. Orchard: In terms of expediting changes in the way
health care services are delivered in rural
Again, I harken back to my honourable
friend's first question in which I indicated there is a core group of staff,
but there is also, where appropriate for the given programs, the appropriate
expertise within the department that can be part of that committee on issues
where they have expertise within the ministry to report.
The reporting structure is, we analyze the
integrity of the recommendations to suggest greater opportunity where they see
greater opportunity to then, when satisfied that the program as proposed can
work, makes sense, achieves objectives, recommend it through the deputy
minister to myself for implementation, if it makes sense.
It seems to me, from my honourable
friend's wrinkled brow, that he seems to think there is some trouble with using
expertise in the ministry to vet plans, or no.
I cannot quite understand my honourable friend's concern over process
here because what we are trying to do is accede to my honourable friend's
considerable caution at one stage in his opening remarks, where he wanted a
greater amount of input into decision making.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chair, the minister indicated
earlier in his comments that the Rural Health Advisory Council was reporting
directly to the minister. Is he now
saying the Rural Health Advisory Council is not reporting directly to the
minister?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, not that I want to
get into he said, you said, but I believe I indicated to my honourable friend,
the deputy minister will provide all recommendations from all of the committees
and all the suggestions that change, and it is through the deputy minister that
all the changes are reported to me.
I do not believe that I indicated to my
honourable friend that the rural reform committee reports directly to me.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, well, I stand to be
corrected, and I will review Hansard. I
had just assumed that earlier in his comments the minister had said, when I had
mentioned initially the Rural Health Advisory Council, the minister had
indicated that it was not an adjunct to the implementation steering committee
that was reporting directly to the minister or the deputy minister. But I will take those comments of the
minister at face value and what he said at this point. Can the minister outline for me who
specifically, and will he table the names of those individuals who are ongoing
members of the implementation steering committee?
Mr. Orchard: Yes.
Mr. Chomiak: Will those be tabled at this point or at the
next sitting of this committee?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Bernard Blais, Ms. Betty Havens, Mr. Reg
Toews, Mr. Frank DeCock, Ms. Sue Hicks, Mr. Fred Anderson, Mr. Dennis Roch, Ms.
Marge Watts.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister advise as to what the status
is of the provincial Imaging Advisory Committee?
Mr. Orchard: The provincial imaging committee may well
have a preliminary report ready within two to three months.
Mr. Chomiak: Could the minister advise us what the status
is of the
Mr. Orchard: Probably we will have that report within four
weeks.
Mr. Chomiak: Could the minister advise whether the
chairperson, Mr. Moe Lerner, is working full time on that particular report?
Mr. Orchard: I am advised that is correct.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister advise what the status is of
the provincial surgical services committee?
*
(1310)
Mr. Orchard: Given, Mr. Acting Chairperson, that there are
a number of individual programs under review, I am advised that the range of report
to government will be approximately two months to six months.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister
advise us to the status of the provincial intensive care services committee?
Mr. Orchard: That committee is not as far advanced, and it
is expected that possibly by the end of the calendar year we might have
recommendations from them.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, returning to the
provincial surgical services committee report, which the minister has indicated
anticipates a response in two to six months, the terms of reference were fairly
extensive on that particular committee report.
They were to construct a provincial picture for surgical services; to
inventory and feed into the process evaluation from external sources; to develop
a communications strategy, to identify issues which require resolution; to
recommend a strategic planning framework for surgical services for the
province; to recommend direction for urban distribution, setting of major
surgical programs, feasibility of establishing a multiorgan transplant
movement, examination of alternate care delivery models and consideration of
the degree to which medical education requirements shape surgical programs.
Has that mandate changed dramatically than
what I have briefly outlined?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the outline may be
brief, but my honourable friend would surely concede that the mandate is quite
extensive and is consistent.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate when he anticipates
that Frank Manning will be reporting on the obstetrical issue?
Mr. Orchard: Probably by mid‑July.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister
indicate when he will be making announcements with respect to the ophthalmology
program?
Mr. Orchard: I think quite possibly this month.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the ophthalmology
working group was of the impression from discussions‑‑and the
minister can correct me if I am wrong‑‑that they had or individuals
had with the minister and deputy minister that a response would be anticipated
by June 8. Has that time frame now been
backed up?
Mr. Orchard: Yes.
Mr. Chomiak: Will the minister be reviewing the
recommendations with the ophthalmology working group prior to the announcement?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, not that I want,
because we are having such a nice friendly start with the Estimates. One of the reasons why we are somewhat beyond
the target is contrary to my honourable friend's presentation in his opening
remarks. It is because of more extensive
consultation and more extensive seeking of opinion from professionals and
others that we are unable to meet the deadline.
The deadline actually was, I think, mid‑May so that we are trying
to assure ourselves that we have met legitimate concerns and have put to rest
concerns which may have more to do with personal preferences than science and
medical outcome.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, could the minister
perhaps outline what some of those concerns are that he thinks do not adequately
address the issue and are other than scientific?
Mr. Orchard: That process is under discussion.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate whether the issue
of the use of CT scanner equipment for doctors involved is one of those issues
that is under discussion and what the status of that might be?
Mr. Orchard: That is part of the discussion.
Mr. Chomiak: At a function I attended about a month ago in
which there were representatives from all walks of the medical and caregiving
community, there was an assumption that the decision with respect to
ophthalmology had already been made and that it was final, and that it was a
very strong assumption. Does the
minister have any idea how that particular‑‑I will suggest it was
stronger than a rumour‑‑was perhaps circulating at that particular
function. It was made with respect to
ophthalmology, as has been concluded by most people out in the medical
community from at least what I could gather.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I believe I indicated
to my honourable friend that would hopefully be made this month.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister please outline for us what
the status is of the Urban Hospital Council?
Mr. Orchard: It is still functioning and in a broader
mandate.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister table the terms of reference
of that mandate?
Mr. Orchard: We can provide that mandate.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate when he anticipates‑‑now
the minister indicated he would be receiving the Manning report mid‑July,
I believe, or the end of July, mid‑July.
Can the minister indicate whether or not the report will be made public
at that time?
Mr. Orchard: I apologize to my honourable friend, I missed
the question.
*
(1320)
Mr. Chomiak: When Frank Manning makes his report to the
minister by mid‑July, can we assume that the report will be made public
at that time?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, when we hopefully are
able to make the announcement around obstetrics in the city of
Mr. Chomiak: Perhaps I can assist the minister. Perhaps the minister could just make the report
public when it is presented to him. Is
the minister considering that option?
Mr. Orchard: We are willing to consider all options.
Mr. Chomiak: When the Manning report is made, I assume it
will be going to the deputy minister, who will then make recommendations, I
assume, to the minister. How will the
implementation steering committee become involved, and at what point will the
implementation steering committee become involved in that process?
Mr. Orchard: In reviewing the report with any recommendations
that might be attached thereto to determining the appropriateness of those
recommendations, confirming them, modifying them, changing them and assuring
that what is recommended to the deputy and to myself will effectively provide
the service that is under review.
Mr. Chomiak: Their exist working groups. Does the minister have a listing of what the
various working groups are? Can he
provide us with a listing of those various working groups?
Mr. Orchard: We can pull that together for my honourable friend.
Mr. Chomiak: I assume that we will receive them next
session or perhaps later in this session.
We will have an opportunity to further explore those issues when we
receive receipt of those documents, notwithstanding we may have passed this
item in terms of the appropriation number.
Mr. Orchard: I am at the will of the committing.
Mr. Chomiak: Are there any outstanding reports from the
Urban Hospital Council?
Mr. Orchard: I am having a little trouble with my
honourable friends' phraseology. Is my
honourable friend asking, has the Urban Hospital Council made a report to the
ministry recommending a given change or a given consolidation or a given
initiative that we have not announced publicly, an implementation plan? Is that what my honourable friend is asking?
Mr. Chomiak: Yes.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, not to me.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate when he anticipates
receiving a report from the Urban Hospital Council?
Mr. Orchard: On what?
Mr. Chomiak: On outstanding issues.
Mr. Orchard: When they have completed the report and can
advance it to the ministry.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister give
us a status update as to the status of the work being undertaken by APM
associates and Ms. Connie Curran?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I think we are almost
on track in terms‑‑slightly delayed from the six‑ to eight‑week
initial contract delivery, where we will have the opportunity in the near
future, this month, to sign off and finalize the deliverables on the major
portion of the contract.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister give
an update as to the status of the working group dealing with rural hospital bed
reallocations?
Mr. Orchard: That is an ongoing process of investigation.
Mr. Chomiak: I assume all of the working groups,
therefore, that is, the urban bed closure working group and the other working
groups, have any of them completed their tasks?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I know it was a slip
of the tongue by my honourable friend, but there is no urban bed closure
committee.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, who comprises the co‑ordinating
committee that reports on this flow chart to the implementation steering
committee?
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Orchard: Ms. Heather Kapusky, Ms. Phyllis MacDonald,
Ms. Val Mann, Ms. Connie Becker and Ms. Marge Watts.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, could the minister
identify their job titles?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, we will provide those to my
honourable friend.
Mr. Chomiak: I return to an earlier question. Can the minister advise what the status is of
the 200 urban bed working group, who roughly comprises that group, and what the
status is of their ongoing discussions?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, there is no working group
specifically assigned to that task. That
task is part of the consideration in terms of surgical program reviews.
Mr. Chomiak: Is the minister saying today that there does
not exist or never did exist a 200 rural bed working group, a 200 urban bed
working group and a financial working group?
*
(1330)
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, the 240 beds that my honourable
friend refers to are the teaching hospital beds, I presume. [interjection] What
240 beds is my honourable friend referring to if it is not that? Those were identified in The Health Action
Plan, and as we speak I think they have been retired from service. At the two teaching hospitals there were no
specific groups that were assigned to that task. It varied program by program with expertise
from the hospitals as well as the ministry and the community and the community
hospitals which were involved in the transfer of some of the patient services,
and it was part of the management structure in part or in whole by the Urban
Hospital Council, and by varying ongoing working relations between institutions
and the ministry.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister outline for me what is the
role of the co‑ordinating committee that reports to the implementation
steering committee?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, to receive, analyze and comment
on proposals.
Mr. Chomiak: Proposals from whom, Madam Chairperson?
Mr. Orchard: From working group through working group through
working group as we have discussed earlier on.
Mr. Chomiak: Well, the minister has indicated that working
groups report to the co‑ordinating committee, report to the
implementation steering committee, et cetera.
I am looking at a flow chart that indicates that and on this flow chart
is identified the 240 bed working group, the 200 rural bed working group, the
200 urban bed working group and the financial working group that the minister
says do not exist. So I am a bit
confused as to whom these working groups that do not exist, where these working
groups are, and why I am looking at a chart that has them specifically named
and why the minister denies that they are in existence.
Mr. Orchard: I agree with my honourable friend.
Mr. Chomiak: Is the minister agreeing that his explanation
is chaotic and does not make sense?
Mr. Orchard: No, Madam Chair. I am agreeing that my honourable friend is
confused.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister outline who these working
groups are that report to the co‑ordinating committee that the minister
said happens?
Mr. Orchard: We discussed them this morning and this
afternoon, Madam Chair.
Mr. Chomiak: I will ask the minister again if he will
indicate whether or not there was or is a 240 bed working group, a 200 rural bed
working group, a 200 urban bed working group and a financial working group that
reported or report to the co‑ordinating committee?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, those tasks and analyzing those
proposed redirection and/or closure of beds are part of a number of working
groups/task forces that are examining varying program areas that my honourable
friend has asked already today, when are they reporting, et cetera. Those are the areas from which will flow the
recommendations potentially which will impact on the number of beds dedicated
to a service, where those beds may well be and how the program of utilization
of those beds will be effectively undertaken.
Mr. Chomiak: The minister will table a list of those
working groups together with their mandates for us, I assume?
Mr. Orchard: I believe I answered that question once
already, Madam Chair.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister outline for us the number of
staff from the Department of Health that have been seconded to work with APM
and associates and/or Connie Curran and/or any of their other corporate
entities that are presently carrying on work in the Province of Manitoba at the
bequest of the minister in conjunction with the two larger teaching hospitals
and/or related organizations?
Mr. Orchard: Five to the two teaching hospitals.
Mr. Chomiak: I am sorry, can the minister repeat that
answer? I did not catch it.
Mr. Orchard: Five.
Mr. Chomiak: The minister indicated five. Can I assume from that answer that five full‑time
staff positions have been seconded to the teaching hospitals to work together
with the consultant?
Mr. Orchard: Five departmental staff are working with the
implementation of recommendations at the two teaching hospitals as a result of
the Connie Curran engagement by the hospitals to undertake a review of their
operational structure.
Mr. Enns: That is pretty clear, Dave.
Mr. Chomiak: The member for
Mr. Orchard: Yes, Madam Chair.
Mr. Chomiak: How does the senior ADM of Health Reform
figure into this schematic scheme that I earlier provided to the minister? Where does the senior administrator of Health
Reform figure into that particular flow chart that I provided to the minister?
Mr. Orchard: I think I indicated to my honourable friend,
on the implementation steering committee.
Mr. Chomiak: So to understand it, in terms of operations,
the Health Reform team's responsibilities and their reporting function to the
minister is through the implementation steering committee.
Mr. Orchard: No, Madam Chair.
Mr. Chomiak: Could the minister outline and elaborate what
their reporting structure is, what their flow structure is, and how they interact
with both the deputy minister, the minister, and the implementation steering
committee and the various bodies that comprise the minister's health reform
package?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, we have already answered
that. My honourable friend, if he looks
at the flow chart, sees the implementation steering committee reporting to the
deputy minister. The deputy minister's
responsibility is to report to the minister.
That is a relationship that is there in reform, was there before reform
for other initiatives of the department. The deputy minister reports to the
minister in the Ministry of Health. I
believe, and I will stand corrected, that that has been the working
relationship between the deputy minister and the minister in the Ministry of
Health for some number of years.
*
(1340)
I believe, and I will stand corrected if I
am wrong, it is the reporting relationship in almost every other, if not all
other, ministries.
The deputy minister reports to the
minister, and you can see from the chart that the deputy minister receives
reports from the steering committee, which has had advice that they can receive
from provincial committees, the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and
Evaluation and other experts.
The co‑ordinating committee receives
the task force reports, does the analysis, does the research into them for
consideration by the implementation steering committee in terms of
recommendations which are passed to the deputy minister and ultimately end up
being recommended to me, the minister.
That is why, even though my honourable
friend thought this was very confusing in his opening remarks, where he said
that the assistant deputy minister responsible for reform indicated that the
minister makes all the decisions on bed closures, that is correct.
That seems to fit to a significant degree
with my honourable friend's stated desire in alleging a corporate veil, I
believe were the words, that I am trying to avoid responsibility.
That is why the assistant deputy minister
indicated, and everyone in the ministry would indicate the same if so posed a
similar question, that I am ultimately responsible for the decision of the
department and of the Ministry of Health, including if and when we close beds,
if and when we consolidate services.
I as minister am responsible for making
the final decision. How we arrive at that decision engages again, contrary to
my honourable friend's remarks in his opening statement, a significant amount
of input.
We have spent, Madam Chair, the last hour,
in very brief answer, dealing with, what, a number of working groups and
committees comprised of individuals outside the department, inside the
department that are dealing with issues and trying to provide government with
the best policy options to maintain and preserve and protect medicare.
That is quite contrary to what my
honourable friend stated in his opening remarks where we do not consult.
We have just spent one hour and five
minutes talking in very precise answers, short answers, factual answers to my
honourable friend on all of the committees that, of course, he then in his
penchant says we are not consulting, we are not seeking advice. The process is
as we have described now on two or three different occasions.
Now, I realize my honourable friend is
newly the critic, and I have not had the opportunity to deal with my honourable
friend in this kind of a relationship, but I want to remind my honourable
friend that if he is hoping in some fashion to receive a different answer if he
poses the question in 21 different ways, he will not. That was the approach taken by his
predecessor, and I think it was 38 hours later or 40 hours later, we passed our
first line in Estimates.
I am at my honourable friend's disposal to
provide as much information as I can to my honourable friend, and we will
attempt to do that in as expeditious a fashion as possible, but already in the
first hour and five minutes of these Estimates, my honourable friend has asked
the same question on three different occasions to which he has received the same
answer. It may not be the answer he
wants or expects or would like to have, but unfortunately I cannot help him in
any other fashion.
Now, is my honourable friend still
confused? Because if he is, I can try to
help him understand the process of collaboration, a seeking advice, a seeking
input from a diversity of Manitobans as has been the hallmark of this whole
health reform process in the
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, well, we have just seen an
example of why we have problems in the Department of Health. One day in the House the minister says: No, outpatient surgery will not be
consolidated at the Health Sciences Centre; and the same day, an associate
deputy minister of the minister's department sends a letter to those same organizations
saying that, yes, it will be consolidated.
I provided the minister with a flow chart
that showed the implementation steering committee reported directly to the
deputy minister. I am looking at another
flow chart provided by the minister's own department which shows the
implementation steering committee reports to the senior ADM, Health
Reform. Two different flow charts to the
same department and the same minister, and the minister is wondering why there
is confusion. The parents are wondering why when they phone the deputy minister
they get one answer, and when they phone the associate deputy minister they get
another answer‑‑two different flow charts, two different flows of
information. It is no wonder, Madam
Chairperson, that the minister has to get very defensive and try to defend his
reforms and go on that process when, in fact, he is not even clear what their
procedures are in his own department.
If he is clear, perhaps he could elaborate
on that process. Why do I have a document dated November 2, 1992, which shows
the implementation steering committee reports to senior ADM, Health Reform, and
the document I have provided to the minister shows it reports directly to the
deputy minister. This was no trick that
I was trying to trap the minister in. It
is simply a point of clarification, information, to try to determine why there
is so much confusion out there.
But the response of the minister have
served to clarify for us as to why there is confusion in the department, as to
why parents phone the deputy minister and get one answer and they phone the ADM
and get another answer. Can the minister
clarify whether or not the implementation steering committee reports through
the senior ADM, Health Reform, or whether it does not? And which flow chart is
right?
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend must appreciate that
"reform" by its very definition means change. My honourable friend seems unwilling to
recognize that there is change. Now, my
honourable friend has often mentioned about confusion around the consolidation
of pediatrics at the Children's Hospital. [interjection] Yes, there was.
There was a recommendation that I accepted
that was unanimously agreed to by the Urban Hospital Council to consolidate all
pediatric inpatient services. That included
not‑for‑admission surgeries as well.
Now, Madam Chairperson, what caused the
greatest amount of confusion? I know my
honourable friend is quite sensitive on this issue, because my honourable
friend did exactly as the second opposition critic has advised him not to, and
that is to attempt to politicize the process of health care reform. My honourable friend in an interview on CKND‑TV
indicated that the emergency departments of all hospitals except Children's
would not accept children emergencies.
Madam Chairperson, that was wrong. My honourable friend was absolutely dead
wrong. When I mentioned that in the
House about a day after, you would not believe the scramble in the New
Democratic caucus room to get the transcript from that news broadcast to see
what their critic had actually said, because I give some credibility to the
research staff in the New Democratic caucus.
They recognized the danger that the statement by the member for Kildonan
(Mr. Chomiak), as Health critic, with some credibility presumably in making
these statements, they recognized the danger that that false statement could
have placed children in who, if they believed what the member for Kildonan had
erroneously stated, they might have by‑passed an emergency on the way to
Children's Hospital and compromised the health of their child.
Madam Chair, my honourable friend has
never admitted that he was in error in making that statement and has not
acknowledged that that could have compromised children, but I want to tell my
honourable friend the effect of that statement made by himself on the news on
CKND television news.
It caused a number of things. First of all, a flood of phone calls which is
even still trickling on into my office, wanting to know if children will
receive emergency services at the hospitals because of that statement. It has caused parents who have heard that
statement and nothing to the contrary to go directly to Children's Hospital
Emergency, when they do not have to.
They can receive care in other emergencies.
*
(1350)
If my honourable friend thinks that that
serves the public of
I will tell my honourable friend that the
process may well change internally as we gain more experience, as we find out what
works, what does not work, so that a flow chart may well modify. I suppose I
should put on the bottom of flow charts "this is subject to change,"
because that is what reform is all about.
We can talk about process, and I will deal
as much as I can and provide as much information around process to my
honourable friend that I can. But I
would hope that at some point in time we talk principle and we talk policy and
we talk direction, because I was intrigued with my honourable friend's opening
remarks wherein‑‑and I think I should find it because it was
actually the first time I have heard my honourable friend so admit.
My honourable friend said‑‑and
I may have the words slightly different, it will be in Hansard‑‑it
goes without saying that we should be moving away from institutional care.
That was an amazing statement from my
honourable friend, because observers of Question Period will see my honourable
friend of late preambling his questions in terms of closed hospital beds, et
cetera. Well, if that is the theatre or
the theatrics my honourable friend wants to put out in Question Period, my
honourable friend is either being somewhat dishonest with Manitobans there in
the preamble or somewhat dishonest today in his opening remarks where he says
without saying we should be moving away from institutional care.
I am greatly looking forward to the
opportunity, in addition to dealing with process, to deal with policy. Because I want to know from my honourable
friend where he thinks our policies have changed, our policies of reforms, the
direction we are taking are wrong. I
want those discussions sincerely to be held because my honourable friend may,
as has happened with the opposition critic from the second official opposition,
be able to provide myself and my staff and the ministry and the system better
advice on certain areas.
So I encourage my honourable friend to,
once he gets finished with the process, engage in the larger debate of policy
and direction so that we might all benefit from his wisdom and from his ideas
as representing the New Democrats in this province because New Democrats
definitely have ideas around health care. They have them in
I really want to encourage my honourable
friend as the new critic to engage in that kind of open policy debate, because
all of us will benefit from the direction that he may well want to provide in
terms of policy, and certainly we would get a sense and a flavour as to really
how much sincerity there is behind the statement made in his opening remarks
that it goes without saying we should be moving away from institutional
care. So let us deal with my honourable
friend's organizational questions and then move posthaste into a general policy
debate around reform.
Because my honourable friend will have
noted in my opening remarks I posed a number of questions in terms of whether
we can continue to fund the system as it has been funded in the past, whether
we need to undertake reform, whether the process is unique to Manitoba, what is
the end goal of reform, whether we should be talking about effectiveness in
health care service delivery, whether we should be engaging expertise inside
and outside the province. I would like
to get a check list from my honourable friend as to who he likes, who he does
not like and why. I mean, it is simply
not good enough to not like someone because of where they happen to live. There has to be a little more integrity to
one's dislikes. There has to be a little
more principle and reason behind them rather than just simply a raw opportunity
for opposition.
So if my honourable friend has a few more
questions on process, I would be pleased to try to answer them either
immediately or as soon as we can provide that information, and maybe we will
have an opportunity before we conclude this afternoon to talk about the
principle and the philosophy and the policy of health care reform. So my honourable friend might give us the
benefit of what policy portions they agree with and why, and what they do not
and why, and what they would suggest as alternatives.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister outline whether there are
any outstanding reports from the Health Advisory Network and what they are?
Mr. Orchard: I believe there is one.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate what that report
is?
Mr. Orchard: If my memory serves me correctly, I believe
it is the investigation around extended treatment beds in rural
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate when he anticipates
that report will be forwarded?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, I will.
Mr. Chomiak: Will that report be tabled and can the
minister indicate when approximately that will occur?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, I will try to provide that information.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate when he anticipates
when that report will be available?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I will provide that information
to my honourable friend.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate what the process is
for the health reform team, the ADM that does not appear on the flow chart,
what the process is for the public to receive one of the road shows‑‑and
that is not meant to debase‑‑how the public goes about receiving
the guidance and the advice of the ADM on health care reform in terms of one of
the presentations. What is the process
that it goes through? Is there a certain
number, is there certain groups? If, for
example, members in the constituency that I represent wanted to hear a
presentation, would they have access to it, et cetera? What is the process that it is going through
in terms of providing the public with that information concerning health care
reform?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, as my honourable friend might
appreciate a flexible decision in terms of the presentation, my senior
departmental staff, myself, have received innumerable invitations. We have attempted to comply and agree to most
of those invitations, but I know that I have not always been able to attend
every meeting that I have been invited to.
As minister, I am sure that there would be instances where an invitation
has not been able to be accommodated within the health reform implementation
steering committee. But I want to
indicate to my honourable friend that it is a significant number of meetings
that we have held both inside and outside the city of
What I will try to do, I had a list of
some six or seven or eight weeks ago as to how many presentations were made to
whom over the last number of months, we will attempt to provide an updated copy
of that so my honourable friend gets a sense of how extensive the presentation
opportunities have been in terms of health reform in the last eight or 10
months.
*
(1400)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, yes, I would appreciate a
copy of that. At the same time, I am
wondering if the minister could also table, together with a copy of that, the
list of recommendations that have been brought forward by the public with
respect to health reform, and the status of those particular recommendations as
a result of the consultative process that the minister indicated they have been
through.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, there have been questions
more than suggestions at a number of the public meetings where questions have
been posed on the basis of what was perceived to be going on. I know in some of the presentations, and I
will not speak for my senior staff, I have had to deal with a pretty
substantial amount of partial information in terms of the community
understanding of health care reform. The
one I have already dealt with, I will not deal with again.
I have been questioned on a number of
occasions about emergency services for children in
There has been the simple question, why
did we downsize our teaching hospitals?
When the explanation was given for instance that, yes, we downsized and
retired from service a number of beds at the two teaching hospitals, which we
have already discussed in part today, a lot of those questioners are quite
astounded to learn for the first time that there were 60 new long‑term
care beds built by this government, commissioned at Concordia Hospital, for
instance. They are equally astonished to
hear that there was a significant expansion of capacity at
In response to that question, they were
also astonished to find there was an expansion in bed capacity at Municipal
Hospitals, even though those announcements were linked directly in The Health
Action Plan because the tendency is, and I understand the tendency, I suppose
if my honourable friend, and I am only speculating here, but if my honourable
friend were making a presentation to a constituency annual meeting of the New Democratic
Party, I think my honourable friend would decry 240 beds being closed at St.
Boniface and the Health Sciences Centre.
I am quite sure that my honourable friend
would never tell that audience; but on the other hand, there are 60 beds being opened
at Concordia and I do not know the exact number, but 70, 64 beds at Deer Lodge
and 25 or 30, or whatever the number is, at Municipal. The point I am making, my honourable friend
would only present one half of the information.
One of the things that is even more
astounding, when I have the opportunity to present and to answer questions of
the public on health reform, is they are absolutely astounded about the number
of additional personal care home beds that have been brought into service in
the five years that we have been government in the
That is why when I opened my remarks, I
gave a brief overview of a number of expansions that we have been able to fund
in the last five years that I have been Minister of Health. I put those in, Madam Chairperson, very
selfishly, because the language that is occasionally used by my honourable
friend and others is always talking about cutbacks. That is the only language that ever seems to
emanate in terms of prefacing questions.
I have consistently tried to indicate that in the six budgets that we
have brought before the House to ask approval of, there has been a 38 percent
increase in funding by this government to health care.
The Home Care program has doubled, a
number of areas have increased very significantly, and all of this while our
population has remained relatively static, growing slightly, and all of this
while we are shifting the focus of health care, particularly in the last year
with the retirement of service of beds from the two teaching hospitals and
their replacement in physical new capacity in several other locations.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, it is too bad, therefore,
that the minister has not kept a list of recommendations and suggestions from
these numerous public meetings that have been held around the province, from
the very people that are affected on a daily basis by these so‑called
reforms. The minister indicated they do
not keep a record of what suggestions are made.
The minister indicated, as was indicated
in my opening remarks, it is a one‑way communication. They answer questions. The minister answers
questions. The minister hears what the
minister wants to hear. Then he responds,
and no better example exists than his response to that last question. I will not belabour that point. It is very sad and it is indicative of the
problem in this government that they do not maintain a list, the minister
obviously indicates they have not. They
do not maintain a list of suggestions that come from the public in these
numerous meetings.
I am sure the minister will table a
document indicating the number of meetings and the number of people that they
have talked to and there will not be one suggestion, clearly from the minister's
response because he ducked the question, there will not be one single
conclusion, one single recommendation that came from the public that the
minister even considered.
That is part of the problem when you are
behind a curtain of secrecy, behind a veil and a curtain, and you dictate
downward as to what shall occur in the health care system, and that is part of
the difficulty, clearly. I am very sorry
to hear that the minister has no list of those recommendations.
I suggest, I am making another positive
suggestion, that perhaps the minister should consider having staff go and
provide for suggestions and provide for recommendations from the public,
because if the minister could screw up the courage to go out and meet with the
public on a regular basis, he would find that the public are very concerned
about his health reforms and feel that they do not have adequate information
and feel that the government is not listening and feel that this process is not
effective and that the cuts to the beds and the dramatic cutbacks to hospital
budgets last year and this year, the clawbacks that took place, the lack of
information, are all contributing to confusion with the public and affect not
only the credibility of this government and this minister but the government
and all politicians in general. That is
very unfortunate, indeed, that that should occur.
*
(1410)
So I hope the minister, even though he has
not to this point listened to the public, I hope he will at least commence
listening, and perhaps he could start by helping for speedy passage of our
private member's resolution dealing with responsibility and accountability in
health reform. Perhaps by doing that we
could begin the process to begin listening to the public to get the reform
process back on the rails again.
Can the minister table the report that was
unanimously recommended, that the pediatric services all be consolidated at
Children's Hospital, that he referred to in his comments?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, it was a unanimous
recommendation by the Health Advisory Network to consolidate to Children's
Hospital.
Madam Chair, I know my honourable friend
is skilled in phraseology. As a trained
lawyer he will attempt to put conclusions on the record that would not
necessarily lead one to conclude that they had integrity and truth, and he has
done it just now.
I indicated to my honourable friend that
at the presentations, the majority of experience I have had is there has been
very direct questions as to why certain things have been done. When the answers were given, there was
satisfaction with the process of health care reform. Madam Chair, at no time in my answer to my
honourable friend did I say that we did not accept suggestions from the general
public, but my honourable friend chose to so indicate in his subsequent
statements.
Let me give you an example of some of the
suggestions that I have received. It has
been suggested to me that we increase the Continuing Care Program. That is why I mentioned in my answer to my
honourable friend that we have doubled the budget, and this year again the
budget for Home Care is up. That was a
positive response to a suggestion of increased home care made by citizens from
time to time at meetings. At other
meetings there has been the suggestion that support services for seniors work
and work well, and the program should be expanded. We have acceded to that, not in all cases yet
but we will. So, you know, for my
honourable friend to say that we do not accept suggestions from the general
public, my honourable friend is factually inaccurate. My honourable friend is also ignorant of the
fact that the Health Advisory Network in undertaking a number of studies on
issues affecting the health care system engaged in a number of those task
forces, public consultation, received suggestions, briefs from the public,
incorporated those briefs into their reports.
I recognize my honourable friend would
never want to recognize that that was public input, public suggestion,
incorporation of those into reports. My
honourable friend is going to quickly conclude, well, how do we know that
because you have not table any but one of the Health Advisory Network task
force reports? That might be a
reasonable concern my honourable friend has.
Would my honourable friend accept that a
significant amount of the advice from the Health Advisory Network reports were
incorporated into The Health Action Plan on the basis of public input? Of course, my honourable friend would not
want to accept that because that would not fit with this public perception that
my honourable friend is trying to create, as his predecessors have, that this
is a secretive process of change, that there is this corporate veil. Was that the phraseology? This corporate veil?
An Honourable
Member: Veil, corporate veil.
Mr. Orchard: Corporate veil. [interjection] Public
consultation, yes. There has been a
significant number of areas of program where there have been public meetings
held, et cetera. My honourable friend in
his opening remarks even acknowledged that he has attended a lot of these
reform meetings. Now, if there was this
great aura of secrecy around the process, how would my honourable friend have
been able to state in his opening remarks that he has attended a number of
public meetings on health reform?
An Honourable
Member: . . . secret.
Mr. Orchard: Yes, my honourable friend, the member for
You see, Madam Chair, where we get into
this silliness that the NDP periodically try to portray? But I am really intrigued with my honourable
friend because my honourable friend is wanting to have some extensive mechanism
for public input. Well, that is a pretty
good idea, and as a matter of fact, the public provides to me over five years
as individuals, as citizens, letters wherein they suggest varying options for
change in health care and how we deliver the system. I want to tell my honourable friend that we
have incorporated some of those changes that have come from the public at large
in terms of policy and program.
Now my honourable friend says that this
should be a more formal process, that the public should be able to make these
suggestions, which is quite an interesting and intriguing concept my honourable
friend puts out because‑‑and I know my honourable friend will
correct me if I am wrong, but I distinctly recall in his opening remarks that
my honourable friend is death against Total Quality Management as a management
process or a continuous quality improvement.
I have a real problem with my honourable
friend wanting the public to have input on decision makers and how my
honourable friend squares that with his party's opposition to Total Quality
Management, which is a technique wherein all caregivers have an opportunity for
decision‑making input in their workplace.
On the one hand, my honourable friend
wants the public to have input on decision making and will criticize the
government for moving with our institutions towards management processes
centred upon Total Quality Management, which brings that openness of input into
decision making to the people involved in delivering care in our institutions.
How in the world can my honourable friend
stand up with intellectual honesty and ask for public input and officially have
a policy of the New Democratic Party to deny that same input to care workers by
being opposed to Total Quality Management?
Again, I digress slightly, Madam Chair,
but it is yet another one of those enigmas wrapped up in a conundrum that we
are so used to hearing from New Democrats in opposition.
New Democrats in opposition are opposed to
TQM. When Bob Rae's government of
The simple conclusion one has to reach is
that the New Democrats have two sets of policy:
one for opposition that may spring them into government, and then a
complete 180‑degree about‑face with all of those policy pronouncements
that got them to government and start making real decisions when they are in
government, real decisions that are good for the management of government‑provided
programming and services, including health care.
*
(1420)
We have eight minutes left before we
conclude this afternoon. Maybe my
honourable friend could give me some clarity around the confusion that he has
put on the record. He wants public input
and is critical there is not enough of it, but wants to deny worker input into
decision making by being opposed to Total Quality Management as a management
practice in institutions. Can my
honourable friend give me just a little bit of clarity in terms of where he
really stands?
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I could assume from the
minister's tirade that the answer to my question is no, they have not been
keeping recommendations and conclusions from the public meetings that have been
held. It has been simply, as stated
earlier by the minister, a top‑down, pontifical approach where the minister
pontificates and the rest of the public goes along with it. Clearly, they are not listening to
recommendations. As I indicated earlier,
despite the minister trying to move off of the topic and trying to get out from
this very difficult and messy situation by playing word games, by moving the
topic away from the essence of the argument, the minister simply should be
forthright enough to say, no, we are not listening to the public; we have not
kept a record at those public meetings of what suggestions and recommendations
have come forward‑‑and simply go on, admit that you have not,
consider it perhaps in the future but admit that you have not in the past, and
we will go on from here.
But the minister attempts to draw the
debate out, attempts to move the debate off of the essence of the issue. He knows that his government and his party
and his position are hurting very badly by virtue of this policy. He knows that if he were to spend any time on
the doorstep or any time talking to the public‑‑and even the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) does that. I have
had occasions where constituents have phoned me and the Premier has actually
phoned them back on the matters of concern.
If he would talk to these people, he would
perhaps see some of the concerns that have been raised and perhaps might change
his policy. But he seems unwilling, or
perhaps unable, to do so, and it is regrettable for the process. Anyone observing these debates or taking the
time to read the Hansard will quite clearly see that the minister refused to
answer the question, and simply by virtue of that, said no, we do not do that‑‑by
attempting to squirrel away from the issue of noninvolvement from the public
with concern to his process, particularly because he is going to table a
document outlining for us the number of meetings, the number of people talked
to, but as indicated it will not contain the recommendations that have come, or
even the suggestions that have come from the public, together with those tabled
documents.
My question for the minister is, can he
outline for us what public meetings are going to take place with respect to the
health reform process in the next 30 to 60 days?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I know the process in
Estimates, and it appears it is going to repeat itself, that despite the fact
that I tell my honourable friend there were public hearings starting with the
Health Advisory Network Task Force reports where the public came and made
presentation, I know my honourable friend will simply let that go in one ear
and out the other and say, well, you never listen to the public.
My honourable friend will choose to not
acknowledge that I have received suggestions and we have acceded to them from
the public, and we have incorporated them where they are practical and workable
in departmental policy where there has been public input. My honourable friend will not concede that in
some areas there have been public meetings, and I guess one of them that maybe
my honourable friend never got a chance to attend, even though my honourable
friend indicated earlier on that he attended public meetings, was on health
reform.
Did my honourable friend get a chance to
attend any of the public meetings on emergency services?‑‑I do not
think so. But my honourable friend, I
give him an answer about the extent of public input, briefs presented at task
force, consultations done with the public, and my honourable friend stands up
and concludes as straight‑faced as you could ever believe, what he wanted
to conclude, even though it was not accurate and was incorrect, that there is
no public consultation, no public input.
My honourable friend sits and smiles about it right now, because he
knows that is the typical game of a New Democrat, and no matter what you reply
and how you indicate there is public input, briefs accepted, et cetera, et
cetera, that does not matter to my honourable friend, because my honourable
friend wants to persist in this being a very closed process of change, when it
is in fact the most open process of change that has ever happened in the
history of the province of Manitoba.
My honourable friend, of course, will not
want to acknowledge that mental health advisory councils in the regions, who
are citizens at large, consumers and family members of consumers, have helped
to create mental health reform. That is
public input. My honourable friend, of
course, will never acknowledge that. He
will continue to persist in his misleading information that there is no public
input. So again, you know, we will spend
our time with, as long as necessary, me explaining to my honourable friend
where there has been public input, where there have been recommendations
accepted and advanced that have been from the public. My honourable friend will persist in saying
there is no public input in this process.
It will not be accurate, but no one ever said that the process my
honourable friend engages in compels him to accurately communicate facts. That
does not suit the purpose of trying to skulk into government, if that is the
right way to put it. It is probably
parliamentary, but it is not too nice to use that kind of language.
You will note, Madam Chair, because I know
that you have been paying very close attention to this debate, that my
honourable friend skirted the issue of how he wants public input into health
reform, but does not want worker input into decision making in institutions by
being opposed in policy and in New Democratic Party philosophy to Total Quality
Management or continuous quality improvement management techniques in the workplace. If ever there is a group which is
ideologically bent in where they are going, who want no distractions from
anyone, except their very close associates of similar belief, it is New
Democrats‑‑not Liberals, not Progressive Conservatives, but New Democrats.
Now, I do not want to revisit much
history, but it might be appropriate for my honourable friend to revisit
1987. My honourable friend might want to
consult with Mr. Parasiuk, for instance, who is now in British Columbia, as to
how much public consultation the New Democrats undertook and how much advance
knowledge they laid out in The Health Action Plan and how much tabling of
direction in terms of changes in the health care service they provided to the
public at large in announcing the closure of 112 beds unilaterally in the
system. If my honourable friend wants to
get into semantic debate about who is consulted, who has laid out agenda, who
has provided the public with more information on the challenges of change in
delivering health care services, I will take my honourable friend on any time
of the day.
*
(1430)
I know my honourable friend will be
compelled to revert back to the standard NDP response that there is no
consultation, when it has been wider than anything in the history of the
If my honourable friend would be so kind
as to share with me that broad consultation with the public that led to that
policy decision in 1987 by Howard Pawley and the NDP, I would be glad to put a
side‑by‑side comparison of our process of informing the public of
the goals, the challenges, and the agenda.
We can put that out and we can let the
public decide. We could even let my
honourable friend decide which process has more integrity, more input, more
consistency, more opportunity for knowledge and background and input than ever
before in the history of the
I realize my honourable friend will not
want to do that, and I know why. It is
because under the NDP and under Howard Pawley and under Wilson Parasiuk as
Minister of Health there was absolutely no consultation at all with
anyone. It was a unilateral top‑down
imposed decision by the then Minister of Health and the government of Howard
Pawley.
There was absolutely no public input, any
consultation with professionals. It was
unilateral. It was arbitrary. It was the genuine corporate veil of decision
making that my honourable friend accuses me of.
Now I know where he got, sort of, the phraseology from. It was from Howard Pawley and Wilson
Parasiuk.
Now I am sorry, but we have chosen not to
operate in that fashion in this government.
I will not revert to any suggestions to vary from it that my honourable
friend may come up with from his experience in recent history of Howard
Pawley's New Democratic administration.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. As previously agreed, the hour being 2:30,
committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): As previously agreed, the
hour being past 2:30, this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30
p.m. Monday next.